Planning Committee (Wirral Council) (27th June 2013) OUT/13/0040 41 Noctorum Avenue, Noctorum, CH43 9RZ

A report on Wirral Council’s Planning Committee meeting held on the 27th June 2013 | OUT/13/0040 41 Noctorum Avenue, Noctorum, CH43 9RZ

This transcript continues from an earlier blog post covering the end of the third agenda item and the first planning application.

Matthew Davies: It’s been referred to the character, the garden faces the properties fronting Noctorum Avenue are hardly ever after this point, and as such adding an RSA? can be obtained within an … one and can be provided for ordinary dwellings as are the parking provision.

The property’s key density of thirty dwellings per a hectare is relatively low commensurate with the density on Hadley Avenue and Winston Drive in certain key instances and the bungalow in my view improves the area given its responsibility and impact on character.

In terms of amenity there’s a good separation distance between the rear of the property currently and Winston Drive. It’s indicated that they would separate the part in my view to prevent overbearing produced on this land, whilst good separation distance will also be achievable and unavoidable of itself avoiding the ability indeed for that property on the … to be alleviated. Plans would be required to support a third party’s application.

Considering highway safety, access to both the two dwellings and the road has already has a number of access points. It is therefore to be noted that there are no highway concerns.

The Head of ??? takes ??? for ?????tation, so there’s no objections to the development so the planning conditions have been imposed and have adequately taken place according to my view.

Overall the building is considered to comply with UDP policy HS10 and HS4 and is recommended for approval subject to the conditions as …. and objections in the report. It fits the requirements for planning reasons such as open space, landscaping and amenity of the neighbours.

Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair): Thank you. Errm, would the representative of the people you address with no time limit be here?

Cllr Denise Roberts: I’m here, Chair.

Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair): Would you like to come forward?

Continues at Planning Committee (Wirral Council) (27th June 2013) OUT/13/0040 41 Noctorum Avenue, Noctorum, CH43 9RZ.

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) (27th June 2013) Site Visits | OUT/13/0040 41 Noctorum Avenue, Noctorum, CH43 9RZ

A report on Wirral Council’s Planning Committee meeting held on the 27th June 2013 | Site Visits | OUT/13/0040 41 Noctorum Avenue, Noctorum, CH43 9RZ

This transcript continues from an earlier blog post covering the first three agenda items.

Cllr Steve Foulkes: Sorry Chair, yes Chair, err…the party on the.. simply note those site visits.

Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair): OK thank you very much, are there any other site visits?

Cllr David Elderton (Conservative spokesperson): So that’s three site visits.

Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair): That’s three site visits.

Cllr David Elderton (Conservative spokesperson): We’re going to have, thank you very much.

Cllr Bernie Mooney: So anybody’s here, anybody who’s here in the building to listen to errm the Woodend Cottage Cottage, err Marsh Lane that will not be discussed tonight. Hoylake Lawn Tennis Club will not be discussed tonight and Thornton Manor will not be discussed tonight. They are subject to site visits and they will be on the agenda for the next Planning Committee. So, anybody here for them items, then they aren’t being discussed, so errm if you’d like to leave or you’re more than welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting if you want.

Before we do this, could I ask for …., because we move it around errm in proportion for the people who are here to to to listen to the applications, we think that would be…councillor number four now and then people are going to I was going to say number twelve, number thirteen and number eleven, err number ten, so that’s where we’re going. Err, can we have a presentation please for item agenda number four please?

Matthew Davies: Thank you Chair, through you Chair, errm there is a qualifying petition errm through this application. Errm following the outline planning application with all matters reserved, the two dwellings err on the site there through the .. to our end ..running between Hawthorne and Noctorum Avenue. Errm other outline application, a further application will be needed to secure the detail of the development’s layout, appearance, scale and landscaping. The dwelling is indeed and has been utilising the proposed two dormer bungalows parallel parallel to the property fronting on Noctorum Avenue.

In principle this type of development is thwarted by the Unitary Development Plan, in terms of highways and residential amenity, primarily in a residential area such as this. UDP policy HS10, subject to criteria would normally let the backland development on the site, while HS4 sets out the minimum criteria for the new housing development. The key issues that are considered to be that the essential impact on character, impact on dwellings and residential properties in terms of amenity and impact on highway safety.

Continues at Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 27th June 2013 OUT/13/0040 41 Noctorum Avenue, Noctorum, CH43 9RZ.

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) (27th June 2013) Minutes | Declarations of Interests | Site Visits

A blog post about the Planning Committee meeting of the 27th June 2013 | Declarations of Interest | Minutes | Requests for site visits

In an attempt to report on what happened at the Planning Committee, despite being prevented filming here is a transcript of what was said.

Chair (Cllr Bernie Mooney): Welcome to the err Planning Committee errm, just thank you.

Errm, just for all your information, errm on my first right where we have the usual, errm our usual adviser in the Authority who gives very good legal advice indeed errm, errm, especially at the minute and on the left we have  all these planning officers who will offer us help and guidance this evening. The rest of the people you see around the table are the councillors who will actually be taking the decisions, the Members.

Errm, this evening for each agenda item, errm we will have a presentation of the application by an officer so we all know what’s going on. Errm if there’s a qualifying petition, that means a petition of twenty-five separate names and separate households on it, one representative can address the Committee for five minutes and five minutes only errm on behalf of the petitioners. No sorts of representations will be heard by the Committee, I’m sorry about that errm it’s out of my hands.

So only one of the petitioners can talk errm for five minutes. Errm if the applicant is present, errm they will then be given the right to reply, but please note, if there are no representations, then no one present can talk.

Actually errm the, the, the, the, the errm, the errm, any ward councillor can be introduced at any time that they like and provided that the councillor is errm the errm, errm, sorry ladies and gentleman, just a minute errm. Errm my role here, is just to maintain discipline and to make sure that the people in this small room know the rules and regulations and that if we have a split vote, usually errm I as the Chairman vote. Normally all being well, it won’t.

Errm so the first thing on the agenda is the minutes. So, errm first can we approve the minutes of the previous meeting,

Cllr David Elderton (Conservative spokesperson): So is everyone happy with them? Thank you very much.

Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair): Is that ok? Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Errm is there any declarations of interest? Anita?

Cllr Anita Leech: Yes, Chair, I have errm, a personal interest to declare in item number 14. It says home address, errm a board member of Leasowe Homes, errm with the Your Housing Group on the, on the written report, but it’s normally as an ordinary member of the Board.

Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair): OK, thank you. Are there any other declarations? OK. Thank you very much. So, the requests for site visits, which is item, item number three, site visits?

Cllr Eddie Boult: Thank you Chair, errm, item number twelve, Hoylake Lawn Tennis Club.

Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair): Thank you. Any other site visits?

Cllr Steve Foulkes: Chair, errm, given its implications err and being within the green belt, err I would like a site visit for items four and nine, items fifteen, err and it is an SDA err application but I can request a site visit.

Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair): Is there any other site visits? I’ll move then to the first agenda item number nine, for a site visit? We’ve requested agenda item number nine for a site visit. Yeah?

Continues at Planning Committee (Wirral Council) (27th June 2013) Site Visits | OUT/13/0040 41 Noctorum Avenue, Noctorum, CH43 9RZ.

I was barred from filming Wirral Council’s Planning Committee tonight, usual excuses health and safety, data protection both are bogus reasons

I was barred from filming Wirral Council’s Planning Committee tonight, usual excuses health and safety, data protection both are bogus reasons

Planning Committee 30th May 2013 (Wirral Council): Vote on new play area in Leasowe splits Planning Committee 7:6

Planning Committee 30th May 2013 (Wirral Council): Vote on new play area in Leasowe splits Planning Committee 7:6f

Planning Committee 30th May 2013 (Wirral Council): Vote on new play area in Leasowe splits Planning Committee 7:6

                                                                                                                                                                

If there was ever a part of a meeting that sums up both the Kafkaesque bureaucracy of Wirral Council, item 12 (and its appendix) would serve very well.

It all started as usual with an officer saying it would’ve been decided by officers under their delegated powers if Cllr Lewis hadn’t asked for it to be decided by the Planning Committee (however with a qualifying petition against it and nine letters of objection it would’ve been decided by the Planning Committee anyway). The officer continued by stating that the planning application was for a children’s play area comprising five items and dated back to a 1997 agreement with a developer building a new housing estate. The area proposed for the play area was part of an area of open space established for the residents, residents had concerns, but environmental health had no objections to the proposal despite the area being a flood risk.

A representative of the petitioners, Steven Lindsay of 5 Aintree Close thanked the Planning Committee for attending the site visit on the day before the meeting. He pointed out it had been sixteen years since the original agreement for the play area had been signed and that since then many families had grown up, he referred to a survey conducted eighteen months ago of one hundred and forty-seven properties. Ninety percent had been against the play area, six and half percent for and three and a half percent hadn’t expressed a preference. Mr. Lindsay referred to another brand-new play area nearby which was well used by children and a further play area that had been built as the result of a section 106 agreement with a developer.

The concerns of the petitioners were of vandalism, theft of the play area equipment, antisocial behaviour and people gathering there who were not from the area. Another concern was that the site of the proposed play area was too close to adjoining properties and that a nearby play area had had equipment stolen. Two other play areas at a distance of 200m and 300m were nearby as well as Leasowe Common.

Miss Jackie Smallwood, of Wirral Council’s Parks and Countryside Service addressed the committee on behalf of Wirral Council. She said that when the section 106 application had been granted that the policy had been twenty metres from property boundaries, however the policy had since changed to ten metres to property boundaries and twenty metres from the facade of buildings.

Cllr Ian Lewis agreed with the petitioner Mr. Lindsay and said it was unusual to have a planning application for a play area. He pointed out it had been sixteen years since the section 106 agreement and that since then they’d spent £75,000 on a play area as part of the Playbuilder scheme whose catchment area included this estate. He pointed out that in a further change that 23,000m² of the public open space had been sold, leaving 5,000m² and that the appendix pointed out that as a condition of the planning permission that the developer was to provide 60m² of open space per a property. He asked why the land left was well below the recommended limit of 60m²? In a survey of every home in the development by Taylor Wimpey, ninety percent of residents had been against it. As Wirral Council was the applicant, he said that they had nothing to lose and that they had to recognise the cost of maintaining a particularly small play area which was not wanted as Wirral Council would be taking on a further liability. He asked the Planning Committee to refuse the application. He passed around details of the sale of some of the public open space.

Cllr Elderton said that the petitioner and ward councillor had shown that times had changed, that the site visit had shown it was in an established residential area and the evidence of the petitioner showed that the residents would prefer not to have it developed as a play area. He suggested that they refuse the application on the grounds that it was no longer necessary. Cllr Elderton also pointed out the fact that as the Council was the applicant that it couldn’t sue itself and that they should go along with what residents want.

Matthew Davies said that the original permission (OUT/1994/6791/D) had been granted sixteen years ago and that the Planning Committee in August 2011 had revisited the issue. He said that the developer had paid money for the installation of a play area, which had been approved in 1997 and 2011, therefore the play area could be erected under permitted development, however the developer had wanted the details to be considered as a standalone item. If they refused the planning permission, they would have to reimburse £50,000 plus interest which would come to £75,000. Officers had assessed the existing play areas and felt that they were not acceptable or accessible as they were separated from the development by busy roads.

Cllr Steve Foulkes said that the training that councillors on the Planning Committee had received meant that they should consider each planning application on its merits, without any consideration as to the applicant. He said he hadn’t been a member of the Planning Committee back in 2011 and that whilst a survey had taken place that they had to be ultra careful if they were turning it down for this reason. Cllr Foulkes pointed out that the nature of the estate might change, that it was a “viable planning application” and that the play area “might well be seen as an asset”. He said he understood there were fears and pessimism, but if they went down that route then there wouldn’t be any play areas. Cllr Foulkes said that it was a bit of a cop-out that the Council wouldn’t appeal its own decision, that he had seen the site and location and that areas that were well looked at and overseen didn’t tend to attract antisocial behaviour. Cllr Foulkes asked “Is it a good thing?” and then answered his own question with the answer being “probably yes”.

Cllr Simon Mountney said it was reminding him of the George Orwell novel 1984 and that [Cllr Foulkes] was sounding like the Politburo. He pointed out that the residents wanted them to spend the money elsewhere and enforcing a play area on them was not right. Cllr Mountney referred to the “massive consultation”, the result had told them “please don’t give us” [a play area] with the public telling us [the Planning Committee] “thanks but no thanks”. Cllr Mountney said that they couldn’t make an assumption over the nature of the estate over twenty years. He received applause for his points.

Cllr Wendy Clements said that at 4.9 in the report, that before development progressed Wirral Council would have to consult the local community, therefore public opposition to the scheme was a material consideration in determining the planning application.

Cllr Elderton said he agreed with Cllr Wendy Clements, that times had changed and they had to make sure it was appropriate. He pointed out that things had moved on from sixteen years ago and that he’d been on the Planning Committee in 2011. Cllr Elderton said they should consider the current position rather than bury their heads in the sand. He said that he didn’t like to see councillors overturn the will of the local community to merely support something from sixteen years ago and that wasn’t the reason why he’d become a councillor. Cllr Elderton said they should support the aspirations of all local communities.

Matthew Davies said that the appendix had come as a report to the Planning Committee in 2011 and that they’d heard the comments from petitioners and Cllr Ian Lewis then, which was more recent than sixteen years ago. He cautioned them against refusing permission and that the permission granted sixteen years ago could take twenty, thirty or forty years before it was built. Mr. Davies said that as it had been approved it could be built without further consent which they needed to be aware of.

Cllr Mountney said they were there to support residents. The Chair, Cllr Bernie Mooney said they were there to uphold planning policy and that the policy was still the same.

Cllr Mountney asked who was going to build the playground? Matthew Davies said that as the developer had made the contribution that the Council would put the play equipment in place. Cllr Mountney expressed concern that they were “riding roughshod over the public”. The Chair, Cllr Bernie Mooney said it had to be agreed and that the only reason it was back here was to approve the type, amount and the age group.

Cllr Foulkes asked if it was refused, would the old planning permission take precedence leaving it as a decision for the Executive [Cabinet]?

Cllr Hayes referred to the 60m² of open space per a resident and asked a question about commuted sums and the section 106 agreement. Matthew Davies answered that it was something to consider when drafting the section 106 agreement whether or not to accept commuted sums, which could be used to upgrade existing facilities, however when it was drafted in 1997 they decided not to go for a commuted sum. He said the fact the land was sold had no bearing as the green space and play area were separate issues.

Cllr Muspratt said it was quite compact and had concerns about the guidelines on different age groups mixing. Matthew Davies said there were guidelines but they were outside the planning remit. He said that colleagues in parks and leisure tended to put an upper age limit of twelve on play areas as this was when people tended to stop using them.

Cllr Brightmore said that the residents were asking them to refuse the application. Matthew Davies said they could refuse this application as it was a standalone application, therefore they could refuse this specific play area. Cllr Wittingham referred to the petition of twenty-nine households but said he would be uncomfortable to refuse the application as it would mean children would have to cross Reeds Lane.

Cllr Stuart Wittingham moved accepting the planning permission and Cllr Joe Walsh seconded it. Cllr Foulkes said he didn’t enjoy councillors trying to make a fool of him. He said that he didn’t like being set up or being pilloried.

The Chair asked for a vote of those in favour of the planning permission. Cllr Stuart Kelly, Cllr Bernie Mooney, Cllr Brightmore, Cllr Christina Muspratt, Cllr Joe Walsh, Cllr Stuart Wittingham and Cllr Irene Williams vote for (7).

The other councillors (6) voted against, so the planning application was approved by 7 votes to 6.

Privacy Preference Center

Necessary

Advertising

Analytics

Other