Minutes:
The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site.
The Committee was addressed by Mr Pugh, the applicant, who explained the
site’s planning history and background to his decision to apply for a scheme to
convert the building to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). He advised of the plans to bring this
dilapidated building back into use which included rewiring; insulation; replacement
roof and sash windows and damproofing.
He further advised that each of the 10 rooms would have en-suite bathroom facilities and residents would have
access to two large kitchens. He also
advised Members that there would be double the requirement of parking spaces
and that the building would be aimed at young professionals and managed by an
agent who would ensure the suitability of future tenants. He requested the approval of his application;
a scheme which would restore this historical building in the conservation area
to the benefit of the Village.
Members were then addressed by Councillor Howard, who was one of three
local Ward Councillors for Halton Castle; who opposed the application. He explained that Councillor E Cargill was
currently Mayor so unable to make any representations to the Committee, so he
spoke on behalf of Councillor Cole and local residents. Councillor Howard commented that this type
of housing was not needed in the area and made reference to the three
applications providing similar accommodation that had recently been granted
planning permission; East Lane House, Castle View House and Grosvenor House,
all of which were very close to Halton village.
He argued that ‘young professionals’ did not live in bedsits as the
applicant had stated and that the development would cause further congestion
for the Village due to the narrowness of the road. He questioned the refusal of a previous
application made due to access issues and how this one differed. He added that this building was right in the
centre of the Village and added character and quality to Halton Village. He requested that the unauthorised work
already carried out be reversed and that the application be refused.
Officers advised the Committee that amended plans had now been received
securing the alterations and corrections referred to through the report. Members were advised that the report
identified the garden of the property being designated as within a primarily
residential area on the Proposals Map.
As such the report should make reference to UDP Policy H8 for
non-dwelling house uses. It was advised
that the tests within that Policy were the same as already addressed through
the report and the proposals were considered compliant with that Policy. It was stated that whilst such higher density
housing had raised concerns amongst a significant number of local residents
with respect to the nature of the use and potential issues including noise,
disturbance and anti-social behaviour, the character of the area and an over
concentration of such uses in the area;
Officers advised that these arguments were addressed in more detail
through the report and that they did not consider that refusal of planning
permission could be justified on these grounds.
They advised that the building was considered capable of providing the
accommodation for a 10 bed HMO in accordance with the Council’s HMO room size
standards and that this HMO development would need to be licensed by the
Council’s Environmental Health Officer, which allowed for certain controls such
as minimum standards of accommodation, facilities provision and fire
safety.
It was also noted that the Council’s Highway Engineers confirmed they
raised no objections to the proposal.
Members requested clarity on the parking provision and turning space
within the car park and were advised that the applicant had decided to allow
for eight parking spaces despite Highway’s Officer advice
being a requirement for only four for a scheme of this size. The layout of the car park and turning
provision was presented on the plans.
They also requested clarity over a previous refusal for the site
relating to access and the difference with this one. Officers advised that the report and Officer
advice was based on the current application and that measures
for securing parking provision, access provisions and sightline positioning
would form part of the recommended condition number 7 for this
application. It was also noted that
parking restrictions were already in place in front and opposite the site
entrance so that visibility to the entrance of the site would be maintained.
After taking into consideration the Officer’s report and updates, and
hearing the representations made, the Committee agreed that there were no
grounds for refusal and voted to approve the application.
RESOLVED: That the application be approved subject to the conditions mentioned below:
1. Standard 3 year permission (BE1);
2. Condition specifying plans/amended plans (BE1);
3. Materials condition, requiring the submission and approval of the materials to be used (BE2);
4. Landscaping condition, requiring the submission of both hard and soft landscaping to include tree planting (BE2);
5. Boundary treatments including retaining walls to be submitted and approved in writing (BE2);
6. Construction and delivery hours to be adhered to throughout the course of the development (BE1);
7. Vehicle access, parking and servicing to be constructed prior to occupation of properties/commencement of use (BE1);
8. Conditions relating to the agreement and implementation of bin and cycle parking provision (BE1/TP6);
9. Conditions relating to tree protection during construction (BE1); and
10. Specifying approved TPO tree works (BE1).