Agenda and minutes

          The Minutes of the meeting held on 6 December 2016, having been circulated, were taken as read and signed as a correct record.

The Committee was advised that a matter had arisen which required immediate attention by the Committee (Minute DEV36 refers), therefore, pursuant to Section 100 B(4) and 100 E and to avoid any unnecessary delay by waiting for the next Committee meeting in February, the Chair ruled that the item be considered as a matter of urgency.

 

At the opening of the meeting the Chair addressed the public and explained the procedures that would apply to all matters before the Committee with particular reference to this item.  The Chair requested the public to observe and respect these procedures, so that the business of the Committee could be conducted in an orderly manner.  

 

The Planning Officer then introduced the item.

 

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

 

The Committee was reminded of the representations made in advance of the meeting, which were all included in the report.  Since the publication of the agenda it was reported that further objections had been received by email, reiterating the concerns previously raised by residents, many emphasising the need for care beds and the retention of the use of the building as a care home and the health and safety issues.  The Officers confirmed that the Local Planning Authority (LPA) had no information regarding a possible reopening of the site.  The current owner of Lilycross had confirmed that he did not know that anyone was interested in the purchase of Lilycross to use the building as a care home.

 

The Officers referred the Committee to the published supplementary information update list which provided information in relation to objections received regarding the existing use of the site.  Two further representations had been received in support of the application; and the typographical error in Condition 2 on page 51 was noted.  The additional information in the supplementary information update list regarding retention of use was amplified.

 

The Committee was addressed by Mr Mike Carr, who spoke against the application on behalf of the objectors.  He argued:

 

·       That the sewerage requirements would be double that of the care home as per the Environment Agency’s comments;

·       There was a fear of crime amongst local residents despite there being no Police evidence of this at comparable sites;

·       That the site was in a Green Belt location and would result in increased traffic and movement of people and intensification of use; and

·       That the development cannot be sustainable economically, socially or environmentally.

 

Mr Simon Dorset, a representative from SERCO on behalf of the applicant, then addressed the Committee.  He began by introducing COMPASS (Commercial and Operating Managers Procuring Asylum support) contracts with the Home Office, of which SERCO was awarded the North West area.  He discussed the suitability of the site for the purpose being requested and understood that residents had questions and fears in relation to this, which were answered in detail in the report.  He explained how the asylum seekers would be managed once they were placed in the initial accommodation and the duty of care placed upon SERCO until they were dispersed to other accommodation.  He stated that the impact of the site on the local community would be small and healthcare would be provided under the contract with the exception of emergency care.  Therefore there would be little or no impact on the local healthcare  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

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

 

The Committee was addressed by Mr Chris Forbes, a neighbouring local resident.  He wished to object to the application citing: that to the south of the site was a sewerage cake plant, which when moved caused a stench in the area and affected his property; and Green Belt issues. 

 

Mr Keith Summers, a representative of the applicant, then addressed the Committee explaining the proposals.  He further stated that all planning policies had been addressed by the applicant.

 

In response to Mr Forbes’ comments regarding smells from the nearby sewerage plant, which was also questioned by one Member, it was confirmed that the Council’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO) had received no complaints in relation to this.  The EHO had stated that the development would not be unduly affected by the plant.

 

After taking all matters into consideration the Committee agreed to approve the application.

 

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved subject to the following conditions and Section 106 for provision of off-site public open space.

 

1.     Time limit;

2.     Drawing numbers (BE1, BE2 and GE1);

3.     Site levels (BE1);

4.     Surface water regulation system (PR16 and CS23);

5.     Requirement for outfall to be agreed with United Utilities (PR16 and CS23);

6.     Phase 2 ground contamination report required (PR14 and CS23);

7.     Visibility splay retention (TP17);

8.     Facing materials to be agreed (BE1 and BE2);

9.     Breeding birds protection (GE21);

10. Tree protection (BE1);

11. Hours of construction (BE1);

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

13. CEMP inclusive of details of ecological mitigation (GE21);

14. Landscape scheme and implementation (BE1 and GE21);

15.  Swift boxes (GE21);

16. Reasonable avoidance measures – bats (GE21);

17. Japanese knotweed method statement (GE21);

18. Japanese knotweed validation report (GE21);

19. Site Waste Management Plan (WM8);

20. Bat friendly lighting scheme (GE21);

21. Ground contamination (Phase 2 site investigation, remediation strategy, validation report) (PR14);

22. Bin storage details (BE2);

23. Electric vehicle charging points (CS19);

24. Removal of Class A and E permitted development (GE1);

25. Any new or extended hardstanding (flags, clock paving, tarmac, concrete) within the property boundary shall be constructed in such a way as to prevent surface water runoff from the hardstanding onto the highway (TP17);

26. Definitive drawing of residential curtilage (GE1);

27. Retention of rear boundary hedging throughout the lifetime of the development (GE1 and NPPF);

28. No access created from rear of properties onto surrounding Green Belt land throughout lifetime of the development (GE1 and NPPF); and

29. Provision of pedestrian link including offsite highway works (BE1).

 

 

 

 

The Committee was advised that an appeal had been lodged in respect of planning application 15/00266/OUTEIA, received on 4 November 2016. 

 

Officers provided detailed background information in relation to the appeal and advised Members of the actions to be taken.  It was concluded that the Council must defend the appeal at this stage due to the lack of information on key matters that go to the heart of the proposal’s determination.   This was endorsed by the Committee, who authorised the Operational Director – Policy, Planning and Transportation, to take any actions necessary in respect of the appeal.

 

RESOLVED:  That the Committee:

 

1.     endorses the points made in the report; and

 

2.     authorises the Operational Director – Policy, Planning and Transportation, to take any actions which he considers appropriate with respect to the appeal.