Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 26th September 2013 APP/13/00748: Amenity Open Space, Tollemache Road, Birkenhead – Erection of 12no two bedroom single storey dwellings
Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 26th September 2013 APP/13/00748: Amenity Open Space, Tollemache Road, Birkenhead – Erection of 12no two bedroom single storey dwellings
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
The officer introduced the report for this item and said it was a vacant greenfield site that was there to give an area of land as amenity open space for the new development. The objections received were about the loss of the open space. The applicant contended that the amenity open space was surplus to requirements, but the local planning authority (Wirral Council) contended that it had value.
The officers had assessed the proposed development and had no problems with it except for the policy issue about the loss of the amenity open space. Included in the late list was further information, the applicant had offered a sum of £40,000 to be spent on the adjacent play area, but the officers were still recommending refusal.
The Chair asked if a ward councillor wanted to talk to the Planning Committee?
Cllr Ann McLachlan said that any plans for the open green space would cause tension with the local residents, but that the plans were for low-cost affordable housing. In respect of the views of the local residents there were six key objectors, however she understood their concerns, but their fears had been allayed and assurances given. She wanted to speak in favour of the application for a dozen two bedroom bungalows. Although a provider had not yet been identified, this could be secured through a condition or a s.106 agreement.
Cllr McLachlan said that the properties would be “a drop in the ocean” but a welcome development. She had concerns about the benefit reforms as people were “crying out for two bedroom” properties. The local area to the site was residential and it would be on an amenity piece of green space. It’s use was for informal play and it did have some community use, however it was quite overgrown. There had been some dog owners pulling up in cars allowing their dogs to foul this piece of grass and in her view approving the application would deal with a number of the current problems. The applicant had offered £40,000 (subject to the plans being approved) to be spent on the adjacent play area and for these reasons she supported the application.
Cllr Wendy Clements asked a question about the affordable housing requirement. Matthew Davies responded by saying that if the application was approved it would be subject to a s.106 agreement for affordable housing. There would also be a commuted sum to upgrade the existing play facilities and a condition for highway improvements if councillors decided to approve it in addition to a number of other conditions.
Cllr Brian Kenny said he had read the paperwork and listed to the discussion. In his view a dozen two bedroom bungalows satisfied a demand for affordable housing. He accepted the officer’s view that it needed a s.106 agreement and thought it would fit well with the area. Cllr Kenny referred to antisocial behaviour issues raised by the local councillors and was heartened that the applicant had suggested giving £40,000 to upgrade the adjacent play area. He said that if you believe everything you read in the press that the Cabinet Member for Housing (Cllr George Davies) was keen. Cllr Kenny was in favour of approving the application.
Matthew Davies said they would need to give a reason why they were approving it contrary to the normal policies and that this needed to come from the Planning Committee. He explained that if approved, extra conditions that would need be attached to the approval including a site waste management plan.
Cllr Paul Hayes said he accepted the need for affordable housing, but didn’t buy into the argument that it was needed because of antisocial behaviour and dog fouling. In his view those sorts of issues would only be dealt with through tougher enforcement.
The Chair, Cllr Bernie Mooney, referred to the extra money for the play area, the extra money for upgrading the highway and the extra £1,500 for the school crossing patrol. She asked the Planning Committee if they were happy?
Cllr Stuart Kelly was not happy. He accepted that affordable housing was important, but in his view the need to build more houses shouldn’t mean they should lose green space sites. Cllr Kelly said the site was used for informal play and that they had to get the balance right between building houses they knew they needed and providing people with space for children to play, he was not happy with building houses on a piece of green land, as there was lots of overgrown green land and it would set a precedent for further applications for housing on green space.
Cllr Kelly said that it had been set aside as part of the original planning application and put there for a reason, he was not willing to set aside policies as in his view they needed the amenity space as much as they needed affordable housing. He said that they had a policy which said they should have this sort of amenity put in place and he felt that backing out sent out a poor message as he felt developers should build on brownfield sites rather than a site used for informal play.
Cllr Denise Realey asked if the site had been identified for housing under the Strategic Housing Assessment? The officer said it hadn’t.
Cllr Brian Kenny said that he wanted to move approval of the application on the grounds that it would provide affordable housing that there was a demand for. He said it fitted well with the character of the area and removed a number of current problems. Cllr Kenny said it was important they approved it and the applicant had agreed to invest £40,000 in the adjacent play area. He moved approval. Cllr Joe Walsh seconded approval.
Cllr Kelly moved an amendment to the proposal to approve, that it would be refused for the reasons given in the officer’s report. Rosemary Lyons (legal adviser) advised the Chair not to accept the amendment as in her view it wasn’t amending the proposal to accept the planning application. She said that Cllr Kelly could vote against the proposal to approve the application.
The Chair took a vote on the motion to approve the planning application.
For (9): Cllr Denise Realey, Cllr Anita Leech, Cllr David Elderton, Cllr Bernie Mooney, Cllr Irene Williams, Cllr Christina Muspratt, Cllr Brian Kenny, Cllr Joe Walsh and Cllr Eddie Boult
Against (4): Cllr Stuart Kelly, Cllr Simon Mountney, Cllr Wendy Clements and Cllr Paul Hayes
Do you like green fields and weeds, or is it better to meet people’s housing needs?
Do you like green fields and weeds, or is it better to meet people’s housing needs?
Do you like green fields and weeds,
or is it better to meet people’s housing needs?
The officers wanted green fields and weeds,
they did not want to meet people’s housing needs.
The local councillor said we want bungalows here and there,
and that she didn’t want dog fouling anywhere.
Kids will have to play where we want,
we blame all this on the government!
Cllr Kelly wanted the green fields and weeds to stay,
was he going to vote with Labour, no way!
Cllr Kenny did not want dog fouling here or there,
he didn’t want dog fouling anywhere.
He did not want green fields and weeds,
he wanted bungalows to meet people’s needs.
Cllr Realey asked if the green field was assessed for housing?
No, the officers said, who she was rousing.
We do not want to meet people’s housing needs,
we’d prefer to keep green fields and weeds.
The vote was taken to approve the plans,
Nine councillors voted for with their hands,
Four councillors voted against,
So the building of bungalows will be commenced.
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 26th September 2013 APP/13/00866: 151 Victoria Road, New Brighton, CH45 9LB – Change of use of a property from a single residence to a house of multiple occupation to provide 12 bedrooms with communal kitchen, living rooms and bathrooms. Also to include alterations to windows to the front elevation
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 26th September 2013 APP/13/00866: 151 Victoria Road, New Brighton, CH45 9LB – Change of use of a property from a single residence to a house of multiple occupation to provide 12 bedrooms with communal kitchen, living rooms and bathrooms. Also to include alterations to windows to the front elevation
The Chair asked Cheryl to introduce the report for item 14. Cheryl said that it was for a change of use from a single dwelling to a house of multiple occupation with a communal kitchen, living rooms and bathrooms. The communal facilities would be on the lower ground floor of the three storey building. Two rooms would have en suite bathroom facilities. She said that the level of communal facilities were the subject of discussions with the Housing Standards Team and that it met an identified need. Subject to the conditions the officers had recommended it for approval.
The Chair asked if the petitioner wished to talk to the Planning Committee? He did and introduced himself as Steven Regan of Flat 2, 149 Victoria Road. He said that the residents had been startled when they had heard of the planning application a month ago as houses of multiple occupation did not have a good reputation in the media. The petition had attracted around fifty signatures including all the residents of the attached house next door to 151 Victoria Road. Several traders on Victoria Road were also opposing the approval of this development.
The petitioners concerns were about noise and disruption from the development, despite assurances of the developer that they would put up good noise insulation. If the development went ahead they would be very diligent in complaining to the HMO licence holder, Wirral Council and the local press if this was a problem.
The petitioner said that Victoria Road was historically the main thoroughfare through New Brighton and they didn’t want to see its regeneration put at risk by a development such as this being approved. The petitioners were also concerned that they were unsure what type of tenants this type of development would attract. In addition to the noise issue, they had parking concerns due to double yellow lines nearby. However their local councillor was looking into whether these double yellow lines were still necessary. He thanked the ward councillors for going on the site visit but expressed disappointment that they didn’t go in and just had just viewed the property from the pavement.
The Chair asked if the applicant wished to talk to the Planning Committee. The agent Jo Liz Jones of Cheshire Planning Solutions Limited said she wished to talk to the Planning Committee on behalf of the applicant. She said that they believed they had complied with the policies, that there was a condition on soundproofing and that they fully appreciated the concerns of the local neighbours who had originally felt it would be some sort of bail hostel.
She also appreciated the concerns over the number of tenants, but pointed out that it was a large property over four floors and too large for an individual residence. Ms Jones referred to the repairs needed to the building and pointed out that the type of tenants wasn’t a planning issue. She said that the applicant already ran several properties like this one and that a lot of people in desperate need of housing couldn’t afford a flat but enjoyed sharing in a communal multi-let way as it was cheaper as all bills were all inclusive.
Ms Jones felt that the type of tenants that would move in (young professionals) wouldn’t have a car and that it was in walking distance of bus and train routes. They had amended the plans for a secure cycle storage and fully appreciated the objections. She said there had been a misunderstanding of the petitioners of the phrase houses in multiple occupation, but that it wouldn’t be a bail hostel. The tenants wouldn’t be criminals but be young professionals who would have to first go through credit checks and ID checks. Prospective tenants would also have to give references. The applicant didn’t want tenants to cause problems.
She said the applicant would not just run the property, but planned to live in it. The property had previously had planning approval for four flats, which she claimed could lead to more people than were proposed with this application. Ms Jones thanked the committee for listening to her.
The Chair asked if a ward councillor wished to talk to the Planning Committee? Cllr Pat Hackett said that although councillors didn’t go into the building on the site visit, that he was shocked by the building’s condition particularly its upper floors which were derelict. In his view a number of the original fears of the petitioners had not been substantiated but a meeting between the developer and the petitioner had eased some of the original fears.
Cllr Hackett said that the building was absolutely huge and a throwback to the glorious days of New Brighton when there had been big bed and breakfasts and hotels. He confirmed that highways officers would look at the road to see if the many yellow lines were still necessary. Cllr Hackett also referred to the condition on sound insulation. He said that the developer had taken the petitioner to Rock Ferry to see a property similar to what was envisaged in New Brighton.
Cllr Brian Kenny said that the agent on behalf of the applicant had said that the property was quality and affordable, but that the local councillor had said he was shocked at the state of the property. He asked officers to comment on these different descriptions of the building was more accurate.
Matthew Davies confirmed that the building needed repair work, but said that the agent was alluding to the applicant’s plan to bring it back to a good state of repair. He said the purpose of the application was to bring it back to a good standard of accommodation.
Cllr Denise Realey said that it lacked amenities as only two bedrooms were en suite, that there were shared bathrooms between ten people and only one kitchen? She said that it could have twenty-four people and had grave concerns about over development.
Cllr Stuart Kelly referred to the report and that officers said they shouldn’t concern their heads with matters covered by legislation or other enforcement bodies. He refreshed their memory about a previous decision about a planning application in Argyle Street, in which the Planning Committee had taken the view that it didn’t have the level of amenities they expected in the twenty-first century.
He was not comparing the Argyle Street “doss house” application to the one they had to decide on as there were differences in layout and there had been a persuasive presentation on behalf of the applicant about the level of management. He referred to former university students, who were used to shared communal areas and facilities, but notwithstanding the presentation he didn’t feel comfortable with this level of shared facilities in the modern age.
He said he wasn’t objecting on grounds of noise and it would be difficult to object on grounds of parking. He had raised an issue about bin storage which was dealt with through another condition, however they were looking at bulk bins as a more appropriate solution as four of each bin took away one of the car parking spaces.
Cllr Brian Kenny said he had sympathy with the people opposed to the plans, however their decision had to be based on planning grounds, not who might live there. He said he couldn’t think of any sound planning reasons to object to it.
Cllr Stuart Kelly said that he had said the same thing about the Argyle Street application, which had been rejected, appealed and the Council’s rejection had been upheld at appeal. The Planning Inspector had agreed there were planning grounds to reject it. Cllr Kelly asked if there was an appropriate ratio of bedrooms to welfare facilities and that he would move rejection on these grounds.
The Chair said that there had been changes to housing benefits and that consideration needed to be given to the need for this type of housing. She pointed out that if anything went wrong then the HMO licence holder would lose their operating licence.
Cllr Christina Muspratt asked why young professionals would need a supervised kitchen? The Chair answered that supervision related to being cleaned, looked after and maintained. The agent confirmed the Chair’s answer.
Cllr Stuart Kelly moved refusal on the grounds that it conflicted with policy HS14 of the Unitary Development Plan. Cllr Denise Realey seconded refusal.
The vote was as follows:
In favour of refusal: Eight councillors
Against refusal: Cllr Wendy Clements, Cllr Eddie Boult, Cllr Joe Walsh, Cllr Brian Kenny and another councillor (5)
Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 26th September 2013 APP/13/00677: Land Adjacent to 16 Lingdale Road, West Kirby, CH48 5DQ – To sever the curtilage and erect 1 no. detached dwelling together with associated works
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 26th September 2013 APP/13/00677: Land Adjacent to 16 Lingdale Road, West Kirby, CH48 5DQ – To sever the curtilage and erect 1 no. detached dwelling together with associated works
The Chair, Cllr Bernie Mooney asked a Council officer called Cheryl to summarise the report. The officer said that the application was in a conservation area of large detached houses. In the officer’s view it was of an acceptable design. She said there was a condition for obscured glazing, that officers had recommended it for approval but there was a qualifying petition.
The Chair invited a representative of the petitioners to talk to the Planning Committee for up to five minutes. The petitioner introduced herself as Kate Evans of 15 Lingdale Road. She and the petitioners felt it was an alien design and overdevelopment of the site. On the petitioner’s behalf three drawings were passed to the Planning Committee to illustrate their objections. She felt it was out of context with the arts and crafts theme of the Conservation Area as well as too modern and too big. In her opinion the modern windows were at odds with the character of the rest of the road.
Kate Evans said that one of the drawings demonstrated their concerns about the dominant gable as well as their concern about the eaves line. During the site visit, the petitioners thought that the ground levels were incorrect by over a metre and they’d been told that the levels would be checked before the Planning Committee meeting. The petitioners wanted to make sure the street profile was maintained and felt that approval of the planning application would cause harmful damage to this.
The Chair invited the applicant to speak. A Matthew Ashton of the applicant’s agent (MgMaStudio Ltd) spoke on behalf of the applicant Mr. Norman Cowley. Mr. Ashton said that as the architect he had designed the scheme and there had been no objections from the statutory consultees. He requested that they endorse the case made in the officer’s report. He explained the reasons why Mr. Cowley wanted to build the property and how in his opinion that the proposed design drew upon the character of the Conservation Area. Following a meeting with the petitioners, they had revised their proposal to deal with their representations. He reassured the Planning Committee that the drawings were to a high quality and he believed that the design would be a positive contribution to the street scape and Conservation Area.
No ward councillor addressed the Planning Committee. The Chair referred to the comments made on overdevelopment, ground levels and materials. Cllr David Elderton said that the site visit had been helpful and asked for the display of the site plan on the screen. He referred to the roof levels of the proposed property in relation to the neighbouring properties. His first question was about the distance from the proposed house to the fence line and the adjacent property. He referred to his forty years working in the construction industry and although he felt the design was acceptable, his concern was the size which he believed was overdevelopment.
Matthew Davies replied that the distance to the boundary was 2.4m and the distance to the adjacent house was 5.6m. Cllr Elderton asked a question about windows. Matthew Davies answered that there was a kitchen window on the ground floor and a bedroom window at first floor level. Cllr Elderton said that if the property was built, there would be a large wall only 5 metres away from the adjacent property, with the fence halfway between the two. Matthew Davies said this was correct.
Cllr Elderton asked about the roof lines compared to the neighbouring properties. An officer called Cheryl said that the drawings submitted showed the relationship with the properties on either side. If there were different levels to those on the plans submitted, then even if the planning application was approved, there would have to be a further application before it could be constructed. She pointed out that condition eight asked for proper levels, if there was any error it would be picked up and enforcement action could be taken.
Cllr Elderton said they had established it was no higher than the ridge line of adjacent properties and about the same height if not lower. Cllr Simon Mountney expressed confusion at retrospective action over ground levels. Cheryl again referred to condition eight and said that it was in their control to discharge that condition, if a thorough survey showed different levels they would ask for another application to rectify the variance.
The Chair said that it was a huge development that was closer to the property on the left than the applicant’s property which troubled her on the site visit. Cllr David Elderton said that he would propose rejecting the application on the basis that the relationship with adjoining properties would result in overshadowing and overbearance because of its size. Its height and setting would be harmful to the amenities of the adjoining dwellings and would be contrary to policy HS4 of Wirral’s Unitary Development Plan. Cllr Irene Williams seconded his proposal for refusal.
There was a vote and councillors voted as follows.
In favour of refusal: Cllr Bernie Mooney, Cllr David Elderton, Cllr Stuart Kelly, Cllr Wendy Clements, Cllr Anita Leech, Cllr Simon Mountney, Cllr Irene Williams, Cllr Paul Hayes, Cllr Brian Kenny and Cllr Eddie Boult (10)
Against refusal: Cllr Denise Realey and Cllr Joe Walsh (2)
Abstention: Cllr Christina Muspratt (1)
Application APP/13/00677 was therefore refused (10:2:1).
