Planning Committee decides tonight on Rampworx’s plans for a £6m indoor skateboard park in Bidston
Planning Committee decides tonight on Rampworx’s plans for a £6m indoor skateboard park in Bidston
Wirral Council’s Planning Committee are tonight expected to approve plans for a £6 million indoor skateboard park in Bidston. Rampworx Youth Village 2000 Ltd, who already run an existing skatepark in Netherton, Liverpool hope to build it on Valley Road between Wirral Tennis and Leisure Centre’s AstroTurf pitch and the Valley Road Business Park.
The plans which are recommended for approval by planning officers also include office space, a café, “flexible learning spaces”, business support for young entrepreneurs and car parking. Rampworx forecast that once up and running it will attract two thousand visitors a week and will be aim to tackle unemployment and helping sixteen to eighteen year olds who are not in education, employment or training. Rampworx have been working with Wirral Council’s “Special Initiatives Team” in the planning of the project. Wirral Council own the land on which Rampworx want to build the skateboard park.
A report on the Planning Committee meeting of Wirral Council on the 22nd August 2013 about planning application APP/13/00842: Corbiere, Thorsway, Caldy, CH48 2JJ – Demolition of existing house and erection of new dwelling within a similar footprint
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.
The officer said that Cllr Jeff Green had requested the decision be made by the Planning Committee (and not by officers) and that there was a qualifying petition of twenty-nine against it as well as five letters of objection. The application was in a conservation area and was for a two storey house. The officer said that the property had not been occupied for the last two years and that the application was recommended for approval.
The petitioner, David James said he lived next to Corbiere and that he was a member of the Caldy Society and spoke with their full support. He asked why they would agree to demolish part of Caldy’s heritage that fitted perfectly in the conservation area? The petitioner said that the current building could be economically restored. Mr. James said that the footprint of the new building would be greater than the footprint of the original house and that it looked like a “huge office block” and would be a “carbuncle”.
The applicant handed out handouts to the Planning Committee and introduced himself as Stuart Wilson, of 10 The Willow, Lea Park, Meols Drive, Hoylake, Wirral. He said that they had spent eight months discussing the application with planning officers and that Conservation Area officers past and present had said they had worked within the guidelines.
The property was an unoccupied family home, which they had bought in a dilapidated state, it was dangerous in certain parts due to a bodged extension. He felt that its character had been lost beyond economic redemption. Part of the building would be underground which increased the cost and he disputed claims about loss of privacy due to the balcony. The balcony he explained was a service balcony and the windows referred to would be made of opaque glass.
Cllr Watt was next to address the Planning Committee. He said that in the press that Thorsway was one of the highest priced roads in Merseyside and one of the highest points in the Caldy Conservation Area. Although much of the application would be hidden behind screening, he asked the Planning Committee to ask to see the artist’s impression of the new building. Cllr Watt referred to the concerns of the petitioners and asked the Planning Committee to find reasons to refuse the application.
Cllr Elderton asked if they needed permission in a conservation area to demolish and how much influence the Conservation Area officer had had on the application? Cllr Moutney asked for the plans to be displayed.
Matthew Davies replied that there was a conservation area consent application for demolition of the existing building, but it wouldn’t be granted unless there was an acceptable scheme for a replacement dwelling. Therefore it wouldn’t be decided until the application was decided. If the application was approved, then consent for demolition would be granted.
In terms of the input that Conservation Area officers had had, it had been subject to considerable pre-application advice and advice from the urban design officer.
Cllr Elderton said he’d like to see the elevations and artist’s impressions to compare with the previous design. Matthew Davies showed the footprints of the existing building as well as replacement. He also showed the elevations and artists impressions.
Cllr Elderton described it as a out of character for the conservation area and a “1930s office block”. He thought it was unsuitable and wanted to move refusal. Cllr Hayes asked why the conditions only required the trees to stay in place for one year and whether it could be extended?
Matthew Davies replied that they were trying to retain the existing vegetation, but that condition 18 required a full landscaping scheme to be submitted which would detail any replacement trees. Condition 17 sought to retain the existing vegetation while new vegetation was planted.
Cllr Elderton moved refusal of the application on the basis that it was contrary to policy CH11. This was seconded by Cllr Eddie Boult.
The following councillors voted for refusal, Cllr Stuart Kelly, Cllr Les Rowlands, Cllr Simon Moutney, Cllr Paul Hayes, Cllr Eddie Boult, Cllr David Elderton and Cllr Irene Williams (7)
Labour councillors (apart from Cllr Irene Williams) voted against (6)
A report on what happened at the Planning Committee meeting of Wirral Council on the 22nd August 2013 involving a planning application for a Tesco in Wallasey Village.
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.
Cllr Paul Hayes asked questions about the percentage for parking in the report and why there was no transport statement. An officer answered that the reason there was no transport statement was because the applicant had included details of parking and servicing. In his opinion its location on a primary route would not generate a significant volume of traffic as people in vehicles already using the road would nip in to do some shopping.
Cllr Kelly said that he had looked at the Unitary Development Plan map and that the proposal was on the edge of the commercial area where a finger came out to take in the development on the shop. One two sides it was residential properties as well as a school and a public house. One the site visit he had noticed sheltered housing to the rear. The servicing arrangements were next to the houses, in his opinion there would be deliveries first thing in the morning at 7am and throughout the day. The distance between the site and these houses was only five metres.
He also had concerns about waste disposal and storage. There had been an extra condition around plans for waste disposal on the late list but in his opinion this should’ve been included with the application. Cllr Kelly was not happy with the lack of clarity about waste disposal. Looking at the plans for how lorries would enter and leave the delivery area, he felt that cars parked would have to be moved in order for this to be done safely. It would be difficult to find the shoppers who owned the cars, therefore in his view it was unsatisfactory. The effect on the residential area was also unsatisfactory.
Cllr Pat Glasman said that it was on an extremely busy road and due to the school parents parked in silly places. In her view there would be a detrimental effect on traffic. In her view the orientation of the building should be changed to reduce the effect on residential properties.
Cllr Hayes asked how the applicant had demonstrated there would be no overspill parking? He said on the day of the site visit, there were only fifteen there but the school had not been open due to the holidays. The officer said that in his view they would struggle to defend a refusal on highway safety grounds.
Cllr Leech asked if the delivery times could be restricted by a condition. An officer said they could.
Cllr Kelly referred to policy SPD4. Cllr Paul Hayes moved refusal on the grounds that it would be detrimental to the amenities that residents of nearby residential properties could reasonably expect to enjoy, that is was contrary to policy SPD6 and that the parking standards in SPD4 hadn’t been met.
Matthew Davies said that the reason could be sustained at appeal, but they would have to word it carefully.
Cllr Kelly said he would second it, with a reference to the National Planning Policy Framework. Matthew Davies suggested a form of words for refusal on the second reason. Cllr Kelly asked if it was SH4 or SH6 it was contrary to? The Chair answered SH6. It was put to the vote.
In favour of refusal: (11) Cllr Bernie Mooney, Cllr David Elderton, Cllr Stuart Kelly, Cllr Philip Brightmore, Cllr Anita Leech, Cllr Irene Williams, Cllr Eddie Boult, Cllr Paul Hayes, Cllr Simon Mountney, Cllr Patricia Glasman and Cllr Les Rowlands
Against refusal: Cllr Joe Walsh and Cllr Denise Realey (2)
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
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/13/00510Application 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/13/00772Application 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.
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.
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.