Category: Planning

Planning Committee – 08/03/2011 – Part 4 – Sheldrakes Restaurant, Banks Road, Heswall

The Chair asked the planning officers to address the points made by the petitioners, which they had seem examples of at the site visit. Matthew Rushton replied that the footprint would be increased by the proposal and that the report was slightly inaccurate. However the envelope would not be enlarged. He then explained using a … Continue reading “Planning Committee – 08/03/2011 – Part 4 – Sheldrakes Restaurant, Banks Road, Heswall”

The Chair asked the planning officers to address the points made by the petitioners, which they had seem examples of at the site visit. Matthew Rushton replied that the footprint would be increased by the proposal and that the report was slightly inaccurate. However the envelope would not be enlarged. He then explained using a plan on the overhead.

Cllr Johnson (who throughout the meeting had problems with his microphone) said it was a bit of mixup with the two together, but he asked how far around the corner the balcony wrapped to the slip road to the beach? He also asked if the public would be able to look out. The answer given (after a long delay in which many pieces of paper were unfolded and refolded in what initially looked like an mime artist doing origami) was that the area would be restricted with reference made to the terrace and flat roof.

The Chair asked for dimensions, the answer given was 9m. Cllr Johnson talked without his microphone on and couldn’t be heard. He then turned his microphone on and said there had been a fiasco at the appeal as Wirral Council had been using two different sets of plans as the plans had been revised. The revised plans had been found and used. He said there had been no time to study the revised plans, however council officers “rolled over” and altered their decision.

Planning Committee – 08/03/2011 – Part 3 – Sheldrakes Restaurant, Banks Road, Heswall

Someone representing the applicant called Neil from Chester then addressed the committee. He said it was relevant to highlight the objections relate to the existing building and the applicant had the benefit of two live consents.

Regarding the material amendments to the plans, the sole reason was to comply with their statutory duty under the Equality Act and Health & Safety legislation following a risk assessment. The plans would allow for a second preparation kitchen which would help with cross-contamination. He considered the new design to be superior as the existing consent was ad hoc. He commented on the first floor aspect regarding massing and the ridge line. He said there had been a noise reduction scheme and that the construction was sufficient to control noise. He felt it was inappropriate for Wirral Council to impose a further noise reduction scheme. He mentioned an email he had written to members of the Planning Committee prior to the meeting.

Commenting on the second application, he referred to the lawful development certificate has been issued regarding ten years to 2007. From 2007 it operated by the hours granted by the certificate. He said it was to reflect the historic opening hours for thirty years. He disputed an adverse impact on local residents. With the additional information submitted today by email, he felt the applicant had addressed all the points of concern raised and he called for approval.

Planning Committee – 08/03/2011 – Part 2 – Sheldrakes Restaurant, Banks Road, Heswall

The committee then went on to receive a verbal report from an officer about items 5&6 (which were taken together). A previous refused application had gone to the Planning Inspector who had overturned the decision. The application was for improving the circulation of people within the restaurant, increasing its capacity and to simplify the design. The second application was for varying the hours, which would affect the extension too. This would lead to an hour later opening until midnight and on New Years Eve until 2am. Reference was made to the lawful development certificate.

A petitioner addressed the committee who was against the application. They introduced themselves as Steve Fitzsimmons, the Chair of the local Residents Association who lived behind the restaurant. He referred them to the written report specifically the section on Appearance and Ameneties. He disputed the fact stated there that the footprint of the building wouldn’t be extended. He mentioned the Greenbelt and that thirty two out of the forty local households had signed the petition.

He mentioned the road (Banks Road) and how traffic was causing problems for dog walkers and birdwatchers and also mentioned a blind spot and near accidents. He then went onto mention parking and the local public car park and the effect on residents on nights of private parties. He also mentioned illegal parking and disturbance. He said nearly two hundred people leaving tend to disturb residents.

He carried on talking about noise disturbance. He went into the history of applications and how the new design wouldn’t fit in with the existing properties. Overlooking and privacy issues were also mentioned including blocking of light. He then went onto talk about the Equality Act/Disability Discrimination aspects of the application and said it shouldn’t be used as a special circumstance. He said the existing toilet could be improved and was inappropriate in the Green Belt/Coastal Area. He referred to the Planning Inspector’s decision.

Planning Committee – 08/03/2011 – Part 1 – “We can’t hear you”

Planning committee started late. Most members of the public were still milling around the lobby by five past six after planning officers had shooed them away from Committee Room 1 & 2.

Cllr Mitchell started off by welcoming those present to the meeting. However with the seats being many further rows back only those on the front row could hear and a number of members of public were grumbling. The meeting was then delayed while an officer was sent away to find someone to turn the speakers on. Someone came in and out to do this about three times as generally the Chair’s microphone is allowed to overrule other speakers, but the person had limited the microphones to one speaker at a time rather than the usual.

The meeting then restarted at about ten past six. As this is a regular occurence you wonder why the microphones can’t be tested a few minutes before the meeting starts!

Cllr Elderton declared a prejudicial interest in items 5 and 6 by virtue of his position on the Cabinet as Cabinet Member for Culture, Tourism and Leisure. He also declared an interest in item 12.

Cllr Keeley and Cllr Kenny both requested a site visit for item 9 (Thai Rooms, Liscard). Cllr Boult requested a site visit for item 12 (Kukis, West Kirby). The Chair informed those present that item 11 (Pinewood, Heswall) would be deferred for further information. A number of members of the public who had come for items 9, 11 and 12 left at this point.

Cabinet meeting (Wirral Council) 22/02/2011 Part 1 – the Conservative/Lib Dem budget cometh and Labour is not happy

Well yesterday the Conservative & Lib Dem Cabinet “unveiled” their Wirral Council budget for 2011/2012. Labour’s (opposition) budget will arrive by noon on Friday the 25th February.

Next Monday (1st March) the full Council will vote on the budget, although with 41 (yes I know it’s 42 including the Lib Dem Mayor but generally he doesn’t vote as he’s supposed to be politically neutral as part of his office) “progressive partnership” councillors to Labour’s 25 24 (edit – I sometimes forget Cllr. Knowles had switched from Labour to Tory and the independent Cllr Kirwan isn’t still with Wirral Council) councillors, I’m sure even Labour can do the maths and realise Labour’s budget will be defeated next Monday (with no need for Budget Part 2 on the evening of the 9th March) by around seventeen votes.

Can you see which bits of the Budget are from the Lib Dem side and which from the Conservative side? Yes you can see “the seams” between the two halves as we continue to be two independent political parties with minds and policy making processes of our own. If you look really hard you can see the bits influenced by yours truly and others (for example the 4-year rolling programme for 20 mph residential zones discussed last year by the party when Cllr Quinn was Cabinet Member for Streetscene and Transport) now carried forward by Cllr Rennie.

One Lib Dem policy coming into play is the pupil premium which means about £5 million extra for Wirral Schools to spend on children on free school meals, looked after children and service children. You should’ve heard the “wails of anguish” at the Wirral Schools Forum from headmasters/headmistresses from the more prosperous parts of the Borough when they realised £5 million would be spent on improving the educational chances of the most needy! Clearly Wirral is a place of large social divides and the extra money will be a welcome boost to the schools in Bidston & St. James.

So what may you ask is “in the budget”? Well, first to deal with the elements of the council tax that are made up by Merseyside Police’s budget and Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service’s budget. Both Merseyside Police and Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service froze their contributions from Council Tax compared to last year (2010/2011).

Due to increased costs and inflation (as well as a high proportion of its costs being on staff), Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service will be cutting some jobs. Their Chief Exec/treasurer explains the situation in a self-styled “podcast” (I don’t think he quite knows what a podcast is but I have to give them a few marks for trying), which unfortunately with my browser Firefox either opens a blank black window or six video windows of him at once creating an echo effect so I’ve uploaded it to Youtube (which has slightly better audio quality than five echoes).

For the purposes of any copyright lawyers out there, as the work has been made previously available to the public (and still is on Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service’s website at this location), this is classed as “fair dealing” under s.30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and is being done for the purpose of news reporting (and making sure you can hear what the speaker says).

Quite why councillors on Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service left it to an officer to record a video to explain the cuts is a mystery I’m sure my humble readers can enlighten me on in the comments section (or maybe I’ll just ask Cllr Ellis, Cllr Niblock, Cllr Rennie or Cllr Roberts next time I see them).