Minutes:
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 the Committee of the following updates:
· A further two letters of objection had been received raising concerns already addressed in the report;
· Safeguarding issues and suggested conditions had been discussed with Liverpool Airport, who were satisfied that the issues relating to bird hazard management and construction cranes could be adequately addressed by informative attached to any planning permission;
· With reference to objections made by Halebank Parish Council (HBPC), it was confirmed that the proposal was in accordance with Waste Policy WM5 as the site was within the vicinity of the area for search;
· The Council’s retained adviser had confirmed that they considered that sufficient information had been provided to demonstrate compliance with the Waste Local Plan;
· Further to the claims made by HBPC that the proposals contradicted Waste Plan Policy S06; Members were referred to their comments and the Policy extract on page 17 of the report. It was noted that the proposals were considered consistent with the Policy and that the issues and impacts identified for consideration within the Policy were addressed in the report ;
· The Environmental Health Officer had confirmed that they raised no objections; and
· By way of clarification, the reference within the highways considerations to comparisons with the site being brought back into lawful use was an error, and the comparisons were made with a general industrial use; the results of these comparisons and advice of the Highways Officer were as stated within the report.
The Committee was addressed by Mr Bain, a Halebank resident since the 1960’s, who spoke in objection to the application. He commented that Halebank was now thriving with successful industries and commercial facilities; however he stated that this application would not be good for Halebank. He argued that this type of industry would affect residents in the area and asked the Committee to consider the children and future of the area; referring to a quote from the World Health Organisation.
A further objector then addressed the Committee, Mr John Anderton, a Halebank Parish Councillor, who had been a resident in the area since birth. His objections relating to noise, odour, pollution and traffic were addressed in the report. He argued that the application was not in an allocated site (referring to Policy WM1 of the Joint Waste Management Plan) and was not a site within an area of search; both of these matters were addressed in the report. He also commented that the site would be accessed through a residential area using heavy industrial vehicles which would impact on the residents. He advised the Committee that if a decision was made to approve the application the HBPC would challenge this.
Mr Bridgewood then addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant and addressed the objectors’ concerns relating to noise, odour and traffic. He stated that this site would be one of 350 sites all over the UK, which were run very effectively by the applicant.
Councillor Joe Roberts, a Ward Councillor for Ditton, then addressed the Committee in support of the objectors and also on behalf of his Ward colleagues. He raised concerns over the application as there were similar sites in Halton that had problems relating to odour, dust, noise, infestation due to food waste, and increased traffic. He stated that Hale Road was already polluted by traffic and this application would only add to the problems. He had concerns over the proximity of the site to a housing estate and that it would have a negative effect on future house building in the area. He urged the Committee to refuse the application.
Members discussed the application and requested clarification of the objectors’ comments with regards to noise and odour; increased traffic into the area; suitability of the site in Ditton and how the figure of 85,000 tonnes was derived.
As stated in the report it was noted that the application had been determined in accordance with the Halton Unitary Development Plan, Halton Core Strategy Local Plan and the Joint Waste Local Plan (JWLP). Officers advised that Policy WM5 within the JWLP addressed areas of search, (which included areas within the vicinity of the industrial areas of Ditton). In relation to noise and odour, it was reported that the Environmental Health Advisor had stated this would be minimal so raised no objections. Officers advised that the tonnage of 85,000 was not large in comparison with larger sites, so this amount was consistent with a smaller sized operation as this was, so was considered acceptable.
In response to traffic and highway concerns, the Highways Officer explained the breakdown of movements of vehicles resulting from the 85,000 tonnes and advised that the increase in traffic on Hale Road would not be significant enough to have an impact, so they raised no objections to the application.
Members requested the advice of the Council’s Legal Advisor in relation to potential legal challenges made by HBPC should the application be approved; and made by the applicant should the application be refused. He advised that a judicial review in the instance of a challenge made by HBPC made on the ground put forward that evening (namely, that Policy WM5 of the JLWMP did not apply because the application site was not in the vicinity of an area of search and that it was an unallocated site) was unlikely to be successful. If the Council was to refuse the application on the basis of the issues discussed during the debate, a public inquiry would most certainly go in favour of the applicant – no evidence having been put forward to dispute the technical evidence included within the agenda.
After taking into consideration the application before them including updates and after hearing the speakers’ objections and comments and responses provided, the Committee voted on the application which was approved by majority, 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. Requiring submission and agreement of a Construction Environmental Management Plan to include wheel wash and construction hours;
4. Materials condition(s), requiring submission and agreement of building external finishing materials (BE2);
5. Condition requiring submission and agreement of details of weighbridge office;
6. Boundary treatment condition(s) requiring replacement entrance gates/fencing to be colour coated with colour to be agreed (BE2);
7. Vehicle access, parking, servicing etc to be constructed prior to occupation of properties/commencement of use (BE1);
8. Grampian style condition relating to off-site highway works to facilitate parking provision (TP12);
9. Requiring submission and agreement of cycle parking details (TP6);
10. Condition restricting waste throughput to 85,000 tonnes per annum;
11. Condition restricting waste types accepted/processed;
12. Condition restricting hours of waste delivery, processing and export;
13. Condition(s) restricting external storage locations, height and processing;
14. Condition(s) requiring waste to be delivered/exported in sealed/covered wagons (BE1);
15. Condition relating to contamination/requiring development be carried out in accordance with the approved plan for unexpected contamination (PR14/15);
16. Conditions relating to/requiring submission and agreement of detailed surface water / highway drainage scheme including attenuation / interceptors (BE1/PR5); and
17. Submission and agreement of Site Waste Management Plan (WM8).