REPORT TO: Development Control Committeecouncillors.halton.gov.uk/documents/s28290/11th... · The required standards are set out in national and international regulation and guidance.

REPORT TO: Development Control Committee

DATE: 11 February 2013

REPORTING OFFICER: Strategic Director, Policy & Resources

SUBJECT: Planning Applications to be determined by the

Committee

WARD(S): Boroughwide

APPLICATION NO: 12/00282/FUL LOCATION: Land to North of Baileys Lane, Hale PROPOSAL: Extension of Runway End Safety Area

including the stopping up of Dungeon Lane, diversion of Ashtons Lane and erection of new boundary treatment

WARD: Hale PARISH: Hale CASE OFFICER: Pauline Shearer AGENT(S) / APPLICANT(S): Liverpool Airport

Agent – Turley Associates DEVELOPMENT PLAN ALLOCATION: Halton Unitary Development Plan (2005)

Greenbelt (GE1) Area of Special Landscape Value (GE23) General Requirements for Development (BE1) Development within the Liverpool Airport Public Safety Zone – PSZ (PR9)

DEPARTURE Yes REPRESENTATIONS: 26 Neighbour objections

1 resident of support MP objection on behalf of local resident Local Ward Cllr objection Petition of 24 names (including some who also made individual representations)

RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to S.106 and conditions

SITE MAP

1. APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The Site and Surroundings The site is an area of land at the far eastern end of runway 27 serving Liverpool John Lennon Airport. The site area is 209,135 square metres and is located to the north of Baileys Lane, Hale. The site includes almost the entirety of Dungeon Lane; the existing mound of earth at the junction of Dungeon Lane and Baileys Lane; the western end of Baileys Lane to ‘Edendale’ and the area up to the south of Hale Road. The majority of the site is open green belt land which currently has landing lights serving the Airport installed across its southern extremity.

1.2 Planning History None directly relevant to this current application. It should be noted that Liverpool John Lennon Airport main terminus, hangars and the existing runways are within the Liverpool City Council boundary. The area of Dungeon Lane and the open land to the east, which are the subject of this application, are within the borough of Halton and thus this application is before Halton Borough Council for determination.

1.3 Background

Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA) has submitted the proposal to enable improvements to airport safety. The proposed closure of Dungeon Lane and Ashtons Lane would require closure under Section 247 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and this is not dealt with through the planning process or this application.

The Department for Transport (DfT) Aviation Security Department is the Regulator for all aspects of aviation security. In this regard Regulation 300/2008 of the European Parliament sets out common rules in the field of civil aviation security. The DfT also has a responsibility to ensure the security of passengers, workers and cargo in airports and during transit. Both the DfT and European Union regulate and audit airports against these requirements. The required standards are set out in national and international regulation and guidance. As a result of recent audits undertaken by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), under these regulations, a number of issues have been raised. These and other matters pertinent to the ongoing operation of the airport areas follows:- .

• Runway End Safety Area (RESA) The main aim of a RESA is to minimise the risk to aircraft passengers in the event that an aircraft either overruns or undershoots a runway. An overrun can occur during either take-off or landing, whilst an undershoot can occur during landing. In the case of Liverpool Airport the RESA should be a minimum of 90m and it is a CAA recommendation that the furthest point of the RESA be 240 metres from the end of the runway. At the eastern end of the runway the minimum 90 metres is bisected by Dungeon Lane, which is a public right of way. The specific risk is an aircraft colliding with vehicles and people, that have a tendency to dwell in the area, effectively ignoring existing traffic control measures in place and are attracted by the proximity of the runway end. In September 2010, a CAA audit resulted in the Airport having to reduce declared distances (usable length) of the runway in order to mitigate this issue. However, the requirement for the RESA means that a greater area at the end of the runway is needed so that the current Airport infrastructure can operate to its designed capacity.

. Where the RESA does not extend to the recommended distance, these

areas should be assessed with regard to actual risk to aircraft and consideration given to mitigation that would be appropriate. Examples of mitigation include implementation of Instrument Landing Systems, installation of suitable arresting systems within the available RESA, land acquisition and realignment of roads to provide additional area, and reducing declared distances.

2. THE APPLICATION

2.1 Proposal Description

The application proposes the extension of the runway safety area which will include the stopping up of Dungeon Lane and diversion of Ashtons Lane, and the erection of new boundary treatment along Dungeon Lane. It should be noted that the proposal is not for a physical extension of the runway, but the

provisions of development that allows the mitigation of risk within the required RESA.

2.2 Documentation The planning application is supported by a Planning Statement incorporating a letter from the Dft, letters from the CAA; National Air Traffic Services (NATS) Technical Report; Civil Aviation Authority Safety Notice and; Ecological Appraisal; Assessment of Air Traffic Control Traffic Flows.

3. POLICY CONTEXT

3.1 National Planning Policy Framework The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012 to set out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these should be applied. Paragraph 196 states that the planning system is plan led. Applications for planning permission should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise, as per the requirements of legislation, but that the NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 197 states that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Paragraph 14 states that this presumption in favour of sustainable development means that development proposals that accord with the development plan should be approved, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Where a development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF; or specific policies within the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted.

3.2 Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)

North West RSS Policy RT5 (Airports) and LCR1 (Liverpool City Region Priorities) are of particular relevance.

3.3 Halton Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (2005)

The site is designated Green Belt in the Halton Unitary Development Plan. The following Council Unitary Development Plan policies and policy documents are of particular relevance: -

BE1 General Requirements for Development BE22 Boundary Walls and Fences GE1 Control Over Development in the Green Belt GE23 Area of Special Landscape Value

PR9 Development within the Liverpool Airport Public Safety Zone TP7 Pedestrian Provision as Part of New Development TP17 Safe Travel for All

3.4 Halton Core Strategy (2012)

The following Core Strategy policies are of relevance:-

CS1 Halton’s Spatial Strategy CS2 Sustainable Development Principles CS6 Green Belt CS7 Infrastructure Provision CS17 Liverpool John Lennon Airport CS18 High Quality Design CS20 Natural and Historic Environment CS21 Green Infrastructure

3.5 Relevant SPDs

Designing for Community Safety SPD is of particular relevance in relation to boundary treatment.

4. CONSULTATIONS

4.1 HBC Highways– No Objection in principle

4.2 Environment Agency (EA) – No Objection in principle.

4.3 Cheshire Wildlife Trust – No Objection subject to conditions relating to

biodiversity and the provision of a replacement tree planting scheme.

4.4 Merseyside Environmental Advisory Services – The proposed development is located approximately 150m from the Mersey Estuary Ramsar site and the Mersey Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA). However, due to the nature of the proposal there is a low possibility of adverse impacts and no pathway that could give rise to likely significant effects on these protected sites. Advised that the application does not warrant a detailed Habitats Regulations Assessment.

4.5 Civil Aviation Authority – Comments received prior to the application being submitted from the CAA Aerodrome Standards section that explained the CAA’s requirement for the Airport to comply with the minimum standards of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and the CAA. (Further detail on this is contained later in the report assessment).

4.6 Department for Transport – Comments contained in the supporting

documentation from the Department for Transport in relation to the improvement of the current security fence in the Dungeon Lane area. That the current fencing fails to form an appropriate barrier and that they supported a better and more permanent solution. (Further detail on this is contained later in the report assessment).

4.7 Liverpool City Council – No comments received. 5. REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Letters of objection have been received from 26 local residents; 1 local

resident has written in support; a petition of 24 signatories has been submitted objecting to the proposal (including several who have also made individual representations); and an objection has been received from Hale Parish Council; an objection from the local MP on behalf of a resident and an objection from Councillor Wharton the Ward Councillor.

5.2 The objections from local residents relate to the following:-

• Loss of property value

• Increase in numbers and size of aircraft

• Increase in noise and air pollution

• Increase of traffic along Baileys Lane including HGV’s, farm machinery,

service vehicles, Airport staff cars, residents friends and relatives and

emergency vehicles

• Inadequacy of Baileys Lane for type of vehicles that will be using it

• Lack of consultation between the Airport and residents now and over

the preceding years

• Noise and pollution from additional traffic

• Location and type of fencing

• References and submitted documentation relating to the LJLA

Masterplan and future proposals

• Alternative provision of a “spotters” facility

• Protection of trees on Hale Road

• The proposal is the cheapest option possible

• Previous unnecessary demolitions, untidy sites in area detrimental to

the landscaping

• Do not protect the health and well-being of residents

• No discussion of alternatives

• Fencing will not enhance the landscape

• Airport is expanding by stealth

• Increase in potential crime from provision of new Bridleway

• Increase in distance for Speke residents to access the River Walk

• Loss of an historic farm lane (Dungeon Lane)

• Blockage caused by accidents at the Airport

• Airport has a poor maintenance record and their responsibility to

maintain fencing and the Bridleway will be short lived

• Impact of “spotters” with anti-social behaviour and litter

• Initial objection of Oglet Lane residents in relation to loss of privacy and

unacceptable limitations to their free access to their properties with

respect to original scheme showing a controlled barrier

• Poor communication of planning application

• Alternatives exist

• Loss historic right of way of Ashtons Lane

• Impact on biodiversity

• Increase of fly tipping

• Increase in traffic will make walking and cycling unpleasant

• Yellow line markings would be out of keeping with the rural nature of

Baileys Lane

• Encroachment into Green Belt

• Impact of aircraft fumes on historic Speke Hall and Hale Village

• Loss of a dog walking route to shoreline

• Concern regarding trespass across field and property

• Additional traffic would result in headlights affecting aircraft pilots.

5.2 Hale Parish Council objected on the basis that;- the proposal fails to protect the environment and day to day safety of the residents of Baileys Lane; it is a quick fix solution with no consideration given to the impact on residents; opening up of a narrow, residential lane to wide and heavy farm and goods vehicles (including car transporters) currently using Dungeon Lane; need for an Environmental Impact Assessment; no confidence in the way the application has been put together; residents of Baileys Lane have over the years had to contend with nuisance traffic, illegal fly tipping, damage to landscape from demolition and failure by Airport to restore land; improvements that have been made would no longer serve any purpose if lane opened to farm and commercial traffic; noise; damage to road surface; inconvenience; dangers at junction with Hale Road; proposed Bridleway on plan should be used as road instead; insufficient landscaping; the proposal will not address issues relating to achieving the minimum RESA. (Reference to various layers of guidance and policy).

5.3 The Local MP’s objection is in support of a local resident on the basis that;- re-opening Baileys Lane is amoral; lack of open and transparent discussion/debate on alternatives; impact on residents of Baileys Lane; removal of Ashtons Lane which is an historic right of way; security fencing will not enhance area; destruction of environment and its biodiversity; noise and increased pollution; encroachment into green belt; deficiencies in proposal which indicate that the wellbeing and safety of resident have not been protected; no consideration or compromise for residents.

5.4 Councillor Wharton has objected in support of the objections made by local residents.

6. ASSESSMENT

6.1 Environmental Impact Assessment Screening

The planning application has undergone the required screening under the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. The application is Schedule 2 development, under Schedule 2,

paragraph 13 (a) by virtue of exceeding threshold (ii) of that paragraph and not likely to result in significant environmental effects. As such the application did not require an Environmental Impact Assessment. The full Screening canbe found on the Councils EIA Register.

6.2 Green Belt

Inappropriate development in the Green Belt is, by definition, that which is harmful to it and the purposes which underpin designation. In this regard, the key consideration is openness and the effect that this proposal will have on it.

For the purposes of assessing whether or not this proposal is inappropriate development and it’s conformity with NPPF, the engineering elements involving removal of the mound, creation of a Bridleway and creation of the road through the access barrier, these are classed of appropriate development and not affecting the openness of the green belt. If the remainder of the proposal, i.e. fencing, gates and other minor infrastructure, is classed as inappropriate, then full consideration needs to be given to the impact on openness.

In making this assessment, the scale of the proposals and their design needs to be acknowledged. There are no new buildings to be created and an existing unsightly mound and rough ground will be removed. The applicant has agreed to alterations to the proposed fence type to minimise any visual harm to the surrounding Green Belt. On this basis the overall harm to openness is considered to be minimal and the essence of including land in the Green Belt retained.

The applicant has acknowledged that there is a need to provide very special circumstances to outweigh any harm caused to the green belt and these are as follows:-

6.2.1 Operational safety requirements to meet modern operating standards:-

Modern airport operating requirements need a RESA to extend some 240 metres beyond the end of the runway. At present the provision at the eastern end of the runway is inadequate. The submitted plans show the current and minimum RESAs plotted on the site, which clearly shows that Dungeon Lane falls within the RESA.

In order to continue to operate without further shortening of the operational runway the minimum RESA provision is required. Without the RESA in place, the airport does not meet minimum operating safety standards and as a consequence future growth and investment will be constrained. Without making these changes the only other option for the airport to become compliant would be to further reduce of the usable length of the runway (declared distance) and this would require existing infrastructure, particularly the approach lights, to be relocated.

In terms of location, the overriding requirement needs, for operational reasons, to be located on land designated as Green Belt to the east of the runway. To meet the operational safety requirements (in particular on the approach to runway 27) requires land that is designated as Green Belt. It is simply not feasible, nor is it realistic for other sites located outside of the green belt to be considered as an alternative.

The applicant has provided extracts of the current CAA Safety Notice and a plan showing plotted minimum RESA requirements. This clearly shows that the minimum standards are not met and the CAA have confirmed this in a letter. There is therefore no option to avoid this upgrade as it is a legislative requirement designed to secure minimum safety standards at the airport for both passengers and de facto members of the public in the surrounding area.

It is therefore considered that the need to meet minimum safety requirements for the travelling public and users of the areas around the eastern end of the runway outweighs the harm to the green belt which would arise from the limited extent of physical development required to achieve this.

6.2.2 Operational security requirements to meet modern operating standards;-

At the eastern end of the airport, the security arrangements in this location fall well short of those required by the DfT and EU. Therefore to meet the overriding security requirements set out by the DfT appropriate boundary treatments are needed and fencing compliant with the relevant British Standard is proposed. When tying this requirement back to the need to create a RESA that is free from obstruction, the only location where an adequate perimeter fence could be provided is where it is proposed. To meet national security requirements no alternative locations are appropriate.

The applicant has provided a letter from the DfT setting out the legislative requirement for this element of the proposed development. This is a clear requirement which cannot be avoided and is aimed at securing minimum security standards required by law.

It is considered that when taking the overarching safety and security requirements alone, these represent Very Special Circumstances that justify the limited harm to the Green Belt.

6.2.3 Taking the opportunity to enhance the Public Safety Zone (PSZ):-

The aim of public safety zones is to control the number of people on the ground at risk of death or injury should there be an aircraft accident during take-off or landing and this is set out in DfT circular 01/2010. The circular sets out that over time, there should be no increase in the number of people living, working or congregating in PSZs and that numbers should be reduced as circumstances allow. The proximity of the public highway to the runway end is a significant attraction and there are daily occurrences of the public dwelling in the PSZ. By fencing the area, the opportunity for people to congregate in the

PSZ is therefore removed thereby meeting the requirements of the DfT Circular.

This is considered a further Very Special Circumstance when assessing the limited impact of the proposal on the Green Belt, and complies with the NPPF.

6.3 Residential Amenity Several objections have been received from local residents, particularly on Baileys Lane relating to matters which have an impact on residential amenity as a result of the opening up of Baileys Lane.

6.3.1 The Opening Up Of Baileys Lane To Unrestricted Through Traffic:- At present, Bailey’s Lane has a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) which restricts the vehicles which can lawfully pass along it to its junction with Dungeon Lane. The latter section of Bailey’s Lane has a barrier across it which allows all but vehicular traffic to pass. This means that traffic levels on Bailey’s Lane are presently very low (see table below). The traffic count figures, which have been supplied by Liverpool Airport and the figures which Halton have undertaken, show the increase in traffic levels to be approximately 74% which still constitutes a very low number of vehicle movements. One concerned resident had requested that Halton undertake their own independent traffic survey and, this has been done, to verify the validity of Liverpool Airport’s assessment,. The traffic surevy carried out by the Council shows similar results as that submitted by the applicant.The sightlines at the junction of Baileys Lane and Hale Road are compliant with standards and there is adequate capacity in Bailey’s Lane to safely accommodate additional traffic. The report produced by Liverpool Airport suggests the opening of Bailey’s Lane to all traffic would represent an increase in vehicle numbers of 100% in a worst case scenario. Whilst in percentage terms this appears to be significant, in actual traffic numbers it is still fairly low. Having looked at the figures, gleaned from traffic counts carried out by both Liverpool Airport and our own independent counts, it is clear that the numbers of vehicles using Dungeon Lane are not significant. Indeed our assessment predicted an average of 74% increase over all. The figures taken over a seven day period show daily fluctuations in this percentage as shown below. The table below shows the number of vehicle movements on Bailey’s Lane and the number of movements on Dungeon Lane and then provides the percentage increase if Dungeon Lane was closed and diverted down Bailey’s Lane.

Days Bailey's Lane numbers Dungeon Lane numbers % Monday 195 156 80% Tuesday 233 186 80% Wednesday 219 162 74% Thursday 166 182 110% Friday 236 136 58%

Saturday 177 126 71% Sunday 177 93 53% Totals 1403 1041 74% Whilst Thursday’s figures show an increase of 110%, if all traffic was to be diverted down Bailieys Lane, as the existing traffic numbers on Bailey’s Lane are fairly low during this time which brings the percentage up. Likewise Sunday’s figures show a small increase due to the low numbers of movements on that day. The highest hour for vehicle movements is recorded as being between 4pm and 5pm on Friday where there were 32 recorded movements on Bailey’s Lane and 20 on Dungeon Lane. The road varies between 3.5 metres and 5 metres in width for its full length. The projected frequency of vehicles on Bailey’s Lane is expected to be approximately 14 vehicles per hour, on average. This equates to 1 car every four minutes, which appears to be realistic for the capacity of the road considering the single way working at its southern end. There are still suitable passing places and it is not foreseen that the single way working, given the vehicle numbers projected, will cause any congestion issues. Based on the worst-case figures of 52 vehicles at its peak, this still equates to just below one vehicle movement per minute. The figures also indicated the types of vehicles using both roads. These equated to 84% of vehicles being of a classification no greater than, for example, a car with a trailer. 14% are vehicles no heavier than for example a transit van and the remaining 2% being vehicles of a class no greater than a 3 axle vehicle such as a bin wagon for example. These readings relate to the figures taken over a seven day period. The resulting impact on the amenity of the existing occupiers of Baileys Lane from the use of this highway for through traffic is a material consideration and members should give it full weight. However, in making their decision members need to balance the degree of this impact against the safety requirements needed by the airport and the impact of these on the future viable operations of the Airport and its role as an economic cornerstone within the wider region. In reaching the recommendation of approval it is considered that the predicted traffic flows are not at a level whereby a refusal solely on highway safety grounds would be warranted. Residents will experience an increase in traffic movements on Baileys Lane, but that on balance, the need for the safety requirements of the Airport outweigh this.

6.3.2 Is Ashton’s Lane Ancient Highway:- We have been asked by one resident if Ashton’s Lane is an ancient highway. Ashton’s Lane’s status is Bridleway/ Public Right of Way and the proposal provides an acceptable diversion of this along the proposed bridleway.

6.3.3 The ‘Spotters’ Mound:-

A number of residents have raised concerns regarding plane spotters. At present there is an un-official ‘spotters mound’ on Dungeon Lane where it meets with Bailey’s Lane. This is very popular and is planned to be levelled

as part of the Dungeon Lane Stopping-Up proposal. Liverpool Airport have suggested that they intend to provide a replacement and alternative ‘Spotters’ area within the grounds of the airport, though this is not part of the planning application. The proposal includes a boundary treatment scheme to restrict future access to this area. A planning condition is recommended for details of the restoration of this land to be submitted prior to development beginning.

6.3.4 Inconvenience Of Highway Closures:-

Some residents from Speke believe that the closure of the routes along both Dungeon Lane and Ashton’s Lane will result in an inconvenience of an extra half a mile to access the ‘river walk.’ It is considered by officers that the new route proposed will provide a safer, wider and more attractive, alternative with the difference in distance being negligible. The existing route from Eastern Avenue in Speke along Dungeon Lane to its junction with Bailey’s Lane is just short of half a mile, theproposed bridleway route, would result in the same start and end point bieong just over half a mile should the diversion be approved. Therefore the additional distance is not considered significant given the total distance walked and the proposed location of the Bridleway will provide an acceptable alternative.

6.3.5 Possible Diversion of Dungeon Lane on to a new access road by passing

properties on Bailey’s Lane:- Liverpool Airport claim that this proposition is too cost prohibitive and at this time and this application must be determined on the basis of what has been submitted.

6.3.6 Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) Along The New Bridleway And ASB At Shore:-

Concerns have been raised that re-opening of this route to more traffic will bring about anti-social behaviour (ASB). Whilst it is recognised that the area around the end of the runway and from Bailey’s Lane to the foreshore, has been an historic location for anti-social behaviour (fly-tipping etc), it is paramount that steps are taken to ensure that security measures are in place to prevent this area from being an attractive stopping point. The proposed boundary treatment scheme will provide a preventative measure and Council Officers will continue to work with LJLA to address future issues.

6.3.7 Airport Capacity:-

Concerns have been raised regarding the potential of the scheme to allow for larger planes or more frequent use which would cause more disturbance to residential amenity through noise and air pollution. The agent has responded to queries in relation to this and has provided confirmation that the increase to the runway end safety area would not in itself allow for larger aircraft and that the current airport capacity is not altered. However, without the improvements to safety which are being sought through this application, the airport would be restricted in its permitted operations.

6.3.8 Restricted Access to Private Properties:- An objection was received from the residents of Oglet Lane in response to the original submission, which raised concerns regarding the impact on their privacy and movements as a result of a controlled access system through Baileys Lane which would effectively monitor movements to and from their properties. The amended plans show the removal of the controlled barrier on Baileys Lane and thus the objections from these residents in relation to this are now not relevant. The recommendation includes a Grampian style condition which would, subject to the requirements of the Traffic Regulation Order, allow for unrestricted movement along the highway of Baileys Lane.

6.4 Highways Safety

It will be necessary for Liverpool Airport to apply separately for the Highway closures it requires as a consequence of this planning application. It’s aim is to legally extinguish the highway status of a large section of Dungeon Lane and the Bridleway known as Ashton’s Lane. In order to achieve this it will be necessary for Liverpool Airport to apply directly to the Secretary of State, under Section 247 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Objections to these orders would be considered by the Secretary of State and a public inquiry may be held. As there is an existing TRO preventing access via motor vehicles, along the western end of Bailey’s Lane, there are two possibilities- either the existing TRO could remain in place, in which case residents (and their visitors) in Oglet Lane, would be entitled to access with permission of the council under the provisions of the existing order. There would be practical challenges with the operation of this arrangement, as it would be difficult to prevent access as there would be difficult to identify who would require access given the number of residential properties on Oglet Lane. Alternatively the order could be revoked and it will be necessary to apply to Halton Borough Council revoke the existing Traffic Road Order (TRO) which exists presently on Bailey’s Lane restricting traffic.

With regard to the future Stopping Up application for Dungeon Lane, it is unlikely that an inspector would approve the Stopping Up whilst the barriers in Baileys Lane remain. Therefore the Highway Authority recommend a condition to remove the existing traffic regulation order (subject to recommendations to the contrary by an inspector), prior to implementation of the scheme which is the subject of this application.

6.5 Ecology

The site is in close proximity to the Mersey Estuary RAMSA and the Mersey Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA) which are protected areas under the Habitats Regulations 2010. The Council has been advised by Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service that a detailed Habitats Regulations Assessment is not required for this proposal. The site is greenfield and will support some habitat and the applicant supported the proposal with an Ecological Appraisal. The Council’s Nature

Conservation Consultant has recommended conditions contained in Table 6 of the ecological appraisal relating to;- a working method statement; replacement hedgerow; timing of vegetation clearance; tree protection; protection of habitat and; removal/treatment of Japanese Knotweed and other species. Although it was suggested that the site could be a foraging location for badgers and that ‘badger gates’ could be installed, the applicant explained the security and safety implications for these, which would effectively undermine what is trying to be achieved through the proposal. In terms of aviation safety, large mammals are a danger and should not be encouraged into this area, as currently there is no evidence of their existence in the area. On this basis it is considered that in terms of the protection of habitat and the ecology of the site, the proposal offers no significant harmful impacts subject to the conditions recommended on the basis of the submitted Ecological Appraisal and the proposal complies with Policies BE1 and GE17 of the Halton Unitary Development Plan and the NPPF.

6.6 Design of Boundary Treatment The proposal sought permission originally to erect boundary treatment of 2.4m high chainlink along Hale Road and continuing south to a point 160m along Dungeon Lane; at that point to link via a 1m high fence to an existing 1m high timber fence to the junction of Dungeon Lane and Baileys Lane. The 2.4m high chainlink fence is proposed from this junction to run along Baileys Lane to a point where it turns north and runs alongside the proposed Bridleway to meet up with the proposed boundary on Hale Road. This effectively encloses the current partly open area of land and achieves the aims of the CAA RESA requirements and advice from the Department of Transport. The applicant has since responded to officers’ suggestions that the chainlink fencing be amended to a green paladin mesh type, which would be 2.8m in height to achieve the security needed. A condition is recommended that full details of the boundary treatment along Hale Road; the Bridleway and Baileys Lane shall be submitted and approved in writing and shall be green paladin mesh in style. In addition a set of 1.8m bollards are proposed to limit access to the Bridleway from the Hale Road approach. Additional directional and speed signage is proposed in this location. Amended plans have been provided to show removal of the existing barrier on Baileys Lane subject to Dungeon Lane being stopped up. The Council has requested that a S.106 Agreement be entered into to provide for the cost of any required signage. The location of the fencing along the new Bridleway will be enhanced with landscaping/tree planting and this will be the subject of a planning condition. In assessing final details it is important to achieve the balance of softening of appearance of the fence with the need to retain adequate pedestrian safety

and visibility. The colour and style of the fence is of a standard which the Council encourages in order to reduce the impact on visual amenity. Members should note that the land owner could erect fencing of any description to a height of 2m along the new Bridleway without the need for planning permission as this would be permitted development. The removal of vegetation and trees is also beyond the remit of planning control if done outside the confines of this current planning application. It is considered that on this basis the design and location of the proposed enclosures and associated apparatus will be acceptable, subject to the conditions imposed and complies with Policies BE1 and GE1 of the Halton Unitary Development Plan; Designing for Community Safety SPD and; NPPF.

7. CONCLUSIONS

The proposals are considered to offer a sustainable way by which Liverpool JLA can achieve the necessary safety standards to operate effectively in accordance with policies of the Halton Unitary Development Plan, the Designing for Community Safety SPD and National Planning Policy Framework.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

Approve subject to S.106 Agreement and the following conditions.

9. CONDITIONS 1. Standard 3 year permission (BE1) 2. Condition specifying amended plans (BE1) 3. No development shall take place until the relevant part of Dungeon

Lane has been stopped up (BE1) 4. No development shall take place until Ashton’s Lane has been stopped

up (BE1) 5. No development shall take place until the new highway at the corner of

Dungeon Lane and Baileys Lane has been laid out to an adoptable standard and dedicated as highway (BE1)

6. No development shall take place until the existing Traffic Regulation Order affecting Baileys Lane (providing for the existing barrier) has been revoked, subject to any recommendations by the Inspector dealing with the stopping up of Dungeon Lane (BE1)

7. No development shall take place until a detailed landscaping proposal, including protective measures for trees to be retained and proposed tree replacement scheme and in compliance with the requirements of paragraph 3, Table 6 of the submitted Ecological Appraisal has been submitted to and approved in writing, such details to be implemented in a timescale agreed with the Council (BE1)

8. No development shall take place until details of all boundary treatments, incorporating paladin mesh fencing colour coated green fencing, have been approved in writing, such details to be implemented during the course of development (BE22)

9. No development shall take place until the submission and agreement of biodiversity and habitat details as required by Table 6 of the submitted Ecological Appraisal, such details to be implemented to a timescale approved by the Council (BE1)

10. No development shall take place until details of a construction Management Plan including wheel cleansing facilities to be submitted and approved in writing, such details to be carried out during the development (BE1)

11. No development shall take place until full details of the restoration for area identified for removal of the existing mounded area have been approved in writing, such details to be implemented to a timescale approved by the Council (BE1)

12. Construction and delivery hours to be adhered to throughout the course of the development. (BE1)

10. SUSTAINABILITY STATEMENT As required by:

• Paragraph 186 – 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework;

• The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No.2) Order 2012; and

• The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2012.

This statement confirms that the local planning authority has worked proactively with the applicant to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of Halton.

APPLICATION NO:

12/00356/FUL

LOCATION: Land to North East of Rail Line, Barrows Green Lane, Widnes PROPOSAL: Proposed residential development consisting of 112 no.

dwellings as amendment to part of previous planning permission 10/00355/FUL (increasing total number of dwellings from 126 to 148).

WARD: Farnworth

PARISH: N/A CASE OFFICER: Glen Henry AGENT(S) / APPLICANT(S):

Redrow Homes NW

DEVELOPMENT PLAN ALLOCATION: Halton Unitary Development Plan (2005)

Phase 3 Housing Allocation Ref:- 961 ‘Barrows Green Lane’.

DEPARTURE No REPRESENTATIONS:

3

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve subject to Conditions.

SITE MAP

5. APPLICATION SITE 5.1 The Site and Surroundings Site of approximately 4.1Ha of former agricultural land forming part of an overall residential development site of approximately 5.50Ha which lies to the north east of the rail line at Barrows Green Lane. The site is identified as a Phase 3 housing allocation Ref:- 961 ‘Barrows Green Lane’ within the Halton Unitary Development Plan.

5.2 Planning History Planning Permission was previously approved (10/00355/OUT) for proposed residential development comprising 126 No. detached two storey dwellings, roads, open space, landscaping and ancillary development. Part of the development approved by that planning permission which fronts the site with Barrows Green Lane is currently under construction. 5.3 Background This scheme proposes amendment to a scheme of residential development approved by planning permission 10/00355/FUL (increasing total number of dwellings from 126 to 148). The change is reported to be a response to housing demand in the area being for a smaller housing mix and an attempt to re-orientate properties along the southern boundary to improve outlook.

6. THE APPLICATION 6.1 Proposal Description

The scheme proposes residential development consisting of 112 no. dwellings, roads and ancillary development. The dwellings remain at 2 storeys but designed as a mix of detached, semi-detached and mews formats. The proposals have been substantially amended from the housing mix and layout as originally submitted resulting in an overall reduction from 115 dwellings to 112 dwellings. 6.2 Documentation The planning application is supported by a Design and Access Statement, Tree and Hedgerow Survey, Ecology Survey, Transport Assessment, Flood Risk Assessment, Noise Assessment and Geoenvironmental Appraisal. These have been updated as required from the original submission to account for the revised scheme.

7. POLICY CONTEXT 7.1 National Planning Policy Framework The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012 to set out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these should be applied. Paragraph 196 states that the planning system is plan led. Applications for planning permission should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise, as per the requirements of legislation, but that the NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 197 states that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.


7.2 Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) North West RSS Policy EM 18 Decentralised Energy Supply is of particular relevance 7.3 Halton Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (2005)

The site is identified as a Phase 3 housing allocation Ref:- 961 ‘Barrows Green Lane’ within the Halton Unitary Development Plan. The following policies within the adopted Unitary Development Plan are considered to be of particular relevance; • BE1 General Requirements for Development; • BE2 Quality of Design; • GE21 Species Protection; • GE26 Protection of Hedgerows; • PR14 Contaminated Land; • TP1 Public Transport Provision as Part of New Development; • TP4 New Public Transport Facilities; • TP7 Pedestrian Provision as part of New Development; • TP9 The Greenway Network; • TP14 Transport Assessments; • H1 Housing Land Allocations; • H3 Provision of Recreational Greenspace; • H4 Design and Density of New Residential Development;

7.4 Halton Core Strategy (2012) Policy CS3: Housing Supply and Locational Priorities is of particular relevance

7.5 Relevant SPDs and Other Considerations Council’s draft New Residential Supplementary Planning Guidance; draft Open Space Supplementary Planning Document; and the Designing for Community Safety Supplementary Planning Document and Landscape Character Assessment are also of relevance.

8. CONSULTATIONS

8.1 Environment Agency– No objection subject to conditions relating to

submission and agreement of a scheme to limit surface water run-off and manage the risk of flooding from overland flow.

8.2 United Utilities – No Objection 9. REPRESENTATIONS

Three letters of representation have been received raising issues that the location of public open space and utility equipment adjoining residential properties raises crime and disorder and health issues, that the proposals make no provision for open space, proposed ponds are a child safety risk, traffic and highway safety issues on Barrows Green Lane, that possible future access to the green belt should be removed, that the proposal fails to comply with the Halton Landscape Character Assessment.

10. ASSESSMENT

10.1 Housing Land Supply Policy CS3 of The Core Strategy sets targets of 552 dwellings per annum between the year 2010 to 2028 With any phasing requirement being removed as an amendment to policy H1. UDP Policy H1 (Provision for New Housing) describes the circumstances in which Phase 3 sites can be released. These were, however, based on an annual rate of 330 dwellings per year rather than the new figure of 500. Land is identified for release in Phase 3 (2011-2016) should monitoring during Phases 1 and 2 and the rate of emergence of windfalls indicate a need for the release of that land. Core Strategy Policy CS3 is considered to add further significant weight to that justification including the removal of the phasing requirement.

10.2 Design Character and Amenity

The proposed dwellings are considered of similar character to those previously approved and constructed within the development area despite the introduction of new and smaller house types. The properties continue to be 2 storey predominantly detached properties but with the introduction of semi-detached and mews format properties. Despite the relatively small increase in property numbers the proposal continues to provide for a lower density development of approximately 27.3 dwellings per hectare rather than the 30 dwellings per hectare in accordance with UDP and Core Strategy Policy. The site is constrained to some degree by requirements for landscape buffer to the adjoining Green Belt, surface water attenuation and embankments to the railway bridge. The existing prevailing character of the wider area is also of relatively low density detached properties and lower densities were approved under the earlier extant planning permission. The proposal, in part, falls short of the Council’s normal standards in terms of separation distances although this is in line with similar shortfalls across the previously approved development It is considered that a good quality of design in keeping with earlier developments can be provided. Based on amended plans received it is considered that previous aspirations to maintain landscape buffers to the adjoining green belt are considered to have been maintained in accordance with the Halton Landscape Character Assessment. It is considered that matters relating to open space provision have been addressed through earlier planning permissions and appropriate open space contributions will be secured through an emended legal agreement in accordance with the SPD for Open Space. The scheme as submitted includes details of materials, levels and boundary treatments. The details submitted are considered to reflect those approved through earlier phases and considered acceptable. Conditions are required to ensure the scheme is implemented as approved. Conditions relating to hours of construction, a Construction Environmental Management Plan and wheel wash facilities need to be included on any permission given to ensure that disturbance to existing local residents is kept to a minimum. The scheme has been amended significantly from that as originally submitted in accordance with officer recommendations. Whilst consultation responses are awaited the scheme as amended is considered to provide an opportunity to provide a quality development suited to the character of the area and in the context of earlier planning permission.

10.3 Highways, Parking and Servicing

The scheme proposes a single vehicle access with an additional pedestrian and cycle footway to Barrows Green Lane as per the earlier planning permission. The application has been amended from that as originally submitted to address concerns largely relating to the internal highway access and demonstrating vehicle tracking but also to improve permeability within the scheme. On the basis of amended plans received it is considered that

adequate provision can be made for parking and servicing with regards to the development site itself. The application is supported by a revised Transport Assessment which concludes that the development related traffic would have no material impact on surrounding highway capacity. In order to overcome issues in relation to traffic speeds on Barrows Green Lane and the restrained highway width at the junction of Barrows Green Lane and Derby Road a scheme of off-site highway works to provide wider foot and cycleway provision and a series of kerb build-outs as chicanes to reduce traffic speeds was secured by condition of the original planning permission and can be secured by condition in this case. Developer contributions towards local transport provision and Greenway improvements as previously agreed will also be secured through a revised legal agreement. It is considered that all outstanding matters can be adequately secured by condition and/or through developer contribution as required.

10.4 Contamination

As per the earlier planning permission the Council’s Environmental Health Officers have confirmed that, due to the sensitivity of the proposed use, detailed ground investigation should be provided. No objection is raised in principle, however, and it is considered that this can be adequately secured by condition. 10.5 Crime and Public Safety. Objection has been raised with respect to crime and safety issues associated with the public footpath link to Barrows Green Lane and provision of utility equipment within that area. That public footpath link has been designed to provide a clear line of sight and does not differ significantly from that approved under the previous planning permission. Additional utility equipment is to be provided within that area but the applicant has agreed to provide appropriate security fencing and deterrent planting in accordance with a scheme to be agreed. Further concern has been raised regarding the safety of 2 surface water attenuation ponds. These will not, however, form permanent water features but a series of relatively shallow landscape dips to act as intermittent storage areas in extreme flood events. A railing detail to the adjoining road will also provide a degree of containment and it is proposed that these will be adopted and managed by the Council’s Open Spaces Section. It is not considered that such elements could be argued to raise crime and safety issues so significant as to justify refusal of planning permission in this case. 10.6 Other Material Considerations Issues relating to noise, flooding, impact on trees, hedgerows and wildlife and other considerations were substantially addressed through the earlier scheme and included submission of relevant survey and mitigation information. Such reports have been updated appropriately in relation to the amended scheme. No objections are considered to have been raised to justify refusal of planning

permission in these regards and it is considered that all outstanding matters can be adequately secured by appropriate planning conditions.

11. CONCLUSIONS This scheme proposes amendment to a scheme of residential development approved by planning permission 10/00355/FUL (increasing total number of dwellings from 126 to 148). The change is reported to be a response to housing demand in the area being for a smaller housing mix and an attempt to re-orientate properties along the southern boundary to improve outlook. The site is partially constructed and the developer proposes changes to improve the saleability of remaining plots. The proposed dwellings are considered of similar character to those previously approved within the area despite the introduction of new and smaller house types including some semi-detached and mews style properties. The overall objectives of Supplementary Planning Guidance, Halton Unitary Development Plan, the Core Strategy and other policy guidance are considered to be met within the proposed submission. The proposals are considered to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework offering a good quality of development suited to the character of the wider area and as such are recommended for approval.

12. RECOMMENDATIONS Approve subject to conditions and:-

a) The entering into a Legal Agreement including provision of a financial contribution towards off-site public open space, public transport and Greenway improvements as required.

b) That if the S106 Agreement or alternative arrangement is not executed within

a reasonable period of time, authority be delegated to the Operational Director – Policy, Planning and Transportation, in consultation with the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Committee to refuse the application on the grounds that it fails to comply with Policy.

13. CONDITIONS

1) Condition specifying amended plans (BE1) 2) No development shall begin until written details and agreement of construction vehicle access routes and construction car parking and management plan; (BE1) 3) Materials condition, requiring development be carried out in accordance with the approved details (BE2) 4) Landscaping condition, requiring the submission of both hard and soft landscaping to include replacement tree and hedgerow planting. (BE2) 5) Boundary treatments requiring development be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (BE2) 6) Wheel cleansing facilities to be submitted and approved in writing. (BE1)

7) Construction and delivery hours to be adhered to throughout the course of the development. (BE1) 8) Vehicle access, parking, servicing etc to be constructed prior to occupation of properties/ commencement of use. (BE1) 9) Finished floor and site levels, requiring development be carried out in accordance with the approved details. (BE1) 10) Conditions relating to restriction of permitted development rights relating to boundary fences and conversion of garages etc. (BE1) 11) Requiring implementation of scheme of landscape buffer zone proposals in accordance with submitted scheme (BE1) 12) Site investigation, including mitigation to be submitted and approved in writing. (PR14) 13) Conditions relating to tree and hedgerow protection during construction (BE1) 14) Conditions relating to schemes of surface water management and to manage risk of flooding from overland flow (PR16) 15) Submission and agreement of detailed boundary treatments including colour coated weld mesh fencing to substation and gas governor and railing/ fencing to surface water attenuation ponds (BE1) 16) Submission and agreement of scheme for protection, planting and management of buffer zone to brook (BE1) 17) Submission and agreement of a scheme of Noise Mitigation (PR2) 18) Submission and agreement of biodiversity plan including native planting and wildlife refuge features and bird boxes (BE1 and GE21) 19) Grampian conditions relating to off-site works to footway to frontages to Barrows Green Lane and speed reduction measures (TP9, TP6 and TP15).






APPLICATION NO: 12/00364/COU LOCATION: Widnes Timber Centre PROPOSAL: Proposed change of use from timber supply centre to

tanker haulage yard including the demolition of part of the existing lean to building

WARD: Ditton

PARISH: Halebank CASE OFFICER: Glen Henry AGENT(S) / APPLICANT(S):

Mr G Richardson/ Cheshire Tanker Services


Action Area 5 – Halebank

DEPARTURE Yes REPRESENTATIONS: 12

RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to Conditions. SITE MAP

15. APPLICATION SITE 15.1 The Site and Surroundings Buildings and yard currently occupied by Widnes Timber on Foundry Lane, Widnes.

15.2 Planning History A number of planning permissions have previously been approved for extensions and alterations to the existing buildings. Planning permission 10/00320/FUL was approved for the proposed demolition of the existing building and construction of 14No. new affordable dwellings with associated access road. None are considered directly relevant to this application.

16. THE APPLICATION 16.1 Proposal Description

The scheme proposes change of use from timber supply centre to tanker haulage yard including the demolition of part of the existing lean to building. The proposed use includes maintenance and fuelling of vehicles.

17. POLICY CONTEXT 17.1 National Planning Policy Framework The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012 to set out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these should be applied. Paragraph 196 states that the planning system is plan led. Applications for planning permission should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise, as per the requirements of legislation, but that the NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 197 states that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.



The buildings and land fall within Action Area 5 – Halebank within the Halton Unitary Development Plan. The following policies within the adopted Unitary Development Plan are considered to be of particular relevance; • RG5 Action Area 5 – Halebank

• PR2 Noise Nuisance; • E5 New Industrial and Commercial Development 17.3 Halton Core Strategy (2012)

CS2 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development CS4 Employment Land Supply and Locational Priorities CS23 Managing Pollution and Risk

18. CONSULTATIONS

Environment Agency – No Objection United Utilities – No Objection Natural England – No Objection Health and Safety Executive – Does not advise, on safety grounds, against the granting of planning permission.

19. REPRESENTATIONS

Twelve letters of objection have been received in relation to the application raising the following issues: that the proposals are contrary to the regeneration proposals and for further residential development in the area, noise pollution, air pollution, loss of light, loss of property value, further deterrent to people moving to the area, proximity to housing, unsociable hours of use including weekend, noise and pollution from HGVs left parked with engines running, lack of consultation, adding to existing noise and disturbance and enjoyment of homes, risk of fire and explosion, disturbance from full time garage/ workshop, addition to HGV traffic in area with increased exhaust and noise pollution. A letter has been received from Halebank Parish Council requesting further information but no subsequent representations have been received.

20. ASSESSMENT

20.1 Principle of Use UDP Policy RG5 Action Area 5 specifies business uses (B1), Residential Institutions (C2), Dwelling Houses (C3), Community facilities (D1) shops serving the local community (A1), food and drink outlets serving the local community (A3), recreation and leisure facilities serving the local community (D2) and open space and public spaces as being acceptable within the area. The proposed use does not comply with any of the listed uses and the application has therefore been advertised as a departure from the development plan. The proposal seeks to change from one existing sui generis employment use to another sui generis employment use. The site is within a mixed use area adjoining residential properties but also a commercial employment area including an adjoining 24 hour HGV rental and repair business and paving contractors’ depot. Policy CS4: Employment Land Supply and Locational Priorities seeks to retain employment sites in

employment use in order to secure the borough’s economic future. UDP Policy E5 New Industrial and Commercial Development seeks to ensure that development is “compatible with existing and proposed surrounding uses, in particular adjoining residential areas, Landscape buffer zones must be provided to separate uses. Other measures, such as sound insulation, pollution control and restricted hours of working to minimise potential amenity problems will be required.” Given the existing mixed character of the area including a number of adjoining commercial uses, it is considered that the proposed use would not be out of character with the area. In light of the existing use of the site, NPPF and Core Strategy policy in favour of sustainable development and encouraging business and employment uses it is considered that in principle, justification can be made for the proposed use. 20.2 Contaminated Land

The site is known to have been filled with industrial waste with historical extensive heavy industrial use. The application is therefore supported by a detailed contamination report. On the basis of that report and given the limited sensitivity of the proposed end use, the Environment Agency and the Council’s Contaminated Land Officer have confirmed that they raise no objections to the scheme.

20.3 Noise and Residential Amenity

The site is within a mixed use area directly adjoining residential properties with surrounding business uses including 24 hour HGV rental and repair business and paving contractors’ depot. The proposal is acknowledged to have potential noise and amenity issues arising from the activities such as starting of engines, manoeuvring and maintenance of HGVs. The proposed use is, however, relatively small scale and confined by the available site area. The site is screened from residential properties to the rear of the site by dividing 1.8m timber fencing with quite dense landscape planting within the application site which is shown to be retained. Residential properties to the side are in the form of a 3 storey apartment block with a blank elevation and dividing fence abutting the application site. The applicant has agreed with the Council’s Environmental Officer to restrict hours of operation to between 6am and 7pm. Given the existing employment use, the wider unrestricted commercial character of the area and the available powers of future control under nuisance legislation the Council’s Environmental Health Officer has confirmed their opinion that an objection on noise and amenity grounds could not be sustained in this case.


The scheme site layout identifies 11 staff car parking spaces and 12 spaces for HGV cabs and tanker trailers utilising the existing access from Foundry Lane. The Council’s Highways Engineer has advised that adequate provision is made for parking, servicing and manoeuvring of vehicles and it is considered that the use would not have a significant impact on the highway network. On that basis he confirms that there is no objection.

21. CONCLUSIONS

The scheme proposes change of use from timber supply centre to tanker haulage yard including provision for maintenance and fuelling of vehicles. The site directly adjoins residential properties but is within an area of very mixed use. A number of objections have been received raising issues relating to noise and disturbance from the proposed activity and the unsuitability of such uses adjoining people’s homes. The use must, however, be considered in context of the existing commercial uses and can be argued to potentially maintain viable employment use of the site in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS4. National and local policy provide for a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The site is screened from properties to the rear by existing landscape buffer planting and in the absence of objection from the Council’s Environmental Health Officer it is not considered that refusal of planning permission could be sustained on amenity grounds.

22. RECOMMENDATIONS

Approve subject to conditions.

23. CONDITIONS

1) Specifying 3 year permission

2) Condition specifying plans (BE1)

3) Condition restricting hours of operation to 6am-7pm including idling/

starting and maintenance of vehicles (E5/ PR2)

4) Vehicle access, parking, servicing etc to be laid out prior to

commencement of use. (BE1

5) Requiring retention and maintenance of existing landscape buffer to

north and west boundaries of site with residential properties (E5/ PR2)

6) Limiting vehicle maintenance as ancillary to use as tanker haulage

depot (E5/ PR2)






APPLICATION NO: 12/00370/COU LOCATION: Whitfield & Brown, Appleton Village,

Widnes PROPOSAL: Proposed change of use from Offices

(B1) to chemist/pharmacy and new shop, including stepped and ramped accesses, shop front and car parking

WARD: Appleton

PARISH: NA CASE OFFICER: Pauline Shearer AGENT(S) / APPLICANT(S): Mr Nabiel Nasr DEVELOPMENT PLAN ALLOCATION:

Primarily Residential

DEPARTURE No REPRESENTATIONS: 40 objections and Petition of 586

signatories

RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to Section 106 for the agreement to prevent use of the pharmacy and facilities as a needle exchange or associated use; and conditions.

SITE MAP

ITEM DERERRED FROM JANUARY COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER ASSESSMENT OF NOISE AND LIGHT DISTURBANCE; EXPLANATION OF RELEVANT RETAIL POLICIES; ASSESSMENT OF CAR PARKING PROVISION FOR RETAIL SPACE APPLIED FOR. FOR CLARIFICATION, THE UPDATE IS PROVIDED IN ITALICS IN THE FOLLOWING REPORT.

25. APPLICATION SITE

25.1 The Site and Surroundings The site consists of former offices and buildings used by a development and construction company, Whitfield and Brown. The proposal relates to an existing building fronting the site and includes an area to the side/rear for car parking. The site is within an allocated primarily residential area which has a

mix of character being residential; commercial; leisure; service and education. The site is accessed directly from Appleton Village west.

25.2 Planning History The site has benefited from the following previous planning permissions;- Ref:07/00271/ful – Demolition of offices and erection of 1 No. three storey and 1 No. two storey apartment block of 36 units; Ref:04/00522/ful -Redevelopment of doctors surgery and builders yard with replacement 2 storey offices and 18 No. flats in a three storey building; Ref; 13573F – Extension and alteration to retail sales area.

26. THE APPLICATION


Full planning permission is sought for the change of use of the existing office building which fronts Appleton Village to a use as a pharmacy/chemist with retail. The change of use relates to the front part of the building approximately 290 square metres of floorspace. The application includes the provision of 6 car parking spaces within the site; provision of a stepped and ramped access; new shop front and the agreement from the applicant to control the use of the building and secure the surrounding site buildings. The main issues arising as a result of the application are;- Retail impact; highway safety; impact on residential amenity; public perception of crime and anti-social behaviour resulting from the use.

27. POLICY CONTEXT

27.1 National Planning Policy Framework

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012 to set out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these should be applied. Paragraph 196 states that the planning system is plan led. Applications for planning permission should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise, as per the requirements of legislation, but that the NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 197 states that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Paragraph 14 states that this presumption in favour of sustainable development means that development proposals that accord with the development plan should be approved, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Where a development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh

the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF; or specific policies within the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted.


North West RSS Policies of relevance include: Policies within Section 3 Sustainable Development (Policy DP1 Spatial Principles) Policy LC3 The Outer Part of the Liverpool City Region Policy EM17 Renewable Energy Policy


The following national and Council Unitary Development Plan policies and policy documents are relevant to this application: -

BE1 General Requirements for Development BE2 Quality of Design BE16 Alterations and New Shop Fronts BE22 Boundary Walls and Fences PR2 Noise Nuisance TP6 Cycling Provision as part of New Development TP7 Pedestrian Provision as Part of New Development TP12 Car Parking TP17 Safe Travel for All TC6 Out of Centre Retail Development H8 Non Dwelling House Uses


The following policies, contained within the Core Strategy are of relevance:

CS2 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development CS5 A Network of Centres CS7 Infrastructure Provision CS15 Sustainable Transport CS18 High Quality Design

27.5 Relevant SPDs

Designing for Community Safety SPD and Shop Fronts and Advertising SPD are of particular relevance.

28. CONSULTATIONS

28.1 HBC Highways – No objections in principle and on the basis that the

remaining buildings are to be secured closed to prevent interference with the proposed car parking.

28.2 HBC Open Spaces – No objection as no trees affected.

28.3 HBC Environmental Health Officer – No objection in principle.

29. REPRESENTATIONS

29.1 The application was advertised by a site notice displayed near to the site. The nearest affected occupiers of the adjacent residential and commercial properties were notified by letter. The Council’s Highway Engineers and Open Space Officers have been consulted.

40 objections have been received from local residents and occupiers relating to:- Inappropriate and insufficient car parking; increase in traffic congestion; loss of outlook; and light; chemist not needed; availability of drugs will lead to anti-social behaviour; length of opening hours; needle exchange cause problems; proximity of proposal to primary school and nursery with vulnerable occupants; will add to existing on street car parking problems especially at school drop-off and pick-up times; already a litter problem experienced by Rushworth Auto Repairs – needle exchange would lead to discarded needles in the area; fear of burglary, muggings and harassment; affects changes of Appleton surgery being move and upgraded; would increase an existing small drug addict problem in Victoria Park; existing cruising cars in area at night – this proposal would attract unsavoury characters; loss of custom to Ditton pharmacy; already have to put up with drunks from the social club and alcoholics in the town; does not comply with policy H8, LTC4 and TC6 of the UDP.

A petition, accessed at Cookes Chemist between 3-12 September 2012, has been received objecting to the proposal with 586 signatories objecting to the proposal on the grounds of noise, disturbance and light pollution to nearest residents; parking difficulties; provision of a needle exchange resulting in increased anti-social behaviour; block future development and possible move for Appleton Surgery; not needed; take business away from town centre.

All further comments from neighbours or consultees will be reported orally to Committee.

30. ASSESSMENT

30.1 Assessment against Planning Policy In relation to National Planning Policy, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is of relevance. The key theme running through NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should then run through the plan-making process and be carried through when making a decision. The introduction of NPPF, does not change the decision making process in that the development should still accord with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. NPPF is a material consideration in relation to this development.

30.2 Retail Impact - The proposal is for a small retail/pharmacy outlet of approximately 290 square metres, of which it is proposed 110 square metres would be given over to retail and the remainder the dispensary. Comments received include potential impact on the town centre and other similar commercial outlets in the wider area. Due to the small scale of the proposal and its location outside of a Neighbourhood Centre, there is no requirement for a retail impact assessment or demonstration of need and the application of Policy TC6, 2, of the Halton UDP is appropriate in this instance. This allows for small scale retail development in Primarily Residential Area, some distance from existing retail facilities that serve a local need, is of a size to serve only local need and would not damage the vitality and viability of nearby Neighbourhood Centres. This proposal serves the locality and is adjacent to an existing surgery, with the nearest Neighbourhood Centres being Derby Road and Liverpool Road, likely not to have trade drawn from them to this location. The scale of the retail element can be controlled through a planning condition. On this basis it is considered that the proposal complies with Policy TC6 of the Halton UDP and is acceptable. Policy TC6 is the appropriate UDP policy against which to assess this proposal. This assessment was undertaken within the original report to committee, as above. In addition to this, members should note that commercial competition between individual outlets is not the concern of planning which must restrict itself to the impact on defined town and neighbourhood centres. There is no requirement for an assessment of need in relation to the provision of an additional pharmacy. The proposal complies with the relevant UDP policy TC6.

30.3 Highway Safety – Although a number of the objections relate to additional traffic and parking being a problem, it is not felt that the addition of a pharmacy at this location will attract significant new vehicle movements in the peak times. Where pharmacies have been included adjacent to doctors’ surgeries it has not been seen to act as a significant additional attractor. With reference to objections made, the new pharmacy will be 110 sqm which has a requirement of 6 spaces. The Council will permit vehicles to cross an existing footway crossing and accept the spaces as legitimate car parking provision. A planning condition is recommended to ensure that the remaining buildings are securely closed and not used to prevent interference with the agreed car parking layout. The highways engineer has re-assessed the access since the last committee following members’ requests. Whilst the site does have an existing use which needs to be considered in determining the impact of this proposal, it is felt that there is an opportunity with this application to improve this existing access to enable a safer use of the site. The applicant has been requested through

planning condition, to submit details of improvements to the access which will satisfy highway safety requirements. The site has scope for car parking in addition to that shown on the amended plans. The highway engineers are continuing to discuss the precise number needed with the applicant and any additional can be the subject of the planning condition relating to car parking already recommended. On this basis the proposal satisfies highway safety requirements and complies with Policies BE1, TP6, TP7, TP12 and TP17 of the Halton Unitary Development Plan in this regard.

30.4 Amenity of Existing Residents - The nearest residential occupiers

affected by the proposal are those on Regent Road. ‘Raymede’ is the closest to the unit for which change of use is being proposed. Some initial comments from the occupier of this property related to the loss of outlook and light. However, the applicant clarified the proposal was purely to change the use of the existing building and not for the originally advertised extension. A further consultation exercise was undertaken as a result. Given that there is no alteration to the back of the building, the outlook of the occupier of ‘Raymede’ will not be affected. The properties which adjoin the site are in commercial use, with Appleton Surgery to the north. Facing the site is the car park serving St Bede’s church and school. The applicant has agreed to control the use of the other buildings on site, which are not included in this proposal and the remainder of the land to east, also in the applicant’s control. Through a Section 106 Legal Agreement, these areas will be secured to minimise potential misuse and prevent their usage undermining this proposal.

Although it is acknowledged that residents may experience some additional footfall and vehicle activity resulting from the use. It is considered, given the existing commercial use of the site, that the proposed use in itself will not result in significant impact on the amenity of the surrounding residential occupiers by virtue of noise and disturbance. It should be noted that an existing pharmacy on Peel House Lane is also located within a residential designation with no control over opening times and offers no serious source of complaints from the residential occupiers. The remainder of the development site in this case is identified for residential use.

Members requested further assessment to be undertaken with regard to the impact of noise and lighting on the adjacent residential occupiers. Lighting:- The applicant has been asked to submit a scheme to show the position of lighting within the site and the lighting levels will be controlled through the requirements of a planning condition. Given that the entrance and car parking area is approximately 20m from the nearest residents on Regent Road, and that the application site building will screen the majority of lighting,

it is considered that the lighting of the site will not cause significant harm to residential amenity. The requirement for a lighting plan and control of lighting can be appropriately dealt with through the attachment of a relevant planning condition. Noise:- The proposed pharmacy building is approximately 12m from the rear facades of the properties on Regent Road. In considering the application we have looked at the nature of the development and the history of noise problems from similar such developments. In considering the application we have taken into account the following: - The plans do not show any large chillers or freezers or associated plant which would suggest result in tonal noise emanating from the site. In the experience of Environmental Health Officers this is the most likely reason that residents complain about small retail units. - There is no indication from the plans that deliveries are expected outside of the opening hours. Similarly early morning deliveries (before 7am) from small scale retail units can cause disturbance to residents. As the date and times for deliveries are not explicit within the application they could be the subject of a planning condition to ensure that deliveries of supplies do not take place outside of the opening hours. Noise from vehicles using the small car park is not an issue Environmental Health would usually consider in relation to small retail developments as the level of vehicle activity is unlikely to be of any great significance. However it should be noted that in this case the retail unit itself offers screening between the cars and the properties on Regent Street. The applicant has agreed to retain the existing out buildings on the site and this will further assist in mitigating the noise levels from vehicles parking by the unit. Environmental Health does not therefore consider that noise from vehicles on the site will give rise to noise disturbance, taking into account the hours of opening requested by the applicant. Recommended Conditions:- No deliveries shall take place outside of the opening hours; All external lighting shall be compliant with the Institute of Lighting Engineers’ Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has considered in this case, that there would be minimal disturbance to existing residential occupiers and as such the proposal satisfies Policy H8 of the Halton Unitary Development Plan.

30.5 Perception of Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour - Many of the comments

received and the volume of objections appear to emanate from the potential and likely use of the proposed pharmacy as a methadone and needle dispensary. This is a use associated with that of a pharmacy and if the Council is considering allowing such a use it must bear in mind the breadth of the ancillary and associated activities that accompany such a use.

Officers have given considerable weight to the potential for the site to engage in this element of pharmacy use and the resulting public perception that this use would result in a rise in crime and anti-social behaviour in this area. Given that this is a Primarily Residential area with a school, nursery and church in very close proximity, the applicant was requested to review this element of the use. The applicant has agreed to enter into a Legal Agreement to restrict the pharmacy use to prevent it being operated as a needle exchange. Although objections on the basis of fear of crime and anti-social behaviour may still be apparent, even with this use restriction, that the much less weight should be given to it, in the consideration of the pharmacy/chemist and retail outlet in this controlled context. It is considered given its location, adjacent to Appleton Surgery, that the site can be seen to support this use and serve a local requirement and that within its controlled capacity, there is no evidence to suggest that it would result in an increase in crime and/or anti-social behaviour in this area. Members should be aware that a pharmacy is obliged to dispense methadone if a valid prescription is presented. However, given that the Borough already has several pharmacies all able to do this, the Council is not in receipt of any evidence to suggest that this directly results in anti-social behaviour. The applicant has agreed to entering into a S. 106 Agreement to restrict the use of the site as a needle exchange. The dispensing of methadone is not suggested to be a restricted part of the normal operations of a pharmacy. Members should note that the Council’s Development Control committee has previously approved pharmacies with unrestricted use, in or adjacent to the existing residential areas of Peel House Lane and Moor Lane.

31. CONCLUSIONS

The application proposes a modest size change of use development, comprising alteration of the existing Whitfield & Brown office building to form a pharmacy with retail, including provision of on-site car parking. Given the scale of the development, and the agreements entered into, it is considered that the development will not result in any significantly harmful effects on the existing residents and users of other facilities in this area. It is considered that acceptable provision can be made for highways and servicing and securing the amenity and safety of users of the facility and the surrounding residents. The proposals are considered to not cause any harm to other retailers given its limited size and is in accordance with policies of the National Planning Policy Framework, Halton Unitary Development Plan, Halton’s Core Strategy, the Designing for Community Safety SPD, Shop Fronts & Advertising SPD.

32. RECOMMENDATIONS That the application be approved on the basis that the applicant enters into a Section 106 to agree to:- restricted use of the site to prevent its use as a needle exchange; a timetable for securing the buildings on the site and fencing off the remainder of the site in the applicants ownership.

33. CONDITIONS 1 Amended Plans (BE1)

2 Standard three year permission (BE1)

3 Materials (BE2)

4 Hours of opening (BE1)

5 Amended plans to show provision of access and car parking (BE1 and

TP6)

6 Provision of plans showing a lighting scheme (BE1)

7 Lighting details shall be installed to comply with the recommendations

of the Institute of Lighting Engineers (BE1)

8 Details of emergency access on to alleyway to ensure it does not open

outwards (BE1)

9 Details of improvements to vehicle access to be approved (BE1)

10 Restriction of retail area to 110 square metres (BE1 and H8)

11 Boundary treatment details (BE22)

12 Installation of boundary to rear of the site within an agreed timescale

(BE1)

13 Details of provision of cycle parking (TP7)

14 Details of refuse storage (BE1)

15 Details of security shutters to be approved (BE2)

16 No deliveries to the site shall take place outside the permitted opening

hours of 07:00 to 23:00 Mon to Fri; 08:00 to 22:00 Sat; 10:00 to 16:00

Sun (BE1)






APPLICATION NO: 12/00377/COU LOCATION: 5 Widnes Road, Widnes PROPOSAL: Proposed change of use from office to 12 No. one

bedroom apartments including change of use of adjoining land to create associated car parking and bin storage plus erection of boundary wall and railings.

WARD: Kingsway

PARISH: N/A CASE OFFICER: Glen Henry AGENT(S) / APPLICANT(S): Mr R Bryan DEVELOPMENT PLAN ALLOCATION: Halton Unitary Development Plan (2005)

Action Area 2 – Central Widnes

DEPARTURE No REPRESENTATIONS: None


35. APPLICATION SITE 35.1 The Site and Surroundings Building formerly occupied by Widnes Job Centre on the edge of Victoria Square Conservation Area but has remained substantially vacant for a significant number of years. 35.2 Planning History A number of planning permissions have previously been approved for the property including as follows:

• 04/00872/COU – Proposed change of use from employment (B1) to restaurant/ public house (A3)

• 05/00646/COU – Proposed change of use from employment (B1) to two storey night club.

• 07/00546/COU - Proposed change of use and alterations to mixed use restaurant/ bar and 10 no. apartments.

With the exception of use of part of the building as a bar/ nightclub for a short period none has been implemented and the building has remained vacant.

36. THE APPLICATION


The scheme proposes conversion of an existing office building formerly in use as Widnes Job Centre to create 12 no. one bedroom apartments. The scheme includes minor alterations to the external fabric of the building including removal of an external fire escape, alterations to fenestration and change of use of adjoining land to create associated car parking and bin storage plus erection of boundary wall and railings. 36.2 Documentation The planning application is supported by a report on Parking Provision

37. POLICY CONTEXT



NPPF also provides at paragraph 51 that local planning authorities should “bring back into residential use empty housing and buildings” and that they “should normally approve planning applications for change to residential use and any associated development from commercial buildings (currently in the B use classes) where there is an identified need for additional housing in that area, provided that there are not strong economic reasons why such development would be inappropriate.”

37.2 Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) North West RSS Policy EM 18 Decentralised Energy Supply is of particular relevance 37.3 Halton Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (2005)

The building and adjoining land falls within Action Area 2 – Central Widnes within the Halton Unitary Development Plan. The Building is within the Victoria Square conservation Area. The following policies within the adopted Unitary Development Plan are considered to be of particular relevance; • Action Area 2 – Central Widnes • BE1 General Requirements for Development; • BE2 Quality of Design; • BE12 General Development Criteria – Conservation Areas

• TP12 Car Parking


Policy CS3: Housing Supply and Locational Priorities is of particular relevance

37.5 Relevant SPDs and Other Considerations Designing for Community Safety Supplementary Planning Document of relevance.

38. CONSULTATIONS

See Main Report

39. REPRESENTATIONS

None

40. ASSESSMENT

40.1 Housing Land Supply and Principle of Use Policy CS3 of The Core Strategy sets targets of 552 dwellings per annum between the years 2010 to 2028.

UDP Policy RG2 specifically identifies residential uses as appropriate in principle in encouraging the Central Widnes Action Area as a “mixed use area for uses supporting the vitality and viability of Widnes Town Centre”. NPPF seeks to bring back into residential use such buildings which have been vacant and against such backdrop it is considered that the proposed use is considered acceptable in principle. 40.2 Design and Character

The proposal involves only limited alteration to the external appearance of the building including removal of an existing external fire escape, removal of doors and replacement windows to match existing but provide necessary means of escape. The scheme includes change of use of adjoining land to create associated car parking and bin storage plus erection of boundary wall and railings. The proposals are considered appropriate to the character of the existing building and the Conservation Area. The scheme has been amended in accordance with advice from the Council’s retained adviser on Conservation matters. It is considered that final materials and window and railing detail can be controlled by appropriate planning condition.

40.3 Noise and Residential Amenity

The site is within a mixed use area with surrounding business uses including bars, nightclubs, restaurants and takeaways. The proposal is however, considered sufficiently removed from such uses and not considered to raise likely significant amenity issues for future occupiers to justify refusal. The Council’s Environmental Health Officers’ raise no objection to the scheme.


The scheme proposes a private parking court with bin stores on land currently vacant to the side of the existing building. This will provide space for parking of 5 cars with access from Widnes Road. Whilst this is substantially less than 1 space per dwelling, provision is limited by land availability. The site adjoins Widnes Town Centre with excellent access to public transport and other facilities. On-street parking is available in the area and the intensity of the proposed use must be considered substantially less than the former office use. As such it is considered that refusal of planning permission could not be justified on these grounds. The Council’s Highways Engineer has confirmed that they raise no objection in principle. The proposed vehicular access requires relocation of an adjoining bus shelter. This is within the adopted highway and it is considered can be adequately secured by condition.

41. CONCLUSIONS This scheme proposes change of use of an existing building to residential use including change of use of adjoining land to create associated car parking and

bin storage plus erection of boundary wall and railings. The scheme is considered to offer potential to bring back into beneficial use a building and land which has remained vacant for a substantial period. It also offers the potential to make a significant contribution to achieving the aims of UDP regeneration policy in the form of Policy RG2. The overall objectives of Supplementary Planning Guidance, Halton Unitary Development Plan, the Core Strategy and other policy guidance are considered to be met within the proposed submission. The proposals are considered to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework offering a good quality of development suited to the character of the wider area and as such are recommended for approval.

42. RECOMMENDATIONS Approve subject to conditions.

43. CONDITIONS

1) Specifying 3 year permission

2) Condition specifying amended plans (BE1)

3) Materials condition, requiring submission and agreement of external

materials (BE2/ BE12)

4) Vehicle access, parking, servicing etc. to be constructed prior to

occupation of properties/ commencement of use. (BE1)

5) Boundary treatments requiring development be carried out in

accordance with the approved details. (BE2)

6) Wheel cleansing facilities to be submitted and approved in writing.

(BE1)

7) Construction and delivery hours to be adhered to throughout the

course of the development. (BE1)

8) Requiring relocation of bus shelter prior to commencement of use or in

accordance with timetable agreed by the Local Planning Authority (BE1)

9) Requiring implementation of bin storage in accordance with approved

plans prior to commencement of use (BE2)






APPLICATION NO: 12/00387/FUL LOCATION: WSR Recycling Ltd, Ditton Road, Widnes, Cheshire,

WA8 0PA PROPOSAL: Proposed construction of a new waste transfer station

and materials recovery facility. Re-cladding of existing material recovery facility and transfer building. Use of area to south west of site for the storage of waste in open bays. Associated plant and infrastructure including two new weighbridges and re-alignment of existing internal roads. Annual throughput of 200,000 tonnes.

WARD: Riverside

PARISH: CASE OFFICER: Rob Cooper AGENT(S) / APPLICANT(S):

Widnes Skip and Reclaim


Policy E2 - Priority Employment Redevelopment Area Policy E3 – Primarily Employment

DEPARTURE No REPRESENTATIONS: Two



45.1 The Site and Surroundings

The site location is shown on Drawing LE11547-001. The existing recycling facility is located approximately 1km from the centre of Widnes, in a large and well established industrial estate along Ditton Road. To the north of the site lies Ditton Road beyond which lie further industrial units. The site is bounded to the east by the A533 Queensway and to the south by a transport depot and railway line. To the west lie further industrial units.

45.2 Planning History

The site has a long history of industrial uses, the current occupant began operating the site as a waste transfer around 2002, later retrospective planning permission 04/01072/COU was granted for the continuation of use of land as waste recycling and transfer centre, erection of three storey office building, retention of waste reception and workshop buildings, car parking and landscaping

45.3 Background

The existing waste transfer station 3.26ha site is currently permitted by the Environment Agency to accept up to 112,000 tonnes of mixed Commercial and Industrial (C&I) and Construction and Demolition (C&D) wastes per annum which are then sorted, bulked up and exported to third parties for recycling or for final disposal.

46. THE APPLICATION


The proposed development would comprise of the following:

• The construction of a new waste transfer station. This building would receive mixed C&I wastes and would act in part as a waste transfer station and in part as a reception and feed hall for the new Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). • The construction of a new MRF directly adjacent to the new waste transfer station. The MRF would treat the mixed C&I wastes conveyed from the waste transfer station as well as the materials that are currently processed at the existing MRF. • Re-cladding of the existing MRF line and transfer building. The existing transfer building would be used for the reception of C&D wastes, which would be processed on the existing MRF line. • Use of area to the south west of the site for the storage of waste in open bays.

• Associated plant and infrastructure including two new weighbridges and realignment of existing internal access roads to promote safe and efficient vehicle circulation around the site.

The proposed recycling activities would be designed to have a projected annual throughput of approximately 200,000 tonnes of material per annum. The existing recycling facilities and other site operations have no restrictions to operational hours. It is proposed that the facility would continue to operate 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

47. POLICY CONTEXT


The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012 to set out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these should be applied.

Paragraph 196 states that the planning system is plan led. Applications for planning permission should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. As per the requirements of legislation, but that the NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 197 states that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.



The proposal is considered to be a waste management facility located within a primarily employment area. Policies E2, E3, MW1, MW2, MW3 and MW7 are therefore of most relevance. The site falls within an area designated as primarily employment land within the Unitary Development Plan. The key policies of relevance are:

Policy BE1 General Requirements for Development Policy BE2 - Quality of Design Policy PR14 – Contaminated Land Policy TP12 – Parking Standards Policy E3 – Primarily Employment Land Policy MW1 – All Minerals and Waste Management Developments

Policy MW3 – Requirements for all waste management applications Policy MW7 – Waste Recycling and Collection facilities Policy E2 - Priority Employment Redevelopment Area Policy E3 – Primarily Employment Policy TP12 – Car Parking

The Halton Borough Council Core Strategy Revised Submission Document May 2011 is now also a material consideration as is the National Planning Policy Framework. Policy CS24 ‘Waste’ states that the Council will ensure that waste management are developed whilst minimising the impacts on the environment and communities of the Borough. Consultation on the Merseyside Joint Waste Local Plan ‘Proposed Main Modifications November 2012’ ended on 10th January 2013, with final adoption estimated to be April 2013. The plan is therefore considered to be a material consideration. The site is an existing waste management facility which has been there approximately 10 years, and therefore not identified within the site allocations part of the Plan. The following development control polices however are of relevance: Policy WM 5 Areas of Search for Additional Small-scale Waste Management Operations and Re-processing sites. Additional sites that are required for waste-related re-processing activities and other small scale waste management facilities over and above those allocated for specific waste management uses will be considered favourably in the vicinity of the following areas of search: Halton : Industrial areas of Ditton / Widnes; Policy WM10 ‘High Quality Design and Operation of Waste Management Facilities’ Policy WM 12 ‘Criteria for Waste Management Development’ Policy WM 13 ‘Planning Applications for New Waste Management Facilities on Unallocated Sites’

48. CONSULTATIONS

48.1 HBC Open Spaces – No Objection

48.2 HBC Environmental Health – No Objection

48.3 Environment Agency (EA) – No Objection

48.4 Highways Authority – No objections

48.5 Health and Safety Executive – Do not advise , on safety grounds, against the granting of planning permission

48.6 Mersey Gateway Team – Raised no objections to the proposed

development though noted that some of the land included within the red line application boundary forms part of the Transport and Works Act land required as part of the Mersey Gateway scheme. The applicant has since amended the plans to omit this land.

48.7 Natural England - advise that this development is unlikely to pose any

likely or significant risks to Natura 2000 sites. Given these comments it is advised that no further action is required in relation to the Habitats Regulations.

48.8 Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service – Habitats Regulations

Assessment (HRA) is not required for this development at this site. The reason for not requiring HRA is mainly due to the distance from the Mersey Estuary SPA / Ramsar site which limits the potential pathways to the Mersey Estuary SPA / Ramsar and its qualifying bird species.

49. REPRESENTATIONS 49.1 Two objections have been received, one from a Widnes resident

concerned about the type of development and one from the land owner of the proposed hotel site, adjacent to Ditton Road roundabout. The main concerns raised are impact on the viability of delivering their hotel site, contamination, flood risk, crime, noise and visual appearance.

50. ASSESSMENT

50.1 Policy Considerations Policy MW1 of the Halton Unitary Development Plan states that applications for waste management facilities will be assessed with regard to the extent to which they meet specific criteria including not having a detrimental impact on dwelling or other sensitive uses and identified development sites in terms of visual amenity, noise, vibration, dust, windblown materials, odour, litter, vermin, air, land or water pollution or other nuisance, ground water and highway safety. Policy MW3 states that planning applications for waste management facilities, or extensions to waste management facilities, must include a full working statement which details site working practices. The applicant has submitted this for consideration.

Policy MW7 – waste recycling and collection facilities

“The development of waste recycling and collection facilities, including scrap metal yards, aggregate recycling facilities, soil screening facilities, Materials Recycling Facilities (MRF’s), waste transfer stations and other operations that

will reduce the volume of wastes requiring final disposal will be supported. Proposals for such facilities should accord with all the following criteria:

a) be located in a Primarily Employment Area, provided that it can be shown

not to have an unacceptable impact on existing industries, particularly food manufacturing and high technology activities;

b) be sited at a sufficient distance from dwellings and other sensitive properties, and laid out, fenced and screened so as to avoid nuisance from the transport, sorting, processing or storage of waste;

c) be sited with or adjacent to other waste management facilities, unless

over-riding reasons for an alternative location are demonstrated;

d) be located within a building when handling non-inert wastes, unless it can be demonstrated that no nuisance would result.

The site is located in a Primary Employment area (Policy E3) and priority Employment Redevelopment Area (E2), the distance from nearest residential properties is some 400m away. Furthermore the site is an existing waste management site and much of the proposed waste handling activities would be located within the proposed new buildings, this is considered to be a significant improvement to the current practices, and current aesthetics of the site.

Furthermore 5.2m profiled metal screens are proposed to the Ditton Road frontage and the rear of the site which is visible form the railway line and the off- slip from the A533 to Ditton Roundabout.

50.2 Visual impact and amenity

The site is located within the Ditton Road Employment Area, the site is in a prominent location due to its sitting next to the A533 bridge approach and the Liverpool / London train line to the south which is raised upon the viaduct. The eastern boundary already has a landscaped embankment which provides screening, this will remain in place.

As part of this scheme 5.2m high screens are proposed along the northern boundary to screen the site and external operations from Ditton Road, and to the South West boundary to screen the external storage area from the railway lines.

Given the above the impact on surrounding sites including the proposed hotel

site is unlikely to be significant.

The nearest residential properties are approximately 400m north east at the bottom of Lower House Lane. These properties have no visual link with the site due to the Ditton Road Roundabout and the A533. The application has been submitted with a Noise Impact Assessment Report. The report concludes that the noise rating generated by the MRB and WRTB will not exceed 10db below the existing background noise level at the closest residential receptor. The

Environmental Health Officer has been consulted and has confirmed that the report is satisfactory and has no objections.

50.3 Flood Risk

The site is over 1 hectare in size, and part of the site falls within a flood risk zone. In accordance with the National Planning Policy the application has been accompanied with a flood risk assessment. The Environment Agency (EA) has been consulted, following initial comments raising concerns in relation to the format of the Flood Risk Assessment and an amended report has been submitted. At the time of writing no comments have been received from the EA on the amended report. Members will be updated at committee.

50.4 Contaminated Land

The site has a history of industrial uses. The application has been submitted with site investigations which have identified significant levels of contamination. The Council’s Contaminated Land Officer and the Environment Agency have been consulted. Both the Contaminated Land Officer and the Environment Agency have no objections, subject to conditions relating to further investigations and a remediation strategy.

50.5 Highways

The metal recycling facility will be accessed from Ditton Road which leads directly on to A533 (Queensway) / A562 (Speke Road). Ditton Road is single carriageway but is a district distributor road which already adequately serves various industrial sites in the vicinity. The application has been submitted with a Transport Assessment and the Highways Engineers have been consulted. The Highways Engineer has no objection, with regards to the number of vehicle movements and the capacity of the Road Network. Initial concerns over the siting of additional car parking over adopted highways land have been addressed by removing them from the scheme as the additional parking places were unnecessary.

50.6 Ecology and Habitats

The site is 750m north of the Mersey Estuary. Due to the proximity to the Mersey Estuary SPA / Ramsar site Natural England and Merseyside Environmental Advisory Service have been consulted. They have advised that the development is unlikely to pose any likely or significant risks to the Estuary habitat and that a HRA is not required.

51. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The site is located in a Primary Employment area (Policy E3) and priority Employment Redevelopment Area (E2). The distance from nearest residential properties is some 400m away, due to this distance and the topography, the proposal is considered not to impact on residential properties.

Furthermore the site is an existing waste management site and much of the proposed waste handling activities would be located within the proposed new buildings, this is considered to be a significant improvement to the current practices, and current aesthetics of the site. Appropriate screening is also proposed to the Ditton Road frontage and the rear of the site, which will contribute to enhancing the visual appearance of the site. The proposal is considered to be acceptable and complies with UDP Polices BE1, BE2, E2, E3, PR14, PR16, MW1, MW2, MW 3 and MW7 and is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions.

52. RECOMMENDATIONS Approve subject to conditions.

53. CONDITIONS

1. Time limit for the commencement of development; (in accordance with the Town & Country Planning Act 1990)

2. Shall be carried out in accordance with application forms, supporting information and list of approved plans and documents (BE1, BE2)

3. The proposed development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted working statement (BE1 and MW3)

4. Prior to the commencement of development submission and approval of materials (BE2)

5. Prior to commencement provision and use of wheel cleansing facilities during course of construction to be submitted and approved; (BE1)

6. Condition(s) in relation to the submission of a ground investigations and remediation strategy. This shall include the monitoring maintenance and any contingency final report demonstrating that all long- term site remediation criteria.

7. No development shall begin until the provision of predevelopment site levels and proposed finished floor levels and adjacent land levels; (BE1)

8. Prior to occupation of the buildings laying out of approved vehicle access, service and parking areas to be retained as such (BE1)

9. The development to be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment and the mitigation measures as detailed in the FRA; (BE1 and PR16)

10. Prior to the commencement of development details of lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing

11. Condition(s) restricting the locations, heights and types material to be stored externally (BE1, E3 and MW7)

12. No materials or substances shall be burnt at the site (BE1 and PR1) 13. No external storage or composting of putrescible materials/waste (BE1

and PR3)






APPLICATION NO: 12/00433/FUL LOCATION: Prince of Wales, Albert Square PROPOSAL: Proposed demolition of the vacant Prince of

Wales public house to build a single new retail unit (Class A1) as an extension to the Albert Square Shopping Centre, the relocation of the taxi rank in the southern Albert Square car park.

WARD: Appleton PARISH: N/A

CASE OFFICER: Andrew Plant APPLICANT(S): New River Retail Ltd DEVELOPMENT PLAN ALLOCATION: Halton Unitary Development Plan (2005)

TC4 Retail Development within Designated Shopping Centres

DEPARTURE No REPRESENTATIONS: Highways and Environmental Health

RECOMMENDATION: Approve. SITE MAP


55.1 The Site and Surroundings The site is the vacant Prince of Wales public house located within the existing Albert Square Shopping Centre within Widnes Town Centre.


2002 – 02/00135/ADV – Advertisements to Public House 2003 – 03/00717/FUL – Proposed provision of external fire escape from first floor flat to rear yard. 2006 – 06/00811/ADV – Advertisements to the Public House

56. THE APPLICATION


Proposed demolition of the vacant Prince of Wales public house to build a single new retail unit (Class A1) as an extension to the Albert Square Shopping Centre, the relocation of the taxi rank in the southern Albert Square car park.

56.2 Documentation The application is supported by a Design and Access Statement, Planning Statement, Transport Statement and air Quality Assessment.

57. POLICY CONTEXT


Paragraph 14 states that this presumption in favour of sustainable development means that development proposals that accord with the development plan should be approved, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Where a development plan is absent, silent or relevant

policies are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF; or specific policies within the NPPF indicate that development should be restricted.


Current RSS (Regional Spatial Strategy) Policy to 2021 is still of relevance. The Government has stated its intention to revoke RSS but it remains a material planning consideration.


The site is located on Albert Square Shopping Centre, in an area identified as Primary shopping area in the Halton Unitary Development Plan.

The following National and Council Unitary Development Plan policies and policy documents are of particular relevance: - Policy BE1 General Requirements for Development; Policy BE2 Quality of Design; Policy TC4 Retail Development within Designated Shopping Centres; Policy TC5 Design of Retail Development Policy TP19 Air Quality Policy PR1 Air Quality 57.4 Halton Core Strategy (2012)

Policy CS5 A Network of Centres is of particular relevance

Policy CS23 Managing Pollution and Risk 58. CONSULTATIONS

58.1 HBC Highways – No objection see response below

58.2 HBC Environmental Health – No objection on the basis of delivery

traffic exiting through South Street so that additional deliveries are not sent onto Deacon Road (an Air Quality Management Area). A S106 to look at alternative exits from the car park (as a justified figure for section 106 monies could not be provided by Environmental Health and as no viable alternative could be suggested the requirement for a S106 is not part of the recommendation).

59. REPRESENTATIONS 59.1 No letters of representation have been received.

60. ASSESSMENT

60.1 Assessment against Planning Policy including use and design The proposed development of the retail unit will involve demolishing the vacant Prince of Wales Pub (645sqm) and building a single retail unit (Use Class A1) of 1,006sqm. As the proposed retail unit is within the existing primary shopping centre and is of an appropriate size and scale to the character and function of the centre, the proposal is considered acceptable. The proposed development is considered to contribute to the vitality and viability of the Town Centre. The retail unit will be single storey in height (maximum of 6metres high). The exterior of the retail unit will have a contemporary design and will complement the rest of the shopping centre.

60.2 Highways It was originally proposed that the new unit would be serviced with access from South Street and out through Deacon Road. This routing would have caused potential conflict with pedestrians as the service vehicles would need to drive through the majority of the car park. The plans have been amended to show that the proposed new unit is serviced along Kent Street and out through South Street. This reduces the distance travelled through the car park and therefore reduces the potential conflict with pedestrians using the car park. The swept path analysis demonstrates how an HGV can do the above manoeuvre. However, this will require the corner of Kent Street/Fredrick Street and the south eastern corner will need to be remodelled. These areas are within an existing adopted highway.

This application requires the remodelling of part of the southern end of the car park and moves the three of the four disabled parking spaces, currently at the rear of the Prince of Wales, to opposite the pedestrian link adjacent to South Street. One of the spaces will be lost. The other four parking spaces at the rear of the pub are lost and the relocation of the disabled spaces losing a further five spaces, and a further loss of six spaces with the relocation of the taxi rank onto Kent Street. Two new spaces are provided at this location and a further two spaces are marked in the northern car park. A total loss of twelve parking spaces including one disabled sized space.

Observations of the car park suggest this loss will not have a detrimental

impact on viability of this car park.

The following are suggested as conditions:

• Construction and demolition management plan should be agreed prior

to any works.

• The taxi rank should be marked out before construction of the new unit.

• A servicing vehicle management plan to be agreed with delivery times

and control of exit barrier onto South Street.

• No foundations should extend under the adopted highway, unless

correctly licenced

• Improvements to corner of Kent Street/Fredrick Street prior to

occupation.

• Remarking of all spaces in the car parks in accordance with approved

plans.

60.3 Air Quality Although the proposed unit is not located within an air quality management area, the exit to the existing car park is. An assessment of air quality impacts has been submitted by the applicant and this concludes that the significance of emissions from the construction phase has been assessed as moderate adverse. Appropriate mitigation measures have been recommended based on best practice guidance. It is anticipated that with these mitigation measures in place the risk of adverse effects of emissions from the construction phase is considered to be slight. The significance of the cumulative effects of the proposed development with respect to nitrogen dioxide exposure is determined to be ‘negligible’. The significance of the cumulative effects of the proposed development with respect to particulate matter exposure is determined to be ‘negligible’. Therefore no mitigation measures are deemed necessary throughout the operational phase of the development. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has been consulted and does not dispute the findings of the air quality assessment and has made a recommendation that deliveries exit through South Street and not onto Deacon Road. The plans have been amended to reflect this. The Environmental Health Officer has also requested that a S106 be considered to look at alternative exits to the car park. However, a justified figure for section 106 monies could not be provided and as no viable alternative could be suggested the requirement for a S106 is not part of the recommendation.

61. CONCLUSIONS The proposed development of the retail unit within the existing primary shopping centre is of an appropriate size and scale to the character and function of the centre. The proposed development is considered to contribute to the vitality and viability of the Town Centre. The retail unit will be single storey in height (maximum of 6 metres high). The exterior of the retail unit will have a contemporary design and will complement the rest of the shopping centre. The reconfiguration of the car parking is considered acceptable and as such the proposal is compliant with Policy BE1, BE2, TC4 and TC5.

62. RECOMMENDATIONS

Approve subject to conditions.

63. CONDITIONS

1. Standard 3 year permission (BE1) 2. Condition specifying amended plans (BE1) 3. Materials condition, requiring the submission and approval of the materials

to be used (BE2) 4. Construction Management Plan including wheel cleansing facilities to be

submitted and approved in writing. (BE1) 5. Construction and delivery hours to be adhered to throughout the course of

the development. (BE1) 6. Requiring provision of bin and recycling facilities prior to occupation. (BE1) 7. Air Quality mitigation during construction. 8. Construction and demolition management plan should be agreed prior to

commencement (BE1) 9. The taxi rank shall be marked out to commencement of the new unit. 10. Servicing vehicle management plan to be agreed with delivery times and

control of exit barrier onto South Street prior to occupation 11. Improvements to corner of Kent Street and Frederick Street prior to

construction. 12. Prior to occupation of the unit remarking of all spaces in the car parks shall

be carried out in accordance with approved plans. Informatives:

• The applicant should contact the Highway Authority for a pre works inspection of the highway and car park.

• No foundations should extend under the adopted highway, unless correctly licenced.

• Make good any damage to highways or car park as a result of implementing this application, including service connections.






APPLICATION NO: 12/00444/FUL LOCATION: Land at, Everite Road, Widnes, Cheshire,

WA8 8PT PROPOSAL: Proposed part demolition of existing

building and change of use of site to metal recycling facility, including construction of two storey office building, siting of weigh bridge and associated cabin, erection of various timber and steel 6m, 7m and 8m high boundary treatments, siting of external plant and machinery and associated works.

WARD: Ditton

PARISH: CASE OFFICER: Rob Cooper AGENT(S) / APPLICANT(S): European Metal Recycling Limited DEVELOPMENT PLAN ALLOCATION: Halton Unitary Development Plan (2005)

Policy E3 – Primarily Employment

DEPARTURE No REPRESENTATIONS: 37 individual representations and 159

identical objections and 87 signatory petition.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse SITE MAP


65.1 The Site and Surroundings The application site is located fronting Everite Road, a mainly light industrial area north of the A562 (Speke Road) and the “Mersey Multi-Modal Gateway” at Ditton, Widnes. The site is situated 2 miles to the west of Widnes, 4 miles to the north west of Runcorn. The application site covers an area of 1.77ha (0.44acres). The existing site is rectangular in shape and comprises a single storey steel portal frame warehouse building with profile sheet metal clad elevations and surrounding concrete and hard-core covered yard. The existing site is accessed via Everite Road.

65.2 Planning History The site was previously occupied by Merseyside Coatings Limited who specialised in metal spraying and shot blasting. There have been a number of planning permissions at the site including permission for the display of signs (2/24178/A), erection of warehouse unit (2/25363/FB) and application for a concrete batching plant (2/5141/F). Planning application 11/00429/FUL was previously withdrawn following a recommendation that the application should be refused on the grounds that the proposal would not provide sufficient enough screening to mitigate the obtrusiveness and visual intrusion to residents’ outlook, this combined with the perception of the use was considered to be detrimental to the amenity of local residents. This application is a resubmission on 11/00429/FUL, and the applicant has tried to address the previous concerns raised by local residents and officers.

66. THE APPLICATION

66.1 Proposal Description Planning permission is sought for the change of use of the land to a scrap metal storage and processing facility, and the following operational development: Part demolition of existing building Construction of a two storey office / staff amenity building Construction of a single storey office building and installation of two 50’ long weighbridges Construction of a solid barrier to surround the site and also act as a noise transfer deterrent The installation of a Metso 1240 Metal Shear Utilising the existing building to buy in small quantities of non-ferrous metals and also to store re-usable steels Utilising the existing building to house an End of Life Vehicle facility and associated tank farm

Construction of 7 to 8m high boundary screens

The facility will manage (once operating at its predicted 5 year established level) circa 50,000 tonnes per annum (tpa), the majority of this would be of ferrous (45,000 tonnes) and the remainder non-ferrous (5,000 tonnes), this is likely to be sourced from End of Life Vehicles (ELV’s) and demolition/manufacturing scrap arising in the local area.

The whole of the yard will be concreted and drained via a Class 1 full retention interceptor under specific discharge consent from the Environment Agency and United Utilities. All site activities will be carried out under the terms of a full waste management permit issued and regulated by the Environment Agency.

67. POLICY CONTEXT


The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012 to set out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these should be applied. Paragraph 196 states that the planning system is plan led. Applications for planning permission should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. As per the requirements of legislation, but that the NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 197 states that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.


67.2 Halton Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (2005) The proposal is considered to be a waste management facility located within a primarily employment area. Policies, E3, MW1, MW2, MW3 and MW7 are therefore of most relevance. The site falls within an area designated as primarily employment land within the Unitary Development Plan. The key policies of relevance are: Policy BE1 General Requirements for Development Policy BE2 - Quality of Design Policy PR14 – Contaminated Land

Policy TP12 – Parking Standards Policy E3 – Primarily Employment Land Policy MW1 – All Minerals and Waste Management Developments Policy MW7 – Waste Recycling and Collection facilities Policy MW3 – Requirements for all waste management applications Policy E2 - Priority Employment Redevelopment Area Policy E3 – Primarily Employment Policy TP12 – Car Parking

Policy MW1(a) states that developments should not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on dwellings or other environmentally sensitive uses and identified development sites in terms of visual amenity; noise, vibration, dust, windblown materials, odour, litter, vermin, air, land or water pollution or other nuisance. Furthermore, Policy MW7 (a) states that such developments should be located in a primarily employment area, provided that it can be demonstrated that: (a) it would not have an unacceptable impact on existing industries (b) should be sited sufficient distance away from dwellings and other sensitive properties, laid out, fenced and screened so as to avoid nuisance (c) sited to adjacent to other waste management facilities and finally (d) located within a building when handling non-inert wastes, unless it can be demonstrated that a nuisance would not result. The Halton Borough Council Core Strategy was adopted in December and is now also a material consideration, as is the National Planning Policy Framework. Policy CS24 ‘Waste’ states that the Council will ensure that waste management facilities are development whilst minimising the impacts on the environment and communities of the Borough. Consultation on the Merseyside Joint Waste Local Plan ‘Proposed Main Modifications November 2012’ ended on 10th January 2013, with final adoption estimated to be April 2013. The plan is therefore considered to be a material consideration. Policy WM 5 Areas of Search for Additional Small-scale Waste Management Operations and Re-processing sites. Additional sites that are required for waste-related re-processing activities and other small scale waste management facilities over and above those allocated for specific waste management uses will be considered favourably in the vicinity of the following areas of search: Halton : Industrial areas of Ditton / Widnes; Policy WM10 ‘High Quality Design and Operation of Waste Management Facilities’ Policy WM 12 ‘Criteria for Waste Management Development’

Policy WM 13 ‘Planning Applications for New Waste Management Facilities on Unallocated Sites’

68. CONSULTATIONS The proposal has been advertised by way of a site notice and press notice. There was extensive public consultation carried out. The Environment Agency, United Utilities have been consulted and have no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions relating to surface water drainage design, ground contamination investigation, mitigation and verification, removal of suspended solids from surface water run-off, details of foul and surface water drainage. The Council’s Highways Engineer and Environmental Health Officer, Contaminated Land Officer and Open Spaces Officer have been consulted and these responses are summarised in the observations and issues section of the report.

68.1 HBC Open Spaces – No Objection

68.2 HBC Environmental Health – No Objection

68.3 Environment Agency (EA) – No Objection

68.4 Health and Safety Executive – Do not advise, on safety grounds,

against the granting of planning permission. 69. REPRESENTATIONS 69.1 37 individual representations objecting to the application, as well as

159 individually signed but identical objections and a petition of 87 signatures have been received. Two letters of objection have also been received from the local MP. The objections received raise the following concerns: visual impact, noise, air pollution, light pollution, scale and height of the proposed boundary treatments, stock pile height of scrap metal, contamination of ground and waterways, additional dirt on the roads, scrap metal yard would increase vandalism and theft in the area, increase in vermin and flies, hours of operation, increase in traffic on the roads and impact on highway safety, potential for fires and safety.

69.2 One letter of support has been received from Halton Chamber of Commerce on the basis of job creation and investment in the borough.

70. ASSESSMENT

Amenity and visual impact The site is located within a primarily employment area, the nearest residential properties are approximately 85m away to the north west of the site on

Edgewood Close, further residential properties are located 125 metres away on Wyncroft Road to the East of the site. The application has received a number of objections from residents on both of these roads raising concerns in relation to the visual impact that the site would have, and impact on outlook. The site is located within a primarily employment area, however there are a number of vantage points, particularly those from residential properties that are particularly sensitive, notably the block of flats at the southern end of Wyncroft Road, and nos.32 to 58 Wyncroft Road. The backs of which are 125m metres away, with first floor bedrooms having an outlook directly across to the site. Other residential properties that are particularly sensitive receptors are on Edgewood Close. In particular, no. 12 Edgewood Close is approximately 85m away, with an outlook at the first floor towards the site. The applicant has therefore included in their proposal a series of high boundary treatments ranging from 6m to 8m, whilst these provide mitigation for noise they are also using them to provide a visual screen from the scrap metal processing activities within the site. The applicant has proposed finishing facing materials similar to those of an industrial building in appearance. This would consist of a lower level brick wall with cladded panels to the upper levels, these finishes would be applied to boundary treatments along the western boundary and northern boundary. Whilst it is appreciated that the applicant has tried to mitigate visual impact, it is felt that the proposal would still not provide sufficient guarantee that all activities could be screened rendering the activities unnoticeable by local residents. For example the applicant has provided detail of the ‘Liebherr’ long arm grabber which would be used move the scrap metal around the site. The boom has the capability to extend over 15m into the air, with the associated grabber shifting around the scrap metal. Since the previous application (11/00429/FUL) the applicant has provided drawing no D3294.107A, this drawing provides cross sections of the site showing site lines from neighbouring properties. This confirms that the grabber would be visible. Clearly the proposed screening would not be able to screen this activity, which would be particularly visible to the affected local residents. For these reason it is considered due to the proximity of existing residential properties the proposed screening afforded in the proposal would not be sufficient enough to mitigate the obtrusiveness to resident’s outlook. This visual intrusion, combined with the perception of the use, is considered to be detrimental to the amenity of local residents and impact negatively on the adjoining residential area and therefore does not comply with UDP Policies MW1 and MW7.

Noise The applicant has carried out a noise assessment (in accordance with BS4142). The impact of noise has been assessed taking into account the

distance to sensitive properties the report concludes that the impacts can be satisfactorily mitigated through the use of acoustic screens, and restrictions on hours of operation. The Council’s Environmental Health Officers have been consulted and based on the noise assessment carried out, they have no objections provided the development is carried out in accordance with the recommendation in the noise report and conditions restricting the hours of working to 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday, 7am to 2pm on Saturdays and no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Trees The site is predominantly hard surface, though there are a number of large Poplar Trees along the Everite Road frontage of the site. There are also trees in the south eastern corner of the site. The application has been submitted with a tree survey and arboricultural method statement, and the Open Spaces Officer has been consulted. None of the trees are protected by tree preservation orders nor are they in a conservation area. The removal of 6 trees is considered to be acceptable, and the works to a further 8 along Everite Road is also acceptable. Conditions are recommended for tree protection measures during demolition and construction works of those trees to be retained, and that no works are carried out within the bird nesting season. Highways Objections have been received from local owners and occupiers of businesses on the grounds that the proposed scrap metal facility would increase the number of vehicles to the detriment of the local road network. The applicant has submitted a transport statement report in support of the application. The figures in the report state that the site would generate 360 Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) movements (i.e. 180 going in and 180 out of the site) a day between the hours of 07:00 and 18:00 hours. The vast majority of these trips are expected to come to and from Speke Road, via Marshgate. Due to weight restrictions on Ditchfield Road limited movements are expected to come from the north end of Everite Road. The report concludes that it has been demonstrated that the proposed facility at Everite Road can be accommodated safely and efficiently by the immediate local highway network. It is therefore concluded that there are no highway capacity or safety reasons for objection to the proposed development scheme. The highways department are satisfied that the number of vehicles would not have a detrimental impact on the highway network.

The current application was also submitted with a route management plan appended to the Traffic Assessment which shows that EMR vehicles would access the site from Speke Road, as opposed to Ditchfield Road. Flood Risk The site is within an area that does not have a particular high risk of flooding. However, the site is over 1 hectare in size, and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework the application has been accompanied with a flood risk assessment. The Environment Agency has no objection to the proposal Members will be updated at committee. Contaminated Land The site has a history of industrial uses. The application has been submitted with site investigations which have identified significant levels of contamination. The Council’s Contaminated Land Officer and the Environment Agency have been consulted. Both the Contaminated Land Officer and the Environment Agency have no objections, subject to conditions relating to further investigations and a remediation strategy.

71. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, whilst Halton’s Development Plan policies direct waste uses to Primarily Employment Areas,the policies also require that proposals should be sited at a sufficient distance from dwellings to avoid nuisance from the transport, sorting, processing or storage of waste. In this particular instance the site is considered to be too close to sensitive uses, notably the existing residential properties on Wyncroft Road and Edgewood Close. It is considered that due to the proximity of the existing residential properties the proposed screening would not be sufficient enough mitigate the obtrusiveness and visual intrusion caused by the sorting, processing and storage of scrap metal. This negative impact to resident’s outlook, combine with the perception of the use is considered to be detrimental to the local residential area and amenity of local residents. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy MW1, MW7(b) and (d) of the Halton Unitary Development Plan and is therefore recommended for refusal.

72. RECOMMENDATIONS Refuse for the following reasons:-

The proposal would not provide sufficient enough screening to mitigate the obtrusiveness and visual intrusion to resident’s outlook, this combined with the perception of the use is considered to be detrimental to the local residential area and amenity of local residents. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy MW1, MW7(b) and (d) of the Halton Unitary Development Plan and is therefore recommended for refusal.





This statement confirms that the local planning authority has worked proactively with the applicant to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of Halton. Officers have had significant pre-application discussions, and have met with the applicant on several occasions to discuss the issues raised through the consideration of the application. Unfortunately whilst the applicant has provided a significant amount of information Officers have been unable to agree and support the principle of the application.

APPLICATION NO: 12/00445/FUL LOCATION: Land to the northern extent of St Aidan’s

Drive, Widnes.

PROPOSAL: Proposed re-plan of plots 14-48 (Phase 2) of the previously approved scheme 09/00512/FUL, reducing the total number of units on the development by one to 73 no.

WARD: Farnworth PARISH: N/A CASE OFFICER: Pauline Shearer

AGENT(S) / APPLICANT(S): Countryside Properties (UK) Limited, Regeneration North.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN ALLOCATION:

Allocated Housing Site

DEPARTURE No REPRESENTATIONS: 1 RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions, subject to

entering into a S106 agreement.

SITE MAP


74.1 The Site and Surroundings The site is an existing area of greenfield, which lies between the existing development accessed from Norlands Lane and the Wilmere Lane playing fields. There are residential properties to the south of the site (Nickleford Hall Drive), and to the east of the site (Lindisfarne Court). There are properties currently being constructed adjacent to the site, by the applicant (Countryside Properties Ltd). There is open countryside to the north and the west of the site, which is green belt land.


Application no. 09/00512/FUL: Full application for the erection of 74 dwellings, garages, car parking, landscaping and associated works, approved with conditions on 23/12/10. This application is a re-plan of part of the above application, which will result in one less house, compared with the scheme that was previously approved. There was also an application for a non-material amendment, to the original scheme, which made a minor adjustment to the layout and enhancements to selected house types, which was approved in May 2011.

74.3 Background

The land already has the benefit of planning permission for residential development, as explained above.

75. THE APPLICATION


The proposal is for a re-plan for phase 2 of the original scheme, for 35 no houses. This will comprise of 8 no. 2 bed dwellings, 12 no.3 bed dwellings and 15 no. 4 bed dwellings. This will reduce the overall number, across the whole site from 74 no. dwellings to 73 no. dwellings. The dwellings will be mainly two storey, apart from one of the house types, that has been introduced, which has a room in the roof. This is the Dunham house type, where there will be five of these included within the scheme. There is an additional 2 bed house type, also introduced, on the scheme. The proposed access is from St Aidan’s Drive via Norlands Lane, in Widnes.

75.2 Documentation The planning application is supported by a Design and Access Statement, a Tree Survey and a Flood Risk Assessment.

76. POLICY CONTEXT

76.1 National Planning Policy Framework The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012 to set out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these should be applied. Paragraph 196 states that the planning system is plan led. Applications for planning permission should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise, as per the requirements of legislation, but that the NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 197 states that in assessing and determining

development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.



North West RSS Policies of relevance include: Policies within Section 3 Sustainable Development (Policy DP1 Spatial Principles) Policy L4 Regional Housing Provision Policy L5 Affordable Housing Policy LC3 The Outer Part of the Liverpool City Region Policy EM17 Renewable Energy Policy.


The site is allocated as a Phase 3 Housing Site, in the Council’s UDP. However, the Core Strategy has now been adopted, and Policy CS3 Housing Supply and Locational Priorities of the Core Strategy, has superseded the phasing policy which was set out in the UDP. The proposals map, in relation to the Core Strategy, has not been updated yet, therefore the UDP proposals map is still of relevance. The following UDP policies are of relevance:

BE1 General Requirements for Development BE2 Quality of Design H2 Design and Density of New Residential Development H3 Provision of Recreational Greenspace TP6 Cycling Provision as part of New Development TP7 Pedestrian Provision as Part of New Development TP12 Car Parking PR 16 Development and Flood Risk.


The following policies, contained within the Core Strategy are of relevance: CS1 Halton’s Spatial Strategy CS2 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development CS3 Housing Supply and Locational Priorities CS7 Infrastructure Provision CS12 Housing Mix

CS13 Affordable Housing CS18 High Quality Design CS19 Sustainable Development and Climate Change.

76.5 Relevant SPDs

The New Residential Development SPD, the Designing for Community Safety SPD and the Draft Open Space Provision SPD are of particular relevance

77. CONSULTATIONS

77.1 HBC Highways– Raise an issue in relation to the parking provision for

the 4 bedroom properties not being adequate. The Walcott house type is shown as having a single garage 5.2 x 2.6m, on the planning application drawings, but is shown on the layout provided electronically as having a drive through. If this house type has 300% off road parking then it would be acceptable. The existing Section 38 agreement will need to be altered, to include the new locations for access crossings and the naming and numbering for the site.

77.2 HBC Open Spaces – Do not have any additional comments in relation

to the re-plan. The reduction in the number of properties does not affect any trees or the general layout of development.

77.3 Environment Agency (EA) – Have no further comments to make, and

refer to their comments provided in relation to the previous application (09/00512FUL), which include the following. The proposed development will only be acceptable if the following measure(s) as detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment submitted with this application are implemented and secured by way of a planning condition on any planning permission. The EA have suggested that the following conditions are included:

‘The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) Weetwood Services Ltd (1534/FRA_v1-November 2009) and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA: 1. Restriction in the rate of surface water run-off from the developed site to a

maximum of 10.5 litres/second. 2. Provide on-site attenuated storage to protect property from flooding up to

the critical 100-year flood event including adjustment for climate change (the FRA estimates the storage requirement volume to be in the region of 675 cubic metres).

Reason: To reduce flood risk on the site and elsewhere to an acceptable level.’

To ensure that the finalised surface water drainage design successfully meets the acceptable requirements of the FRA, the following condition should also be attached to any permission: ‘The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a surface water regulation scheme has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. Reason: To reduce flood risk on the site and elsewhere to an acceptable level.’

77.4 United Utilities - No objection in principle, suggested that the following

is provided. If possible this site should be drained on a separate system, with only foul drainage connected into the foul sewer.

Surface water should discharge to the soakaway/watercourse/surface water sewer and may require the consent of the Local Authority. If surface water is allowed to be discharged to the public surface water sewerage system we may require the flow to be attenuated to a maximum discharge rate determined by United Utilities.

78. REPRESENTATIONS 78.1 One letter of representation has been received, which raises issues in

relation to:

-The actual measurement of the privacy distances, with reference to the Council’s SPD for Design of Residential Developments. -Privacy distances in relation to Plots 18 & 19 and no.6 Nickleford Hall Drive. -Privacy distances appear to have been shortened between the proposed properties backing on to no. 6 Nickleford Hall Drive. -Devalue of the property by not protecting the amenity and outlook of their home. The issue of the value of property is not a planning consideration, as it market forces that dictate the values. However, the other issues raised above will be discussed in the main assessment of the report.

79. ASSESSMENT

79.1 Assessment Against Planning Policy

The site is allocated as a Phase 3 Residential Site on the proposals map, which forms part of Halton’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP). Whilst the Core Strategy now supersedes the UDP, which includes the policy in relation

to residential development the proposals map is still of relevance as there has not been any formal allocation of sites through the Core Strategy as yet. Therefore the site is allocated as a site for residential development. This application is for a re-plan of part of this site, and already has the benefit of planning permission. This was approved in December 2010, (ref.09/00512/FUL). The site is therefore appropriate for residential development in planning policy terms.

79.2 Design, Character and Amenity

The proposal is for a re-plan for phase 2 of the original scheme, for 35 no houses. This will comprise of 8 no. 2 bed dwellings, 12 no.3 bed dwellings and 15 no. 4 bed dwellings. This will reduce the overall number, across the whole site from 74 no. dwellings to 73 no. dwellings. The dwellings will be mainly two storey, apart from one of the house types, that has been introduced, which has a room in the roof. This is the Dunham house type, where there will be five of these included within the scheme. There is an additional 2 bed house type, also introduced, on the scheme. The properties are of traditional brick construction, some with render detailing and concrete roof tiles. This re-planned area will use the same palette of materials as the previously approved scheme. The dwellings have private garden space and off street car parking. There is also a total of 0.14 hectares of public open space proposed, within the scheme as a whole. This re-plan area, contains more than half of that public open space to the north of the site, which has not changed from the previously approved scheme. The area will retain the existing trees and will be landscaped in accordance with the approved landscape scheme. It is considered that in terms of built form and design the scheme submitted is of high quality, and continues the character of the existing St Aidan’s Drive development, into this scheme. This scheme has retained the same design ethos as used in the approved scheme, with built form along the plot frontages, which achieve a good quality street streetscene. The applicant has provided drawings of five of the proposed streetscenes to demonstrate this. There has been one objection raised, which relates to the privacy distances between no. 6 Nickleford Hall Drive and plots 18 & 19 of the proposed development, and how the privacy distances have been measured. The background to this is the Council’s SPD in relation to Residential Development, which recommends that a minimum distance of 21m is provided, between properties at first floor level. Where there is a three storey property, directly facing onto a two storey property then 24m is recommended, between properties at first floor level. There is also further guidance for where there is a difference in levels then it is recommended that there is an

additional 2m separation for each 1m difference in land levels, this is providing that the properties are both the same height. There have been a number of privacy distances, in relation to plots 17-21 (inclusive) and properties at no.s 5, 6 & 7 Nickleford Hall Drive, which have been translated onto drawing no. J00153-PL01 Rev Q, which shows the planning layout for this element of the scheme, in context with the existing scheme (Nickleford Hall Drive). The privacy distances, as shown on this plan, complies with the guidance as set out in the Council’s SPD. There is a distance of more than 21m shown between the properties at first floor level. It should also be noted that there is a fencing on the boundary between the development site and the existing properties on Nickleford Hall Drive, which will provide a suitable level of privacy. In relation to the objection received, following the public consultation, the question on the measurement of the privacy distances, at ground floor level (plot 19), has been raised. The provision of a ground floor extension, on these house types, that back onto the Nickleford Hall Drive development, would provide a slightly reduced privacy distance, at ground floor level (less than 1.0m), but there is a boundary fencing, which will provide a suitable level of privacy. It should be noted that there is a proposed conservatory shown on a property on Nickleford Hall Drive, to the rear of plots 19 & 20 of the proposed development. The extension directly faces a gap between the proposed plots. However, the windows at ground floor a shown to be kitchens and these are not classed as habitable room windows in the adopted New Residential Guidance. In addition, in respect of the first floor windows the distances between the existing properties and proposed are greater than those on the extant permission. Given this and the boundary fence the distances are considered to be acceptable It is not considered that these privacy distances have been shortened, and largely comply with the privacy distances as set out in the Council’s SPD. It is considered that there is an acceptable level of privacy and outlook maintained as well as adequate daylight and sunlight. In relation to the other plots, contained within the site, the privacy distances are not strictly as recommended within the SPD. However, the design is considered good quality with a layout that is an appropriate density with a suitable arrangement that relates to the surrounding area. This coupled with these being new dwellings, not existing, means that privacy distances can be reduced slightly than recommended within the guidance, as people know what these are when they buy the properties. It should also be noted that the distances, on this scheme compared with those on the as approved scheme, are comparable.

It is considered that in terms of the built form and design of the dwellings the scheme is of a good quality and, in keeping with surrounding properties and earlier developments in the area. There are appropriate separation distances

shown and adequate privacy is provided, within the site and maintained to existing and surrounding properties. This is in keeping with the character of the area and that refusal of planning permission could not be justified in terms of impact on amenity.


The site will be accessed off St Aidan’s Drive, which serves the existing development by Countryside Properties. The road layout and access points are the same as those approved under application 09/00512/FUL. The Highways Engineer queried the parking provision in relation to the Walcott house type. There is a discrepancy between this house type on the planning layout and the details shown on the elevation, in relation to the garage and parking layout. The elevation has been amended, to reflect what is shown on the planning layout, and it now shows a garage with doors to the rear. This allows cars to drive through and access an additional parking space to the rear. The parking provision remains all within the curtilage, with a mixture of up-front and side drives. There is a minimum of 200% parking, throughout the scheme, which was reflected in the previous scheme. Due to the increase in the number of four bedroom house types, within this layout, more garages are provided, including some with the drive through access, to an additional space to the rear. Due to the road structure and access points remaining unchanged, from the previously approved scheme, the pedestrian and vehicle movement routes therefore remain unchanged. The scheme remains permeable and legible. The scheme is therefore acceptable in relation to the parking, access and servicing arrangements. The previous application, discussed the potential adverse impact on the wider local area highway network, and that this can be mitigated through a financial contribution towards highways improvements. The situation has not changed, since the previous application was approved, therefore this needs to be included in any revised legal agreement.

79.4 Open Space Provision & Trees

There is some open space to be provided, within the site, which totals 0.14 hectares. This amounts to the same area and location, as previously approved. Notwithstanding this, there is still as shortfall in policy terms, and as outlined in the Council’s Open Space SPD. The applicant has agreed in principle to payment of developer contributions in lieu of on and off site open space provision in accordance with UDP Policy H3 and draft SPD on Open Space Provision. This will be secured by legal or other appropriate agreement.

A tree survey has been provided with the application, where the loss of trees, as identified within the survey is considered acceptable as there will be replacement planting provided. Conditions will be attached for the protection of trees to be retained on the site and for the suitable replacement planting in accordance with an agreed landscaping scheme.

The proposal does show a landscaping scheme, with the area of landscaped open space to the north, and retention of the existing trees. The landscaping and the retention of the trees will provide a softer edge to the site and transition with the adjoining green belt and countryside beyond.

79.5 Flooding

As the site exceeds 1ha in area and is within a Flood Zone 1, then a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) was submitted with the application. The Environment Agency have assessed the FRA for this proposed development, and have not raised any objections to the proposal. They provided comments, on the previous scheme, and state that these are still applicable, including conditions in relation to surface water regulation and for the development to be carried out in accordance with the FRA. There have not been any changes to the site, since the previous scheme was approved, therefore the development is acceptable in flood risk terms providing that the recommended conditions are included. United Utilities have not raised any objections to the proposal provided that the site is drained on a separate system with only foul drainage connected into the foul sewer.

79.6 Affordable Housing Since the approval of the previous scheme, the Core Strategy has now been adopted, where Policy CS13: Affordable Housing seeks to secure 25% of total residential units for affordable housing provision. The Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) sits alongside this policy and provides the detail in relation to affordable housing. There was no requirement for the provision of affordable housing to be provided on the extant permission. The developer states that the site was acquired with a viability assessment that did not allow for provision of affordable housing, as this was not a requirement at the time. Since the granting of planning permission, the market has reduced further, and this application has been submitted to reflect market forces, by changing the house types to reflect the current market. This coupled with the extant permission, provides evidence that it would not be reasonable for the Council to now ask for affordable housing to be provided on this site. In order to ensure that the development is completed in the original timescale, and to show commitment to the development of the site, the developer is happy to accept a condition to require commencement in accordance with the dates originally approved, as opposed to requiring the development to be

commenced within three years. It is therefore suggested that a condition is added for commencement to be within 1 year of the date of approval. It is considered that the information above provides suitable evidence that affordable housing would make the development unviable. Also, due to the extant permission, and therefore the developer being able to build the scheme under this permission, and given the economic situation has not changed it would not seem reasonable for the Council to insist that affordable housing is provided in this situation.

80. CONCLUSIONS The proposal is for a re-plan for part of the existing permission, and provides a continuation of the existing development on Norlands Lane. The scheme offers good quality in terms of design and layout and maintains the character of the wider area, to the satisfaction of the Council. It would not harm the amenity of local residents and the loss of trees is compensated for in the landscaping scheme and in the replacement planting. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval subject to the appropriate conditions and subject to entering into a legal agreement to secure a financial contribution towards off site open space and highways improvements.

81. RECOMMENDATIONS

Approve subject to conditions and:

(a) The entering into a Legal Agreement for the provision of a financial

contribution towards off-site public open space and improvements to the local

highway network, and

(b) That if the S106 Agreement or alternative arrangement is not executed

within a reasonable period of time, authority be delegated to the Operational

Director – Policy, Planning and Transportation in consultation with the

Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Committee to refuse the application on the

grounds that it fails to comply with Policy.

82. CONDITIONS

1. Standard 1 year permission (BE1) 2. Condition specifying the approved plans/drawings and amended plans (BE1) 3. No development shall begin until written details and agreement of construction vehicle access routes and construction car parking and management plan; (BE1) 4. No development shall begin until the provision of pre-development site levels and proposed finished floor levels and adjacent land levels; (BE1)

5. No development shall begin until the Council inspects the site markings, to establish the individual building locations for plots 15-24 and plots 68-74, the development will be constructed in accordance with these locations as approved on site; (BE1) 6. No development shall begin until such time as a surface water regulation scheme has been submitted and approved in writing; the approved scheme to be implemented within an agreed timing/phasing arrangement; (BE1); 7. The development is to be carried out in accordance with approved Flood Risk Assessment and the mitigation measures as detailed within; (BE1) 8. Existing tree survey and recommendations and measures for protection during construction; (BE1) 9. Prevention of any tree felling without consent; (BE1) 10. Implementation of a detailed landscaping scheme; (BE1) 11. Replacement of any damaged or dying trees within 3 years of completion; (BE1) 12. Replacement tree planting protected for 5 years following planting to be replaced with agreed species; (BE1) 13. Prior to commencement terrestrial habitats survey and necessary mitigation measures are to be provided; (BE1) 14. Prior to commencement a scheme of protective measures for wildlife in accordance with the ecological survey to be submitted, approved and implemented; (BE1) 15. Prior to commencement a survey for ground nesting birds to be submitted and approved; (BE1) 16. Prior to commencement submission of a biodiversity action design plan to show how features within the house design will encourage wildlife to the scheme; (BE1) 17. Prior to commencement ground investigations for potential pollutants and remediation scheme where necessary; (BE1) 18. Prior to commencement full details of boundary treatment to be provided; (BE1) 19. Prior to commencement provision of a surface water drainage scheme to be submitted and approved; (BE1) 20. Prior to commencement provision and use of wheel cleansing facilities, during the construction period to be submitted and approved; (BE1) 21. No development shall begin until a construction management plan is submitted and approved. Such a plan, as approved, shall be adhered to throughout the construction period to the satisfaction of the LPA; (BE1) 22. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved materials, to the satisfaction of the LPA; (BE2) 23. Prior to occupation the approved vehicle servicing and parking areas shall be provided and retained as such to the satisfaction of the LPA; (BE1) 24. Prior to the occupation the buildings are to be inspected by a SAP assessor for compliance with the Target Emissions Rate; (EM18-Regional Spatial Strategy) 25. Restriction on hours for development and deliveries related to development during the construction period; (BE1) 26. Provision of required refuse and recycling storage facilities for all individual dwellings at developer’s expense; (BE1)

27. Remove permitted development rights for hard surfacing the front; (BE1) 28. Restriction on the conversion of garages; (BE1) 29. Remove permitted development rights for Class A and E (extensions and outbuildings) for specific plots 14-24 (inclusive), 32, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 48 and 49; (BE1) 30. Remove permitted development for fences/walls front of the building line; (BE1) 31. Provision of service connections as part of site infrastructure.






APPLICATION NO: 12/00524/OUT LOCATION: Hallwood Raven, Eagles Way, Runcorn, Cheshire, WA7

2FN PROPOSAL: Outline planning application (with all matters reserved) for

demolition of existing public house and the erection of a two thousand square metre, three storey nursing home

WARD: Halton Lea

PARISH: CASE OFFICER: Rob Cooper AGENT(S) / APPLICANT(S):

Mr A Parkinson


H8 Non Dwelling House Uses

DEPARTURE No REPRESENTATIONS: 4 objections

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal SITE MAP


84.1 The Site and Surroundings The application site is at the Hallwood Raven Public House, off Eagles Way, Runcorn. The existing building is predominately single storey, with a two storey element which provided for staff accommodation on the first floor.

84.2 Planning History and Background In 2010 planning permission (10/00356/COU) was granted for the change of use from a public house to an office (B1 use class). 85. THE APPLICATION

85.1 Proposal Description The applicant has submitted an outline planning application with all matters reserved for demolition of an existing public house and the erection of a two thousand square metre, three-storey nursing home. The application states that this would provide for 84 rooms, accommodating 60 residential care beds. The applicant states that there would be 24 members of staff.

86. POLICY CONTEXT


The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012 to set out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these should be applied.

Paragraph 196 states that the planning system is plan led. Applications for planning permission should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. As per the requirements of legislation, but that the NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 197 states that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.



The site falls within an area designated as primarily residential land within the Unitary Development Plan. The key policies of relevance are:

Policy BE1 General Requirements for Development Policy BE2 - Quality of Design Policy PR14 – Contaminated Land Policy TP12 – Parking Standards Policy H8 – Non Dwelling House Uses

The Halton Borough Council Core Strategy was adopted in December 2012, and is therefore a material planning consideration.

86.3 Halton Core Strategy

Policy CS12 ‘Housing Mix’ of the Core Strategy states that there will be a presumption against further Residential Care Accommodation resulting in or exacerbating an oversupply.

87. CONSULTATIONS

87.1 HBC Open Spaces – No comments received

87.2 HBC Environmental Health – No comments received

87.3 Contaminated Land Officer – The application is for a residential care

home which is considered to be a sensitive use, and hence a ground investigations report is therefore required.

87.4 Highways Authority – Object to the proposal due to insufficient

information in relation to traffic and transportation. Furthermore, the indicative

plans do not demonstrate that the relevant car parking standards can be

achieved.

87.5 Environment Agency (EA) – No comments as the proposal falls out of the scope of consultation.

87.6 United Utilities – No objections to the proposal, though they have noted that a public sewer crosses the site. United Utilities would not permit building over this and they require a 6m access strip (3m either side of the centre line of the sewer).

88. REPRESENTATIONS 88.1 The Council have received 4 letters of objection submitted on the

following grounds:

• Height of the building

• Loss of privacy

• Loss of sunlight

• Loss of view/outlook

• Noise and disturbance during construction

• Increased traffic and highway safety

• Increased parking of vehicles parking on adjacent highway

• The planting of trees would block out sunlight

• Construction site would attract vandals and anti-social behaviour

• Lighting of the site could be a nuisance to neighbours

• Community does not need a residential care home, a community centre, shop or a public house is needed more.

89. ASSESSMENT

89.1 Policy Considerations

The site falls within an area designated as primarily residential land within the Unitary Development Plan.

Policy CS12 ‘Housing Mix’ of the Core Strategy states that there will be a presumption against further residential care accommodation resulting in or exacerbating an oversupply. The justification for this Policy is because currently there is a significant oversupply of residential care home places, with resultant high levels of vacancies evident within the existing stock. National policy is to help people stay in their own home as long as they wish and are able, by the provision of personalised care packages within the community. Surplus capacity in residential care represents an inefficient use of scarce resources, placing an undue regulatory burden on the Council and has the potential to impact on conditions for residents. As such, the Council adopted Core Strategy seeks to resist further residential care facilities where there is an over supply.

The Communities Directorate has been consulted and has confirmed that currently there are 823 residential/nursing beds in the Borough, 13% (approximately 107 beds) of these are currently vacant. Therefore, there is an oversupply of beds and this proposed development is considered to be contrary to Policy CS12 of the Core Strategy and the principle cannot be supported. 89.2 Amenity Four objections have been received from local residents raising concerns in relation the height of the proposed building, proximity to existing housing, loss of privacy, loss of light, loss of outlook, noise and disruption during construction and potential light pollution. The indicative site layout plan shows that there would be 30m interface distance between the closest part of the proposed building and the nearest residential property. The building itself would also be sited in an undulation and there would be an embankment between the proposed building and the residential properties that would screen much of the building. In considering this, an objection on

grounds of proximity, loss of privacy, loss of light, loss of outlook and visual impact cannot be upheld. With regards to noise and disturbance during construction this issue would ordinarily be dealt with by conditioning of hours of construction and deliveries and a construction management plan. These are therefore not considered reasons for refusal. Furthermore external lighting details are also something which could be addressed by condition.

89.3 Highways and Transportation The Highways Authority has been consulted and it has objected to the proposal. The application proposes a new gross external floor space of 2,000sq.m, providing residential care for 60 residents. For this type of development a traffic assessment (TA) is required. The applicant has not provided a TA therefore there is insufficient information in this respect. Based on the Unitary Development Plan parking standards require 1 car parking space per 5 beds plus 1 space per member of staff. Therefore 60 beds and 24 members of staff would require 36 car parking spaces. The proposed site plan only shows the provision of 20 car parking spaces, no additional information has been provided to demonstrate why such a relaxation of car parking standards should be allowed. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy TP12 of the Halton Unitary Development Plan.

89.4 Contaminated Land Whilst there are no obvious potential sources of contamination based on the historical mapping (the site was agricultural land prior to the development of the existing pub) the NPPF advises that the potential sensitivity of the proposed development to any adverse effects that may arise from pollution should be taken into account. The proposed use of the site as a nursing home is considered particularly sensitive to contamination and the deposition of materials e.g. construction wastes on site during the development of the surrounding area in the 1970’s or the import of ashy materials e.g. for use as a sub-base during construction of the pub and the car park cannot be ruled out. As a result he advises that a contamination assessment be undertaken to establish whether the site is suitable for the proposed development or whether any remedial measures are necessary.

90. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In conclusion there are currently 823 residential/nursing beds in the Borough, 13% of which are vacant. Policy CS12 ‘Housing Mix’ of the Core Strategy states that there will be a presumption against further Residential Care Accommodation resulting in or exacerbating an oversupply. Therefore the proposal is considered contrary to Policy CS12 and cannot be supported.

Secondly, the application provides insufficient information in relation to traffic, transportation and contaminated land. It is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies BE1, TP12, TP14 and PR14 of the Halton Unitary Development Plan.

91. RECOMMENDATIONS

Refusal






APPLICATION NO: 12/00528/S73 LOCATION: Asda, Widnes Road, Widnes PROPOSAL: Application made under Section 73 of the Town and

Country Planning Act for the variation of condition no. 9 of Planning Permission 02/00630/FUL to allow the store to be open for trading between the hours of 07:00 and 23:00 Monday to Saturday and 11:00 to 17:00 on Sundays at

WARD: Kingsway

PARISH: N/A CASE OFFICER: Pauline Shearer APPLICANT(S): Asda Stores Ltd DEVELOPMENT PLAN ALLOCATION: Halton Unitary Development Plan (2005)

TC1 Retail and Leisure Allocations

DEPARTURE No REPRESENTATIONS: 12 objections received; 1 objection from local ward

member

RECOMMENDATION: Approve. SITE MAP


93.1 The Site and Surroundings

The site is an existing large supermarket, currently occupied and operated by Asda. The site is located on Widnes Road, in an area identified as secondary shopping area, and is also in an area allocated for Retail and Leisure uses in the Halton Unitary Development Plan.


In 1999, planning permission was granted (Ref. 99/00419/EIA) for the redevelopment of land the land around Widnes Road for a proposed 7,952sq.m. food store, petrol filling station, 5 No .retail units (A1, A2, A3 uses), service areas, car parking and landscaping, and for the closure of Widnes Road and, to provide for a pedestrian link and bus lane. In 2001 reserved matters were granted permission (Ref. 01/00278/REM) for the proposed food store, petrol filling station and associated works. In 2002 planning permission 02/00630/FUL was granted for food store, petrol filling station and associated service areas, car parking and landscaping, this is the permission that Asda seek to vary. This application to vary condition No.9 relates specifically to this planning permission. It should be noted that condition No.10 of the same planning permission restricts deliveries to the store to between the hours of 06.00hrs and 22.00hrs on any day, this condition is not referred to in this application. In 2004 there were several applications granted permission including one for a canopy over the doorway and two for the display of various signs (04/00961/FUL, 04/00388/ADV, and 0400097ADV). In 2008 advertisement consent (Ref. 08/00006/ADV) was granted for various illuminated signage. 10/00214/FUL Proposed erection of mezzanine sales floor and associated internal and external works. 10/00215/S73 Proposed removal of condition No.4 on planning consent 02/00630/FUL to allow for uplift in the net retail floorspace. 12/00166/FUL Proposed petrol filling station granted permission by Development Control Committee June 2012, with restricted opening hours between 08.00hrs and 22.00hrs.

93.3 Background

In addition to the above history, the most relevant and recent are;- application 12/00158/S73 which was submitted but later withdrawn, for the removal of condition no. 9 of Planning Permission 02/00630/FUL to allow for 24 hour opening. A later application 12/00422/S73 was also submitted but withdrawn to vary condition 9 of 02/00630/FUL to allow hours of opening from 06:00 to 12:00 Mon to Sat and 11:00 to 17:00 Sundays.

94. THE APPLICATION


Condition No.9 of the consent for the whole site (02/00630/FUL) currently limits the opening hours of the food store and consent petrol filling station to between 08.00hrs and 22.00hrs. This applies to any days of the week. The reason for the condition was ‘in the interests of residential amenity’ and to comply with the then GS10 of the Halton Local Plan. GS10 was a policy which related to the general requirements for development and in the context of this application has been replaced by the Halton Unitary Development Plan policy BE1 and PR2. This current proposal seeks permission to vary condition 9 to allow for the store to open between the hours of 07:00 to 23:00 hrs Monday to Saturday and 11:00 to 17:00 Sundays.

94.2 Documentation The planning application is supported by a Planning Statement and a Noise Impact Assessment (Nov 2012).

95. POLICY CONTEXT


The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012 to set out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these should be applied. Paragraph 196 states that the planning system is plan led. Applications for planning permission should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise, as per the requirements of legislation, but that the NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions. Paragraph 197 states that in assessing and determining development proposals, local planning authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.



Current RSS (Regional Spatial Strategy) Policy to 2021 is still of relevance. The Government has stated its intention to revoke RSS but it remains a material planning consideration.


The site is located on Widnes Road, in an area identified as secondary area, and is also in an area allocated Retail and Leisure uses in the Halton Unitary Development Plan.

The following National and Council Unitary Development Plan policies and policy documents are of particular relevance: -

Policy BE1 General Requirements for Development; Policy PR2 Noise Nuisance; Policy TC1 Retail and Leisure Allocations;


Policy CS5 A Network of Centres is of particular relevance

Policy CS23 Managing Pollution and Risk

96. CONSULTATIONS

96.1 HBC Environmental Health – No objection based on the assessment of the submitted noise survey.

97. REPRESENTATIONS

Representations have been received from 12 parties, it should be noted that only one is a resident living next to the site and one is from another pharmacy operator, Cookes Ltd. There has been an objection from the local ward member who requested the application be discussed at committee. The concerns related to the following:-

• No need for pharmacy in the area

• Other existing chemists available to provide for late cover

• Impact of more traffic and congestion

• Possible anti-social behaviour

• Light and noise pollution

• Effect on schools

• Impact of car headlights

• Constant requests to extend hours

• Noise nuisance

98. ASSESSMENT

98.1 Impact of Noise Nuisance on Residential Amenity

Although the Council’s Environmental Health Officers had some concerns with regard to the potential disturbance to residents in the area from extended opening hours, the application is only for one further hour in the morning and one hour in the evening. The hours are consistent with what would be considered ‘daytime’ hours. That is to say they are the hours when it is reasonable to expect that most people would be awake. After 23:00 hours it is likely that noise will cause more disturbance to residents as it can interfere with the quality and amount of sleep residents may reasonable expect. Environmental Health does not therefore have any objection in principle to the extended hours. The noise report looks at the potential impact of the development on 3 residential developments, the façade of the Liebig Court Flats, the rear façade of the dwellings in Alfred Close and the façade of the first floor dwellings on Milton Road/Frederick Street. Environmental Health has assessed the methodology of the report in line with the conclusions drawn. The calculations demonstrate that noise from the additional car movements on the road together with people parking on the car park will have a ‘negligible’ impact on residents.

It is recommended that given the nature of the application together with the findings of the noise report Environmental Health has no objections to the application

98.2 Potential for Anti-Social Behaviour

The site is a large retail superstore with ancillary restaurant. Whilst there may be a perception that anti-social behaviour could take place at the site, it would be difficult to associate this solely with the earlier and later opening hours of the existing store. No evidence has been presented to suggest that the extension of the hours of opening applied for would result in an increase in anti-social behaviour. Members should take this into account, however minimal weight should be attached given the town centre location of the site and its existing use.

98.3 Retail Impact

Concerns have been raised by objectors in relation to the use of the site as a pharmacy. The site is an existing large retail unit within the Retail and Leisure allocation of the Unitary Development Plan. The use of the site for retail and uses within the retail A1 use are appropriate at this site. In any event, members should be aware that the use of the site is not a matter to be considered as part of this application and has already been dealt with through the determination of the original application for the unit. The application complies with policy TC1 in this regard.

99. CONCLUSIONS

It is considered that given that the application is to allow only a minimal increase in opening hours of one hour at either end of those existing, that the impact on the nearest residential occupiers will be minimal and not sufficient to sustain a refusal. The proposal complies with the NPPF and Policy PR2 of the Halton Unitary Development Plan.

100. RECOMMENDATIONS Approve.

101. SUSTAINABILITY STATEMENT

As required by:





REPORT TO: Development Control Committeecouncillors.halton.gov.uk/documents/s28290/11th... · The required standards are set out in national and international regulation and guidance.

Documents