Agenda and minutes

            The Minutes of the meeting held on 15 January 2024, 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.

This application was reported to the Development Management Committee in December 2023.  Just prior to the start of the meeting the Chair received an email from Hale Parish Council objecting to the proposal and providing additional details to those already submitted.  Due to timing of the email its content was not noted until after the Committee had resolved to approve the application.  In view of the above the application has returned to the February Committee, so that consideration could be given to the objection and additional information provided.  The full objection could be found on page 10 of the agenda. 

Officers advised that the Council has since undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the points raised by the Parish Council, set out on pages 13-19 of the agenda report.

Since the publication of the agenda, further advice had been received from the Council’s retained Advisor on heritage matters.  It was commented that overall, it was considered that the application site had little to no impact on the current setting of the conservation area, due to its unkept nature and lack of public accessibility.  The proposed scheme would create a more active site on this derelict plot, having a positive impact on the conservation area.  The Heritage Advisor did not raise any objection to the proposal.  The Advisor’s detailed comments were available on the published AB update list.

Taking account of the above, the recommendation remained to approve the planning application subject to conditions and a legal agreement.

The application was moved and seconded and the Committee voted unanimously to approve the application.

RESOLVED:  That authority be delegated to the Operational Director – Planning, Policy and Transportation, to determine the application in consultation with the Chair or Vice Chair of the Committee, following the satisfactory resolution of the outstanding issues relating to HRA compliance.  Upon satisfactory resolution, that the application be approved subject to the following:

a)    a Section 106 Agreement that secures the terms set out in the Legal Agreement section of this report;

b)    schedule of conditions set out below; and

c)    that if the S106 Agreement or alternative arrangement is not executed within a reasonable period of time, authority be delegated to the Operational Director – Policy, Planning and Transportation, in consultation with the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Committee to refuse the application.

Recommended conditions as follows, with any additional conditions recommended through the resolution of the HRA compliance issue to be added to the list below:

1.    Time limit;

2.    Plans;

3.    Materials to be agreed (RD3 and GR1);

4.    Submission of existing and proposed site levels (GR1);

5.    Tree protection measures (HE5);

6.    Submission of bird box scheme (CS(R)20 and HE1);

7.    Protection of mammals during construction (CS(R)20 and HE1);

8.    Electric vehicle charging points scheme (C2);

9.    Ground contamination (CS23 and HE8);

10. Visibility splays (C1 and C2);

11. Submission of a cycle parking scheme (C2);  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

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

Officers advised that there was a Major Hazard Pipeline (the Trans Pennine Ethylene Pipeline) running through the site and the pipeline operator SABIC, had objected to the application based on it being within the Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE’s) consultation zones for a Major Hazard Pipeline.  HSE has also advised against the granting of planning permission on safety grounds.   It was not considered that the safety advice of the HSE outweighed the proposal’s policy compliance and the benefits that would result from the delivery of the development.

An update in respect of ground contamination was provided.  The Contaminated Land Officer had since confirmed that they raised no objection to the proposals, subject to a condition being attached requiring the submission of a detailed scheme of ground gas protection measures, or a revised risk assessment, along with a verification plan and submission of the verification / installation report upon completion of the works. 

In summary, the proposal was considered to accord with the DALP and would contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in Halton. 

The Committee was addressed by Mr Nick O’Keefe, a local resident who objected to the proposal.  He made the following comments, inter alia:

·         Why did we need the development when there was a similar one further down the expressway;

·         4 Electric Vehicle charging points did not constitute a green development;

·         The traffic on the junction was already congested and an increase in traffic would mean residents on Cholmondeley Road would be stuck;

·         The junction was badly designed to begin with;

·         Emergency response vehicles timescales would be affected by more traffic;

·         There were no bus routes on Cholmondeley Road so staff working at the site will have to use their own cars which will take spaces designed for customers use;

·         Weaver View flooded on a regular basis and covering the site with Asphalt will make it worse;

·         There would be rubbish created from the fast food outlet and this would blow downhill polluting the River Weaver; and

·         The proximity of an Ethylene pipeline was dangerous as it was under high pressure and highly explosive – release of this gas would be catastrophic.

Mr Williams, the Applicant, then addressed the Committee.  He commented inter alia:

·         That the proposal was reviewed by both Council Highway Officers and National Highways and no objection was raised.  An independent highways consultant, taking into consideration the modelling of the existing roundabout, concluded that the proposal would only result in a 1.75% uplift in traffic volume;

·         The proposal includes improved pedestrian and cycleway links on the development frontage;

·         The site provides parking bays for 54 vehicles and 8 petrol refuelling bays.  This would be in excess of the Council’s parking standard and would ensure that parking and servicing would not be an issue;

·         An independent road safety audit had been provided;

·         The HSE had advised against the granting of planning permission and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

The following Appeals had been received / were in progress:

23/00166/FUL

Proposed new dwelling on land adjacent to 19 Lilac Crescent, Runcorn.

The following Appeals had been determined:

22/000304/FUL

Proposed demolition of existing garage and erection of two storey side extension and single storey front and rear extensions at 9 Windermere Avenue, Widnes – Dismissed.