Posted by: John Brace | 21st June 2011

Application for a takeaway (refused) – 46 Hoylake Road, Bidston & APP/11/ 00065 – Townfield Close, Claughton – Demolition of an existing petrol filling station and erection of Class A1 retail unit

Following a petition and an objection, the application for a takeaway at 46 Hoylake Road, Bidston which can be viewed on this map here has been turned down.

The reason given for refusal is below:-

" The proposal is within 40 metres of a residential dwelling located within a designated Primarily Residential Area and is considered to present potential for noise and disturbance to the amenities that the occupiers of neighbouring uses can reasonably expect to enjoy. The proposal is thereby contrary to Policy HS15 and SH4 of the adopted Wirral Unitary Development Plan and the associated Supplementary Planning Document 3 - Hot Food Takeaways, Restaurants, Cafes and Drinking Establishments. "

Once again it shows that when residents stand up against unwelcome developments in their local area, Wirral Council will turn down applications. I hope however in the near future that this empty shop (and the one next door to it) will be brought back into use.

The detail of the planning application can be read here.

At tonight’s Planning Committee meeting (starting at 6pm in Committee Room 1/2 at Wallasey Town Hall) another planning application unwanted by local residents is on the agenda, which is application APP/11/00065 for the demolition of existing petrol filling station and erection of a Class A1 retail unit. The report suggest to councillors that they should approve this application, despite the petition from over a thousand households against it. Certainly it will be the most well attended and debated item on tonight’s agenda. Interestingly (and unusually) the application has a qualifying petition for and against the proposal.


  1. The petition against has over 1000 signatures, there are also 20 letters of objection. For the proposal there is a petition of 92 signatures and 5 letters of support.

    The planning report has to go on the website a week before the meeting, so these numbers may have changed a little.

    With this level of opposition to it, having mentioned the petition in its favour and a link to the report I don’t think it’s unfair to class such opposition as describing the proposal as “unwanted”. It’s rare that any petition opposing a planning application gets over a thousand signatures.

    I agree with you that unused commercial premises are problematic. I’ll put your question to the person who organised the petition at the Planning Committee tonight and find out what the answer is. All of the three local councillors plus Cllr Stuart Kelly (of nearby Oxton ward) have requested it be taken out of delegation.

    As to who will boycott it, a similar development happened in Claughton (that was also controversial). Since that Tesco opened I haven’t been inside it, but the shop across the road has closed down (that’s in the same building as the Post Office). People are concerned that once a large national chain like Tesco move in that it’ll just lead to more shops closing nearby.

  2. John – I’d suggest that if an application has a petition for and against it then it’s not ‘unwanted’?? I’m a local resident and happily support the application. The empty petrol station is an eyesore and if it’s Tesco or anyone else that develops the site fair play to them. I wonder how many of the 1000 signatories are really local and will boycott the development in the end?