Author: John Brace

New media journalist from Birkenhead, England who writes about Wirral Council. Published and promoted by John Brace, 134 Boundary Road, Bidston, CH43 7PH. Printed by UK Webhosting Ltd t/a Tsohost, 113-114 Buckingham Avenue, Slough, Berkshire, England, SL1 4PF.

Planning Committee – 15/2/2011 – Part 8 – Change of use from business premises to residential, Tranmere

Cllr Kenny sai he understood planning officers. However just a few yards away were residential properties. He said it was similar to item 10 and he had no objection to the application. He said exceptional circumstance dictated approval. Cllr Mitchell asked about proof. An officer said there was a difference between items 4 and 10. … Continue reading “Planning Committee – 15/2/2011 – Part 8 – Change of use from business premises to residential, Tranmere”

Cllr Kenny sai he understood planning officers. However just a few yards away were residential properties. He said it was similar to item 10 and he had no objection to the application. He said exceptional circumstance dictated approval.

Cllr Mitchell asked about proof. An officer said there was a difference between items 4 and 10. He said no material had been put forward and that it had had a mixed commercial use in the last two years. He said the ward councillor was referring to letters regarding a residential use. He said there was no evidence of marketing for a commercial use.

Cllr Realey referred to the site visit and asked about the Smith & Sons letter. The officer replied that the Smith and Sons letter was in reference to marketing for a residential use.

Cllr Salter referred to the empty units on the Argyle Industrial Estate. Cllr Elderton recognised the officers were correct subject to conditions. He said he was minded to say there was adequate evidence to approve but he didn’t want to set a precedent. Cllr Mitchell said he had listened carefully. He referred to the February 2000 designation as industrial use. He said it was the “thin end of the wedge”. He said they had gone against the UDP regarding useful employment.

Planning Committee – 15/2/2011 – Part 7 – Change of use from business premises to residential, Tranmere

The committee then considered item 4 – Change of use to two self contained ground floor apartments with single storey extension and rear staircase in Argyle Street South, Tranmere. The officer said that it was an application for a residence in an industrial area and there was not sufficient justification.

Cllr Phil Davies (ward councillor for Birkenhead and Tranmere) asked the committee to agree to the application. He said he understood the land was primarily for industrial use and referred to the site visit the day before. Right across the road were residential popular terraced properties. Most were occupied. However this property had been vacant for two years. He said it was difficult to let as a commercial property and that there were already two flats on the first floor on the periphery of the industrial area. He said the applicant had found out that there were seventeen vacant units on the Argyle Industrial Estate and that there was not a demand for commercial property. He said it this application was refused it would be left vacant.

There was already vandalism and with no commercial tenant the vandalism could continue. He had been shown letters from an estate agents showing they would have no problem letting it as a residential property. It was close to the train station and Town Centre and there were exceptional circumstances.

Planning Committee – 15/2/2011 – Part 6 – Rear extension, Halton Crescent, Greasby

The committee then moved onto consider item 7 – the erection of a two storey rear extension in Greasby. The officer said the main objection had been from a neighbour at number 6. The objection had led to the relocation of the bathroom window which was now obscurely glazed. She referred to the site visit the day before.

Cllr Gardiner (ward councillor for Greasby) thanked councillors for coming to the site visit and said there had been a great deal of concern regarding the extension. She said it was by far the biggest in the area. She said it would lead to loss of light and that it was a large and over dominant building. She also said it was out of keeping and worried that it set a precedent.

Cllr Elderton said he’d been not able to attend the site visit and asked to see a site plan. He was shown a ground floor plan. Cllr Mitchell said the site visit was very beneficial and that the application was within guidelines. He said it was difficult to find reasoned arguments to turn the application down. He moved approval which was seconded by Cllr Realey. All councillors voted in favour of approval.

Planning Committee – 15/2/2011 – Part 5 – North West House, West Kirby

Cllr Gilchrist asked about distances and whether the nearest house was less than 30m away. He also asked what materials the canopy would be constructed of as he would prefer it to absorb rather than reflect the sound. The officer replied that the material used would be glass and that separation distances don’t apply as the use was already established by a previous permission. He also said the issue of overlooking or loss of privacy doesn’t apply.

Cllr Kelly said he didn’t know if the proposal exacerbated the problem. He said there were two views, one expressed by the petitioner that it would amplify the sound and the agents view it would not. He said if the canopy did affect the noise it could put the licence at risk.

Cllr Boult said it was a big grey area and he was not 100% sure. He referred to the Environmental Health investigation into the noise problem. Cllr Mitchell said it would be beneficial to defer it to a later date because of noise attenuation. This was seconded by Cllr Salter. Deferring was approved by all except Cllr Realey who voted against deferral.

Planning Committee – 15/2/2011 – Part 4 – North West House, West Kirby

An environmental health officer confirmed the petitioner’s comments that there was an officer out tonight and that there was an event on tonight. A noise analyzer had been in place since 17th January, which would be left in an extra week. He said a crucial factor was whether it was a statutory nuisance or a breach of the licensing objective by being a public nuisance.

If noise levels were found to be excessive at the residential properties then they would need to increase the insulation. If the noise was excessive and a statutory nuisance it could lead to a review of the licence. However until there was clear evidence there was not a great deal that could be done.

Cllr Elderton said it was difficult as they couldn’t confirm whether it exacerbated the noise until it was built. He asked for a picture of the canopy. He asked if it was a bridge too far taking into account the series of complaints. He referred to the concern of the petitioner that it would concentrate the sound and asked if there was going to be sound escaping.

Cllr Kenny pointed out that in the written report there were no environmental health implications and asked for further information.

The officer replied that there were current investigations by Environmental Health regarding noise disturbance. However it was still a question whether the noise caused a statutory nuisance. He said the use was already established.