Agenda and minutes

          The Minutes of the meeting held on 4 February 2019, having been circulated, were taken as read and signed as a correct record.

The Committee considered the following applications for planning permission and, in accordance with its powers and duties, made the decisions described below.  The Committee was advised that all of the matters under consideration referred to National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2018.  Since the reports were compiled NPPF 2019 had been issued.  There were no material differences which would affect the applications before the Committee and the Committee was requested to assume that reference to NPPF 2018 were references to NPPF 2019.

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 provided updates with regards to: further letters of objection received including one from a Ward Councillor; that the development was considered to comply with Section 16 of the National Planning and Policy Framework (NPPF) in relation to conserving and enhancing the historic environment; improvements made to certain design issues which would be secured by condition; and issues relating to site levels and accessibility in accordance with the Equality Act.

 

The Committee was addressed by Mr Campbell who represented a community group called Friends of Halton Village objecting to the scheme.  He presented several pictures of the existing 10 bedroomed HMO (House of Multiple Occupation) development built by the applicant, highlighting the poor condition bin storage area and difference in brick colour.  He argued that the development would be in the heart of a conservation area and therefore would add no character to the Village;  that the ‘flats’(rather than apartments) which were one bedroomed, would be rented on a week by week basis; and that the exit from the site was impaired.  He also stated that if this backland application was approved it would set a dangerous president for the Council.

 

Councillor Howard then addressed Members of the Committee, who spoke in objection to the proposal on behalf of himself and Ward Councillor E. Cargill.  It was noted that the third Halton Castle Ward Member was a Member of the Development Control Committee and therefore was unable to make (and had not made) any representation regarding the application. 

 

Councillor Howard spoke in support of the objectors and made reference to several policies and clauses within the Halton Borough Council Unitary Development Plan (UDP), where he considered the application did not comply.  In particular, he stated that this was a ‘backland’ development and the building would be completely out of character with the other properties of Halton Village, which was within a conservation area.  He also argued that there would be increased traffic congestion; insufficient parking; and an obscured exit from the site.  He disputed the Highways Department’s opinions and recommendations  as they differed from those made on a previous application in 2009 for the same site.   Councillor Howard also made reference to two other previous backland applications submitted to the Council, one of which was in Main Street, and both were refused by the Committee and dismissed on appeal. 

 

In response to the comments made by speakers Officers advised Members:

 

·       that there was no difference in planning terms with regard to whether the word ‘flat’ or ‘apartment’ was used;

·       the introduction of four one bedroomed flats into the Village would have very little impact on the traffic;

·       the bin storage area would be extended;

·       the type of bricks and other materials to be used would be conditioned;

·       the previous backland applications referred to could not be compared to this one as there were no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

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

 

Officers advised of the following updates since the publication of the agenda:

 

·       The level of parking was confirmed as sufficient for the numbers of staff that would be at the building at any one time and the Council’s Highways Officer raised no objections;

·       A revised Transport Statement has been supplied by the applicant;

·       A cycle and footway would be provided across their land connecting to Castner Avenue as requested by the Highways Officer, but this would not be given over for adoption;

·       The unused piece of adopted highway on the site would either be stopped up or incorporated within the car park plans;

·       Discussion were ongoing with regards to outstanding drainage issues; and

·       The applicant had agreed to amend the landscape and lighting scheme.

 

In order for the application to progress it was requested that the recommendation be amended to request that authority be delegated to the Operational Director – Policy, Planning and Transportation, to approve the application subject to the outstanding issues being resolved and conditions amended accordingly.

 

The Committee agreed that the application be delegated to the Operational Director for approval, as requested above.

 

RESOLVED:  That

 

a)    delegated powers be given to the Operational Director – Policy, Planning and Transportation, in consultation with the Chair or Vice Chair of the Development Control Committee, to approve the application once the outstanding issues have been resolved and conditions amended where required; and

 

b)    that the application be subject to conditions relating to the following (to be amended as required):

 

1.     Specifying approved plans;

2.     Materials condition, requiring submission and agreement of external materials (BE2);

3.     Construction and delivery hours to be adhered to throughout the course of the development (BE1);

4.     Vehicle access, parking, servicing etc to be constructed prior to commencement of use (BE1);

5.     Requiring finished floor and site levels be carried out as approved (BE1);

6.     Site investigation, including mitigation to be submitted and approved in writing (PR14);

7.     Restriction of external lighting (PR4);

8.     Submission and agreement of Site Waste Management Plan (WM8);

9.     Submission and agreement of a Construction Management Plan (BE1);

10. Submission and agreement of a Green Travel Plan (TP16);

11. Submission and agreement of boundary treatments (BE2);

12. Submission and agreement of hard surfacing materials (BE2);

13. Submission and agreement of cycle storage details (TP6);

14. Conditions securing off site highway, cycle and footway works;

15. Requiring submission and agreement of EV charge points;

16. Condition as requested by Health and Safety Executive;

17. Conditions relating to site investigation, remediation and validation (PR14); and

18. Conditions relating to methodology and validation of Japanese Knotweed removal (PR14).

 

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

 

The Committee was advised that since the publication of the agenda the Lead Local Flood Authority had advised that additional information was required, as detailed in the published AB Update List.   Following this advice the applicant had advised that he wished to provide the drainage scheme prior to the determination of the application.  Therefore, there would be one additional condition to those listed at section 9 of the report.

 

Officers requested that delegated powers be given to the Operational Director – Policy, Planning and Transportation, to make a decision once a suitable drainage scheme was submitted by the applicant.

 

The Committee agreed that the Operational Director be granted delegated authority to approve the application as discussed above and subject to the conditions listed.

 

RESOLVED:  That

 

a)    delegated powers be given to the Operational Director – Policy, Planning and Transportation, in consultation with the Chair or Vice Chair of the Development Control Committee, to approve the application once a suitable drainage scheme was submitted; and

 

b)    the application would be subject to the conditions outlined below:

 

1.     Approved plans;

2.     External Facing Materials – Containers dark green in colour (BE1 and BE2);

3.     Hedgerow planting along North Western boundary of the site (BE1);

4.     Implementation of parking and servicing (BE1); and

5.     Condition relating to external lighting.

 

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

 

The Committee considered the application as presented and agreed that it be approved, subject to the conditions listed below.

 

RESOLVED:  That the application is approved subject to conditions relating to the following:

 

1.     Specifying approved plans;

2.     Materials condition, requiring materials to match the adjoining Raw Materials Reception and Handling Building (BE2);

3.     Construction and delivery hours to be adhered to throughout the course of the development (BE1);

4.     Vehicle access, parking servicing etc to be constructed prior to commencement of use (BE1);

5.     Requiring finished floor and site levels be carried out as approved (BE1);

6.     Conditions relating to site investigation, mitigation and validation to be submitted and approved in writing (PR14); and

7.     Restriction of external lighting (PR14).