Planning Committee 6/3/2012 Part 2 – APP/11/00715 2-4 Laird Street, 212-214 Park Road North and 38, 39 and 40 Bray Street, Birkenhead, Wirral CH41 8BY

A report on the Planning Committee’s decision on the 6th March 2012 to allow demolition of houses in Laird Street, Birkenhead and nearby roads to facilitate new housing

The committee then moved to consider the first of two planning applications involving Bidston & St. James ward. The first involved the demolition of a number of vacant community buildings in Laird Street, along with a number of properties on Park Road North and Bray Street.

The officer said the planning application was for demolition of two buildings which was a brownfield site in a regeneration area which would be redeveloped for affordable housing. He said Keepmoat Homes already had a separate developer’s agreement with Wirral Partnership Homes. He said retaining these buildings was not a cost effective option and that the recommended separation distances were not wholly achieved. There was a qualifying petition.

The Chair invited the petitioner to talk to the Planning Committee.

Professor Robert Lee introduced himself as the Chair of the Friends of Birkenhead Park. He said he had been told by officers it was not possible to give a Powerpoint presentation, but asked how many had seen the houses? Professor Lee said they were not listed buildings and weren’t able to be listed, but had been built in 1882 by the Laird family and had been standing for 134 years.

Professor Lee told those present that at the Wirral History and Heritage Fair they had collected an extra eighty-five signatures on their petition, which showed the depth of concern. He said that those signing held the Planning Committee responsible and that “public opinion was clear”. The professor pointed to the quality of the buildings, which were of superior quality, a “rich period character” and pointed out that these were all comments of Wirral Council’s Conservation Area staff.

Professor Robert Lee was keen to emphasise the importance of neighbourhood planning as well as the opportunity for voluntary and community groups to shape proposals. He said that only one public event had been run for the whole site which less than thirty people had attended and that the developer had never consulted the Friends of Birkenhead Park. He went on further to say that the Presbyterian Church had been “kept in the dark” and that a Hugh Jones (treasurer, deacon and secretary) had quoted a Welsh hymn by saying that they were “living in a wilderness”. The professor said there had been serious deficiencies of process and that the key issue was a refurbishment option and the way it had been dismissed.

Professor Lee referred to the report highlighting the long-term settlement and poor condition of the boundary wall as well as a funding gap of £322,000. He said the Friends of Birkenhead Park wanted an independent survey, which had been refused, as the report had been commissioned by the developer to facilitate demolition. Their report said that if it was not demolished, then it would cast delivery of the project into doubt if planning permission was not forthcoming. He questioned the figures used and said that the comparable sale values in taking into account terraces in Cavendish Street were incorrect as these were a lower quality. If it had been done by one of his students, he would’ve failed them.

He wanted the developer to look at a realistic figures to eliminate the funding gap and at the option of flats. Professor Lee said that Birkenhead Park was a key prospect for World Heritage status and this bid was supported by Peel. If in the immediate buffer zone properties were demolished or new construction was not fitting they would fail in their bid. He referred to a claim of the new Cabinet Member for Leisure and Tourism and asked the Planning Committee to reject the application and to ask the developer to reconsider and to consider refurbishment.

The Chair thanked Professor Lee and said they would look at it on its merits, he wanted to clarify that the houses were great as they are but not listed. He asked the applicant to speak in support of the applicant.

The applicant introduced himself as Alan McGuinness, Regional Development Manager for Keepmoat Homes. Mr. McGuiness said they had been consulting with the Planning Department over various regeneration sites in the Laird Street and Birkenhead area, to look at how to present a proposal in keeping with the street scene. He said they had consulted with the Planning Department over what proposal was in keeping and as benefit going forward, he wanted to respond to some of the points raised by Professor Lee.

Mr. McGuinness said they had looked at the condition and viability and taken stock of the refurbishment costs versus the value of the property delivered compared to the price they’d be able to sell it at and found it wasn’t viable. He said they had tried to replicate a nice facade, they had consulted, but couldn’t be held responsible for the numbers turning up to a consultation event.

The Chair asked if there was a ward councillor present. There wasn’t.

Cllr John Salter said that he knew the houses well and the area. Fourteen properties had been written to and it had been advertised in the press as well as an open day. He supported Professor Lee and would love to keep the empty buildings, but where would the money come from? Cllr Salter said the country was “in dire straits” and that he would support the application.

Cllr Stuart Kelly said that it was a major thoroughfare and a gateway and that they couldn’t dismiss it. He said they were “splendid looking buildings” and referred to the Conservation Area over the road.

The Chair asked to see an elevation.

The officer showed the elevation and said that the corner building would be replaced with a block. The Chair referred to the points made by the objector and the concerns about heritage status. He said that the refurbishment option was not viable or commercial and there had been comments about the condition. He said they had a recommendation for approval subject to conditions.

Cllr Stuart Kelly asked a point of clarification about the block shown in the elevation and whether it was flats? The officer said that was what was proposed.

Cllr John Salter and Cllr Dave Mitchell proposed and seconded approval of the application.

Councillors except Cllr Patricia Glasman and Cllr Stuart Kelly voted for. Cllr Glasman and Cllr Kelly voted against so the application was approved.

Professor Lee then made a plea to the developer to carry out a digital report prior to demolition. The Chair said it was not normally a debate, however asked the Planning Committee if they would add it as an extra condition, which they were happy to do so.

Planning Committee 6/3/2012 Part 1 – APP/11/01520 – Redwood, 18 Farr Hall Drive, Heswall, CH60 4SH

Planning Committee meeting of 6th March 2012 to decide on APP/11/01520 involving Redwood, 18 Farr Hall Drive, Heswall, CH60 4SH.

Present:

Cllr David Elderton (Chair)
Cllr Wendy Clements (Vice-Chair)
Cllr David Mitchell
Cllr Stuart Kelly
Cllr John Salter
Cllr Denise Realey
Cllr Bernie Mooney
Cllr Brian Kenny
Cllr Patricia Glasman for Cllr Joe Walsh
Cllr Eddie Boult
Cllr Peter Johnson

The Chair introduced himself and the committee and the minutes of the meeting held on the 16th February were agreed. No declarations of interest were made. Cllr Eddie Boult requested a site visit for application APP/11/01501 22 Broughton Avenue, West Kirby so that the Committee could understand parking issues and facilities for children. This was agreed by the Committee.

The first item considered was APP/11/01520 Redwood, 18 Farr Hall Drive, Heswall. An officer said it was a resubmission of a previous application with a lower height and that it achieved the recommended separation distance. He also pointed out that there was a petition of objection. The Chair asked if someone would like to address the committee on behalf of the petitioners. No one did.

A ward councillor Cllr Hodson said he would be just over five minutes. He said that the proposed development was a resubmission of a previously approved scheme, but that in the new design four habitable windows were facing number 14, compared to the previous two.

Cllr Denise Realey interrupted and asked for a presentation and Cllr John Salter said he hadn’t seen the previous application.

Cllr Hodson continued by pointing out the numerous large windows and said it may impact on residents’ quality of life. He said that the new application was on a greater scale with a flat roof and unique design. The councillor referred to a restrictive covenant on the height and a 21m recommended separation distance on habitable rooms. He felt that the proposed design would lead to overdominance and an unneighbourly development in breach of policy HS4. Cllr Hodson finished by saying he felt if approved it would be in breach of Wirral Council’s policies.

The Chair thanked Cllr Hodson for his comments and pointed out that the covenant was a civil matter not a planning matter. He asked officers to respond to the points raised by Cllr Hodson including his comment on yellow bricks. The Chair also asked for a site plan and elevation to be displayed.

Matthew showed the site plan with a hatched area indicating the existing building and an outline showing the new property and garage. He said the separation distance was achieved and that they considered the layout acceptable. Matthew said that the previous application 11/337 for a three storey building had been approved in May 2011. That proposal had been replaced with a two storey building with a flat roof.

The Chair referred to the recent site visit and asked a further point of officers. Matthew replied by referring to the incline across the site and how some of the building would be beneath ground floor level. The Chair asked the height from the roof to the ground from the highest end of the site. The answer given was just over five metres.

Cllr Johnson asked which windows were from habitable rooms? The officer replied that there was a bedroom each side, one was for a stairway and another for a landing. On the ground floor the windows were for a kitchen, study and cloakroom.

Cllr Stuart Kelly said it benefitted from existing planning permission for a three-storey building, he asked if the existing planning permission was using the same site? The officer replied by saying that it was a similar footprint to the original site plan.

Cllr Brian Kenny said he had been on the site visit the day before, he asked if the footprint was similar? He also asked if it was higher than the original application.

The officer replied that it was a similar footprint and a lower height.

There was a vote on the planning application which was proposed for approval by Cllr John Salter and seconded by Cllr Brian Kenny.

Councillors (except Cllr Johnson) voted in favour. Cllr Johnson voted against, so the planning application was approved.

Budget night at Wirral Council & Off licence application for 46 Hoylake Road, Bidston turned down

Well tonight councillors at Wallasey Town Hall meet to decide among other things Wirral Council’s Budget for 2012-2013.

So far we have had the surprise Labour Budget at its last Cabinet meeting on the 13th February, which was then rescinded by the new Conservative/Lib Dem Cabinet on the 21st February.

Labour councillors then “called-in” the decision by the Conservative/Lib Dem Cabinet of the 21st February to rescind their earlier Labour Budget recommendation to Council and the Budget procedure chosen by the Conservative/Lib Dem Cabinet. This call-in was decided at the Council Excellence meeting on Tuesday 28th February. This call-in failed mainly because Bill Norman said that Cabinet recommendations to Council from Cabinet weren’t subject to call-in as in his view it wasn’t an Executive decision, just a recommendation so Labour have tabled an amendment to the Budget procedure tonight.

Confused yet?

However in more local news the Licensing Act 2003 subcommittee of Cllr Steve Niblock, Cllr Mike Hornby and Cllr Don McCubbin decided yesterday to turn down an application for an off-licence at 46 Hoylake Road. The reasons given were the objections of Merseyside Police (both Sgt Jenkins and Inspector McGregor were against it as they thought it would lead to increased crime and disorder).

The committee also had serious concerns about the integrity of the person who’d made the application for the licence and his alleged association with criminal activities. Trading Standards also spoke during the meeting about how they had seized counterfeit goods from the person applying for a premises licence.

The Subcommittee also felt the person applying displayed no understanding of the licensing objectives, despite previous involvement with other licensed premises, one of which had had its licence revoked due to violent crime. The issue of under age sales was also given as a reason by the subcommittee.

If you’d like to come to the Budget meeting tonight (1st March) it starts at 6.15pm in the Council Chamber at Wallasey Town Hall, Brighton Street, Wallasey, Wirral, CH44 8ED .

Special Meeting (Wirral Council) Part 2 20/2/2012 Anna Klonowski Report

Well I’ve finally uploaded the last of the footage I took at the Special Council meeting a week ago to Youtube. A few videos ended up with errors so about three speeches have been cut.

It’s all in a playlist now if you want to see it from start to finish. Part 1 (all 15 minutes of it) from two weeks ago when it was first adjourned can be viewed by clicking the link.

Part 1 of the resumed adjourned meeting is below and forms part of a playlist so you can easily get to the next part. A speech of Cllr Green is missing at the end as I ran out of battery and about three speeches have had to be shortened due to errors on the video file. It should give a good idea about what it was about if you weren’t there though, and as promised during the meeting itself a number of names of people and organisations have now been made public.

Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Licensing Act 2003 Subcommittee Wirral Council 22/2/2012 Part 2 North Star, 294 Laird Street, Birkenhead, CH41 8ER

The meeting resumed after lunch with the same panel (Cllr Bob Wilkins (Chair), Cllr Eddie Boult and Cllr Steve Niblock) and officers as before, with three members of the public/press, a solicitor and two people involved with the licence. The report on this agenda item can be found here.

Cllr Bob Wilkins welcomed people to the hearing, introduced himself and the panel and asked officers, the police and others to introduce themselves. Four officers present earlier for part one of the meeting introduced themselves. The two police officers stayed the same. Three others introduced themselves including Chris Johnson (solicitor), ????? ????? and another ????? ?????.

The Chair, Cllr Wilkins asked if they could confirm the documentation sent out had been received?

Margaret O’Donnell said they had additional documentation circulated to councillors and to the other parties, which was additional documentation.

The Sergeant said the late documentation was in relation to an arrest yesterday. There was an NG15 form regarding a ??????? ??? and a copy of the interview.

Cllr Niblock confirmed he had it. Cllr Bob Wilkins said if there was any additional documentation to present or whether they wished to call extra witnesses?

The Police said they would not at this moment in time.

Cllr Wilkins asked the police to present their case, then there would be the opportunity to ask questions. The representative of the licence holders would get their chance to put across their case, followed by questions. They would proceed and hear views, and make their decision in accordance with the statement of Licensing Policy and statutory guidance and the four licensing objectives which were preventing crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm.

Margaret O’Donnell outlined details of the conditions on the licence, which was for sale of alcohol, recorded music and dancing seven days a week 11am to 11pm with some non-standard times involving Good Friday and Christmas Day regarding the sale of alcohol.

She said they may take one or more of the following steps which included modifying the conditions, removing the Designated Premises Supervisor, suspending the licence for a period of up to three months, revoking the licence and taking no action.

Cllr Steve Niblock asked the police about the anonymous letter and why it wasn’t seen as vexatious as it was anonymous?

The police sergeant explained that the anonymous letter had arrived in January 2012, this was after the event and the premises had been raided. He said the letter ??????? and came in after the event. He said he accepted it was anonymous and received after the ?????. He said it was unidentified.

The Chair Cllr Bob Wilkins asked Sergeant Jenkins of the Police to speak first.

Sgt Jenkins thanked members of the panel. He said the Premises Licence Holder for these premises is one John Joseph Diable, but recently one of his business partners, Mr Wharton had made an application to be the Premises Licence Holder of these premises. The Designated Premises Supervisor was Christopher Ridgeway Jones and he’s here today.

The Chair, Cllr Bob Wilkins asked if John Joseph was the Designated Premises Supervisor or Christopher Ridgeway Jones?

Ken Abraham, legal adviser to the panel said to clarify that it was Mr. Wilson who was here and had applied to be Premises Licence Holder, not Mr. Wharton. He asked Sergeant Jenkins to clarify what he’d said.

Sergeant Jenkins apologised for referring to Mr. Wilson as Mr. Wharton. “You’re Mr. Wharton?”. He apologised again. He said Chris Ridgeway Jones, owned it with his wife Mary. On the evening of the ??rd ?????, officers of the Wirral Licensing Unit and Tactical Team, attended the North Star public house in Birkenhead in an ongoing licensing operation.

He continued by stating that it was an ongoing licensing operation, taking place on that evening and several licensed premises were scheduled to be visited. He said a police ??? unit and a ????? ??? also accompanied the officers.

On entering the premises, officers noticed that it was extremely ????, he spoke with the ??? for ???. He formed the opinion that ??? appeared ???? and when asked about ???, he looked ????. He was asked to ???? the location of the ??? and stated it was in the ????. Officers entered the ???? where they found the ??? between ???? ???? which was ???? in ????. There was no ??? for it, on the ??? and the officers believed that the ???? had been used to ????. “I did send some photographs down, but I do appreciate they are of poor quality. I’ve had a problem with my printer today, in order to print some colour photographs off. But that appears is the situation that we found.”

He handed out the photos.

Margaret asked if ????? had seen these?

????? answered ???.

Sgt Jenkins continued, “When ????? was ????? these, he stated that he ????? ????? the ???? of ??? ???? and that he ???? ???? for ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????. He was informed at that the time that he was to be arrested on suspicion of the theft of gas and that’s what subsequently happened.”

He said “As you can see there are no ????? or ???? ??? ??? ??? there and it is ???? ?? ??? ??? ???. The ???? from ??? ??? attended. He said that the ???? was ????? and that ??? ??? ??? ??? was both ???? and that no ???? or ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? to the ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????. ”

“The public house was then closed due to ???? ????. The ???? was ???? and the ??? ???? to the ???? was ????. The owner of the premises, ???? ???? then arrived at the premises, he wanted to ????. When ???? about the ???? ????, he stated he’d been ????? called ??? ??? and that the former ???, one ???? ??? and a former ???. ???? ???? was then arrested on suspicion of the ??? and he was then conveyed to the Custody Suite in Birkenhead. ”

“From what we understand, ???? was a former ???? ??? of ??? ???. We believe that the ???? of ???? had ????. ???? had ???? ???? ???? ???? and ???? ???? ??? to ??? ???? on the ???? ???. Bearing in mind we’re now on the **rd of *******.”

“You must also give note that on the 3rd October 2011 Constable Rita Jones of the Police Licensing Unit had served a section 19 closure order on the premises, which had been trading since the 27th September 2011 and that the then ???? that ?????, that person was ???? ???. A ??? ???? pertaining to the ???? ?? ? ???? had been ???? to the ???? ???. ”

“The closure order was rescinded on the 4th October 2011, once the ???? ???? had ???? ????. Once the issues of ??? had been addressed, the police ??? ???, had ???? in the ?????? that a ???, that a ???? that was ???? on the premises was ???? ??? ?? ???? ????. This ??? was duly arrested for being in possession of a controlled drug, namely ?????? and ??? too was arrested and charged with the offence. ”

“On the 3rd December 2011, a **** was made that **** were being **** on the premises. On the 22/2/2011 a ****** was **** in the *** **** the **** ****. Seven people were arrested in connection with this *****, including *** ***. No **** evidence was **** which could positively **** any of the *** people arrested. ”

“**** **** the premises and **** it out to an associate **** ****. The **** *** *** *** ***, which was **** was estimated to be £***** to £*****. He ***** police with a ***** on **** and he ***** his right to ***** when ****. The Crown Prosecution Service said the ***** were *****, but that **** evidence to bring a prosecution was not available. The police reference number is what is stated there. ”

Sgt Jenkins said he would take the Crown Prosecution Service file as ****, as the panel could peruse it without him needing to refer to it. He said he could quote from it if you wish me to. It should be. It’s an MG3.

Ken Abraham asked about the page number?

Cllr Bob Wilkins said page 26, Cllr Steve Niblock confirmed it was page 26 in the recent one.

The police continued that on the 19/11/2010 there had been a arrest for an assault which was on police records. There had been also in 2010 two women fighting in street, who were both arrested on suspicion of being drunk and disorderly.

There was the alleged issue of ***** ****, which in his view compromised the licensing objective of preventing crime and disorder and the safety of public. The detained person had been released on bail pending further enquiries and he confirmed that a criminal investigation was ongoing and he appreciated it was not within the remit of the panel to prejudge it. The persons responsible in his view could not have **** to ***** **** as it was ****. He referred to **** and ****. The police had ***** the premises for a ****.

A PACE ***** of the **** which was authorised as a result of the *** which resulted in four males being arrested. He draw the panel’s attention to the **** of *** ***. On the night we had ***** make **** ***. **** **** is a **** **** officer. He confirms that **** *** **** the **** **** with a *** *** of **** on the */*/20**. No **** has been **** since ****. ****.

Over the course of the past few days **** *** has actually been arrested. He has **** **** *** *** ***. If you come to the MG15, *** *** was interviewed at **** hours and it took him *** minutes by Constable *** at the **** **** ***. *** was cautioned and the caution was explained. *** was asked ****. **** ****.

***. The **** had gone out in error. To explain ***. ***. That **** should be ***** with. We*** clear that **** *** and the **** is that ****. There *** no doubt ****. The premises is owned by *** ****, showing that he is the leaseholder. The land belongs to the Council. He leases it from the Council.

Sgt Jenkins said he believed these premises were involved in alleged criminal activity. A number of people have been arrested. Although six people were arrested, none of these people were charged. He referred to the alleged criminal offence currently under investigation.

He said the police can’t go into pubs on a regular basis, as there are 1,300 licensed premises on the Wirral and they only have a small team. He said premises were within the control of the Premises Licence Holder, whoever they appointed as Designated Premises Supervisor. He advocated revoking the licence, as he felt conditions wouldn’t be effective. He asked the panel to seriously consider revocation.

???? and **** = information removed because it’s an active criminal investigation.

For more information on this story you can read Liam Murphy’s version in the Liverpool Echo