Agenda and minutes

          The Minutes of the meeting held on 4 March 2025 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 consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site.

 

Officers advised that the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) had requested minor changes to the drainage information submitted.  A drainage scheme with a satisfacotry discharge rate had now been agreed between the Applicant and the LLFA to ensure the proposal was acceptable in terms of flood risk and compliant with Policy HE9 of the DALP.

 

The Committee was addressed by Mr Ellis, a neighbouring resident of 60 years, who objected to the proposal.  He argued that:

 

·       The entrance to the site was directly opposite to his property;

·       The entrance to the site was on a bend in the road raising visibility and safety concerns;

·       The road was not on a gritting route;

·       St Patrick’s Care Home would be building an extension soon which would increase the traffic volume; and

·       Service vehicles would be entering and exiting the site so a different access road was needed.

 

In response to the highway concerns raised, Officers advised:

 

·       That a visibility condition was applied;

·       Crow Wood Lane was subject to a 20mph speed limit;

·       The road was not heavily trafficked; and

·       There had been no reported collisions on the road to date.

 

Approval of the application was moved and seconded and was unanimously approved by the Committee.

 

RESOLVED:  That the application is approved subject to the following conditions (all pre-commencement condition(s) have been agreed with the applicant:

 

1.     Reason for decision;

2.     Prior to commencement condition justification (GR1);

3.     Standard Full Permission 1 (GR1);

4.     Approved Plans (GR1);

5.     External Facing Materials (GR1);

6.     Standard Hours condition (GE2);

7.     Site levels (GR1);

8.     Visibility splays (C1);

9.     Access road development (C1);

10. Details of cycle parking (C2);

11. Ground Contamination (CS23 and HE8);

12. Unidentified contaminated land (CS23 and HE8);

13. Tree protection measures (HE5);

14. Construction Environment Management Plan (CS(R)20 and HE1);

15. Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme (SUDS) (HE9);

16. SUDS verification (HE9);

17. Bird and bat boxes (HE1);

18. Breeding birds (HE1);

19. Soft felling techniques (CS(R)20 and HE1);

20. Site waste management plan (WM8):

21. Energy and sustainability (CS(R)19);

22. Landscaping (GR1, GR3 and HE5); and

23. Permitted Development removal (GR1 and GR2).

 

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

 

Members were advised that this was not a full application – it was a change of use under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class G of the General Permitted Development Order (GDPO).  Therefore, there were only certain factors that could be considered when determining whether prior approval was required for the application.  These factors were listed on page 39 of the report, (a) to (e).  Additionally, to ensure that the first floor of the development fell into Class C3 dwellinghouse and to be compliant with Part G of the GPDO, the occupiers of each flat must be members of the same household.

 

The Committee was advised that the Applicant has submitted a Noise Impact Assessment report, which recommended that remedial works and acoustic enhancements would be required to alleviate the passage of noise between the ground and first floor, which the Council’s Environmental Health Officer has agreed.  The GPDO provides that the development would need to be implemented in accordance with the submitted information if the application was approved.

 

The Committee was addressed by Mr Ayres, who lived in a neighbouring property and spoke in objection to the proposal, on behalf of local residents and businesses.  He stated inter alia that:

 

·       The residents opposed this proposal, as they did with the previous two applications for this site;

·       The Applicant already owned 3 neighbouring properties in Salisbury Street that were rented out;

·       The rear entrance to the property lead to the main Town Centre car park;

·       There were no outside communal areas for the tenants;

·       There was no refuse collection in Salisbury Street as it was too narrow for the bin wagons to enter;

·       The development would have an impact on local residents in the community over parking provision as there was none – illegal parking was already taking place; and

·       Derek Twigg MP had written to the Secretary of State with concerns over the proposal and objections from local residents.

 

Councillor Jones (local Ward Councillor) then addressed the Committee in objection to the proposals.  He reiterated the neighbouring residents concerns and added inter alia:

 

·       The roads around the site were restricted by double yellow lines, so the parking situation for residents would be exacerbated;

·       There was no communal or outside space for residents to enjoy;

·       Fly tipping already occurred in the area;

·       The dignity of the Funeral Parlour business opposite should be considered; and

·       The location of the proposal was inappropriate for the area, when considering neighbouring residents and being so close to the Town Centre.

 

A  member of the public, Mr Edwards, was registered to speak, but did not attend the meeting.

 

In response to concerns over the absence of refuse collection services for the site, Officers advised that Waste Services had been consulted and had agreed to liaise with the Applicant to ensure the service would be provided.

 

Members discussed the concerns raised by the speakers on behalf of local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

The following applications had been received / were in progress:

 

24/00125/FUL

Proposed two storey pitched roof extensions to front and side, single storey flat roof rear extension and new roof over existing side extension and detached garage at Tileacres, 29 Hale Road, Hale, L24 5RB.

 

24/00097/FUL

Erection of two drive-through units with ‘drive-thru’ facilities together with associated care parking, servicing and landscaped areas, at Green Oaks Centre, Widnes.

 

22/00569/OUT

The Secretary of State has called in the planning application for the Heath Business and Technical Park, Runcorn.  This will be considered at a Public Inquiry.

 

The following appeal had been determined:

 

23/00194/FUL

Proposed internal reconfiguration of existing dwelling and part double, part single storey extension at 62 Church Road, Hale.  DISMISSED