Planning Committee 24th April 2012 Item 10: APP/12/00145

A decision on item 10 (which was the Wirral Churches’ ARK Project planning application for 55 Duke Street, Birkenhead, CH41 8BW) was deferred at Tuesday’s Planning Committee. The reason given by the Chair of the Planning Committee, was that officers had asked for it to be deferred due to further information having been received which … Continue reading “Planning Committee 24th April 2012 Item 10: APP/12/00145”

A decision on item 10 (which was the Wirral Churches’ ARK Project planning application for 55 Duke Street, Birkenhead, CH41 8BW) was deferred at Tuesday’s Planning Committee. The reason given by the Chair of the Planning Committee, was that officers had asked for it to be deferred due to further information having been received which they would like to assess properly.

This is a former public house called “Grand Trunk Hotel” on the corner of Duke Street and Old Bidston Road, which was sold last year for £42,000. Wirral Churches’ Ark Project’s proposal is to change its use to six bedsits on the first and second floor with offices on the ground floor. A qualifying petition of signatures from sixty different addresses has been submitted against it.

The committee report on it can be read here.

Planning Applications (recently decided) affecting Bidston & St. James ward

There have been three planning applications recently approved by Wirral Council’s planning officers in the last few weeks. Two of these are concerning the Bidston Moss retail park. Further details are below and for more detail please click on the links.

Application No.: APP/11/00650 Application Type: Full Planning Permission
Decision Level: Delegated
Ward: Bidston and St James
Decision Date: 05/04/2012 Decision: Approve
Case Officer: Mr M Rushton
Applicant: Agent: Higham & Co
Location: Halfords, BIDSTON MOSS, LEASOWE, CH44 2HE
Proposal: Elevational alterations to existing retail unit including recladding and new entrance features.

Application No.: APP/11/00704 Application Type: Full Planning Permission
Decision Level: Delegated
Ward: Bidston and St James
Decision Date: 05/04/2012 Decision: Approve
Case Officer: Mr M Rushton
Applicant: Agent: Higham & Co
Location: Junction 1 Retail Park, Bidston Moss, Leasowe, CH44 2HE
Proposal: Reconfiguration and refurbishment of existing non-food retail unit including partial demolition, construction of extension and external alterations including recladding and new entrance features together with new car parking spaces.

Application No.: APP/12/00089 Application Type: Full Planning Permission
Decision Level: Delegated
Ward: Bidston and St James
Decision Date: 22/03/2012 Decision: Approve
Case Officer: Mr M Rushton
Applicant: Agent: Paddock Johnson Partnership
Location: Vittoria Court, BECKWITH STREET, BIRKENHEAD
Proposal: Proposed two storey side extension, entrance & internal alterations to update existing residential accommodations to current decency standards and to provide additional office accommodation for disaster & recovery suite and training facilities.

Planning Applications decided (Bidston & St. James ward) APP/12/00032, 16 Hartnup Way & APP/12/00042, Price Street

Planning applications decided involving Hartnup way and a school in Price Street.

If you have come to this page looking for details of a planning application for Target Road, Heswall please follow this link.

There have been two planning applications decided recently, and are both listed below. Both were approved.

Application No.: APP/12/00032

Application Type: Full Planning Permission
Decision Level: Delegated
Ward: Bidston and St James
Decision Date: 24/02/2012

Decision: Approve
Case Officer: Mr M Rushton
Applicant: Mr Gareth Walsh

Agent:
Location: 16 Hartnup Way, Prenton, Wirral, CH43 7ND
Proposal: Retrospective application for retention of alterations to the levels of the rear garden, including
dwarf retaining wall.

————————————————————————————————————————————-

Application No.: APP/12/00042 Application Type: Full Planning Permission
Decision Level: Delegated
Ward: Bidston and St James
Decision Date: 06/03/2012 Decision: Approve
Case Officer: Miss S McIlroy
Applicant:

Agent: Aedas Building Consultancy
Location: Our Lady and St Edwards RC Aided Primary School, PRICE STREET, BIRKENHEAD, CH41 8DU
Proposal: Single storey extension to rear of school to create new library, practical, storage and withdrawal
areas.

Planning Committee 6/3/2012 Part 2 – APP/11/00715 2-4 Laird Street, 212-214 Park Road North and 38, 39 and 40 Bray Street, Birkenhead, Wirral CH41 8BY

A report on the Planning Committee’s decision on the 6th March 2012 to allow demolition of houses in Laird Street, Birkenhead and nearby roads to facilitate new housing

The committee then moved to consider the first of two planning applications involving Bidston & St. James ward. The first involved the demolition of a number of vacant community buildings in Laird Street, along with a number of properties on Park Road North and Bray Street.

The officer said the planning application was for demolition of two buildings which was a brownfield site in a regeneration area which would be redeveloped for affordable housing. He said Keepmoat Homes already had a separate developer’s agreement with Wirral Partnership Homes. He said retaining these buildings was not a cost effective option and that the recommended separation distances were not wholly achieved. There was a qualifying petition.

The Chair invited the petitioner to talk to the Planning Committee.

Professor Robert Lee introduced himself as the Chair of the Friends of Birkenhead Park. He said he had been told by officers it was not possible to give a Powerpoint presentation, but asked how many had seen the houses? Professor Lee said they were not listed buildings and weren’t able to be listed, but had been built in 1882 by the Laird family and had been standing for 134 years.

Professor Lee told those present that at the Wirral History and Heritage Fair they had collected an extra eighty-five signatures on their petition, which showed the depth of concern. He said that those signing held the Planning Committee responsible and that “public opinion was clear”. The professor pointed to the quality of the buildings, which were of superior quality, a “rich period character” and pointed out that these were all comments of Wirral Council’s Conservation Area staff.

Professor Robert Lee was keen to emphasise the importance of neighbourhood planning as well as the opportunity for voluntary and community groups to shape proposals. He said that only one public event had been run for the whole site which less than thirty people had attended and that the developer had never consulted the Friends of Birkenhead Park. He went on further to say that the Presbyterian Church had been “kept in the dark” and that a Hugh Jones (treasurer, deacon and secretary) had quoted a Welsh hymn by saying that they were “living in a wilderness”. The professor said there had been serious deficiencies of process and that the key issue was a refurbishment option and the way it had been dismissed.

Professor Lee referred to the report highlighting the long-term settlement and poor condition of the boundary wall as well as a funding gap of £322,000. He said the Friends of Birkenhead Park wanted an independent survey, which had been refused, as the report had been commissioned by the developer to facilitate demolition. Their report said that if it was not demolished, then it would cast delivery of the project into doubt if planning permission was not forthcoming. He questioned the figures used and said that the comparable sale values in taking into account terraces in Cavendish Street were incorrect as these were a lower quality. If it had been done by one of his students, he would’ve failed them.

He wanted the developer to look at a realistic figures to eliminate the funding gap and at the option of flats. Professor Lee said that Birkenhead Park was a key prospect for World Heritage status and this bid was supported by Peel. If in the immediate buffer zone properties were demolished or new construction was not fitting they would fail in their bid. He referred to a claim of the new Cabinet Member for Leisure and Tourism and asked the Planning Committee to reject the application and to ask the developer to reconsider and to consider refurbishment.

The Chair thanked Professor Lee and said they would look at it on its merits, he wanted to clarify that the houses were great as they are but not listed. He asked the applicant to speak in support of the applicant.

The applicant introduced himself as Alan McGuinness, Regional Development Manager for Keepmoat Homes. Mr. McGuiness said they had been consulting with the Planning Department over various regeneration sites in the Laird Street and Birkenhead area, to look at how to present a proposal in keeping with the street scene. He said they had consulted with the Planning Department over what proposal was in keeping and as benefit going forward, he wanted to respond to some of the points raised by Professor Lee.

Mr. McGuinness said they had looked at the condition and viability and taken stock of the refurbishment costs versus the value of the property delivered compared to the price they’d be able to sell it at and found it wasn’t viable. He said they had tried to replicate a nice facade, they had consulted, but couldn’t be held responsible for the numbers turning up to a consultation event.

The Chair asked if there was a ward councillor present. There wasn’t.

Cllr John Salter said that he knew the houses well and the area. Fourteen properties had been written to and it had been advertised in the press as well as an open day. He supported Professor Lee and would love to keep the empty buildings, but where would the money come from? Cllr Salter said the country was “in dire straits” and that he would support the application.

Cllr Stuart Kelly said that it was a major thoroughfare and a gateway and that they couldn’t dismiss it. He said they were “splendid looking buildings” and referred to the Conservation Area over the road.

The Chair asked to see an elevation.

The officer showed the elevation and said that the corner building would be replaced with a block. The Chair referred to the points made by the objector and the concerns about heritage status. He said that the refurbishment option was not viable or commercial and there had been comments about the condition. He said they had a recommendation for approval subject to conditions.

Cllr Stuart Kelly asked a point of clarification about the block shown in the elevation and whether it was flats? The officer said that was what was proposed.

Cllr John Salter and Cllr Dave Mitchell proposed and seconded approval of the application.

Councillors except Cllr Patricia Glasman and Cllr Stuart Kelly voted for. Cllr Glasman and Cllr Kelly voted against so the application was approved.

Professor Lee then made a plea to the developer to carry out a digital report prior to demolition. The Chair said it was not normally a debate, however asked the Planning Committee if they would add it as an extra condition, which they were happy to do so.

Planning Committee 6/3/2012 Part 1 – APP/11/01520 – Redwood, 18 Farr Hall Drive, Heswall, CH60 4SH

Planning Committee meeting of 6th March 2012 to decide on APP/11/01520 involving Redwood, 18 Farr Hall Drive, Heswall, CH60 4SH.

Present:

Cllr David Elderton (Chair)
Cllr Wendy Clements (Vice-Chair)
Cllr David Mitchell
Cllr Stuart Kelly
Cllr John Salter
Cllr Denise Realey
Cllr Bernie Mooney
Cllr Brian Kenny
Cllr Patricia Glasman for Cllr Joe Walsh
Cllr Eddie Boult
Cllr Peter Johnson

The Chair introduced himself and the committee and the minutes of the meeting held on the 16th February were agreed. No declarations of interest were made. Cllr Eddie Boult requested a site visit for application APP/11/01501 22 Broughton Avenue, West Kirby so that the Committee could understand parking issues and facilities for children. This was agreed by the Committee.

The first item considered was APP/11/01520 Redwood, 18 Farr Hall Drive, Heswall. An officer said it was a resubmission of a previous application with a lower height and that it achieved the recommended separation distance. He also pointed out that there was a petition of objection. The Chair asked if someone would like to address the committee on behalf of the petitioners. No one did.

A ward councillor Cllr Hodson said he would be just over five minutes. He said that the proposed development was a resubmission of a previously approved scheme, but that in the new design four habitable windows were facing number 14, compared to the previous two.

Cllr Denise Realey interrupted and asked for a presentation and Cllr John Salter said he hadn’t seen the previous application.

Cllr Hodson continued by pointing out the numerous large windows and said it may impact on residents’ quality of life. He said that the new application was on a greater scale with a flat roof and unique design. The councillor referred to a restrictive covenant on the height and a 21m recommended separation distance on habitable rooms. He felt that the proposed design would lead to overdominance and an unneighbourly development in breach of policy HS4. Cllr Hodson finished by saying he felt if approved it would be in breach of Wirral Council’s policies.

The Chair thanked Cllr Hodson for his comments and pointed out that the covenant was a civil matter not a planning matter. He asked officers to respond to the points raised by Cllr Hodson including his comment on yellow bricks. The Chair also asked for a site plan and elevation to be displayed.

Matthew showed the site plan with a hatched area indicating the existing building and an outline showing the new property and garage. He said the separation distance was achieved and that they considered the layout acceptable. Matthew said that the previous application 11/337 for a three storey building had been approved in May 2011. That proposal had been replaced with a two storey building with a flat roof.

The Chair referred to the recent site visit and asked a further point of officers. Matthew replied by referring to the incline across the site and how some of the building would be beneath ground floor level. The Chair asked the height from the roof to the ground from the highest end of the site. The answer given was just over five metres.

Cllr Johnson asked which windows were from habitable rooms? The officer replied that there was a bedroom each side, one was for a stairway and another for a landing. On the ground floor the windows were for a kitchen, study and cloakroom.

Cllr Stuart Kelly said it benefitted from existing planning permission for a three-storey building, he asked if the existing planning permission was using the same site? The officer replied by saying that it was a similar footprint to the original site plan.

Cllr Brian Kenny said he had been on the site visit the day before, he asked if the footprint was similar? He also asked if it was higher than the original application.

The officer replied that it was a similar footprint and a lower height.

There was a vote on the planning application which was proposed for approval by Cllr John Salter and seconded by Cllr Brian Kenny.

Councillors (except Cllr Johnson) voted in favour. Cllr Johnson voted against, so the planning application was approved.