Minutes:
The Committee was advised that the original planning application was submitted in 2013 for a 1650 pupil high school and recommended for approval at Development Control Committee on 4 November 2013. Although the proposal was in accordance with the Council’s Policies that dealt with risk, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) advised against the application due to its proximity to the INEOS site and the potential associated risks in the event of a chlorine gas release. Following the Committee’s decision to approve the application the HSE requested the Secretary of State to call the application in, triggering a public inquiry.
It was reported that this public inquiry was never held as the application was eventually withdrawn by the applicant following discussion between the HSE, the School and the Education Funding Agency.
It was highlighted that the application before the Committee was a new scheme that sought to deal with the issues that were raised in objection to the earlier scheme.
The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site.
It was reported that since writing the Committee report the updates had been received from Natural England; Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service, HBC’s Open Spaces Division and Sport England, all of which were detailed in the published update list. Members were also advised of one further representation from a local resident regarding the changes made to relocate the bin store and water tank.
It was noted that the condition recommended by network rail from a vibro-impact assessment should be removed as it was not necessary. Also, further conditions were recommended for the detail of surface water drainage and for an updated construction traffic management plan.
Members were advised that very careful consideration had been given to the advice provided by the HSE and their position which was to ‘advise against the grant of planning permission on grounds of public safety’. These matters were considered in the context of the Core Strategy and Unitary Development Plan policies, together with the Planning for Risk Supplementary Planning Document.
Members were advised that if they were minded to approve the application, the HSE would need to be given formal notification and provided 21 days for them to decide whether or not they would like to request the application to be called-in by the Secretary of State. Officers would require delegated authority to issue the decision following their response.
The Committee received speaker Andy Young, a local resident, who did not object to the School itself, but objected to the position of the buildings. He stated that the scheme could be improved simply by relocating the footprint and argued that the School building and the industrial tank were both too close to residents. He referred to the HSE decision regarding the previous application and its proximity to INEOS and the dangers and that this application proposed to increase pupil numbers and therefore increasing the risk. He also stated that the scheme was overbearing and unneighbourly and would result in noise and nuisance; as well as loss of privacy and amenity for surrounding residents. He questioned why the School was next to the residential area when there was such a big field that could be made use of.
The Committee was then addressed by Ward Councillor Gareth Stockton, who spoke on behalf of the local residents. He said the residents understood the need to update the School but felt that it was on top of them with it being so close to the houses. He stated that there would be privacy issues from the main school building and questioned why it could not be relocated on such a large plot of land.
Members discussed the HSE’s response detailed on page 47 of the report and Officers provided clarity over the assessments made and how the risk of death was determined by them and how it was determined using the Council’s policy.
After taking the Officers report, the updates provided and the representations into consideration, the Committee voted to approve the application.
RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to conditions and the amendments to the conditions stated above and the application not being called in by the Secretary of State:
1. Time limits condition;
2. Approved plans (BE1);
3. Materials (BE2);
4. Drainage condition(s) (BE1);
5. Submission and agreement of existing and finish site levels and floor levels of building (BE1);
6. Vehicle access, parking, servicing;
7. Condition(s) relating to full details of hard and soft landscaping, including planting scheme, maintenance, and replacement planting (BE1);
8. The hours of demolition/construction of building onsite shall be restricted to 0700 hours to 1800 hours Monday to Friday, 0730 hours to 1400 hours on Saturday with no work at any other time including Sundays and Public Holidays (BE1 and BE2);
9. No trees, shrubs or hedges within the site which are shown as being retained on the approved plans shall be felled, uprooted, wilfully damaged or destroyed, or removed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority (BE1 and BE2);
10. Any trees, shrubs or hedges removed without such consent, or which die or become severely damaged or seriously diseased within 5 years from the completion of the development hereby permitted shall be replaced (BE1 and BE2);
11. Hedge or tree removal shall be undertaken outside the bird nesting season; where this was not possible an ecologist to inspect prior to works taking place (GE21);
12. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the mitigation measures outlined in the submitted ecological surveys (GE21);
13. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the proposed construction management/phasing plans submitted with the application unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority;
14. The Travel Plan shall be updated and reviewed in accordance with current guidelines with appropriate new targets and measures set. It should be regularly monitored in accordance with the timescales set out in the plan with the results being submitted to the Local Planning Authority;
15. Full details of surface water drainage; and
16. Submission of an amended construction traffic management plan.