Agenda and minutes

          The Minutes of the meeting held on 2 July 2018, having been circulated, were taken as read and signed as a correct record.

The Chair advised that all three applications would be considered together as both applicants were working in partnership to deliver the three schemes and they were all for the same site.

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

Officers advised that since the publication of the agenda, a revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) had been published on 24 July 2018, which replaced the existing one.  It was noted that there were no significant changes that were applicable to the applications before the Committee, however a small number of specific references within the reports required updates; these were explained in the published supplementary information; AB update list.

Further, Members were provided updates in relation to:

·       Comments received from a local resident from Halton Road and two residents from Halton Court, objecting to the amount of traffic that would be using Halton Court and the impact this would have on the junction with Halton Road; they requested a third access point from Halton Road;

·       Further comments received from the Council’s Ecological Consultants in relation to bats, breeding birds, recreational pressure on designated sites and waste (further information was awaited for the latter two);

·       The initial observations of the Traffic Assessment.  This was still being considered by the Local Authority; and

·       An additional condition was required for the submission of a Construction Management Plan, to be submitted before commencement and to include any demolition works.

The Committee was advised that the applicant had agreed to a condition to provide electric vehicle charging points and had confirmed that Natural England’s comments had been addressed in the latest Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) report and further assessment of this would be provided by Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service (MEAS).  Members were also advised of a letter of complaint regarding previous and ongoing poor management of the Windmill Hill Estate by Onward Homes (joint applicant for 18/00142/FUL and 18/00143/FUL).

The Committee was addressed by Mr Taylor, who was a Windmill Hill resident with experience of dealing with the developer Onward Homes.  He did not object to house building but advised that Windmill Hill had been and was subjected to negligence by them.  He complained of rubbish and broken furniture being left around the Estate for months; dangerously loose pathway stones; and anti-social behaviour issues.  He also advised that the open spaces were not taken care of, for example minimal grass cutting, badly fitted gutters that were always blocked and chopped down trees and turf just left littering the area.  

Mrs Hutchinson then addressed the Committee on behalf of local residents, objecting to the applications.  She stated that house numbers 114 – 121 on the plan would lead to parking problems and congestion in Stonehillls Lane and that numbers 38 – 46 would not be able to access their driveways as the road was very narrow.  Further, there would be limited on street parking because of this.  She suggested that property numbers 114 – 121 be turned around to face the other way to alleviate this and suggested it be for pedestrian access only.  She also referred to a previous application on this site which had different  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

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

Officers advised that since the publication of the agenda, a revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) had been published on 24 July 2018, which replaced the existing one.  It was noted that there were no significant changes that were applicable to the applications before the Committee, however a small number of specific references within the reports required updates; these were explained in the published supplementary information; AB update list.

Further, Members were provided updates in relation to:

·       Comments received from a local resident from Halton Road and two residents from Halton Court, objecting to the amount of traffic that would be using Halton Court and the impact this would have on the junction with Halton Road; they requested a third access point from Halton Road;

·       Further comments received from the Council’s Ecological Consultants in relation to bats, breeding birds, recreational pressure on designated sites and waste (further information was awaited for the latter two);

·       Initial observations of the Traffic Assessment.  This was still being considered by the Local Authority; and

·       An additional condition was required for the submission of a Construction Management Plan, to be submitted before commencement and to include any demolition works.

The Committee was advised that the applicant had agreed to a condition to provide electric vehicle charging points and had confirmed that Natural England’s comments had been addressed in the latest Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) report and further assessment of this would be provided by Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service (MEAS).  Members were also advised of a letter of complaint regarding previous and ongoing poor management of the Windmill Hill Estate by Onward Homes.  Cheshire Constabulary had no objections to the revised scheme but recommended a lighting scheme condition and additional comments received from the re-consultation on the amended plans were summarised in the AB update list.

The Committee was addressed by Mr Taylor, who was a Windmill Hill resident with experience of dealing with the developer Onward Homes.  He did not object to house building but advised that Windmill Hill had been and was subjected to negligence by them.  He complained of rubbish and broken furniture being left around the Estate for months; dangerously loose pathway stones; and anti-social behaviour issues.  He also advised that the open spaces were not taken care of, for example minimal grass cutting, badly fitted gutters that were always blocked and chopped down trees and turf just left littering the area.  

Mrs Hutchinson then addressed the Committee on behalf of local residents, objecting to the applications.  She stated that house numbers 114 – 121 on the plan would lead to parking problems and congestion in Stonehillls Lane and that numbers 38 – 46 would not be able to access their driveways as the road was very narrow.  Further, there would be limited on street parking because of this.  She suggested that property numbers 114 – 121 be turned around to face  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

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

Officers advised that since the publication of the agenda, a revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) had been published on 24 July 2018, which replaced the existing one.  It was noted that there were no significant changes that were applicable to the applications before the Committee, however a small number of specific references within the reports required updates; these were explained in the published supplementary information AB update list.

Further, Members were provided with updates in relation to:

·       Comments received from a local resident from Halton Road and two residents from Halton Court, objecting to the amount of traffic that would be using Halton Court and the impact this would have on the junction with Halton Road; they requested a third access point from Halton Road;

·       Further comments received from the Council’s Ecological Consultants in relation to bats, breeding birds, recreational pressure on designated sites and waste (further information was awaited for the latter two);

·       Initial observations of the Traffic Assessment.  This was still under consideration by the Local Authority; and

·       An additional condition was required for the submission of a Construction Management Plan, to be submitted before commencement and to include any demolition works.

The Committee was advised that the applicant had agreed to a condition to provide electric vehicle charging points and had confirmed that Natural England’s comments had been addressed in the latest Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) report and further assessment of this would be provided by Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service (MEAS).  Members were also advised of a letter of complaint regarding the previous and ongoing poor management of the Windmill Hill Estate by Onward Homes.  Cheshire Constabulary had no objections to the revised scheme but recommended a lighting scheme condition.

The Committee was addressed by Mr Taylor, who was a Windmill Hill resident with experience of dealing with the developer Onward Homes.  He did not object to house building but advised that Windmill Hill had been and was subjected to negligence by them.  He complained of rubbish and broken furniture being left around the Estate for months; dangerously loose pathway stones; and anti-social behaviour issues.  He also advised that the open spaces were not taken care of, for example minimal grass cutting, badly fitted gutters that were always blocked and chopped down trees and turf just left littering the area.  

Mrs Hutchinson then addressed the Committee on behalf of local residents, objecting to the applications.  She stated that house numbers 114 – 121 on the plan would lead to parking problems and congestion in Stonehillls Lane and that numbers 38 – 46 would not be able to access their driveways as the road was very narrow.  Further, there would be limited on street parking because of this.  She suggested that property numbers 114 – 121 be turned around to face the other way to alleviate this and suggested it be for pedestrian access only.  She also referred  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.