Items 4 and item 7 were taken together.
Cllr Knowles asked if it was an all weather pitch and was told no, it would be a grass pitch. Cllr Johnston asked if the car park would be retained and was told yes.
Cllr Mitchell proposed that item 4 be approved with Cllr Kenny seconding. All councillors voted in favour.
Cllr Mitchell proposed that item 7 be approved with Cllr Salter seconding. All councillors voted in favour.
The committee then considered item 5. This item was the expansion of Selwyn Construction Engineering Ltd’s offices due to relocation from Solihull. Two extra conditions were added after advice on crime prevention was given by Merseyside Police. One of these related to a 2.1m fence. Cllr Mitchell moved a proposal to approve the application which was seconded by Cllr Elderton. All voted in favour.
Item 12 was for noting although Cllr Johnston asked why application APP/10/00907 had been turned down. He was told this was because of a lack of information provided by the applicant as well as highway and pedestrian safety issues.
The meeting then finished.
Next to be considered was a planning application for a nursery in Vyner Road South.
Cllr Realey asked for the plans to be displayed especially the separation from neighbouring properties and where the proposed entrances would be.
Cllr Elderton asked what the separation distance to the nearest property was. The answer given was 32 metres. He asked if it had a pitched roof, the answer given was yes.
Cllr Johnston asked about drop off and collection times. He asked if 150 cars coming in a narrow time frame would cause problems with the neighbours. The answer given was that the nursery would staffer the times and that some would be there only for 1/2 days.
Cllr Mitchell asked for an estimate of the numbers and for further detail on staff parking and movements. The committee was told there would be 12-14 car park spaces. It was recommended for approval and all councillors voted in favour of it being so.
The committee then considered another application about another shop front. Cllr Blakeley wished the committee a Happy New Year. He stated that the reason he had asked the committee to consider this application is that the applicant had submitted the application and with complete disregard for planning guidance had continued with the work.
He said it had been completed at the end of November and that the response from Greggs had been disgraceful. Greggs had stated that they had discussed the matter with Wirral Council and as there had been no objections had got on with the work. However discussions had not taken place until December. Greggs had put the blame at a planning assistant’s door which in Cllr Blakeley’s view was “outrageous”.
Cllr Mitchell said he would recommend that Wirral Council write to the company to express their concerns. Cllr Mitchell proposed the application be approved, which was seconded by Cllr Salter. All councillors were in favour.
Cllr Elderton pointed out that the photos didn’t illustrate the colour. Although it seemed garish were there no sustainable reasons to turn it down? The answer given was no, it doesn’t require consent because it replaces one of the same size and illumination, so Wirral Council had no control in this matter. Cllr Elderton asked if the colour of the frame rather than the sign itself could be controlled?
Cllr Knowles called the “loud sign” a joke and that it stuck out like a sore thumb. Cllr Mitchell pointed out that once it was up and running the dance school hadn’t been as bad as they thought it would be. He further pointed out that Wirral Council had no controls other than over illumination.
He joked and said the applicant was happy to tone down the brightness and make it as grey as the rest of Hoylake. Cllr Mitchell proposed the application be accepted, seconded by Cllr Johnston. It was agreed with all councillors in favour.
Cllr Gerry Ellis (a councillor for Hoylake and Meols) addressed the committee with regards to item 6. He was passing on points made to him by 5 or 6 groups & individuals. He had no objection to a dance school and thought it was wonderful that the building was being used in this way as there were lots of empty buildings in Hoylake.
The shop had previously been a Woolworths and before that a furniture shop. The frontage had changed and was now a “hideous” cheap pvc. The owners had changed the whole configuration and the entrance was now on the side road. Previous concerns about noise and parking in relation to the dance school had not been as bad as first thought.
Cllr Ellis asked the developer to make further improvements and pointed out the “horrendous sign” with its green psychedelic colour was out of place. He hoped the sign would be changed and that painting the pvc would help. He would be pleased if there was a new front to the shop. He was disappointed that officers thought pvc was typical of Hoylake as it was not attractive. There was an error in the report as this shopfront was an end terrace not a mid-terrace.
He asked for extra conditions to improve the quality of the materials, which would lead to a more attractive and fitting sign. He wished the dance school well. Photos were passed round of the sign before and after the change.
The <A HREF=”http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=157&MId=3116″>agenda</a> for last night’s Planning Committee can be found on Wirral Council’s website.
All councillors usually on the committee were present. The minutes were agreed, there were no declarations of interest and no requests for site visits.
The first item for consideration was the extension of a planning consent for a dry silo mortar bagging plant in Bromborough. Cllr Gilchrist stated that he was interested in a particular aspect of this planning application due to a long running desire to have the coast open for people. He was anxious if the opportunity arose that the owners would be approached over access to the coast. Cllr Salter asked that as this was an extension of a planning consent wasn’t it more usual to reapply? The answer given was that permissions can be extended.
Cllr Elderton asked if another fee applied? The answer given was that the applicant only had to pay a reduced fee as they don’t have to submit all the forms again. Part of the previous government’s changes to planning in 2008-2009 to make it more flexible had meant that applicants could apply for an extension of time. Cllr Elderton was concerned over the true cost and was told that the planning fees were set nationally.
Cllr Mitchell asked if a noise assessment had been done and what the highway effects would be. He also referred to the Wirral Waters projects and the need it would have for cement and sand. The answer given was that in the original planning application there had been a statement regarding noise. The nearest residential property was 660m away. It was an industrial area, but the noise would be of a contained nature. It wouldn’t result in any signficant traffic and was near the motorway and A41. There were no grounds to object on traffic management.
A councillor asked about the 3 years limit on development, when the original planning application had been given 5 years and was told the 3 year limit was brought in in 2007, with the original application being made just before.
Cllr Mitchell proposed the application be approved, with Cllr Salter seconding it. It was approved unanimously.