Agenda item

To consider the report of the Director of Service Delivery (copy enclosed, Members’ Update to be circulated)*.

In response to a question from the Chairman, the Specialist: Development Management explained that a Grampian condition was a condition applied for works outside of the application site considered necessary to be completed before the erection of the development and without which the development would not be considered acceptable.

A lengthy debate ensued, during which a number of comments and questions were made by Members of the Committee to which Officers provided the following information:

·                 Provision of electrical charging points were included within condition 14.  The introduction of solar panels was raised and Members advised that the Council was unable to enforce solar at the moment because it was not included within the Local Development Plan, however the applicant could be asked to consider this.

·                 It was noted that following an initial objection from Environmental Health (EH) regarding 24/7 operation of the site Members were advised that the hours of operation had been reduced to 7am – 11pm and were now considered acceptable by EH. 

·                 There was not a condition to propose introduction of an acoustic barrier and this had not been requested by EH.  Therefore, Officers did not see there was a reason to impose an acoustic barrier.  However should Members be mindful to impose such a barrier Officers suggested that the Committee may wish to consider deferring consideration of the application to allow them to discuss the matter with the applicant as such structures were normally subject to detailed analysis etc. was not something that could be applied by the Committee at this stage.  During such a discussion the visual impact would also be raised.

·                 The application did not include a new attenuation basin.

·                 The 20m of undeveloped land within the site was to allow the Environment Agency (EA) to access the site carry out improvement works along the flood defences, should these be required in the future.

·                 Condition 22 sought to secure Sustainable Drainage Systems as requested by the Lead Local Flood Authority and all details of how surface water would be managed on the site would be secured through this condition.

·                 There were some discussions regarding public footpaths both within and adjacent to the site.  Members were advised of plans for a footpath to run along Heybridge Creek, but it was noted this was outside of the application site.  In response to a request for a pathway behind the causeway and linking up to the shopping centre and Bates Road Park, Officers explained this could not be conditioned.  If Members were considering requesting a contribution to such a footpath outside of the site justification for it would have to be provided along with a planning obligation.  The Officer then explained the three tests that had to be met in order to impose a planning obligation.  However, such requests were normally secured through the Local Plan and ancillary documents.  This had not been investigated by Officers as it was felt not to be triggered by the application.

Councillor K M H Lagan felt that to request attenuation within the site was very important.  He proposed that the application be deferred to look at what noise barriers and options were available and how these could be conditioned.  This proposal was duly seconded.

It was proposed that a site visit should be undertaken.  This proposal was duly seconded. 

The Chairman put the proposed deferral to the Committee and upon a vote being taken this was agreed.  Members then voted on a site visit and this was duly agreed.  In response to the site visit Officers clarified that this was specifically to explore potential noise issues in conjunction with the footpath and sound barriers.  This was agreed.

RESOLVED that this application be DEFERRED to investigate options for noise barriers and to undertake a site visit.