Agenda and minutes

          The Minutes of the meeting held on 8 April 2019, having been circulated, were taken as read and signed as a correct record.

To avoid any allegation of bias, Councillor Val Hill did not take part in the debate or vote on this item, as her husband Councillor Stan Hill, had made representations on the application relating to imposing certain conditions.

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

 

The Committee was advised that since the report had been published a further objection had been received objecting to the application and raised concerns about odour being carried by wind; the site attracting flies and seagulls; lorries being backed up on Ditton Road; air quality; the site’s proximity to residential area and cafes; and that the site should be shut down.  Michael Gove MP had been sent a copy of the objection.

 

The Committee was addressed by Mr Glynn, a local resident who objected to the application.  He argued that the local population had no control over this site and were subjected to many nuisances – air pollution; traffic density from HGV’s from this site and other surrounding companies; smells being emitted; flies and seagulls were attracted by the thousands; local companies including food outlets were in close proximity to the site; Moor Lane housing estate was close to the site where the residents already suffered plagues of flies and have to use fly traps in their homes.

 

He concluded by suggesting that there would be a further increase in traffic when the Silver Jubilee Bridge reopened and advised the Committee that three fires had occurred in the past at similar sites.  Mr Glynn objected to the location of the site for the reasons stated above, rather than the company operating it.

 

Members were then addressed by Mr Lawman, who spoke on behalf of the applicant.  He advised that the proposed new buildings would better manage emissions from the site due to the improvements made to doors, odour controls and the use of an airtight exchange system.   He also advised that boundary treatments were proposed to the front and rear of the site which would help with screening it from view and minimising noise levels.

 

Members queried how the site would be monitored, should the application be approved, and was there any recourse should the odour situation not be improved, as assured by the applicant with the development of the two new buildings.  In response it was reported that that monitoring of the site would be the responsibility of the Environment Agency who had the power to deal with this if the Environmental Permit conditions were breached.  Members requested an additional condition in relation to the operation of the Building (TFS4).

 

Members agreed that the application be approved, subject to the conditions listed below.

 

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved subject to conditions relating to the following:

 

1.     Standard 3 year timescale for commencement of development;

2.     Specifying approved and amended plans;

3.     Grampian style condition relating to off-site highway works to facilitate parking provision and curb re-alignment (TP12);

4.     Condition requiring a construction phasing plan – with works to be enabled to be carried out in any order (BE1);

5.     Condition requiring submission and agreement of a Construction Environmental Management Plan as outlined in the submitted ES (BE1 and MW1);

6.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

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

 

Since the publication of the agenda, Officers advised Members that the response from the Lead Local Flood Agency had been received and they raised no objections.  Conditions requested were covered by those included within the existing recommendation.

 

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved subject to conditions outlined below:

 

1.     Time limit – full permission;

2.     Approved plans;

3.     Proposed site levels (BE1);

4.     External facing materials (BE1 and BE2);

5.     Portakabin office / toilet scheme (BE1);

6.     Boundary treatments scheme (BE1);

7.     Breeding birds protection (GE21);

8.     Hours of construction (BE1);

9.     Visibility splays (BE1);

10. Construction Management Plan (Highways) (BE1);

11. Provision and retention of parking and servicing (BE1);

12. Cycle parking scheme (BE1);

13. Ground contamination (remediation and validation) (PR16);

14. Drainage strategy (PR16);

15. Foul and surface water on a separate system (PR16); and

16. Waste audit.

 

The Committee was advised that this application was not a full planning application but a change of use application.   A change of use from Class B1(a) offices to Class C3 (dwellinghouses) was permitted development under Part 3, Class O, of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as Amended).

 

Members were advised that there were a number of instances where a change of use was not permitted development by Class O; these were outlined in the report. 

 

None of these instances applied to this proposal so it was considered permitted development by Class O, 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:-

 

a)    transport and highways impacts of the development;

b)    contamination risks on the site;

c)     flooding risks on the site; and

d)    impacts of noise from commercial premises on the intended occupiers of the development, and the provisions of paragraph W shall apply in relation to any such application.

 

The report provided commentary on the four considerations listed above.

 

The Committee was addressed by the Clerk to Sandymoor Parish Council, Ms Tarry,  who raised concerns that a development of this type was not suitable for the area.  It was next to industrial businesses and warehouses and there were no local amenities for the people who would be living in the apartments.  She also stated that parking on Tudor Road was already a problem and that future residents would be disturbed by noise from lorries leaving the surrounding businesses premises.  The Committee thanked Ms Tarry for her representation but stated that at this stage the application must be determined with regards to the prior approval considerations (a) to (d), listed earlier.

 

Officers advised that the noise survey had now been provided, so the proposal was acceptable and prior approval would not be required (this was subject to the automatic condition that the development must be completed within a period of 3 years from the prior approval application date). 

 

Members were advised that Natural England had provided an objection in regard to additional recreational pressure resulting on the Mersey Estuary.  Officers advised that the comments did not take into account that the application was in relation to prior approval and the reasons why refusal could not be sustained on these grounds.

 

RESOLVED:  That prior approval for the change of use from Class B1(a) offices to Class C3 (dwellinghouses) was not required.

The following applications had been withdrawn:

 

19/00005/FUL

 

Proposed single storey side/rear extension together with first floor rear extension and alterations at 55 High Street, Hale, L24 4AE.

 

19/00006/LBC

 

Application for Listed Building Consent for proposed single storey side/rear extension together with first floor rear extension and alterations at 55 High Street, Hale, L24 4AE.

 

17/00513/FUL

 

Proposed development of new build warehouse with ancillary works at Hard Standing / Car Parking, Tudor Road, Runcorn, Cheshire, WA7 1TA.

 

19/00049/ADV

 

Application for proposed corporate advertising scheme for store under consideration within application 19/00020/FUL, comprising 1 no. externally illuminated projector sign; 1 no. non-illuminated fascia sign; 3 no. internally illuminated ‘Co-op’ logos; 1 no. non-illuminated wall panel and 3 no. non-illuminated banner frames at proposed Co-op Store at land bounded by Pitts Heath Lane and Otterburn Street, Sandymoor, Runcorn, Cheshire, WA7 1XU.

 

19/00071/PDE

 

Proposed single storey rear extension projecting from the rear wall by 8 metres.  The extension has a maximum height of 4 metres and an eaves height of 2.9 metres at Lenox Farm, Ramsbrook Lane, Hale, Liverpool, L24 5RP.

 

18/00585/COU

 

Proposed change of use from B1 (Business) to C2 (Residential Care Home) at Axis House, Tudor Road, Runcorn, Cheshire, WA7 1BD.

 

 

The following appeals had been received / were in progress:

 

Enforcement Notice

 

Without planning permission, the change of use of an incidental residential annex to 256 Birchfield Road, Widnes, to a separate dwelling.

 

18/00363/OUT

 

Application for outline planning permission with appearance, landscaping and scale reserved for single two storey dwelling in side garden area at 3 Nickleford Hall Drive, Widnes.

 

18/00526/COU

 

Proposed change of use from pharmacy to hot food takeaway at Croft Pharmacy, 4 Danescroft, Widnes, Cheshire, WA8 4NS.

 

18/00218/FUL

 

Proposed erection of 1 no. dwelling attached to the side of the existing property at 20 Maple Avenue, Runcorn, Cheshire, WA7 5LB.

 

19/00010/COU

 

Proposed change of use from former sandwich shop to hot food takeaway (use class A5) at 39 Bechers, Widnes, Cheshire, WA8 4TE.

 

18/00117/FUL

 

Proposed removal of the existing equine and WC building and erection of 1 no. residential static park home at ‘Ponderosa’ land to South West of junction between Newton Lane and Chester Road, Daresbury, Cheshire.