Agenda item

          The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site.  Members were updated on the latest correspondence from the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) and Inovyn. 

 

The Committee was addressed by Mr Morris, who opposed the application.  He argued the following, inter alia:

 

·       Suggested that the application was inconsistent, confusing, non-compliant to several Council policies and bias towards the applicant;

·       Suggested that public concerns had been ignored;

·       The proposals were removed from the Local Plan by the Planning Inspectorate as they stated there was significant risk to human life; and

·       Urged the Committee to reject the application.

 

The Committee was addressed by Councillor Ratcliffe, Ward Councillor for Beechwood and Heath who spoke on behalf of residents.  She stated the following inter alia:

 

·       Residents found out about the proposals in October 2021 but there was no formal public consultation and many communications to SOG Ltd have not been responded to;

·       In December 2021, trees were cut down by SOG Ltd and in October 2022, they cut down protected trees without permission.  Hedges were also cut down during nesting season;

·       In November 2022, Ward Councillors were invited to meet with SOG Ltd, however, they did not provide any documentation prior to the meeting;

·       If the application was approved, the plans would change the area forever and not for the good;

·       The proposal is to build 545 properties in an area half the size of Beechwood;

·       There is no mention of how new residents of the area would be supported by schools, doctors etc.;

·       Article 8 and the First Protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights states that people should be able to enjoy peaceful enjoyment of their property;

·       The HSE raised concerns over proximity of a COMAH site;

·       SDP planning is inconsistent with planning policy;

·       Requested the Committee to reject the application on a point of law;

·       Urged the Committee to request a re-submission of definite plans, not one that could be changed once approved; and

·       Acknowledged that a call-in could be made within 21 days. 

 

The Committee was also addressed by Councillor N. Plumpton-Walsh , Ward Councillor for Mersey and Weston, who spoke on behalf of residents.  He stated the following inter alia:

 

·       He requested a meeting with SOG Ltd on two occasions and was refused both times;

·       Referred to concerns regarding the COMAH site and referenced the Planning Inspectorate report from 2022;

·       Expressed concerns regarding the sewage plant and road infrastructure; and

·       Urged the Committee to reject the application.

 

On behalf of the applicant, Councillor T. McInerney read out a letter of support from Professor Rachel Cooper, Lancaster University, in support of the application. 

 

Also on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Teague read out a statement in support of the application.

 

Committee Members acknowledged the concerns of the residents that it was an emotive application.  Members were disappointed that the HSE had continued to express concerns  late in the process rather than providing all of the information upfront as per the planning process.  The Chair of the Committee had arranged a site visit for Committee Members which they stated was useful.  Councillor Thompson stated the two main issues were loss of green space and the approach of the HSE.  It was implied that the HSE model was 30 years old and out of date compared to the COMAH site.  Councillor Thompson also mentioned that the sustainability of the site depended on this development. 

 

Officers advised the Committee to weigh the elements of non-compliance with the Development Plan against the benefits of the proposals of the scheme.  Members gave significant weight to the advice of the HSE and their public safety concerns and gave it the most careful consideration. 

 

After consideration of the application, updates and comments made by the speakers, the proposal was moved and seconded and the Committee voted to approve the application.  It was noted that the Committee requested that any future submissions in relation to reserved matters be brought before the Committee.

 

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved, subject to referral to the Health and Safety Executive, and subject to the following:

 

a)    Section 106 Agreement as set out below:

 

1.     Highway phasing plan;

2.     Cycle route improvements;

3.     Crossing improvements;

4.     Bus infrastructure improvements;

5.     Enhanced bus service provision;

6.     Moughland Lane / Heath Road South / Clifton Road signalised junction improvements;

7.     Recreational pressure mitigation for Runcorn Hill;

8.     Affordable housing provision;

9.     Social value strategy for the training and recruitment of local people.

 

b)    Schedule of conditions set out below:

 

1.     Time limit – outline permission;

2.     Submission of reserved matters;

3.     Development parameters;

4.     Submission and implementation of a phasing plan;

5.     Submission and implementation of a greenspace management plan;

6.     Submission of a biodiversity net gain assessment (including updated metric);

7.     Submission and implementation of full travel plans;

8.     Submission of a further traffic assessment at the reserved matters stage, should different transport scenarios from those assessed (commercial traffic entering the Heath Business and Technical Park site from the south and residential traffic from the north and no through route) be used along with supporting mitigations options offered where necessary;

9.     Submission and implementation of an air quality mitigation measures Scheme;

10. Submission and implementation of a noise mitigation measures scheme;

11. Submission of ground contamination – site investigation and remediation strategy and subsequent implementation and validation;

12. Submission of strategy should unsuspected contamination be found;

13. No infiltration of surface water to the ground without the demonstration of its suitability through an assessment;

14. No piling unless it is demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable risk to groundwater;

15. Implementation of breeding birds protection;

16. Submission and implementation of an arboricultural method statement;

17. Submission and implementation of a tree protection plan;

18. Submission and implementation of a sustainable urban drainage scheme;

19. Submission and implementation of a verification report for sustainable urban drainage scheme;

20. Submission and implementation of wetland infiltration system management scheme;

21. Submission and implementation of a construction environmental management plan;

22. Restriction of hours of construction;

23. Submission and implementation of reasonable avoidance measures – reptiles;

24. Submission and implementation of reasonable avoidance measures – badger and hedgehog

25. Submission and implementation of a lighting scheme to protect ecology;

26. Submission and implementation of a landscape and ecological / habitat management plan;

27. Submission and implementation of a bat mitigation and compensation scheme;

28. Submission of a copy of a licence / registration issued by Natural England in respect of bats;

29. Submission of a copy of the district level licence issued by Natural England, in respect of Great Crested Newts;

30. Submission and implementation of a site waste management plan;

31. Submission and implementation of a waste storage and collection plan;

32. Submission and implementation of a local carbon development scheme;

33. Submission of a building record to Level 2 as set out in Historic England Guidance – Understanding Historic Buildings; and

34. Submission and implementation of a health management plan.

 

c)     That, if the S106 Agreement is not signed within a reasonable period of time, authority be given to the Operational Director – Policy, Planning and Transportation, to refuse this planning application.