Agenda and minutes

          The Minutes of the meeting held on  7 October 2019, 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.

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

Officers advised the Committee that a letter of objection relating to noise had been received today which required investigation by the Environmental Health Department at the Council, so the application could not be determined today.  It was agreed that the application be deferred to a future meeting of the Committee.

RESOLVED:  That the application be deferred to allow consultation with the Environmental Health Department, following receipt of an objection.

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

Since the publication of the Committee agenda, Officers advised that a further 24 letters of objection had been received plus a further 10 letters from an individual objector.  It was noted that many of these sought to raise the same issues already raised in the report or just to reaffirm them.  A number of further issues had been raised and these were outlined in the Officer’s update together with 11 main issues which were outlined together with a summary response to each.  Details of one letter of support were also summarised.

Members were advised that Councillor John Bradshaw, Ward Councillor for Daresbury, had contacted Officers via email, as he was unable to attend today, with his concerns regarding the proposal.  These included traffic generation and routing, and the size, location and look of the sheltered housing block.  Officers also provided updates with regards to the queries made by the Council’s Open Spaces Officer on page 51 of the report.

The Committee was addressed by Nick Fillingham on behalf of the applicant.  He commented that (inter alia):

·       the objections made had been noted, however the scheme for extra care homes was much needed in Halton and was on the Government’s agenda;

·       the homes would be situated so that they were part of the community with a bistro that would be open to the public;

·       following an amended plan, there was now a generous separation distance from the site to neighbouring houses of 55 metres;

·       the houses on the development would all have off road parking and the extra care homes would have visitor parking as well as their own parking; and

·       so far engagement had been positive with all parties.

Mr Mackintosh, a resident of Sandymoor for 26 years, then addressed the Committee objecting to the 100 extra care homes scheme.  He stated (inter alia) that these were not part of the masterplan and that due to the height and scale of them they were inappropriate and out of character for the area.  He stated that Homes England had assured that any further house building would mirror existing houses on Sandymoor.  Further, he questioned the need for this type of housing; the lack of affordable housing on Sandymoor; the impact on wildlife; noise disturbance; increased traffic and road safety.

The Committee was then addressed by Bernadette Tarry, Clerk to Sandymoor Parish Council, who raised her objections to the scheme on behalf of local residents.  Following a meeting held with residents, she outlined three

main areas of concern discussed by them:

·       the 100 bed extra care housing block; they claimed that the housing block was so large it would dominate the area and was out of character with the surrounding properties:

·       the lack of bungalows in the area; and

·       the entry and exit routes for construction traffic; she suggested an alternative route was used for construction traffic.

In response to a comment made  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

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

After consideration of the application the Committee agreed that the application be approved, subject to the conditions listed below.

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

1.     Standard 3 year timescale for commencement of development;

2.     Specifying approved and amended plans;

3.     Matching materials conditions(s) (BE2);

4.     Condition requiring submission of a method statement for the control of Japanese Knotweed (GE21);

5.     Condition requiring submission of a verification report on completion of treatment of Japanese Knotweed (GE21);

6.     Condition requiring submission and agreement of cycle parking details (TP6);

7.     Condition restricting surface water run-off onto the adopted highway (TP17);

8.     Condition requiring submission; agreement; implementation; of a sustainable drainage scheme (BE1 and PR5);

9.     Submission and agreement of Site Waste Management Plan (WM8);

10. Submission and agreement of a lighting scheme (BE1);

11. Submission and agreement of site and finished floor levels (BE1); and

12. There shall be no external storage (BE1).