Agenda and minutes

          The Minutes of the meetings held on 2 March 2015 and 9 March 2015 having been circulated, were taken as read and signed as a correct record.

          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.

It was noted that outline planning permission for up to 50 dwellings was granted on this site by the Committee in 2013; therefore the principle of residential development on the site was already established.

In relation to the first application, Officers advised that further to the representations referred to in the report; a Ward Councillor had requested that a green buffer of planting be introduced between the Foxley Heath Estate and the development site.  Although Officers advised that this was not necessary, condition number 5 could be amended to secure the submission of a landscaping scheme if the Committee requested.  Further, two additional independent material planning objections had been received since the production of the report.  These representations raised no new issues to those already discussed in the report. 

The second application proposed to discharge Clause 5.2 of Section 106 Agreement dated 28 April 1995, between Liverpool Roman Catholic Archdiocesan Trustees Incorporated; Cheshire County Council; ICI Chemicals and Polymers Ltd; and Halton Borough Council.  The Clause related to the land which was attached to the Section 106 Agreement being used as greenspace only.  The land subject of the full planning application fell within this area and therefore the discharge was requested.

The Committee was addressed by Mr Symes who objected to the development on behalf of local residents.  He argued that no public consultation had been carried out in respect of the proposal and therefore the residents were not aware it.  He stated that the area did not benefit from adequate sporting facilities as stated in the report and that the fields of the proposed site were well used by locals.  He referred to a covenant in a Section 106 Agreement and objected to its removal.  Also he said that brownfield sites should be used over greenfield sites and that the development would cause an increase in traffic on Liverpool Road and therefore an increase in pollution. 

Mr Artis addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant.  He stated that he understood the concerns of local residents but reassured them that the applicant had worked closely with the Council and addressed all concerns raised by them.  He also stated that Sports England had raised no objections to the application as stated in the officer’s report.

In response to Mr Symes’ reference to a covenant on the land, the Council’s Legal Representative informed the Committee that the covenant which had existed under the Section 106 Agreement no longer existed and was defunct.  The wording was being removed for purely technical reasons.   

Members considered the application, representations and updated information presented to them, and agreed that the application be approved subject to an amendment to condition number 5 to include the submission of a landscaping scheme.

RESOLVED:  That

a)    Application 15/00013/FUL – the application be approved subject to the following conditions:

1.     Time limit – full permission;

2.     Plans approved;

3.     Site levels  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

To avoid any allegation of bias, Councillor R Hignett declared a Disclosable Other Interest in the following item as he was a Member of the PSJV Sci-Tech Daresbury Board.

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

Officers advised the Committee that the additional and amended information requested from the applicant with regards to highway matters, as mentioned in the officer’s report, had not yet been received.  They requested delegated authority to approve the application once this had been received.

Members approved the application subject to the above delegation and the conditions listed below.

RESOLVED:  To delegate authority to the Operational Director, in consultation with the Chairman or Vice Chairman, to resolve outstanding issues and approve the application subject to the following conditions and a Section 106 Agreement for highway improvements:

1.     Time limit – full permission;

2.     Approved plans (BE1 and BE2);

3.     Details of improvements of connectivity to Keckwick Lane South (BE1 and TP17);

4.     Facing retaining wall materials (BE1 and BE2);

5.     Landscaping scheme and implementation (BE1);

6.     Boundary treatments scheme (BE22);

7.     Tree protection measures (BE1 and GE27);

8.     Breeding birds protection (GE21);

9.     Details of bat and bird boxes (GE21);

10. Hours of construction (BE1);

11. Submission of a Construction Management Plan (Highways) (BE1);

12. Drainage strategy (PR16); and

13. Submission of details of future lighting (BE1 and GE21).

The Board was advised that a matter had arisen which required immediate attention by the Board (Minute 57 refers).  Therefore, pursuant to Section 100 B (4) and 100 E and due to the timeframe for determination of the application, the Chairman ruled that the item be considered as a matter of urgency.

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 not a full planning application and was permitted under Class J, subject to the condition that before beginning the development, the developer shall apply to the Local Planning Authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority would be required as to:

·       Transport and highways impacts of the development;

·       Contamination risks on the site; and

·       Flooding risks on the site.

Officers advised that based on the above considerations the proposal was acceptable subject to the attachment of a condition which secured the submission of precise details relating to site access arrangements and parking provision and its implementation prior to the first use of the building for residential purposes.

Members considered the above matters and agreed that the proposal was acceptable and that prior approval for change of use was required.  The proposal was approved subject to a condition relating to parking provision.

RESOLVED:  That the prior approval for the change of use from Class B1(a) offices to Class C3 (dwellinghouses) was required and was approved subject to a condition relating to parking provision.