Agenda item

Resubmission of 06/01197/REM for Reserved Matters Application for the erection of an apartment block comprising of 36 two bedroom units with associated car parking and servicing for Time and Tide Properties Ltd

(Under the scheme of public participation, Parish Councillor, Brian Jefferson, Bernadette Needham, Deidre Winstanley and John Blowes addressed the Committee as objectors to the application.  John Asplin, on behalf of the applicant, reiterated his support for the application.)

Parish Councillor, Brian Jefferson, addressed the Committee and advised Members that this was an opportunity for local residents to comment on the application.  The two-month period of consultation had comprised only one meeting.  The architects had indicated that there would be no compromise on the appearance of Blocks 4 and 5.  The Parish Council believed that the problem was that, as the area in question lay outside the City Council remit, it had not received appropriate consideration.  There were two crucial errors at this stage, these being that it was inappropriate that the development should be treated as a standalone site, and the styling should be a modern interpretation of the vernacular.  The Lune Valley was timeless and it was not too late to prevent Halton being subjected to this aberration, although it was too late to prevent the damage to the riverbank.  He hoped that the Committee had the commonsense to give an emphatic refusal to the application and vote against it.

Bernadette Needham addressed the Committee and informed Members that she was speaking on behalf of the Halton Mill Group.  The group had been set up in January 2007 following a meeting with the Parish Council, when more than fifty people had spoken in concern at the development taking place.  Those people had formed the group, which was voluntary and liaised with the Parish Council.  The depth of feeling with regard to the development was shown by more than 300 objections, which had been received, many in the form of individually written letters.  It was hard to untangle what was going on from Council documentation.  The North West branch of Planning Aid, who provided free, independent and professional help, advice and support on planning issues to people and communities, were involved with the group.  They had assigned a professional planning advisor to them.  The riverside walk at Halton was the core of village life and the equivalent of Williamson Park or Happy Mount Park.  The group would pursue the matter for as long as it was necessary.

Deidre Winstanley addressed the Committee and advised Members that, whilst she accepted the principle of development on-site, she wished to address the high number of residential units.  It was a question of design.  Good design was indivisible from good planning and development, which allowed people to live and work in an area.  The thirty-six city-style apartments would do little to address the needs of the community, nor would the second-home apartments.  Neither did the development address affordable/local housing or local jobs, with an over-supply of housing, which would prejudice the regeneration of urban areas.  The number of dwellings proposed on-site was hard to define, and there was inadequate detail regarding materials to be used.  The development was urban and not rural.  The Secretary of State had upheld his decision to refuse, which was relevant to the matter.  She urged the Committee to refuse the application.

John Blowes addressed the Committee and informed Members that the number of people who had been stirred into action in connection with the matter, indicated the level of interest and depth of feeling aroused.  It was felt that the site should be developed in such a way that it was attractive to live in and visit, something that the present blocks did not reflect.  It was felt that the Committee had not received impartial information from the Planning Service and this was the subject of an Ombudsman complaint.  The masterplan needed to be developed and more information provided, following which consultation should take place.  The employment provision should be addressed.  Residents were prepared to help in the processes in a controlled manner, adhering to policy.

John Asplin addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant, Time and Tide Properties Ltd, and advised Members that he would like to reiterate several points.  The deferment from the January meeting of the Committee had led to a round-the-table discussion with residents and the Parish Council.  It was clear that there was no intransigence on Time and Tide’s behalf.   Officers had endorsed the previous scheme.  The company were willing to talk and felt it necessary that talks take place regarding the reserved matters.  The Parish Council had been consulted.  The scheme had been established and agreed before Time and Tide came along to put the meat on the bones.  The previous scheme submitted had been superior.  The company would go through the appeals process, as it had already been agreed that the site was suitable.  The company had not been approached by the Halton Mills Group.  He was willing to discuss additional designs, as this was his job and an area of work he loved to be involved in.

It was proposed by Councillor Woodruff and seconded by Councillor Ashworth:

“That the application be refused.”

Upon being put to the vote, 14 Members voted for the proposition, 2 against, with 2 abstentions, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the following reasons:

(1)        The density, scale, layout and appearance are unacceptable and             inappropriate in the village location close to a Conservation Area.

(2)        The proposal does not accord with Local Plan Policy EC7 to ensure that             development is employment-led and, in particular, does not provide for             satisfactory phasing details to ensure implementation of the employment             generating parts of the scheme.