Minutes:
The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site.
Officers reported that two further representations had been received
since the publication of the report which raised issues that were already dealt
with in the report. Further to
objections relating to manoeuvrability on and off driveways on Pine Road,
Members were advised that the width of the footway had been increased from 2m
to 3m to allow additional space behind the proposed driveways to allow entering
and exiting. Further, it was not
considered that the development would look out of character as there was
already a mix of one, two and three storey properties
close by.
The Committee was addressed by Rosemarie Light who advised that although
she was not objecting to the properties themselves, she and other residents had
concerns over the narrowness of Pine Road and the increase in parked cars that
the development would bring. She also
stated that with the present width of the Road, reversing a car would be
difficult and unsafe. She argued that
existing tenants as well as the new tenants would suffer due to the lack of
parking provision and requested that the plans be looked at to improve this and
make the roads safer. She also disagreed
with the advice in the report and commented that the three storey layout of the
properties looked out of context in the area.
Ben Smith, the Architect for Halton Housing Trust (HHT) then addressed
the Committee outlining the application.
He stated that the application would benefit local housing needs and the
economy. It would meet the requirement
for affordable accommodation offering 1, 2 and 3 bedroomed homes and they would
be owned and managed by HHT. He pointed
out that the application raised no objections from statutory consultees and met
planning policies. He referred to the
objections regarding loss of open space but commented that the land was
underused as it was surrounded by roads on all sides so therefore of limited
amenity value. He added that a number of
alterations were made to the plans following the public consultation and
requested the Committee to approve the application.
Some Members stated their disappointment on the loss of the greenspace with this application even though it was considered to have a low amenity value. They also requested clarity over the parking provision; this was confirmed as meeting the required parking provision needs for a development of this size. Taking all matters into consideration the application was voted upon and the majority agreed to approve the application. Councillors Thompson, C Plumpton Walsh and J Bradshaw wished to record their objections to the application.
RESOLVED: That planning permission is approved subject to conditions (below) and the securing of a commuted sum for Greenspace enhancements in the locality through the land transaction.
1. Time limit – full permission;
2. Approved plans;
3. Submission of proposed site levels (BE1);
4. Facing materials to be agreed (BE1 and BE2);
5. Submission of detailed soft landscaping scheme, implementation and subsequent maintenance (BE1);
6. Implementation of submitted hard landscape and boundaries layout and subsequent maintenance (H3);
7. Breeding birds protection (GE21);
8. Submission of managed green space scheme, implementation and subsequent maintenance (H3);
9. Hours of construction (BE1);
10. Removal of permitted development – all dwellings (BE1):
11. Submission of a Construction Management Plan (BE1);
12. Provision and retention of parking for residential development (curtilage) (BE1);
13. Provision and retention of parking for residential development (not in curtilage) (BE1);
14. Implementation of cycle parking for apartments (BE1);
15. Implementation of site access from Grangeway (BE1);
16. Implementation of access and service provision (BE1);
17. Implementation of widened footway on Pine Road (BE1); and
18. Submission of drainage strategy for approval and subsequent implementation (PR16).