Tag Archives: Heswall

by

Leasowe and Moreton East By-election Result (Wirral Council) Ian Lewis (Conservative) returned


Having lost his seat last May to Labour’s Anita Leech (with a majority of 318), after the death of Cllr Ann McArdle, Ian Lewis (Conservative) overturned Labour’s majority into a majority of 265 in the by-election.

The result doesn’t change the balance of power on Wirral Council, but does reduce Labour’s majority from nine to seven. Meanwhile in the Heswall by-election held on the same day Kathryn Anne Hodson (Conservative) was predictably returned with a comfortable majority of 794.

Candidate Party Votes
Ian LEWIS Conservative 1620
Pauline Ann DANIELS Labour 1355
Susan Jane WHITHAM U.K. Independence 148
Mark HALLIGAN Trade Unionists and Socialists Against Cuts 31
Jim MCGINLEY Green Party 28
Daniel CLEIN Liberal Democrat 28
About these ads
by

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.

by

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 3rd January 2011 Part 6 APP/11/01208 – St Bartholomews Church, CHURCH LANE, THURSTASTON, CH61 0HW – Renewal of planning permission APP/2008/6027 for new entrance for disabled access incorporating ramped access, wheelchair w/c facility, tea point and meeting area & item 10 (ADV/11/01233) Lookers, 143 PENSBY ROAD, HESWALL, CH60 7RD Erection of various Sainsbury’s Local signs on the building and two totem signs either side of parking area


The Chair moved the Committee onto item 9 (APP/11/01208) – St Bartholomews Church, Church Lane, Thurstaton, CH61 0HW – Renewal of planning permission APP/2008/6027 for new entrance for disabled access incorporating ramped access, wheelchair w/c facility, tea point and meeting area. He said it would be a repetition of the past.

Matthew said it was similar to the last application as it was for an extension of time. The application was to do with the entrance and disabled access. Since it had been approved Planning Policy Statement 5 had replace Planning Policy Guidance 5, in his view the application was not contrary to Planning Policy Guidance 5 and it was recommended for approval.

Cllr Peter Johnson proposed approval, Cllr Wendy Clements seconded approval.

There was a vote.
For: Cllrs Elderton, Clements, Boult, Johnson, Kenny, Salter, Realey, Mooney, Walsh, Kelly and Mitchell (11)
Against: None (0)
abstention: None (0)

Planning Application APP/11/01208 was approved with conditions (11:0:0).

The Committee moved onto item 10 (ADV/11/01233) Lookers, 143 Pensby Road, Heswall, CH60 7RD Erection of various Sainsbury’s Local signs on the building and two totem signs either side of parking area. Matthew said it was the former Lookers Garage, but had opened as a Sainsbury’s Local. There was a forty-nine signature petition. The application was for signs, fascia, car park signage as well as two totem signs. They would be illuminated signs. The two main issues to consider were visual amenity and highway safety. The majority would be to the front elevation with Pensby Road, illumination was not unacceptable, condition 7 would make sure they were not illuminated overnight. The totem poles were limited to two metres in height. The previous commercial use had been subject to a condition on overnight illumination too.

The Chair asked if a person who wished to speak on behalf of the petitioners was present? No one answered.

Cllr John Salter said on page 58, item 7, why were the times 0600 to 0000, couldn’t it be when the store was open and closed?

The Chair asked if it was open at 7am? Matthew answered yes.

The Chair made a comment.
Cllr Dave Mitchell said it was on the main highway with a lot of properties, why not just when the store was open?
The Chair said condition 7 could be amended, which would increase the amenity value.
Cllr Dave Mitchell said he wanted to move an amendment.
Cllr John Salter asked if their Sunday trading hours were 10-4 or 11-5?
The Chair said he didn’t know, but they were open seven days a week.
Cllr John Salter said they were only small.
Matthew said there were no Sunday trading restrictions on them.
Cllr John Salter seconded Cllr Dave Mitchell’s proposal to amend condition 7, with the times amended from “0000 to 0600″ to “2300 to 0700″.

There was a vote on the amendment to condition 7 from “0000 to 0600″ to “2300 to 0700″.

For: Cllrs Elderton, Clements, Boult, Johnson, Kenny, Salter, Realey, Mooney, Walsh, Kelly and Mitchell (11)
Against: None (0)
Abstention: None (0)

Condition 7 was amended (11:0:0).

There was a vote on approval (with condition 7 amended).

For: Cllrs Elderton, Clements, Boult, Johnson, Kenny, Salter, Realey, Mooney, Walsh, Kelly and Mitchell (11)
Against: None (0)
Abstention: None (0)

Application ADV/11/01233 with conditions was approved (11:0:0).

by

Planning Committee – 25th January 2011 – Part 3 – Item 5 – APP/10/00999 – Melrose 90 Oldfield Road, Heswall – Proposed extension and remodelling of the existing house and associated landscaping works


Cllr Johnson, having previously declared a prejudicial interest in this item, left the room during its consideration.

The committee then moved onto item 5 which was another greenbelt application involving remodelling. The application would lead to an increased height to a two storey flat roof. There had been a late objection from the Heswall Society regarding floodlights. The Chair pointed out this had been made on the site visit. Cllr Elderton asked to the elevation and if it was out of character? He said it was more in keeping although expressed concern regarding overlooking from the balcony. The floodlight was going to be at a low-level for ambience. Although commercial properties required permission for floodlights, residential properties did not.

The answer given by an officer was that the floodlights were not considered to be development, therefore permission wasn’t required. Cllr Mitchell was also concerned about the balcony and stated that the new building was narrower. He said the architect had given a good spiel at the site visit and had used the site visit to promote his business.

It was put to the vote. Cllr Mitchell proposed the application be approved, Cllr Salter seconded the item. 9 councillors voted for, Cllr Hayes and Cllr Keeley voted against. The application was approved.

by

Planning Committee – 25th January 2011 – Part 2 – Item 4 – APP/10/01315 – 2 Target Road, Heswall – Demolition of existing dwelling and attached garage. Construction of replacement dwelling and detached garage


The committee then proceeded to consider item 4 – APP/10/01315 -2 Target Road, Heswall – Demolition of existing dwelling and attached garage. Construction of replacement dwelling and detached garage.

There was a qualifying petition. The petitioner Paul Foley of 1 Target Road, Heswall (which is adjacent to no 2) addressed the Committee. He told the committee about his concerns over privacy in the front and rear gardens as the new building would be two stories. He had bought his property for privacy. He would also lose sunlight and felt it was inconsistent with previous applications where 2 storey dwellings had been refused. He also cited other similar planning applications refused and felt it was not uniform. Approving this application would lead to a greater density of development and didn’t match.

Trevor Earp, the agent then addressed the committee about the concerns raised by the petitioner. He referred to the officer’s report and stated there were other 2 storey buildings in the area. In the Design and Access statement a number of these were referred to. One had living accommodation on the 1st floor. There had been a 2007 application for a replacement dwelling in Broad Lane which the replacement had had with a 8m ridge height. He said officers had commented on the simple attractive design in keeping with the scale and design of the area. Regarding overlooking the front overlooks the road and although the rear overlooks the rear garden this falls within guidelines. He asked the committee to see the merits which the officers have.

Cllr Elderton said it would be helpful to see the existing elevation and proposed elevation. A photo was handed round which agitated the agent so much he interrupted the meeting by heckling.

Cllr Elderton was told there was a difference in metre in the ridge height. Cllr Realey pointed out the increased should be 15%. Cllr Kenny referred to the claim of the petitioner that similar applications were refused. An officer answered that they were not aware of refusals in the immediate area.

Cllr Mitchell asked the officers to point out the elevations. Cllr Elderton asked them to relate the difference in ridge height to the impact.

Cllr Mitchell asked for any further comments or questions. There were none. Cllr Mitchell proposed approval, seconded by Cllr Kenny. 11 councillors voted for. Cllr Peter Johnson voted against.