Agenda and minutes

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

Since the publication of the agenda, Officers advised the Committee that Halton’s Conservation Officer had requested minor changes to the building’s exterior which had been made by the applicant, to the satisfaction of the Conservation Officer.  Further, it was noted that the Council’s Highway’s Department raised no objections to the proposed change of use.

The Committee was addressed by Mrs George, who owned the land next to the Village Hall.  She raised an objection to the application on the basis that the extra traffic and cars generated by the business would add to an already congested area, where even residents had difficulty parking.  She spoke about the chicane effect experienced by drivers passing through the Village due to cars parked on either side of the road in between the double yellow lines.

          Ms Leather, the applicant and owner of the building then addressed the Committee.  She explained that she fully understood the concerns of the residents but explained she would be restoring a run-down property and opening a new business in the area.  She stated that she did not intend to operate late opening hours and offered to commit to a 9 to 5 schedule in the week, 9 to 4 on Saturdays and remain closed on Sundays.  She had lived in the area for 8 years and wanted to become part of the local community with her proposed new business.  She also highlighted that whatever the building was used for in the future it would always require people to park in the area.

          Local Ward Councillor, Harry Howard then addressed the Committee on behalf of local residents and his Ward colleague Councillor Cole, who unfortunately could not attend the meeting.  He opposed the application arguing that the Village Hall was in a narrow part of the Village where cars had difficulty passing as addressed by Mrs George; the Villagers would lose parking amenity thus affecting their quality of life; and it would cause more congestion and nuisance in the Village and therefore be detrimental to highway safety.  He discussed the history of the Village Hall and its lack of use over the years and read out an email sent from Councillor Cole to Mr Noone, the Operational Director – Policy, Planning and Transportation, which raised concerns over the highway assessment for the scheme.  He quoted the relevant planning policies and queried the application’s compliance with these.

          Members discussed the application in particular the lack of parking amenity in the Village for residents.  Officers presented photographs of the Village that were taken at various times of the day and explained how parking space numbers were determined in response to Members’ queries.  However, it was noted that in this instance parking was not deemed to have a detrimental impact on highway safety as there was no evidence of this.

Members suggested that as the applicant had volunteered to restrict the opening hours of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

In order to avoid any allegation of bias, Councillor Thompson did not vote on the following item, due to his previous involvement with Warrington and Halton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust over the matter before the Committee.  He addressed the Committee as a member of the public.

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

In summary Officers advised that the cameras and poles and the signage were appropriate in terms of highway safety, the visual appearance of the poles and cameras was acceptable and the signs met the tests of Regulation 3 of the Advertisements Regulations.

The Committee was addressed by Mr Parkin, who raised objections to the applications.  He highlighted that the Warrington and Halton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust were guilty of ignoring the planning process.  He advised that he was a user of Halton Hospital and criticised the signage stating it did not indicate where the pay machines were on the premises, therefore confusing the public.    With regards to the ANPR cameras, he argued that these were immoral as they invaded the privacy of patients and public and presented an example to the Committee to explain this.

Councillor Thompson then addressed the Committee as a member of the public and explained his objections to the way the NHS Foundation Trust had conducted themselves.  He referred Members to agenda item number 6.3 and advised them that a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 had been found and the Information Commissioner would be dealing with this.  He also advised Members that the NHS Foundation Trust wanted to make the necessary changes and move on.

The application was moved and seconded and approved, subject to the conditions mentioned below.

RESOLVED:  That both applications be approved as follows:

a)    15/00402/FUL – no conditions are recommended as the proposal is retrospective;

b)    15/00401/ADV – standard advertisement conditions are recommended as follows:

1)    Any advertisements displayed, and any site used for the display of advertisements, shall be maintained in a clean and tidy condition to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority (BE17);

2)    Any structure or hoarding erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying advertisements shall be maintained in a safe condition (BE17);

3)    No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to obscure or hinder the ready interpretation of any road traffic sign, railway signal or aid to navigation by water or air, or so as otherwise to render hazardous the use of the highway, railway, waterway (including any coastal waters) or aerodrome (civil or military) (BE17);

4)    Where an advertisement is allowed, the removal shall be carried out to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority (BE17); and

5)    No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission (BE17).