Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) and subject to the completion of a supplementary Section 106 (S106) agreement to attach the obligations contained in the S106 agreement dated 16 December 2008 in relation to planning permission 042468 to the permission arising out of this application. 

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

            The Senior Minerals and Waste Officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the application had been deferred from the previous meeting to allow clarification on the conditions to be provided.  She explained that the proposal was for a Section 73 application to vary conditions 2, 14 and 18 which she detailed.  Appendix 1 to the report provided details of the original wording, the proposed wording and the reason for the changes and the proposed changes were broadly grouped as detailed in paragraph 1.02 of the report.  Condition 32 had been added to secure a traffic management plan.  The officer referred Members to the late observations where comments from Councillor Richard Jones were reported which included a request for an amendment to condition 4, clarification on the use of a tail piece and seeking clarification on the differences between conditions; officer responses had been provided.  The recommendation was for approval of planning permission and the officer indicated that there had been no objections from statutory consultees. 

            Mr. S. Amos spoke in support of the application.  He said that transport consultants had been employed by the applicant and they had reviewed personal injury traffic accident data which demonstrated that no accidents had been recorded on the A494/Pinfold Lane junction over the past 10 years.  It was therefore felt that there were no road safety issues that required the provision of any road widening scheme but a scheme had been proposed by the applicant which it was felt would be a significant improvement to the ability of two vehicles to pass.  There were no outstanding objections nor conflict with planning policy and therefore Mr. Amos asked the Committee to approve the application.   

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.

                        The Local Member, Councillor Carol Ellis, said that most of her concerns had been discussed at the previous meeting but she still had concerns about condition 12 relating to an approved dust scheme and condition 15 about the prevention of mud, dust, debris and litter onto the public highway.  She sought clarification that all of the schemes would be in place before any waste was brought to the site and said that there were no details in the report about the control of odour from the site which she also felt was a concern. 

                        At the previous meeting, Councillor Owen Thomas has referred to the ditch being concreted over to allow the development of the access to the site; he queried whether the ditch would be reinstated.  Councillor Richard Jones thanked the officer for the responses provided in the late observations and the descriptions in the appendix of why the conditions were to change.  In relation to condition 4, Councillor Mike Peers suggested that the Local Member and adjoining Ward Member be advised when the detailed work programme had been submitted.  He also sought assurance that no waste would be received on the site prior to the submission of all necessary schemes. 

                        In response to the comments made, the officer confirmed that the schemes referred to in conditions 12 and 15 had already been approved and added that the operator was obliged to comply with these schemes as approved.  On the issue of odour, the officer confirmed that the applicant would need to submit a scheme before waste could be received at the site and confirmed that no waste would be received at the site before the working programme was submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority.  The officer confirmed that discussions about the detailed working programme (as referred to in condition 4) could be held with the Local Member.  She added that Highways had felt the work on the culverting of the ditch by the access to the site was acceptable.  The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) drew Members’ attention to condition 31 on the implementation of an approved liaison committee scheme, which he felt would allow an opportunity for Members and residents to engage with the applicant on any areas of concern.  The Senior Minerals and Waste Officer confirmed that an initial meeting had taken place and that there would be more meetings in the future.  She added that consultation could be undertaken with the Local Member and the adjoining Ward Member, as requested. 

                        In summing up, Councillor Bithell said that all issues and concerns that had been raised had been addressed.    

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) and subject to the completion of a supplementary Section 106 (S106) agreement to attach the obligations contained in the S106 agreement dated 16 December 2008 in relation to planning permission 042468 to the permission arising out of this application.