Agenda item

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

 

Since the publication of the agenda, the Principal Planning Officer noted that additional letters had been received regarding the phasing of development sites across the borough. In the current Development Plan, there was no policy requirement to control phasing of allocated developments in the borough. She continued that comments regarding bats in the area were outstanding from Merseyside Environmental Trust; therefore, it was recommended that the application be approved, subject to their response.

 

          A statement was circulated to the Committee from Councillor Angela Bell who was the local member in Halton. The statement highlighted in detail her concerns with traffic congestion, the impact on residents during construction, the change of use of Sandy Lane, flooding, the lose of greenbelt land and the character change to the area. 

 

The Committee was addressed by Dr Wotherspoon who objected to the proposal. He presented the following points:

·       There were concerns with infrastructure if the development was built, especially with GPs, dentists, schools, roads and the loss of the greenbelt land.

·       While he understood that housing was needed, he felt that full consideration was not taken with this site, especially with the additional traffic that would go onto the M62 junction.

·       Historically, he’d worked as a GP and specialised in road traffic accidents for 27 years before retiring.

·       At the north end of Warrington Road in Widnes, which is a single-track road, vehicles would often overtake stationary vehicles and vehicles going the 30mph speed limit on blind corners. This was most dangerous by the M62 roundabout.

·       Chapel Lane was a narrow country lane with blind corners and a narrow crossing. As short-term solution would be the planned slip-road onto Queensberry Way. For this development, the exit point should go onto the roundabout to Crompton Road and not Chapel Lane. This should all be done prior to construction.

·       Every house will have roughly two commuting cars, and this would increase with children who worked.

·       As the Council has duty of care to its residents, road safety should be the most important factor to mitigate death or serious injury.

·       He appealed to the Committee to take on his advice regarding road safety and act accordingly.

 

The Committee was addressed by Mr O’Connor, the Agent for the Applicant, who supported the officer’s recommendation to approve the application. He added that:

·       The site formed a majority of two allocations and was acceptable under the terms of the Council’s Delivery Plan. The development was applicable to all the policies as set out in Halton’s Development Plan.

·       The new development would include a toucan crossing on Queensbury Way, a traffic calming scheme and cycling infrastructure on Chapel Lane, and environmentally sensitive lighting on Sandy Lane.

·       New homes were needed in the borough and the planned access proposals were considered acceptable.

·       A sensitive design was planned for properties backing onto Uptown Lane.

·       The net gain will be minimally delivered on site

·       A slip-road onto Queensbury Way was not required to meet traffic management as determined by Highways England or from planning policy.

·       A six by seven-meter spine road was planned from Chapel Lane to the eastern boundary of the site. This would accommodate a bus route in the future.

·       20% of the new homes would be affordable and all will be energy efficient and built sustainably.

·       Sandy Lane would become more desirable for pedestrians and cyclists and Chapel Lane would be environmentally compensated for habitat loss.

 

[At this juncture, Councillor Woolfall said that he would not engage in the discussion or vote as he had made his views clear on the proposed development in the past].

 

In response to questions raised by the Committee, officers stated that:

·       Knowsley Borough Council would need to determine the access for Chapel Lane. In terms of highway numbers, Halton Borough Council wanted to support safety, and based on the evidence provided, there was no proof that there would be a detrimental impact because of the planned traffic mitigation measures that would alleviate traffic issues. Neither Warrington Borough Council nor National Highways raised any road safety issues with the development.

·       In the UK, there were 1.2 cars per household on average so in peak times there would be 4 vehicles leaving the site per minute. This traffic would dilute at every junction.

·       Roughly 10% of the traffic leaving the site may reach the Warrington Road which means one car every two minutes will reach the motorway junction.

·       Chapel Lane would see an increase in traffic, but it would not be detrimental and the planned measures that would come with the site would mitigate this.

·       No organisation expressed their objection to the development due to traffic concerns.

·       Regarding safety, the application was initially made in 2023, so a road safety assessment was done in between 2017-2021 where there was one recorded collision on Chapel Lane and there were no fatalities on the M62 junction as of 2024. There was no cluster of collisions.

·       There were two applications for this site, Knowsley Borough Council were yet to determine application whereas Halton Borough Council were determining the application for the access point in its area.

·       The Committee were looking at material considerations and highway officers looked at considerations offsite.

·       The trees to the right of Sandy Lane were not part of the site proposals.

·       The left of the site was part of W5.

·       It was confirmed that another application would come forward regarding the site as it was currently on the outlying stage.

·       If the application was refused based on highway safety, it was stated that an appeal would look at evidence presented from a safety point of view. The evidence available was in favour of the officer’s recommendation.

·       It was unknown when Knowsley Borough Council would discuss this item but if they refused it and the applicant lost the appeal then the development could not go ahead.

 

[Following three warnings to the public attendees regarding their disruption of the meeting, the Meeting was suspended at 19:12 and reconvened at 19:20]

 

In response to additional questions raised by Members, officers stated that:

 

·       With traffic mitigation, if there was a single point of access, statistics would not be taken verbatim but safe and suitable access had to be granted for all users.

·       Mitigation measures were installed to prevent collisions in high traffic areas.

 

The Committee noted that a rejection was not strong enough if it relied on ‘highway-related’ reasons, especially if evidence stated that they were minimal. If Knowsley Borough Council determined that it was detrimental then the Committee could look at this again when the application returned at a later date.

 

Officers noted that appropriate access needed to be given for the site and the development could not go ahead if this was not proven.

 

          The application was moved and seconded and the Committee voted to approve the Application.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the Authority approve the application subject to the following conditions:

S106 agreement relating to off-site highway works, Open Space, Affordable Housing, habitat loss compensation and Green Belt compensation.

a) Schedule of the following conditions:

·       Standard Outline Condition

·       Condition specifying approved plans

·       Levels

·       External Materials & surface materials

·       Boundary treatment details

·       Site investigation, remediation and mitigation

·       Any unidentified contamination

·       Affordable housing plan

·       Tree protection and Arb Method Statement

·       Woodland Management Plan for minimum 30 years

·       Site Waste Management Plan

·       Site Bin storage, servicing plan and tracking

·       Details of noise mitigation measures

·       Hours of construction

·       Recreational Pressure Home leaflet

·       Ecology lighting scheme for bats

·       Bird and Bat boxes

·       Breeding birds

·       CEMP/agreement of ecological enhancement features

·       Drainage Strategy

·       Drainage Verification

·       Pedestrian and cycle links

·       Scheme of speed calming measures

·       Cycle parking

·       Vehicle access and parking constructed prior to commencement of use

·       Details and implementation of measures for low carbon and renewable energy proposals 

b) If the S106 agreement is not signed within a reasonable period of time, authority given to refuse this planning application.