Agenda and minutes

The Committee took part in a minute’s silence in honour of Councillor Morley, who had sadly passed away last month.  The Chair paid tribute to him on behalf of Members and colleagues, saying that Councillor Morley was a long standing Member of the Development Control Committee, who acted with loyalty and made a huge contribution in his role as Vice Chair.   He would be greatly missed.

            The Minutes of the meeting held on 2 November 2020, having been circulated, were taken as read and signed as a correct record.

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

The Committee agreed that the application be approved, subject to the conditions listed below.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to:

a)    The entering into a legal or other agreement relating to securing financial contributions towards open space;

b)    Conditions relating to the following:

1.    Standard outline conditions for the submission of reserved matters applications (BE1);

2.    Plans condition listing relevant drawings i.e. site location / red edge, access details (BE1 and TP17);

3.    Submission and agreement of a submission of a construction / traffic management plan which would include wheel cleansing details, hours of construction and deliveries (BE1);

4.    Submission of existing and agreement of proposed site levels ( BE1);

5.    Submission and agreement of external facing materials (BE1 and BE2);

6.    Conditions for the submission and agreement of boundary treatments, landscaping, management and maintenance (BE1 and BE22);

7.    Tree protection measures outlined in arboricultural report (GE27);

8.    Breeding birds protection (GE21 and CS20);

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

10. Hedgehog reasonable avoidance measures (GE21 and CS20);

11. Method statement for the irradiation of invasive species (GE21 and CS20);

12. Electric Vehicle Charging Points Scheme (CS19);

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

14. Submission of revised noise report with reserved matters (PR2);

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

16. Drainage strategy based on the SUDS hierarchy, including its implementation, maintenance, management, and verification of the scheme (PR16 and CS23);

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

18. Waste Audit – (WM8);

19. Submission and implementation of an archaeological watching brief (CS20); and

20. Provision of affordable housing (CS13).

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 Chair or Vice Chair of the Committee to refuse the application.

Due to connection problems, Councillor Zygadllo missed part of the Officer’s and speaker’s presentations to the Committee for the item below, so he was not permitted to vote on this application.

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

It was noted that further consultee responses had been received from Natural England; Highways and Transportation; and Preston Brook Parish Council.  The additional recommended conditions resulting from these were presented in the AB Update List, together with details of four additional representations received.

Officers advised that since the publication of the report and update list Appleton Parish Council had raised concerns regarding additional traffic generation in areas of Stockton Heath, Appleton, Stretton, Hatton and Walton.  However, Warrington Borough Council’s Highways Engineer had advised that they had no objection to the proposed development.

The Committee was addressed by Mr William Tavernor, who objected to the proposals on behalf of local residents from Preston Brook, at Bankside and Quay Place.  He informed the Committee that residents felt under represented due to the fact that only one objector was permitted to speak to the Committee.  He argued that:

·         The proposal was in fact two developments put together as one – Daresbury Business Park and a housing development;

·         The take up on the existing business development on Daresbury Park is low so why build more offices;

·         The housing proposals are on a greenbelt site;

·         There would be an adverse impact on wildlife and habitats;

·         This was one of a few remaining areas of natural beauty in Halton – a brownfield site would be more suitable for this development so these sites should be looked at;

·         There was no guarantee of jobs for local people as workers on construction sites typically come from outside the Borough; and

·         Extra housing would add pressure on amenities and traffic in Runcorn, for example, Runcorn Shopping City was over used whilst across the bridge in Widnes, Tesco Extra was under used.

Mr Jamie Lynch, a representative from the Client’s planning agent then addressed the Committee.  He advised that due to the reduction in demand for office development in recent times it was necessary to look at a new approach so an employment study was undertaken, which advised that a mixed-use development would be more appropriate for the site.  He added that the proposals were supported by the emerging Delivery and Allocations Local Plan (DALP), which now identified the site for employment and residential development.

He added that:

·         That the development would include 350 much needed new homes, including 25% affordable;

·         It would generate new jobs during construction and long term employment opportunities once completed;

·         The local centre would support the new community;

·         There were no objections from statutory consultees;

·         All representations were dealt with in the reports;

·         There would be Section 106 contributions towards enhancing public transport and public rights of way; and

·         He confirmed that there was no intention to close Red Brow Lane. 

            Clarity was provided to Members over questions relating to the reference to World War II features in the report and the retention of access to Red Brow Lane, which was also a key route  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

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

The Committee noted the response from the Council’s Contaminated Land Officer, as presented in the supplementary AB Update List and that he raised no objection, subject to the requirement of investigation and assessment of the site be conditioned, should the application be approved.  The Committee agreed that the application be approved, subject to the conditions listed below.

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

1.    Time;

2.    Approved plans;

3.    Materials;

4.    Ground contamination;

5.    Vehicle access, parking and servicing construction prior to occupation;

6.    Cycle parking details;

7.    Electric vehicle charging details;

8.    Drainage;

9.    Site and finished floor levels; and

10. Site waste management plan and onsite waste storage and management.

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

It was reported that updated drainage information had been provided by the applicant in line with requests made by the Council’s Lead Local Flood Authority and United Utilities.  Their responses to this information was provided in the supplementary AB Update List and noted by the Committee.

Mr Bruce Risk, who represented the agent for the planning application, addressed the Committee.  He introduced the family run business to Members stating that they had established in 2006, were expanding in the area, and considered this site key for their expansion plans.  He stated that the facility would create new jobs on what is currently a vacant site; it would complement existing businesses in the area; all statutory consultees were supportive and all material conditions had been addressed in the officer’s report.

The Committee agreed that the application be approved subject to the conditions listed below.

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

1.    Time;

2.    Approved plans;

3.    Use restriction;

4.    Materials;

5.    Site levels;

6.    Vehicle access, parking and servicing construction prior to occupation;

7.    Cycle parking details;

8.    Electric vehicle charging details;

9.    New crossing point over Earle Road;

10. Breeding bird protection;

11. Bird nesting boxes;

12. RAMS for terrestrial mammals;

13. RAMS for amphibians;

14. Contaminated land;

15. Site waste management plan;

16. Drainage and flood risk;

17. Protection of United Utilities assets; and

18. No additional temporary structures or external storage.