12 Planning Committee councillors vote to refuse a planning application for a sports hall at Great Meols Primary School

12 Planning Committee councillors vote to refuse a planning application for a sports hall at Great Meols Primary School

12 Planning Committee councillors vote to refuse a planning application for a sports hall at Great Meols Primary School

                       

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.

Planning application (APP/14/00011:Great Meols Primary School, Elwyn Road, Meols, CH47 7AP: Erection of a sports hall and relocation of store buildings) starts at 2:45 in the video above

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 20th March 2014 twelve councillors vote to refuse planning application for sports hall at Great Meols Primary School one abstains
Twelve councillors on Wirral Council’s Planning Committee (Cllr Stuart Kelly, Cllr Simon Mountney, Cllr Kathy Hodson, Cllr Phil Brightmore, Cllr Joe Walsh, Cllr Irene Williams, Cllr Bernie Mooney, Cllr Eddie Boult, Cllr Tony Norbury, Cllr David Elderton, Cllr Christina Muspratt and Cllr Paul Hayes) vote to refuse a planning application for sports hall at Great Meols Primary School

Sheila Day explained the reasons why officers were recommending this planning application was approved. She explained that it was for a sports hall and for moving a storage building. The sports hall had the potential for community use. Sports England response to being consulted on the application had been that its size with only one court and lack of changing facilities would limit its potential for use by the community.

The proposed height of the sports hall roof was seven to eight metres, however there was an amended design for the roof different to the original application. It would be at least forty-five metres away from the nearest houses with greater separation distances in other directions.

A condition proposed limited the use of the sports hall on Monday to Friday from 7am to 9.30pm, Saturdays 9am to 6pm and no use at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays without the prior approval of Wirral Council. Wirral Council’s traffic and transportation division had no objection to the application on highway safety grounds. There was a qualifying petition of fifty-three residents opposing the application being granted.

A Robert Davidson of 23 Guffets Rake, Meols addressed the Planning Committee on behalf of the petitioners. He described the area the site was in as a “residential area” and referred to policies HS15 (Non-Residential Uses in Primarily Residential Areas), RE1 (Criteria for Urban Recreation Facilities) and RE10 (Criteria for Community Centres and Facilities).

He quoted from the report which stated “The scale of the proposed sports hall is considered appropriate to surrounding two-storey dwellings” and disagreed with this opinion as in his view it was of an inappropriate scale. Mr Davidson asked the Planning Committee to look at a photo of the existing school buildings which were all at a low-level and built with traditional residential materials.

Mr Robert Davidson was also concerned about a change in ground levels between the school and housing and described the proposed sports hall as a “featureless rectangular box” with “industrial cladding” that looked like it was “straight off an industrial estate”. He did not feel it had any place in a residential landscape. Mr Davidson said that the school had started as a village school and that fourteen previous planning applications for the school were unopposed. The local residents had asked the school to compromise by reducing the height and changing the materials used. However the school had refused to do this.

Mr Davidson referred again to policy RE1 (Criteria for Urban Recreation Facilities) and quoted from section two that “the proposals would not give rise to unacceptable levels of noise or other disturbance, particularly to areas of residential property”. He referred to the proposed condition limiting its use, however access to the school would be along small residential roads. The school was surrounded by housing and was a quiet environment when the school was closed and at night there was darkness and silence.

In his view, the community use of the sports hall would be the opposite of this as it could be permanently open with noisy aerobics classes and cars coming and going. He referred to the view expressed in the report by an environmental health officer that any noise or light pollution could be dealt with under existing environmental health legislation. Mr Davidson felt however that this should be addressed as part of the planning process. He urged the Planning Committee to refuse the planning application on the grounds that it was not of an acceptable scale and design and finished with a quote from the architect for the Shard (Renzo Piano) “Architecture is a very dangerous job. If a writer makes a bad book, people don’t read it. But if you make bad architecture, you impose ugliness on a place for a hundred years.”

The applicant chose not to address the Planning Committee, however a ward councillor for Hoylake & Meols Councillor John Hale did. He referred to the “excellent summary” by the petitioner and also referred to policy HS15 (Non-Residential Uses in Primarily Residential Areas).

Councillor Hale said that HS15 allowed small scale developments in residential areas, but only ones that had no detrimental impacts on the character of the area or the amenities of the occupiers. The proposed height of the sports hall was twice the height of the existing buildings and a little higher which Cllr Hale described as an “alien feature” like the buildings found on an industrial estate. In his view it was out of character for that residential area.

He felt that the community use of the sports hall and the resulting noise meant that it couldn’t comply with policy RE1. Although the residents expected noise form the school during the day from children, noise in the evening was a different situation. The school was a local amenity appreciated by the residents but he felt that as the maximum age of the children at the school was eleven that all that was required was a single storey building as a sports hall. Cllr Hale said that very few children he knew could hit a shuttlecock higher than the height of a normal ceiling. His objection was to the Planning Committee approving an application for a “monstrosity” in a residential area.

Cllr Tony Norbury asked what the reason was for the height of the sports hall? Sheila Day replied that the height was a recommendation by Sports England as it would be used for badminton. Cllr Simon Mountney asked to see elevations of the proposed buildings. Cllr David Elderton said that he lived about half a mile away from the school and that he had lived in the area since the 1950s. In his opinion it was of a “grossly intrusive industrial style” and based on what he’d seen on the site visit would affect the visual and local neighbourhood amenities. He said he was all in favour of facilities but that it was a “bridge too far”, “too big” and that he’d prefer they go away and come back with something more sympathetic. Cllr Elderton said he would be voting against approval.

Cllr Christina Muspratt asked why they were no changing facilities? Sheila Day answered that the school had existing changing facilities elsewhere on the site. Cllr Phil Brightmore described the sports hall as “huge” compared to the surrounding buildings. Sheila Day replied that the officer’s opinion was that the height of the proposed sports hall was similar to the heights of the surrounding houses.

Cllr Eddie Boult asked what the extra height added to the existing building would be if planning application for the sports hall was approved? As it was a sloping roof on the sports hall an officer answered that it would be an extra 3.5 metres at one end and 2.5 metres at the other. Cllr Eddie Boult said he had listened to people’s point of view and was proposing refusal of the application based on his view that the height and bulk of the building was unsympathetic and that it affected the amenities of the surrounding area contrary to policy HS15. Cllr Simon Mountney seconded refusal of the application.

Twelve councillors voted to reject the application (Cllr Stuart Kelly, Cllr Simon Mountney, Cllr Kathy Hodson, Cllr Phil Brightmore, Cllr Joe Walsh, Cllr Irene Williams, Cllr Bernie Mooney, Cllr Eddie Boult, Cllr Tony Norbury, Cllr David Elderton, Cllr Christina Muspratt and Cllr Paul Hayes). No councillors voted against refusal but Cllr Anita Leech abstained. The planning application for the sports hall was refused.

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

Planning Committee rejects plans for 4 houses in Noctorum Dell (OUT/13/01184)

Planning Committee rejects plans for 4 houses in Noctorum Dell (OUT/13/01184)

Planning Committee rejects plans for 4 houses in Noctorum Dell (OUT/13/01184)

                        

Cllr George Davies (Claughton) tells the Planning Committee why he thinks they should reject plans for four houses in Noctorum Dell

Cllr George Davies (Claughton) tells the Planning Committee why he thinks they should reject plans for four houses in Noctorum Dell

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.

Planning application OUT/13/01184 starts at 6:20 in the video above.

Despite a recommendation from planning officers to approve plans for four houses in Noctorum Dell, after hearing representations from the lead petitioner, a representative of Condy & Lofthouse Architects Ltd and Cllr George Davies (Claughton), the Planning Committee decided unanimously to reject the plans due to the impact on the character of the area (policy HS4), drainage concerns (policies GR7 and HS4) and because it would have an impact on the character and environmental qualities of Noctorum Ridge (policies HS4 and SPD2).

The lead petitioner said, “Many residents are elderly, frail or vulnerable like myself. My husband suffered a stroke ten years ago, he will not cope with the disturbance that this will cause and I as his carer neither will I. As a Council you have a duty of care to your public and the people who vote for you to be in the position that you hold.”

Councillor Stuart Kelly said that three-storey buildings would be out of character for the area and also highlighted concerns he had about flooding and drainage. Cllr Anita Leech also had concerns about drainage and the overbearing impact on nearby bungalows.

Cllr Denise Roberts (Claughton) moved refusal of the planning application, which was seconded by Cllr Denise Realey.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Wirral Council’s Planning Committee agrees to outline planning application for four bungalows on the Paddock, Kinloss Road, Greasby (OUT/13/00826) (31st October 2013)

Wirral Council’s Planning Committee agrees to outline planning application for four bungalows on the Paddock, Kinloss Road, Greasby (OUT/13/00826) (31st October 2013)

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.

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.

The first planning application starts at 5:15 in the first video above.

Wirral Council’s Planning Committee agrees to outline planning application for four bungalows on the Paddock, Kinloss Road, Greasby (OUT/13/00826) (31st October 2013)

                              

This continues from Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 31st October 2013 Minutes, Declarations of Interest and Site Visits.

The first planning application decided (and the one that many people had come along to see a decision made on) was for four bungalows and some amenity open space on the Paddock, Kinloss Road, Greasby.

The Chair, Cllr Bernie Mooney asked an officer to introduce the planning application. He explained what it was for, why the officers had recommended it for approval and the officer’s response to the objections raised (which were mainly highway safety issues). He said that although it had a value as an open space, it was not designated as a green space or open to the public.

The lead petitioner introduced herself as Helen O’Donnell and explained why a hundred and forty-nine people had signed a petition objecting to the planning application. The first area of concern was safe access into and out of the housing estate, the petitioners felt that leaving this land open had been integral to the design of the original RAF estate. The petitioners felt that building here would lead to a loss of sight lines and a reduction in highway safety. Concerns were also raised about what would happen to the laybys which the petitioners felt were needed for a free flow of traffic. Helen O’Donnell also wanted the green rural route protected by the Planning Committee not approving the planning application.

The applicant, who introduced herself as Mrs. Glynn said that she hadn’t seen the photos circulated by Helen O’Donnell. She pointed out that the planning officers had recommended it for approval and that the proposed buildings were single storey and of a low density. She felt that everything had been done to meet the objector’s needs and repeated that it was recommended for approval by the planning department.

Cllr Steve Foulkes said he would like to hear from councillors who had been on the site visit. The Chair said that she had been on the site visit and that she couldn’t see what difference four households would make to access. Cllr Wendy Clements asked where the dwellings would be and asked for a response from the officers about the speed of traffic.

Matthew Rushton referred to an extra condition on the late list and that the greenery on the other side of the roundabout was maintained as public open space. An officer responded on highways safety grounds that there had been no accidents there over the last five years.

Cllr Eddie Boult said that he couldn’t see a problem with traffic on the site visit and that he found the photo circulated by the petitioners misleading as it was of a different area.

Cllr Geoffrey Watt said that he had also been on the site visit. Although he would be sad to see the loss of openness, there were still some green spaces left and he couldn’t think of a good planning reason for rejecting the planning application. He asked if a condition could be added to restrict the buildings to a single storey?

Cllr David Elderton pointed out that the photos weren’t of the site and that the police enforced the speed limit on this stretch of road, he agreed with Cllr Watt that it was nice to see urban green space, but again he couldn’t see any reasons for objecting to it.

Cllr Stuart Kelly agreed with what was said about traffic and pointed out that in the report it stated that it wasn’t designated as urban green space, however in the open space assessment it had been designated as open space (although officers had advised him this was in error). He referred to paragraphs seventy-four and seventy-seven of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy HS4. Cllr Kelly didn’t feel there were grounds to refuse it on highway safety grounds. He referred to a covenant on the land stating it was for grazing purposes.

The Chair thanked Cllr Kelly for his contribution. Cllr Foulkes said that when he had first joined the Council [in 1990], he had been on the Unitary Development Plan Working Party, but nobody had lobbied them then to make this land green space. He recognised that local people believed it was green space, but that the developer had set aside part of the land as an amenity space, he said he would struggle to support refusal if Cllr Kelly moved it. He felt that the extra car movements from four bungalows was insignificant and that he welcomed the comments from people who’d been on the site visit and pointed out that the photo was of somewhere else.

Matthew Davies said that it was designated in the Unitary Development Plan as a primary residential area. He referred to the criteria for a green space designation under the National Planning Policy Framework and said it couldn’t be described as beautiful and that it didn’t have historic or recreational value. If the planning application was refused on these grounds he thought that they would struggle to defend the decision at appeal.

Cllr Wendy Clements said she had looked at the map online and it was designated as urban green space.

Matthew Davies said that they had had a piece of work undertaken as part of the core strategy as to where the open spaces were. The consultant had picked this site, whereas Wirral Council had meant the consultant instead to include the site maintained by the parks and recreation department on the other side of the roundabout.

Cllr Watt asked again about a condition limiting the bungalows to a single storey. Matthew Davies replied that there could be a condition added restricted it to a single storey.

Cllr Denise Realey proposed approval (with the extra condition), Cllr Irene Williams seconded this. Eight councillors voted in favour. Three (Cllr Stuart Kelly, Cllr Geoffrey Watt and Cllr Paul Hayes) voted against. One councillor abstained, so the application was approved.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 31st October 2013 Minutes, Declarations of Interest and Site Visits

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 31st October 2013 Minutes, Declarations of Interest and Site Visits

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.

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 31st October 2013 Minutes, Declarations of Interest and Site Visits

                         

After the Chair explained who people were and the procedures they’d use. The minutes of the meeting held on the 26th September 2013 were approved without any alterations and the Planning Committee moved to declarations of interest.

Cllr Stuart Wittingham declared a personal interest in item 4 (APP/13/00404: Shell Service Station, Church Lane, Woodchurch, CH49 7LR – New single storey retail unit).

Cllr Geoffrey Watt explained that he had been a lately agreed deputy to the Planning Committee and had previously met with the objectors to item 15 (APP/13/01144: Co Operative Food Store, Frankby Road, Newton, CH48 9UU – The installation of a new ATM and shopfront sections) at a time when he was planning to speak on their behalf as their ward councillor. He declared a prejudicial interest in this item and stated he would leave the room while it was discussed.

Cllr David Elderton requested site visits for item 9 (APP/13/00980: The Shieling, 60 Pipers Lane, HESWALL, CH60 9HN – Two Storey detached domestic property) and item 19 (APP/13/00956: 9 Garden Hey Road, Meols, CH47 5AS – Erection of a single storey rear extension, garage conversion and alterations to existing roof to include a hip to gable and rear dormer). Cllr Anita Leech requested a site visit for item 4 (APP/13/00404: Shell Service Station, CHURCH LANE, WOODCHURCH, CH49 7LR – New single storey retail unit). The three requests for site visits were agreed by the Planning Committee.

The Planning Committee then discussed the first planning application which was item 6 (OUT/13/00826: Paddock, KINLOSS ROAD, GREASBY, CH49 3PS – Outline application for development of 4 residential units, and the provision of amenity open space).

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 26th September 2013 APP/13/00827: Mapleholme, 101 Beckwith Street, Birkenhead, CH41 3JP – Demolition of the two existing vacant buildings on the site and the development of 16 two-bedroom 2 storey houses and 2 two-bedroom bungalows with associated private garden space and car parking (18 Dwellings in total – amended description)

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 26th September 2013 APP/13/00827: Mapleholme, 101 Beckwith Street, Birkenhead, CH41 3JP – Demolition of the two existing vacant buildings on the site and the development of 16 two-bedroom 2 storey houses and 2 two-bedroom bungalows with associated private garden space and car parking (18 Dwellings in total – amended description)

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.

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 26th September 2013 APP/13/00827: Mapleholme, 101 Beckwith Street, Birkenhead, CH41 3JP – Demolition of the two existing vacant buildings on the site and the development of 16 two-bedroom 2 storey houses and 2 two-bedroom bungalows with associated private garden space and car parking (18 Dwellings in total – amended description)

                             

Continues from Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 26th September 2013 APP/13/00676: Ring O Bells Hotel, Village Road, West Kirby, CH48 7HE – New external children’s play equipment. This planning application starts here in the video.

The officer said that it was a proposal for one hundred percent affordable housing. The site was a vacant care home surrounded by housing. Although it didn’t meet the usual separation distances, falling short by half a metre they had relaxed this policy as it only related to blocks within the proposed development. It was reusing a brownfield site and the officers recommended it for approval.

The Chair asked if there were any questions or comments? Cllr Stuart Kelly said that it was exactly the sort of proposal he was in favour of so he was happy to move approval. Cllr Anita Leech seconded his proposal for approval. All councillors voted in favour of approval.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks: