Minutes:
It was reported that the following applications had been withdrawn:-
06/00461/FUL Proposed
erection of 101 No. 2.5/ 3/ 3.5 storey houses and apartments with associated
parking at Cameron Industrial Services Ltd. Hale Road Widnes Cheshire.
06/00490/FUL Proposed
two storey side extension and associated works at 247 Ditchfield Road Widnes
Cheshire.
06/00553/OUT Outline
application for 3 No. two storey office blocks with details of siting / layout
and means of access for approval at Clifton Road Sutton Weaver Runcorn
Cheshire.
06/00558/FUL Proposed
two storey side extension and vehicular access crossing at 2 Heralds Close
Widnes Cheshire.
Appendix
a
Planning Application 06/00594/OUT SOG Ltd.
Objection by Cllr. Mike Hodgkinson.
In 2000 HCBD was found in quarries at Weston
Village. As a result of incentives to leave and unjustified scare mongering,
about half the population left the Village. However, most of the residents of
Weston Crescent and SOG, who took over the Heath site from the ICI, had faith
in the area and stayed.
We are pleased that SOG have been successful in
attracting businesses to the site to replace the jobs lost when it was vacated
by ICI and they have rightly received credit from the highest levels for their
achievements.
Most local residents support the expansion of the
Heath site to create more jobs, but have two major concerns. The first was that the site’s status as an
office and research establishment would be compromised by permitting the
introduction of light industry. This has been accepted by SOG.
The second major issue relates to Site 1, which is
sandwiched between a line of pylons and the housing both in Weston Crescent and
that recently constructed by Persimmon Homes. The proposal is of a three-storey
building. The SOG design statement says that as it is close to houses, a
generous landscape buffer with design measures to avoid overlooking should be
provided. The Site 1 analysis recommends a 20m buffer for a three-storey
building. The minimum distance to
houses may be 25m, but the distance to the fence lines to some properties is
much less than 20m. This will result in a major loss of amenity due to noise,
overspill lighting and loss of privacy for the nearby housing.
In the Site 4 analysis, it states that the building
on this site should be limited to two storeys to allow a roofline relationship
with the buildings to the east. This is a valid point even though the buildings
on the east are offices. Why does this
not also apply to the housing near Site 1, which has only two storeys and would
be overlooked? On this basis Site 1 should be no higher than 2 storeys.
The Site 1 analysis also says that the building
position on the grid should be aligned to create a relationship with Sites 4
and 5. These sites are much further from Site 1 than the housing in Weston
Crescent or the new housing, neither of which are considered in this context,
In fact the new housing is not even marked on the plan and does not seem to
have been considered at all!
A pond would be removed which is described as being
in poor condition and affecting the developable area. It is home to protected
newts, ducks and other wild life and provides a much-valued green oasis in an
area sandwiched between heavy industry and offices.
Several of the people who have written to me stayed
in the Village throughout the HCBD crisis which emptied half the Village. They
have been through enough and they deserve reasonable consideration by SOG as a
good neighbour.
In conclusion I ask for the Site 1 proposal to be
withdrawn and replaced by a landscaped area centred on an enhanced pond to
‘provide a generous landscaped buffer’ with some car parking. I have no
objection to the remaining sites, which will provide a significant increase to
the employment opportunities. Tabled 09.10.06
Supporting documents: