A blog about Wirral Council, Wirral Council's councillors & officers

Cllr Mitchell asked about separation distance and whether the windows were obscurely glazed.

The officer said they haven’t asked for obscure glazing. Separation distance weren’t considered as the two dwellings face at an oblique angle.

Cllr John Salter and Cllr Eddie Boult proposed and seconded the application. Ten councillors voted for the application and Cllr Kelly and Cllr Mitchell voted against, so the application was approved.

The committee then considered planning application APP/11/00714. The officer said this was a residential development of sixty-two houses. These would be mainly two storey, with ten being two and a half storeys high. It would largely use the existing road layout, but there would be gardens and off-road parking. The key issues were separation distances, which were internally shorter than normal standards. Two properties’ windows were within 14 metres and were only partly obscured. The people moving in would be aware of this. 30% of the housing would be purchased by Wirral Partnership Homes as affordable housing due to the development agreement with Keepmoat. There would be a 20mph speed limit on this residential development.

Cllr Elderton asked about the fear that the roads would lead to a rat run under the proposed layout. Cllr Mitchell asked about the implications of the separation distance being below the normal requirement.

The officer said that it had been proposed to make Brett Street a through road, but had led to concerns expressed by Merseyside Police. The plans had now been amended to a cul-de-sac, so there was not an extra route.

Cllr Dave Mitchell asked to see what the front elevation would look like. Cllr Elderton stated that there was a nineteen person petition against the application. He asked if there was a ward councillor present? There wasn’t.

Cllr Dave Mitchell asked about the raised elevation to the rear, which Cllr Elderton described as “quite dramatic”. The officer said they had a sketch of the rear elevation. When this was shown to Cllr Dave Mitchell he said it was “sufficient for me not to like it”. Cllr Salter said it would be about a hundred metres from the front, well inside the Mariner’s area, not pronounced or on a corner. Cllr Stuart Kelly said it was a pity the petitioner had not met the threshold, he had a concern about the very open aspect. He had seen additional plans on the internet and felt it was “too big, intrusive and alien”. He said it “looked horrible” and he was not “enamoured by the impact”.

Cllr Elderton referred to representations received on this application in the areas of cycle parking, privacy, preferable sites nearby and an objection over rehousing.

Cllr Kelly joked that it was a pity it was not a retirement village for planning officers. Cllr Keeley referred to the considerable petition. Matthew Rushton said the petition was on one sole issue, to do with accommodation during development. Cllr Mooney said the main objection was that the people rehoused are elderly, there would be disruption which was not a planning issue but was “heartbreaking”.

Cllr Keeley asked a question about appearance and amenity. He referred to a recent appeal decision, where the committee’s decision had been overturned. The A4 use was upheld at appeal, but it was not mentioned in the report which he felt was subjective.

Matthew Davies said the planning regulations were clear, planning appeals are material as long as they are relevant to the application being assessed.

Cllr Keeley said it was material as it was on the same road, however it was subjective and they had to be careful.

Matthew Rushton said he hadn’t got a copy. Cllr Elderton said he had raised valid points.

Cllr Keeley moved refusal on the grounds it contravened guidance in SPD 3 & would led to a proliferation. Cllr Realey seconded refusal. Cllrs Stuart Kelly, James Keeley and a number of other councillors voted to refuse the application. Cllr Dave Mitchell and Cllr Wendy Clements voted to accept the planning application. The application was refused.

Cllr Elderton said they had all got the gist, but they would require something specific afterwards.
Cllr Keeley said it had not met the separation distances in SPD 3 & would lead to a proliferation. Cllr Elderton asked Cllr Keeley to email Matthew.

Cllr Bernie Mooney returned (having previously declared a prejudicial interest in this item).

The Planning Committee then considered Planning Application APP/7/00887. The officer said there would be temporary accommodation for the residents who would need relocating and that the closest dwelling was at number twenty, it was recommended for approval.

Cllr Elderton referred to the two premises within forty metres and the “demonisation of chip shops”. Cllr Salter picked up on the secondary school within four hundred metres.

Matthew Rushton responded by stating that the four hundred metres separation distance to secondary schools was a reference to a policy in place in Barking & Dagenham. Barking and Dagenham did have a policy of not having this sort of use within four hundred metres of a secondary or primary school. This was because they had different supplementary guidance, but there was no change on Wirral. In respect of the flue to the property, the forty metres separation distance referred to noise and disturbance, not environmental health. There was a condition that the applicant would have to come up with a written scheme which covered the likelihood of flue odour problems. How it affected the character of the area and the numbers of other similar uses was a subjective issue. He said although Liscard had been identified as part of the Neighbourhood Development Plans, this was at an early stage and not material.

Cllr Glasman said she sympathised with Mr. Hale and the ward councillor. She said a greater number of hot food takeaways and chip shops would be competing for a slice of the cake. She thought they were already full.

Cllr Elderton said they weren’t to get involved in commercial viability. He asked about the proliferation of facilities.

An officer replied that they could take consideration of the overall numbers of restaurants, takeaways and public houses in the immediate surroundings.

John Hale (petitioner) said that the flue would be within 11 metres of 3 Moseley Avenue. He said residents do not agree that the character and nature of the Liscard area had changed sufficiently to accept a sixth chip shop. Mr. Hale said there were many hot food takeaways, four kebab shops and a myriad of other hot food takeaways. Going back eleven years, he said there were only seventeen places that hot or cold food could be bought but now there were fifty-eight.

Mr. Hale said the sleep of residents was being affected and the character and nature of the area was being eroded. He pleaded with the Planning Committee not to approve any more. He said the limit had been reached to what residents could put up with and they would remember when it came to voting next May. He mentioned the Neighbourhood Development Plan for the area and how they were a trailblazer in this regard. He said that it would be the only food shop there and would be out of character, he trusted the Committee had read the report and thanked them for listening to him.

Cllr Elderton asked if there was anyone on behalf of the applicant, there wasn’t. Cllr Darren Dodd said he wanted to add weight to what Mr. Hale had said and that there were plenty of hot food takeaways, chippies and kebab shops. He said there were two properties within forty metres and that he had spoken to Mr. Hale and the residents. Cllr Dodd said that residents were bitter because of the late night travelling to the hot food takeaways. He added his weight to the points raised by Mr. Hale.