Category: Planning

Planning Committee – 15/2/2011 – Part 4 – North West House, West Kirby

An environmental health officer confirmed the petitioner’s comments that there was an officer out tonight and that there was an event on tonight. A noise analyzer had been in place since 17th January, which would be left in an extra week. He said a crucial factor was whether it was a statutory nuisance or a … Continue reading “Planning Committee – 15/2/2011 – Part 4 – North West House, West Kirby”

An environmental health officer confirmed the petitioner’s comments that there was an officer out tonight and that there was an event on tonight. A noise analyzer had been in place since 17th January, which would be left in an extra week. He said a crucial factor was whether it was a statutory nuisance or a breach of the licensing objective by being a public nuisance.

If noise levels were found to be excessive at the residential properties then they would need to increase the insulation. If the noise was excessive and a statutory nuisance it could lead to a review of the licence. However until there was clear evidence there was not a great deal that could be done.

Cllr Elderton said it was difficult as they couldn’t confirm whether it exacerbated the noise until it was built. He asked for a picture of the canopy. He asked if it was a bridge too far taking into account the series of complaints. He referred to the concern of the petitioner that it would concentrate the sound and asked if there was going to be sound escaping.

Cllr Kenny pointed out that in the written report there were no environmental health implications and asked for further information.

The officer replied that there were current investigations by Environmental Health regarding noise disturbance. However it was still a question whether the noise caused a statutory nuisance. He said the use was already established.

Planning Committee – 15/2/2011 – Part 3 – North West House, West Kirby

The architect Chris Taylor then addressed some of his points. He pointed out that the area had been previously used as a balcony. He said the design of the canopy wouldn’t lead to an increase in noise.

Cllr Ellis (ward councillor for the area) said he supported Mr. Johnson’s concerns. He mentioned the house and flats close by which were all effected by this. He said he was a great supporter of development in West Kirby and that this was thriving and flourishing. He was however concerned about the upstairs and the use of the roof as a balcony. He said if the canopy was put there it would be like an amphitheatre. He didn’t agree with the architect Chris Taylor that the door was small. He said when the doors and windows were open a row was coming out. He said the bar had a poor reputation for adhering to the rules. He referred to the police being called out and asked the Committee to seek the opinion of Cliff Jones. He said there appears to be some good agreement from the residents that the noise was greater. He asked the committee to defer the matter to ask Cliff or his team to make an assessment regarding the noise amplification.

The Chair pointed out that the architect had said there was a small door originally.

Planning Committee – 15/2/2011 – Part 2 – North West House, West Kirby

The petitioner handed round a diagram to the committee members and told them his name was Steve Johnson. He told them his parents lived nearby and that he had two objections. He felt the application for a canopy was a change of use and referred to a previous application. He felt it was not a balcony, but a roof and the balustrade was only ornamental.

He felt there was no evidence that the structure of the canopy would cause an extra problem regarding noise. He said the design was similar to an amphitheatre and it would project the noise forward and downward. He had been in correspondence with the Director of the Acoustics Research Unit which was part of the School of Architecture at Liverpool University.

He pointed out an important, existing problem with noise. He mentioned out of thirty reports to the police, nineteen had been from music. There was live music and noise from these premises. He felt the worst was the first floor which needed soundproofing. There had been investigations by Environmental Health who were tonight measuring the noise.

He felt there would be noise resulting from people under the canopy. The noise as heard from his parent’s house was 85 dB. He again pointed out that the noise would be projected forward and down. He asked for the application to be rejected because of noise and that asked that the restaurant adhere to current licensing and planning conditions.

Planning Committee – 15/2/2011 – Part 1

The meeting started with the Chair, Cllr Mitchell welcoming those present to the meeting. The minutes of the meeting held on the 25th January were agreed. Cllr Elderton declared a prejudicial interest in item 6.

Cllr Johnson asked for a site visit for item 6 (Sheldrake’s Restaurant in Heswall) and Cllr Keeley asked for a site visit for item 9 (Woodville in Thornton Hough). Both site visits were agreed.

The Planning Committee first considered item 10 (a change of use from an office to a dwelling in Claughton). An officer said it was a departure from the Unitary Development Plan and there had previous been a refusal for a nursery here on highway safety grounds. There was no petition against the application. Cllr Elderton said for the benefit of the audience that although it was not normally within the criteria that it had been marketed. Cllr Mitchell proposed the application was approved, seconded by Cllr Elderton. All councillors agreed to approve it.

The committee then went on to consider item 8 – a canopy and first floor balustrade for a restaurant in West Kirby. The officer pointed out that there were objections to this application and the condition restricting any music or amplified voices in this area. The committee then heard from the lead petitioner.

Planning Committee – 25th January 2011 – Part 6 – Liverpool Waters – Consultation by Liverpool City Council Update – Report on Wirral Waters and Section 106 Agreement. Latest Position on RSS and the Views of the Secretary of State

Agenda item 11 was in three parts, the report, appendix 1 and appendix 2.

There were two recommendations in the report at 19.1 and 19.2. These were in relation to the Liverpool Waters and Wirral Waters projects and are below:-

19.1 Members are requested to note the decision by the Secretary of State
not to intervene further in the planning application W/OUT/2009/06509,
the current position in relation to regional planning policy, update of the
106 Legal Agreement, and the submission of the Liverpool Waters
application.

19.2 Members are requested to endorse this report which concludes that
there are no material considerations arising from the above that give
grounds for revising the decision of Planning Committee in relation to
planning application W/OUT/2009/06509 or the proposed planning
conditions and associated s.106 Legal Agreements.

Further information about the Wirral Waters project can be found here. It should bring jobs and benefits to the people of Bidston & St. James. Due to a lawsuit regarding the Regional Spatial Strategy no decision had been issed over the planning application.

So the Planning Committee had to reconsider the Wirral Waters application, taking (this time) into account the material considerations contained within the Regional Spatial Strategy.

Cllr Mitchell proposed both recommendations, he was seconded by Cllr Elderton. All councillors voted for the Wirral Waters scheme and Wirral Council’s response regarding Liverpool Waters.

Item 11a delegated decisions (these are made by council employees rather than Planning Committe members. There was one for Bidston & St. James which was permission for an advertising sign at 48 Hoylake Road. There was no AOB and the Chair thanked people for attending.