Minutes:
At the opening of the meeting the Chair addressed the public and explained the procedures that would apply to all matters before the Committee with particular reference to this item. The Chair requested the public to observe and respect these procedures, so that the business of the Committee could be conducted in an orderly manner.
The Planning Officer then introduced the item.
The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined together with background information in respect of the site.
The Committee was reminded of the representations made in advance of the
meeting, which were all included in the report.
Since the publication of the agenda it was reported that further
objections had been received by email, reiterating the concerns previously
raised by residents, many emphasising the need for care beds and the retention
of the use of the building as a care home and the health and safety
issues. The Officers confirmed that the
Local Planning Authority (LPA) had no information regarding a possible
reopening of the site. The current owner
of Lilycross had confirmed that he did not know that
anyone was interested in the purchase of Lilycross to
use the building as a care home.
The Officers referred the Committee to the published supplementary
information update list which provided information in relation to objections
received regarding the existing use of the site. Two further representations had been received
in support of the application; and the typographical error in Condition 2 on
page 51 was noted. The additional
information in the supplementary information update list regarding retention of
use was amplified.
The Committee was addressed by Mr Mike Carr,
who spoke against the application on behalf of the objectors. He argued:
·
That
the sewerage requirements would be double that of the care home as per the
Environment Agency’s comments;
·
There
was a fear of crime amongst local residents despite there being no Police
evidence of this at comparable sites;
·
That
the site was in a Green Belt location and would result in increased traffic and
movement of people and intensification of use; and
·
That
the development cannot be sustainable economically, socially or
environmentally.
Mr Simon Dorset, a representative from SERCO on behalf of the applicant,
then addressed the Committee. He began
by introducing COMPASS (Commercial and Operating Managers Procuring Asylum
support) contracts with the Home Office, of which SERCO was awarded the North
West area. He discussed the suitability
of the site for the purpose being requested and understood that residents had
questions and fears in relation to this, which were answered in detail in the
report. He explained how the asylum
seekers would be managed once they were placed in the initial accommodation and
the duty of care placed upon SERCO until they were dispersed to other
accommodation. He stated that the impact
of the site on the local community would be small and healthcare would be
provided under the contract with the exception of emergency care. Therefore there would be little or no impact
on the local healthcare services. In
response to claims regarding fear of crime, he advised that there was no
evidence of crime being committed at other sites across the country.
Councillor MacManus then addressed the Committee and spoke on behalf of
local residents. He raised points
relating to:
·
How
responses from statutory consultees had been set out in the report;
·
Drainage
issues;
·
The
lack of sprinkler and alarm systems;
·
Whether
the development would be sustainable;
·
Whether
policy GE4 was applied;
·
Doubts
over economic growth claims and how businesses would benefit from asylum
seekers;
·
Fear of
crime;
·
Whether
it was possible to impose a condition to restrict the use of the site to
families only;
·
Doubts that
facilities in the Centre would meet standards in relation to sewerage and HMO’s
(Homes of Multiple Occupation);
·
Unsuitability
of the site for such a use; and
·
Human
rights and proportionality.
The Legal Officer answered the question raised by Councillor MacManus
regarding a condition restricting the use of the hostel to families only and
confirmed that this was not possible.
Some Members of the Committee stated that despite the publicity
surrounding this application, it must be determined according to its merits and
compliance with planning policy just like any other application would be.
A question was raised of the adequacy of the drainage on the site. The Council’s Highways Engineer gave a
detailed reply. He referred to the paper
which had been tabled before the start of the meeting for the information of
the Committee by a member of the public opposing the application; this was
titled ‘Sewage Treatment Plant –
Manufacturers (Klargester) recommendation by Mr Chris
Pike, Product Manager commercial Treatment Plants’, which questioned the
current system.
Before the conclusion of the detailed reply there was a general
disturbance by members of the public. A
large number of people left the room making loud comments. After further interruptions and further
people exiting the room the Council’s Highways Engineer concluded his
comments. In his opinion the drainage
provision would be adequate.
The debate continued. In response
to discussions regarding the retention of use as a care home versus the use as
an asylum hostel, the Council’s Legal Adviser re-stated the rules that applied.
Some Members of the Committee commented that Lilycross
had never been owned by the Council and any alternative proposals on its
future, such as the ones being suggested in emails to the Committee, should be
put directly to the owner.
After hearing the representations made by the speakers and taking the
report and updates into consideration, the Committee determined that the
application for change of use be approved.
RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years form the date of permission.
Reason:- In order to comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans and drawings received on 10 August 2016:-
1:1250 Site Plan
Reason:- To ensure that the work is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and within the parameters of the grant of planning permission, and to comply with Policies BE1 and BE2 of the Halton Unitary Development Plan, the Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.
3. The use hereby approved shall be limited to a hostel for initial Accommodation of Asylum Seekers and for no other use.
In this Condition ‘Initial Accommodation’ means accommodation provided under Section 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 for Asylum Seekers, for initial assessment prior to provision/placement in dispersed accommodation.
Reason:- The proposed use restriction to ‘Initial Accommodation for Asylum Seekers’ complies with NPPF and Sections 70 and 72 of the 1990 Act. Issues relating to anything other than initial accommodation have not been analysed. Any change of use outside of the meaning of (the sui generis use of) Initial Accommodation must be the subject of a formal application for planning permission.
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (“the 2015 Order”) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development within classes A, B, C, D and F of Schedule 2, Part 2 (Minor Operations) of the 2015 Order shall be permitted.
Reason:- To preserve the openness of the Green Belt and to comply with NPPF.