At a Meeting of the DEVELOPMENT PANEL Held in Oval Centre, Salterbeck, Workington on Tuesday, 10 July 2007 at 10.00 A.M. Members
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
At a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT PANEL held in Oval Centre, Salterbeck, Workington on Tuesday, 10 July 2007 at 10.00 a.m. Members Mr I W Francis (Chairman) Mr J Armstrong Mr P G Kendall Mr P Bales Mr J Lister Ms M Gainford Mrs J MacLeod Mr J Heathcote Ms H McIntosh Mr C Holding Mrs J M Mounsey Mr J Holliday Mrs A Tinnion Mr I A Humes Mr M G Wood Mr J Hunter Apologies for absence were received from Councillors R Munby, B Bacon, W H Jefferson and M A Snaith Staff Present J Elliott, Steve Long, P McKenzie, R Outhwaite and S Owen 108 MINUTES The minutes of the meetings held on Thursday 1st March 2007 and Thursday 5th April 2007 were signed as correct records. 109 DECLARATION OF INTEREST 5. Planning Applications. Councillor Audrey Tinnion; Personal; 2/2006/9035 - Due to being a member of Aspatria Town Council. 5. Planning Applications. Councillor Ian Francis; Prejudicial; 2/2007/0467 - Due to speaking against the application on appeal. 5. Planning Applications. Councillors Peter Bales and Ivor Humes; Personal; 2/2007/9002 - Due to being members of Workington Town Council. 5. Planning Applications. Councillors Ivor Humes and Jean Macleod; Personal; 2/2007/0358 - Due to being members of Workington Town Council. 5. Planning Applications. Councillors P Bales; Ivor Humes and Jean Macleod; Personal; 2/2007/0403 - Due to being members of Workington Town Council. 5. Planning Applications. Councillors P Bales; Ivor Humes and Jean Macleod; Personal; 2/2007/0469 - Due to being members of Workington Town Council. 5. Planning Applications. Councillor Ivor Humes; Prejudicial; 2/2007/0467 - Due to relative being an objector. 5. Planning Applications. Councillors Peter Bales and Jean Macleod; Personal; 2/2007/0467 - Due to being members of Workington Town Council. 5. Planning Applications. Councillor Joe Holliday; Prejudicial; 2/2007/0403 - Due to being a County Councillor and making representation on behalf of residents. 5. Planning Applications. Councillor Joe Holliday; Prejudicial; 2/2007/0467 - Due to having a close association with Harrington Residents Association who made an objection. 5. Planning Applications. Councillor John Heathcote; Personal; 2/2007/0403 - Due to being the Ward Councillor. 5. Planning Applications. Councillor John Heathcote; Personal; 2/2007/0467 - Due to relative living in the area. 5. Planning Applications. Councillor Peter Bales; Prejudicial; 2/2007/0358 - Due to being a member of the Management of Westfield Housing Association Committee. 5. Planning Applications. Steve Long; Personal; 2/2006/1304 - Due to knowing an objector. 110 QUESTIONS The following question was received from Mr K Thomas; ‘Do you consider the planning submission submitted by Studsvik UK to be a true and accurate document in view of the fact that, of many apparent anomalies in the submission, their Para 2.4 of report PO900/TR/006 – LOCAL HUMAN RECEPTORS, only identified, after a detailed search, 10 people living within a 2 km radius, 1 school approx 2 km away and no hospitals. There are over 5000 people living and working within a 2 km radius, 1,450 of whom attend Lakes College, several day nurseries, large and small residential care homes etc, etc?.’ Miss J Elliott, Senior Planner on behalf of Councillor I Francis, Chair of Development Panel read out the reply from Cumbria County Council as follows ‘The reply accepts Para 2.4 of the Environmental Statement was badly worded and should have made clear what it actively does is identify the nearest receptors of the categories identified within a 2km radius rather than the complete population (clarified in Para 4.6 of the Environmental Statement). The statement assessed the information at 300m from the site, rather than the 500m distance of the nearest property, concluding in the worst case scenario discharge of radioactivity vent system does levels would be a factor 60 times below the level, representing an insignificant risk and consequently the surrounding land could be developed for any alternative use, including housing. In view of this, no assessment of impact was made further form the site. The County has consulted the Nuclear Inspectorate on the soundness of this approach and their view is awaited. The County has also received a copy of the response of the Environment Agency who considers the information was a suitable assessment. They consider their regulatory controls would keep any impact to a minimum. Reference is also made to controlled discharge from surface water drains.’ 111 PLANNING APPLICATIONS The Panel considered individual reports from the Head of Planning Services regarding ten applications for planning permission. Planning Description Decision Reference 02/2006/9033 Extensions to quarry and re-location of fixed Objection plant (from New Cowper processing plant), Overby Quarry, Aikshaw, Aspatria. P Kendall moved that the application be accepted, this was seconded by M G Wood. H McIntosh moved that an objection be made, this was seconded by J Macleod. A vote was taken, 10 in favour of objection, 4 against. The motion in favour of the objection was carried. Reasons: 1. The Local Planning Authority considered the proposed increase in traffic in the worst case scenario from the proposed extension and the additional industrial processing of the reserves at the site would increase the use of traffic on a sub-standard junction onto and along the B5301 highway to the detriment of highway safety contrary to Policy 1 of the Cumbria Minerals and Waste Local Plan 1996-2006. (However, Officers would not have opposed the proposal in terms of traffic levels if a condition had been imposed to restrict traffic levels of all traffic movements associated with both quarrying and bagging operations at the site to 50 vehicle movements per day.) 2. The Local Planning Authority considered any increased traffic use of the quarry’s existing northern access entrance onto the B5301 or the access by southbound/returning traffic entrance of the C2012 onto the B5301, would by virtue of their restricted visibility be hazardous to highway safety. Unless the principle of the proposed extension to the quarry and its associated phased operation were approved. Officers were consequently unable to support the variation of the conditions under the separate application (02/2006/9035) for the restriction of the existing quarry (i.e. the variation timescale derived from the extension at the site). Officer’s sought the speed restriction of the site in order to minimise disturbance arising from the traffic operations. The Council therefore also objected to the variation of condition on the quarry on the grounds that:- Allerdale opposed any variation of the former consent (02/1995/9007) for extending operations at Overby as they seeked the speedy restoration of the site to end temporary disturbance arising from its traffic operations. 02/2006/9035 Implementation of planning permission Objection 2/95/9007 without compliance with the conditions of that permission – application under Section 73 of the Town & County Planning Act 1990, Overby Quarry, Aikshaw, Aspatria. M G Wood moved that the application be accepted, this was seconded by P Kendall. A D Tinnion moved that an objection be made, this was seconded by H McIntosh. A vote was taken, 10 in favour of objection, 4 against. The motion in favour of objection was carried. Reasons: 1. The Local Planning Authority considered the proposed increase in traffic in the worst case scenario from the proposed extension and the additional industrial processing of the reserves at the site would increase the use of traffic on a sub-standard junction onto and along the B5301 highway to the detriment of highway safety contrary to Policy 1 of the Cumbria Minerals and Waste Local Plan 1996-2006. (However, Officers would not have opposed the proposal in terms of traffic levels if a condition had been imposed to restrict traffic levels of all traffic movements associated with both quarrying and bagging operations at the site to 50 vehicle movements per day.) 2. The Local Planning Authority considered any increased traffic use of the quarry’s existing northern access entrance onto the B5301 or the access by southbound/returning traffic entrance of the C2012 onto the B5301, would by virtue of their restricted visibility be hazardous to highway safety. Unless the principle of the proposed extension to the quarry and its associated phased operation were approved. Officers were consequently unable to support the variation of the conditions under the separate application (02/2006/9035) for the restriction of the existing quarry (i.e. the variation timescale derived from the extension at the site). Officer’s sought the speed restriction of the site in order to minimise disturbance arising from the traffic operations. The Council therefore also objected to the variation of condition on the quarry on the grounds that:- Allerdale opposed any variation of the former consent (02/1995/9007) for extending operations at Overby as they sought the speedy restoration of the site to end temporary disturbance arising from its traffic operations. 02/2007/9002 Change of use and extension of extension Objection of existing building to create a metals recycling facility, erection of a security fence and lodge and ancillary works, Unit 1, Joseph Noble Road, Lillyhall Industrial Estate, Workington. M G Wood moved that the application be accepted, this was seconded by P Kendall. P Bales moved that an objection be made, this was seconded by J Heathcote. A vote was taken, 13 in favour of objection 2 against. The motion in favour of objection was carried. Reason: The Local Planning Authority considered the application was contrary to Policies EM11 and EM12 of the Allerdale Local Plan. 2/2006/1304 Erection of 67 No. dwelling with associated Deferred roads and public open space; remediation of contaminated land by remodelling and capping; capping of mine shaft, Land off Browside Road, Dearham, Maryport.