Minutes:
The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site.
Officers presented the item and referred Members to the update list which advised that since the report was written, an additional 47 representations had been received objecting to the proposal and two received in support. It was noted that the majority of the issues raised had already been addressed in the Officer’s report. Additional points were made and addressed by Officers as stated in the update list.
The Committee was addressed by Mr Wainwright, a neighbouring resident, who objected to the proposal for the following reasons:
· The falsification of land ownership certificate by the applicant;
· There was no mention of his name on the land ownership certificate;
· The application should have been invalid as the land ownership was incorrect;
· He did not receive a statutory Notice One form from the applicant;
· His annexed land was included in the application which Officers were aware of;
· It did not comply with the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Section 65;
· The development had commenced without the benefit of planning permission.
The objector also tabled an extract from the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Notice of applications for planning permission) which was highlighted on numbers 5 and 6 of Section 65.
Ms Jo Pickstock then addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicants. She stated that she was asked to speak by her brother and sister- in-law as they had suffered harassment from the objector, which left them feeling too intimidated to represent themselves.
She advised the Committee that they were surprised that the application had been called in by Councillor Rowe as he was not a Beechwood Ward Councillor. Further they had not had the opportunity to meet with Councillor Rowe to discuss his concerns and although the applicant was willing to work with neighbours, in particular Mr Wainwright as the adjacent property owner, they had chosen not to engage with them.
She made the following points with regards to the application:
· There was a mixture of bungalows and houses on Halton Station Road of varying build types. She handed out a booklet that presented photographs of some of the existing properties to demonstrate their different styles and characteristics;
· The allegation that an annexe of land existed was unfounded;
· The boundaries and hedgerows were the same as they had been for 17 years;
· The argument that the extension would overlook, block views and cause traffic issues were unfounded;
· All neighbours were consulted by Officers as per the procedure.
She also stated that the family just wanted to convert their house to a family home and looked forward to doing this and living in Halton Station Road, close to other family members who lived in Runcorn.
Officers read out a letter from a solicitor which had been sent to the Council on behalf of an objector. Reference was also made to the Title Deeds and Plan which had been submitted by an objector and that they reflected the boundary shown on the location plan by the applicant.
The Council’s Legal Advisor confirmed that the issue around the annexation of land, if it existed, would not be material to the consideration of a planning application. He also confirmed that the allegation of falsification of documents was defamatory.
After taking the Officer’s recommendations and representations made today into consideration and the feedback from a site visit made by one Member, the Committee agreed that the application be approved, subject to the conditions listed below.
RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) Time limit – full permission;
2) Approved plans; and
3) External facing material (BE1);