Agenda item 11 was in three parts, the report, appendix 1 and appendix 2.
There were two recommendations in the report at 19.1 and 19.2. These were in relation to the Liverpool Waters and Wirral Waters projects and are below:-
19.1 Members are requested to note the decision by the Secretary of State
not to intervene further in the planning application W/OUT/2009/06509,
the current position in relation to regional planning policy, update of the
106 Legal Agreement, and the submission of the Liverpool Waters
19.2 Members are requested to endorse this report which concludes that
there are no material considerations arising from the above that give
grounds for revising the decision of Planning Committee in relation to
planning application W/OUT/2009/06509 or the proposed planning
conditions and associated s.106 Legal Agreements.
Further information about the Wirral Waters project can be found here. It should bring jobs and benefits to the people of Bidston & St. James. Due to a lawsuit regarding the Regional Spatial Strategy no decision had been issed over the planning application.
So the Planning Committee had to reconsider the Wirral Waters application, taking (this time) into account the material considerations contained within the Regional Spatial Strategy.
Cllr Mitchell proposed both recommendations, he was seconded by Cllr Elderton. All councillors voted for the Wirral Waters scheme and Wirral Council’s response regarding Liverpool Waters.
Item 11a delegated decisions (these are made by council employees rather than Planning Committe members. There was one for Bidston & St. James which was permission for an advertising sign at 48 Hoylake Road. There was no AOB and the Chair thanked people for attending.
Item 9 was APP/10/01303 – Derelict site, Dock Road North, Bromborough – Relocation of plots 12-18 and 46-54 inclusive due to existing and proposed drainage basement routes, the widening of all footpaths to 2m and omission of grassed service verges(Minor Amendment to planning permission APP/2010/00672).
Cllr Brighouse asked as this was adjacent to the landfill at Bromborough Dock had there been no undertaking regarding landscaping?
Cllr Mitchell answered that once complete there would be 39 conditions regarding the covering and a Planning Inspector had included a condition regarding topsoil. Cllr Mitchell proposed the application, seconded by Cllr Elderton. All were in favour so it was approved.
Item 7 – APP/10/01206 – Land bounded by Bedford Road to north, New Chester Road to east and Nelson Road to south, Rock Ferry – erection of 78 houses and 57 apartments (extension to OUT/2006/7396) and item 8 – APP/10/01205 – Land bounded by Bedford Road to north, New Chester Road to east and Nelson Road to south, Rock Ferry – erection of 148 houses(extension to OUT/2006/7397) were considered together.
This was part of the Fiveways Masterplan area which would extend the previous consents. A Lib Dem councillor asked if the reserved matters would also be considered by the Planning Committee. The answer given was not necessarily, unless asked for. The Lib Dem councillor expressed concern as the application did not include the design. This councillor said it didn’t do any favours to the local community or town.
Cllr Salter said he had spent quite some time in Rock Ferry and it was looking nice. The old buildings had been taken away and it was absolutely beautiful. He was asked if it would be a similar design by the councillor he said yes.
The Chair said he had noticed the development from the railway line and that it would change the whole area. He proposed approval, which was seconded by Cllr Salter. Items 7 and 8 were unanimously approved by all councillors.
Cllr Johnson, having previously declared a prejudicial interest in this item, left the room during its consideration.
The committee then moved onto item 5 which was another greenbelt application involving remodelling. The application would lead to an increased height to a two storey flat roof. There had been a late objection from the Heswall Society regarding floodlights. The Chair pointed out this had been made on the site visit. Cllr Elderton asked to the elevation and if it was out of character? He said it was more in keeping although expressed concern regarding overlooking from the balcony. The floodlight was going to be at a low-level for ambience. Although commercial properties required permission for floodlights, residential properties did not.
The answer given by an officer was that the floodlights were not considered to be development, therefore permission wasn’t required. Cllr Mitchell was also concerned about the balcony and stated that the new building was narrower. He said the architect had given a good spiel at the site visit and had used the site visit to promote his business.
It was put to the vote. Cllr Mitchell proposed the application be approved, Cllr Salter seconded the item. 9 councillors voted for, Cllr Hayes and Cllr Keeley voted against. The application was approved.
Planning Committee started with a different makeup of councillors to usual. A number of deputies were standing in for those who are usually on the Committee.
Councillors present were:-
Chair (Cllr Dave Mitchell)
Cllr Alan Brighouse (Deputy for Cllr Kelly)
Cllr Ann Bridson (Deputy for Cllr Gilchrist)
Cllr Bob Wilkins (Deputy for Cllr Johnston)
Cllr David Elderton
Cllr James Keeley
Cllr Paul Hayes
Cllr Eddie Boult
Cllr Peter Johnson
Cllr John Salter
Cllr Denise Realey
Cllr Brian Kenny
The Chair welcomed those present to the meeting and especially Cllr Boult who he was pleased was now in good health. The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed. Cllr Peter Johnston declared a prejudicial interest in item 5 as his wife is the owner of land that butts onto that under consideration. He pointed out that it was against his will that he was declaring a prejudicial interest, but that he had been advised to do so. Cllr Mitchell declared an interest as a member of Merseytravel.
Cllr Kenny requested a site visit for item 6 which was APP/10/01104 – 57 Argyle Street South, Tranmere – Change of use to two self contained ground floor apartments with single storey extension and rear staircase. Cllr Mitchell requested a site visit for item 10 – 7 Halton Crescent , Greasby – Demolition of existing single storey extension and erection of a two storey, part single storey, rear extension (Amended plan). Both site visits were agreed.
The committee then proceeded to consider item 4 – APP/10/01315 -2 Target Road, Heswall – Demolition of existing dwelling and attached garage. Construction of replacement dwelling and detached garage.
There was a qualifying petition. The petitioner Paul Foley of 1 Target Road, Heswall (which is adjacent to no 2) addressed the Committee. He told the committee about his concerns over privacy in the front and rear gardens as the new building would be two stories. He had bought his property for privacy. He would also lose sunlight and felt it was inconsistent with previous applications where 2 storey dwellings had been refused. He also cited other similar planning applications refused and felt it was not uniform. Approving this application would lead to a greater density of development and didn’t match.
Trevor Earp, the agent then addressed the committee about the concerns raised by the petitioner. He referred to the officer’s report and stated there were other 2 storey buildings in the area. In the Design and Access statement a number of these were referred to. One had living accommodation on the 1st floor. There had been a 2007 application for a replacement dwelling in Broad Lane which the replacement had had with a 8m ridge height. He said officers had commented on the simple attractive design in keeping with the scale and design of the area. Regarding overlooking the front overlooks the road and although the rear overlooks the rear garden this falls within guidelines. He asked the committee to see the merits which the officers have.
Cllr Elderton said it would be helpful to see the existing elevation and proposed elevation. A photo was handed round which agitated the agent so much he interrupted the meeting by heckling.
Cllr Elderton was told there was a difference in metre in the ridge height. Cllr Realey pointed out the increased should be 15%. Cllr Kenny referred to the claim of the petitioner that similar applications were refused. An officer answered that they were not aware of refusals in the immediate area.
Cllr Mitchell asked the officers to point out the elevations. Cllr Elderton asked them to relate the difference in ridge height to the impact.
Cllr Mitchell asked for any further comments or questions. There were none. Cllr Mitchell proposed approval, seconded by Cllr Kenny. 11 councillors voted for. Cllr Peter Johnson voted against.