Transcript

Thank you. Good evening everyone and welcome to the planning meeting this evening. Tonight's meeting is being live streamed on the Noe's Council's public eye portal in this respect. Committee members are asked to ensure that they switch on their microphones before speaking and switch it off afterwards in order for the cameras in the room to follow the proceedings and speakers correctly for the live stream. In addition, could everyone ensure that the mobile phones are turned off or silent? Okay, turn to the agenda. Any apologies? Yes, we have received a number of apologies from Councillors Bannon, Councillor Baye, Councillor Flute, Councillor Harvey, Councillor Powell, Councillor Smith and Councillor Wright. Thank you Keith. Any declarations of interest? We have not received any from Councillor Bannon. Thank you. Moving to item number 2, item 2A, which is 23/02676 full, is the installation of a solar farm, organic boundary, fencing, substation, transformer building, site service, access, associated landscaping and biodiversity improvements, Larkins Farm, Gillings Lane, Knowsley, L3498. Can I ask Andrew Hunt to take us through this report? Thank you, Chair. This application relates to the installation of a solar farm and associated development with landscaping and biodiversity improvements. The application was publicized by neighbour letters, the display of a site notice and the publication of a press notice. No representations have been received to the application. In relation to the principle of development, the proposal is inappropriate development in the Greenbelt, which requires very special circumstances to be approved. However, MPPF power 156 states that the wider environmental benefits associated with renewable energy may constitute very special circumstances. The proposal will generate significant amounts of renewable energy with enough power, enough electricity to power approximately 500 homes. There are around 69,000 houses in Knowsley, so the site would generate around 0.72% of the total electricity demand used by residential dwellings in Knowsley. This aligns with the council's local plan, the climate emergency and the net zero delivery plan and will also enhance energy security. In addition, the proposal will include biodiversity net gain measures, which are significantly above what is required by planning policy. As the application was submitted before the introduction of biodiversity net gain, the application only needs to demonstrate no net loss to comply with policy. There are biodiversity improvements proposed in the form of a wildflower meadow to the south of the proposed solar panels. Overall, the increase would be at 65.85% net gain in area units and 70% gain in linear units, so it would be around a gain of two-thirds. The application would also deliver economic benefits. The applicant is a neighbourhood service company, is a social business providing a diverse range of services, including building construction and environmental landscaping. The solar farm would also create jobs during its installation, operation and maintenance and would help to financially support the neighbourhood service company by providing them with a source of revenue. In terms of agricultural land, the site is located within an area of grade three agricultural land. Agricultural land is classified according to government criteria from one to five, with one being the highest quality and five the lowest quality. Grade 3B is of slightly lower value than grade 3A. At best and most versatile, agricultural land is considered to be grades one to a 3A. The site, however, is classed as 3B, which is classed as moderate quality agricultural land rather than high quality agricultural land. The government's Powering Britain Energy Security Plan in 2023 supports the development of solar on lower medium grade agricultural land. The site is not classed as being best and most versatile agricultural land. Given the moderate value of the agricultural land, its loss would not be significantly harmful and would not conflict with local or national planning policy, but it would be a minor negative impact from the scheme. In relation to highways, the National Planning Policy Paragraph 115 sets out that developments should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. In relation to highways, there would be only minor traffic movements that would involve occasional visits for maintenance. Given the location next to a motorway slip road, there would not be any detrimental impact on local roads. Overall, the application would not result in harm to highway safety and this view is supported by the council's highways department who have no objection to the development subject to conditions. In relation to neighbour amenity, the proposed development would be located away from residential properties with the nearest dwellings being over 200 metres away to the west. This combined with the lack of noise or other impacts from the solar farm means that there would be no harm to residential amenity. In terms of ecology, a number of ecological surveys have been submitted in support of the application. They identified that the proposed development would not have any harmful impacts on protected species or their habitats. In addition to the biodiversity benefits outlined early in the report, the scheme includes bird and bat boxes and these improvements combined with the other biodiversity net gain improvements are proposed to be secured by a planning condition. Subject to this, the development will comply with relevant policies and would provide overall biodiversity benefits. Overall, it is considered that the benefits of the scheme in the form of improving energy security, supporting renewable energy generation, reducing carbon emissions, improving biodiversity and providing local economic benefits outweigh any harm and that very special circumstances exist. The proposal would also not cause harm in relation to highway safety or neighbour amenity. As a result, the development complies with the UDP who knows the core strategy and the national planning policy framework. Thank you, Andrew. I have received notification that the applicant's planning agent wishes to speak this evening in support of the application. Mr Carr, would you like to come forward? The case officer report is the end of quite a long process. In the early stages, we followed government guidance in terms of preparing and submitting pre-application inquiries to the council, which the council dealt with thoroughly and very positively. I think the scheme has been reduced from its early concept designs, not necessarily because we didn't want a bigger scheme and because we can't get a DNO connection, so the infrastructure that's available to get schemes going isn't available at the moment, it's changing all the time. The results of the pre-application inquiry with the council and the advice given results in various environmental and biodiversity reports being prepared, which are identified in the report tonight. Along with other site improvements, which will come out with the net gain designs, which results in the recommendation. Members may or may not be aware to get development through the system in the green belt where it's an inappropriate type of development. The very special circumstances are an essential criteria. The report identifies a significant level of circumstances that are a benefit, not just in terms of the green energy, but in terms of biodiversity improvements on that site. Given its lower level of agricultural benefit, we feel that the package together will deliver more than just the green energy in terms of improvements to that part of the borough. I hope members recognise the improvements, it will give them the value it will give to Knowles, I think it's the first scheme in the Knowles borough and go on with the recommendation for approval. Thank you very much. Thank you. So if you should remain seated in case any of the officers or members have any questions, can I ask planning officers to provide any points of clarification? Thank you chair. The applicant agent has largely gone through what's in the report in front of members already, so again we just refer members back to the report that you have in front of you and the weight that we've given to some of the matters that Mr Carr has identified. Thank you chair. Any questions from members? Can they confirm that because there are quite a few public rights of way through Galling's Farm it's a very popular walking area, can they confirm that none of the public rights of way are infringed upon by this development? I can confirm that in that process if we were amending or diverting or anything in terms of a public right of way we'd have to go through a statutory process. As far as I'm aware from this particular application there's no requirement to do that and certainly in other areas of the country where you do have such farms, public rights of way are protected because of the very nature of what they are, you can create pathways through these areas. So my understanding is there is no impact on that public right of way. Any other questions from members? Okay, thank you Michael you escaped there, it's easy to see, thank you. Have any members got any questions to officers relating to the application? No? Okay. Before I ask the committee to go to the vote on the officers recommendations does any member wish to move an alternative motion? No? Okay. Recommendation is set out on page one of the agenda and members delegate authority to the head of planning and building control to grant planning permission subject to conditions set out in the attached schedule or such conditions that the head of planning and building control in conjunction with the chair of planning committee considers appropriate. The application being referred to the secretary of state for levelling up and housing communities and the secretary of state deciding not to call in the application for public inquiry. Before I take the vote can all members ensure that the microphone is switched off and can I see a show of hands of all those in favour? Okay, thank you. All those against? No? Any abstentions? No? Okay, thank you very much. The recommendation has been approved and we can now move on to item 2B which is 24/00098/COU change of use of residential dwellings to children's care home for a maximum of three children. 18 key close Tower Hill, Kirby, Nosley, L33, 4JB. Andrew can you ask you to take us through the report? Thank you chair. The application relates to a change of use from a dwelling use class C3 to a two bed children's home for a maximum of three children. Letters have been sent to neighbouring properties and there have been around 20 objections have been received to the application. In relation to the principle of development, the proposed use class C2 is classed as a residential institution and therefore it is considered that such uses are acceptable in principle in this location and are a residential type use. In relation to highways, MPPF Power 115 sets out that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or if the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. There have been representations from residents about parking and traffic issues at the site. The site is located within a sustainable location with excellent bus links. There is a bus stop situated four minutes walkway on Shevingtons Lane that provides services including to Liverpool. In addition the driveway is approximately 20 metres in length and there are currently three parking spaces at the property. The level of parking is considered to be sufficient parking when combined with the site's public transport links to ensure there will not be significant harm to highway safety from the proposal. This is supported by the Council's highways team who have been consulted and have no objection to the application. In relation to neighbour amenity, the application proposes that there would be a maximum of three children, two carers and a manager present at any one time at the property. The change overs of carers would take place at 8am and 8pm whilst the manager would be present at the premises between 9 and 5. There would be some noise associated with comings and goings from the property in the form of car doors, opening and closing and the noise of engines. However such noises would be relatively infrequent and would not take place late at night or very early in the morning and this level of comings and goings would not be significantly greater than that of a typical family home. As a result the level of activity likely to occur as a result of the use would not result in significant harm to residential amenity and this is supported by the views of the Council's Environmental Health team who have no objection to the proposal. Nevertheless, so that the level of impact is kept to a minimum, it is recommended that subject to the approval of the application, a condition is attached to the planning permission to restrict the number of children to being no more than three. In relation to crime and antisocial behaviour issues, it is acknowledged that the surrounding area sometimes suffers from crime and antisocial behaviour issues. However there is no evidence that the proposal will worsen existing issues of crime and antisocial behaviour or will be harmful to the welfare of children residing at the property. And this is reinforced by the lack of any objection from Merseyside Police, Architectural Liaison Officer or from Children's Services who were both consulted on the application. Overall it is considered that the development is acceptable in principle and would not cause harm in relation to highway safety, neighbour amenity or crime. In conclusion, the development complies with policies including the core strategy, the Industry Development Plan and National Planning Policy Framework. Thank you Chair. Thank you Andrew. I've also received notification that the applicant's agent wishes to speak in support of the application, Claire Fifton. If you'd like to come forward to the microphone? Great, thank you. Just like the previous speaker, you'll have up to three minutes speaking. Keith will let you know once you've hit three minutes. Okay, over to you, thank you. Okay, so I'm the Director of Operations for Florida Care and what we do is we have children's homes in local communities and our children's homes are run as family homes. So we never do more than three children in any house because we like to keep them as close knit as we can. Our homes are therapeutic homes. We take children from the age of eight years upwards and we have a very stringent matching process and impact assessments that have to be completed to enable us to be able to take children that will be suitable for one for their home, that community, that area and with the other children that will be residing in the house. So we completely understand that neighbours do have concerns when children's homes are open and we've opened three others this year and what we've been doing is liaison with the neighbours. So we send all the neighbours of each home a letter, we explain who we are, what we're doing, we give them my contact details, the website and ask them to go on, have a little look and then they can contact me to discuss any concerns that they may have. So much so we've just done one with another home in Sefton and I've had a few of the neighbours approach me thanking me for sending the letter because it's given a better insight into what it is we do and the preconceptions that they did have of what they thought was going to be in the community. I do have meetings with a couple of the neighbours next week where we've invited them for coffee and they're going to come and have a chat about what it is we do because they'd like a better understanding. So this is something we do as standard anyway. With regards to the traffic to the property, as I said, we do run them as family homes so there wouldn't be any more cars at the property than what would be for a standard family. So the most cars at the property at any one time would be three. There won't be meetings, MDT meetings and multi-disciplinary meetings wouldn't be held at the property because it just wouldn't be suitable for that anyway. So that would be held away from it so there's not going to be excessive traffic coming to the properties. So the area that we chose is because we do have a service within Knowsley, half a mile away from this one, that we already have communication with the local police force so we have liaison officers and we also have communication with the Children's Department of Social Services. So we do already have them contacts and we are already in communication with both of them. Okay, thank you very much. If you can just remain at your seats if you can just take your microphone off. Does any of the planning officers want to comment? Thank you Chair and thank you members. Just to, whilst it's helpful that Ms Fitton has outlined the status and how the company operates, members are just reminded that we can't decide planning applications based on the character of an applicant. So whilst that's useful information to note in the round and if Mr Fitton, if you can give us a nod, if Ms Fitton is amenable to it we can obviously share her details where members to grant plan permission tonight so that you can have some form of liaison. But just to note that we can't decide on the character of an applicant. Thank you Chair. Thank you Alan. Any members got any questions for any of the officers or Ms Fitton? Mr Chair? Yeah, thank you Tony. Thank you Chair. Just a question really, Knowsley Council itself is a corporate parent and they look after children and places, children and facilities such as the one that we're considering here tonight. Just to focus on how big a need is there for this type of accommodation? And whilst not strictly our plan will matter, as has been outlined previously, what are the regulatory arrangements for such properties? Thank you. Thank you Councillor Brennan. I'll ask Karen from Children's Social Services to comment. Hi here Councillor Brennan. I'm Karen Jude, so I'm the service manager for our children's homes in Knowsley. So in answering that, obviously there was two parts. In terms of need, there's a huge need to, first of all, for residential care homes within our own local authority and you know it's really positive that we can start to build relationships with other providers as well as develop some of our in-house. You know we, on a daily basis within Children's Services, we're having conversations with our commissioning departments looking for availability for children's homes. And what we know is we want to keep our children that are cared for within their own community so they can attend their own schools, that we can support them in the right way and that they're accessible and we have oversight to that. So the need is massive and it's part of our sufficiency plan as a council in terms of growing that residential provision and fostering provision for our children who are cared for. In terms of the regulations, I think there's lots of, you know, there's often concerns from communities when they hear that there's potentially a children's home opening. And I think some of that is around outdated views and, you know, preconceptions in lots of different ways. I think, and certainly as the responsible individual for our children's homes, they're extremely highly regulated by Ofsted. Any incidents have to be reported to Ofsted, the inspection process is extremely thorough and they are highly regulated. I think in terms of we've come a long way, I know you touched on earlier the matching of children, we don't send children on an emergency basis like used to happen years ago, or we don't usually tend to have more than three children within a home. All the regulations and the processes that are in place are very, very strict. Can I make a comment as well at this stage? Thank you for that. You know, I understand that the need is there and I've been doing some research on this. There is an order of 300 looked after children, I believe, that are in such care homes, et cetera, and there is a need for us to make sure these children are in a safe place and getting looked after in a safe environment, I'm looking over to the colleague over there. But I understand as well and accept that the proposal use of this is fundamentally no different than any other residential property in terms of where people live. What will be key for me, however, is how the facility is operated and managed. I bet I acknowledge that this is not a planning matter, you know, because it's going to have an impact. Whoever lives in any house, you have an impact on your neighbours, so we're going to make sure that this particular home is actually managed well and operated well. That's what I'd like to say and in relation to the other applicants for new homes, et cetera. So although I'm reassured by the applicant's acknowledgement of such concerns, I welcome that and I welcome that you're looking to engage with the local councillors, which I'm one and the other two who are my colleagues. And you'll engage with us at my four councils, along with the neighbours and residents that you've mentioned prior to the home opening on an ongoing basis. Should it be granted permission this evening? OK, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Brennan and Councillor Bell. Is this a question to the officers or is it part of the general debate? It's just an observation, Chair. So if you just wait one second and if there's no other questions for Claire, sorry to apologise, you can return back to your seat, OK? And I'll hand over to Councillor Bell. Thank you, Chair. You don't know. It's good to hear that they're going to have a consultation with the residents, the afternoon CAs and that, which is good, because we do need these houses and not just carey-nosely. There's quite a few children that are struggling and it's good to hear, once again, that they've already spoken to neighbours or it's an ongoing process. OK, any other questions or comments? No. OK. Thank you very much, Claire. Have any other members got any other questions or comments? OK, thank you. And before I ask the committee to vote on the officer's recommendation, does anyone wish to move an alternative motion? Councillor Bell. Nope, sorry to hear it. Can I have a support? Oh, sorry. I do apologise. Still going. Mr Chair? Thanks, Chair. I'm happy to support this application, but having said that, I've got slight concerns that there seems to be a number of these type of applications coming forward lately. I'm just wondering whether it's someone finding a way of making more profit, you know, than some, if you sell a house by, you know, on the internet or whatever it is, it's these agents, to get such a mouse. They are selling it to a company such as this to get more money. And there seems to be an awful lot of these type of applications coming forward lately. OK, thanks, Councillor. Thanks, Councillor. I think just to say that the motivation is not something we can take into account as a material planning consideration. What we have to do is decide the application on the merits as they come in front of us. OK, so is there an alternative motion? No? OK, go to the vote then. Can I see all those in favour? All those against? Any objections? Abstentions? That's great. Thank you very much. Moving on to item number three, a change of affordable housing tenure will be passed to the State of East of Hale Wood, Miller Homes planning permission reference 19/00104 full. OK, and can I ask Kevin to present this report? Thank you. Thanks, Chair. Good evening, members. This report seeks members' agreement to change the tenure of the affordable housing provision agreed as part of the Miller Homes development at East of Hale Wood. By way of background, this slide that you can see is a copy of the plan on page 39 of your report showing the location of the Miller Homes development. We said the southern end of the East of Hale Wood site. The site is part of the wider East of Hale Wood allocation and is now well advanced in its construction. The development was considered by planning committee back in February 2021, and it was agreed that 18 of the 162 approved properties would be affordable, with nine properties being for affordable rent and nine properties being for shared ownership. This followed a detailed consideration of the viability issues at the time. Miller Homes have partnered with for housing to deliver the affordable housing properties on the site, and despite extensive marketing of the shared ownership properties, interest in these has been low. As a result, it has been requested the tenure of all the affordable homes on the site be amended so they can be advertised at a social rent level. This means that they will be available for a rent 65% of market value, which compares to between 70 and 80% of market value for the tenures on site at the minute as currently agreed. There is considerable demand for two bedroom properties in this area for social rent, and the change of tenure will assist in the council in meeting this need. The overall provision of 18 affordable homes on site remains unchanged. The council has no requirement to consider Miller Homes request, but it's considered to be an appropriate approach to support the continued delivery of affordable homes that meet an identified need in the borough. It is recommended that members agree the recommendations are set out in paragraph 2.1 and 2.2 on page 36 of the report, and to agree the change in tenure of the affordable homes from shared ownership and affordable rent to social rent. Thanks, Chair. Thank you, Kevin. Any questions, comments? Thanks, Chair. We see this many times from the original application of the affordable homes, which developers say we will give X amount of affordable homes. And usually partway through the development, they come back to us again, developers, and say, oh, no, we can no longer see fit or afford X amount of affordable homes can we reduce it? Now, surely at the outset of that application, if the company is a reputable company and does its homework properly, that should have been there at the initial planning application, not to come back with amendments. So, you know, how long do we keep on doing or agreeing to our amendments when really and truly, if they had done the homework in the first place, they wouldn't need to come back with us, although I've got no objections, but the thing is, it's it's becoming a habit. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Councillor, Kevin. Do you want to comment on that? Yeah, thanks. Just to say in this instance that the overall number of affordable homes on site remains the same as was agreed when we granted the planning permission. And the level of discount that's been applied to those affordable homes is greater than what it was for the homes at the time we granted the permission. So, if anything, this is an improvement on what's been done so far on this application. Thank you, Councillor Landon. The officers just actually stole my thunder. That's exactly what I was going to say. This is a much improved outcome, I think, and I very much welcome the increased houses that are going to be available for social rent. Everyone in this room knows that that's in dire need. So, thanks. Thank you. Any other questions, comments? No? Okay. The recommendation is on page 39 of the agenda with the members to agree to the change of tenure of affordable housing provision to 100% social rent, and that the header plan and building control be given the authority to vary the section 106 agreement with Miller Homes dated the 1st of April 2021. To amend the tenure of affordable housing from shared ownership and affordable rent to social rent. Can I ask to see all those in favour? All those against? Any abstentions? No, that's great. Thank you very much. There's no other items of any other business today, so I'll close the meeting. Thanks very much for your attendance, colleagues. Thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO]