Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor A.I. Dunbar declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following application:-

Agenda item 6.1 – Full application – Erection of 20 no. semi-detached dwellings, part reconfiguration of existing (unadopted) road and extending to form new road layout on land off Fair Oaks Drive, Connah’s Quay (048610)

Councillors A.M. Halford and D.I. Mackie declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following application:-

Agenda item 6.2 – Full application – Car park provision, access road and structures for use in conjunction with proposed allotments facilities at land at Upper Aston Hall Lane, Hawarden (049765)

Councillor J. Falshaw declared a personal interest in the following application:-

Agenda item 6.4 - Application for Outline Planning Permission – Erection of a detached bungalow at Belmont, South Street, Caerwys (050169)

The Chairman allowed Members an opportunity to read the late observations which had been circulated at the meeting.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 7 November 2012.

That the minutes be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The draft minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 7 November, 2012 had been circulated to Members with the agenda.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

That agenda item 6.4 – Application for outline planning permission – Erection of a detached bungalow at Belmont, South Street, Caerwys (050169) be deferred.    

The Head of Planning advised that deferment of the following application was recommended:

Agenda item 6.4 – Application for outline planning permission - Erection of a detached bungalow at Belmont, South Street, Caerwys (050169) – a request from the applicant to defer the application had been received to allow for further work on the application to be undertaken

On being put to the vote, deferment of the application was agreed. 

Agenda Item 7

Councillor P.G. Heesom requested that agenda item 7 be deferred as he felt that short notice of the agenda item had been given to Members.  He also requested that a special meeting be held within the next 10 days to consider the item as the date for the appeal Inquiry was 30 January 2013.  In response, the Democracy & Governance Manager said that the normal notice had been given to Members and the local Member had been notified in advance that the report was being submitted.  He felt that to defer the application would be a disadvantage to the Council but that if the Committee wanted any further information, he suggested that consideration be given to excluding the Press and Public from the meeting. 

Councillor R.C. Bithell felt that the application should be dealt with at this meeting.  Councillor A.M. Halford said that as the former Chair of Planning, the issues had given her cause for concern and that Councillor Heesom’s request to defer was about protecting the residents of Prince of Wales Avenue.  Councillor C.A. Ellis asked why determination of the application could not be deferred for a month as the Inquiry was not due to be held until 30 January 2013 and the next Planning Committee meeting was scheduled to be held before that date.  She said that this would allow a meeting to be held between Councillor Heesom and officers within thenext 10 days and for the findings to be reported to the January 2013 Planning & Development Control  Committee meeting. 

The Democracy & Governance Manager referred to a circular about costs being awarded to either party if the Inspector felt that either party had acted unreasonably.  He spoke of costs which had been awarded against Flintshire County Council in the past and reminded Members that costs increased as the appeal drew closer.  The report detailed a course of action and the Democracy & Governance Manager said that the longer the delay in deciding on the approach to take, the higher the award of costs against Flintshire County Council could be.  His advice was to consider the report today. 

Councillor H.G. Roberts said that there was currently no reason to support deferment but that if reasons became apparent during discussion of the item that deferment was required, then this could be considered at that time.  Councillor M.J. Peers concurred with these comments.  Councillor D. Butler queried why the request to defer the discussion was taking place now as he felt that it could have been requested prior to the meeting and agreed that the report should be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111.

That consideration of the application be deferred to a subsequent meeting of the Planning & Development Control Committee to allow clarity on:-

(i)         whether the proposal was for 14 or 20 dwellings

(ii)        where the recreation area would be

(iii)       the topography of the site

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 10 December 2012. The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report. Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting.  Councillor A.I. Dunbar, having earlier declared an interest in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion. 

            The officer detailed the background to the report and drew Members’ attention to the late observations which updated the response from the Head of Play Unit and requirements of open space provision, subsequent consultations with the Housing Strategy Manager and Director of Lifelong Learning and their requirements, based on the 20 units proposed in the application.  The officer detailed the main issues which included the principle of development, provision of open space and the affordable housing element and the responses received to the consultation which included Welsh Water seeking the imposition of a Grampian style condition to allow for completion of improvement works by 31 March 2013. 

            The Democracy & Governance Manager reminded the Committee of his earlier comments about consideration of the application at this meeting. 

            Mr. G. Bell spoke against the application on the type of houses that were proposed but said that residents were not opposed to residential development.  He felt that the proposed dwellings would be out of character with the area and commented on the 130 letters of objection which had been received about the application.  He raised concern about the increase in traffic as he felt that the number of properties could result in an additional 40 to 50 vehicles. He also referred to issues with the existing unadopted road, the potential overlooking and overshadowing from the three storey dwellings and potential problems with the sewerage pumps in each plot and the proximity of the overhead lines.  He added that the quality and quantity of the proposed dwellings would be out of keeping with the area and the neighbouring executive style homes. 

            Mr. P. Moren, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application referring to the extensive negotiations that had taken place.  The site had been allocated for housing in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and the Council had not prepared a development brief for the wider housing allocation which would yield 87 dwellings of a mix of three and four bedroom units.  Mr. Moren said that the applicant was happy to accept the recommendation in paragraph 2.01 and the identified planning conditions and added that any further conditions could not be justified by national or local policy.     

            Councillor D. Butler proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He said that the site had gone through the UDP process and that the housing types proposed would provide much needed social housing.  Councillor R.C. Bithell said that there was no reason to refuse the application and commented on the works to be undertaken to the road and footways which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and subject to the additional condition for the common and unused areas to be maintained in a tidy condition to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 10 December 2012.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting.  Councillors A.M. Halford and D.I. Mackie, having earlier declared an interest in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion. 

            The Head of Planning explained that a complaint had been received about the way the application had been handled but he advised Members that determination of the application could proceed today.  If issues were identified during consideration of the complaint, the application could be submitted back to a subsequent meeting of the Committee.  Councillor R.C. Bithell queried whether the application should be deferred but was advised by the Democracy & Governance Manager that the application could be determined at this meeting. 

            The officer detailed the background to the report and drew Members’ attention to the late observations.  She referred Members to the plan which accompanied the report and said that the settlement boundary had not picked up the extensions to the gardens of numbers 55 to 63 Upper Aston Hall Lane which had been granted previously.  Some of the objections to the application referred to the curtailing of a public right of way but the officer explained to Members that there was no public footpath through the site.  She detailed the main visual and residential impacts and said that the development did not have any significant impact on the amenity of the area, however the proposal would be visible from the dwellings on Upper Aston Hall Lane and The Ridgeway.  A photograph was displayed for the Committee which showed similar allotments which had been visited by Hawarden Community Council.  The proposal complied with UDP policies and was encouraged by national guidance.

            Mr. Sharkey spoke against the application on the grounds of highway safety due to visibility and the bend in the road which he felt was hazardous.  He said that the description of development was inadequate and that the site was unfit for development as it would require significant earth works. He added that the site had badgers and bats and was in the green barrier, the development being contrary to national and local policy.  He referred to works which had been undertaken on the site previously which had damaged his fence and he felt that if site was granted for allotments, the issue of anti-social behaviour would increase. 

            Mr. N. Barnes, spoke in support of the application on behalf of Hawarden Community Council.  He said that the Community Council were legally required to find a suitable site when they believed that there was demand for allotments.  The number of requests totalled 57 and in January 2011 the Community Council wrote to Flintshire County Council to advise of their requirement for a site.  He referred to the application for properties number 55 to 63  ...  view the full minutes text for item 113.

            That planning permission be granted subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 10 December 2012.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

            The Development Manager referred to the site history highlighting the relevance of certain applications to the determination of this application. He identified that the main planning issues were the principle of development, in relation to previously developed land and sustainability/locational factors which were detailed in the report. He stated that the other considerations, scale/form of development, highways and ecology, only came in to play if the first two tests were passed. The officer then highlighted the basis for previous decisions to resist residential development on this land, referring to extracts from decisions by the relevant Inspectors, the Welsh Assembly’s Planning Decisions Committee and from Planning Policy Wales, all of which were presented in the report. He asked Members to base their determination of the current application on whether or not there had been material changes in planning policy and/or in any other material planning considerations since the decisions were taken previously to refuse planning permission for residential development at the site, and not to allocate the site in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) for use for residential development.  The applicant, through his agent, had indicated that there were material changes in circumstances and these were detailed in paragraph 7.15 of the report. 

            The Development Manager explained that independent legal advice had been sought on the interpretation of previously developed land (PDL) as this was an important factor in the determination of the application.  On the basis of the advice, it was the view of officers that the land occupied by the dwellinghouse and its curtilage did constitute PDL as it met the definition contained in Figure 4.3. but that the remainder of the site did not . He agreed with the conclusion of the Assembly in 2005 that land occupied by buildings previously used for agricultural purposes but which had not been put to any other use since then, should not be regarded as PDL.  The officer concluded that whilst the dwellinghouse and its curtilage should be regarded as PDL, the remainder of the application site (and therefore the majority of the site) was not PDL. However, in referring to Paragraph 7.26 of the report he advised that the question of PDL was not critical as the development failed to meet other criteria, particularly that of sustainability.

            He commented in detail on the sustainability and locational factors referring to the advice in PPW that not all previously developed land is suitable for development. He mentioned that the lack of sustainability had been a factor in previous decisions relating to the site and that it was considered that the inclusion of bus stops and the creation of a footpath did  ...  view the full minutes text for item 114.

            That planning permission be granted subject to the additional condition in the late observations and subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting which included an additional condition for a landscape scheme to be submitted and approved. 

            Councillor D. Evans proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.

            Councillor P.G. Heesom referred to paragraph 7.21 and raised concern about possible land contamination on the site and in response, the officer highlighted conditions 11 and 12. 

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the additional condition in the late observations and subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning. 

            (a)       That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and to the following additional conditions identified during the determination of the application:-

                        i)          Hours of operation in relation to different functions

ii)         Food waste not to be taken to another handling facility in the County prior to its final disposal

iii)        drainage conditions from the late observations sheet

(b)       That a letter be sent to the Welsh Government from the Head of Planning on behalf of the Planning Committee to seek a reduction in the speed limit on the A494. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

            The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the application had been deferred at the meeting on 7^th November 2012 pending receipt of further advice in relation to the proposed food recycling activities at the site. 

            Mr. S. Jones spoke in support of the application explaining that this was part of the reorganisation of facilities and the application had two main purposes which were, to seek consent to continue the functions at Alltami and to complete the remodelling work on the site.  He said that the proposals had been fully costed and work would go ahead subject to the outcome of this application.  He provided details on the four departments which would be operating from the site and spoke of the three main elements to the site which included the proposal to reclad the ‘red shed’, to demolish the concrete building and replace it with a purpose built building and to house the food waste facility.  He explained that no food waste was left on the site in the evening as it was transferred to the current food waste recycling centre in Telford which was a temporary measure until the regional food waste facility at Rhuallt became operational, whereupon the wastes would be transferred there at the end of each day. 

            Councillor W.O. Thomas proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He welcomed the decision to house all of the services on the same site.    

            Councillor M.J. Peers said that he had proposed deferment at the previous meeting due to concerns about possible double handling of the food waste.  He explained that a meeting had taken place with the local Member and the Head of Streetscene who had confirmed that double handling did not take place. 

            The local Member, Councillor C.A. Ellis congratulated the Head of Streetscene for the consultation which had been undertaken with the neighbouring residents and she reminded Members that no letters of objection had been received as the issues had been addressed.  She raised concern about the speed of traffic on the A494 and said that she had previously asked for a reduction in the speed limit.  She also asked whether the hours of operation could be conditioned to be 7am to 6pm with the exception of gritting work which could be required 24 hours per day in the winter. 

            Councillor P.G. Heesom raised concern about whether the site had the capacity to house all of the proposed services and said that the traffic problems at the junction with the A494 would increase.  Councillor R.B. Jones requested that an additional condition be included that the food waste not be taken to Brookhill or Standard sites.  The officer said that the A494 was a trunk road so the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 116.

            That planning permission be granted subject to an additional condition for a noise monitoring scheme to be approved and implemented and subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 10 December 2012.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

            The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the height of the turbine would be 12.76m and it was proposed that it would generate electricity in excess of 70,000 kwh of electricity.  The main issue was visual impact but a detailed appraisal of this had been carried out and the turbine would be largely screened from public areas. 

            Councillor H.G. Roberts proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.

            The local Member, Councillor C.A. Ellis, sought clarification on the design of the turbine and asked if a temporary permission could be given to allow for noise problems to be monitored. 

            Councillor M.J. Peers said that Members on the site visit had been told that the design of the turbine had been changed from what had been presented in the consultation period and queried whether a reconsultation exercise should have taken place because of this.  He added that the principle of the development had been accepted.  In response, the Development Manager said that the proposed design was being displayed on the screen at this meeting and that some of the moving parts were now to be enclosed.  It had never been stated that the turbine would not create any noise but it was unlikely that it would have a detrimental impact on the nearest properties which were 300 and 310 metres away.  He added that the noise would have to be significantly greater than what was already in place and a temporary permission could only be justified if there was evidence of potential noise nuisance which was not the case. 

            Councillor Ellis proposed an amendment that a temporary permission of 12 months be granted, and this was duly seconded. 

            Councillor R.C. Bithell said that the Public Protection department had raised no objections to the application.  The Planning Strategy Manager concurred and referred Members to paragraph 7.17 where the view of the Head of Public Protection was reported that they were satisfied that the level of noise was not detrimental to the amenity of nearby residents.  In response to a query from Councillor W.O. Thomas, the Head of Planning said that a condition could be applied for the noise impact to be reviewed.  He suggested that a noise monitoring scheme be put in place and that enforcement action be undertaken if this was not complied with.  Councillor Roberts, as the mover of the proposal, confirmed that this condition could be incorporated into his proposal.   

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to an additional condition for a noise monitoring scheme to be approved and implemented and subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning.

            That planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report of the Head of Planning. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 10 December 2012.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

            The officer detailed the background to the report highlighting the main issues for consideration which included the principle of development, the highway implications and the effects of the partial demolition, extensions and alterations upon the character and appearance of the building. 

            Mr. B. Rudham, the agent, spoke in support of the application and provided further information on the various extensions and lean-to elements of the building.  He felt that removal of the lean-to would allow the building to be more in keeping with a dwelling and that the extension proposed would not be excessive as it would only amount to an increase of 42% on the original building after removal of all of the single storey elements.  He added that the materials would all match the original building and referred to policies HSG12 and HE1 on extensions and alterations.    

            Councillor R.C. Bithell proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.

            The local Member Councillor N.M. Matthews spoke in support of the application.  She said that the building was in a conservation area but was not a listed building and the public house had ceased trading four years ago and there had been no interest in the building.  She felt that the proposal would return the building to its original use and would enhance the area and said that the residents in the village would like something done to the building.  She commented on the problems of flooding in the cellar which occurred regularly and added that the proposals for highways amendments would improve the area.  Councillor W.O. Thomas felt that something needed to be done to the building and that a sympathetic use would be beneficial to the area. 

            The officer said that the extension at the front of the public house which was part of the character of the property and the vernacular, including its close proximity to the road. The Planning Strategy Manager said that the building would not be in the conservation area if it did not make a contribution and negotiations had taken place with the applicant to try to identify a proposal which was agreeable to all parties and he therefore felt that refusal was the correct way forward. 

            In summing up, Councillor Bithell said that the impact of the building on the conservation area had to be considered and the two storey extension was deemed to be out of character with the area.    

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report of the Head of Planning. 

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

            The officer detailed the background to the report which was a full application proposing the substitution of house types on 8 no. plots and erection of an additional dwelling.  He detailed the consultations which had been undertaken and explained that no objections had been received from the formal consultees. 

            Ms. L. Hawley, spoke in support of the application on behalf of the applicant.  She said that work on the site had commenced and sales on the site had been encouraging.  This application was being submitted as the result of an improved internal layout and did not introduce any previously unused house types on to the site.  She detailed the shared equity scheme offered by the applicants and added that the proposal was due to a change in market demands. 

            Councillor R.C. Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.

            The local Member Councillor C.A. Ellis said that this was the second change in house types since the original application had been permitted and she concurred with the first point made by Buckley Town Council.  She raised concern as she felt that the proposed changes to the site were going away from what had originally been permitted. 

            In response, the officer said that it was not unusual to receive amendments to schemes which affected a relatively small part of the site and he added that the proposal did meet planning guidance standards.  

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning.

            That planning permission be granted subject to:-

i)          the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation/Unilateral Undertaking to provide the following:-

·         Ensure the payment of a contribution of £2500 to the Council for ecology mitigation.  Such sum to be paid to the Council prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved.

ii)         the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report. 

            Councillor H.G. Roberts proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to:-

i)          the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation/Unilateral Undertaking to provide the following:-

·         Ensure the payment of a contribution of £2500 to the Council for ecology mitigation.  Such sum to be paid to the Council prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved.

ii)         the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning.

            That officers be authorised to defend the proposal based on refusal reason 1 but without any specific reference to noise.   

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application.  The officer detailed the background to the report and reminded Members that the application had been refused at the Planning and Development Control Committee meeting held on 10^th October 2012 on the grounds of noise and visual impacts. (The report to that committee was circulated with the late observations)  He advised that as an appeal had been lodged the view of an external noise consultant had been sought and the advice given was that the noise issue was not defendable on appeal.  The Head of Planning said that if agreed at this Committee, then the appeal would continue with the refusal reason of visual impact and advised Members that an application had now been received for an alternative site on the north side of the river.   

            Councillor R.B. Jones proposed the recommendation to authorise officers to defend the proposal based on refusal reason 1 minus any specific reference to noise which was duly seconded.

            Councillor A.I. Dunbar said that residents would not be happy with the proposal to remove noise as a reason for refusal and asked whether the evidence from the noise study could be provided.  Councillor R.C. Bithell reminded the Committee of the gypsy site application at Ewloe which did not include noise in the reason for refusal but when the decision was appealed, the Inspector included noise as one of the reasons to dismiss the appeal.  He therefore queried whether the Inspector would think that the issue of noise should have been mentioned in the refusal reasons.  In response, the Head of Planning said that the difference on this application was that it had been mentioned but there was no evidence to support the refusal for this reason. 

            RESOLVED:

            That officers be authorised to defend the proposal based on refusal reason 1 but without any specific reference to noise.   

            That the terms of the Section 106 obligation be changed to allow the change to tenure. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report. 

            Councillor R.C. Bithell proposed the recommendation to change the terms of the section 106 obligation which was duly seconded.

            RESOLVED:

            That the terms of the Section 106 obligation be changed to allow the change to tenure. 

            That the decision of the Inspector to dismiss this appeal be noted.

Following a comment from Councillor P.G. Heesom about the refusal of the application by Committee against officer recommendation, the Head of Planning advised that the outcome of the appeal would be considered at a future meeting of the Planning Protocol Working Group.  

            RESOLVED:

            That the decision of the Inspector to dismiss this appeal be noted.

            That the decision of the Inspector to dismiss this appeal be noted.

RESOLVED:

            That the decision of the Inspector to dismiss this appeal be noted.

            That the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following agenda item which was considered to be exempt by virtue of paragraph 16 (legal advice) of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

RESOLVED:

            That the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following agenda item which was considered to be exempt by virtue of paragraph 16 (legal advice) of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

Report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services.  

            That the Planning Inspectorate be advised that the County Council did not intend to defend the imposition of condition 15 upon reserved matters approval no. 046595 at the forthcoming appeal. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application. 

            The Principal Solicitor detailed the background to the report and explained the advice which had been received from Counsel. 

            Councillor R.C. Bithell proposed the recommendation that the Planning Inspectorate be advised that the County Council did not intend to defend the imposition of condition 15 upon reserved matters approval no. 046595 which was duly seconded.  He welcomed the report stating that if we continued with the appeal we would not have a leg to stand on. Councillor Bithell also referred to the adverse impact which would result on the residents of Coed Onn Road and Chester Road if the barrier was put across the access and egress from Prince of Wales Avenue.  In seconding, Cllr G. Roberts stated that we would be subject to significant costs.

            The local Member, Councillor R. Johnson, spoke against the recommendation referring to the fact that the advice obtained used the word ’almost’ rather than ‘sure’ and that there would therefore be a case to be made at the appeal. She had not been told that she could have requested that consideration of this report could be deferred and said that the barriers would not prevent development and that the new residents would not want a ‘rat-run’. 

            Councillor P.G. Heesom also spoke against the advice given and said that the issue of condition 15 was not what was being argued, it was the impact of the increased traffic on the residents on Prince of Wales Avenue.  He spoke of the Inquiry scheduled for 30^th January 2013 and said that in his opinion, the appeal could be defended. 

            The Principal Solicitor responded to the issues raised by Councillors Johnson and Heesom.  The Head of Planning spoke of the two stages of the public inquiry.          

                        In summing up, Councillor Bithell reiterated his view that the advice given by Planning Officers, legal officers and Counsel should be taken. 

            RESOLVED:

            That the Planning Inspectorate be advised that the County Council did not intend to defend the imposition of condition 15 upon reserved matters approval no. 046595 at the forthcoming appeal. 

                        The meeting commenced at 1.00 p.m. and ended at 5.46 p.m.

There were 25 members of the public and 4 members of the press in attendance.