Agenda and minutes

            The Minutes of the meeting held on 8 August 2022, 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.

The Chair advised that this item had been moved from column A to column B of the update list, because an update was required.

Officers reported that there was an omission of the four story element in the description of the development on the top of the Committee report, however this was contained in the body of the report under principle of development and was evident throughout the plans and report, and was included in the description when advertised.   In addition, the wording on conditions on page 16 required rewording in the final decision notice.

Further to the update on contaminated land referred to in the report, the Contaminated Land Officer had stated that he was in agreement with the findings and recommendations and did not object to the application, but recommended that any permission be conditioned to require site investigation, updated risk assessment and if necessary, remediation and verification reporting.

The Committee was satisfied with the updates and agreed that the application be approved.

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

1.    Time limit – full permission;

2.    Approved plans;

3.    Implementation of external facing materials (CS(R)18 and GR1);

4.    Electric vehicle charging points scheme (C2);

5.    Parking and servicing provision (C1 and C2);

6.    Cycle parking details (C2);

7.    Car park management plan (C2);

8.    Implementation of cycle parking scheme (C2);

9.    Travel Plan (CS(R)15 and C1);

10. Drainage strategy (CS23 and HE9);

11. Site waste management plan/waste audit (WM8);

12. Sustainable development and climate change scheme (CS(R)19); and

13. Contaminated land conditions.

The Committee was advised that the Applicant had withdrawn this application from the Committee agenda, so consideration was not required today.

In order to avoid any allegation of bias, Councillor Philbin did not take part in the debate and did not vote on the following item, as the site in question was part of the Ward he represented.

In order to avoid any allegation of bias, Councillor Hutchinson removed himself from the meeting before the following item, as he had dealt with the applicant previously and since the introduction of the car parking charges.

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

Officers advised the Committee that since the publication of the agenda a further seven letters of objection had been received, outlining issues already reported.  They also advised that the principle planning consideration for the proposals were the scale and design of the proposed infrastructure and signage.  It was noted that although concerns had been raised regarding the displacement of parking related to the introduction of a maximum stay period on the car park, it was important to note that planning permission is not required for the owners of the land to introduce a maximum stay period or car parking charges.  The land is owned privately so it was at the owner’s discretion as to how the parking was managed on their car park and the Council could not intervene in this.

Objections had been received regarding the charging for car parking and the impact on the Town Centre.  Whilst the Council was opposed to the principle of charging for parking and sympathetic to the reported impacts on local business and the community, the amount of parking charge was not a material consideration for the Committee or was it within the control of the Planning Authority. 

Members were advised that no objections had been received based on the appearance of the cameras and poles or the park and display machines.  Officers’ advised that it was considered that the design and appearance of the proposed ANPR cameras, associated structures and pay machines would not result in harmful impact on the visual amenity of the area and no conflict with current local or national policy had been identified.  Regarding the impacts of advertisements on amenity and public safety, these were not considered to be inappropriate in scale and location to the area in which they are situated.  Officers advised therefore, that they considered that refusal of planning permission for either of the applications could not be sustained on these grounds.

In summary the proposals for the ANPR cameras and poles were considered appropriate in terms of their design and appearance and were appropriate to their surroundings.  The application for retrospective permission for their retention was acceptable and the application for the advertisements were considered acceptable in accordance with the relative DALP policies.

The Committee was addressed by Mr McLoughlin, who objected to the applications on behalf of the Widnes Market Traders Committee, citing the following:

·         He has been a trader for 20 years and since the introduction of the parking charges, has seen footfall fall by 25% initially, to down by 50% now;

·         The retail trade was just picking up after suffering two years of the impacts of Covid and now it was worse than ever;

·         Customer parking has dispersed into the Town Centre and surrounding roads and the car park is hardly used even at peak times of the day;

·         There is no provision for disabled badge users;

·         Local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

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

The application was in column A of the published AB update list and the Committee agreed that no further explanation was required and the application was approved.

RESOLVED:  That the application is approved subject to the following conditions:

1.    Standard 3 year expiry;

2.    In accordance with approved plans; and

3.    Materials to match existing.