Category: Planning

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 3rd January 2011 Part 6 APP/11/01208 – St Bartholomews Church, CHURCH LANE, THURSTASTON, CH61 0HW – Renewal of planning permission APP/2008/6027 for new entrance for disabled access incorporating ramped access, wheelchair w/c facility, tea point and meeting area & item 10 (ADV/11/01233) Lookers, 143 PENSBY ROAD, HESWALL, CH60 7RD Erection of various Sainsbury’s Local signs on the building and two totem signs either side of parking area

The Chair moved the Committee onto item 9 (APP/11/01208) – St Bartholomews Church, Church Lane, Thurstaton, CH61 0HW – Renewal of planning permission APP/2008/6027 for new entrance for disabled access incorporating ramped access, wheelchair w/c facility, tea point and meeting area. He said it would be a repetition of the past. Matthew said it was … Continue reading “Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 3rd January 2011 Part 6 APP/11/01208 – St Bartholomews Church, CHURCH LANE, THURSTASTON, CH61 0HW – Renewal of planning permission APP/2008/6027 for new entrance for disabled access incorporating ramped access, wheelchair w/c facility, tea point and meeting area & item 10 (ADV/11/01233) Lookers, 143 PENSBY ROAD, HESWALL, CH60 7RD Erection of various Sainsbury’s Local signs on the building and two totem signs either side of parking area”

The Chair moved the Committee onto item 9 (APP/11/01208) – St Bartholomews Church, Church Lane, Thurstaton, CH61 0HW – Renewal of planning permission APP/2008/6027 for new entrance for disabled access incorporating ramped access, wheelchair w/c facility, tea point and meeting area. He said it would be a repetition of the past.

Matthew said it was similar to the last application as it was for an extension of time. The application was to do with the entrance and disabled access. Since it had been approved Planning Policy Statement 5 had replace Planning Policy Guidance 5, in his view the application was not contrary to Planning Policy Guidance 5 and it was recommended for approval.

Cllr Peter Johnson proposed approval, Cllr Wendy Clements seconded approval.

There was a vote.
For: Cllrs Elderton, Clements, Boult, Johnson, Kenny, Salter, Realey, Mooney, Walsh, Kelly and Mitchell (11)
Against: None (0)
abstention: None (0)

Planning Application APP/11/01208 was approved with conditions (11:0:0).

The Committee moved onto item 10 (ADV/11/01233) Lookers, 143 Pensby Road, Heswall, CH60 7RD Erection of various Sainsbury’s Local signs on the building and two totem signs either side of parking area. Matthew said it was the former Lookers Garage, but had opened as a Sainsbury’s Local. There was a forty-nine signature petition. The application was for signs, fascia, car park signage as well as two totem signs. They would be illuminated signs. The two main issues to consider were visual amenity and highway safety. The majority would be to the front elevation with Pensby Road, illumination was not unacceptable, condition 7 would make sure they were not illuminated overnight. The totem poles were limited to two metres in height. The previous commercial use had been subject to a condition on overnight illumination too.

The Chair asked if a person who wished to speak on behalf of the petitioners was present? No one answered.

Cllr John Salter said on page 58, item 7, why were the times 0600 to 0000, couldn’t it be when the store was open and closed?

The Chair asked if it was open at 7am? Matthew answered yes.

The Chair made a comment.
Cllr Dave Mitchell said it was on the main highway with a lot of properties, why not just when the store was open?
The Chair said condition 7 could be amended, which would increase the amenity value.
Cllr Dave Mitchell said he wanted to move an amendment.
Cllr John Salter asked if their Sunday trading hours were 10-4 or 11-5?
The Chair said he didn’t know, but they were open seven days a week.
Cllr John Salter said they were only small.
Matthew said there were no Sunday trading restrictions on them.
Cllr John Salter seconded Cllr Dave Mitchell’s proposal to amend condition 7, with the times amended from “0000 to 0600” to “2300 to 0700”.

There was a vote on the amendment to condition 7 from “0000 to 0600” to “2300 to 0700”.

For: Cllrs Elderton, Clements, Boult, Johnson, Kenny, Salter, Realey, Mooney, Walsh, Kelly and Mitchell (11)
Against: None (0)
Abstention: None (0)

Condition 7 was amended (11:0:0).

There was a vote on approval (with condition 7 amended).

For: Cllrs Elderton, Clements, Boult, Johnson, Kenny, Salter, Realey, Mooney, Walsh, Kelly and Mitchell (11)
Against: None (0)
Abstention: None (0)

Application ADV/11/01233 with conditions was approved (11:0:0).

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 3rd January 2011 Part 5 APP/11/01118 – Land to the North , South and East of Gasholders, Hind Street, Birkenhead, Wirral CH41 5DA

The Chair said that item 8 (APP/11/01118 – Land to the North , South and East of Gasholders, Hind Street, Birkenhead, Wirral CH41 5DA – Application to replace an extant planning permission 2005/07764 – Erection of non food retail, office, trade sales, restaurant/public house, car showroom and crèche (Outline)) had been before the Committee before.

Matthew said that the application was for an extension of time for the 2005 & 2008 applications. They had to look if anything had changed since then. There was a North West Regional Spatial Strategy, Planning Policy Statement 4 and any assessment had to take into account policies. It was for a signficant edge of centre development with regeneration benefits. There was the opportunity for trade and Birkenhead had a sub regional role. The application was to extend the time limit by three years.

The Chair mentioned page 45.
The Vice-Chair asked a question about access for emergency vehicles in reference to the previous outline planning consent given and asked why this wasn’t continued?
The Chair said this was about the decision of 12th January 2009.
The Vice-Chair asked about other conditions?
The Chair asked Matthew to find it and asked the Vice-Chair if she didn’t have the conditions on her?
The Vice-Chair answered no.
Matthew said yes, information had been added to the decision notice, they did this when there was other legislation or in response to a response from the fire service. However it was only informative on the decision notice.
The Vice Chair said it did not have to be as a condition.

Cllr Peter Johnson proposed approval. Cllr John Salter seconded approval. The application was put to the vote.

For: Cllrs Elderton, Clements, Boult, Johnson, Kenny, Salter, Realey, Mooney, Walsh, Kelly and Mitchell (11)
Against: None (0)
Abstention: None (0)

Planning application APP/11/01118 was approved with conditions (11:0:0)

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 3rd January 2011 Part 4 APP/11/01050 – Manor Place, Bromborough, Wirral, CH62 4TU This application is for a development of 40 new affordable houses, in Bromborough Pool Village. The new houses are 2 storey, three bed five person houses, which meet modern standards such as the Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3

Matthew introduced item 7 (APP/11/01050) – Manor Place, Bromborough, Wirral, CH62 4TU. This was for forty affordable homes two stories high. The planning application covered four sites, site 1 (land to the South of the Green), site 2 (a former allotment site on Manor Place), site 3 (land on Manor Place) and site 4 (land on York Street). The last site was partly allocated in the Unitary Development Plan. There was enough highway capacity for the extra traffic that would result and the design incorporated off street parking.

He said that this would allow a departure from the Unitary Development Plan subject to conditions to do with boundary treatment, a ground contamination survey and an extra condition that was material and specified on the late list.

The Chair asked if members of the committee had any comments?

Cllr John Salter asked (in reference to page 32 item 6) would the mature trees that would be removed put back or replaced with new trees? How would they keep a check to see the trees had been replaced?

Matthew replied that the application had been amended to remove the turning head, which would now not take place. York Street had been improved with significant tree planting planned and that was the reason behind the condition.

The Chair referred them to the top of page 33. Councillor Peter Johnson proposed approval.

There was a vote:

For: Cllrs Elderton, Clements, Boult, Johnson, Kenny, Salter, Realey, Mooney, Walsh, Kelly and Mitchell (11)
Against: 0 (None)
Abstention: 0 (None)

Application APP/11/01050 was approved with conditions (11:0:0)

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 3rd January 2011 Part 3 APP/11/00044 (Bay View Nursing Home, 69 Albion Street, New Brighton, CH45 9JG)

Matthew introduced agenda item 4 APP/11/00044 (Bay View Nursing Home, 69 Albion Street, New Brighton, CH45 9JG). He said there had been an outline application for ten apartments in 2008 and that it was a primary residential area. He said policies HS4 & SPD 2 applied and the main issues were design and demonstrating whether the homes were affordable. The applicant had supplied a detailed financial assessment which had been verified by a quantity surveyor which explained why affordable houses here were not viable. The density and design were very similar to the 2008 application, but an extra unit had been added in a basement. This property also had a sunken garden space. The density of 110/hectare was high but it was near shops and services. The design and appearance were slight different to the 2008 application but was recommended for approval subject to conditions. One of the conditions was that the foot way was reinstated and an extra condition had been added.

The Chair asked if anyone had any comments?

Cllr Dave Mitchell indicated he wished to propose accepting the application. Cllr Eddie Boult seconded accepting the application.

There was a vote:

For: 11 (Cllrs Elderton, Clements, Boult, Johnson, Kenny, Salter, Realey, Mooney, Walsh, Kelly and Mitchell)
Against: 0 (None)
Abstention: 0 (None)

The application (APP/11/00044) was approved (with conditions) (11:0:0).

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 3rd January 2011 Part 2 APP/11/00954 – 6 MILLBROOK ROAD, POULTON, CH41 1FL – Change of use from industrial unit to auctioneers – sui generis

The Chair directed those present to page 27 and agenda item 6 (APP/11/00954), 6 Millbrook Road, Poulton, CH41 1FL, Change of use from industrial unit to auctioneers.

Matthew said it was for a change of use to an auctioneers which was the sui generis class. It was in a mainly industrial area on an industrial estate, the Unitary Development Plan allowed uses B1, B2 and B8 here so it was not an acceptable use as they should locate somewhere easy and sustainable. There was a shortage of land for industrial purposes. One auction was held a week on Wednesday evening. It was not conflicting with adjacent businesses, but was still not an acceptable use. There was insufficient information to justify the loss on two grounds, Unitary Development Plan EM8 and the fact it was not sustainable.

Cllr John Salter said he would declare a personal interest as he had had a chat with the owner and a discreet visit to the premises. He said the business needed a large premises and the business had been established for eight years. There was no parking problem and no problem on the one day they had sales. He wanted to draw attention to the fact that 75% of the trade at the public auction was to other businesses, local traders such as second hand shops and it was not mainly for the public.

On the subject of public transport he disagreed with officers as about hundred metres away was Birkenhead Park railway station which he had walked many times. He wanted to overturn officer’s recommendation that it was up for refusal and asked for it to be approved, he did have a form of words.

The Chair said he wanted everybody to have their say, his only concerns was supporting the Unitary Development Plan except for good reasons especially in Bromborough and Ellesmere Port.

Cllr Dave Mitchell asked whether the applicant had been in touch with the Economy & Regeneration Department over moving to more acceptable premises. He commented that the business had been running for eighteen months and said it might benefit from having a look at venues available.

The Chair asked officers if they’d like to come back on alternative venues?

Matthew said that there were vacant sites in the Town Centre, but they hadn’t pushed the applicant to go through hte process. He said it was difficult to make the case.

Cllr Stuart Kelly said it was interesting as it was a sui generis class and in Latin. He had googled it and hadn’t come across auctioneer in government advice. He said that Matthew’s advice was surrounding a change of use. He asked what assessment had been done to see if it didn’t fall into the acceptable B1, B2 or B8 categories? He said there was no mention in the Unitary Development Plan and there was an absence of advice. He had resorted to Google to see what was out there and what it really is? He said it cut across B1, B2 and B7 and referred to Cllr John Salter’s comments about the auction being once a week. The rest of the time it was storage and distribution (class B8) which they didn’t appear to have a policy for the B-class and sui generis. He asked where would they be on appeal as it was near B8 and was 50/50. The report established the numbers of cars used and that B1/B2/B8 uses which was close enough to make no difference, unless the officers came up with a good argument to the contrary.

The Chair thanked Cllr Kelly for his interesting points.

Matthew said the element of concern was the public sales as a proportion were to the general public. People movements were not supposed to happen here but to the Town Centre where there was public transport provision. He agreed that some of the use was storage and distribution (B8 class), but the sales to the general public were moving it to an A1 use. There was some case law categorising it as A1 use. However the balance of case law was that each sui generis class should be decided on its own merits. The sole issue was sales to the general public.

Cllr Brian Kenny said he would not be happy to support an application not in accordance with the planning policies, but as detailed in the application it had been running for ten years and this was a retrospective application. There were no highway issues, no health and safety implications, no environmental implications which made it difficult to oppose. In principle he was not happy in opposing the Unitary Development Plan. He asked what words they would use to support it. He reserved the right to decide.

The Chair said there would have to be an urgent reason to outweight the Unitary Development Plan.

Cllr John Salter said that 75% of the business was wholesale, there were similar business in the area such as Moreton Alarms who did lighting and were no different (in selling to members of the public). Cllr Dave Mitchell asked if Moreton Alarms were on the main road as it made a difference? Cllr Mitchell apologised for interrupting Cllr John Salter. Cllr John Salter said he wanted to move it and he’d passed a form of words to Matthew, with alterations on hours. He said it was very accessible, well established for eight years and to move elsewhere he would lose clientele.

The Chair asked if there was something to move? He said each application should be considered on its merits especially the sui generis class.

Cllr John Salter said it was a sustainable business with 78% of its trade being not to the public, but to wholesale. He added a condition that the total number of auctions not exceed one a week. These would happen on a Wednesday from 1700 to 2100 and at no other time. This would not compromise the operation regarding industrial uses in the area. He referred to policy EM6 of the Unitary Development Plan and said that public access would be limited.

The Chair said that the proposal had been proposed and seconded and that it was a unique application and the circumstances had been demonstrated.

The first vote was on approving the application.

For: Cllrs Elderton, Clements, Boult, Johnson, Kenny, Salter, Realey, Mooney, Walsh, Kelly (10)
Against: Cllr Dave Mitchell (1)
Absentions: None (0)

Application APP/11/00954 was approved (10:1:0)

The Chair said they now needed to consider the conditions which he asked an officer to reiterate.

Matthew said they had one condition which was that the total number of auctions not exceed one a week and that this sole auction was restricted to Wednesday between 5pm and 9pm.

The second vote was on the condition.

For: Cllrs Elderton, Clements, Boult, Johnson, Kenny, Salter, Realey, Mooney, Walsh, Kelly (10)
Against: Cllr Dave Mitchell (1)
Abstentions: None (0)

The condition was approved (10:1:0). Two members of the public left.