Advertising
 
Posted by: John Brace | 22nd June 2011

Planning Committee – 21/6/2011 – Part 12 – APP/11/ 00065 – Townfield Close, Claughton – Demolition of an existing petrol filling station and erection of Class A1 retail unit

Cllr Kelly said the first was regarding no servicing provision contrary to highway safety. The second reason was that the proposal was unneighbourly and would lead to the closure of the Post Office. Cllr Realey seconded this. The Chair asked the legal officer for advice. He said the implications regarding an appeal being successful would lead to a forensic examination and costs awarded [to the applicant and agent] if it hadn’t been scrutinised properly. Cllr Kelly said he would make the decision on its merits rather than what costs might be, unless the solicitor could guarantee costs would be awarded against Wirral Council. The Chair said he noted the wording and how eloquently Cllr Kelly had spoken out. Cheryl Barry said regarding R07C/R08D did Cllr Kelly want to insert loss of local Post Office and insert and local residents? Cllr Kelly said he wanted to widen it to local community. Cllr Kenny said he had a concern regarding highway safety because the proximity of the primary school was relevant to these issues. The Chair said the officers had said no and asked Cheryl to read it out. She said for two reasons it was being refused, the first being that the local planning authority finds it contrary to highway safety as there was no provision made regarding servicing needs. The second was that the proposal resulted in unneighbourly development and the local of the local Post Office as well as leading to a detriment in the amenities of the local community. This was seconded by Cllr Realey. There were six votes for refusal (including Cllr Kelly, Cllr Roberts and Cllr Boult). There were four votes against refusal. So the application was refused.

The Chair asked for a break for a few minutes.


Categories