Agenda and minutes

            The Minutes of the meeting held on 6 September 2021, having been circulated, were taken as read and signed as a correct record.

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

Officers advised the Committee that a further objection to the scheme was received over the weekend, a copy of which was emailed to the Committee today and paper copies were presented to Members at the meeting.  In response to the resident’s concerns over loss of privacy, noise and disturbance and lack of consultation, the Case Officer outlined mitigation measures that would be put in place, which would be secured by conditions.  In relation to lack of consultation, it was reported that a letter was sent to the property on 15 July 2021.

It was confirmed that the Contaminated Land Officer had raised no objections to the proposal.  In addition to the conditions required above, it was also recommended that an additional condition be added regarding the requirement for Electric Vehicle (EV) charging points.

The Committee was addressed by Mr Ireland, who spoke in objection to the proposal, representing 801 local residents.  He argued, inter alia:

·         This would be the largest House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) in Halton and would set a dangerous precedent;

·         The market was saturated with HMO’s;

·         The allocation of 13 car parking spaces was not enough for 29 rooms so on road parking would occur, causing more congestion in an already congested area;

·         Local retailers had raised concerns;

·         He disagreed with the claim that the property would provide a boost to the local economy;

·         There would be an increase in noise pollution; and

·         The peace and privacy of local residents would be impacted and the proposal had already caused stress and anxiety for many residents.

Ms Dickson, the Agent representing the Applicant, then addressed the Committee, clarifying some issues in respect of the application for the local residents:

·         The applicants had met all planning policy requirements;

·         The applicants were experienced HMO operators and would keep the property well maintained;

·         The proposal met national and local requirements and was in a sustainable location;

·         Car ownership tended to be lower amongst HMO residents;

·         Halton needed housing and the current housing market was buoyant, leaving many lower income people without the opportunity to have their own space; and

·         The location was ideal for single professional working people with good transport links.

The Committee was then addressed by local Ward Councillor Angela McInerney, who spoke in objection to the proposal, on behalf of local residents.  She outlined some facts about Farnworth within the context of the application and made the following comments inter alia:

·         Farnworth was a residential area with a mixed community but mainly families and elderly people;

·         The proposal was out of character with the area;

·         The building would be split into 3 sections – she described these and how they would be shared;

·         There would be 29 double rooms so potentially 58 people living in the building;

·         There were plenty of bedsits available for rent in Halton;

·         Farnworth Village is narrow and Derby Road is congested – there was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

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

Further to the publication of the report it was confirmed that no other representations had been received and the Contaminated Land Officer had raised no objection to this application (noted however that the previous comments to the original application and recommended conditions were still valid).  Also, the applicant had requested if access condition no.5 could be changed from ‘no development shall begin’ to ‘prior to the construction of any new buildings’.  This request was considered to be reasonable, for the reasons given.

The Committee was addressed by Mr Robinson, who was the Agent for the Applicant.  He described a number of issues that the company had to deal with recently since the approval of the application in May 2019 that contributed to a delay, such as Covid and a change in investor.  He reassured Members that the applicant was now keen to progress the current planning permission.  He added that the applicant would use local suppliers and provide employment contracts for local people.

Councillor Wallace addressed the Committee objecting to the proposals, on behalf of local residents.  She tabled two photographs, which showed the condition of different areas of the site.  Councillor Wallace stated that she was inundated with complaints from her constituents about the smell from the WSR site.  She argued that local residents suffered this on a daily basis and despite contact being made with Environmental Health, nothing had been done to help them.  She also argued inter alia:

·         That the health and safety procedures of the company were in question – referring to a breach in relation to blocked fire doors;

·         The site attracted rats;

·         The site attracted seagulls who attacked residents in the street and were a constant problem for the businesses on Ditton Road (relating to seagull droppings); and

·         Local residents’ health was at stake.

She urged the Committee to visit the site before making a decision.

Following Councillor Wallace’s presentation Officers advised that the Council was aware of the smell and seagull problems in relation to the site but WSR was under the control of the Environment Agency in respect of this.  These complaints were also passed to the new owner of the site.  It was noted that health and safety matters in relation to the property itself were matters for WSR to address and covered by other legislation.

The Committee was reminded that this was a Section 73 application – an amendment to the previously approved application in May 2019.

Responses were provided to Members questions and it was confirmed that licensing for the operation of the site was controlled by the Environment Agency, not the Local Authority. 

The application was approved subject to the conditions listed below.

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

1.    Timescale for commencement of development by 23 May 2022;

2.    Specifying approved plans;

3.    Condition requiring  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

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

The Committee agreed that the application be approved.

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

1.    Standard 3 year expiry;

2.    Approved plans; and

3.    Materials to match existing (BE1).