Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 3rd January 2011 Part 2 APP/11/00954 – 6 MILLBROOK ROAD, POULTON, CH41 1FL – Change of use from industrial unit to auctioneers – sui generis

The Chair directed those present to page 27 and agenda item 6 (APP/11/00954), 6 Millbrook Road, Poulton, CH41 1FL, Change of use from industrial unit to auctioneers. Matthew said it was for a change of use to an auctioneers which was the sui generis class. It was in a mainly industrial area on an industrial … Continue reading “Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 3rd January 2011 Part 2 APP/11/00954 – 6 MILLBROOK ROAD, POULTON, CH41 1FL – Change of use from industrial unit to auctioneers – sui generis”

The Chair directed those present to page 27 and agenda item 6 (APP/11/00954), 6 Millbrook Road, Poulton, CH41 1FL, Change of use from industrial unit to auctioneers.

Matthew said it was for a change of use to an auctioneers which was the sui generis class. It was in a mainly industrial area on an industrial estate, the Unitary Development Plan allowed uses B1, B2 and B8 here so it was not an acceptable use as they should locate somewhere easy and sustainable. There was a shortage of land for industrial purposes. One auction was held a week on Wednesday evening. It was not conflicting with adjacent businesses, but was still not an acceptable use. There was insufficient information to justify the loss on two grounds, Unitary Development Plan EM8 and the fact it was not sustainable.

Cllr John Salter said he would declare a personal interest as he had had a chat with the owner and a discreet visit to the premises. He said the business needed a large premises and the business had been established for eight years. There was no parking problem and no problem on the one day they had sales. He wanted to draw attention to the fact that 75% of the trade at the public auction was to other businesses, local traders such as second hand shops and it was not mainly for the public.

On the subject of public transport he disagreed with officers as about hundred metres away was Birkenhead Park railway station which he had walked many times. He wanted to overturn officer’s recommendation that it was up for refusal and asked for it to be approved, he did have a form of words.

The Chair said he wanted everybody to have their say, his only concerns was supporting the Unitary Development Plan except for good reasons especially in Bromborough and Ellesmere Port.

Cllr Dave Mitchell asked whether the applicant had been in touch with the Economy & Regeneration Department over moving to more acceptable premises. He commented that the business had been running for eighteen months and said it might benefit from having a look at venues available.

The Chair asked officers if they’d like to come back on alternative venues?

Matthew said that there were vacant sites in the Town Centre, but they hadn’t pushed the applicant to go through hte process. He said it was difficult to make the case.

Cllr Stuart Kelly said it was interesting as it was a sui generis class and in Latin. He had googled it and hadn’t come across auctioneer in government advice. He said that Matthew’s advice was surrounding a change of use. He asked what assessment had been done to see if it didn’t fall into the acceptable B1, B2 or B8 categories? He said there was no mention in the Unitary Development Plan and there was an absence of advice. He had resorted to Google to see what was out there and what it really is? He said it cut across B1, B2 and B7 and referred to Cllr John Salter’s comments about the auction being once a week. The rest of the time it was storage and distribution (class B8) which they didn’t appear to have a policy for the B-class and sui generis. He asked where would they be on appeal as it was near B8 and was 50/50. The report established the numbers of cars used and that B1/B2/B8 uses which was close enough to make no difference, unless the officers came up with a good argument to the contrary.

The Chair thanked Cllr Kelly for his interesting points.

Matthew said the element of concern was the public sales as a proportion were to the general public. People movements were not supposed to happen here but to the Town Centre where there was public transport provision. He agreed that some of the use was storage and distribution (B8 class), but the sales to the general public were moving it to an A1 use. There was some case law categorising it as A1 use. However the balance of case law was that each sui generis class should be decided on its own merits. The sole issue was sales to the general public.

Cllr Brian Kenny said he would not be happy to support an application not in accordance with the planning policies, but as detailed in the application it had been running for ten years and this was a retrospective application. There were no highway issues, no health and safety implications, no environmental implications which made it difficult to oppose. In principle he was not happy in opposing the Unitary Development Plan. He asked what words they would use to support it. He reserved the right to decide.

The Chair said there would have to be an urgent reason to outweight the Unitary Development Plan.

Cllr John Salter said that 75% of the business was wholesale, there were similar business in the area such as Moreton Alarms who did lighting and were no different (in selling to members of the public). Cllr Dave Mitchell asked if Moreton Alarms were on the main road as it made a difference? Cllr Mitchell apologised for interrupting Cllr John Salter. Cllr John Salter said he wanted to move it and he’d passed a form of words to Matthew, with alterations on hours. He said it was very accessible, well established for eight years and to move elsewhere he would lose clientele.

The Chair asked if there was something to move? He said each application should be considered on its merits especially the sui generis class.

Cllr John Salter said it was a sustainable business with 78% of its trade being not to the public, but to wholesale. He added a condition that the total number of auctions not exceed one a week. These would happen on a Wednesday from 1700 to 2100 and at no other time. This would not compromise the operation regarding industrial uses in the area. He referred to policy EM6 of the Unitary Development Plan and said that public access would be limited.

The Chair said that the proposal had been proposed and seconded and that it was a unique application and the circumstances had been demonstrated.

The first vote was on approving the application.

For: Cllrs Elderton, Clements, Boult, Johnson, Kenny, Salter, Realey, Mooney, Walsh, Kelly (10)
Against: Cllr Dave Mitchell (1)
Absentions: None (0)

Application APP/11/00954 was approved (10:1:0)

The Chair said they now needed to consider the conditions which he asked an officer to reiterate.

Matthew said they had one condition which was that the total number of auctions not exceed one a week and that this sole auction was restricted to Wednesday between 5pm and 9pm.

The second vote was on the condition.

For: Cllrs Elderton, Clements, Boult, Johnson, Kenny, Salter, Realey, Mooney, Walsh, Kelly (10)
Against: Cllr Dave Mitchell (1)
Abstentions: None (0)

The condition was approved (10:1:0). Two members of the public left.

Reason to vote Liberal Democrat on May 5th – Day Five

Many years ago shortly after I was selected as the Lib Dems to be their candidate in the Wirral Council election, a woman living near Birkenhead Park station emailed me in response to one of our leaflets.

She was the foster carer for a teenager in a wheelchair and had great difficulty with the stepped ramp at Birkenhead Park station. This station has (as many who will use it will know) a stepped ramp going down to the platform.

She had no difficulty in as she put it “bumping him down the ramp” but found it impossible to get him back up. As a result she was travelling to Conway Park train station (which has a lift) and wheeling him back a mile through the streets over bumpy pavements (which was very tiring for her).

As a result I wrote to Merseytravel and lobbied them (and Frank Field) my MP to improve access at the train stations. Access for disabled people to stations was also an issue raised at an Area Forum in relation to stations on the Chester/Ellesmere Port route.

The current policy of Merseyrail (and Merseytravel) is to provide taxis for disabled travellers from the nearest accessible station. The Roads v Central Trains Limited [2004] EWCA Civ 1541, (2004) 104 ConLR 62 case (which being a Court of Appeal case) was about exactly this issue and is binding on any case brought by a disabled person in the County Court.

In it a disabled traveller couldn’t use a station because of a footbridge. He was put to inconvenience (compared to his non-disabled travellers) in travelling to a nearby station and getting a taxi. Doing this added an hour to his journey. Like Merseytravel the train company claimed it’d cost £750,000 to adapt the station.

Appeal judges found the claimant had been discriminated against and overturned the ruling of the lower court, awarding £1,000 in damages and special damages of £97.

However there is a problem with the law and Merseyrail (which makes ~£6,000,000 in profit a year). Both Merseyrail and Merseytravel (at least due to what they’ve said in public and correspondence) see access to stations as a National Rail issue.

After British Rail was privatised the different areas were either put out to tender (eg the rail franchises for example Merseyrail, Virgin, Arriva Train Wales etc) or a separate company was set up. National Rail is the successor to Rail Track and is responsible for the track, signalling, infrastructure, stations etc.

Although the money for improving station access goes to Merseytravel, they complain that Network Rail causes them (as they see it) increased costs due to bureaucracy.

I raised with Merseytravel the issue that all stations within Bidston & St. James ward – Bidston, Birkenhead North and Birkenhead Park as well as the nearby station of Upton all had problems with accessibility.

I am pleased to announce that as a result of my lobbying (and others) money in this financial year has been set aside for improvements to Birkenhead North station.

In total approximately £1.6 million will be spent on a Park and Ride scheme (which is why the properties were pulled down) and on making the footbridge accessible.

Once again this shows that where people come to the Liberal Democrat Action Team with their problems, we take action and improve things for local residents.

In the meantime, the paint on the footbridge is peeling (which I doubt will be done before it’s replaced) and when I have more news about when the work will begin I will give an update.

I would like to thank Cllr Dave Mitchell, the Liberal Democrat Merseytravel representative for his help on this issue. The late Tony Garrett of the Wirral Transport Users Association was a passionate advocate for public transport and wanted these improvements made to stations on the Wirral. He even toured each Area Forum asking questions.

Although it may be some time before all stations in Bidston & St. James can be used by those with mobility problems, the news on Birkenhead North train station is a welcome step in the right direction.