John Brace | A blog about Wirral Council, Wirral Council's councillors & officers

Planning Committee 19th July 2011 – APP/11/00449 – 24 DIBBINSDALE ROAD, BROMBOROUGH, CH63 0HH – Rear 1st floor extension Part 2

The petitioner continued by saying she was against the size and close proximity. She said planning permission had been relaxed for large families, but that was not the case here. In her view less regulation had led to a “build anything you like” if there was “similar in the area”. She couldn’t think of anything … Continue reading “Planning Committee 19th July 2011 – APP/11/00449 – 24 DIBBINSDALE ROAD, BROMBOROUGH, CH63 0HH – Rear 1st floor extension Part 2”

The petitioner continued by saying she was against the size and close proximity. She said planning permission had been relaxed for large families, but that was not the case here. In her view less regulation had led to a “build anything you like” if there was “similar in the area”. She couldn’t think of anything that obstructed light and privacy locally to this extent and asked, “Where would it end?”

She said the rules don’t apply to detached property, but if had been a semi-detached they would be required to stick to 2.5m. She said if they lived in a semi-detached property it would not be allowed as it would be too close and the length was a problem as well. The petitioner said there needs to be a detached rule. She asked “Why it was ok, why had they been disregarded and what would it take for the regulations to change?” so that “things can be changed a little”.

The Chair asked if the applicant was present. He was and introduced himself as Tim Swan of 24 Dibbinsdale Road. He said he had lived there since July 1994 and it had been in a poor state and needed updating. In 1999 there had been an extension, the proposal was for 3/4 bedrooms, 165 Sq m and a garage. He hoped to build on top of the first floor with 31 Sq m. The plot was 500 Sq m, this occupied 125 Sq m. He was proud he had developed and maintained the property for over seventeen years. His children had attended local schools. However it “doesn’t meet the needs of the family”. He wanted to ensure the property met the future needs.

Planning Committee 19th July 2011 – Welcome, minutes, site visits, APP/11/00449 – 24 DIBBINSDALE ROAD, BROMBOROUGH, CH63 0HH – Rear 1st floor extension Part 1

The Chair welcomed people to the Planning Committee meeting and introduced himself as David Elderton. He pointed out the elected councillors would be making decisions but there were also planning officers and legal officers to advise as and if necessary.

The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed.

The Chair asked for any declarations of interest. Cllr Realey declared a prejudicial interest in item 14 as she was referred to, she said she couldn’t recall what she had said but she’d rather stay out.

There were no requests for site visits.

The agenda was rearranged to take into account members of the public present for each item.

The first item was item 6 – APP/11/00449 – 24 DIBBINSDALE ROAD, BROMBOROUGH, CH63 0HH – Rear 1st floor extension.

The Chair told the petitioner that she had up to five minutes. She introduced herself as Kim of 26 Dibbinsdale Road which was next door to number 24. She also said she was speaking for a Mr & Mrs Kirby of 22 Dibbinsdale Road. She thanked the Planning Committee for the opportunity to address them but said she “would’ve liked the opportunity to see for themselves” the site. She had been told planning officers had assumed she was on holiday, which had not been the case. She said the petitioners can’t see the logic of what was envisaged. She commented on the “sheer size of the development” which she thought was “3.85m not 3.2m, nearly 4m, a double storey with a roof which dominates the line cast by the path of the sun”. She said it decreased the value of their homes, she also felt it was overdevelopment of the property and would lead to lack of privacy.

Council – 18th July – Part 5 – Questions

Cllr Foulkes thanked me for the question, promised a written answer (after consulting with Bill Norman and Cllr Green) but said he hadn’t been Leader of the Council at the time it happened.

The Mayor then asked the Braces to leave and go to the public gallery. Cllr Brace struggled in pain and walked slowly with her stick and they both missed the next few minutes of the meeting as a result.

When they reached the public gallery Cllr Phil Davies was answering a question. His answer made little sense without knowing what the question was.

It was something to do with Green Zone 2025 and the evidence base for the core strategy. Cllr Gilchrist asked a second question, this time to Cllr Foulkes with regards to the Strategic Change Programme. He referred to the fact that the SCP Board had not met since before the election and asked about the political oversight and accountability.

Cllr Foulkes thanked Phil for this question, and said he was “glad he had raised progress regarding the Strategic Change Program”. On Thursday there would be a full meeting over this matter and he wanted to have “proposals as soon as possible”. He referred to the organisation that had taken place after people had left and that himself, the Deputy Leader and portfolio holder were setting a date for an urgent meeting this Friday before there were final conclusions. He recognised the hard work of the previous Chair.

Council – 18th July – Part 4 – Matters requiring approval, Matters for noting, Questions.

Matters requiring approval were agreed apart from minute 26 ((Cabinet – 23/6/11) Financial Out-Turn 2010/11), which would be dealt with separately. Matters for noting were agreed.

The first question to Cllr Foulkes was from myself and is below.

The press and the public (except the petitioner) were not admitted to the Budget Council meeting until part way through the third item. Many had turned up to hear the petition about the care home closures. Both myself and my wife have hearing problems and found it hard to follow the meeting due to the disturbances. When the meeting was adjourned, the public gallery was cleared. The public were sent to Committee Room 1 where speeches could not be heard (for example Cllr Green’s or Cllr Foulkes’) over the speakers and someone was smoking. Many members of the public went home.

During the adjournment my wife and I spoke to Bill Norman and were told that members of the public would be readmitted to the public gallery after those present to create a disturbance had left. One of my local councillors spoke on this issue.

Cllr Green is quoted in the Wirral Globe of the 25th February as stating “Technology now means that people can blog, film or broadcast using their phone or hi-definition video camera. I want people to have as much information as they want about their council, whether they are sitting in the public gallery at the town hall or sitting at home on their laptop.”

It was clearly not possible for any member of the public to film using their phone or video camera as they weren’t allowed in the same room! Wirral Council has a legal requirement to “afford reasonable facilities for taking their report” of those from the local press, news agencies or recording sound or video. I have discussed what happened with fellow NUJ colleagues. Can you provide a written response regarding Wirral Council’s current policy in this area which will help at future meetings?

Council – 18th July – Part 3 – Leaders Statement

He said the Carers’ Champion was Cllr Sheila Clarke and the Play Champion Cllr Chris Meaden, as they had needed a Play Champion in order to get a grant. The Compact Champion was Cllr Kelly and there was also Cllr Stapleton. These four Champions had been appointed by the previous Leader. He felt as the leader had changed, the Champions had to change. There was also a Fairtrade, Faith, Surestart and Library Champion. Cllr Foulkes’ view was that as these had been created by the previous Leader there was a case to engage scrutiny to ask the Executive if they would create independent champions or they’d have to be replaced. He thought scrutiny should take up the scrutiny mantle and finally on the vexed issue of councillor’s allowances, he believed the Independent Renumeration Panel should allow political parties to put ideas forward. It was due to convene on the 27th September. However it was “not for councillors to announce their income” and it “should be fair”.

He had welcomed a delegation headed by Du Guoling who had brought new private entrepreneurs from Chinese areas and had been given a presentation on Wirral Waters. He hoped the linked would continue and jobs would be created. Cllr Foulkes said the previous Leader and new Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group were as one and trying to create new business. The Contact Group had created 500 jobs, the Mayor hadn’t made it to the opening of a Travelodge and New Brighton had been “transformed”. He also referred to a (after a few goes at pronouncing it correctly) polyurethane unit in Birkenhead which he said should be celebrated.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: