Issue - meetings

            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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 149