Agenda item

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

The Committee was addressed by Mr Justin Paul who spoke in support of the application on behalf of Opus Land.   He stated that they were keen to invest in Halton and after consulting 300 residents within the immediate area, had received 296 responses that were all in support of the development.  He went on to state that benefits would include job opportunities, a total investment of £5 million, the regeneration of the area, and new uses for the site which would include a family pub and bulky goods warehouses.  He further stated that the company had provided evidence as to why the Halton Lea and Trident Park sites were not suitable for the development.

The Committee was also addressed by Councillor Loftus who spoke in support of the application on behalf of the residents.  She commented that this quality development would be beneficial to the local people from a jobs perspective and that a family pub would be a welcome facility for the area. 

            It was reported that since the publication of the application, the Council had received an objection from the representative of Fordgate, the owners of Trident Park and Halton Lea Management, on the basis of the following:-

a)     There was no quantative or qualitative need for additional convenience floor space on this edge of the Centre site and as such it fails to meet the test of Policy TC1 of the UDP;

b)     The applicant had not taken into account the existing vacant units within the shopping centre in undertaking a sequential assessment;

c)      The applicant had failed to take into account the extant permission on East Lane;

d)     Proposal was a stand alone development, physically separated from Halton Lea and would not facilitate any pedestrian linked trips to Halton Lea;

e)     The provision of floorspace outside the Centre would further threaten its vitality and viability and divert trade and associated footfall;

f)        It would have a significant adverse impact upon in-centre trade and turnover due to the extent of diversion from the Centre;

g)     Potential impact on Fordgate’s planned private investment in the Centre;

h)      Insufficient evidence to show compliance with the sequential approach;

i)        There was sufficient evidence to refuse the application; and

j)        It was contrary to the policies contained in PPS4.

It was also reported that the Council had received an anonymous letter of objection from the ‘parents and partners’ of Lidl workers referring to the poor reputation of the Company in the area of employee law and staff relations.

The Committee were not convinced that the applicant had failed the sequential test required by PPS4 nor that there would be a significant adverse impact on the Halton Lea Centre if the development was approved.

Following debate, Members commented that although the recommendation was to refuse the application, there was a strong argument for the benefits that such a development would bring to the Borough.  Members considered the application, further comments made and amendments to the application and agreed that it would be in the interests of both local residents and Halton if this development was approved.

RESOLVED: That

1)     The application be approved due to there being significant benefits from the proposal which outweighed policy objections;

2)     Delegated Authority be given to the Operational Director, Environment and Regulatory Services, in consultation with the Chair or Vice Chair, to take into consideration additional information and/or amendments to the scheme and to approve subject to conditions and any planning obligation which may be deemed to be required or appropriate; and

3)     If the S106 Agreement or alternative arrangement is not excluded within a reasonable period of time, authority be delegated to the Operational Director – Environment and Regulatory Services in consultation with the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Committee to refuse the application on the grounds that it fails to comply with Policy S25 (Planning Obligations).