Agenda item

The report of the Director – Development and Economic Growth is attached.

Councillors Barney and R Walker left the meeting for consideration of the item.

 

The Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing, Councillor Upton presented the report of the Director – Development and Economic Growth, which outlined the Ratcliffe on Soar Local Development Order (LDO) and sought Council’s approval to adopt the LDO.

 

Councillor Upton advised that this major decision would affect future generations and asked Councillors to make an open and objective decision, with no pre-determinations. Councillors were thanked for their engagement with this very detailed report and officers for their hard work in preparing it.

 

Councillor Upton reminded Council that Ratcliffe on Soar Power Station would be closing in September 2024 and so far going forward, the only approved use would be for the Emerge Waste to Energy Project.  This was a unique, strategic site of national importance, with excellent transport links, excellent connectivity to the National Grid and was a highly visible gateway to Rushcliffe and Nottingham.  The site was close to the urban conurbations of Nottingham, Derby, Leicester, and Loughborough, with their associated universities and high tech industries, with most of the site being within the East Midlands Freeport boundary, which came into operation in March 2023.  Councillor Upton stated that the Government clearly expected this site to be rapidly developed, as part of its levelling up agenda, and hopefully attracting international investment into the region.  Council noted that the Freeport Business Case focused upon advanced manufacturing, decarbonised technology and renewable and low carbon energy generation and there was an urgency to get new businesses established by September 2026, being the final date to qualify for full Freeport benefits.  Councillor Upton stated that any investors required clarity and certainty, and the current lack of any planning approval was a major issue, which the LDO would resolve.  Council was reminded that the Freeport would generate significant income from retained Business Rates to invest into local projects.

 

Councillor Upton referred to the Cabinet decision in 2021 to prepare an LDO and to work collaboratively with Uniper, and since then detailed work had been ongoing to prepare this final draft.  Council was advised that extensive consultation had taken place as detailed in the Statement of Community Involvement, it had been scrutinised numerous times by the cross party Local Development Forum (LDF) Group, and at its meeting in June, it had recommended adoption of the LDO.  Councillor Upton stated that an LDO was an efficient planning application process, whereby proposals could be assessed against a specific set of criteria, giving the Council planning control over the redevelopment of the whole site.  The use of LDOs was recommended in the National Planning Policy Guidance for simplifying and streamlining the planning process for large sites.  The LDO would be valid for 25 years and could create certainty for investors, reduce risk and speed up the planning process, which Council was reminded would be needed to meet the tight three year deadline of September 2026.

 

Councillor Upton stated that there was a risk that without the LDO, and its Development Masterplan for the entire site, there would be piecemeal, speculative development through separate planning applications, which could be difficult to resist.  Uniper was also not contractually required to demolish the cooling towers, and given the cost of their demolition, they could be left derelict, leading to a significant detrimental visual impact.  It was likely that if adopted, some minor changes could be made to the LDO, given its flexibility, with review points at years three and five, and every five years thereafter, and Council was reminded that it could be modified or revoked at any time.  The report gave significant information on key issues, most of the site was Brownfield land, with some areas used for agriculture and woodland and the site was in the Greenbelt; however, the conclusion was that very special circumstances did exist to justify the proposed development.

 

Councillor Upton referred to the Transport Assessment, which stated that Phase One could go ahead with some minor mitigation works, particularly to local roads, as the traffic flows should not be greater than from the existing power station, with a wider assessment required later on for Phases Two and Three.  Council was advised that various conditions had been included, with further targeted highways investment required and Traffic Flow Caps would be monitored as the development progressed.  Traffic modelling had shown that 96% of trips generated by the proposed development in peak hours would use the dual A453 and transport mitigation would need to be delivered, where and when required.

 

In respect of biodiversity, Councillor Upton stated that there was a mechanism for securing a minimum gain of 10%, with careful consideration given to the balance of achieving significant economic and employment benefits, and the environmental impact of development.  On the southern site, particular areas of woodland would be retained, and new areas of landscaping and tree planting provided.

 

In conclusion, Councillor Upton advised that the approval of the Freeport development for the majority of this site had been confirmed and development would take place, and the decision taken tonight would affect how it was managed, by whom and when.

 

Councillor Clarke seconded the recommendation and reserved the right to speak.

 

Councillor J Walker stated that the Labour Group supported sustainable, well paid jobs in easily accessible locations, using public transport, and it was in favour of investment in the “Green” economy and was excited about the redevelopment opportunities of this site in a way that met future needs sustainably.  However, Councillor Walker stated that the Labour Group was also in favour of democratic oversight, which saw local government and the public sector working in partnership, with other groups and local businesses, and would allow the Council to control the sustainable development of this land.  Unfortunately the Labour Group was deeply concerned that this democratic oversight was being substantially reduced by this LDO.  Councillor Walker considered that what was being presented tonight showed laudable intent; however, there was insufficient detail on how highly paid, green jobs would be secured, as the LDO was currently only a skeleton proposal.  Council was being asked to approve the LDO as a way of making it easier for large businesses to develop the site for profit and the benefit of corporate interest, and in the process that democratic oversight would be reduced.  Councillor Walker stated that the costs were high and the returns hypothetical, with promised jobs in exchange for control.  Of greater concern was the imposition of the September 2026 deadline, which resulted in Council being advised that this LDO must be passed to avoid missing that deadline, and if approved it would not have a proper Traffic Feasibility Study in place, more ancient trees and Greenbelt would be lost.  The LDO did not allow for specifics, and a valuable site would be given away as democratic control would be lost when it could be developed more positively for the benefit of local residents.  Councillor Walker concluded by stating that there was no detail of what environmental or social improvement gains there would be, so despite being in favour of some stated terms, the Labour Group was unable to support the recommendation, due to the lack of concrete expectations around sustainability and to the reduction of the Council’s democratic control of this strategic site.

 

Councillor Thomas requested that a recorded vote be taken on the proposed amendment she was about to make, any other amendments and the final vote, and confirmed that on Wednesday she had circulated to all Councillors the proposed amendment as follows:

 

It is RECOMMENDED that Council:  

 

a)               notes the consultation representations received on the draft Local Development Order;  

 

b)               notes the environmental information and the conclusions reached on the significant effects of the proposed development on the environment as required by Regulation 26(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (as amended);  

 

c)                empowers the Director Development and Economic Growth to amend the Local Development Order Documents etc to:

 

1.       protect trees on the Southern site unless the applicant can demonstrate an absolute need for a contiguous building of a size that would require trees to be removed;  

2.       bring forward the traffic study for local roads, decoupling this from the national highways traffic issues at J24 etc, so that no certificate of compliance may be issued until this study is complete, with any mitigation measures identified and costed.   

 

d)       otherwise endorses the Ratcliffe on Soar Local Development Order Documents and Supporting Documents; and   

 

e)               adopts the Ratcliffe on Soar Local Development Order (with amendment as above) in accordance with Schedule 4A(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). 

 

Councillor Thomas stated that there was deep unease in Leake ward about the LDO. Council was advised that whilst there was support for redeveloping the northern site, once the power station had ceased operation, the southern site was very different, as it was an enormous Greenfield site, in the Greenbelt and development would cause a  huge visual impact and loss of trees and habitat.  Questions had been raised as to whether there had been sufficient detailed consideration, including other sites and it appeared that there was a huge rush to approve this due to the deadline for Freeport incentives.  However, Councillor Thomas stated that the Government was likely to extend the deadline for the tax benefits and that it was more important that the right decision was made rather than making it quickly.

 

Councillor Thomas stated that ideally approval for the southern site should be deferred so that issues could be addressed; however, to be pragmatic she had suggested two amendments that would at least partly address two of the main issues, with officers being given delegated authority to make those changes, to avoid any long delay in approving the LDO.

 

The first amendment c) 1. would put weight behind officers’ comments that trees would not be removed unless there was very strong justification, for example a giga-factory, which actually required a single huge building.  

 

The second amendment c) 2. related to local roads.  Councillor Thomas advised that unless there was a plan to deter traffic from using country roads, village life would be impacted, with road safety compromised and that would include roads through West and East Leake and spreading much wider.  Council was advised that bracketing this problem with the wider issue of congestion at J24 at peak times was not helpful and that due to the location of the site, country roads would be used whether or not the main roads were congested.  Currently, the work to study this further, identify mitigation options, and obtain developer contributions would be left far too late and should be brought forward, given that with 7000 jobs expected those trips would materialise and would have an adverse impact at any time of day.

 

In conclusion, Councillor Thomas asked for support for the two amendments, and suggested that if some members wished to support one but not the other she would be happy for them to be voted on separately.

 

Councillor Billin seconded the recommendation and reserved the right to speak.

 

Councillor Upton advised that the Conservative Group would not be supporting the amendment and stated that whilst in theory amendments could be made to the LDO this evening, this was not the time or place to agree policy changes.  Considerable time had been taken, many LDF Group meetings held, where significant revisions had been made, and Council was reminded that the LDO could be revised, and any suggestions made this evening should be taken to another meeting of the LDF Group following its approval this evening.

 

Councillor Clarke stated that the proposed amendment was laudable and agreed with the spirit and sentiment and stated that he was sure that everyone here wanted to protect the environment, trees, and limit traffic impact on local communities; however, as the original LDO had already gone out to public consultation, if the amendments were accepted, it would have to go out to consultation again.  Councillor Clarke agreed that it would be more appropriate to submit the suggestions to the LDF Group for consideration and reminded Council that the LDO would be subject to regular reviews.  The LDO in essence was an outline planning permission, with further detailed applications for each building coming forward, and at that stage those issues could be addressed, and Councillor Clarke hoped that everything that could be done to protect the environment would be. 

 

Councillor R Mallender, in stating that the Green Group would be supporting the amendment felt that this was the forum to consider suggestions and decide what worked best for local residents, and in this case, given the impact of the site, the wider area, and if this required additional work, then this item should be brought to a future meeting.

 

In supporting the amendment, Councillor Way referred to the Transport Assessment and considered that it would not be a big issue to bring that forward given the major safety concerns and stated that the main local concerns related to the minor roads in the southern part of the Borough.  Councillor Way questioned the comment made by Councillor Upton regarding the extensive consultation and stated that villages in the southern part of the Borough had been systematically ignored, with only one meeting in September 2022, and since then there had been no communication, and although there was an existing Forum, the southern villages had never been part of that.   

 

Councillor Birch supported the amendment, which he considered both reasonable and sensible, and stated that he agreed with the Freeport and that the LDO was the best way forward to create jobs and welcome innovation; however, not at any cost.  There had been a great deal of information to digest since the agenda had been published and this process felt rushed.  Councillor Birch was concerned about the significant impact on local villages and stated that it would be better to get it right first before approving it. 

 

Councillor Billin referred to the Arboriculture Report, which detailed several areas of trees through the spine of the southern part of the site that were classified as A1, which meant that they were of value and a potential for habitat and carbon capture, and those would be removed.  In respect of traffic, local roads were already used as rat runs, traffic would increase, with mitigation required, and waiting for a traffic study until later was unacceptable.  Councillor Billin reiterated that new Councillors had not had the time to digest so much information, the process was being rushed and local residents deserved better.

 

Councillor Thomas thanked Councillors for their generally supportive comments and stated that although she understood the points raised about taking comments back to the LDF Group, which would be too late, and she had been raising the issue of local roads for the past two years at Group meetings.  She advised that the traffic study was already referred to; however, it would not happen until after the first development phase, it would take years, and would be too late, with villages such as West Leake wrecked by the increased traffic.  Councillor Thomas disagreed with the figures detailing the percentage of traffic that would use the A453 and stressed the need for an earlier traffic study to take place.  In respect of trees on the southern site, although officers had advised that there was no intention to fell those trees unless they had to, it stated in the Arboriculture Report that those trees would be felled.  Councillor Thomas confirmed that the Leake Independent Group had no wish to delay the LDO, and the two suggested small amendments would not delay that process.

 

In accordance with the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, a recorded vote was taken for this item as follows:

 

FOR: Councillors J Billin, T Birch, R Bird, S Calvert, J Chaplain, K Chewings, S Dellar, G Fletcher, M Gaunt, E Georgiou, P Gowland, C Grocock, R Mallender, S Mallender, L Plant, D Polenta, C Thomas, J Walker, and L Way.

 

AGAINST: Councillors A Brennan, A Brown, R Butler, N Clarke, T Combellack, J Cottee, A Edyvean, S Ellis, R Inglis, D Mason, P Matthews, H Om, H Parekh, A Phillips, N Regan, D Simms, D Soloman, R Upton, D Virdi, T Wells, G Wheeler, J Wheeler, and G Williams

 

On being put to the vote, the amendment was lost.

 

The Mayor asked if any Councillor wished to speak to the original motion.

 

Councillor Brown advised that the Gotham ward had taken a keen interest in the redevelopment of the site and carefully considered the proposals.  Five parish councils had worked collaboratively, with stated objectives that any development should ensure high quality jobs, be minimised to the south of the A453, should consider the Greenbelt, and the cumulative impact on communities.  Councillor Brown stated that the LDO provided a framework that met the Council’s vision and had allowed community input, both directly and through its elected representatives, and it was noted that this had led to a number of improvements to the LDO.  Councillor Brown referred to the pressure from strategic distribution sites both locally and nationally and the potential attractiveness of the site for that use, and whilst the LDO did allocate such development on the northern site, Council was reminded that this could be much higher, if development came via other means.  Residents in Gotham were more aware than anyone of the differing land characteristics between the northern and southern sites, together with the importance of the Greenbelt, and the increasing feeling of creeping industrialisation.  Councillor Brown stated that it was crucial to his support that the acceptable land use characteristics for development on the southern site would be restricted to advanced manufacturing, decarbonised technology, and renewable and low carbon energy generation.  Development on that southern site would be robustly scrutinised through the Certificate of Compliance process and Council was reminded that the LDO had been further improved to ensure that elected members would be involved in this process rather than just officers.  In respect of traffic, Councillor Brown acknowledged the impact on local roads, and continued to advocate for further transport impact work to be undertaken and had received reassurance that that would be done.

 

Councillor Gaunt stated that yet again the Labour Group felt that they were being asked to vote for a proposal, which currently had very limited scope, with future promises being made, and a very quick deadline to make the decision.  Councillor Gaunt referred to a previous Council meeting in October 2019, when the Local Plan Part 2 had been considered.  At that meeting assurances had been given that all the concerns raised regarding transport and education associated with the hundreds of new houses would be addressed; however, that was not the case, with local villages now suffering the consequences of that decision, which Councillors were told had to be rushed through quickly.  Councillor Gaunt expressed concern that Councillors were yet again being asked to vote for something, which made future promises, which he did not believe would be delivered.

 

Councillor Chewings stated that he was in support of the LDO, but not at any cost, and it was inappropriate to rush through an important policy decision because of the Freeport deadline, as that decision should be taken in a proper, balanced way.  Significant concerns had been raised in the consultation regarding the loss of trees and habitat, and traffic impact, with Leicestershire County Council’s Highway Authority still objecting and the National Highway Authority only recently removing its objection, based on future plans.  Councillor Chewings stated that he disagreed with previous comments that further consultation would be required if the amendments were accepted, as this had not been required previously.

 

Councillor R Mallender advised that the closure of the power station was a necessary step in moving towards a low carbon future and it was for Councillors to ensure that the next steps taken were the right ones.  Although there was much to commend in the LDO, Councillor Mallender stated that significant areas of concern remained, which required further work, as already highlighted.  In respect of biodiversity net gain, Councillor Mallender referred to the report being considered by the Growth and Development Scrutiny Group, which established a clear hierarchy for dealing with this, and as it currently stood, he considered that there was too little emphasis in the LDO on the avoidance of destruction of habitat and the retention of existing biodiversity.  Councillor Mallender welcomed the redevelopment of the northern part of the site, including attempts to maintain the rail use; however, further work was required to improve both the access to and within the site.  Councillor Mallender stated that he was concerned about the potential governance changes and the potential loss of influence for Rushcliffe going forward, towards a wider combined authority.

 

Councillor Grocock reiterated that as a new Councillor he also felt that the process had been rushed, and on reviewing the LDO, there appeared to be nothing in the proposal to prevent this site going the same was as many other post-industrial sites.  The LDO was passive as it would rely on the market to take advantage of the site’s acknowledged strategic advantages and Councillor Grocock considered that the Council had not gone far enough to mandate the appropriate types of usage.  In respect of the Freeport deadline, Councillor Grocock questioned if a different, future government would have an alternative approach, and rather than taking this passive approach, the Council should work with all partners and parties to develop a clear and detailed masterplan.   

 

Councillor Combellack stated that the LDO would ensure that the Council retained control of the planning process, it just simplified it, and once the LDO was approved, amendments could still be made to it.  Having seen the site, Councillor Combellack felt that considerable thought had been taken regarding the preservation of trees and to the development of additional landscape habitats on the southern site, which she commended.  The Council was reminded that the proposal would bring wonderful opportunities for Rushcliffe, and with the window of opportunity currently open, a decision had to be made.  As the Chair of Corporate Overview Group, Councillor Combellack confirmed that she would ensure that scrutiny remained active in this area.

 

Councillor Gowland expressed concerned that there was no guarantee of the site having low carbon, high tech, green jobs, and the implications if that happened.  She questioned why there were plans to develop the southern site, which did not need to be developed, when there appeared to be empty units on the very large business park at Fairham and stated that it would be more appropriate to spread such development across the Borough, to reduce commuting by car to work.

 

Councillor Butler stated that difficult decisions had to be made, which at least gave the Council some control, and the LDF Group had been working on this for over 18 months.  It was hoped that the significant details in the report would give Council the assurance that appropriate consideration had been given to all of the understandable concerns and to keep delaying things would put both the Council and local communities in a weaker position.  In respect of employment, Councillor Butler felt that it was far better to have the LDO in place, rather than to have no control.  Nobody liked to see trees and vegetation lost; however, Councillor Butler stated that he felt assured through the report and meetings he had attended, that any losses would be handled very carefully.  In acknowledging concerns raised over transport and traffic issues, Councillor Butler stated that the LDO once passed would still provide flexibility.

 

Councillor Brennan stated that in her own professional experience, historically the East Midlands had always missed out on large scale government and international investment for varying reasons and continued to do so.  Regional Development Agencies had been set up to try and address those issues, unfortunately that hard work and vision had been undermined, most frequently due to local rivalries and parochial interests.  Rushcliffe now had the opportunity to help redress that under investment, as the LDO was within the Council’s gift to deliver high quality investment and skilled jobs on a site of regional, national, even international significance.  Councillor Brennan talked of the opportunity to raise the bar on the type of development and employment that could be attracted to the Borough, and the importance of retaining graduates from the many local universities, together with the substantial Business Rates that could be generated and then reinvested.  Talks were already underway with major investors, who required assurance of a clear route to achieve their corporate ambitions, and without that assurance they would invest elsewhere.  If the LDO was not approved tonight, what was the future for such an important site, the gateway to the Borough?  No Councillor wished to see woodland removed unnecessarily or neighbouring villages blighted by traffic and Councillor Brennan stated that she believed that those objectives could be achieved, whilst also approving the LDO this evening.    

 

Councillor Simms stated that the process had not been rushed, he had attended LDF Group meetings and seen that checks and balances were in place and deadlines must be acknowledged.  Everyone at the meeting wanted the best for Rushcliffe and it was important not to let ideology stop the Council from moving forward or think that making a profit was bad.  Councillor Simms stated that the LDO needed to be agreed to stop the area missing out on investment, which was going elsewhere.

 

Councillor Thomas stated that there were many other issues that she could have raised and proposed more changes to the LDO, and all through the process she had made suggestions, which had helped to improve the document, and she would carry on doing that.  Councillor Thomas stated that she was disappointed as she believed that her amendments would have given her a way to support the LDO, and that had not happened.

 

Councillor Parekh stated that the site benefitted from a number of unique characteristics and was distinctively well placed to meet government aspirations to progress the levelling up agenda and to address climate change.  Following the planned closure in September 2024, the demolition and clearance of the site would potentially be a very lengthy process, so by accepting the development on the more open areas of the site, not only would the Freeport objectives be met, but an economically active environment would be retained.  Council was reminded of other former power station sites around the country, now abandoned and derelict, and Councillor Parekh hoped that by bringing this LDO forward any chance of that happening would be minimised.

 

Councillor Polenta stated that a priority of local government was not only to implement good policy, it was also to allow Councillors the opportunity to debate, and that was meaningless if a decision had been pre-empted, and this was the place to discuss the amendment.  Reference had been made to not voting based on ideology; however, Councillor Polenta felt that this was the case for many this evening and reiterated the importance of making decisions via the democratic process.

 

Councillor Birch agreed with Councillor Simms that making a profit was good and agreed with Councillor Gaunt’s comments about developers not keeping promises and was concerned that this would happen again with the LDO.  Councillor Birch stated that whilst being in support of the LDO in principle, and all the benefits it would bring, he could not support the LDO as it stood, not for ideological reasons, or because he was against investment in the region, rather it was because he wanted it to be done properly, with provisions in place to address the concerns raised.

 

Councillor Clarke referred to the huge investment, the generation of large numbers of highly skilled jobs and stated that the tax free status of the Freeport was important, and should not be put at risk, as that was how investment would come into the area.  He reiterated the comments made by Councillor Brennan and reinforced the importance of working together to agree a way forward to attract investment and stated that this was a major opportunity to do that, in conjunction with all parties involved with the Freeport.  Council was reminded that it was vital that Rushcliffe had control through the LDO, as without it, investment for high tech development could be lost, and the area would be left with logistics instead.  Rushcliffe had an excellent reputation, and that would encourage investment, which would bring profit, and in turn wealth and better standards of living. Councillor Clarke reiterated that work on the LDO had been ongoing for over two years, and whilst ensuring that communities were protected, and all factors were considered, a decision needed to be made.

 

Councillor Upton reiterated the importance of the report and decision to be taken and noted comments made, including a reference to the consultation undertaken and referred to Appendix 7, the Statement of Community Involvement, which detailed the extensive consultation undertaken and listed the many comments received.  Councillor Upton confirmed that the site owners, Uniper had worked collaboratively with the Council and through this LDO the Council would have control, for example to prohibit logistics on the southern site.  Council was reminded that the Freeport had been signed off and would go ahead, including the redevelopment of the power station, and Councillor Upton stated that it was far better for the Council to be able to control what was built on the site.  Concerns had been raised about a lack of democratic control; however, the process for dealing with Certificates of Compliance had been revised and enhanced, with final decisions being made by the Planning Committee. Councillor Upton questioned comments made regarding insufficient detail, and referred to the 400 plus pages of appendices, which he considered more than adequate and questioned the notion that the government might extend the deadline for Freeport benefits from September 2026, as there was no indication of that.  Council was reminded that the reference to the giga-factory was simply an artist’s impression of what would be a worst case scenario, with actual detailed applications considered by officers and Councillors in the future.  Councillor Upton reiterated that in respect of traffic, Phase 1 was all that was being immediately considered, and as the power station decommissioned and lost employment, the number of vehicle movements overall would not increase, and he agreed that he would not wish to see major development affecting local roads.

 

In accordance with the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, a recorded vote was taken for this item as follows:

 

FOR: Councillors R Bird, A Brennan, A Brown, R Butler, N Clarke, T Combellack, J Cottee, A Edyvean, S Ellis, E Georgiou, R Inglis, D Mason, P Matthews, H Om, H Parekh, A Phillips, N Regan, D Simms, D Soloman, R Upton, D Virdi, T Wells, G Wheeler, J Wheeler, and G Williams

 

AGAINST: Councillors T Birch, S Calvert, J Chaplain, K Chewings, S Dellar, G Fletcher, M Gaunt, P Gowland, C Grocock, R Mallender, S Mallender, L Plant, D Polenta, C Thomas, and J Walker

 

ABSTENTIONS: Councillors J Billin and L Way

 

On being put to the vote, the motion was carried, and it was RESOLVED that 

 

a)               the consultation representations received on the draft Local Development Order be noted;  

 

b)               the environmental information and the conclusions reached on the significant effects of the proposed development on the environment as required by Regulation 26(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (as amended) be noted;  

 

c)               the Ratcliffe on Soar Local Development Order documents and supporting documents be endorsed; and

 

d)               the Ratcliffe on Soar Local Development Order be adopted in accordance with Schedule 4A(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

 

Councillors Barney and R Walker returned to their seats.

 

Councillor Gowland referred to Item 13 Motion a) and advised that as she had been made aware that an amendment would be submitted to amend key words in the motion, she would withdraw the motion, and bring a motion back in September, hopefully following negotiations with the administration.