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

Cllr Kelly said the first was regarding no servicing provision contrary to highway safety. The second reason was that the proposal was unneighbourly and would lead to the closure of the Post Office. Cllr Realey seconded this. The Chair asked the legal officer for advice. He said the implications regarding an appeal being successful would lead to a forensic examination and costs awarded [to the applicant and agent] if it hadn’t been scrutinised properly. Cllr Kelly said he would make the decision on its merits rather than what costs might be, unless the solicitor could guarantee costs would be awarded against Wirral Council. The Chair said he noted the wording and how eloquently Cllr Kelly had spoken out. Cheryl Barry said regarding R07C/R08D did Cllr Kelly want to insert loss of local Post Office and insert and local residents? Cllr Kelly said he wanted to widen it to local community. Cllr Kenny said he had a concern regarding highway safety because the proximity of the primary school was relevant to these issues. The Chair said the officers had said no and asked Cheryl to read it out. She said for two reasons it was being refused, the first being that the local planning authority finds it contrary to highway safety as there was no provision made regarding servicing needs. The second was that the proposal resulted in unneighbourly development and the local of the local Post Office as well as leading to a detriment in the amenities of the local community. This was seconded by Cllr Realey. There were six votes for refusal (including Cllr Kelly, Cllr Roberts and Cllr Boult). There were four votes against refusal. So the application was refused.

The Chair asked for a break for a few minutes.

The Chair said a Co-op had been developed in Newton in West Kirby. At the time they thought the Post Office less than 150 yards away would close down but it was still operating and viable. He said it was a tenuous argument. Cheryl Barry said they would have to clarify evidence at appeal. She said the evidence was so clear and they would have to come to a conclusion regarding whether the application met the test. She was not satisfied with the evidence that had been submitted.

The Chair apologised at the amount of time taken over this application. Cllr Mitchell said in reference to the last comments, in Eastham there had been a Tesco next to a Spar and a Post Office put there two years ago. However Eastham was still vibrant, he had to make sure the information was correct. As members of the planning committee they had to make the decisions the right way. It was hard but in his ward they had allowed things to fall to pieces, it was a hard decision.

The Chair asked Cllr Kelly for his recommendation for refusal. Cllr Kelly said the first reason but was looking for officer’s assistance for further reasons. Not all reasons were required at once. The Chair replied that he’d like all reasons together, so that the committee could decide on any reasons for refusal and vote. Cllr Kelly said he would stick with two and only one needed to be upheld at appeal in order to be succesful for the inspector to rule in Wirral Council’s favour.

Cllr Kelly said that the local planning authority finds that contrary to highway safety no provision has been made for servicing needs. Cllr Realey seconded this. Cllr Kelly said back to the issue of amenity it was defined in statute and elaborated in common law. The Post Office was classed as an amenity. He looked to the solicitor to know the statutory definition. He said judges made law based on the definition in statutes.

The Chair asked the officer for advice. Cllr Kelly continued that there should be two votes, Cllr Foulkes asked Cllr Kelly to add the health centre but he said he couldn’t.

Cheryl Barry said they had to demonstrate harm to an amenity and that it would be definitely shut down, she said there was no evidence of harm. The Chair asked the audience to be quiet. Cheryl Barry continued that students done had shown there were no impacts and they had to evidence actual evidence.

Cllr Kenny said on the last point the need to have evidence was a bit unfair. It was a question of judgement, not black and white. If it was approved it was almost certain the Post Office would close down. It was in the late list and to only take it into account if it was guaranteed was unfair.

Cllr Kelly said they had to weigh it on the balance of probabilities. Cllr Kenny said it was almost certain the Post Office would close.

The officer said [in reference to the sequential test] that none were available or suitable. Cllr Mitchell asked them to clarify amenity, the management of the private unadopted road and who the landowner was.

The Chair said it was important there was the right management of traffic on the private site. Cheryl Barry said that residential amenity referred to appearance and noise. The Post Office was a valuable asset, however there was no remit to refuse on competition grounds. There was no planning definition of community asset. The refusal Cllr Kelly quoted did not apply.

The Chair asked regarding enforceability and the landowner. An officer indicated that they would not welcome a TRO [Traffic Regulation Order]. If they wished to enforce parking restrictions themselves they could prohibit parking. The planning department could enforce this through a planning condition.

Cllr Realey asked about if this process proved the Woodchurch Road shops (including Sainsburys) were not viable? She asked wasn’t the resident’s outlook, the doctors, the other shops and flats not affected? She said it was absolutely ridiculous.

One of Wirral Council’s legal advisers stated that he appreciated what Cllr Realey had indicated, however this did not affect a planning reason as it was not a definition of amenity. From the audience Cllr Foulkes muttered “disgraceful”.

The Chair said [to Cllr Kelly] that he had implied he wanted to move refusal. Cllr Kelly said the first and strongest grounds were the servicing of the site, reason for refusal R07C. The Chair asked him to read it out.

Cllr Kelly continued by saying that when it was a garage it did have a HGV once a day to deliver petrol. However this was a different situation to a petrol forecourt. In making the sweep it would be hard not to mount the pavement leading to broken flags. An experienced HGV driver would want the pavement clear. From parts of his ward people would arrive at the health centre by bus, walking along this stretch of pavement to and from the bus stop. These pedestrians would be in conflict with the HGV driver three times a day and there would be broken flags.

Back to planning reasons the loss of the Post Office satisfied R08D (a standard reason) relating to unneighbourly development and loss of amenity. The second reason was there was no servicing provision within the site (standard reason R07C). He said the vehicle movements would be dangerous and would hold water on appeal.

The Chair asked for other councillors to have the opportunity to comment. Cllr Mitchell asked for clarification on the points Cllr Kelly had made regarding amenity and what it meant. He said the comments Cllr Foulkes had made regarding proposed legislation caused difficulty as the plans had to be dealt with according to current planning legislation. Two things that came out were the sequential process, other areas close to the site and Cllr Kelly’s point about the unadopted highway. How was it managed and was it within the remit of the landowner, if so who?

The Chair asked for comments on Cllr Mitchell’s points. He asked them to discuss the sequential test and elaborate briefly. He said they can’t take into account legislation that might or might not pass as it would be overturned on appeal.