Agenda and minutes

          The Minutes of the meeting held on 4 July 2016, having been circulated, were taken as read and signed as a correct record.

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

 

Officers advised the Committee that this application had been approved previously but was never taken forward.   In order to encourage a start on site it was considered appropriate to request that the standard periods for submission of reserved matters and implementation be reduced. 

 

The Committee agreed to these proposals and the application was approved.

 

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved subject to:

 

a)    The applicant entering into a Legal Agreement in relation to the payment of a commuted sum for the Earle Road / Gyratory improvements and a contribution in lieu of any shortfall of onsite open space provision.

 

b)    Conditions relating to the following:

 

1.     Standard outline condition(s) for the submission of reserved matters applications, with reduction in periods for submission of reserved matters and implementation (BE1);

2.     Plans condition listing relevant drawings i.e. site location / red edge (BE1 and TP17);

3.     Conditions for the submission of contaminated land report, remediation strategy and validation;

4.     Conditions for the submission of full foul and surface water drainage details of the site (BE1);

5.     Prior to commencement, submission of levels (BE1);

6.     Prior to commencement, submission of materials (BE1 and CS11);

7.     Condition(s) for submission of hard and soft landscaping (BE1);

8.     Prior to commencement, submission of a construction / traffic management plan which will include wheel cleansing details, and timetable setting out timescales and phasing of the development (TP17);

9.     Avoidance of actively nesting birds (BE1);

10. Prior to commencement, details of on-site biodiversity action plan for measures to be incorporated in the scheme to encourage wildlife (bird, bat and invertebrate boxes) (GE21);

11. Prior to commencement, details of a landscape proposal and an associated management plan to be submitted and approved (BE1, GE21);

12. Prior to commencement, details of boundary treatment (BE22);

13. Provision of a Site Waste Management Plan (WM8);

14. Provision of bins (WM19);

15. A1, A2 and A4 opening hours restricted to 0700 to 2330 hours;

16. No deliveries to A1, A2 and A4 uses between 1900 and 0700 hours;

17. Submission of a travel plan;

18. Noises mitigation scheme to be submitted with reserved matters;

19. Construction hours for work audible at the site boundary; and

20. Details of the proposed public transport provision and road connections.

 

c)     That if the Legal Agreement was not executed within a reasonable period of time, authority is delegated to the Operational Director – Policy, Planning and Transportation, in consultation with the Chair or Vice Chair of this Committee to refuse the application on the grounds that it failed to comply with Policy CS7 of the Halton Core Strategy Local Plan.

In order to avoid any allegation of bias, Councillor Morley did not take part in the debate or vote on the following item as he was a Board Member of Manchester Port Health Authority and was a Member of the Runcorn Locks Restoration Society.

 

 

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

 

Members were referred to the update list which advised of an additional response received from the Port Health Authority (a letter which was attached to the update list) and an additional objection regarding the lack of information provided outlining the reason for demolishing the building and suggesting that the site be used as a marina instead.  It was also confirmed that the Local Lead Flood Authority had confirmed no objections subject to detailed drainage design secured by condition.  Natural England was now satisfied that there would be no likely effect on protected species following the Council’s advice but this would be subject to the recommended conditions listed.

 

It was also reported that two further emails had been received, one to the Local Planning Authority and one to the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee, details of which were provided by Officers. 

 

Further objections had been received from Manchester Ship Canal Company (part of the Peel Ports Group), Manchester Port Health Authority, Peel Land and Property and Bridgwater Canal Company.  Members were advised of the principle concerns of these bodies which included proposed expansion of trade and associated investment; noise pollution from the docks and dust pollution from cargo.  It was noted that the Council’s Environmental Health Officer had accepted the findings of the noise assessment, as discussed in the Officer’s report, and raised no objections. 

 

Officers also advised the Committee of a further recommended condition to be added, specifically relating to the interim landscaping and maintenance of the retained canal corridor.  

 

The Committee was addressed by Mr Marshall from the Manchester Ship Canal Company, who objected to the proposal on their behalf.  He stated that Port Runcorn was a successful Port for the Company that operated 24 hours 7 days a week and employed 40 staff.  He raised concerns relating to the future occupiers of the properties and the potential for complaints relating to noise and dust pollution from the Port and cargo.  He argued that the noise impact survey already carried out was not robust enough and that there would be an impact on the environment.  He quoted Policy number PR7 from the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and advised of the objections made by the Manchester Port Health Authority.  He requested that further investigations be made into the potential for noise and dust pollution.

 

Ms Holly Bryant, a representative from Halton College, then addressed the Committee.  She spoke in support of the application and began by providing Members with the history of the viability of the College Campus.  She stated that all planning requirements with regards to the site had been met and that a Legal Agreement would secure land in relation to the Bridgewater Canal restoration. She disputed that there would be noise pollution from the Port and advised that the development would provide quality housing with sound proofing.

 

Officers clarified Policy PR7 in relation to the risk  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

In order to avoid any allegation of bias Councillor Cole did not take part in the debate or vote on the following item as he was a Board Member of Halton Housing Trust.

 

 

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

 

Following the Officers presentation of the proposal, the Committee agreed that the application be approved.

 

RESOLVED:  That the application is approved subject to the conditions suggested which are linked to the Parameter Plan 02 – Use (Drawing Number 05507 B3_00_0101 Rev A).

 

Conditions applicable to all parts of the proposal

 

1.     Drainage strategy (PR16);

2.     Implementation of access road from Warrington Road and adjacent residential development (BE1);

3.     Construction Management Plan (BE1);

4.     Off-site highway works (BE1); and

5.     Highway to be made good following connection works (BE1).

 

Conditions – Office and Depot – Full Permission

 

1.     Time limit – full permission;

2.     Approved plans;

3.     Site levels (BE1);

4.     Facing material (BE1);

5.     Hard landscaping and boundary treatments (BE1);

6.     Soft landscaping (BE1);

7.     Implementation of parking and servicing (BE1);

8.     Implementation of cycle parking (BE1);

9.     Remediation strategy and completion report (PR14);

10. Noise mitigation measures (PR8);

11. Electric vehicle charging points (CS19);

12. Travel plan (TP16); and

13. Drainage strategy (PR16)

 

Conditions – Residential Development of up to 10 dwellings – outline permission

 

1.     Time limit – outline permission;

2.     Submission of reserved matters;

3.     Ground contamination (PR14);

4.     Site levels (BE1);

5.     Noise mitigation measures (PR8);

6.     Electric vehicle charging points (CS19); and

7.     Drainage strategy (PR16).