Category: Wirral Council

Agenda item 4 was introduced as a mix of care and residential use with bungalows and two storey flats. There was screening for the development which would remove a non conforming use. Cllr Kelly asked about access to the site from two named roads. He said he had looked at it on Google Earth. He mentioned bollards and asked about vehicle access to the proposed site. He said there was no condition to bollard the entry which would need a Traffic Regulation Order to be processed. He asked for a condition to be added. Matthew Rushton said it was not as a specific condition but it would be best as a condition. The Chair said it was appropriate to have a condition regarding details of these facing the South-East. Cllr Kelly asked if this would remove permitted development rights. All councillors voted in favour, including the addition of the extra condition.

Item 6 had an amendment to the conditions. Cllr Mitchell and Johnson proposed. All were in favour.

Item 7 had been withdrawn.

Item 8 was proposed by Cllr Mitchell and Cllr Boult. All were in favour.

Item 9 had been agreed earlier in the meeting for a site visit.

Item 10 was proposed by Cllr Johnson and Cllr Mitchell.

The Chair commented that Cllr Realey had not been as vocal and vociferous as usual.

Item 10 was approved by all councillors.

Item 11 was proposed by Cllr Mitchell and Cllr Johnson and was approved.
Item 12 was proposed by Cllr Mitchell and Cllr Johnson and was approved.

Cllr Johnson asked what “sui generis” meant on page 70 on item 14. Unfortunately the planning officer didn’t turn his microphone on so I didn’t hear the answer.

Cllr Boult said he had a problem and wanted to discuss something in closed session without the press and public present. The Chair said it was unusual but agreed so the rest of the meeting considering any other business was held in closed session.

The Chair said it would be dedicated to the hundred and forty households. He said it was better to consult these hundred and forty people asking under the circumstances whether they wanted it or not? He said “Everybody made mistakes”. Matthew Rushton said further consultation would come from the Parks and Countryside Service who have the money which was one option. Cllr Elderton asks for suggested solutions. He said he accepted a or b. Options a and b were proposed and seconded.

There was a vote which split along party lines. Seven councillors (Lib Dem and Labour) voted for option A. Five councillors voted against for option B. Therefore option A (The Local Planning Authority accepts the dedication of land and constructs a play area to the value of £56,000 (plus interest), on that portion of the site indicated at Appendix 1) was accepted.

Cllr Lewis asked if they would have to get planning permission. Matthew Rushton said it was permitted development so it didn’t require planning permission. It would be designed and they would apply for permission. The Chair said the original s.106 was flawed and this was retrospective. He was not happy it was a practical solution. Matthew Rushton said there would be a twelve month period as it would have to fit in with the work program. The Chair said they had spent a lot of time on it. Cllr Mitchell asked why as they had made the decision they hadn’t moved on to the next item? The Chair agreed that was the end of it.

Cllr Salter said he had been on Planning Committee for nearly ten years. Large developments included a play area. The Council or the builder had done wrong. There had been a big argument about Port Sunlight where they hadn’t wanted children to play. They played on the roads instead so he had decided to go for option a). Cllr Kelly asked how large was the original application in terms of number of houses.

Cllr Elderton said it was for one hundred and forty houses. Cllr Kelly asked about traffic calming on the Reeds Lane/Dibbins Lane junction and the status of the 3600 m² in its Unitary Development Plan designation for example Green Open Space. Matthew Rushton said it had triggered a threshold because of the number of houses which required a play area. The policies had not changed since then.

Technical Services referred to the crossing from Whiteheath to Reeds Lane. Matthew Rushton said in the Unitary Development Plan it was primarily residential and specifically an amenity open space. It was unlikely to get planning permission for development as the policies had been tightened up regarding flooding. It was not a green space due to the plan and policy recommendation to develop a play area. Cllr Hayes said the circumstances had changed and asked Where will the children play? He said there was a brand new play area for them. He said with retrospective public opposition they should go for B and accept the 3600 m² of land.