Agenda and minutes

            The Minutes of the meeting held on 18^th December 2006 having been printed and 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.

            The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site.  It was noted that one letter of representation had been received from an adjoining resident details of which were outlined in the report.

 

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

 

The applicant entering into a legal agreement in relation to the payment of a commuted sum for the provision and / or improvement of off-site open space.

 

  Conditions relating to the following:

 

1. Condition specifying amended plans (BE1)
2. Materials condition, requiring the submission and approval of the materials to be used (BE2)
3. Landscaping condition, requiring the submission of both hard and soft landscaping to include tree planting. (BE2)
4. Boundary treatments including retaining walls to be submitted and approved in writing (BE2)
5. Wheel cleansing facilities to be submitted and approved in writing and used. (BE1)
6. Construction and delivery hours to be adhered to throughout the course of the development. (BE1)
7. Vehicle access, parking, servicing etc to be constructed prior to occupation of properties/ commencement of use. (BE1)
8. Agreement and implementation of cycle parking provision (TP6)
9. Submission and agreement of finished floor and site levels. (BE1)
10. Site investigation, including mitigation to be submitted and approved in writing. (PR14)
11. Five conditions relating to tree protection during construction (BE1)

 

    That if the legal agreement is not executed within a reasonable period of time authority be delegated to the Operational Director- Environmental and Regulatory Services in consultation with the Chairman or Vice Chairman to refuse the application on the grounds that it fails to comply with UDP Policy S25 Planning Obligations.

           

The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site.  The Environment Agency and Council’s Environmental Health Officers had confirmed that they had no objections subject to the conditions which required that all works were carried out in accordance with the submitted reports.

 

The Committee considered the report which, outlined the plans to remove all material from the landscaped mound outside the Brindley Arts centre in order to create a flat, low level grassed area.  It was reported that in the future the area could be used to provide access to future redevelopment of the Canal Quarter and other regeneration projects. 

 

It was advised that the material to be moved was known to be contaminated and was supported by a detailed ground investigation and a method statement relating to the proposed application, which would limit the effects of the possible dust and smell issues.

 

Members were informed that the proposed application was anticipated to take ten weeks to complete and also before the end of the financial year.  The proposed method of access and egress from the site would be via the service yard.

 

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed below:

 

1.            Materials condition, requiring the submission and approval of the materials to be used. (BE2)

2. Submission and agreement of detailed routeing plan for construction traffic including directional signage (BE1)
3. Condition requiring submission and agreement of additional details relating to railings and safety barriers to be installed. (BE22)
4. Requiring that all works be carried out in accordance with the approved Method Statement and Ground Investigation and Waste Characterisation Assessment (PR13)
5. Requiring that the area be top-soiled and seeded/grassed in the first available planting season (BE2)
6. 5 Conditions relating to protection of trees to be retained (BE1)
7. Submission and agreement of a scheme of replacement tree planting (BE1)
8. Restricting hours of working and delivery to and from site (BE1)
9. Wheel cleansing facilities to be submitted and approved in writing and used. (BE1)

            The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site. No objections had been received.

 

            RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed below.

 

1. Materials condition, requiring the submission and approval of the materials to be used. (TP9)
2. Condition requiring submission and agreement of additional details relating to safety barriers to be installed. (TP9)
3. Requiring provision and maintenance of adequate visibility splay to junction with existing cycleway to north. (TP9)
4. Requiring provision of notice of commencement of works and access to allow archaeological recording (BE6)

 

 

           

The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site. It was reported that one letter of objection had been received details of which were outlined in the report.

 

United Utilities had raised no objection subject to drainage on a separate system with foul drainage connected into the foul sewer. Network rail had responded and raised no objection, however did raise comment regarding any operations carried out close to the railway line.  It was reported that these comments would be forwarded to the applicant.

 

The Committee discussed various issues regarding the location of the site, access and egress from the site, proximity to Fairfield High School, and the two local pharmacies near by.  It was reported that the proposed new clinic would replace the clinic on Beaconsfield Road.

 

Concerns were raised regarding parking facilities and the access from Lancaster Road to Peelhouse Lane.  In response it was noted that parking would be provided within the UDP requirements and the access road had been approved and checked.

 

RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions listed below.

1.  Materials condition, requiring the submission and approval of the materials to be used. (BE2)
2. Amended plans condition. (BE1)
3. Drainage condition, requiring the submission and approval of drainage details. (BE1)
4. Landscaping condition, requiring the submission of both hard and soft landscaping. (BE2)
5. Boundary treatments to be submitted and approved in writing. (BE1)
6. Wheel cleansing facilities to be submitted and approved in writing (BE1)
7. Parking conditions (2 separate conditions) to ensure parking and servicing areas is provided and maintained at all times. The use of the premises shall not commence until the vehicle access and parking has been laid out (TP12).
8. Details of the design of the bin storage (BE2).
9. Construction hours to be adhered to throughout the course of the development. (BE1)
10. Prior to the commencement requirement of Green Travel Plan and implementation of agreed details. (TP16)
11. 8 conditions relating to protection of trees to be retained during construction (BE1)
12. Security shutters to be incorporated and perforated and these details shall be submitted and approved. (BE1)

The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site. It was reported that one neighbour objection had been received which raised the seven issues listed below:

 

• development was too close;
• too much car parking next to existing bungalows when accessible to bus services;
• loss of the landscaped area;
• it was felt that it was wrong to utilise green space for car parking;
• inappropriate access roads; and
• noise pollution and access to existing flats and bungalows.

 

In response it was noted that:

 

§         the amended scheme had reduced the proposed numbers of units from 42 to 34 and at 86 units per hectare, this was appropriate for the size of the site, in view of the overall design of the proposal and would comply with Policy HR2 of the UDP;

§         the car parking provision at 125% per dwelling was appropriate for the location of the site near to a regular bus service and local centre;

§         as identified within the committee report, there had been inevitable loss of some landscaping to achieve the development.  However, this revised scheme retains a greater area of existing tress and proposed new tree planting.  It was considered that the regenerative benefits of the development outweigh the loss of landscaping as shown;

§         the area was not a designated greenspace and was within the general extent of the residential area within the UDP and Castlefields SPD, therefore the proposal would not conflict with the Council’s greenspace policies.

§         the Council’s highway engineer had raised no objection to the application in relation to the capacity of the access roads to the site;

§         it was accepted that there would be noise and pollution from vehicles. However, this would not be necessarily considerably worse than the previous use of the site.  The site’s proximity to the local bus services would provide good opportunities to use alternative forms of transport to private vehicles; and

§         the redevelopment of the site would not alter the current emergency access to the existing flats and bungalows, there would be sufficient access for this for the proposed development.  The applicant had agreed to upgrade the area currently used adjacent to Achillies Court for emergency and refuse access to existing properties at the request of the Highway Engineer.

 

The Committee was informed the applicant had expressed agreement to provide the appropriate financial contribution under the terms of the Open Space SPD.

 

It was reported that the plans had been amended to incorporate the bin storage areas nearer to the apartment blocks to avoid stand along structures and greater accessibility  for collection.

 

The Committee was advised the proposal was a step further forward in the regeneration of the Castlefields area and was compliant with the principles of the Castlefields SPD.

 

Requested modifications to the submitted plans in relation to highway and the requested tree survey had not yet been received at the time of the meeting.  In view of this it was requested that authority  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

It was reported that appeals had been received as a result of the following applications: -

 

06/00281/FUL            Application for the retention of boundary wall and gates at 13 Penrhyn Crescent Runcorn

 

06/00561/FUL Proposed two storey extension to front at 5 Wilsden Road Widnes

 

It was noted that appeals were lodged following the Council’s refusal of the following applications:-

 

Decisions had been received as follows :-

 

05/00932/FUL Retrospective application for retention of boundary fencing (to replace damaged section) at Selwyns Travel Ltd Cavendish Farm Road Runcorn

This appeal was dismissed

05/01054/FUL Proposed erection of amateur radio mast at 4 Allen Road Runcorn

This appeal was dismissed

06/00159/TEL Application for prior approval for 1 No. 12.5m telegraph pole column and 1 No. outdoor cabinet on Land to The West of Railway Station Liverpool Road Widnes

This appeal was allowed

The Council considered that prior approval would be required as it would be in a prominent location near residential areas and in the vicinity of two existing

telecommunication masts, which would result in an unacceptable proliferation of telecommunication equipment. It would also be in an unacceptable position within the highway.

 

The Planning Inspectorate considered the above, but stated that no alternative locations were suggested by The Council and considered an adequate assessment of possible alternative sites had been undertaken, and that there are no available alternatives which would represent a preferable environmental solution. It was concluded that the siting and appearance of the proposed development would not be damaging to the character and appearance of this part of Widnes, and would not conflict with Policy BE21 of the Halton Unitary Development Plan.

 

3) The following applications have been withdrawn :-

 

06/00806/FUL Proposed single storey side extensions to provide bedroom and en suite at 23 Addison Square Widnes

 

06/00820/FUL            Proposed erection of 5 No detached dwellings at 5 Holt                 Lane Runcorn