Category: Planning

What does 1 lighthouse, 1 salt barn, Tesco and a new college have in common?

What does 1 lighthouse, 1 salt barn, Tesco and a new college have in common?

What does 1 lighthouse, 1 salt barn, Tesco and a new college have in common?

                          

Bidston Lighthouse, Wilding Way, Bidston Hill 14th August 2014 Listed Building Consent LBC/14/00584 (erection of a Radio Antenna to the outside of Bidston Lighthouse)
Bidston Lighthouse, Wilding Way, Bidston Hill 14th August 2014 Listed Building Consent LBC/14/00584 (erection of a Radio Antenna to the outside of Bidston Lighthouse)

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.

Video of Bidston Lighthouse, Wilding Way, Bidston Hill 14th August 2014 Listed Building Consent LBC/14/00584

Four planning applications have recently been decided by Wirral Council officers in the Bidston & St. James ward. I live in the general area of the second planning application for Bidston Lighthouse, so in the interests of openness will state that as an interest at the start.

One is from Wirral Council (to itself) for erection of a salt barn, fence, camera domes, entrance and exit gates etc in Cleveland Street.

The second is to put an antenna on Bidston Lighthouse, Wilding Way, Bidston Hill for use by 7 Waves Community Radio.

The third is to build a new college on land next to Tower Road, Birkenhead.

The last is an advertisement consent for the Tesco Superstore, Bidston Link Road, Bidston.

All four applications have been approved by planning officers and further details for each one is below. The application number for each is linked to further details for each application on Wirral Council’s website should you like to find out more.

Application No.: DPP3/14/00492
Application Type: Work for Council by Council
Decision Level: Delegated
Ward: Bidston and St James
Decision Date: 17/07/2014
Decision: Approve
Case Officer: Mr K Spilsbury
Applicant:
Agent: WIRRAL COUNCIL

Location: Garage Depot, 250 CLEVELAND STREET, BIRKENHEAD, CH41 3QL

Proposal: Erection of a salt barn, 2.4m high steel palisade fence, 2 new camera domes and associated equipment, new entrance and exit gates and new access off Vittoria Street.

==============================================

Application No.: LBC/14/00584
Application Type: Listed Building Consent
Decision Level: Delegated
Ward: Bidston and St James
Decision Date: 14/07/2014
Decision: Approve
Case Officer: Mr M Crook
Applicant: Dr Stephen Pickles
Agent: 7 Waves Community Radio Ltd
Location: Bidston Lighthouse, WILDING WAY, BIDSTON, CH43 7RA
Proposal: Erection of a Radio Antenna to the outside of Bidston Lighthouse.

===============================================

Application No.: APP/14/00629
Application Type: Delegated
Decision Level: Full Planning Permission
Ward: Bidston and St James
Decision Date: 08/08/2014 Decision: Approve
Case Officer: Ms J Storey
Applicant:
Agent: Turley

Location: Land Adjacent to TOWER ROAD, BIRKENHEAD, CH41 1FN
Proposal: Erection of new college facility and associated works, including new accesses and hard and soft landscaping and other works

===============================================

Application No.: ADV/14/00801
Application Type: Advertisement Consent
Decision Level: Delegated
Ward: Bidston and St James
Decision Date: 07/08/2014 Decision: Approve
Case Officer: Mr N Williams
Applicant:
Agent: Smith Smalley Architects

Location: Superstore, Tesco Superstore, BIDSTON LINK ROAD, BIDSTON, CH43 7AA
Proposal: Additional signs and amended signs to approved application ADV/14/00139

===============================================

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

EXCLUSIVE: Planning Inspector Griffiths refuses appeal for 10 houses in greenbelt near Storeton Woods

EXCLUSIVE: Planning Inspector Griffiths refuses appeal for 10 houses in greenbelt near Storeton Woods

EXCLUSIVE: Planning Inspector Griffiths refuses appeal for 10 houses in greenbelt near Storeton Woods

                             

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 Appeal to OUT/13/01259 Land adjacent Marsh Lane Higher Bebington CH63 5PP Part 2 Committee Room 2, Wallasey Town Hall, 23rd July 2014

In an update to a story about an informal planning appeal hearing held at Wallasey Town Hall last week the Planning Inspectorate have made their decision to refuse the appeal. The site is currently a paddock with stables next to Storeton Woods.

The original grounds Wirral Council planning officers had given for refusing the application were inappropriate development in the greenbelt, highway safety and the effect it would have on trees covered by a tree protection order. The main issue for Planning Inspector Griffiths to consider was whether ten houses on this site (planning permission has already been given for conversion of the existing stables to three houses) was inappropriate development in the greenbelt.

On highway safety grounds, Inspector Griffiths disagreed with Wirral Council officers and local residents, as he regarded the extra traffic would not be significant. The Appellant had proposed moving a sandstone wall with an adjacent property to provide an access road to the ten houses. However in the Planning Inspector’s decision he stated this “would complicate and disrupt the continuous linear nature of the sandstone wall in an injurious fashion”.

The trees on the appeal site, which were protected by a tree protection order, were also referred to in the decision as “attractive features that contribute positively to the area.” He also felt it wasn’t clear that the moving of the sandstone wall for the access road could be done without resulting in the loss of trees.

Erecting ten houses (with gardens) on the site with an access road would affect the openness of the greenbelt permanently. In conclusion the Planning Inspector stated that “the proposal would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area” and would “conflict with UDP Policy HS4 that requires proposals for new housing development not to result in detrimental change in the character of an area, amongst other things, and UDP Policy GR7 that, in simple terms, seeks to protect trees.”

There was a long discussion at the end of the hearing about housing land supply. The Council’s position was that it had a six-year supply of deliverable housing sites (or five years with a 20% buffer). The Appellant, using figures from the previous Regional Spatial Strategy instead said that the Council could only demonstrate a four-year supply or three and a half-year supply with a 20% buffer. The inspector commented on the housing land supply in his decision “Against that overall background, and on the basis of the evidence before me, it is difficult to reach a definitive view as to whether or not the Council can demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.”

In conclusion the Planning Inspector stated that even if Wirral Council couldn’t prove a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, that the provision of ten houses on the site along with highway improvements weren’t enough to outweigh the harm caused by inappropriate development in the greenbelt. Therefore the appeal didn’t constitute the “very special circumstances” for development in the greenbelt and 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.

After 1 objection, Labour councillor speaks in favour of filming; Planning Inspector Griffiths rules it is allowed

After 1 objection, Labour councillor speaks in favour of filming; Planning Inspector Griffiths rules it is allowed

After 1 objection, Labour councillor speaks in favour of filming; Planning Inspector Griffiths rules it is allowed

                           

Yesterday marked a first for me as I attended my first planning appeal hearing. It was an informal hearing involving an appeal to a planning application decided by a Wirral Council planning officer just before Christmas last year.

The application was for ten houses in the greenbelt near Storeton Woods, where there are currently stables and a paddock. When the Wirral Council planning officer (the decision was made by Mrs C Parker) made their decision last year to refuse the application, there had been twenty-two people in favour of the application and thirty-five against and you can view the original documentation surrounding the planning application on Wirral Council’s website.

Wirral Council refused the application for three reasons, the first being it was considered to be inappropriate development in the greenbelt, on highway safety grounds and because the applicant didn’t submit enough information to determine the effect on trees covered by a tree preservation order.

Usually planning appeals don’t result in hearings and are just decided on the papers submitted by each side. The hearing was held in Committee Room 2 at Wallasey Town Hall, followed by a site visit after which the planning inspector Paul Griffiths would give his decision.

Almost a year ago, when the controversy over bloggers filming public meetings was at its height, the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP issued new guidance about the filming of planning appeal hearings. In fact in the press release that I link to there is a specific mention of Wirral Council’s refusal to allow me film a Planning Committee meeting in July 2013 on “health and safety” grounds as covered by the Liverpool Echo. The guidance issued then was that filming at planning appeal hearings should be allowed and a quote from the press release was “Ministers hope this will open up a previously mysterious and rarely seen side of the planning process.”

So I brought along my video camera and tripod to film the planning appeal hearing. What was interesting was near the start of the hearing there was at the start an objection to my filming of the hearing.

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 video of an informal planning appeal hearing against a refusal of planning permission by Wirral Council (23rd July 2014)

As those who are regular readers of my blog will know, there have been problems in the past when objections have been made by those present to me filming public meetings (even in the recent past) when such a decision has been in the hands of Wirral Council politicians who haven’t always been on the side of openness and transparency.

I include below a transcript of the part of the meeting where the filming issue was discussed which starts seventeen seconds in to the clip above. For information, Matthews and Goodman Limited were the agents to the planning application that was being appealed and were there at the hearing to represent the appellant (Ms Lin Smith of Woodend Cottage, Marsh Lane, Wirral).

PLANNING INSPECTOR (PAUL GRIFFITHS)
Can I ask if there are any members of the press present?

JOHN BRACE
Behind you.

PLANNING INSPECTOR (PAUL GRIFFITHS)
Right, OK. You’ll need to give me your name and address on a separate piece of paper, if that’s alright? Then you get a copy of the decision directly from the Inspectorate.

JOHN BRACE
I’ve put our names on the attendance sheet, do you want to…

PLANNING INSPECTOR (PAUL GRIFFITHS)
If you just mark it, then on the attendance list, when it comes back I’ll deal with that.

NEIL CULKIN (OF MATTHEWS & GOODMAN LTD)
Sir, can I ask what press they are representing and why because we’ve received an objection from the applicant to filming events today?

PLANNING INSPECTOR (PAUL GRIFFITHS)
Hmm, hmm.

JOHN BRACE
Sorry could you speak up, I didn’t quite hear it?

PLANNING INSPECTOR (PAUL GRIFFITHS)
OK, what newspaper are you here representing?

JOHN BRACE
I don’t represent a newspaper.

PLANNING INSPECTOR (PAUL GRIFFITHS)
Right.

JOHN BRACE
I write a blog about Wirral Council and I also film at Planning Committee meetings.

PLANNING INSPECTOR (PAUL GRIFFITHS)
OK.

NEIL CULKIN (OF MATTHEWS & GOODMAN LTD)
As I said to, through you Sir, as previously indicated the applicant has objected to the events being filmed.

PLANNING INSPECTOR (PAUL GRIFFITHS)
Why is that, is there a particular problem with that?

NEIL CULKIN (OF MATTHEWS & GOODMAN LTD)
Errm, I’m just acting on instructions.

PLANNING INSPECTOR (PAUL GRIFFITHS)
Hmm, OK.

COUNCILLOR JERRY WILLIAMS (WIRRAL COUNCIL)
Could I make a comment?

PLANNING INSPECTOR (PAUL GRIFFITHS)
Well no, I don’t want to get drawn into a debate about whether or not the hearing should be filmed.

COUNCILLOR JERRY WILLIAMS (WIRRAL COUNCIL)
I’m the elected Member for Bebington, sorry I’m the elected Member for Bebington.

PLANNING INSPECTOR (PAUL GRIFFITHS)
OK.

COUNCILLOR JERRY WILLIAMS (WIRRAL COUNCIL)
I want to comment on that.

PLANNING INSPECTOR (PAUL GRIFFITHS)
Well what did you want to say?

COUNCILLOR JERRY WILLIAMS (WIRRAL COUNCIL)
Just to make a comment, this gentleman records Council meetings, he records Council meeting and he comes in. There’s no side to the gentleman, he does a very good job, he records and he comes to all Council meetings to actually witness how the Council operates, so there’s no problem with it whatsoever.

PLANNING INSPECTOR (PAUL GRIFFITHS)
Well I mean, I think from my point of view, as an inspector, we are, we’ve all, generally in the past been left to our discretion, whether we allow events to be filmed or to be recorded in any other way, tape recording or people taking verbatim notes.

We’re under instructions that you know in the interests of openness that we’re not supposed to stop it. So.

NEIL CULKIN (OF MATTHEWS & GOODMAN LTD)
In light of the comments received from Councillor Williams, the applicant has no objection to events being filmed and what goes on.

PLANNING INSPECTOR (PAUL GRIFFITHS)
Well I’m quite content with it, it’s not the first time I’ve been filmed and I’m just glad it’s behind me.

(laughter)

You can read what the planning inspector’s decision was and why he made it in EXCLUSIVE: Planning Inspector Griffiths refuses appeal for 10 houses in greenbelt near Storeton Woods.

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

If a councillor on Wirral Council’s Planning Committee is lobbied and no form is submitted, does anyone know about it?

If a councillor on Wirral Council’s Planning Committee is lobbied and no form is submitted, does anyone know about it?

If a councillor on Wirral Council’s Planning Committee is lobbied and no form is submitted, does anyone know about it?

                        

At the time of writing, there is an election underway. Once the results are know, twenty-three people will become councillors and asked to sign a declaration that they each accept the office of councillor. Regulation 2 of The Local Elections (Principal Areas) (Declaration of Acceptance of Office) Order 1990 specifies the form that a declaration should take. It is short so it is copied below.

DECLARATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF OFFICE

I, ……. having been elected to the office of councillor declare that I take that office upon myself, and will duly and faithfully fulfill the duties of it according to the best of my judgement and ability.

I undertake to be guided by the National Code of Local Government Conduct in the performance of my functions in that office.

Date ………. Signed ……..

This declaration was made and signed before me

Signed ……..

*Proper officer of the council of the county, district or London Borough of ……

*If the declaration is made before any other person authorised by section 83(3) of the Local Government Act 1972, adapt accordingly.

So all the councillors on Wirral Council’s Planning Committee have each signed a clause in their acceptance of office which states they will “be guided” by the National Code of Local Government Conduct when undertaking their duties as councillor.

The National Code of Local Government Conduct, which the Secretary of State issues under s.31 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 states this on the subject of lobbying about planning applications.

LOCAL SUPPLEMENT TO CODE OF CONDUCT FOR MEMBERS

Contracts, Planning Applications etc: Canvassing

  1. If you are canvassed by any member of the public who requests, directly or indirectly, your aid in securing a business contract with the Council or in the determination of a planning or other application you shall, subject to the qualification contained in the following paragraph, report such canvassing to the Director of Corporate Services, who shall investigate and, where appropriate, report on such canvassing to the Council.
  2. Subject to paragraph 6 below in relation to contracts, a passing comment by a member of the public on a matter of public interest should not necessarily be construed as canvassing; in assessing whether an approach merits reporting the matter to the Director of Corporate Services, you should consider the circumstances of the approach and whether the approach appears to be made from a narrow vested interest or whether it can justly be described as being in the wider public interest.

Wirral Council has a Code of Conduct to guide both councillors and officers in how planning matters are dealt with. The sections of it that deal with lobbying and the National Code of Local Government Conduct are included below.

1.2 This Code of Conduct relating to Planning Matters is intended to be supplementary to the National Code of Local Government Conduct prepared by the Secretary of State for the Environment under provision of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. The provisions of the National Code continue to have full force and effect. The purpose of this Code is to provide more detailed guidance on the standards to be applied in relation to planning related issues.

….

1.6 It is recognised that Members will, from time to time, be approached by developers and objectors in relation to planning proposals.

1.7 Part of this Code is intended to assist Members in dealing with and recording such approaches and is designed to ensure that the integrity of the decision making process is preserved.

2. Lobbying

2.1 To ensure that the integrity of the decision making process is not impaired, either in reality or in perception, through the lobbying of members who will make decisions, it is important that any approaches by lobbyists are recorded and that any representations made to members form part of the public information leading to any decision. If an approach is received by a member of the Planning Committee, from an applicant, agent or other interested party in relation to an existing or proposed planning application, then the member shall:

Inform such applicant, agent or interested party that, in order to avoid accusations of partiality, he/she is only able to offer procedural advice and that any such person should either write to officers of the Council or write or speak to a member(s) who is not on the Planning Committee. This should not however be taken to mean that members who are on the Planning Committee should not listen to the views that the lobbyist wishes to express.

Complete the standard form provided, and forward this to the Acting Director of Regeneration, Housing and Planning. This will enable a record to be kept of any such approach. This form of record keeping will assist individual members to counter any accusations that his or her decision has in some way been biased or partial.

Where a member of the Planning Committee receives written representations directly in relation to a planning application, (or proposed planning application) the member should pass a copy of the correspondence to the Acting Director of Regeneration, Housing and Planning in order that those representations can be included in the officer’s report to the Committee.

2.2 Members of the Planning Committee should avoid organising support for or opposition to a planning application and avoid lobbying other Members. Such actions can easily be misunderstood by parties to the application and by the general public. Members of the Planning Committee should also not put pressure on officers for a particular recommendation.

So to recap, both the National Code of Local Government Conduct (which councillors on the Planning Committee have signed a form to state that they’ll be guided by in their decision-making) and Wirral Council’s own Code of Conduct state that if a councillor on the Planning Committee is lobbied over a planning application, then the councillor should contact an employee of Wirral Council to report it. Wirral Council’s Code of Conduct makes it clear that this is to the Acting Director of Regeneration, Housing and Planning. The post of Acting Director of Regeneration, Housing and Planning no longer exists since the senior management restructure. However the equivalent officer now would either be the Director of Regeneration David Ball or the Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment Kevin Adderley.

Last month I made a Freedom of Information Act request to Wirral Council for both a copy of the blank form that councillors are to use to record such lobbying approaches and a copy of any forms submitted over the past twelve months (March 2013 to March 2014).

Despite the 20 day legal time limit for responding to my request expiring five days ago, Wirral Council haven’t (yet) supplied a copy of a blank form. However Wirral Council have stated that covering the period March 2013 to March 2014 it has no records of any forms detailing lobbying approaches to councillors on the Planning Committee.

On the 20th February the Planning Committee decided to refuse planning application APP/13/01375. The Planning Committee’s decision to refuse has since been appealed to the Planning Inspectorate who will reach a decision at some point after 21st May.

Prior to the Planning Committee deciding to refuse the application, the Chair of the Planning Committee Councillor Bernie Mooney received a two-page letter. The letter was sent by Edward Landor Associates who were acting on behalf of the applicant and states “It is requested a copy of this letter is made available to all Committee Members”. The two page letter is below and you can click on each page for a higher definition and more readable image if you want to read it in full.

Letter from Edward Landor Associates to Councillor Bernie Mooney page 2
Letter from Edward Landor Associates to Councillor Bernie Mooney Page 1 of 2
Letter from Edward Landor Associates to Councillor Bernie Mooney page 2
Letter from Edward Landor Associates to Councillor Bernie Mooney Page 2 of 2

This two page letter is clearly lobbying of a councillor on the Planning Committee. If the letter was circulated to the whole Planning Committee it is a letter lobbying every councillor on the Planning Committee. Shouldn’t councillors on the Planning Committee who received the letter have filled out a form recording this lobbying? So why do Wirral Council in response to my FOI request state “Wirral Borough Council can confirm that no such forms have been submitted during the specified timeframe”?

At the start of the Planning Committee on 20th February that made the decision on the planning application referred to above, Councillor Bernie Mooney went through some of the provisions in Wirral Council’s Code of Conduct for planning matters and then said (you can watch a video of her saying this by following the link) “They’re the rules as they stand. So they’re the rules I hope everybody understands them, I don’t think I’ve missed anything out. My job is just to make sure everything runs smoothly and everything is complied with”.

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 approves planning application for houses in Irby by seven votes to five

Planning Committee approves planning application for houses in Irby by seven votes to five

Planning Committee approves planning application for houses in Irby by seven votes to five

                        

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.

Video of Wirral Council’s Planning Committee meeting of the 16th April 2014

The Planning Committee meeting started as usual with her usual spiel about who were sitting around the tables (which considering that everyone had name plates seems a little unnecessary). She said that to her left was the solicitor (Rosemary Lyons) to “make sure everything is done legally” and that the officers (of which there were four) to her left where there to “guide us through our decisions and make sure everything is done appropriately with planning legislation”.

If the Chair thinks the role of the officers to her left is to make sure that decisions about planning applications are made according to planning legislation, then what’s the purpose of having a solicitor too? When every other committee at Wirral Council manages to cope with one legal adviser why does the Planning Committee need five to advise it on such matters?

She then went on to recap the rules on speaking for petitioners and applicants. The only change to usual is that she said, “A ward councillor can come forward and talk upon any item in their ward and they can speak for longer than five minutes but everybody only gets a chance to address the Planning Committee once.”

Until recently ward councillors were under the impression they could address the Planning Committee at any time when a planning application concerning their ward was being discussed. The Code of conduct for Planning Committee meetings and Wirral Council’s constitution have nothing in them about ward councillors talking at Planning Committee meetings. Certainly in the recent past at least one councillor thought they could speak at any time but the Chair told them they couldn’t. The only reference in the constitution to councillors and Planning Committees is that ward councillors can decide that they want a planning application to be decided by the Planning Committee rather than by officers.

The constitution states that any councillor can decide that a planning application is decided by the Planning Committee. The fact this isn’t limited to councillors in the ward the planning application relates to has been misused in the past. With fictional names I’ll give an example.

Mrs Smith is standing as the Labour candidate in Puddleton (a made up ward that doesn’t exist on the Wirral). Unfortunately for Mrs Smith Puddleton has three councillors from a different political party who know she is the Labour candidate in Puddleton. Mrs Smith spots a planning application that she thinks she can get a large petition of residents against it and gain votes of local residents affected by it. As the lead petitioner she will also get to speak against it for five minutes, if a councillor takes it out of officer’s hands and makes sure it is decided by the Planning Committee.

Unfortunately for Mrs Smith it’s over a minor matter and wouldn’t usually be decided by the Planning Committee. The planning officer wants to approve the planning application. Mrs Smith asks a Labour councillor (who doesn’t represent Puddleton) to make sure that it will be decided by the Planning Committee, therefore ensuring it is decided nearer the election and that there will be more media coverage of Mrs Smith’s campaign. The Labour councillor makes sure that this happens, thus making the residents think that Mrs Smith is influential and when the application is turned down a better choice than the existing councillor (also a candidate) which didn’t want it to be decided by the Planning Committee as he/she knew it was part of a party political ploy by Mrs. Smith to gain votes from local residents.

However, going back to the Planning Committee. The minutes of the meeting held on the 20th March 2014 were agreed. Nobody declared any interests and no requests for site visits were made.

The first planning application to be decided was OUT/14/00094: 38 Thurstaston Road, Irby, CH61 0HF: Outline planning application to create 2 No. new residential properties. A Wirral Council officer said that there had been seven letters of objection detailing various issues which she listed. Despite the objections officers felt it was compliant with national and local planning policies and recommended it for approval subject to conditions.

Councillor Wendy Clements said that had Tony Cox not resigned as a councillor that he would’ve attended the Planning Committee meeting and detailed the concerns of local residents. She talked about trees, British standards and asked planning officers about a tree survey.

Matthew Davies replied that there had been a tree survey with the application and it had also been assessed by the Council’s arboricultural officer. He pointed out that some of the trees mentioned by Cllr Wendy Clements were not part of the planning application and that they couldn’t impose conditions on trees outside of the boundary. He said that if trees were damaged outside of the boundary it was a civil matter.

Councillor Wendy Clements said that that was difficult to understand as the existing standard referred to trees on or adjacent to the site. She referred to appearance and amenity issues but accepted that whether it was unacceptable harm was a matter of opinion, but she felt that the way officers had written the report it implied that some harm would result. Cllr Clements passed around photos to show the effect on light on neighbouring properties. She referred to policy HS4 and how the scale of what was proposed fitted into the surrounding area.

Councillor Elderton asked to see the plan, but he pointed out that as it was an outline planning application that the position of the houses was only indicative at this stage. He thought different positions of the houses would be more suitable but stated that it couldn’t be turned down based on the indicative positions as they were only indicative. He asked officers for advice as he was not happy with the proposed development.

Matthew Davies said that as it was an outline planning application that all matters would be reserved and that the plan was only for indicative purposes. He said that if the application was approved then Wirral Council would have significant control over the scale, site, appearance and where the properties were sited.

Councillor Wendy Clements moved refusal on the basis that it would result in a development that was cramped, overdeveloped and that the two dwelling would cause a detrimental change to the area contrary to the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework and policy HS4 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Councillor Steve Foulkes said that he felt three was feasible on the plot, he asked what the average plot size was for surrounding properties? Matthew Davies replied that the officers felt it was possible to have three dwellings on the plot. Although plot sizes were similar on one site of the application site, they were different to what was proposed on another. Therefore in his opinion it was up to councillors to make a judgement as to whether three could be accommodated taking into account the detail that would be decided at the reserved matters stage.

Councillor Geoffrey Watt seconded Councillor Wendy Clements motion for refusal.

For refusal: Councillor Wendy Clements (proposer), Councillor Geoffrey Watt (seconder), Councillor Simon Mountney, Councillor Eddie Boult, Councillor David Elderton and Councillor Philip Brightmore (6)
Against refusal: Councillor Stuart Kelly, Councillor Bernie Mooney, Councillor Denise Realey, Councillor Steve Foulkes, Councillor Joe Walsh, Councillor Irene Williams (6)

The motion for refusal was 6 votes to 6. The Chair didn’t say how she used her casting vote. However she deemed the motion for refusal to be lost.

There was then a vote on the officer’s recommendation for approval. This was proposed by Cllr Denise Realey and seconded by Councillor Steve Foulkes.

For approval: Councillor Stuart Kelly, Councillor Bernie Mooney, Councillor Denise Realey, Councillor Steve Foulkes, Councillor Joe Walsh, Councillor Irene Williams and Councillor Philip Brightmore (7)
Against approval: Councillor Wendy Clements (proposer), Councillor Geoffrey Watt (seconder), Councillor Simon Mountney, Councillor Eddie Boult and Councillor David Elderton (5)

The motion for approval was won by 7 votes to 5 so the application was approved.

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