Category: Planning

Cllr Kelly said that the local planning authority finds that contrary to highway safety no provision has been made for servicing needs. Cllr Realey seconded this. Cllr Kelly said back to the issue of amenity it was defined in statute and elaborated in common law. The Post Office was classed as an amenity. He looked to the solicitor to know the statutory definition. He said judges made law based on the definition in statutes.

The Chair asked the officer for advice. Cllr Kelly continued that there should be two votes, Cllr Foulkes asked Cllr Kelly to add the health centre but he said he couldn’t.

Cheryl Barry said they had to demonstrate harm to an amenity and that it would be definitely shut down, she said there was no evidence of harm. The Chair asked the audience to be quiet. Cheryl Barry continued that students done had shown there were no impacts and they had to evidence actual evidence.

Cllr Kenny said on the last point the need to have evidence was a bit unfair. It was a question of judgement, not black and white. If it was approved it was almost certain the Post Office would close down. It was in the late list and to only take it into account if it was guaranteed was unfair.

Cllr Kelly said they had to weigh it on the balance of probabilities. Cllr Kenny said it was almost certain the Post Office would close.

The officer said [in reference to the sequential test] that none were available or suitable. Cllr Mitchell asked them to clarify amenity, the management of the private unadopted road and who the landowner was.

The Chair said it was important there was the right management of traffic on the private site. Cheryl Barry said that residential amenity referred to appearance and noise. The Post Office was a valuable asset, however there was no remit to refuse on competition grounds. There was no planning definition of community asset. The refusal Cllr Kelly quoted did not apply.

The Chair asked regarding enforceability and the landowner. An officer indicated that they would not welcome a TRO [Traffic Regulation Order]. If they wished to enforce parking restrictions themselves they could prohibit parking. The planning department could enforce this through a planning condition.

Cllr Realey asked about if this process proved the Woodchurch Road shops (including Sainsburys) were not viable? She asked wasn’t the resident’s outlook, the doctors, the other shops and flats not affected? She said it was absolutely ridiculous.

One of Wirral Council’s legal advisers stated that he appreciated what Cllr Realey had indicated, however this did not affect a planning reason as it was not a definition of amenity. From the audience Cllr Foulkes muttered “disgraceful”.

The Chair said [to Cllr Kelly] that he had implied he wanted to move refusal. Cllr Kelly said the first and strongest grounds were the servicing of the site, reason for refusal R07C. The Chair asked him to read it out.

Cllr Kelly continued by saying that when it was a garage it did have a HGV once a day to deliver petrol. However this was a different situation to a petrol forecourt. In making the sweep it would be hard not to mount the pavement leading to broken flags. An experienced HGV driver would want the pavement clear. From parts of his ward people would arrive at the health centre by bus, walking along this stretch of pavement to and from the bus stop. These pedestrians would be in conflict with the HGV driver three times a day and there would be broken flags.

Back to planning reasons the loss of the Post Office satisfied R08D (a standard reason) relating to unneighbourly development and loss of amenity. The second reason was there was no servicing provision within the site (standard reason R07C). He said the vehicle movements would be dangerous and would hold water on appeal.

The Chair asked for other councillors to have the opportunity to comment. Cllr Mitchell asked for clarification on the points Cllr Kelly had made regarding amenity and what it meant. He said the comments Cllr Foulkes had made regarding proposed legislation caused difficulty as the plans had to be dealt with according to current planning legislation. Two things that came out were the sequential process, other areas close to the site and Cllr Kelly’s point about the unadopted highway. How was it managed and was it within the remit of the landowner, if so who?

The Chair asked for comments on Cllr Mitchell’s points. He asked them to discuss the sequential test and elaborate briefly. He said they can’t take into account legislation that might or might not pass as it would be overturned on appeal.

Cllr Kelly said he had concerns at the time which didn’t amount to predetermination. In October 2010 there had been permission for four shopping units. Almost immediately a variation of the condition regarding merging had been applied for. He said the first thing (unusually) was saying well done to the planning department to insist on a full application with supporting data. He did not approve of development by stealth which was far from satisfactory.

The impact on shops ranged from no impact, a positive impact or a detrimental impact. They were not allowed to take into account competition, but this didn’t extend to the impact on the Post Office which he felt was classified as an amenity. No other Post Office was easily accessible. The Post Office was not affected directly, but the store was. He was raising it as a concern and said this was “the evidence of [his] own eyes”. Claughton Village’s host store had closed and the Post Office had been allowed to continue in an empty building. There was the evidence of the applicant’s evidence or the evidence of an independent firm of accountants, that said in their experience it would result in the loss of an amenity.

His second area of concern was regarding deliveries. He referred to a circuit at Townfield Close and a sweep pattern. The HGV had limited clearance, the chance that a driver would have to select reverse gear one in three times was high. He had asked twice and yellow lines on an unadopted road were not enforceable. They couldn’t be enforced regarding parking. People lived about the shops and once they asked why they couldn’t park, the turning circle argument was gone.

Cheryl Barry replied that the study met national policy and that no evidence suggested an impact on the viability of the Post Office.

Cllr Kenny said he had attended the site visit and mentioned about the yellow lines that would allow delivery lorries. Was there possibly some other arrangement that would allow parking at times there was not a delivery? Could this be clarified? Also he referred to Cllr Foulkes stating that Townfield Close was unadopted. Were such parking restrictions enforceable? The Post Office was on the “late list” and there seemed to be some confusion, the accountants had detailed the cost of keeping it open, he was genuinely concerned that if it went through then the Post Office would be lost.

The Chair thanked him. Cheryl Barry said the evidence and justification by the applicant had been assessed. She couldn’t comment on the private report. The unadopted highway and its subsequent management was part of the planning application.

The Chair asked what hours the road would be used. The Principal Assistant Engineer stated that there would be no parking at all times in Townfield Close, there were no proposed restrictions except at times that would make enforcement of the conditions easier. There was a problem restricting the times as it would cause a difficulty when vehicles deliver as there would be parked vehicles. It would then be difficult to find the owners and that’s why it was at all times.

Cllr Kelly said that his name was on the list of the councillors who had taken it out of delegation.