Minutes:
The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site.
The Committee was provided with the following updates since the publication of the agenda:
· Ecology and woodland – Further submissions of the following were received: Preliminary Ecological Appraisal; Bat Scoping Survey and Great Crested Newt Method Statement. The Council’s Open Spaces Officer had confirmed that the mitigation measures contained within these reports were acceptable.
· Officers advised that although an ideal buffer between the development and the woodland would be 5m, it was considered, given the previous permission for residential, which did not contain this, and that there was no statutory requirement for any buffer provision, the 2m proposed was considered acceptable. The 2m buffer would be planted with dense spiny native understory mix to maximise the function of the 2m strip. The applicant also provided clarification on the future management of the 2m buffer zone between the site and the wood, which would be a management agreement and was contained within the submitted Landscape Strategy.
· Boundary Treatments – The applicant had provided further drawings which sought to minimise disturbance to existing boundary treatment whilst ensuring that the western end of the site was secure and would result in no significant impact on the privacy of existing residents. Appendix 1 attached to the update list provided drawings and photographs to enable members to understand the arrangement of the boundaries on this part of the site, where it affected in the main, existing residents. It was considered that the applicant had provided a satisfactory form of a mix of boundary treatments which addressed the individual concerns of the existing residents whilst maintaining acceptable visual amenity standards and in doing so complied with policies BE1, BE2 and BE22 of the Halton UDP. Officers recommended a condition for the maintenance of these approved boundaries throughout the lifetime of the development.
Officers advised that representations had been received from the owners of properties adjacent to the site: numbers 1, 14 and 15 Manor Farm Mews in relation to the treatment of the boundaries. Their comments on the latest amended boundary drawings were summarised for Members.
Mr Tim Sly, the owner of a site opposite the application site, addressed the Committee on behalf of the residents of Manor Farm Mews. He raised concerns around the boundary treatment of the site, the removal of the existing wall and the raising in height of the new wall; concerns that the green screen would be inadequate as a replacement for the wall; responsibility for future maintenance of the green screen; the proximity of the ground works to residents properties; potential for root damage in the future; and loss of privacy for existing residents. Mr Sly also suggested that there would be disruption to local businesses during demolition and that asbestos was in the farmhouse wall; he requested additional conditions with regards to controlling noise and dust. He also queried the Traffic Management Plan for construction traffic at peak times and requested further conditions enforcing the flow of this.
The Committee was then addressed by Alison Freeman, the applicant, who stated that they had worked very closely with the Planning Officer on the boundary treatments. Further she advised that the scheme had been amended to include a 1.5m ‘living fence’ (green screen). She confirmed that the fence would not touch the boundary of existing residents’ properties and that it would be maintained and managed by the applicant as explained in the updates above.
Members discussed the application and were satisfied that the concerns of the residents had been dealt with and were subject to conditions already listed in the report. It was noted that the demolition of the site and related safety matters would be dealt with by the Health and Safety Executive.
An additional condition was requested in relation to tactile crossings and the maintenance of the boundary treatment.
RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to a Section 106 Agreement for a contribution towards off site open space and the following conditions:
1) Time limit – full permission;
2) Approved plans (BE1 and BE2);
3) Legal agreement with Woodland Trust for tree works in woodland adjacent to the site (BE1 and GE27);
4) Submission of exiting site levels and proposed site and finished floor levels (BE1);
5) Facing materials (BE1 and BE2);
6) Landscaping (BE1);
7) Boundary Treatments Scheme (BE22);
8) Tree protection measures (BE1 and GE27);
9) Breeding birds protection (GE21);
10) Recording and analysis of farmhouse and buildings (BE1);
11) Submission of a revised wildlife mitigation strategy (GE27);
12) Removal of Permitted Development Class A and E – Plots 3; 6; and 7 (BE1);
13) Hours of construction (BE1);
14) Submission of a Construction Management Plan (Highways) (BE1);
15) Ground contamination (PR14);
16) Provision and retention of parking (BE1);
17) Drainage strategy (PR16);
18) Submission of details of street lighting (BE1);
19) Provision of tactile crossings; and
20) Maintenance of the boundary treatment.