Category: Planning

Planning Applications decisions Part 1 of 2

A quick round-up of recent planning application decisions affecting Bidston & St. James ward. The decisions below have been made by planning officers at Wirral Council. Further detail can be found by entering application numbers on Wirral Council’s website (enter these numbers in the Application Quick Search field) . The first batch are from 28th … Continue reading “Planning Applications decisions Part 1 of 2”

A quick round-up of recent planning application decisions affecting Bidston & St. James ward. The decisions below have been made by planning officers at Wirral Council. Further detail can be found by entering application numbers on Wirral Council’s website (enter these numbers in the Application Quick Search field) .

The first batch are from 28th July 2011 to 17th August 2011.

Application Number: APP/11/00674

Ward: Bidston & St. James ward

Decision Date: 4th August 2011

Case Officer: Mrs S Lacey

Applicant: Mr Haskayne

Agent: CS Planning Enforcement Solutions

Location: Unused Land, ST ANNES PLACE, BIRKENHEAD, CH41 4FQ

Proposal: Change of use of first floor to self-contained two bedroom flat

Application Type: Full Planning Permission

Decision Level: Delegated

Decision: Approve

Application Number: APP/11/00680

Ward: Bidston & St. James ward

Decision Date: 29th July 2011

Case Officer: Miss K Elliot

Applicant:

Agent: WCEC Architects

Location: Netto Food Store, STANLEY ROAD, BIRKENHEAD

Proposal: New ATM pod, new plant enclosure and new refrigeration plant

Application Type: Full Planning Permission

Decision Level: Delegated

Decision: Approve

Application Number: ADV/11/00681

Ward: Bidston & St. James ward

Decision Date: 29th July 2011

Case Officer: Miss K Elliot

Applicant:

Agent: W C E C Architects

Location: Netto Foodstores, STANLEY ROAD, BIRKENHEAD

Proposal: New freestanding, fascia, banner and window signage with Asda branding to be implemented

Application Type: Advertisement Consent

Decision Level: Delegated

Decision: Approve

Application Number: APP/11/00692

Ward: Bidston & St. James ward

Decision Date: 2nd August 2011

Case Officer: Miss S McIlroy

Applicant:

Agent:

Location: 60 HOYLAKE ROAD, BIDSTON, CH41 7BY

Proposal: Change from A1 to A2 (solicitors practice)

Application Type: Full Planning Permission

Decision Level: Delegated

Decision: Approve

Source used: <A HREF=”http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=20250″>Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 6/9/2011 item 11 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED UNDER DELEGATED
POWERS BETWEEN 28/07/2011 AND 17/08/2011</a>

Economy & Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee 5th September 2011 Part 4 Budget Issues for Economy and Housing in 2012/2013

Kevin Adderley replied that the target for the last seven years was higher than the actual income. They could set the price that equated to the gap between the income target but it would require changing the whole system. Next year they would publish how much it costs and calculate and publish an estimate of planning fees. They would divide the total costs by the number of expected planning applications to derive at the fee. With no savings there would be a £500,000 shortfall. Cllr Hackett referred to 2.1 on page 35 about the capital program. He asked if he was correct that in respect of capital borrowing it equated to an increase in yearly revenue costs of 10% of the total amount borrowed?

Kevin Adderley answered yes, to borrow £9.63 million would cost £963,000 in interest a year. Cllr Hackett asked if it was possible to delay two schemes for two years? Cllr Mark Johnston said he was nervous about the minutiae and thought such matters fell within the role of the Council Excellence Overview and Scrutiny Committee to be discussed on another day. He wanted to hear all councillors. Cllr Hackett said he was only asking questions and that he wanted to help and advise in a unpartisan way which was surely the idea of scrutiny?

Cllr Hodson said they scrutinised decisions. He asked where the formula for planning fees was? Were they going to take the figures, divide by planning applications with no savings? Kevin Adderley said that was the government’s suggestion which was similar to the way Building Control had been operating since the start of the year. Cllr Hodson said he thought planning applications had dropped in number and asked for his views on the new planning rules. Kevin Adderley said there was a report to the next Cabinet meeting asking for views and a response. It would be a detailed report with suggestions.

Economy & Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee 5th September 2011 Part 3 Budget Issues for Economy and Housing in 2012/2013

Cllr Johnston said there had to be some explanation over why it was included, Cllr Foulkes had mentioned in his address to Council and the press that he would include scrutiny committees. He had expected chairs of committees to draw together and decide on direction, but he had only been given 24 hours notice to decide over the holidays and come to some conclusions. He had not been ready to remove regular items. There wouldn’t be a special meeting, but it was going to make this meeting longer. Cllr Johnston praised officers over the detail, but said the “information isn’t there to make detailed financial decisions”. The councillor said it would be helpful to have the portfolio holder and member of the Executive to present options and give his opinion. They could debate whether or not to engage scrutiny over the issue as well as the practicalities. They could agree to fully cooperate and scrutinise. Alternatively they could refuse to engage. The Executive needed to know by December, but he didn’t want extra work to impact on the agreed Work Program. A middle ground was the Executive giving the scrutiny committee options to scrutinise.

Cllr Hackett said the role of scrutiny was to inform and advise the executive and he thought they should help the executive to make savings. It was last-minute, but scrutiny could help. He had a couple of questions to ask. The first was about planning application fees. He asked if they were based on a realistic target and in the spirit of helping with the budget that if officers had no answers then could a further report come to the committee?

Planning Committee Site Visit 5/9/2011 18 Bidston Road, Claughton Part 3

The architect said there were options such as triangular windows. An officer said it had previously been an old people’s home. The function of these rooms had been bedrooms and a sewing room, the separation distance was 21 metres. The issue of separation distances and the previous function were established facts.

Cllr Davies said the Chair had made his point, however he was still pushing for an alteration that might help. He said it had previously been used for a different type of clientele. The petitioner said there were houses at the back and trees as well as another house. An officer said the separation distances didn’t contravene the guidelines. Cllr Davies said he had been lent the keys and had gone right into the bedroom of the house at the back and he had seen the view. The Chair said they didn’t have time to go to the neighbour’s garden. Cllr Davies asked what the legal separation distance should be. The officer said there were different levels, but there was a greater distance if there was an authorised habitable use. He said it was not ideal regarding the outlook, however as it was an existing building with habitable rooms he saw no reason for refusal. The Chair said this had been brought up in the petition. He said he had seen the impact. He asked if everyone was happy and thanked people for attending the site visit, reminding them that the issue would be decided at tomorrow night’s meeting starting at 6pm.

Planning Committee Site Visit 5/9/2011 18 Bidston Road, Claughton Part 2

A resident introduced herself as Jean Whalley and said she lived at the back. She said three houses would be affected by the dormer windows and there was a lot of concern in the local neighbourhood.

The Chair, Cllr Elderton said they would look outside, but it would be decided tomorrow night. The petitioner said she had other concerns but was mainly concerned about the apartments. The Chair said this was not the purpose of the site visit.

An officer said she would have an opportunity tomorrow. He said this was for councillors to see the site and that the people who live here was not a planning issue.

Cllr Davies said that for children brought up here there was no play area and a busy main road. The Chair said these were matters for debate tomorrow when he would have an opportunity to speak. Everyone went outside to the side of the building.

Cllr Mitchell asked if the fire escape would be retained internally. The architect confirmed this. The petitioner asked if the car park would be here, the architect confirmed that some of the spaces would be here. Comment was made about a recent theft of lead from the roof. People then went to the back of the building.

Cllr Davies said the main thing the residents were objecting about were the dormers. He said the house behind looks straight into a bedroom and that he’d been round to see. To alleviate this the windows could be made opaque. It was asked when the building was constructed, the answer given was the mid 1980s.