Advertising
 
Posted by: John Brace | 7th March 2012

Planning Committee 6/3/2012 Part 1 – APP/11/01520 – Redwood, 18 Farr Hall Drive, Heswall, CH60 4SH

Present:

Cllr David Elderton (Chair)
Cllr Wendy Clements (Vice-Chair)
Cllr David Mitchell
Cllr Stuart Kelly
Cllr John Salter
Cllr Denise Realey
Cllr Bernie Mooney
Cllr Brian Kenny
Cllr Patricia Glasman for Cllr Joe Walsh
Cllr Eddie Boult
Cllr Peter Johnson

The Chair introduced himself and the committee and the minutes of the meeting held on the 16th February were agreed. No declarations of interest were made. Cllr Eddie Boult requested a site visit for application APP/11/01501 22 Broughton Avenue, West Kirby so that the Committee could understand parking issues and facilities for children. This was agreed by the Committee.

The first item considered was APP/11/01520 Redwood, 18 Farr Hall Drive, Heswall. An officer said it was a resubmission of a previous application with a lower height and that it achieved the recommended separation distance. He also pointed out that there was a petition of objection. The Chair asked if someone would like to address the committee on behalf of the petitioners. No one did.

A ward councillor Cllr Hodson said he would be just over five minutes. He said that the proposed development was a resubmission of a previously approved scheme, but that in the new design four habitable windows were facing number 14, compared to the previous two.

Cllr Denise Realey interrupted and asked for a presentation and Cllr John Salter said he hadn’t seen the previous application.

Cllr Hodson continued by pointing out the numerous large windows and said it may impact on residents’ quality of life. He said that the new application was on a greater scale with a flat roof and unique design. The councillor referred to a restrictive covenant on the height and a 21m recommended separation distance on habitable rooms. He felt that the proposed design would lead to overdominance and an unneighbourly development in breach of policy HS4. Cllr Hodson finished by saying he felt if approved it would be in breach of Wirral Council’s policies.

The Chair thanked Cllr Hodson for his comments and pointed out that the covenant was a civil matter not a planning matter. He asked officers to respond to the points raised by Cllr Hodson including his comment on yellow bricks. The Chair also asked for a site plan and elevation to be displayed.

Matthew showed the site plan with a hatched area indicating the existing building and an outline showing the new property and garage. He said the separation distance was achieved and that they considered the layout acceptable. Matthew said that the previous application 11/337 for a three storey building had been approved in May 2011. That proposal had been replaced with a two storey building with a flat roof.

The Chair referred to the recent site visit and asked a further point of officers. Matthew replied by referring to the incline across the site and how some of the building would be beneath ground floor level. The Chair asked the height from the roof to the ground from the highest end of the site. The answer given was just over five metres.

Cllr Johnson asked which windows were from habitable rooms? The officer replied that there was a bedroom each side, one was for a stairway and another for a landing. On the ground floor the windows were for a kitchen, study and cloakroom.

Cllr Stuart Kelly said it benefitted from existing planning permission for a three-storey building, he asked if the existing planning permission was using the same site? The officer replied by saying that it was a similar footprint to the original site plan.

Cllr Brian Kenny said he had been on the site visit the day before, he asked if the footprint was similar? He also asked if it was higher than the original application.

The officer replied that it was a similar footprint and a lower height.

There was a vote on the planning application which was proposed for approval by Cllr John Salter and seconded by Cllr Brian Kenny.

Councillors (except Cllr Johnson) voted in favour. Cllr Johnson voted against, so the planning application was approved.


Categories