Author: John Brace

The next item was agenda item 4 The Wro, North West House, GRANGE ROAD, WEST KIRBY, CH48 4DY – Signage for the Bar Cafe. The officer said it was a resubmission for an illuminated sign. It had previously been refused but they had now lowered the height. The level of illumination did not exceed that in the technical guidance with was 600 candelas per a square metre. The proposal was 300 candelas per a square metre. It did not lead to clutter.

Cllr Boult said he had no problem with it, but could they add a condition that the light would be on during the time the business was open and switched off outside those hours?

The officer said it was not necessary.

The Chair said he didn’t believe it was obtrusive, but what about late at night? Cllr Boult said it had been dropped down so it was more at eye level. At 3am or 4am it would be intrusive, but he had no problem with it being there. The Chair said he believed there should be a time limit on the signage. Cllr Boult and Cllr Mitchell moved this as a proposal. The Chair asked how a meaningful condition would be phrased? The officer said it would be when the premises were closed. There was a vote. Eight councillors voted in favour. The Chair said having the lights off would save them electricity. Four councillors voted against (three Labour except Cllr Salter). It was approved with the extra condition that the sign would be turned off when the business was closed.

The next item to be considered was item 10 – APP/11/00495 – 133 DIBBINS HEY, SPITAL, CH63 9HE – Proposed garage, lounge and porch extension. The officer introduced is as a resubmission of a previous application that had been refused and had its appeal dismissed. There was a proposed reduction of one metre, but this was not acceptable and it did not meet guidelines as it was contrary to policy HS11. The officers therefore recommended it for approval.

The Chair said the site visit had been beneficial. Cllr Salter said on the site visit, he had seen the size of the extension and understood the reasons. He said it was “well worth going on the site visit” and he had also been shown photographs. The Chair said the site visit had been helpful. Cllr Boult and Cllr Salter recommended it for refusal. All councillors voted to refuse this planning application so it was refused.

The meeting then resumed to the order of the agenda.

The next item to be considered was item 7 – APP/11/00487 – Cleared Site, ORRETS MEADOW ROAD, WOODCHURCH, CH49 9BJ – Proposed development of 14no. 3bedroom houses.

The officer said it was for fourteen two storey dwellings, there were restrictions on housing in the area and the interim housing policy applied. However the applicant had shown there was a local housing need for affordable housing. The design was acceptable and it was recommended for approval subject to a s.106 agreement.

Cllr Mitchell said there had been a series of similar applications in the area, but the original approved layout had not been adhered to. He hoped the applicant and agent would adhere to the layout recommended by Wirral Council. He said there would be a benefit to double-check this otherwise it would be a fait accompli. He asked if a condition could be added?

The officer said the developer was tied into the plans by the decision notice, however there could be a special decision regarding the plans however it was not normal to check.

Cllr Mitchell said it had been done last time.
The Chair said on this occasion they should consider it.
The officer said they’d put an informative in [as part of the decision notice]. The Chair said he was happy. Cllr Mitchell and Cllr Salter recommended it for approval. All councillors voted for it.

Tha applicant said there were many examples of changes to the extension. He said it was an improvement and would lead to property values going up. He was aware of the effects of external regulations and had adapted it to reduce overshadowing and intrusion. The existing eaves lines had been changed and there had been removal of the gable end to the boundary with 26. This had reduced the effective height by 1.6m. There was a loss of sunlight to the rear of 26, but he had attempted to follow the guidance notes and Unitary Development Plan about windows to reduce overlooking and to make sure the building line didn’t come within one metre of the boundary.

The materials of the extension would match existing materials. There would be some effect on neighbouring properties. Any loss of amenity was regrettable, but he maintained a positive relationship with the local community. Approving the application would be a positive for his family and community.

The Chair asked for the impact on the house next door, he asked if there was a ward councillor to speak but there wasn’t. Cllr Salter said the main concern was loss of light, he had looked into the dimensions, there was little loss of light. The effect on next door was very little, however until it was built they would never know.

The Chair said the site visit had been beneficial and officers recommended it for approval. Cllr Peter Johnson proposed it be approved, seconded by Cllr Salter.

All councillors except Cllr Stuart Kelly (who abstained) voted for the application so it was approved.