Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the meetings held on 7 March 2016 and 12 April 2016 were agreed as a correct record.

In order to avoid any allegation of bias Councillor R Hignett took no part in the debate and did not vote on the following item as he had been involved with the scheme on Executive Board.

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

Officers reported a number of corrections in the report as follows:

·       Paragraph 4.1 – the date for the public exhibition was 25 November 2015 and not 2016 as printed;

·       Paragraph 2.12 and 6.55 – includes a list of the main documents submitted with the application.  These were shown to include a waste management plan, material management plan and landscape environmental management plan.  These had been included in error and should be deleted as they were included in the documents to be required by condition as detailed within the recommendation.  For the avoidance of doubt the submitted construction environmental management plan (CEMP) is draft only and the detailed CEMP was listed to be required by condition within the recommendation;

·       Page 54 – reference is made to various SUDS measures to be included.  These were listed in error and are not proposed but just examples of SUDS measures.

By way of update Officers advised that a number of scheme refinements were outlined within the report as summarised at 2.11 in the report.  As a result of those refinements and in particular the marginal increase in floor space, the detailed breakdown for the development and cumulative floorspace figures should be read from section 2.2 of the report.   Also for the avoidance of doubt the proposal description at page 17 of the report was the description of the development as originally applied for and does not take account of the scheme refinements.

It was reported that Knowsley Borough Council had requested that additional conditions be added to the recommendations:

·       That a physical barrier be required to restrict use of the emergency and bus link to Halebank prior to commencement of use.  The recommended conditions include a restriction on use of this access and submission and agreement of details but it was recommended that the condition suggested be accepted to require installation prior to occupation; and that

·       Further consideration be given to cycle links connecting the end of Lovel’s Way with the site.  This had been agreed by Halton’s Highways Officers and it was therefore recommended that an additional condition be included to secure this.

Officers confirmed that the animal remains had now been removed from the site.  A detailed verification report was awaited to confirm this as required by conditions 23 and 24 listed in the recommendation.  Finally Members were advised that a response had been provided to the queries from the Lead Local Flood Authority as outlined in the report.  This was noted that all outstanding issues could be secured through the terms of condition 8 as listed in the recommendation.

The Committee was addressed by local resident and homeowner Mr Killen, who objected to the scheme.  He suggested that Halton Council had used bullying tactics and treated the people of Halebank like second class citizens during the consultation period for the application.  Mr Killen was a businessman with local knowledge of businesses in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

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

RESOLVED:  That the application be approved subject to the upfront payment for Greenspace enhancements in the locality and the following conditions.

1)    Time limit – full permission.

2)    Approved plans.

3)    Submission of Proposed Site Levels (BE1);

4)    Implementation of facing materials detailed (BE1 and BE2);

5)    Implementation of landscape structure plan (BE1);

6)    Habitat management and maintenance plan (BE1);

7)    Implementation of recommendations in the Arboricultural Method Statement (BE1);

8)    Implementation of submitted hard landscape and boundaries layout and subsequent maintenance (BE1);

9)    Breeding bird protection (GE21);

10) Hours of construction (BE1);

11) Removal of permitted development – all dwellings (BE1);

12) Implementation of the noise bund and acoustic fence and subsequent maintenance (BE1 and PR8);

13) Implementation of the glazing and mechanical ventilation as identified in the acoustic report (BE1 and PR8);

14) Submission of a Construction Management Plan (BE1);

15) Provision and retention of parking for residential development (curtilage) (BE1);

16) Provision and retention of parking for residential development (not in curtilage ) (BE1);

17) Retention of garages to dwellings (BE1);

18) Implementation of access and servicing provision (BE1);

19) Implementation of off-site highway works (site access point from Chester Road, dropped crossing at the Tannery Farm access point, closure of existing farm access, bus stop alterations) (BE1);

20) Visibility splay (2.4m x 55m at site access with Chester Road) (BE1);

21) Submission of electric vehicle charging point scheme, subsequent implementation and maintenance (CS19);

22) Submission of a surface water regulatory scheme for approval and subsequent implementation (PR16);

23) Ground contamination – site investigation, remediation strategy and site completion report (PR14);

24) Submission of a waste audit (WM8); and

25) Submission of a sustainable waste management design (WM9).

In order to avoid any allegation of bias Councillor Cole did not take part in the debate or vote on the following item as he is a Board Member of Halton Housing Trust.

In order to avoid any allegation of bias Councillor Carol Plumpton-Walsh did not take part in the debate or vote on the following item due to a recent press release on the development which included a comment she made.

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

The Committee was advised that since the publication of the agenda two additional representations had been received via a Ward Councillor which raised the following issues: scale, look of the building and the level of intrusion; not meeting guildelines with regards to privacy; the application of the 25° rule; and why the 45° rule was not applied as the proposed extension appeared contrary to it.

It was reported that in respect of scale, Victoria House was a large building which was three storeys in height and the proposed extension whilst being large, would respect the scale of the existing building and form an acceptable relationship with surrounding buildings.

It was noted that the update list was published prior to the meeting and contained further information relating to the elevations of the building; privacy aspects and the relationship of the development with its nearest neighbours.  It further discussed the 45° rule and its uses.

Officers also advised the Committee that an additional condition was recommended for the submission of a scheme for the provision of future charging points of ultra-low emission vehicles, which the applicant had agreed to accept.

The Committee was addressed by Victoria Jones, a local resident who objected to the proposal.  She spoke regarding the distances between the development and the surrounding houses being insufficient and not complying with minimum standards: she argued that the apartments were too close to neighbours; not enough space had been left between habitable windows; and that the measurements and angles presented in the plan/report were not accurate.  She suggested that the proposal was out of character with the area and that the third storey on the flats was domineering and not to scale with the surrounding area.

The Committee was then addressed by James Nicholls, from Halton Housing Trust.  He stated that they were a reputable not for profit company who would develop high quality homes on a site that had remained vacant for the past 3 years.  He advised Members that they had carried out a consultation process with residents to discuss their concerns over highway safety and future tenant selection.  He further stated that they planned to restore the original features of the property and that as the extension was set back, residents views would not be affected.  He stated that the flats did not directly face the neighbours; the development would retain the character of the area; and would provide economic benefit as well as additional housing for Halton.

Local Ward Councillor Sinnott then addressed Members referring them to paragraph 5.2 of the report where it stated that 75 representations had been received in relation to the application, objecting to the proposal.  She reiterated the main objections: that the building was an undesignated heritage asset and this would be lost; shrubs would disappear; there would be an impact on neighbours from being overlooked; the extensions would affect the look  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

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

The Committee was advised that United Utilities had stated that they had no objection to the proposed development provided that it was understood that it was the applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate the exact relationship between any United Utilities’ assets and the proposed development; and that the following 3 conditions were attached to any approval:

·       Foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems;

·       Prior to the commencement of any development, a surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; and

·       Prior to the commencement of the development, a sustainable drainage management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and agreed in writing.

The Committee agreed that the application be approved subject to the conditions listed below and the addition of the conditions submitted by United Utilities.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to

a)    delegated powers being given to the Operational Director – Policy, Planning and Transportation, in consultation with the Chair or Vice Chair of the Development Control Committee to make a final determination, once the application has received a response from consultation sent to the British Pipeline Association (BPA); and

b)    the following conditions:

1)    Standard 3 year expiry;

2)    Materials condition;

3)    Position, design, materials and type of boundary treatment;

4)    Travel plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority;

5)    Prior to the occupation of the premises hereby approved the vehicle access, service and parking areas shall be laid out and surfaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority;

6)    Submission and approval of contaminated land report; and

7)    Traffic management plan.