Planning Committee – 25th January 2011 – Part 3 – Item 5 – APP/10/00999 – Melrose 90 Oldfield Road, Heswall – Proposed extension and remodelling of the existing house and associated landscaping works

Cllr Johnson, having previously declared a prejudicial interest in this item, left the room during its consideration. The committee then moved onto item 5 which was another greenbelt application involving remodelling. The application would lead to an increased height to a two storey flat roof. There had been a late objection from the Heswall Society … Continue reading “Planning Committee – 25th January 2011 – Part 3 – Item 5 – APP/10/00999 – Melrose 90 Oldfield Road, Heswall – Proposed extension and remodelling of the existing house and associated landscaping works”

Cllr Johnson, having previously declared a prejudicial interest in this item, left the room during its consideration.

The committee then moved onto item 5 which was another greenbelt application involving remodelling. The application would lead to an increased height to a two storey flat roof. There had been a late objection from the Heswall Society regarding floodlights. The Chair pointed out this had been made on the site visit. Cllr Elderton asked to the elevation and if it was out of character? He said it was more in keeping although expressed concern regarding overlooking from the balcony. The floodlight was going to be at a low-level for ambience. Although commercial properties required permission for floodlights, residential properties did not.

The answer given by an officer was that the floodlights were not considered to be development, therefore permission wasn’t required. Cllr Mitchell was also concerned about the balcony and stated that the new building was narrower. He said the architect had given a good spiel at the site visit and had used the site visit to promote his business.

It was put to the vote. Cllr Mitchell proposed the application be approved, Cllr Salter seconded the item. 9 councillors voted for, Cllr Hayes and Cllr Keeley voted against. The application was approved.

Planning Committee – 25/1/2011

Planning Committee started with a different makeup of councillors to usual. A number of deputies were standing in for those who are usually on the Committee.

Councillors present were:-
Lib Dem

Chair (Cllr Dave Mitchell)
Cllr Alan Brighouse (Deputy for Cllr Kelly)
Cllr Ann Bridson (Deputy for Cllr Gilchrist)
Cllr Bob Wilkins (Deputy for Cllr Johnston)

Conservative
Cllr David Elderton
Cllr James Keeley
Cllr Paul Hayes
Cllr Eddie Boult
Cllr Peter Johnson

Labour
Cllr John Salter
Cllr Denise Realey
Cllr Brian Kenny

The Chair welcomed those present to the meeting and especially Cllr Boult who he was pleased was now in good health. The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed. Cllr Peter Johnston declared a prejudicial interest in item 5 as his wife is the owner of land that butts onto that under consideration. He pointed out that it was against his will that he was declaring a prejudicial interest, but that he had been advised to do so. Cllr Mitchell declared an interest as a member of Merseytravel.

Cllr Kenny requested a site visit for item 6 which was APP/10/01104 – 57 Argyle Street South, Tranmere – Change of use to two self contained ground floor apartments with single storey extension and rear staircase. Cllr Mitchell requested a site visit for item 10 – 7 Halton Crescent , Greasby – Demolition of existing single storey extension and erection of a two storey, part single storey, rear extension (Amended plan). Both site visits were agreed.

Planning Committee – 25th January 2011 – Part 2 – Item 4 – APP/10/01315 – 2 Target Road, Heswall – Demolition of existing dwelling and attached garage. Construction of replacement dwelling and detached garage

The committee then proceeded to consider item 4 – APP/10/01315 -2 Target Road, Heswall – Demolition of existing dwelling and attached garage. Construction of replacement dwelling and detached garage.

There was a qualifying petition. The petitioner Paul Foley of 1 Target Road, Heswall (which is adjacent to no 2) addressed the Committee. He told the committee about his concerns over privacy in the front and rear gardens as the new building would be two stories. He had bought his property for privacy. He would also lose sunlight and felt it was inconsistent with previous applications where 2 storey dwellings had been refused. He also cited other similar planning applications refused and felt it was not uniform. Approving this application would lead to a greater density of development and didn’t match.

Trevor Earp, the agent then addressed the committee about the concerns raised by the petitioner. He referred to the officer’s report and stated there were other 2 storey buildings in the area. In the Design and Access statement a number of these were referred to. One had living accommodation on the 1st floor. There had been a 2007 application for a replacement dwelling in Broad Lane which the replacement had had with a 8m ridge height. He said officers had commented on the simple attractive design in keeping with the scale and design of the area. Regarding overlooking the front overlooks the road and although the rear overlooks the rear garden this falls within guidelines. He asked the committee to see the merits which the officers have.

Cllr Elderton said it would be helpful to see the existing elevation and proposed elevation. A photo was handed round which agitated the agent so much he interrupted the meeting by heckling.

Cllr Elderton was told there was a difference in metre in the ridge height. Cllr Realey pointed out the increased should be 15%. Cllr Kenny referred to the claim of the petitioner that similar applications were refused. An officer answered that they were not aware of refusals in the immediate area.

Cllr Mitchell asked the officers to point out the elevations. Cllr Elderton asked them to relate the difference in ridge height to the impact.

Cllr Mitchell asked for any further comments or questions. There were none. Cllr Mitchell proposed approval, seconded by Cllr Kenny. 11 councillors voted for. Cllr Peter Johnson voted against.

Tory Lord-a-leaping

Another politician – a Tory Lord (albeit one from whom the whip was withdrawn) was found guilty today of expenses fiddling.

He joins Illsley, David Chaytor in being found guilty of expenses fiddles. Phil Woolas lost his seat (and his vote) just for being a liar.

As far as I know no Lib Dems were up to the kind of abuses that have dragged these people into court (although happily correct me in the comments if I’m wrong). Crooked politicians damages the public’s trust in democracy and ultimately is something that all political parties need to work hard to do to restore the public’s trust in them and the people who represent them.

We can’t have politicians fiddling their expenses, accepting bribes, breaking promises and generally behaving like scoundrels.

Going back a while I remember “cash for questions” Neil Hamilton who was MP in Tatton (which is in Cheshire). What is it that goes wrong with people when they get elected that makes them think the normal rules of behaviour don’t apply? Lord Taylor was a qualified barrister, surely he must’ve known what he was doing was wrong?

Answers in the comment section please.

Tam O’Shanter Urban Farm – Turns Away Visitors

Tam O’Shanter Urban Farm – Turns Away Visitors

                               

This afternoon, myself and my wife having been invited to Tam O’Shanter Urban Farm (which is in the road we live) by Cllr Brighouse were turned away by the Tam O’Shanter Cottage Trust trustee Cllr. Denise Roberts (Labour, Claughton).

Instead then of reporting about the 25 year success story of this charity (Tam O’Shanter Cottage Urban Farm Trust) who state on their website that their aim is “providing an enjoyable and educational experience for all” and even though other journalists (for example who wrote this story in the Wirral Globe were) invited, it seems if you’re John or Leonora you’re not welcome at Tam O’Shanter (although to give them their due one of the staff wanted us to stay).

So instead of a report on new tree planting, a visit by the Mayor and other councillors involved, we have instead some video footage for you of a plastic cow.

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.

Tam O’Shanter Cottage Urban Farms Trust’s “main objectives”:-

To continue to provide a free amenity to the public
To continue to promote the use of Tam O’Shanter Urban Farm thereby maintaining visitor numbers

Useless bit of trivia: Tam O’Shanter is currently leased from Wirral Council for one Bidston pine cone/year. In the Mayor’s parlour at Wallasey Town Hall there a display of the Tam O’Shanter pine cone. As it was a few years old I asked the previous Mayor Cllr. Hodson if they’d paid their rent. He said he didn’t know if they had but where do annual Tam O’Shanter pine cones go?