Category: Housing

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 22nd August 2013 Planning Applications affecting Bidston and St. James ward

A report on recent planning applications decided affecting Bidston and St. James ward and upcoming decisions on planning applications by Wirral Council’s Planning Committee affecting Bidston and St. James ward | 330B St Anne Street | Verosa, 122 Eleanor Road | Rosemead Residential Home 49-51 School Lane | Keepmoat | Cosy Cats Cattery Limited, 2 Lymm Road

cat Firstly a brief update on planning applications decided by Wirral Council officers affecting Bidston & St. James ward from 1st July 2013 to 11th August 2013.

The first is an application type I haven’t seen before called “Planning Pre-Application Enquiry”. Rather confusingly the decision is down as “pre-application reply” (and as it’s not classed as a planning application searching on Wirral Council’s website doesn’t bring up a decision either), but I presume if the applicant gets a positive response indicating that a planning application would be accepted then they’ll then go on to submit a planning application.

Application No.: PRE/13/00078/ENQ Application Type: Planning Pre-Application Enquiry
Decision Level: Delegated
Ward: Bidston and St James
Decision Date: 16/07/2013 Decision: Pre-Application Reply
Case Officer: Mrs S Day
Applicant: Mr Carl Haskalyne Agent:
Location: 330B ST ANNE STREET, BIRKENHEAD, CH41 4FQ
Proposal: Change of use from vacant offices to 2 flats (self contained)

The second (approved) is for a conservatory in Eleanor Road. As usual you can click on the planning application number for further details on Wirral Council’s website.

Application No.: APP/13/00510 Application Type: Full Planning Permission
Decision Level: Delegated
Ward: Bidston and St James
Decision Date: 16/07/2013 Decision: Approve
Case Officer: Mr S Williamson
Applicant: Mr R Connolly Agent: Mr Colin Medlicott
Location: Verosa, 122 ELEANOR ROAD, BIDSTON, CH43 7QS
Proposal: Conservatory to the side of the building

The third (also approved) is to change Rosemead Residential Home in School Lane back to its former use as residential properties. Again for further details you can click on the planning application number.

Application No.: APP/13/00772 Application Type: Full Planning Permission
Decision Level: Delegated
Ward: Bidston and St James
Decision Date: 02/08/2013 Decision: Approve
Case Officer: Mr N Williams
Applicant: Agent:
Location: Rosemead Residential Home, 49-51 SCHOOL LANE, BIDSTON, CH43 7RE
Proposal: Change of use from closed nursing home back to two residential semi-detached dwellings (without internal or external building works)

Unusually there are three planning applications affecting Bidston and St. James ward to be decided by the Planning Committee on Thursday (assuming that the Planning Committee doesn’t decide to go on site visits to them).

The first is Keepmoat’s plan to build 125 houses in the Milner Street/Carrington Street/Rundle Street/Laird Street area. A 20mph zone and traffic calming scheme is included as one of the conditions. Merseyside Police’s architectural liaison officer has concerns that the open nature of the scheme may increase opportunities for crime and makes some recommendations.

The area of this planning application has had houses partly demolished for some time. As tenants living in the area have been moved out and owner occupiers subject to compulsory purchase orders, it’s part of the reason why many of the nearby Laird Street have closed down. I notice also there’s a recommendation for a s.106 agreement with the developer for a very small area of public open space, although with Birkenhead Park, a play area and a games court nearby that’s why it’s smaller than the size of open space you’d expect for 125 houses. A condition (probably as a result of the police’s concerns about crime) also requires security lighting for the open space and the “proposed link to existing footpath”. Hopefully it’ll get approved (as is recommended by officers) and houses will replace the current eyesore of a site that is currently mud and half demolished houses.

The other two planning applications to be decided by the Planning Committee affecting Bidston and St. James ward are related and are both submitted by the alliteratively named Cosy Cats Cattery Limited. They are planning application APP/13/00688 for a cattery comprising of an outbuilding of fifteen small units to house a maximum of twenty cats and an isolation unit and planning application ADV/13/00689 which is for advertisement consent for a fascia sign and hanging sign (for the cattery which is planning application APP/13/00689).

Such minor planning applications would normally be decided by planning officers rather than the Planning Committee, but Cllr Jim Crabtree has removed the application from delegation following one objection to each planning application by the resident of number 2 Eleanor Road.

On the planning application for the signs, the resident objects on the basis of illumination of the signs and confusion as to where the signs will be located. However the report states the signs won’t be illuminated. The report also details where (if approved) the signs will be, one hanging from a post 1.8m high and one on the fence adjacent to the driveway facing east towards the cul-de-sac.

However the main objections from the resident of number two Eleanor Road are in relation to the proposed cattery (eleven separate objections are listed in the report). The report written by planning officers is of the opinion that the objections raised aren’t enough to refuse the application (the officers also dispute the factual accuracy of some of the objections). It’s therefore recommended it for approval, subject to conditions limiting the number of cats to twenty and the hours of operation to between 8 am and 9 pm.

Council Meeting (Wirral Council) (11th February 2013) Kate Wood made Honorary Alderman, Debates on Taxes and Spending

A report on the Council meetings (Wirral Council) of 11th February 2013 along with video footage of the latter. The first was an extraordinary meeting to confer the title of Honorary Alderman on Kate Wood. The second was a regular meeting with motions on local government funding, health, housing, elections, benefits, Area Forums, tax credits, payday loans, public sector contracts and Universal Credit.

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.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Above is the first 2 1/4 hours of the Wirral Councill meeting of 11th February 2013.

Unfortunately the day this finally uploaded, someone rang up my ISP pretending to be the bill payer (my wife) and cancelled the ADSL line (which took a week to set up with another provider).

Prior to the main meeting there was a short (well by Council standards fifteen minutes is short) Extraordinary Meeting to make Kate Wood an Honorary Alderman. As a slight legal footnote for the last two and a half years Wirral Council could also confer the title of Honorary Alderwomen as the last Labour government changed the legislation in 2010. The papers and minutes for that meeting can be found on Wirral Council’s website.

The main meeting that night was much longer.

The first controversial point (at least if you’re a Conservative councillor) was the recommendation from Cabinet for approval by Council that Cllr Steve Foulkes be the Deputy Mayor for 2013/14. However to avoid any long drawn out debate on the merits of Cllr Foulkes as Deputy Mayor, the matter was simply noted on the basis that it’ll be decided at the Annual Council meeting of the 13th May 2013.

As usual only three notices of motion were debated, the first being Labour’s entitled Unfair Cuts in Local Government Funding, along with a Lib Dem amendment.

The second notice was a Conservative motion entitled Council Tax Referendum along with a Labour amendment and Lib Dem amendment.

Around this point I ran out of battery as the meeting was by now two and a quarter hours long.

The last notice of motion debated was a Lib Dem motion entitled Council Finances along with a Labour amendment.

A few of the motions not debated were unanimously agreed (well unanimous except for the abstention of the Mayor) (Vascular Services Review (about moving vascular services from Arrowe Park to the Countess of Chester), “Health Homes” and the Case for Selective Licensing of the Private Rented Sector and Construction Industry Blacklists).

For the rest of the motions and objections there were splits in the vote among party political lines. The first was “Attack on Democracy in Wirral” – a Conservative motion against the move to four yearly elections from 2015/6, the second was “The Empty Rhetoric of Localism” – a Labour motion about Council Tax Benefit, Crisis Loans and Community Care Grants, the third a Conservative objection against abolishing Area Forums and calling for consultation, the fourth a Lib Dem objection to abolishing Area Forums calling for it to be referred to a group of councillors to make recommendations on, the fifth a Labour motion entitled “Cuts to Tax Credits” (as well as a Conservative amendment and Lib Dem amendment), the sixth a Labour motion on “Payday Loans” (as well as a Conservative amendment and Lib Dem amendment), the seventh a Lib Dem motion on “Tax Avoidance and Public Sector Contracts” (as well as a Labour amendment) and the eighth a Lib Dem motion on “Universal Credit” as well as a Labour amendment.

The meeting finished with a number of changes agreed to committee places, after the recent by elections and resignation.

Bidston & Claughton Area Forum 3rd October 2012 Part 4 Council Tax Benefit, Housing Benefit and Universal Credit

Continued from Part 3.

Cllr Foulkes said that the tactic of government was to save money to pay off the deficit and that they had to save £3.2 million or find it elsewhere. He said that he didn’t invent the figure, but if they believed in Council Tax Benefit for certain groups it would be implemented.

Paddy said that just because people had mortgages and things were tight didn’t stop them eating and that the changes could cripple people. He said it could be done over a longer period of time and that the deficit was going up.

Cllr Foulkes said it didn’t support it and agreed [with Paddy]. He said he was a Labour councillor and that the way to get out of the depression was to stimulate the economy.

Cllr Harry Smith said that as well as the possible cuts to Council Tax benefit and the issue of spare bedrooms affecting Housing Benefit, that service charges were going to be removed from Housing Benefit and that the current Wirral Partnership Homes service charge for sheltered accommodation was about £13/week. He said that this would affect the poorest in society.

Cllr Foulkes said that rents were no longer going to be paid directly to landlords and that landlords would have to collect the rent, which would be a massive change.

A member of the public asked a question about Council Tax Benefit/Housing Benefit and the means testing system.

The officer said that they wouldn’t get more money next year for new claims, but they would try and divide it as best they can, these decisions were being consulted on as to whether people wanted Council Tax to go up or the debt to fall on the most vulnerable people.

Cllr Foulkes asked if they would still administer Housing Benefit?

The officer said that they would, but there would be changes to reductions for excess rooms, one room would result in 14% less, two rooms 25% less.

A member of the public asked about a family of four who needed this income who were on tax credits and how it couldn’t be looked at in isolation.

The officer said there would be a discretionary fund.

Cllr Foulkes said that people were “blissfully ignorant” and they had “not got a clue” what was coming round. He suggested that they ask all Area Forums to have an expert give a demonstration to tell people what was coming round the corner. He suggested there was a knowledge gap and that an expert making a presentation explaining what it meant for certain families would be useful.

Donnie said that Wirral Partnership Homes had done that with a mailing about the bedroom tax, which had a four page breakdown about what it meant to people.

Cllr George Davies said that pensioners were exempt from the changes, but referred also to the change to Universal Credit.

An officer said they could give six or seven worked examples.

Donnie said that people were not understanding the changes.

Cllr Foulkes said that it was different for tenants with organisations with resources such as Wirral Partnership Homes, but private tenants, community groups and church groups were up a creek and needed to have a semblance of understanding to mitigate the impact of the changes. He also said the appeal and claim process would be made more difficult and if the benefit was lost it would take “ages and ages” to appeal.

Paddy said it was important people had enough “bread and two potatoes” to eat, but what are people going to do? He said it was life and death with people starving and that “we are the plebs”, whereas government ministers were more concerned with what they have with their Beaujolais. He again referred to the crisis loans.

Cllr Harry Smith referred to people having to downsize because of the bedroom situation, but that Wirral Partnership Homes didn’t have enough one-bedroom homes.

Continued at Part 5.

Planning Committee 6/3/2012 Part 2 – APP/11/00715 2-4 Laird Street, 212-214 Park Road North and 38, 39 and 40 Bray Street, Birkenhead, Wirral CH41 8BY

A report on the Planning Committee’s decision on the 6th March 2012 to allow demolition of houses in Laird Street, Birkenhead and nearby roads to facilitate new housing

The committee then moved to consider the first of two planning applications involving Bidston & St. James ward. The first involved the demolition of a number of vacant community buildings in Laird Street, along with a number of properties on Park Road North and Bray Street.

The officer said the planning application was for demolition of two buildings which was a brownfield site in a regeneration area which would be redeveloped for affordable housing. He said Keepmoat Homes already had a separate developer’s agreement with Wirral Partnership Homes. He said retaining these buildings was not a cost effective option and that the recommended separation distances were not wholly achieved. There was a qualifying petition.

The Chair invited the petitioner to talk to the Planning Committee.

Professor Robert Lee introduced himself as the Chair of the Friends of Birkenhead Park. He said he had been told by officers it was not possible to give a Powerpoint presentation, but asked how many had seen the houses? Professor Lee said they were not listed buildings and weren’t able to be listed, but had been built in 1882 by the Laird family and had been standing for 134 years.

Professor Lee told those present that at the Wirral History and Heritage Fair they had collected an extra eighty-five signatures on their petition, which showed the depth of concern. He said that those signing held the Planning Committee responsible and that “public opinion was clear”. The professor pointed to the quality of the buildings, which were of superior quality, a “rich period character” and pointed out that these were all comments of Wirral Council’s Conservation Area staff.

Professor Robert Lee was keen to emphasise the importance of neighbourhood planning as well as the opportunity for voluntary and community groups to shape proposals. He said that only one public event had been run for the whole site which less than thirty people had attended and that the developer had never consulted the Friends of Birkenhead Park. He went on further to say that the Presbyterian Church had been “kept in the dark” and that a Hugh Jones (treasurer, deacon and secretary) had quoted a Welsh hymn by saying that they were “living in a wilderness”. The professor said there had been serious deficiencies of process and that the key issue was a refurbishment option and the way it had been dismissed.

Professor Lee referred to the report highlighting the long-term settlement and poor condition of the boundary wall as well as a funding gap of £322,000. He said the Friends of Birkenhead Park wanted an independent survey, which had been refused, as the report had been commissioned by the developer to facilitate demolition. Their report said that if it was not demolished, then it would cast delivery of the project into doubt if planning permission was not forthcoming. He questioned the figures used and said that the comparable sale values in taking into account terraces in Cavendish Street were incorrect as these were a lower quality. If it had been done by one of his students, he would’ve failed them.

He wanted the developer to look at a realistic figures to eliminate the funding gap and at the option of flats. Professor Lee said that Birkenhead Park was a key prospect for World Heritage status and this bid was supported by Peel. If in the immediate buffer zone properties were demolished or new construction was not fitting they would fail in their bid. He referred to a claim of the new Cabinet Member for Leisure and Tourism and asked the Planning Committee to reject the application and to ask the developer to reconsider and to consider refurbishment.

The Chair thanked Professor Lee and said they would look at it on its merits, he wanted to clarify that the houses were great as they are but not listed. He asked the applicant to speak in support of the applicant.

The applicant introduced himself as Alan McGuinness, Regional Development Manager for Keepmoat Homes. Mr. McGuiness said they had been consulting with the Planning Department over various regeneration sites in the Laird Street and Birkenhead area, to look at how to present a proposal in keeping with the street scene. He said they had consulted with the Planning Department over what proposal was in keeping and as benefit going forward, he wanted to respond to some of the points raised by Professor Lee.

Mr. McGuinness said they had looked at the condition and viability and taken stock of the refurbishment costs versus the value of the property delivered compared to the price they’d be able to sell it at and found it wasn’t viable. He said they had tried to replicate a nice facade, they had consulted, but couldn’t be held responsible for the numbers turning up to a consultation event.

The Chair asked if there was a ward councillor present. There wasn’t.

Cllr John Salter said that he knew the houses well and the area. Fourteen properties had been written to and it had been advertised in the press as well as an open day. He supported Professor Lee and would love to keep the empty buildings, but where would the money come from? Cllr Salter said the country was “in dire straits” and that he would support the application.

Cllr Stuart Kelly said that it was a major thoroughfare and a gateway and that they couldn’t dismiss it. He said they were “splendid looking buildings” and referred to the Conservation Area over the road.

The Chair asked to see an elevation.

The officer showed the elevation and said that the corner building would be replaced with a block. The Chair referred to the points made by the objector and the concerns about heritage status. He said that the refurbishment option was not viable or commercial and there had been comments about the condition. He said they had a recommendation for approval subject to conditions.

Cllr Stuart Kelly asked a point of clarification about the block shown in the elevation and whether it was flats? The officer said that was what was proposed.

Cllr John Salter and Cllr Dave Mitchell proposed and seconded approval of the application.

Councillors except Cllr Patricia Glasman and Cllr Stuart Kelly voted for. Cllr Glasman and Cllr Kelly voted against so the application was approved.

Professor Lee then made a plea to the developer to carry out a digital report prior to demolition. The Chair said it was not normally a debate, however asked the Planning Committee if they would add it as an extra condition, which they were happy to do so.

Economy and Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee 7th November 2011 Part 11 social housing, single room rate, HMOs, landlords

Cllr Wittingham asked if they would use Wirral Partnership Homes, the answer given was yes.

Cllr Realey said she had concerns about the under 35s and the single room rate which comes into effect in January 2012. She said this would reduce benefit for those affected with private landlords to £63/week. Cllr Realey said it would affect seven hundred to nine hundred people with a nine month contingency. Until people were thirty-five they would only be allowed a room. What were they doing she asked?

Ian said it would address under occupation and its impacts. They would work with registered social landlords and private sector landlords over the introduction of the new rules. There would be opportunities for sharing and a raft of different approaches.

Cllr Realey said in Devonshire Park there were a lot of big houses being converted to HMOs. If landlords were getting £65/week for each one this would “bring back bedsit land”. The Chair expressed concerns over the effect on the elderly and the young and asked for a further report on it as well as on the HMRI situation.