Agenda and minutes

            The Minutes of the meeting held on 14 December 2020, 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.

To avoid any allegation of bias, Councillor Hignett did not take part in the debate or vote on the following item, as he has dealt with the application previously in his capacity as Portfolio Holder for Physical Environment on Executive Board.

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

Since the publication of the agenda, Members were advised that further to the outstanding consultation response outlined on page 23 of the report, Natural England had confirmed that they raised no objection subject to the proposed mitigation being secured.  Officers were satisfied that this could be achieved by securing conditions to those listed.

In response to Members concerns over the increase in traffic movements and the need for a 20 mph speed limit on Ditton Bridge, it was explained that a traffic assessment had been carried out with no issues reported and the speed limit on Ditton Bridge was thought to be in place due to the integrity of the sidewalls, so was a safety issue.   

A query was also raised about how the scheme fitted with the redevelopment of other land in the area including the Widnes Timber Yard.  It was commented that this application sought to bring forward land within the Council’s ownership to take advantage of potential funding; the Council’s Major Projects Team had been liaising with wider landowners about bringing those sites forward for development.

The Committee agreed that the application be approved subject to the conditions listed.

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

1.    Standard outline conditions for the submission of reserved matters applications (BE1);

2.    Plans condition listing relevant drawings ie. Site location / red edge, access details (BE1 and TP17);

3.    Submission and agreement of a submission of a construction management plan including measures to prevent pollution of controlled waters to include an ecological buffer of 5M from the bankside of Ditton Brook (BE1/GE21);

4.    Submission of existing and agreement of proposed site levels (BE1);

5.    Restricting deep or piled foundation solutions (PR5/PR14/CS23);

6.    Breeding birds protection (GE21 and CS20);

7.    Bat and bird nesting boxes scheme (GE21 and CS20);

8.    Electric Vehicle Charging Points Scheme (CS19);

9.    Securing updated noise report / implementation of noise mitigation measures (PR2);

10. Securing updated noise report / implementation of noise mitigation measures (PR2);

11. Submission of detailed remediation method statement, mitigation measures and validation (PR14 and CS23);

12. Drainage strategy based on the SUDS hierarchy, including its implementation, maintenance, management and verification of the scheme (PR16 and CS23);

13. Foul and surface water on a separate system (PR16 and CS23);

14. Materials Management Plan / Waste Audit (WM8);

15. Submission and agreement of a householder information pack;

16. Submission and agreement of Japanese Knotweed eradication scheme and validation report confirming the site had been remediated for 12 months;

17. Submission and agreement of a sensitive lighting scheme for Ditton Brook; and

18. Submission and agreement of ecological / biodiversity enhancement scheme including 5m ecological brook buffer and native planting is designed into the scheme.

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

One Member commented that a retrospective planning application of this nature showed a flagrant disregard for the planning rules, on the part of the agent, who should know better.   He suggested that the 3 year approval should begin from when the Portakabin was erected last September 2020, not from the day it is approved, and moved an amendment to this effect.  The amendment was seconded, but defeated following a vote.  The Committee then voted on the original recommendation, which was carried by majority, so the application was approved as per the Officer’s recommendation.

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

1.    Time limit – temporary period of 3 years; and

2.    A scheme for the reinstatement of the site following the expiry of the 3 year period.