Minutes:
The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site.
Members received information in relation to the scheme from the Council’s Highway’s Officer who presented the results of parking surveys undertaken at various times of the day on Picow Farm Road. In summary it was noted that the net loss of spaces would be between 2 and 3 and it was felt that the displaced vehicles would park further down the Road or within the site itself.
Officers advised that they would recommend that the developer commissioned a scheme of double yellow lines to protect the junction and that they would also request them to fund a scheme of H-bar markings for the frontages of driveways of both new and existing properties.
The Committee was addressed by Mrs Bennison, who objected to the proposal on behalf of local residents. She argued that the site was dedicated greenspace and should remain so as there were no other greenspace areas within 5 sq miles of this site; the nearest one being Runcorn Common. She stated that the site should be available for local children to play on. Further she explained that the scheme would affect the existing property values on Picow Farm Road; that there would be a loss of light; and that they would be overlooked from the new development. She urged the Committee to listen to the residents of the area and keep the site for the community.
Mr Gee, acting as agent on the application, then addressed the Committee, responding to some of the claims of the objectors. He commented that the report discussed, on pages 15, 16 and 17, why the site had not been used for 8 years and the reasons for this were provided. He further stated that the site was highly accessible for future residents due to the location and that it would bring in new families to the area who would contribute to the local economy. With regards to parking, he was aware of the present situation of rail users parking along Picow Farm Road, however the scheme would provide sufficient parking for residents so the situation would not be exacerbated.
Members discussed the application and one Member raised concerns over the existing parking situation on Picow Farm Road from the railway customers and the fact that they thought this development would actually exacerbate the situation. The Committee also discussed the Environmental Health issues relating to noise in paragraph 4.4 of the report.
After taking the Officer’s report and presentation into consideration, and hearing the representations made by the speakers, the Committee voted and the majority agreed to approve the application, subject to the conditions listed below.
RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) Time limit – outline permission;
2) Submission of reserved matters;
3) Development parameters;
4) Site levels (BE1);
5) Facing materials to be agreed (BE1 and BE2);
6) Breeding birds protection (GE21);
7) Tree protection (BE1);
8) Hours of construction (BE1);
9) Construction management plan (Highways) (BE1);
10) Off-site highway works (BE1);
11) Implementation of mitigation (Section 4.7 of the Amphibian survey) (GE21);
12) Reasonable avoidance measures – hedgehogs (GE21);
13) Habitat management plan (GE21);
14) Site waste management plan (WM8);
15) Japanese Knotweed method statement;
16) Invasive species validation report;
17) Bat friendly lighting scheme (GE21);
18) Foul water (PR16);
19) Surface water regulatory scheme (PR16);
20) Investigation of suitability of infiltration (PR16);
21) Final discharge rates (PR16);
22) Models showing overland flow routes (PR16);
23) Ground contamination (Phase 2 site investigation, remediation strategy, validation report) (PR14);
24) Noise mitigation measures (PR2); and
25) Electric vehicle charging points (CS19).