Appendix 9
4 MARCH 2010
Minutes of a special meeting of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE held in the
Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
Mrs C M Wilkins (Chairman)
Mrs S A Arnold
B Cabbell Manners
H C Cordeaux
Mrs A R Green
P W High
Mrs B McGoun
S C Mears
S J Partridge
J H Perry-Warnes
Mrs M Seward
Miss C P Sheridan
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs J Trett
P J Willcox
J A Wyatt
Mrs J P Moss - substitute for Miss P E Ford
N P Ripley - substitute for J D Savory
Mrs P Bevan Jones - Sheringham North Ward
Mrs H T Nelson - Sheringham South Ward
Ms V R Gay - Leader of the Council
Officers
Mr S Oxenham - Head of Planning and Building Control
Mr G Lyon - Acting Development Control Manager (West)
Mr P Godwin - Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager
Mrs E Smith - Solicitor
Mr M Wood - Retail Consultant
(49)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M J M Baker, Miss P E Ford, J
D Savory and Mrs L Walker. There were two substitute Members in attendance as
shown above.
(50)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(51)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
On behalf of all Members, the Chairman declared that a large amount of
correspondence had been received and some Members had attended pre-application
meetings in respect of these applications.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager read to the Committee an email from
Councillor Baker stating that like everyone else he had received a lot of
correspondence regarding the applications and people were expecting him to
(9.1)
Appendix 9
comment at the meeting. However, if he did attend he would have to declare an
interest and withdraw given his involvement with a supermarket business in Holt. He
had received advice from the legal department that it would be best if he did not
attend the meeting.
Councillor Mrs J P Moss declared a personal interest in this matter as she had a café
business in Sheringham. She stated that she had been advised through Business
Link by Mr David Wood, who may be nominated as principal of the food academy.
However, he had severed further contact with her.
(52)
SHERINGHAM - 20090777 - Erection of A1 (retail Supermarket) and D1 (Norfolk
Food Academy) with Associated Kitchen Garden, Parking, Landscaping and
Infrastructure at Sheringham Town Allotments, Land South of Weybourne
Road, Sheringham for Greenhouse Community Projects
SHERINGHAM - 20090818 - Demolish all Buildings Except numbers. 7, 9 and 11
Cromer Road and Erection of A1 (Retail Supermarket), 5 Class A1/A3 Retail
Units, 2 Flats and A Class D1/D2 Community Space with Associated Access,
Landscaping, Car Parking and Servicing Arrangements at Land at Cromer
Road, Sheringham for Tesco Stores Ltd
The Committee considered the officer’s report.
Public Speakers
Weybourne Road
Mr Booth (Sheringham Town Council)
Objectors: Mr Bass, Mr McEvoy
Supporters: Miss Worsdale, Mr Hay-Smith, Mr Harrison, Mr Roderick
Cromer Road
Mr Booth (Sheringham Town Council)
Objectors: Mr Shepherd, Ms Mildmay, Mr Hewitt, Mr Herbert
Supporters: Mrs Mold, Mr Gellatly, Mr McGinn, Mr Read
The Acting Development Control Manager introduced Mr Mark Wood, the Council’s
retail consultant. He stated that the Committee should only consider land use issues
as permission would be attached to the land and not to any particular operator.
The Acting Development Control Manager outlined the proposals for Weybourne
Road. He reported that the operator had stated that 150-155 people would be
employed at the store but had not identified whether or not this was the full time
equivalent number. A further 25 people would be employed at the food academy and
two drivers employed in relation to the proposed electric bus. He reported that
National Air Traffic Services had no objection to the proposed wind turbine at
Weybourne Road.
The Acting Development Control Manager outlined the proposals for Cromer Road.
The Acting Development Control Manager reported that 2 further letters of support, 2
further objection letters and one letter commenting on the proposal had been
received in respect of the Weybourne Road application. He reported that 10 further
letters of support, 10 further objection letters and 2 letters commenting on the
(9.2)
Appendix 9
proposal had been received in respect of the Cromer Road application. He reported
the points made in those letters. Two very late representations had been received
which scrutinised the link between the Cromer Road store and the town centre, and
in respect of the application of PPS4. Two letters had been received from agents
acting for Tesco and one letter had been received from agents acting for
Greenhouse. These letters included schedules of draft conditions and had been
forwarded to Members. He summarised the issues raised in the agents’ letters. The
Council’s response to those letters had also been emailed to Members.
The Acting Development Control Manager requested that Members give
consideration to the impact of the Weybourne Road site on the open land area. He
referred to the comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager. He
stated that, on balance, officers considered that there would not be significant conflict
with policy in this respect.
A number of telephone calls had been received which suggested that the floor space
comparison may be misrepresented. The Acting Development Control Manager
stated that the Weybourne Road proposal was considered to be the smaller of the
two stores when comparing like with like. Detailed retail issues had been dealt with
in the report. He referred to the Inspector’s decision in respect of the appeal against
refusal of 20070217, which was a material consideration in this matter, and stated
that there was an outstanding High Court challenge to the Inspector’s decision.
The Acting Development Control Manager referred to PPS4: Planning for
Sustainable Economic Growth and stated that the Council’s retail consultant
considered that the guidance in the statement did not change his opinion which had
been submitted in November 2009.
The Acting Development Control Manager summarised the key issues relating to
both applications.
He requested delegated authority to approve application
20090818 (Cromer Road) as set out in the report. He recommended refusal of
application 20090777 (Weybourne Road) for the reasons set out in the report,
amended to read ‘it is considered that the proposed development would not have a
positive impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre of Sheringham and
would be contrary to Development Plan Policies.’
The Committee then heard the statements of the public speakers and adjourned for a
short break. Councillor N P Ripley left the meeting at this point.
The Head of Planning and Building Control read to the Committee comments
submitted by Councillor B J Hannah, a local Member, who was unable to attend the
meeting because of holiday commitments. Councillor Hannah had declared he was
a County Councillor sitting on Children’s Services.
Councillor Hannah supported the Weybourne Road application as it was a pioneering
food focused store, in addition to a food academy giving local access to education,
skills and nutritional knowledge on a single site encompassing gardens and
allotments, all in a sustainable, environmentally sensitive setting, with outstanding
green credentials of which the Authority was very supportive. He had stated that the
proposed store would be the greenest store ever built by Waitrose and would deliver
over 150 local jobs. The 1250m2 would be smaller than the competition and no more
than 10% of the sales floor would be used for comparison goods, which he
considered was key to assisting many of the local shops and enable reasonable
access to a weekly shop from the store. He considered that the proposal would have
a lesser effect on the vitality and viability of the smaller shops in the area. He
(9.3)
Appendix 9
considered that the free shuttle bus would offset the out of town location. He
considered that it was worthy of note that a percentage of the profits would be placed
in the Greenhouse Community Fund and would be distributed to local charities.
With regard to the food academy, Councillor Hannah considered that this was an
unmissable opportunity for North Norfolk at a time of unprecedented budget cuts and
increasing demand, which would be privately funded and provided with an annuity to
underwrite its ongoing operating costs. It would be accessible to a wide crosssection of the local community including primary, secondary and tertiary learners and
would be used for training purposes for the adjoining store and on-the-job experience
with the store. The adjacent kitchen gardens would be manned by a full time
horticulturalist who would provide training and experience for schools, allotment
holders and community organisations.
Councillor Hannah had requested that the Committee take into consideration the
quality of the supporting bodies and in particular the comments of the Deputy
Director of Children’s Services.
In respect of the Cromer Road application, Councillor Hannah supported the views of
Sheringham Town Council and requested that its comments be given recognition as
the Town Council had spent a great deal of time and done a lot of work on this. He
had always considered that the Cromer Road site was the wrong location for a store
of the size proposed and suggested that the Holway Road site, owned by Tesco,
would have been a sensible option. He considered that highway issues were
crucially important to this application which was stated to generate 30,000 more
vehicle journeys per week along the A149, which was the main artery into the town.
He had no doubt that this would have a detrimental effect on the town and had
difficulty with the decision of the highway engineers who did not agree.
In the event of approving either application, Councillor Hannah had requested that
the following Section 17 safety features be installed: CCTV in the car park,
appropriate lighting in the car park, numbered car parking spaces, pay trolleys and
an entrance barrier when the store closes.
Councillor Mrs P Bevan Jones, a local Member, stated that she absolutely upheld the
Town Council’s view. She referred to the comments of Mr Roderick, the headmaster
of Sheringham High School, in respect of the opportunities offered by the proposed
food academy which would be functional, viable, sustainable and provide registered
qualifications. She considered that whilst the construction of a supermarket adjacent
to the AONB contravened the Core Strategy, it would be used to sustain life, support
local producers and reduce carbon emissions. She considered that it would be an
attraction that people would want to visit. She considered that conversely, it could be
argued that the Cromer Road site was closer to the town and would provide a
supermarket, but questioned the cost in terms of the future of young lives. She
considered that a supermarket on Cromer Road would provide jobs but would be
likely to result in the closure of other shops which had been managed over
generations by local people. She considered that this would lead to deterioration of
the lives of many local families and Sheringham would lose its unique character.
She considered that the proposed Cromer Road store would result in diminished
footfall into the town and referred to the narrow alleyway which was intended to
provide the link to the town. She expressed concern that the Cromer Road proposal
would exacerbate rat runs which were a danger to local residents. She stated that
there were problems with access for emergency vehicles already as a result of onstreet parking. She considered that there was very little difference in the size of the
current Cromer Road proposal and the previous application which had been refused.
(9.4)
Appendix 9
She expressed concern at the loss of existing trees on the Cromer Road site and
also the possible impact on trees in Cremer’s Drift. She expressed concern at the
impact of the Cromer Road proposal in respect of loss of housing and considered
that scant regard had been given to the Core Strategy in respect of addressing
housing need. Whilst the Weybourne Road proposal did not accord with the Core
Strategy, she considered that it would co-exist with the town. She suggested that the
electric bus service could provide an opportunity for elderly people to socialise as
they were often isolated and lonely. She considered that the Weybourne Road store
would tidy up the area, provide a landmark building which would enhance the
entrance to the town and offer Sheringham, including schools and other educational
establishments, a once in many generations opportunity. She urged the Committee
to support the best interests of the town and base its decision on the best use of land
in and around Sheringham.
Councillor Mrs H T Nelson, Member for Sheringham South Ward, urged the
Committee to recognise the years of work done by the people of Sheringham to find
the best way to take Sheringham ahead. She stated that she remained steadfast in
her opposition to Tesco. She referred to the houses and bungalow that had been left
derelict and a blot on the landscape of the town. She stated that the Inspector had
recognised the harm to the vitality of the town. She considered that the Cromer
Road application was in the wrong place and raised appalling highway issues. She
considered that this proposal would dumb down the entrance to the town, reduce the
viability of the town and result in the loss of pine trees for which Sheringham was
renowned. She considered that the Weybourne Road proposal was brilliant in
principle although there were still hurdles to overcome. There was a need for a
comprehensive business plan to ensure that the proposal would not harm
Sheringham. She considered that it would be sensible to defer this application.
Councillor S J Partridge referred to the criticism that had been levelled at officers
over this matter. He stated that the Council had a dedicated team of very well
qualified, professional officers who had worked beyond the call of duty to give the
best possible advice, and wished to place on record his thanks for all their work over
the past months. He stated that there was a need for a supermarket in Sheringham,
the Inspector had found there to be a qualitative need and the Town Council
spokesman had also referred to the need. He asked the Retail Consultant if there
was a need for two supermarkets.
The Retail Consultant referred to his report dated November 2009 and gave technical
advice on the impact of the two proposed stores if both were approved. He stated
that the two proposed stores could potentially put all three existing convenience
stores at risk, and could also impact on stores in Cromer and Holt. He considered
that promoting both stores could be highly dangerous.
Councillor Partridge referred to comments that the proposed Cromer Road store was
the same size as the one previously refused (20070217).
The Retail Consultant referred to Appendix 1 of the report and stated that in terms of
net sales area the current proposal was 21-22% smaller than the previous
application.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun referred to the importance of food and food security. She
considered that the Weybourne Road proposal was an exciting and innovative way of
reconnecting young people with the earth. She questioned the floor space figures
put forward by Tesco. She referred to Tesco’s stated policies on growth of its
business, particularly in respect of non-food items. She considered that the figure
(9.5)
Appendix 9
given for comparison goods in the Tesco proposal was contrary to the company’s
stated aims She considered that 1000m2 was unaccounted for, which she believed
was in respect of the mezzanine level which was currently void space. She referred
to a retrospective application which was being considered by Shropshire Council and
considered that this Authority could find itself in the same situation. She referred to
the Inspector’s report and expressed concern that, rather than a period of
readjustment, there would be continued decline and the town centre would be
diminished. She considered that it would be a dereliction of duty to do anything other
than refuse the Cromer Road application on the basis that it would affect
Sheringham’s vibrancy, vitality and viability.
The Retail Consultant referred to the figures given in Appendix 1 to the report and in
Tesco’s design and access statement. He stated that conditions could be imposed
which could restrict the area of both convenience and comparison goods. Such
conditions would be easier to enforce if based on the Competition Commission’s
definition. He considered that the difference in floor space referred to by Councillor
Mrs McGoun related to areas which were not within the store itself.
Councillor H C Cordeaux considered there was no doubt that a supermarket was
needed or that both applications could harm the vitality of the town centre. He
considered that the proposed Weybourne Road store would attract shoppers from
beyond the immediate area, the majority of whom would arrive by car and would not
visit the town, particularly if there was a café on site. He stated that the Weybourne
Road site was further from the town than the site on Holway Road which was owned
by Tesco. The Cromer Road site was within walking distance of the town centre.
However, he was concerned with regard to the additional retail units proposed with
the Cromer Road application as they would be owned by Tesco and would be used
to make the Tesco store more attractive. He asked if affordable housing could be
built on the Holway Road site in the event of refusal of the Weybourne Road
proposal. He requested comments in respect of total retail area.
The Retail Consultant stated that he had considered the small retail units in terms of
potential turnover. They were separate units which were not related to Tesco. He
understood that Tesco had given an undertaking that would prevent the company
running its business within those units, but irrespective of this, the Core Strategy was
supportive of additional retail units within Sheringham. This element of the proposal
complied with the Core Strategy in terms of the sequential approach and scale. The
potential for these units to be occupied by comparison retailers had been tested.
There was a substantial need for retail floor space within the town. The units would
function as part of the town centre and offset the negative aspects of the proposal.
The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that planning permission had
been granted for housing on the Holway Road site, which included an element of
affordable housing. However, this would be required of any developer. By way of
further explanation he referred to a payment of £1.2 million which had been accepted
by Cabinet from the applicants for the Cromer Road site in lieu of a previous
requirement to construct bungalows.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners referred to the Inspector’s decision in respect of
20070217 and the reasons given for dismissing the appeal. He stated that the Core
Strategy had identified a need for a range of retail shops. Both proposals being
considered now were over the 500m2 - 780m2 floor space identified by the Inspector.
He agreed with the officers’ view that the Weybourne Road proposal would harm the
vitality and viability of Sheringham, but considered that it would do less harm than the
Cromer Road proposal given its smaller size and lower turnover. He proposed
(9.6)
Appendix 9
refusal of both applications on grounds of impact on the vitality, viability and retail
function of Sheringham town centre. He considered that both applicants should be
encouraged to come forward with a store of a suitable size. This was seconded by
Councillor P J Willcox.
Councillor Miss C P Sheridan questioned whether officers had given sufficient weight
to the material gains offered by the Weybourne Road application. She considered
that the main obstacle was the distance of the proposed store from the town. She
expressed concern as to how the small retail units in the Cromer Road proposal
would be secured by a Section 106 obligation. She stated that Tesco would set the
rents and the length of the leases. She referred to applications for change of use
where business premises could not be sold or let. With regard to the walkway, she
considered that, in functional terms, it failed to provide effective pedestrian links. She
was not aware of any walkway provided by Tesco which had worked. She requested
the comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager in respect of
design.
The Retail Consultant explained that the small retail units would be in Tesco’s
control. However, the company had offered to enter into a legal agreement that the
units would not be operated by Tesco. Tesco had committed itself to build the units
and they would be available when the store opened. It could be possible for the
Council to set the rents of the units, provided Tesco would agree to this.
In respect of the walkway, the Retail Consultant stated that his report dated February
2010 (Appendix 6 to the report) addressed this issue. He pointed out that people
walked into the town from the Station Road car park. Tesco offered free parking
regardless of whether or not people used the store. Although a relatively small
proportion of the link was narrow, it was considered that the walkway would generate
a significant number of linked trips.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that design was a matter
of opinion. He stated that design issues included not only architectural style but also
layout and relationship with the town and the town centre. He referred to his
comments on design and landscape in the report. He considered that the proposed
Cromer Road scheme was well related to the overall built form of Sheringham. The
architect had carried out a proper assessment of the impact of the proposal on the
town centre in terms of built form. He stated that the store would be an attraction in
terms of Cromer Road with the town centre as the other attraction, linked by the
walkway. The store had been brought closer to Station Road and he considered that
the proposal worked well from that perspective. He stated that supermarkets were
difficult to design and referred to the elements needed for inclusion in their design.
He considered that in the case of the Cromer Road proposal, the architects had
made every effort to make the front of the store facing the railway interesting, and to
create attractive elevations on the remaining sides. He considered that both the
Cromer Road and Weybourne Road schemes were excellent, although in the case of
Weybourne Road there were issues in respect of impact on the edge of town, not
only in respect of retail but also in landscape terms. Whilst it would be difficult to
justify refusal in terms of landscape impact, this was an issue which could be taken
into account. He considered that in terms of design, good planning and urban
planning the Cromer Road site was the preferable scheme.
Councillor Miss C P Sheridan considered that the design of the Cromer Road store
was appalling. She considered that the draining of turnover from smaller stores,
which one of the objecting speakers had raised, was unacceptable. She proposed
refusal of application 20090818 (Cromer Road) and approval of application
(9.7)
Appendix 9
20090777 (Weybourne Road). Councillor Miss Sheridan considered that more
weight should be given to the ethos of the Weybourne Road proposal. This was
seconded by Councillor Mrs B McGoun.
The Head of Planning and Building Control requested clarification of the reasons for
refusal of the Cromer Road application. Councillor Miss C P Sheridan stated that her
proposal for refusal of application 20090818 (Cromer Road) was on the grounds that
the proposal was contrary to Core Strategy policies EC5 and EN4 and Government
guidance contained in PPS4.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes referred to the few small village shops in the
surrounding area. He considered that shoppers who used them would not readily
change their habits. He considered that both of the proposed stores had good
arrangements to support them and that both applications should be approved. Whilst
Greenhouse offered the food academy and allotments, Tesco would provide a new
fire station and other facilities with money for affordable housing. He stated that the
walkway between Budgens in Holt and Holt town centre was well-used. He
considered that traffic would be divided between the two stores which would result in
less congestion than one store.
Councillor S J Partridge stated that the retrospective application in Shropshire which
had been referred to by Councillor Mrs B McGoun was not relevant to this matter.
He stated that Sheringham needed one supermarket. He stated that the Norfolk
Food Academy was very impressive but questioned its location. He referred to
comments regarding the reduction in carbon footprint. Whilst the proposed academy
would benefit Sheringham High School, he questioned whether it would be of benefit
to other parts of the District. He referred to PPS4 and the sequential approach. He
stated that the Cromer Road proposal would score highly over Weybourne Road with
regard to the sequential test. He urged the Committee to make a firm, sensible
decision. As an amendment, he proposed approval of application 20090818 (Cromer
Road) and refusal of application 2009077 (Weybourne Road) in accordance with the
recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control. This was seconded
by Councillor Mrs J Trett.
Councillor Mrs M Seward questioned if there was a proven need for the additional
retail units included in the Cromer Road application, and if all current retail units in
the town were occupied.
The Retail Consultant stated that the need for additional units had been identified by
a retail study. Significant comparison goods expenditure was being lost from
Sheringham and the proposed units would help to claw back some of this
expenditure. There were a number of vacant units in the town but the vacancy rate
was relatively low. The Core Strategy recognised that notwithstanding the vacancy
level new units should be supported.
Councillor P J Willcox referred to the Core Strategy and the retail floor space figures
included in it. He considered that the proposals were contrary to the adopted Core
Strategy and any store should have no more than 750-780m2 retail floor space.
The Acting Development Control Manager explained that the Core Strategy Policy
EC5 did not set a maximum limit but that any retail development in excess of 750m2
would need to be clearly justified in accordance with the policy.
(9.8)
Appendix 9
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes considered that the retention of mature trees should be
reconsidered and further planting carried out. The Head of Planning and Building
Control explained that landscaping issues had been considered by the Landscape
Officer and referred to the report of the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners requested that the Committee move to the vote.
Councillor Mrs J P Moss stated that she was neither for nor against Waitrose or
Tesco, or Cromer Road or Weybourne Road. She considered that size was the main
issue and it was necessary to err on the side of caution. She referred to the vision in
the Weybourne Road application and the concerns that had been dealt with through
the various Tesco applications. She stated that there was no other site for the
Greenhouse proposal as other sites had been taken. She stated that her personal
view was to refuse the Cromer Road proposal on the grounds of size and requested
further consideration of the Weybourne Road proposal.
Councillor Miss C P Sheridan requested assistance with the grounds for refusal. The
Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager explained that he was unable to assist as
he considered that the officer’s recommendation contained in the report was correct.
He was not prepared to speculate on reasons that may not stand up to inquiry. He
reminded the Committee that there was outstanding litigation directed at the
Secretary of State in respect of the appeal against application 20090818.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold suggested that the meeting be adjourned to allow the
proposer and seconder to consider their reasons for refusal. This was not accepted.
Councillor Miss C P Sheridan stated that in respect of the Cromer Road application
there were concerns regarding the sustainability and viability of the town and design
issues, contrary to Core Strategy policies EC5, EN4 and failure to meet the tests of
PPS4. She considered that there had been insufficient weight given to the ethos,
design and sustainability of the Weybourne Road proposal and its connection with
the town, and insufficient weight given to the electric bus service and the food
academy.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that it was vital that the decisions
were defensible and he had serious doubts about the soundness of the decisions at
the moment. He requested that if the Committee were minded to support Councillor
Sheridan’s proposal it should be subject to delegated authority to allow him to seek
specialist legal advice on the soundness of the decisions and his subsequent
consideration of that advice in light of the terms of reference of the Committee. In the
event of the advice leading to the conclusion that the decisions were potentially
sound, he would follow the procedures delegated to him in respect of the decisions,
otherwise a further report would be brought to the Committee.
The first amendment, proposed by Councillor S J Partridge and seconded by
Councillor Mrs J Trett to authorise the Head of Planning and Building Control to
approve application 20090818 in accordance with his recommendation and to refuse
application 20090777 for the reasons given in the report, as amended, was put to the
vote and declared lost with 4 Members voting in favour and 13 against.
As a further amendment, it was proposed by Councillor Miss C P Sheridan,
seconded by Councillor Mrs B McGoun
(9.9)
Appendix 9
That subject to seeking legal advice and consideration of that advice,
the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to:
a) refuse application 20090818 for the following reasons:
•
•
•
•
Failure to comply with Core Strategy policy EC5 on grounds that
the proposed store will have a detrimental impact on the
sustainability and viability of the town by reason of its size.
Contrary to the appeal decision in respect of 20070217 in terms
of size.
The design is incompatible with the town and conflicts with
Policy EN4.
Failure to meet the tests of PPS4; and
b) approve application 20090777 as the Committee considers that
insufficient weight has been given to the ethos, design and
sustainability of the Weybourne Road proposal and its connection
with the town, and to benefits of the electric bus service and the
food academy, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared carried by 11 votes to 6, and
on being put as the substantive motion it was RESOLVED by 10 votes to 6
(Councillor Cabbell Manners had left the meeting prior to the substantive vote being
taken.)
The meeting closed at 1.40 pm.
(9.10)