Agenda item

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

 

Councillor Leck advised the Committee that in her capacity as a colleague of Mike Amesbury MP, she had attended meetings as a note taker where the application was discussed but would make her decision on the planning merits, after hearing all the evidence and without bias or predetermination.

 

Councillor Chris Loftus advised the Committee that although his wife, Councillor Kath Loftus, was speaking on the application today, he would determine the application on the planning merits, after hearing all the evidence and without bias and predetermination.

 

Since the publication of the agenda a request to speak had been received – the points of objection were outlined in the published AB Update List.  Members noted the corrections, one for each application, on pages 406/407 and on page 414 – also detailed in the AB Update List.  There were also changes to recommendations for each application and two additional conditions for 23/00128/FUL – all detailed on the AB Update List.

 

The Committee was addressed by Mr Davidson, a resident of The Uplands for 40 years, who spoke in objection to the application for the following reasons:

 

·         He objected to the relocation of Palacefields Community Centre and the demolition of the Bethesda Church and the proposal that they are replaced by a joint/shared church and community centre building;

·         The Community Centre is at the heart of the community and is used by a wide range of groups;

·         The current Community Centre has a large outdoor space for children and activities to take place such as the summer fete; this would be lost;

·         Bethesda Church is a consecrated building and provides worshipers with a weekly service as well as conducting weddings, funerals and hosts a food bank;

·         The activities currently held at the Church could not take place in a shared facility;

·         Some people have reservations about entering a Church that will be used for community purposes; and

·         Riverside had promised that they were going to build a replacement church first before demolishing the current one; however, it appears that this is not the case so people would have no place to worship.

 

Mr Pemberton, a representative of the Applicant, then addressed the Committee, he provided the following information inter alia:

 

·         The Riverside Group was a Charity Status Housing Association and explained its strategy to transform the wider Palacefields Estate;

·         A description of the site and full planning application before the Committee;

·         Details of the listed buildings proposals – which were agreed with Historic England and the Council’s Conservation Officer;

·         Proposals to acquire the heritage assets which are currently in a dangerous condition and encouraged anti-social behaviour;

·         The development would enhance the visual and landscape setting of the listed buildings which would included a new play and public space at the heart of the new community;

·         Details of the replacement Church and the benefits it will offer;

·         Details of the proposed dwellings (mix of types and sizes), including specialist housing such as veterans apartments;

·         The development will utilise low-carbon, energy efficient measures to promote environmental sustainability;

·         The development will make a significant contribution towards meeting affordable housing needs in the area;

·         Despite the loss of a small amount of poor quality open space, the scheme will deliver significant quality improvements to the retained open space; and

·         Details of highway network improvements to reduce congestion; this will retain access to the Primary School.

 

In summary he stated that the scheme would support the renewal and transformation of this part of the Palacefields Estate and create an attractive neighbourhood that would deliver positive social and environmental change.  It would also improve accessibility to high quality housing and help reduce levels of deprivation, unemployment and crime within the local community.  Further, two listed buildings that are on the Risk Register would also be brought back in to use.

 

The Committee was then addressed by Councillor Kath Loftus, local Ward Councillor for Halton Lea.  She supported the scheme in principle, noting that this first phase did not detail the removal of the Palacefields Community Centre.  Also a positive of the scheme would bring use to the long term derelict Tricorn Pub site, which is a blight on the local community in its current condition.  She commented that although the subway being closed was a positive, consideration needed to be given to alternative routes with an emphasis on school walking routes for local children and pedestrian access across the busway.  

 

Cllr Kath Loftus noted that the existing Church was in a poor state of repair so the community would benefit from its removal and replacement.  She felt that the plans were good, bringing new facilities to the community including a new extra care facility and it would be easy for residents to get around which would benefit the local community.

 

Members debated the proposal and discussions / concerns were raised on the following:

 

·         The shared facility arrangements may cause difficulties between  some community groups who were less accepting of the beliefs of others;

·         The administration of the shared facility;

·         Active travel plans; and

·         School places provision.

 

In response to concerns over school places provision Officers advised they had liaised with the Education Authority and provision in this area was confirmed to be sufficient.  The joint use of the proposed church was a matter for future consideration, should an application come forward to demolish the Palacefields Community Centre.  In response to the active travel queries, it was commented that the proposed scheme improved site permeability, comprising combined cycle and pedestrian routes that preserves access to schools.  In addition, the scheme would connect to the future aspirations for active travel use of the existing busway adjacent to the application site, improving access to Halton Lea and the surrounding area.  Details regarding a crossing over the busway would be dealt with as a S278 application under the Highways Act.

 

            After taking into consideration the speakers’ comments, Officer responses and reports/information before them, the Committee agreed that the application be approved, subject to the conditions listed below.

 

RESOLVED:  That each application is approved as follows:

 

Planning Application 23/00128/FUL

 

Authority be delegated to the Operational Director – Policy, Planning and Transportation, in consultation with the Chair or Vice Chair, to determine subject to:

 

a)    a suitable mechanism to secure compliance with DALP Policy RD4;

 

b)    conditions considered necessary to ensure policy compliance;

 

c)    the resolution of the outstanding matter of green space contributions;

 

d)    S106 agreement that secures off site financial contribution toward off site green space improvements as required;

 

e)    the schedule of conditions set out below; and

 

f)     that if the S106 Agreement is not signed within an appropriate period of time, authority is given to refuse the planning application.

 

Conditions

 

1.    Time limit – full permission;

2.    Approved plans;

3.    External facing materials;

4.    EV charge parking spaces to be detailed;

5.    Construction management plan including avoidance measures re habitat / mammal / bird nesting / amphibians;

6.    Construction waste audit;

7.    Construction management plan;

8.    Landscape and environmental management plan;

9.    Hedgehog highway network measures;

10. Lighting scheme to limit impact on nocturnal species;

11. Ecological protection strategy;

12. Ecological habitat management plan;

13. Bat licence;

14. Bat mitigation;

15. Bird and bat boxes details;

16. Domestic refuse storage details;

17. SuDS verification report;

18. Removal of GPDO Schedule 2, Part 1, Class F – no fences forward of front elevation;

19. Removal of permitted development rights for all dwellings on the site of the Tricorn buildings and car park;

20. LLFA – sustainable drainage details;

21. LLFA – validation report;

22. Prior to development a noise impact assessment;

23. Contaminated land survey;

24. Contaminated land validation report;

25. Contaminated land unforeseen contamination strategy;

26. Landscape management plan;

27. Archaeology;

28. Demolition strategy

29. Local centre external plant details;

30. Construction operating hours;

31. Dust mitigation strategy;

32. Wetland planning scheme;

33. BNG no net loss off site delivery;

34. Boundary treatment details;

35. Updated condition survey;

36. Detailed structural survey;

37. Building record (level 3);

38. Detailed technical drawings;

39. Schedule of existing and replacement features including windows and doors;

40. Schedule of existing and replacement materials and finishes;

41. Detailed schedule of works;

42. Any necessary structural designs and reports for interventions such as retaining steelwork or portal frames;

43. Method statements for all proposed development works;

44. Tricorn urgent stabilisation works to take place prior to development commencing.

45. Prevention of the existing Church demolition until such time that the new Church is developed and ready for use; and

46. Securing the use of the replacement church for the purposes of a church, community centre and café and for no other purpose.

 

Planning Application 23/00129/LBC

 

Authority be delegated to the Operational Director – Policy, Planning and Transportation, in consultation with the Chair or Vice Chair, to determine subject to:

 

a)    the referral to Secretary of State in relation to heritage objection;

 

b)    conditions considered necessary to ensure policy compliance; and

 

c)    the schedule of conditions outlined below:

 

Conditions

 

1.    Time limit – full permission;

2.    Approved plans;

3.    Boundary treatment details;

4.    Updated condition survey;

5.    Detailed structural survey;

6.    Building record (level 3);

7.    Detailed technical drawings;

8.    Schedule of existing and replacement features including windows and doors;

9.    Schedule of existing and replacement materials and finishes;

10. Detailed schedule of works;

11. Any necessary structural designs ad reports for interventions such as retaining steelwork or portal frames; and

12. Method statements for all proposed development works.