Agenda and minutes

          The Minutes of the meeting held on 6 June 2016, having been circulated, were taken as read and signed as a correct record.

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:

a)    The applicant entering into a legal agreement in relation to the payment of a commuted sum for off-site open space; and

b)    Conditions relating to the following:

1.     Standard outline conditions for the submission of reserved matters applications x 3 conditions (BE1);

2.     Plans condition listing relevant drawings i.e. site location/red edge (BE1 and TP 17);

3.     Prior to commencement, the submission of a reserved matters proposal which incorporates a full proposal for drainage of the site (BE1);

4.     Prior to commencement, submission of levels (BE1);

5.     Prior to commencement, submission of materials (BE1 and CS11);

6.     Condition(s) for submission of hard and soft landscaping (BE1);

7.     Prior to commencement, submission of a construction/traffic management plan which will include wheel cleansing details (TP17);

8.     Avoidance of actively nesting birds (BE1);

9.     Prior to commencement, details of on-site biodiversity action plan for measures to be incorporated in the scheme to encourage wildlife (GE21);

10. Prior to commencement, details of a landscape proposal and an associated management plan to be submitted and approved (BE1, GE21);

11. Prior to commencement, details of boundary treatments (BE22);

12. Provision of a Site Waste Management Plan (WM8); and

13. Provision of bins (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.

Members were referred to the Update List where an additional representation had been made since the publication of the Committee report by Victoria Jones, objecting to the scheme. 

The Committee was then addressed by Victoria Jones who reiterated the objections set out in the Update List on behalf of the neighbouring residents arguing that the views of the local community had not been taken into consideration.  She tabled several photographs and annotated plans which were passed around for Members to see.

Mr James Nicholls, the architect representing on behalf of the applicant, then addressed the Committee.  He advised that they had submitted a revised scheme after hearing the residents comments from the last meeting, and this included the removal of the 4^th floor.  He reminded all that Halton Housing Trust was a not for profit organisation which had been awarded a grant from the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) for the development of the site.  Conditions were attached to this with regards to the timing of the development which meant that it would have to be completed within two years otherwise the funding would be lost.  He advised that the parking and highways issues had been resolved; the historic original features would be reinstated; and revisions were made to the side extension, roof shapes, materials to be used and windows.  Further the development complied with all planning policies of the Council and would consist of high quality affordable homes, having a positive impact on the environment and local economy.

The Committee was then addressed by the Heath Ward Councillor Rowe.  He stated that the residents understood the need for new homes and did not object to the development, but he stated that despite the amendments to the scheme there were still a number of concerns with the design:

·       The development being out of character, too big and too tall;

·       Too modern;

·       Existing properties would be overlooked;

·       Not sympathetic to the area;

·       Not in keeping with surrounding properties;

·       Privacy issues;

·       Burland Close and Holloway properties affected;

·       Guidelines still not met;

·       Loss of sunlight;

·       Insufficient parking (already problems in the area due to the Railway Station);

·       Flooding issues not being addressed (reference to recent flooding in Burland Close in the past 10 years);

·       Measurements were not true;

·       Smells from pumping station;

·       Loss of greenspace and trees;

·       Site too small for number of properties proposed;

·       Traffic noise during construction; and

·       Lack of consultation by HHT on the amended plans.

Officers advised that the above concerns were addressed in the report and update list.  The distances between the properties was clearly explained and it was clarified that Officers’ recommendations were based on guidelines within the Design of Residential Development Supplementary Planning Document and where necessary, Officer judgement.

With regards to comments made regarding the recent flooding in Burland Close, the Highways Officer advised Members that the latest plans recommended a gravity system be used in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The Committee was advised that the original planning application was submitted in 2013 for a 1650 pupil high school and recommended for approval at Development Control Committee on 4 November 2013.  Although the proposal was in accordance with the Council’s Policies that dealt with risk, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) advised against the application due to its proximity to the INEOS site and the potential associated risks in the event of a chlorine gas release.  Following the Committee’s decision to approve the application the HSE requested the Secretary of State to call the application in, triggering a public inquiry.

It was reported that this public inquiry was never held as the application was eventually withdrawn by the applicant following discussion between the HSE, the School and the Education Funding Agency.

It was highlighted that the application before the Committee was a new scheme that sought to deal with the issues that were raised in objection to the earlier scheme. 

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

It was reported that since writing the Committee report the updates had been received from Natural England; Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service, HBC’s Open Spaces Division and Sport England, all of which were detailed in the published update list.  Members were also advised of one further representation from a local resident regarding the changes made to relocate the bin store and water tank.

It was noted that the condition recommended by network rail from a vibro-impact assessment should be removed as it was not necessary.  Also, further conditions were recommended for the detail of surface water drainage and for an updated construction traffic management plan.

Members were advised that very careful consideration had been given to the advice provided by the HSE and their position which was to ‘advise against the grant of planning permission on grounds of public safety’.  These matters were considered in the context of the Core Strategy and Unitary Development Plan policies, together with the Planning for Risk Supplementary Planning Document.

Members were advised that if they were minded to approve the application, the HSE would need to be given formal notification and provided 21 days for them to decide whether or not they would like to request the application to be called-in by the Secretary of State.  Officers would require delegated authority to issue the decision following their response.

The Committee received speaker Andy Young, a local resident, who did not object to the School itself, but objected to the position of the buildings.  He stated that the scheme could be improved simply by relocating the footprint and argued that the School building and the industrial tank were both too close to residents.  He referred to the HSE decision regarding the previous application and its proximity to INEOS and the dangers and that this application proposed to increase pupil numbers and therefore increasing the risk.  He also stated that the scheme was overbearing and unneighbourly and would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The following applications had been withdrawn:

16/00041/FUL         Proposed demolition of existing dwelling and erection of replacement detached dwelling with two bedrooms in the roof space at 153 Pit Lane, Widnes, Cheshire, WA8 9HR.

16/00122/TCA         Proposed works to trees in conservation area as follows: T14, Sycamore, over hanging bow to be cut back, T16, Sycamore, remove, T17, Holly, remove, T19, Field Maple, remove, T20, Common Juniper, remove or relocate, Group 3, Leylandii, remove, all at 5 Weston Road, Runcorn, Cheshire, WA7 4JU.

16/00134/PDE         Proposed single storey rear extension projecting from the rear wall by 4.25 metres, the extension has a maximum height of 3 metres and an eaves height of 2.5 metres at 27 Weston Road, Runcorn, Cheshire, WA7 4JX.

16/00063/TPO        Proposed pruning / maintenance work to trees T1 to T5 inclusive as detailed in the accompanying plan and schedule and covered by Tree Preservation Order 038 of 1989 on Land between 82 and 92 Moorfield Road and 7 and 10 Romney Close, Widnes, Cheshire, WA8 3JA.