Relying on a leaked list of the Boundary Commission proposals for the North West it seems the current proposals are that Bidston & St. James ward is to become part of Wallasey Constituency.
Upton ward will move from Wirral West to Birkenhead.
Wirral West constituency will be renamed Hoylake and Neston and will include Neston & Parkgate.
Instead of Wirral South there’ll be a Mersey Banks constituency which is half Cheshire, a quarter Wirral (Bromborough and Eastham wards) and a quarter Halton.
Obviously these changes are only proposals, but I’m sure people will have their say on the new boundaries over the next few months.
The architect said there were options such as triangular windows. An officer said it had previously been an old people’s home. The function of these rooms had been bedrooms and a sewing room, the separation distance was 21 metres. The issue of separation distances and the previous function were established facts.
Cllr Davies said the Chair had made his point, however he was still pushing for an alteration that might help. He said it had previously been used for a different type of clientele. The petitioner said there were houses at the back and trees as well as another house. An officer said the separation distances didn’t contravene the guidelines. Cllr Davies said he had been lent the keys and had gone right into the bedroom of the house at the back and he had seen the view. The Chair said they didn’t have time to go to the neighbour’s garden. Cllr Davies asked what the legal separation distance should be. The officer said there were different levels, but there was a greater distance if there was an authorised habitable use. He said it was not ideal regarding the outlook, however as it was an existing building with habitable rooms he saw no reason for refusal. The Chair said this had been brought up in the petition. He said he had seen the impact. He asked if everyone was happy and thanked people for attending the site visit, reminding them that the issue would be decided at tomorrow night’s meeting starting at 6pm.
A resident introduced herself as Jean Whalley and said she lived at the back. She said three houses would be affected by the dormer windows and there was a lot of concern in the local neighbourhood.
The Chair, Cllr Elderton said they would look outside, but it would be decided tomorrow night. The petitioner said she had other concerns but was mainly concerned about the apartments. The Chair said this was not the purpose of the site visit.
An officer said she would have an opportunity tomorrow. He said this was for councillors to see the site and that the people who live here was not a planning issue.
Cllr Davies said that for children brought up here there was no play area and a busy main road. The Chair said these were matters for debate tomorrow when he would have an opportunity to speak. Everyone went outside to the side of the building.
Cllr Mitchell asked if the fire escape would be retained internally. The architect confirmed this. The petitioner asked if the car park would be here, the architect confirmed that some of the spaces would be here. Comment was made about a recent theft of lead from the roof. People then went to the back of the building.
Cllr Davies said the main thing the residents were objecting about were the dormers. He said the house behind looks straight into a bedroom and that he’d been round to see. To alleviate this the windows could be made opaque. It was asked when the building was constructed, the answer given was the mid 1980s.
This Planning Committee site visit was regarding planning application APP/11/00561 which has been decided at the Planning Committee meeting on 6th September.
The site was a red brick former nursing home that was vacant. People present for the site visit went inside as it had started to rain. Cllr Elderton (the Chair) welcomed people to the site visit and said it was for information gathering. The chair said he would ask an officer to introduce the application and then open it up to the Planning Committee for any questions. They would then go and see the rear of the property. The officer said it was a refurbishment and extension of the existing property which would lead to twenty-one two bedroom apartments. A section 106 agreement was proposed with the developer to secure affordable housing. There would be two three-storey extensions and three small single storey extensions with the lobby being demolished. Externally it would be hard landscaped and there would be a change to vehicle access. There would be nineteen spaces for cars. Dormer windows would also be added.
Cllr Kenny asked if the car park would be at the front? Cllr George Davies said it had been an increase from the original fifteen spaces. The officer said there would be three disabled spaces and there could be at most twenty-one spaces. There would also be a cycle storage facility. Cllr George Davies said he wanted to make one point as ward councillor and the person who asked for the site visit. He asked why he hadn’t been told when it was and why ward councillors hadn’t been informed? The Chair said he had got the list but couldn’t see Cllr George Davies’ name on it. He apologised to Cllr George Davies.