Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor Neville Phillips declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following application and indicated that following advice from the Democracy & Governance Manager, he would leave the chamber prior to discussion of the item:-

Agenda item 6.2 – Application for Outline planning permission for the demolition of Sunnyside & 66A Mold Road and the erection of 58 houses including detail of access, appearance, layout and scale at land at rear of 66A Mold Road, Mynydd Isa (048042)

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

The Chairman explained that there would be a slight change in the order of business.  Agenda item 6.7 would be considered at the end of the agenda and as he wanted to speak on the item, he would vacate the chair and the Vice-Chairman would take the chair for the remainder of the meeting. 

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 19 June 2013. (copy enclosed)

That subject to the suggested amendment, the minutes be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. 

The draft minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 19 June 2013 had been circulated to Members with the agenda.

Councillor Mike Peers referred to the fourth line of the final paragraph on page 2 and requested that the words after ‘said that’ be removed and replaced with ‘it was the intention to change house types on 52 plots and create 58 plots with similar house types already approved’. 

On being put to the vote, the suggested amendment was CARRIED.

RESOLVED:

That subject to the above amendment, the minutes be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. 

The Head of Planning advised that none of the items on the agenda were recommended for deferral by officers. 

            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. 

The officer explained that the application had been granted permission by the Committee on 22 June 2011 subject to conditions and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation.  To date, the agreement had not been signed and therefore a resolution was sought from Members as to the decision to be made on the application.  Due to the lack of progress made in respect of the Section 106 Obligation, it was recommended that planning permission be refused.  

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

            In response to a query from Councillor Owen Thomas about whether the applicant could pay a commuted sum for affordable housing, the Planning Strategy Manager said that the site was in a Category C settlement and had been permitted on local need and would compromise policy if there was no local need. 

            Councillor Marion Bateman asked whether the site was part of the calculation for the Category C settlement.  The Planning Strategy Manager said that as the original permission had lapsed it was considered again under policy.   

            RESOLVED:

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

            That planning permission be refused on the following grounds;-

            - lack of affordable housing

            - unsatisfactory access proposals

            - inadequate ecological mitigation             

            - inadequate play and open space provision

            - flooding and drainage issues

            - under provision of car parking

            - soil contamination. 

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 22 July 2013.  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 Neville Phillips, 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 where comments from consultees, clarification to the report, and removal/addition of conditions were reported.  The recommendation was for approval of the application subject to conditions and completion of a section 106 obligation. 

                        The Chairman explained that unusually he had, following officer advice, decided to allow two speakers against the application, who would each be entitled to speak for three minutes, and the speaker in favour of the application would either be allowed to speak for six minutes or have two speakers each speaking for three minutes. 

                        Mr. K. Armstrong-Braun spoke against the application.  He referred to the late observations that he had submitted detailing his grounds for objection, correcting the reference to the play area being designated as a newt habitat,and he referred to the existing pocket park. He referred to the EU Directive and that no physical newt habitat survey had been carried out which he felt was a legal requirement.  He said that the site was rich in biodiversity and wetland and that the local authority had a legal duty under Natural Environment & Rural Communities (NERC) regulations to maintain the area.  Mr. Armstrong-Braun said that the application would destroy the site and the main objection of Envirowatch was that no ecological survey had been carried out for all species on the site. 

                        Mr. Parry spoke against the application and explained that his main objections to the application were the exit from the site onto Mold Road, and the removal of 66A Mold Road which he felt was unacceptable as it would cause safety issues, adding that the applicant had purchased the site without having access to it.  He also referred to wetland in the area and a report which identified a collapsed sewer and works which had been undertaken which Mr. Parry was not aware of.  He asked Members to take notice of the local residents and refuse the application. 

                        Mr. C. Davy, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  In response to the comments made, he said that a newt survey had been undertaken on the site which was allocated for residential development in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).  He said that the site met the five year housing requirements and all issues had been fully resolved to the satisfaction of the Council and the concerns raised by the residents had been addressed.  He reminded Members that the application had been under consideration for nearly three years.  The application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation, Unilateral Undertaking or advance payment of £733 per unit in lieu of on site play provision.

            If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed within six months of the date of the committee resolution, the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to REFUSE the application. 

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 explaining that the application had been deferred at the meeting of the Committee held on 19^th June 2013 to consider potential alternative options to access the site other than from Abbey Drive, having regard to concerns over the width and alignment of Abbey Drive itself.  Other options had been explored but none were acceptable and it was therefore considered that the original recommendation of approval was appropriate.  

                        Mr. D. Scanlon, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that the property was vacant and it was felt that the proposal for low density residential units was a viable solution.  The access would remain as it was and he asked Members to accept the recommendation and approve the application. 

                        Councillor Dowie from Llanasa Community Council spoke against the application.  On the issue of access he expressed concern that Highways and Public Protection had not submitted objections to the application.  He said that there were two grade II listed pillars at the entrance to the site which were only 10 feet apart and there was no pavement in the area.  He added that due to the narrow width of the road, two cars were not able to pass each other and he felt that this was dangerous.  Councillor Dowie said that the Community Council and the local MP were against the application and reminded Members that previous change of use proposals for the building had been refused.             

            Councillor Gareth Roberts proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He felt that this was the most suitable route to the site and that the pillars would provide traffic calming ensuring that traffic reduced its speed.  The application complied with policy and Councillor Roberts therefore felt that it could not be refused. 

            The local Member, Councillor Sharon Williams, spoke in support of the application.  She said that the proposed apartments would attract professional people to the area and added that the applicant had overcome the concerns raised.  The proposal complied with highway standards and she therefore asked the Committee to support the officer’s recommendation. 

            Councillor Mike Peers queried why the route from Llanasa Road was unacceptable as he felt that it would be a compromise.  In response, the officer explained that this would involve the construction of a new access road within a conservation area, which would effectively cut an agricultural field in half and as such the road could not be fenced off and would result in a significant difference in levels.    

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation, Unilateral Undertaking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

That listed building consent 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 explained that this was the listed building application for the item which had just been approved by Committee.  He said that once Committee had resolved to make a recommendation on the application, it would be forwarded to Cadw for formal consideration and determination. 

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

            RESOLVED:

            That listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions 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 and subject to the applicant entering into either a Section 106 Obligation, Unilateral Undertaking or the making of an advance payment to provide the following:-

• The payment of £2500 to provide for the cost of a Traffic Regulation Order and the associated signage along Lead Mills and at the junction of St. David’s Lane and Lead Mills.

If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed, a unilateral undertaking not received, or advance payment not made within six months of the date of the Committee resolution, the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to REFUSE the application. 

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 Development Manager detailed the background to the report and explained that the proposal was for a single storey retail unit with parking and delivery areas.  An amendment to the scheme to incorporate a pitched roof had been agreed following discussion with the applicant.  The main issues for consideration were the principle of development and highway issues.  He referred to policies S3 and S6 which the application complied with and said that the principle of retail development was acceptable given its location within the defined town centre and given the fact that the proposal was the relocation of an existing retail store within the town.  The steel roof would be coated to match the church buildings in the area and landscaping would be carried out.  The Coal Authority had no objections to the site subject to a condition requiring ground investigations being undertaken and even though it was in a C1 flood plain, the risk of flooding was low.  It was proposed that the existing access would be moved and would be designed so as to allow traffic into the site from a southerly direction only and exiting to the north to prevent traffic from turning across the highway. 

                        The Senior Engineer - Highways Development Control confirmed that Highways did not have any objections to the application and that the traffic proposals mentioned by the Development Manager would ensure that there were no waiting vehicles on Leadmills.  

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He raised concern about the proposed signage for traffic and said that it needed to be enforced.  He had asked whether an island could be erected in the middle of Leadmills to ensure that traffic did not cross the highway but he had been advised that there was insufficient room in the carriageway to do so.  He welcomed keeping the retail store in the town and said that shoppers would be able to access it on foot.  Councillor Owen Thomas concurred and felt that signage would not prevent vehicles turning right out of the site.  The Senior Engineer - Highways Development Control confirmed that the proposed arrangement would force traffic to turn left onto Leadmills.      

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and subject to the applicant entering into either a Section 106 Obligation, Unilateral Undertaking or the making of an advance payment to provide the following:-

• The payment of £2500 to provide for the cost of a Traffic Regulation Order and the associated signage along Lead Mills and at the junction of St. David’s Lane and Lead Mills.

If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed, a unilateral undertaking not received, or advance payment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

            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.  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 application had been deferred by Committee on 17 April 2013 in order to negotiate an amended scheme to reduce the scale of the proposed extension.  An amended scheme had been submitted but it was still considered to be out of scale and character with the original dwelling and the recommendation was for refusal of the application. 

                        The applicant spoke in support of the application and explained some of the amendments that had been made to the scheme which included the removal of the balcony to the rear of the extension and the removal of the dormer windows.  He stated that the changes had reduced the overall increase from the original footprint to 50% instead of the 96% increase proposed in the original application.  Some of the features had been removed to create a more traditional finish and the length of the proposed extension had reduced from 10 metres to 8 metres.  Mr. Price said that one objection had been received but that this had been withdrawn following submission of the amended plans provided that the drive parking area was finished and that the building was finished in stone and tyrollean.  He felt that the new proposal complied with policy and was not an overdevelopment of the site. 

             Councillor Owen Thomas proposed approval of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He spoke of the negotiations between the applicant and officers and said that the applicant had made the requested amendments to the proposals.  He felt that it should be approved as it was not affecting anybody and that approval was the best outcome.  Councillor Mike Peers spoke of the site visit which had been undertaken and said that the applicant had made amendments to the scheme.  He said that 50% increase in footprint was a guideline figure and that the proposed extension complied with the guideline and was therefore acceptable.  Councillor Alison Halford concurred with the comments made and said that the applicant had worked hard to make the changes to the scheme and that the application should be approved. 

Councillor Chris Bithell said that the property was in the countryside and it had been given permission to extend due to its agricultural or historic merit.  He said that the proposals resulted in an increase in floorspace of 77% and that far exceeded what was permitted in the policy.  He said that Deer Lodge had already been extended and that the other buildings in the Ffynnon Farm complex had not been extended or significantly changed.  He felt that the Committee had no option but to refuse the application.  Councillor Gareth Roberts concurred with the comments of Councillor Bithell and spoke of the impact of the scale and design of the proposals. 

            In response to the comments  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

            That planning permission be refused due to non-compliance with the Unitary Development Plan. 

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 22 July 2013.  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 detailed the background to the report explaining that the main issues for consideration were the principle of development in terms of the planning policy context, the impacts on visual/residential amenities, highways issues and drainage.  He explained that the land was allocated for housing (approximately 15 houses) in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).  He highlighted paragraph 7.02 which reported the considerations which had been taken into account such as the published housing land supply undertaken in 2011 which demonstrated that the Flintshire Housing Land Supply was in excess of five years and given the site would only add 15 dwellings, it was not significant in terms of housing supply.

           He added thatthe development would be adjacent to a newly built substation, which would further reduce its suitability for housing and the proposed commercial development would be complementary to the existing neighbourhood centre. The existing trees/hedging would be retained and further planting would also be included to screen the site from the residential properties on the three sides of the site.  The Development Manager commented on the coal mining, highway and  drainage issues and explained that proposed development had been advertised as a departure to the adopted UDP.  On the issue of health and safety, he said that a number of residents had raised concerns about vapours and emissions and added that these had been addressed.  The fuel tanks would be located underground and would be monitored by means of a leak detection system and were designed to collect a minimum of 85% of thevapour. 

In conclusion, the Development Manager said that the principle of development was acceptable and subject to the conditions in the report, the recommendation was for approval.  He advised that during consultation, it had been requested that the opening hours of the petrol station not exceed the hours of the store.  He referred Members to condition 9 about the proposed opening hours and said that even if the store was opening for longer than the times shown, the petrol station would be tied to the hours in condition 9. 

                        Mrs. S.A. Wilcox spoke against the application as the representative for over 90 local residents.  She raised concern about noise and pollution and said that it was incorrect to suggest that only those visiting the store would use the petrol station.  She felt that the traffic congestion would increase and expressed concern about the coal mining features in the area which could cause catastrophic damage if they moved.  Mrs. Wilcox felt that the kiosk would encourage the use of alcohol and cigarettes and queried why it was proposed to be built only 50 metres from neighbouring properties.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning, the Highways condition in the late observations and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation/Unilateral Undertaking to provide:-

- a commuted sum of £1,100 per unit to enhance recreation provision in the area in lieu of on site open space provision

- a payment of £24,514 education contribution towards Ysgol Bryn Gwalia

If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed within six months of the date of the committee resolution, the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to REFUSE the application. 

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 drew Members’ attention to the late observations where the objection from Mold Town Council and the comment and additional conditions suggested by the Head of Assets & Transportation were reported.  The proposal complied with Policy SR4 as there were existing recreational facilities in close proximity and the site was adjacent to an existing area of open space which would be made more accessible to people in the local area by the provision of a footpath link through the site.  The site was in a flood risk area but a Flood Consequences Assessment had been submitted with the application and had been assessed by Natural Resources Wales and found to be acceptable.    Welsh Water had stated that there were capacity issues in the network in the vicinity and these works were scheduled to be resolved by 2015; a Grampian style condition had been requested to ensure that the properties were not occupied prior to that time.  The application complied with the Policy on Space Around Dwellings and was therefore recommended for approval. 

                        Councillor Gaffey from Mold Town Council spoke against the application.  He said that it had been considered by the Town Council on a number of occasions and had been rejected each time.  He was surprised to see that their comments had not been reported but welcomed their inclusion in the late observations.  The main concerns raised were on highway grounds as they felt that access should be onto Y Coetir and not into Brooke Terrace.  Councillor Gaffey said that the proposed access was next to a primary school and onto a road which provided access to the hospital.  He also raised concern about the density.  He asked that Members reject the access onto Brooke Terrace and reiterated his comment that it would be preferable to have the access onto Y Coetir.                    

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed refusal of the application against officer recommendation which was duly seconded.  He queried the density of the site and asked whether it complied with policy and also asked about the parking allocation for each dwelling.  Councillor Bithell felt that putting the access onto Clayton Road would create traffic problems in the area due to its location next to Bryn Gwalia school and as an access and egress point for the hospital.  The owners of the properties in Brook Terrace parked in the road as they did not have any alternative parking area and additional vehicle movements to Clayton Road was a cause for concern.  He added that he was not against the redevelopment of the land but felt that the access point should be moved.  Councillor Marion Bateman felt that access onto Y Coetir was not suitable and said that she supported  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

            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 22 July 2013.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report. 

            Councillor Gareth Roberts proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  He said that the site was outside the settlement boundary and was for a new building in the countryside.  He expressed his surprise at its inclusion on the agenda and the request for a site visit.  Councillor Alison Halford said that the Chairman had the final decision about which sites were visited.  The Democracy & Governance Manager responded that local Members had a right to call for a site visit if they had planning reasons to do so.  

            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 and subject to the applicant entering into a supplemental S.106 agreement which links the permission granted under this application to the provisions of the S.106 agreement, offered unilaterally at the appeal allowing development under Permission Ref: 048032, providing for the following:-

a)         The provision of 4 No. affordable homes by means of gifting the units to Flintshire County Council to be made available to people registered upon its Affordable Home Ownership Register.

b)         Ensure the payment of a total educational contribution of £66,500 towards educational provisions in the locality (£38,500 towards primary educational provision/improvements, and £28,000 towards similar secondary education level provision.) 

            The contributions shall be paid in 2 instalments of £33,250.  The first instalment shall be paid upon the occupation of the 23^rd dwelling and the second upon the occupation of the 35^th dwelling. 

c)         Ensure payment of a commuted sum payment, part in lieu of on site recreation/open space provision of £25,000, such sum to be used to upgrade existing facilities within 3 miles of the site.  This sum shall be paid upon the occupation of the 10^th dwelling. 

If the Obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed, a unilateral undertaking not received, or advance payment not made within six months of the date of the Committee resolution, the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to REFUSE the application. 

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 explaining that it was proposed to amend the approved house types on 14 of the 44 previously approved plots. 

Commander B. Pearce advised that he suffered from ill health and spoke against the positioning of the play area which was to be sited on an area to the rear of his garden.  He said that his garden was currently a quiet space but that he would be forced out of his garden by the noise from children using the play area and teenagers vandalising the area.  He said that the play area was not needed and asked that it either be relocated or scrapped.     

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

            The Democracy and Governance Manager explained that Councillor Clive  Carver had been granted a dispensation by the Standards Committee permitting him to speak on the application. 

            The local Member, Councillor Clive Carver, said that he had no objection to the amendment of house types but wanted to speak about the play area.  He said that the proposed site was not a suitable location as it was located in a hollow next to a public footpath.  He highlighted paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the appeal Inspector’s report which said that the play area was poorly positioned and that changes on the site could allow the applicant to find an alternative location.  Councillor Carver felt that it would be better sited nearer to the affordable housing or split into two areas on the site.  The Inspector had felt that there was ample open space in the scheme for formal and informal areas.  Councillor Carver highlighted condition 20 and quoted from Policy SR5 of the Unitary DevelopmentPlan and requested that the Committee exercise its right to relocate the play area to a more suitable location which would please residents and comply with the comments of the Planning Inspector.  He referred to the late observations and said that Hawarden Infants and Rector DrewVA School, which would benefit from the Section 106 contributions, were to close in the summer; he asked that the names be checked to ensure that the correct school received the contributions. 

            Councillor Alison Halford queried the payment of the contributions so far into the building of the development and asked why the monies were not sought at the start of the build.  Councillor David Cox asked if the application could be deferred to allow further negotiations to take place on the siting of the play area. 

            The officer responded that the application before the Committee today was only for the substitution of house types.  The location of the play area had been the subject of lengthy negotiations and had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of inappropriate scale of development and out of character leading to overlooking of adjacent properties to detriment of residential amenity. 

Prior to consideration of the application, the Chairman vacated the chair and the Vice-Chairman took the chair for the remainder of the meeting. 

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 22 July 2013.  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 referred Members to the late observations.  She explained that the ground floor of the apartment block would be used for parking due to the risk of flooding in the area and a Flood Consequences Assessment had been submitted with the application.  There were two types of flooding in the area which had been assessed in detail.  It was reported that Natural Resources Wales had no objections to the development as proposed subject to the appropriate conditions if the Local Planning Authority were minded to approve an application and were satisfied that the justifications outlined in Section 6.02 of TAN 15 were met.  On the issue of the recent flooding due to the lack of capacity in the sewage network, the officer advised that Welsh Water had stated that works in the network in the vicinity of the site were scheduled to be resolved by 2014.  A Grampian style condition had been requested to be imposed to ensure that the properties were not occupied prior to that time.  It was reported that the side elevation was blank and was 12 metres from the habitable rooms of 3 and 5 Church View and that the separation distances were in accordance with the Council’s guidance note on Space Around Dwellings.  The officer added that the form of development was acceptable and therefore the recommendation was for approval with a Section 106 Obligation. 

                        Mrs. H. Dodd spoke against the application as she felt that the development was overbearing.  Most of the properties in the area were two storey but the proposed apartment blocks were three storey.  She expressed concern about the flooding in the area which had been acknowledged by Welsh Water and said that the new development would overload the system and no proof had been provided of the works to be undertaken.  Mrs. Dodd said that she was not against development on the site but she felt that a three storey building would be visually overbearing and the visually amenity would be compromised.  She felt that the development was out of character and contrary to the existing properties in the area.         

            The local Member, Councillor David Wisinger, proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He said that the site was in a high risk flood area and expressed concern that Welsh Water had not provided details of the works that they intended to undertake.  He felt that allowing more properties in the area would increase the problems  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

            That the decision of the Inspector to dismiss both of these appeals be noted.

RESOLVED:

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

RESOLVED:

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

There were 27 members of the public and 4 members of the press in attendance.