Planning Committee refuse Magenta Living application for 11 houses and 2 bungalows in Upton (Kenilworth Gardens)

                                                             

The Kenilworth Gardens item starts at 8 minutes 19 seconds in the video clip above and continues to the video clips below of Wirral Council’s Planning Committee meeting of the 20th November 2014.

The long running saga of planning application of planning application APP/14/00951: Unused Land, KENILWORTH GARDENS, UPTON, CH49 4ND – proposal to develop the site with residential units for affordable housing use, providing 11 no. two storey 2 bedroom houses, and 2 no. 2 bedroom bungalows (including 1 fully disabled access unit) finally reached a decision at Wirral Council at the Planning Committee meeting of the 20th November 2014.

The applicant was Wirral Partnership Homes Limited (T/A Magenta Living) and the agent Ainsley Gommon Architects.

Wirral Council had received this planning application on the 18th July 2014. At the Planning Committee on the 25th September 2014 a site visit was agreed. After that took place it had been due to be decided at the Planning Committee on the 22nd October 2014. However at the Planning Committee meeting on the 22nd October 2014 it was deferred to the Planning Committee meeting on the 20th November 2014 (making it over 4 months for a decision on this planning application to be reached.

Wirral Council planning officers had recommended in a report that the planning application be approved with various conditions.

The Planning Committee heard from the lead petitioner Jean Robinson, Chair of the Overchurch Residents Association who spoke against the planning application being approved. She referred to heritage reasons, ecological reasons and highway reasons why she thought the planning application should be refused.

The petitioner in favour of the application did not speak.

Rob Ware of Ainsley Gommon Architects (the agent on behalf of the applicant Wirral Partnership Homes Limited T/A Magenta Living) spoke after and explained the reasons why he thought that councillors should accept the planning application. He referred during this to a 34 year old tenant of the applicant with spinal injuries that was in need of a bungalow and would benefit from such a planning application being granted. He also referred to the highway concerns.

Cllr Matthew Patrick (ward councillor for Upton ward) also addressed the Planning Committee. He referred to the petition against the planning application, the petition in favour, the protection of urban greenspace, the uses that local residents put the land which included Easter egg hunts and litter picking.

He pointed out that trees on the site were protected by tree protection orders and how he felt that the application should be rejected because of policy HS4 as in his opinion it did not meet all the criteria for new housing as it would change the character of the area as well as another criteria in HS4.

Cllr Patrick also referred to the need to reduce crime, allow emergency vehicles access and the issue of bats, in fact three different species of bat! He felt the lighting would disturb the insects that the bats feed on and referred to a letter written from Wirral Wildlife in 2007 about the bats. He referred the Planning Committee to their legal obligation with regards to species protection and went on to refer again to policy HS4.

He wondered how the proposed disabled tenant would be able to safely access the property by foot as the proposed pavement was too narrow and finished by referring to the strength of feeling from the Overchurch Residents Association as residents had contacted him by phone, email and letter about this planning application. He urged the Planning Committee to reject the application.

After much discussion over many issues to do with the planning application ranging from highway issues, disability issues, bats and wildlife, emergency vehicle access, refuse vehicle access and garages, someone asked one of Wirral Council’s solicitors for legal advice about the issue of the application needing to rely on a future decision to unadopt the highway to proceed.

The solicitor referred to the proposed condition 9 which meant approval was conditional on the access road being formally stopped up and unadopted. She referred to the other reasons (other than a development) as to why the highway might be unadopted.

After much further debate, Cllr Stuart Kelly (Lib Dem spokesperson) moved refusal. This was seconded by Cllr Denise Realey (Vice-Chair).

All thirteen councillors present on the Planning Committee voted in favour of refusal.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks: