Agenda and minutes

            The Minutes of the meeting held on 18 January 2022, having been circulated, were taken as read and signed as a correct record.

The Divisional Manager explained that the Delivery and Allocations Local Plan (DALP) was to be adopted at the full Council meeting the following night.  Therefore, if the Plan was adopted then those policies of that Plan would apply to the applications being considered.  It was explained how this would affect the consideration of the applications before the Committee tonight.

To avoid any allegation of bias, Councillor Bradshaw did not vote on the following item as he addressed the Committee representing local residents in his capacity as Ward Councillor for Sandymoor.

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

Officers advised members of a correction to the report, at paragraph 2 on page 15, which should read ‘industries that have the potential to cause noise, smell, dust, noxious omissions, nuisance or unacceptable loss of amenity to surrounding uses were unlikely to be acceptable within or adjacent to residential areas or within business parks or near recreational areas’.

Dr Willet, Vice Chairman of Sandymoor Parish Council, addressed the Committee.  Although he agreed with the Environmental Health response regarding noise, he raised concerns over the proximity of the site, at just 100m, to a nearby nursery with 50 children and other businesses, and to the Evenwood Pub, which sees between 50 to 100 customers per day at busy times.  He stated that neither of these were raised in the consultation response provided by Environmental Health.  He also raised concerns about the measuring of emissions from the site and how these would be controlled to ensure they were not exceeded, suggesting a commitment was needed from the applicant in this regard.

The Committee was then addressed by Mr Wilkinson the applicant.  He provided some background information on Metrohm and what they did, stating that the Company did not make anything on site, they provided instruments to UK and Ireland customers.  He added:

·         They had a small lab with two members of staff and had no plans to expand the operation;

·         The company had been operating for 12 years in the present location;

·         They did not carry out tests all the time;

·         The lab used water based chemistry so chemicals were in liquid form, which limits the emission of gas;

·         Testing was done in sealed containers, for the wellbeing of staff and these were correctly stored and disposed of afterwards; and

·         there were dozens of other labs in the region with similar extraction methods in place, eg at Daresbury Science Park.

Councillor Bradshaw then addressed the Committee, as local Ward Councillor for Sandymoor, raising concerns over the lack of control over the amounts of gas being emitted at any one time.  He stated that there were no amounts given in the report on the levels of gas, other than they would be small amounts and there were no controls on these either.  He suggested that the application be deferred until the limitations were specified by the applicant.

The Environmental Health Officer answered Members’ questions.  In response to concerns over gas being emitted, it was reported that because the quantities involved with this application were so low, there was no requirement for the applicant to be monitored by Environmental Health.  It was noted that the regulations regarding this issue were set by Government, and the applicant was compliant with these.  The level of emissions therefore were acceptable.

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

1.    Standard 3 year permission;

2.    Condition specifying plans; and

3.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

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

Since the publication of the report Officers advised that the final comments from the Highways Officer and the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) had been received, as outlined in the published AB update list.  Further, there were no objections from the Council’s Contaminated Land Officer.  One additional condition was suggested for offsite highways works to Sewell/Perry Street, also mentioned on the update list.

The Committee was addressed by Mr Dacre, a representative of the applicant.  He advised that this scheme consisted of 100% affordable housing and its architecture was in keeping with the wider historical area of the Town, as the Client had requested.  The scheme, which had been in development since 2020, was fully compliant with planning policies and was of a high design quality.

The Committee agreed that the application be approved subject to the additional condition above being included.

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

a)    entering into a legal or other agreement relating to securing financial contributions in lieu of on-site open space provision and affordable housing (this could be secured by way of either a condition or the legal agreement).

b)    conditions relating to the following:

1.    Standard time limits condition (BE1);

2.    Approved plans condition (BE1 and TP17);

3.    Securing pre construction management plan (BE1);

4.    External facing materials (BE1 and BE2);

5.    Conditions for landscaping, planting, management and maintenance (BE1 and BE22);

6.    Breeding birds protection (GE21 and CS20);

7.    Bird nesting boxes scheme (GE21 and CS20);

8.    Information leaflet for Mersey Estuary (GE21 and CS20);

9.    Method statement for invasive species (GE21 and CS20);

10. Electric vehicle charging points scheme (CS19);

11. Parking, access and servicing provision (BE1, TP6, TP7, TP12, TP15 and TP17);

12. Submission of ground investigation report, mitigation measures and validation (PR14 and CS23);

13. Securing report mitigation measures (PR8);

14. Drainage strategy and verification conditions (PR16 and CS23);

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

16. Use class restriction to C3 (BE1); and

17. Offsite highways works to Sewell/Perry Street (BE1).

And

c)    that if the S106 Agreement or alternative arrangement was not executed within a reasonable period of time, authority be delegated to the Operational Director – Policy, Planning and Transportation, in consultation with the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Committee, to refuse the application.

To avoid any allegation of bias, Councillor Thompson did not take part in the vote on the following item, as he was a supporter of the Viking Park in his capacity as Portfolio Holder 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 updated site plans had been received, with an amendment made in line with comments from the Highways Officer, to include a tactile crossing, which removed the need for Condition 9 – Highways off-site connection works.  Officers requested however that this condition be reinstated, but be amended to require that such works, now included within the application boundary, be implemented prior to occupation of the building.

Mr Harvey, the applicant addressed the Committee in support of the application.  He stated that the proposal was part of the 3MG site, a regeneration area, and would contribute towards the economy of Halton and create up to 200 jobs for local people.  Further, the site was suitable for this development as it was well located with good transport links and fitted into the industrial nature of the surrounding area.  No objections had been received from the public.

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

1.    Standard 3 year permission;

2.    Approved plans;

3.    Site levels;

4.    Materials;

5.    Landscape scheme;

6.    Boundary details;

7.    Electric vehicle charging provision;

8.    Cycle storage;

9.    Highways/pedestrian connection works;

10. Travel plan;

11. Contaminated land remediation strategy;

12. Contaminated land verification report;

13. Piling risk assessment;

14. Environment Agency unidentified contamination;

15. Drainage strategy;

16. SUDS verification report;

17. Waste audit or a similar mechanism (eg. a site waste management plan);

18. MEAS – Construction Environmental Management Plan to include Reasonable Avoidance Measures (RAMs);

19. Mitigation of habitat loss and enhancement as in approved report (section 6);

20. Ecology lighting scheme;

21. Breeding birds;

22. Hours of construction; and

23. Access, service and parking areas.