Agenda and minutes

          The Minutes of the meeting held on 1 July 2013, having been printed and circulated, were taken as read and signed as a correct record.

The Committee was advised that one matter had arisen which required immediate attention by the Committee (Minute Dev 24 refers).  Therefore, pursuant to Section 100 B (4) and 100 E, and due to the need for a decision from the Committee relating to the second Ineos Public Inquiry, the Chairman ruled that the item be considered as a matter of urgency.

          The Committee considered the following applications for planning permission and, in accordance with its powers and duties, made the decisions described below.

The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site.

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved subject to:

a)    the entering into of a Legal Agreement for the provision of a financial contribution towards off-site public open space to be spent within the Parish of Daresbury;

b)    that if the Section 106 Agreement or alternative arrangement was not executed within a reasonable period of time, authority be delegated to the Operational Director – Policy, Planning and Transportation, in consultation with the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Committee to refuse the application on the grounds that it failed to comply with Policy S25 (Planning Obligations);

c)     and the following Conditions:

1.     Standard 3 year permission (BE1);

2.     Condition specifying amended plans (BE1);

3.     Materials condition, requiring the submission and approval of the materials to be used (BE2);

4.     Removal of permitted development rights for extensions, outbuildings and boundary treatment;

5.     Boundary treatments to be submitted and approved in writing (BE2);

6.     Conditions relating to restriction of permitted development rights relating to extensions, outbuildings and boundary fences (BE1);

7.     Construction Management Plan including wheel cleansing facilities to be submitted and approved in writing (BE1);

8.     Construction and delivery hours to be adhered to throughout the course of the development (BE1);

9.     Requiring provision of bin and recycling facilities prior to occupation (BE1);

10. Final details of cycle storage facilities (BE1);

11. Details of the permissive path as shown on the plan linking the development with Daresbury Village (TP7);

12. Retention of trees and details of any planting scheme (BE1);

13. Provision of bat boxes and nesting boxes;

14. Maintenance of Habitat Links;

15. No works to be undertaken during the bird nesting season.

The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site.

REOLVED:  That authority be delegated to the Operational Director – Policy, Planning and Transportation, in consultation with the Chairman or Vice Chairman to approve the application subject to Conditions, any such further conditions which arise as a result of amended plans, and:

a)    the entering into of a Legal Agreement including provision of a financial contribution towards off-site public open space, adoption of on-site open space, public transport / bus stops and Greenway improvements as required;

b)    that if the Section 106 Agreement or alternative arrangement was not executed within a reasonable period of time, authority be delegated to the Operational Director – Policy, Planning and Transportation, in consultation with the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Committee to refuse the application; and

c)     conditions relating to the following:

1.     Condition specifying amended plans (BE1);

2.     Requiring that no development shall begin until written details and agreement of construction vehicle access routes and construction car parking and management plan (BE1);

3.     Materials condition, requiring the submission and approval of the materials to be used (BE2);

4.     Landscaping condition, requiring the submission of both hard and soft landscaping to include tree and hedgerow planting (BE2);

5.     Boundary treatments including retaining walls to be submitted and approved in writing (BE2);

6.     Construction Management Plan including wheel cleansing facilities to be submitted and approved in writing (BE1);

7.     Construction and delivery hours to be adhered to throughout the course of the development (BE1);

8.     Vehicle access, parking and servicing to be constructed prior to occupation of properties/commencement of use (BE1);

9.     Submission and agreement of finished floor and site levels (BE1);

10. Condition restricting permitted development rights relating to frontage boundary fences (BE1);

11. Condition restricting permitted development rights relating to addition of windows/dormers (BE1);

12. Condition restricting permitted development rights relating to extensions and outbuildings for specified plots (BE1);

13. Site investigation, including mitigation to be submitted and approved in writing (PR14);

14. Submission and agreement of a scheme of biodiversity features including landscape planting, log piles, bat and bird boxes (BE1 and GE21);

15. Conditions relating to tree and hedgerow protection during construction including special / construction working methods for driveways beneath trees (BE1);

16. Submission and agreement of detailed construction of surface water detention pond (BE1);

17. Survey for ground nesting birds to be submitted and approved (BE1 and GE21);

18. Grampian conditions relating to off-site highway works to Lunts Heath Road entrance and to provide 3m wide cycle/footpath to site frontage with Wilmere Lane up to junction with Lunts Heath Road (TP6 and TP9);

19. Grampian conditions relating to off-site works replacement highway tree planting (BE1);

20. Phasing of the greenway;

21. Submission and agreement of site and finished floor levels (BE1);

22. Requiring submission, agreement and implementation of detailed method statement for removal or long term management/eradication of Japanese knotweed (BE1);

23. Requiring the development be carried out in accordance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site.

Officers advised the Committee that issues raised relating to odour, emissions and noise had been reviewed by the Environmental Health Officer who was satisfied that these could be controlled through the permitting process and that they were unlikely to result in future nuisance. 

Additionally, the Highways Department had advised that they were satisfied that final design details of the proposed new access and any highways improvements on Johnsons Lane could be addressed by condition.

In summary, the Committee was advised that this development would provide significant investment in a currently vacant employment site that would provide employment opportunities in the area: 60 full time and 15 part time jobs.  Further, the proposal was considered to comply with the relevant planning policies.

The Committee was addressed by Mr Andrew Strickland, on behalf of the applicant, who thanked the Planning Department for their co-operation and reiterated the Officer’s update.

Members agreed to approve the application subject to the Conditions listed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved subject to the following Conditions:

1.     Time limits condition;

2.     Approved plans (BE1);

3.     Materials (BE2);

4.     Drainage conditions including Environment Agency surface water and overland flow conditions, and full design and maintenance details of the Sustainable Urban Drainage (BE1);

5.     Boundary treatment (BE22);

6.     Submission and agreement of finished floor and site levels (BE1);

7.     Prior to commencement bin storage facilities to be submitted and agreed (BE1);

8.     Condition restricting no outdoor storage (BE1 and E5);

9.     Travel plan (TP16);

10. Prior to commencement submission and agreement for new vehicle access and associated highways works (BE1);

11. Vehicle access, parking and servicing to be constructed prior to occupation of properties/commencement of use (BE1);

12. Condition(s) relating to full details of hard and soft landscaping, including planting scheme, maintenance, and replacement planting (BE1).

The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site.

It was noted that this application was deferred from the July Committee so that further information could be obtained from the Department of Education on the nature of the impact assessment referred to in a Freedom of Information (FOI) request that was tabled at the meeting.

It was reported that a response had been received from the Education Funding Agency (EFA) on behalf of the Department of Education (DfE), dated 15 July 2013, which stated that the analysis undertaken and referred to in the letter (FOI request) was not considered a sustainability assessment.  The Committee was advised therefore that the assessment was not material to the determination of the application in this case. 

Members were advised that United Utilities had confirmed that they raised no objections in principle to the scheme.  Further, it was reported that two further letters of representation had been received objecting to the scheme, raising issues relating to flooding, noise and disturbance from construction and deliveries particularly for residents of Newmoore Lane.  These issues had been addressed in the report.  It was noted that one letter made reference to a petition of 168 signatures objecting to the scheme but this had not been submitted to date.

Officers advised that the Environment Agency had confirmed that the additional flood risk information was acceptable and that the flood risk conditions previously requested were no longer appropriate.  A condition that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved details was however required, and would be dealt with through the terms of the suggested conditions already listed in the recommendation. 

The Council’s Highways Engineer advised that speed limits needed to be lowered on the junction of Newmoore Lane and Wharford Lane to ensure adequate visibility from driveways.  It was noted that there was no evidence from traffic accident records to suggest that the junction was unsafe.

The Committee was addressed by Mr Dempsey, a local resident.  He tabled the petition referred to above by Officers - 168 residents objecting to the location of the School, this was passed to Members.  He commented that the junction at Newmoore Lane and Wharford Lane would not cope with the increase in traffic which would exist despite claims that some pupils would be cycling to school.  He also referred to the issues related to building on a flood plain and that this could worsen in future.  He reiterated that the residents were not objecting to the school itself, but to the location of the site where it was to be built.

Mrs Freeman, a representative of the agent for the applicant and resident of Sandymoor, then addressed the Committee.  She referred to a letter she sent to Members dated 2 August 2013, which aside from providing clarification over the FOI request and response, responded to matters that were raised at the last meeting: 

·       The school site would be 150 metres away from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

The Committee was provided with an update on the position relating to the above Application/Appeal.  The application was refused at the June Committee meeting for the following reason:

“That the application be refused to minimise road traffic movements in the locality.”

On 4 July 2013 the Council received notice that the applicant had referred the matter to the Secretary of State by way of appeal against the Council decision.  This meant that the application would be determined by the Secretary of State following a Public Inquiry.  Although at this stage there were no details available as to the timetable to be adopted by the Secretary of State, the Council would have to make preparations relating to the position to be taken by the Council in respect of the appeal, and the Committee must be advised as to the logistics of holding the appeal and being represented at the appeal.  The Committee was advised of the possible cost implications on the Council.

Members were advised of the ways that the appeal could be approached.  Option 10.4 in the report was moved and seconded as the most cost effective approach to the appeal and Members were in favour of this.  It was agreed therefore, that Option 10.4 would be adopted.

RESOLVED:  That option 10.4 be adopted as the most cost effective approach to the appeal.