Agenda item

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

 

          Since the agenda was published, additional variations of the provision to the offsite highway improvements, and amendments to the affordable first homes provision within the Section 106 agreement for the location had been made.

 

          It was noted that the AB list should have quoted application 25/00346/REM and not 25/00346/OUT as this was the outline application for 500 dwellings, a local centre, a later living scheme and a new primary school. It also granted the access points with matters relating to scale, layout and landscaping for a future development. As permission for this had already been granted in July 2024, this was not up for debate. This application determined the 500 dwellings and their layout; the local centre, later living scheme and school would be determined in a future application.

 

          Comments from the public and the Parish Council requested that a public consultation and design review be undertaken for the site. However, there is no statutory obligation for public consultations to be undertaken prior to the submission of a housing application and refusal of the application should not be given if no consultation was undertaken. The applicant undertook a leaflet drop of houses and met with the Parish Council. Halton Borough Council undertook a public consultation which included 105 letters sent to homes in the village and a press notice in the local paper.

Additionally, design reviews are not compulsory either. This application met the National Model Design Forum and met the Council’s supplementary planning document (SPD) requirements. The site was deemed to be functional, sustainable and the Council’s case officer and conservation officer deemed the site acceptable.

 

          Regarding the house designs, the scheme includes four different character areas: a historical edge near Hale Bank, a rural edge adjoining the field, the Hale Bank fringe, and the Hale Bank core.

 

          The application did not have a heritage appraisal but one was included in the outline application which deemed that the development would not harm the conservation area. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) deems that areas with a ‘low level of harm’ for conservation areas need to weigh against the public benefits and the site’s space should be optimised in terms of use. The Conservation Officer has recommended ‘strengthening the green belt area’ to mitigate any possible harm; plans had been submitted to do this as part of the application.

 

          The Draft Open Space SPD 2007 was not met in the application, but this was advisory only and was not adopted by the Council. 20% of homes built for new development sites must be ‘affordable’; the proposed site had 74 homes that will be affordable to rent and 26 affordable to buy. Therefore, this requirement was met. None of the homes would be specialist but 144 homes could be adapted to become specialist. The Halton Housing Needs Assessment suggested that 25-30% of new homes must be two bedroom and 35-40% must be three bedrooms. 13.6% of homes with this scheme would be two bedroom and 53.36% would be three bedrooms.

 

          The Committee was addressed by Mr Anderton who objected to the proposal. He presented the following points:

• He is long standing resident and member of the local community;
• Residents were in ‘disbelief’ of the application due to the local infrastructure and amenities, for example healthcare, being inefficient for a new development;
• Ditton Railway Bridge was due to have a structural survey later in 2026 and the Council had a ‘duty of care’ for the Bridge;
• Members had been made aware of the Bridge’s condition for decades through infrastructure reports and the bridge needs to be fixed before any housing development starts;
• Burst water mains on the bridge leads to large traffic delays;
• The public consultation was inefficient as not all residents were contacted about the development;
• In the public meeting with residents, it was requested that residents discuss their concerns with the site and that the site be redesigned so it would integrate better with the village. These requests were denied by the applicant; 
• The development would be detrimental to the area due to external social and economic factors and more community engagement should be done to mitigate these concerns;
• The consultation with the local primary school was postponed as parental approval was required;
• Section 106 funding will not be spent on the local community;
• Constituents have not felt supported by their local Ward Councillors hasn’t given support to constituents; and
• The application should be deferred until an independent review of Ditton Railway Bridge in conducted to confirm its safety, the developer agrees to a NPPF consultation with residents, and the developer goes on a site visit with residents so concerns could be highlighted.

 

          The Committee was addressed by Mr Gee, the Planning Consultant hired by Hale Bank Parish Council who objected to the proposal. He presented the following points:

• The application was a ‘reserves matter application’ and the housing of the application needed to be scrutinised;
• The public consultation of the application was insufficient, there was no design review and limited digital access;
• The house designs were ‘bland’ and did not consider Hale Bank’s character and they would ruin the ‘rural approach’;
• There was no heritage impact assessment and there was no evidence that there would be no impact;
• The Parish Council was concerned about the standard of housing for the site as only 49% of the homes would meet National Space Standards and there would be no wheelchair accessible homes;
• There was no certainty that the later life scheme, new school and local centre would be delivered;
• The development did not address Ditton Railway Bridge which was ‘structurally deficient’; and
• The Parish Council accepted that development would happen, but it must be the right development that meets local infrastructure.

 

          The Committee was addressed by Ms Ashworth, the agent for the applicant, who supported the officer’s recommendation to approve the application. She added that:

• Halton needed new homes, and the outline application was approved in July 2024;
• The proposal conformed with the outline parameters with layout, scale and appearance;
• The applicant worked collaboratively with all consultees during the pre-application stage, and this continued throughout the application;
• The proposal improved the permeability of the site, maximised pedestrian and residential connections, new play areas and ‘ecological features’;
• The applicant’s Social Manager worked with the local community regarding unemployment and adult learning sessions in Widnes and Runcorn and a design competition with the pupils at the local primary school. Riverside College students will also help with the design of the site;
• Feedback from residents was incorporated into the proposals; and
• The homes will be energy efficient and building regulation compliant and meet Central Government’s housing standards.

 

          Officers clarified that in the outline planning application that was approved in July 2024, a survey was carried out on Ditton Railway Bridge, and it was deemed acceptable for the development then. Therefore, it could not be considered as part of this application. Additionally, the Parish Council submitted their objection to the application much later that the 21-day deadline and they submitted it over three months later.

 

          In response to points raised by the Committee, it was noted that:

·    If the application was refused and went to appeal, it was very likely that planning permission would be granted and the recommendation was strong enough;

·    Ditton Railway Bridge needed to be fixed to resolve the flooding issue but a set amount could be reserved to install a relief road for the bridge;

·    The amended drainage system had been presented to United Utilities and the development could not progress until they stated that they were happy with it;

·    Ditton Railway Bridge could not become a material consideration for the application, but the Council will work with Network Rail to carry out any works needed;

·    Network Rail would organise any surveys for Ditton Railway Bridge and the Council would resolve any highway issues with it; and

·    The Council did not adopt the National Space Standards in their housing standards so they cannot be enforced but they could be added to a future policy.

 

          After consideration of the application and updates provided by officers, the proposal was Moved and Seconded and the Committee voted to approve the application.

 

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

a) Deed of variation relating to the provision for open space, BNG and affordable housing

b) Schedule of the following conditions:

·       Plans condition listing relevant drawings

·       Tree protection

·       Noise mitigation scheme

·       Drainage

·       Landscape management plan

·       Hard and Soft Landscaping

·       Boundary treatment

c) That if the S106 agreement is not signed within a reasonable period of time, authority given to refuse this planning application. That delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning to determine the application following submission of an acceptable drainage scheme.