Advertising
 
Posted by: John Brace | 22nd June 2011

Planning Committee – 21/6/2011 – Part 9 – APP/11/ 00065 – Townfield Close, Claughton – Demolition of an existing petrol filling station and erection of Class A1 retail unit

The officer said [in reference to the sequential test] that none were available or suitable. Cllr Mitchell asked them to clarify amenity, the management of the private unadopted road and who the landowner was.

The Chair said it was important there was the right management of traffic on the private site. Cheryl Barry said that residential amenity referred to appearance and noise. The Post Office was a valuable asset, however there was no remit to refuse on competition grounds. There was no planning definition of community asset. The refusal Cllr Kelly quoted did not apply.

The Chair asked regarding enforceability and the landowner. An officer indicated that they would not welcome a TRO [Traffic Regulation Order]. If they wished to enforce parking restrictions themselves they could prohibit parking. The planning department could enforce this through a planning condition.

Cllr Realey asked about if this process proved the Woodchurch Road shops (including Sainsburys) were not viable? She asked wasn’t the resident’s outlook, the doctors, the other shops and flats not affected? She said it was absolutely ridiculous.

One of Wirral Council’s legal advisers stated that he appreciated what Cllr Realey had indicated, however this did not affect a planning reason as it was not a definition of amenity. From the audience Cllr Foulkes muttered “disgraceful”.

The Chair said [to Cllr Kelly] that he had implied he wanted to move refusal. Cllr Kelly said the first and strongest grounds were the servicing of the site, reason for refusal R07C. The Chair asked him to read it out.


Categories