Agenda and minutes

          The Minutes of the meeting held on 3 November 2014, having been circulated, were taken as read and signed as a correct record.

          The Committee considered the following applications for planning permission and, in accordance with its powers and duties, made the decisions described below.

To avoid any allegation of bias Councillor R Hignett declared a Discloseable Other Interest in the following item as his daughter lived near the proposed site.  He took no part in the debate and did not vote on the item.

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

 

The Committee was advised that one additional representation had been received raising concerns over the site’s proximity to the railway line and therefore its suitability for housing.

 

It was reported that the Highways Department had no objection to the proposed development subject to the conditions set out in the report.  The comments made in the update list regarding the drainage issues would be addressed in a Drainage Strategy condition. 

 

It was also reported that Network Rail had made some observations to ensure that the proposal did not impact on the safety, performance, integrity or operation of the railway.  They had suggested therefore that the following conditions be attached to secure the submission of relevant details and subsequent implementation:

 

1.     Surface water and foul water drainage scheme;

2.     Details of ground levels, earthworks and excavations; and

3.     Suitable trespass proof fence to railway.

 

In response it was noted that there was already a condition suggested which would secure the submission of a drainage strategy; details of earthworks and excavations could be incorporated into the suggested site levels condition; and the trespass proof fencing could be dealt with through the suggested landscaping and boundary treatments condition. 

 

Officers also advised that amended Site Layout Plans had been received in order to provide clarity over the width of the footway to the front of the properties. 

 

An amended Construction Management Plan had also been received.   The Highway Officer confirmed that this arrangement was acceptable and the condition suggested in the Committee Report would secure the implementation of this plan throughout the construction period.

 

It was reported that the Environmental Protection Officer had no objection to the proposed development; however some further noise investigation was required to ensure that the mitigation measures currently proposed were acceptable.  This would be secured through the noise mitigation condition.

 

Members agreed to approve the application subject to the conditions below and the incorporation of the additional items mentioned above.

 

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.     Time limit – full permission;

2.     Approved plans;

3.     Site levels (Policy BE1);

4.     Facing materials (Policies BE1 and BE2);

5.     Landscaping and boundary treatments scheme (Policy BE1);

6.     Breeding birds protection (Policy GE21);

7.     Removal of permitted development – all dwellings (Policy BE1);

8.     Hours of construction (Policy BE1);

9.     Implementation of the Construction Management Plan (Highways) (Policy BE1);

10. Provision of affordable housing (Policy CS13);

11. Noise mitigation measures (Policy PR2);

12. Ground contamination (Policy PR14);

13. Pedestrian visibility splay (Policy BE1);

14. Pedestrian and retention of parking (Policy BE1);

15. Closure of existing access points on Percival Lane and 2m wide footway provision with dropped crossings (Policy BE1); and

16. Drainage strategy (Policy PR16).

 

 

 

 

 

 

To avoid any allegation of bias Councillor R Hignett declared a Discloseable Other Interest in the following application as he had met with the applicant regarding the site.  He took no part in the debate and did not vote on the item.

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

 

          Since the publication of the agenda it was reported that Cheshire Constabulary had responded to advice that they fully supported the design and access statement for the 18 new homes, as stated on the update list.  Additionally, Cheshire Wildlife Trust raised no objection to the proposal on condition that the development was undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of the submitted survey and the additional 3 conditions:

 

1.     Bird nesting season protection;

2.     Incorporation of 5 bird and 5 bat boxes; and

3.     Tree and shrub planting to a level which satisfied the Council and provided mitigation for the development.

 

It was noted that the material to be used for the bin storage areas was to be confirmed.  However this would be known prior to commencement and Officers would ensure that it complied with materials stipulated in the planning policy.

 

Members agreed to approve the application subject to the following conditions and the addition of the three conditions listed above.

 

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the following conditions:

 

1.     Time limit – full permission;

2.     Approved and amended plans;

3.     No development to begin until the detailed design of all retaining walls, including design and structural calculations, to be used to support the proposed car parking area and other locations adjacent to the public highway, have been approved (Policies BE1, TC9, TP12, CS5);

4.     No development to begin until the car park has been provided, in accordance with the layout drawing and details approved, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority (Policies BE1, TC9, TP12, CS5);

5.     Site levels (Policy BE1);

6.     Materials to be agreed before development begins (Policies BE1 and BE2);

7.     Landscaping scheme to be approved before development begins (Policy BE1);

8.     Implementation of Tree Protection Scheme before development begins (Policy BE1);

9.     Submission of all boundary details before development begins (Policy BE22);

10. Submission of bin store details before development begins (Policy BE2);

11. Submission of cycle store details before development begins (Policy TP7);

12. Breeding birds protection (Policy GE21);

13. Provision of all hard standing areas to be of porous material (PR16);

14. Hours of construction and material deliveries (Policy BE1);

15. Submission of and implementation of Construction Management Plan (Highways) (Policy CS13);

16. Provision of affordable housing throughout development lifetime (Policy CS13);

17. Ground contamination (Policy PR14);

18. Off-site highway works (Policy BE1);

19. Provision and retention of parking for residential development (Policy BE1);

20. Drainage conditions x 2 (Policy PR16);

21. Biodiversity enhancements (Policy GE21);

22. Removal of permitted development Classes A and E (Policy BE2);

23. All future hard surfaces provided to be of porous material (PR16).

24. Bird nesting season protection;

25. Incorporation of 5 bird and 5 bat boxes; and

26. Tree and shrub planting to a level which satisfied the Council and provided mitigation for the development.

 

 

The following applications had been withdrawn:

 

14/00469/TEL

Prior notification of proposed upgrade to existing telecommunications base station including replacement of existing 15 metre pole by 17 metre pole, removal and replacement of 2 no existing equipment cabinets and the addition of 1 no cabinet on land to the south west of the junction between the busway and Norton Lane, Runcorn, Cheshire.

 

14/00471/PDE

Proposed single storey extensions comprising side extension projecting to the rear by 8 metres and separate rear extension projecting to the rear by 8 metres, the extensions have a maximum height of 5 metres and eaves heights of 2.5 metres at Morphany Hall Farm, Morphany Lane, Daresbury, Cheshire, WA4 4JR.

 

14/00479/FUL

Proposed single storey side extension and double storey side and rear extension at 42 Morton Road, Runcorn, Cheshire, WA7 6PN.

 

The following Appeals had been received / were in progress:

 

14/00275/FUL – (APP/D650/D/14/2225856)

Proposed two storey rear extension, addition of chimney and window to right hand side of property at 24 Glastonbury Close, Sandymoor, Runcorn.

 

The appeal was allowed on 5 November 2014 and planning permission is granted for a first floor rear extension, addition of chimney and window.  This was after the original application was refused due to its impact on the immediate neighbour at 26 Glastonbury Close.

 

13/00278/FUL – (APP/D0650/V/14/2212165)

Proposed redevelopment of existing high school comprising new school building, provision of new tennis courts, relocation of playing fields, new car parking and associated hard and soft landscaping and demolition of the existing school buildings at The Heath Specialist Technology College.

 

The Secretary of State has called the application in for his consideration.  This will now be heard by a public inquiry likely to be in the New Year.

 

14/00308/TPO – (APP/TPO/D0650/4146)

Proposed work to trees as follows: T1 Sycamore, fell; T3 Birch, fell; T4 Oak, fell – all at 2 Derby Road, Widnes, WA8 9JX.

 

The application was refused based on the comments from the Council’s Open Spaces Department.  The applicant failed to demonstrate that the Sycamore, Birch and Oak covered by Tree Preservation Order warrant felling.  The applicant had appealed the decision and the current appeal was still awaiting decision from the inspectorate.

 

14/00345/FUL – (APP/D0650/D/14/2225230)

Proposed two storey side and rear extension at 12 Betchworth Crescent, Runcorn.

 

The application was refused as the proposal failed to provide two car parking spaces within the curtilage of 12 Betchworth Crescent.  By virtue of its location and height, the proposed first floor rear extension was deemed to have an overbearing impact on the rear of the property at 14 Betchworth Crescent.  Due to its size, the extension would cause significant overshadowing and loss of light to both immediate neighbours.  The applicant had appealed the decision and the current appeal is still awaiting decision from the Inspectorate.