Category: Planning

Planning Committee – 4/1/2011 – Part 1 – dry silo mortar bagging plant (Bromborough)

The <A HREF=”http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=157&MId=3116″>agenda</a> for last night’s Planning Committee can be found on Wirral Council’s website. All councillors usually on the committee were present. The minutes were agreed, there were no declarations of interest and no requests for site visits. The first item for consideration was the extension of a planning consent for a dry silo … Continue reading “Planning Committee – 4/1/2011 – Part 1 – dry silo mortar bagging plant (Bromborough)”

The <A HREF=”http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=157&MId=3116″>agenda</a> for last night’s Planning Committee can be found on Wirral Council’s website.

All councillors usually on the committee were present. The minutes were agreed, there were no declarations of interest and no requests for site visits.

The first item for consideration was the extension of a planning consent for a dry silo mortar bagging plant in Bromborough. Cllr Gilchrist stated that he was interested in a particular aspect of this planning application due to a long running desire to have the coast open for people. He was anxious if the opportunity arose that the owners would be approached over access to the coast. Cllr Salter asked that as this was an extension of a planning consent wasn’t it more usual to reapply? The answer given was that permissions can be extended.

Cllr Elderton asked if another fee applied? The answer given was that the applicant only had to pay a reduced fee as they don’t have to submit all the forms again. Part of the previous government’s changes to planning in 2008-2009 to make it more flexible had meant that applicants could apply for an extension of time. Cllr Elderton was concerned over the true cost and was told that the planning fees were set nationally.

Cllr Mitchell asked if a noise assessment had been done and what the highway effects would be. He also referred to the Wirral Waters projects and the need it would have for cement and sand. The answer given was that in the original planning application there had been a statement regarding noise. The nearest residential property was 660m away. It was an industrial area, but the noise would be of a contained nature. It wouldn’t result in any signficant traffic and was near the motorway and A41. There were no grounds to object on traffic management.

A councillor asked about the 3 years limit on development, when the original planning application had been given 5 years and was told the 3 year limit was brought in in 2007, with the original application being made just before.

Cllr Mitchell proposed the application be approved, with Cllr Salter seconding it. It was approved unanimously.

 

 

 

Planning Committee – 1st December 2010 – Part 1

Planning Committee – 1st December 2010 – Part 1

                                                  

The agenda for last night’s meeting can be found here.

The meeting started late. Prior to the meeting the officers had insisted they were having a briefing (despite none of the Committee being present). Quite how officers larking around and hitting each other over the head with the plan for Birkenhead High School Academy constitutes a briefing is anyone’s guess but Matthew Rushton was quite adamant that this was a briefing. He got quite annoyed when I pointed out the briefing started at 3.15pm and therefore by that time it was finished. Strangely, he said we can’t treat you (referring to myself and my wife) differently to any other member of the public.

However, officers are often under deliberate instructions from councillors to treat different members of the public differently. We only have to go to yesterday when the thirty members of the public were all ushered for drinks in the Mayor’s Parlour and a reception (before and after) whereas myself and Leonora were told (as far as I know no one else was) not to sit on the first three rows of the public gallery.

Minutes of the meetings on the 27th October and 9th November were agreed. There were no declarations of interest. Item 5 (an extension of Melrose, Oldfield Road, Heswall) was deferred for a site visit. Item 7 (57 Argyle Street South, Tranmere) was also deferred as officers had asked the applicant for extra info. The petition regarding item 7 was mentioned; it was asked whether it was fair for the petitioners to be denied extra time when the applicant had more time. Matthew answered that the last date for comments had passed.

The agenda was then reordered to take into account the numbers of the public present for each item with the item on Birkenhead High School first.

Planning Committee – 21/10/2010 (Part 5) – Warehouses

The meeting moved onto an application in Bromborough for a new warehouse. The Chair was keen that the gates were retained. The officer stated that the applicant had been approached and had agreed to incorporate them in the landscaping, but that it couldn’t be added as a condition had to be reasonable and necessary. The Chair was delighted that they were to be retained as they were part of the history of the site. The Chair proposed approval, with Cllr Salter seconding. It was agreed unanimously.

The next item to be discussed was an extension to a warehouse in Hoylake. There was a petitioner who handed around a photo to the committee. He then addressed the committee stating the extension would have a detrimental effect on their homes due to its size of two stories. He asked that the extension be kept to one not two storeys. He also mentioned concerns about noise and the quality of life of residents and requested a site visit.

Cllr Elderton addressed the committee on the subject of the height of the building and asking if it set a precedent. The Chair pointed out that the proposal would lead to less noise as the delivery area would be enclosed. The Chair moved approval. 7 councillors voted for, with 5 against so it was approved.

The Committee agreed the planning applications decided under delegated powers, noted the development control quarterly report and noted the report on recent changing to planning policy regarding housing and the revocation of the North West Regional Spatial Strategy. The meeting then finished.

Planning Committee – 21/10/2010 (Part 4) – New House in Bidston

Item 4 (demolition of a petrol station and erection of shops in Claughton ward) was unanimously approved.

The next item for decision was the erection of a new dwelling in Upton Road, Bidston. There was no petition associated with this application.

The officer described this as in filling of a plot at the end of a cul-de-sac and that there was currently a live planning consent from 2008. The footprint of the amended application was the same and there was no significant difference so the application was recommended for approval.

Cllr Harry Smith addressed the committee, and referred by name to the two residents of 292 that had objected to it. He mentioned about parking, entry/egress, health and safety, the adverse impact on the area and Monday’s site visit. He said the site was too constricted and cars would have to reverse out onto the highway. He also said that if councillors allowed the application it would cause conflict between neighbours. He said a three bedroom house was bad enough, but a four bedroom was out of the question. He asked that if approved that construction traffic go to the rear of the plot. He asked for the application to be refused.

The Chair asked the officer to answer two of the points raised by Cllr. Smith. They answered that there was parking on the site itself and although access was far from ideal, the traffic caused by one residential property was unlikely to be noticed. It was pointed out that residents of other properties had to also reverse to come out onto the road.

Cllr Johnston said he was glad he’d been on the site visit and until today had thought of no planning reason to turn it down. He mentioned a report to be discussed later by the Planning Committee on garden grabbing.

The Chair said planning permission was already in place. Cllr Johnston said that this amended application was just to keep it live. Was the amended first floor element a step too far? It was pointed out that it would rely on the consent of the owners of 290 and that there were no overlooking issues.

Cllr Kenny pointed out that planning permission had already been approved and if rejected tonight the original planning permission would still stand. Cllr Kenny was minded to refuse the application. Cllr Elderton asked if it counted as overdevelopment in relation to the footprint. The response was that overdevelopment related to the % of the site being built on.

An officer also urged caution with Cllr Kenny’s point that it couldn’t because refused because the applicant might not build what they already have planning permission for.

Cllr Elderton raised a point about massing and that since the first application the owner of 290 Upton Road had changed hands. He felt there were no reasonable grounds on which to turn it down. It was pointed out there was a small area for parking at the front of the site.

Cllr Kelly raised the garden grabbing policy and said that the reasons given wouldn’t satisfy the objectors. It was in the gift of the resident of 290 as to whether to permit access.

The Chair pointed out that the rush to develop in rear gardens should be resisted. An officer pointed out that if this was a new application then garden grabbing would apply and he would report later on PPG3. The officer pointed out a strong material consideration was that there was a live consent which is why the decision had originally been delegated to officers to make.

The Chair move approval. Cllr Keeley seconded. Nine councillors voted for and 3 against (all Labour) so the application was approved.

Planning Committee – 21/10/2010 (Part 3) – Bebington House in wrong place

The next application to be decided was a retrospective planning application for the erection of a house and garage.

There was no qualifying petition associated with this application. The Chair asked in future that any photos should be displayed before the meeting started. He also mentioned that Cllr Williams had objected to the application earlier at 4.15pm.

An officer talked about the application and that the house had been built too close to a boundary, it should’ve been 5m away but had been 2.2m away, although the original proposal had been approved. An extra condition had been added that the proposed changes had to be made within 9 months.

Cllr Sheila Clarke addressed the committee and talked about an access road that had been made. She pointed out that in some parts this property was as close as 1.25m and that it was unneighbourly. She pointed out it was in a Conservation Area. She said it was disproportionate to the plot size and had no regard to the character of the area. She referred to page 4 of the report and circulated photos. She said there was overshadowing and loss of amenity to the neighbouring property and that a hedge at 2m was not feasible. She also pointed out that other residents had conformed to the Conservation Area requirements.

Cllr Keeley asked if an objective report had been done as to whether it was out of character in a Conservation Area. The Chair said that an independent report had stated that the amended plans didn’t conflict with policy CH2 or the Conservation Area appraisal.

It was pointed out that there were no habitable rooms on the side of the property which had been built too close to the boundary. Cllr Gilchrist asked a question about condition 4 and was told it removes all permitted development rights and that the 9 months to carry out the work was reasonable.

The Chair proposed it for approval. Ten councillors voted for and two against, so it was approved.