Agenda item

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

 

Prior to the presentation of the item, Officers provided the Committee with the following updates:

 

·        In the summary table on page 8 of the printed agenda next to recommendation, the words grant ‘outline’ planning permission should read, grant ‘full’ planning permission; 

·       Page 18 – 33 no. additional market dwellings should read 31 no. additional market dwellings;

·       The NPPF paragraph numbers set out in the report were superseded by the December republication of the NPPF.  The report referenced paragraph numbers of the previous version of the NPPF consistent with the objection from the Georgian Group.  Assessments of the relevant paragraphs of the NPPF were set out in the policy assessment section of the report at pages 30-33 of the printed agenda, and in the assessment Georgian Group objection set out at pages 37-48 of the printed agenda, and in full at appendix 2 of the report.  The renumbered paragraphs were not considered to affect the overall assessment of Green Belt policy; and

·       Both applications are required to be referred to the Secretary of State.  In the case of the FUL application, this was to be referred for Green Belt protection reasons.  In the case of the LBC this was to be referred for heritage protection reasons.  As a result the recommendations will need to be amended to account for the delegated authority necessary to undertake this exercise.

 

Two applications were presented, a full planning application concerning new operational development at the Daresbury Estate and a Listed Building Consent application that sought changes to the appearance of the listed buildings on site.

 

The applications concerned an enabling development, a term used that sets out a justification for non-policy compliant development to achieve an aspirational aim, which in this case involved the restoration and preservation of a grade II* listed heritage asset that was featured on the Historic England heritage at risk register since 2010. 

 

It was noted that the Council had previously approved a similar scheme in 2009 but unfortunately, that scheme did not come forward.  Since that time the Daresbury Hall estate had fallen into a significant form of disrepair and had been victim to a number of fires.  The property today was in a serious state of decay and was being propped by specialist scaffolding.  Members were referred to the drone imagery set out on pages 19-22 of the printed agenda, which showed its current state of disrepair.

 

Officers advised that notwithstanding the objection of the Georgian Society, the scheme had been assessed by the Council’s retained Heritage Advisor, Historic England and Daresbury Parish Council, who raise no objection to the development proposal.

 

The Committee was addressed by Mr Muir, a representative of the Applicant, who summarised the benefits of the proposal:

 

·       The restoration of Daresbury Hall and coach house would enable the Grade II* listed heritage asset to be converted to residential, ensuring its longevity for future generations;

·       A robust and comprehensive assessment of the site was undertaken;

·       A sensitive approach to redevelopment would apply, as per the Green Belt policies;

·       A comprehensive ecological survey had been undertaken;

·       The site would include naturalistic planting and new habitats;

·       Sustainable construction practices would be adhered to;

·       The local community would benefit from the enhancement of the site; and

·       A landscaping and ecological management plan would be followed.

 

The Committee agreed that the proposals presented an opportunity for the redevelopment of this Grade II* listed building that had laid derelict for a number of years.  Each application was moved and seconded and the Committee voted unanimously to approve them.

 

24/00086/FUL

 

RESOLVED:   That  delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning and Transportation, to refer the matter to the Secretary of State and upon satisfactory resolution of the referral (for Green Belt protection reasons), that the application be approved subject to the following:

 

a)    S106 Agreement that secures the terms set out in the Legal Agreement section of this report;

 

b)    Schedule of conditions set out below; and

 

1.     Time limit;

2.     Clarification of proposed development;

3.     Approved plans;

4.     Materials to be agree (RD3 and GR1);

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

6.     Tree protection measures (HE5);

7.     Natural England bat licence (CS(R)20 and HE1);

8.     Development to be undertaken in accordance with Bat mitigation plan Arbtech, 18 January2025, Issue 0.3  (CR(R)20 and HE1);

9.     Submission of Bird Box Scheme – (CS(R)20 and HE1);

10. Nocturnal species sensitive external lighting scheme (CS(R)20 and HE1);

11. Reasonable avoidance strategy, construction phase ecological impacts (CS(R)20 and HE1);

12. Statutory biodiversity metric assessment to secure: a conditions assessments and a habitat management plan (CS(R)20 and HE1);

13. Development to be undertaken with landscape and ecological management plan (CS(R)20 and HE1);

14. No tree felling or hedge removal in period 1 March to 31 August (CS(R)20 and HE1);

15. Hedgehog highway scheme (CS(R)20 and HE1);

16. Invasive species method statement (CS(R)20 and HE1);

17. Site investigation study and site remediation plan (CS23 and HE8);

18. Site investigation unforeseen contamination condition (CS23 and HE8);

19. Site investigation verification submission (CS23 and HE8);

20. Daresbury Lane pedestrian link scheme details (C1 and C2);

21. Electric vehicle charging points scheme (C2);

22. Visibility splays (C1 and C2);

23. Submission of a cycle parking scheme (C2);

24. Verification of the sustainable urban drainage scheme (CS23 and HE9);

25. Surface water drainage verification submission (CS23 and HE9);

26. Dust management plan (construction phase) (HE7);

27. Working hours condition (HE7);

28. Waste management plan (WM8);

29. Post development future resident recycling plan (WM8);

30. Post development and climate change strategy;

31. Sewage disposal (HE9);

32. Construction Management Plan  (C1);

33. Limited construction hours (GR2);

34. Detail hard standing agreed (C2 and HE9);

35. Access constructed prior to occupation (C1);

36. Landscaping (GR1, GR3 and HE5);

37. Hedgerows retained or mitigation (CS(R)20 and HE1);

38. Acoustic mitigation (GR2);

39. Update structural report (HE1);

40. Soft tree felling technique for all trees to be removed (CS(R)20 and HE1); and

41. Tree retention root protection strategy (HE5).

 

c)     That if the S106 Agreement or alternative arrangement was not executed within a reasonable period of time, authority be delegated to the Director – Planning and Transportation, in consultation with the Chair or Vice Chair of the committee to refuse the application.

 

24/00087/LBC

 

RESOLVED: That delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning and Transportation, to refer the matter to the Secretary of State and upon satisfactory resolution of the referral (for reasons of heritage protection), that the application be approved subject to the conditions set out below:

 

1.     Time limit;

2.     Approved plans (GR1);

3.     Stone repair details (HE1);

4.     Repair methodology (HE1);

5.     Joinery and plasterwork details (HE1);

6.     Fire protection details and strategy (HE1);

7.     Schedule of materials (HE1);

8.     Schedule of works (HE100;

9.     Brick sample panel (HE1);

10. Acoustic separation details (HE1);

11. Aperture details (HE1);

12. Rainwater goods details; and

13. Damp proof course treatment prevention.