Planning Committee (Wirral Council) (27th June 2013) APP/13/00574 5 Speedwell Drive, Barnston, CH60 2SY Change of use of garage to dog grooming parlour
Matthew Davies: Thank you Chair, through you Chair, errm just remember there’s a qualifying petition as outlined in the details for this application as well.
The proposal is for the change of use for the garage to the property for a dog grooming parlour. The applicant outlines their intention to set up a business at the residential property, initially establishing a customer base for the dog grooming business facility. The garage is detached from the house with running water to the garage which appears to be well run.
The key issues to be considered to be essential are noise and disturbance and highway issues. Errm, considering the first, errm in this instance, the scale of the development as outlined is modest, the garage itself is five and a quarter metres by two and half metres which actually limits the activity which will be absorbed.
Conditions I’ve proposed have been agreed by the applicant to restrict the number of dogs to no more than two at any one time and no more than five in a given day. Hours have also been agreed by the applicant which restrict operations to 9am to 4pm Monday to Friday and 9am till 1pm on Saturday. There are no hours proposed on a Sunday.
Lastly, noise insulation will be required to the garage door which has been approved and no access is proposed through this garage door. Given these perhaps restrictive conditions it’s not considered unacceptable levels of noise in ordinary terms would arise nor be high through access.
Considering highway safety, the development may lead to a small increase in movements on the highway and a slight increase in demand for off street parking. However the scale of the development is modest and the structural impact upon it is minimal and no cause for highway safety issues. Given that conclusion reached the application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions as outlined.
Cllr Steve Foulkes: My issue is is very much around the errm the the the sort of errm pattern, so the reasons for refusal would be that dwellings sited on this rear garden area as proposed would introduce a pattern of development that would lead to a detrimental change in the character of the area and furthermore by introducing additional domestic activity into this backland site, the existing standards of residential amenities in the immediate vicinity of the properties surrounding the site will be seriously diminished.
Therefore I believe the proposal is therefore contrary to the guidance in HS4 and HS10 and those are my reasons for refusal, so moved.
Councillor Bernie Mooney (Chair): So, errm, the recommendation is for voting is that this application is for refusal, for those refusal reasons which have been been recommended and have been recommended and seconded. So could we put that to the vote please? Errm all those who are minded to refuse this application for those recommended refusal reasons.
(Matthew Rushton mutters something that can’t be heard to Cllr Bernie Mooney).
Cllr Steve Foulkes: OK, the proposal therefore meets the National, National Planning Policy Framework, can’t hurt to add those small words.
Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair): Is everybody happy with that? Does everybody understand? No, so we can go to the vote on this for refusal so can we have a vote on refusal? OK, that application has been unanimously refused.
Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair): We’ll move onto number thirteen please, errm could we have a presentation for number thirteen please?
A brief blog post outlining the long running saga regarding filming public meetings of Wirral Council, covering the recent ban by the Chair of the Planning Committee, Eric Pickle’s advice and a brief run down of the history.
So, although the articles are broadly correct I’d like to correct a slight error and make a few clarifications.
Liverpool Echo
“At a meeting of the planning committee on Thursday, a local blogger was again told to stop filming.”
This should read “Shortly before a meeting of the planning committee on Thursday, a local blogger was again told to stop filming.” If it had been at the meeting itself I would’ve posted the footage online, however yes, it has happened before (18th December 2012) on a close 6:5 vote. Back then Cllr Mooney said it would be “just for this meeting” (see video below).
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
After a ban on filming happened at a Health and Wellbeing Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting (on which Cllr Mooney sat) on the 28th March 2013 to discuss the controversial closure of Moreton Day Centre, I sent a letter before claim to Wirral Council (which is the first stage of a judicial review of a decision). I received this response by email back from Wirral Council’s Monitoring Officer Surjit Tour (the same Surjit Tour that Cllr Mooney said told her she could stop filming at meetings).
Tour, Surjit
to
stephengerrard, me
Tue, 2 Apr 2013 16:08:47 +0100
Dear Mr Brace
I am on annual leave until 15 April. I am somewhat surprised by your email and letter given that I have asked you a number of times to meet me to discuss this issue.
Furthermore, there no ban on filming as you and another have been filming a number of committee meetings.
I would suggest that no proceedings are issued until I have had the opportunity to respond. I therefore request an extension of time to 30 April.
I await your response.
Please can you also include Stephen Gerrard in any further response.
Yours sincerely
Surjit Tour
Sent from my HTC Touch Pro 2 on Vodafone
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
I was allowed to film meetings until the Planning Committee meeting of 27th June 2013, a further letter before claim (with a proposed reply date of 12th July) was sent to Wirral Council’s legal department and interested parties on the 28th June 2013. At the time of writing I have not received a reply from either Wirral Council or the interested parties.
I will also make one small response to Cllr Mooney’s comments, I did say that if she as Chair asked a petitioner if they didn’t want to be filmed and they said no I wouldn’t. However she said, “I can’t do that” rejecting what I felt was a reasonable compromise. Despite her assertion that Planning Committee is the only committee where members of the public regularly address it, there are in fact others ranging from the Highway and Traffic Representation Panel, Licensing Act 2003 committee, Licensing, Health and Safety & General Purposes Committee and full Council meetings (public question time). I hope the above sets the record straight somewhat.
Cllr David Elderton (Conservative spokesperson): Maybe after we have instructions to vote.
Cllr Steve Foulkes: Oh well I’ll hold this discussion and think I’ll find we have a bit of a discussion.
Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair): So what will we do?
Cllr David Elderton (Conservative spokesperson): Yes, again we have this situation where a site visit was most beneficial particularly the three-dimensional view on the ground that the impact would likely to occur and would result in this development taking place. I must say I have to agree with errm Steve that the concern about the impact on the area and the changing character of the area so errm I was unhappy about the development and it’s potential to do so. I’ll declare my powder dry until I see what Steve moves and I’m certainly unhappy about that and I’m not happy with the procedures in place. Thank you. Thank you.
Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair): Errm, I’m just going to say briefly to you that I have family and declare an interest in this item which I do and I’m extremely errm underestimated that the challenge, very late and it’s interesting, so has anybody else got any other comments before we go back to Steve? Steve?
Cllr Steve Foulkes: Whilst I hear issues around community safety, err and those issues I don’t personally think, err I haven’t seen the border treatment to many of the plots in that area that lies at making community safety worse or better and I don’t think the highways issue is one that we could reject in terms of movements to new extension properties are probably minimal err given it’s in a residential area.
Cllr Steve Foulkes: Errm, however it is not the only large rear garden in that vicinity and I think just the planning officer has taken the view, and again I think much of planning is really subjective, and the planning officer’s subjective view has been taken in as much as the comparator for the development site has been taken in detail, planning reasons and lists of guidance, as in the planning history err on Winston Drive but it did say in local instruction that Hawthorne Avenue did enjoy large gardens as you can see in the pack which perfectly illustrates that.
But the other open view you didn’t mention which also part of that site is Beryl Road which is the one that is just to the top of that. The rear gardens of Beryl Road are significantly larger than the plots in Pine Tree and Winston Drive. So I understand and I can see the enticement of some of the controversial area nature of trying to build in that rear garden. However if we take the logic that I’ve progressed in this argument, that we said that this site’s gradient would be somewhere between Beryl and Noctorum Avenue that sort of location, then certainly it wouldn’t be in terms of keeping with plot size. It’s my fear and that’s what the planning system is about, it’s about making wise decisions that don’t leave us with issues we have to face in the future.
If we were to develop that site there now, that would create closer to where other developments, so what next? We could well say we’ll stave off a development there, we’ll put one there and within a very short space of time you’ll see that whole area develop and over develop, so my argument is going to be based around the fact that this application could develop into a pack of applications which would be detrimental to the area.
So I’ve looked at the policies, I looked at the issues and the reasoned reasons for refusal and I will hold them in abeyance if any other Member wants to speak errm but I’m happy to move them as part of the debate or or or if Members if Members would move those now and see how we go or or