Minutes:
The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site.
It was noted that the published AB Update List provided responses from the Council’s Ecological Advisor on concerns submitted by Heath Ward Member Councillor Ratcliffe since the publication of the agenda, in relation to the potential for damage to the floral diversity of the Local Wildlife Site.
The Committee was addressed by Mr O’Keefe, who spoke on behalf of the community objecting to the proposal. He had sent in a detailed list of points to Members in advance of the meeting, points that he believed required further investigation prior to a decision on the proposal being made. He stated that appearance of the building was not a concern but the quality of life of the people in the Village was. He argued that the proposal was contrary to a number of planning policies and the power station was too close to residents of the Village and Beechwood. He discussed the potential for pollution and alternative green energies and suggested that there were mistakes and inconsistencies with the surveys referred to in the report.
Councillor Ratcliffe then
addressed the Committee, objecting to the proposal. She
stated that Clifton Village had seen major changes over the years; it was
small, historically rich and cut off from the rest of Runcorn. She argued that the Village already had a
power station in the area and to add another, would take away from the quality
of life of its residents. Further, the
fact that it was gas powered could result in additional continuous noise for
residents and queried why a green energy proposal could not
be considered. She had presented
photographs of the site of the proposal to the Committee in advance and
discussed the effect the proposal would have on the ecology of the area. She urged the Committee to refuse or defer
its decision as the application was contrary to policies in the UDP as it
stood.
Members were then addressed by Councillor Logan, who spoke objecting to
the proposal, supported by his Beechwood Ward
colleague Councillor Loftus. He
questioned why the Council was considering this fossil
fuelled proposal, as clean energy was now being produced in Halton for
the 21st century. He stated
that the 14-metre high chimneys would have a huge impact on the area and the
whole development was incongruous with the Village, for Halton and for the 21
century. He stated that the proposal was
damaging and that residents of Halton expected regeneration, not degeneration.
Mr Dodds then addressed the Committee, on
behalf of the applicant. He stated that
the proposal supported the UK Governments policies for renewable energy sources
as discussed on page 74 of the report and that concerns raised by objectors
relating to air pollution and noise where addressed on page 76 of the
report. He added that
the nearest residential properties would not hear any noise and in response to
noise claims being made by speakers about noise at night time, he confirmed
there would be no noise at night as the plant was restricted to 1500 hours per
year and it would be unlikely to run at night especially as there were no peak
times at night. He further added
that the ecological and tree surveys had been carried out;
the site would be operated remotely so there would be no parking or traffic
issues; and advised no concerns had been raised from nearby residents regarding
the height of the chimneys. He urged the
Committee to approve the application as it complied with national and local
planning policies.
The Committee discussed the
points of concern raised by speakers, in particular the potential for noise,
the conservation of nature in the area and the hours of operation of the
generator. One Member moved an amendment
to the conditions of the proposal – to restrict the hours of operation from
10pm to 7am – this was seconded and agreed by the Committee.
RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to conditions relating to the following and the addition of the extra condition mentioned above.
1. Time limit – full permission;
2. Approved plans;
3. Existing and proposed site levels (BE1);
4. Boundary treatments scheme (BE1 and BE22);
5. CCTV scheme (BE1);
6. Mitigation planting scheme (BE1 and GE27):
7. Tree protection measures (GE27);
8. Breeding birds protection (GE21 and CS20);
9. Outline biodiversity management plan (GE21 and CS20);
10. Reasonable avoidance measures – common lizard and terrestrial mammals (GE21 and CS20);
11. Japanese Knotweed method statement (GE21 and CS20);
12. Japanese Knotweed validation report (GE21 and CS20):
13. Hours of construction (BE1);
14. Off-site highway works (BE1);
15. Visibility splay – site access with Cholmondeley Road (BE1);
16. Parking and servicing provision (BE1 and TP12);
17. Ground contamination / ground stability (PR14 and CS23);
18. Detailed drainage strategy (PR16 and CS23); and
19. Hours of operation.