Minutes:
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 4th 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 place of the soakaways which were not suitable for this development. The implementation of an appropriate surface water regulatory system would be secured by condition.
Officers also explained that the payment of a commuted sum in lieu of on-site open space provision was not possible on this scheme, as it would compromise the viability of the scheme.
After taking the Officer report, representations, amended plans and updates into consideration, the Committee decided to approve the application subject to the conditions below.
RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Time limit – full permission;
2. Approved plans;
3. Implementation of proposed site levels (BE1);
4. Facing materials to be agreed (BE1 and BE2);
5. Submission of detailed soft landscaping scheme, implementation and subsequent maintenance (BE1);
6. Implementation of submitted hard landscape and boundaries layout and subsequent maintenance;
7. Breeding birds protection (GE21);
8. Submission of a swift nesting boxes scheme, implementation and subsequent maintenance (GE21);
9. Retention of trees (GE21);
10. Submission of a lighting scheme designed to protect ecology – (GE21);
11. Hours of construction (BE1);
12. Removal of permitted development – all dwellings (BE1);
13. Submission of a construction management plan (BE1);
14. Provision and retention of parking for residential development (Curtilage) (BE1);
15. Provision and retention of parking for residential development (not in curtilage (BE1);
16. Submission of cycle parking scheme for apartments and subsequent implementation (BE1);
17. Implementation of access and servicing provision (BE1);
18. Implementation of off-site highway works (site access points from Penn Lane) (BE1);
19. Submission of a parking management plan and subsequent implementation (BE1);
20. Submission of a surface water regulatory system for approval and subsequent implementation (PR16);
21. Foul and surface water on separate systems (PR16);
22. Ground contamination – remediation strategy and site completion report (PR14);
23. Submission of a waste audit (WM8); and
24. Submission of a scheme for the provision of future charging points of ultra-low emission vehicles (CS19).