Posted by: John Brace | 18 November 2011

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 15/11/11 Part 2 Petition against APP/10/01105

This is what a petitioner against Planning Application APP/10/01105 had to say on Tuesday evening. This is the first three minutes whole five (and a bit minutes) .

The missing bits are either gaps in the audio record or personal information (as it’s a member of the public) that have been removed at the request of the Chair of the Planning Committee, editor, our legal department etc..

Petitioner: “I live at *** and I’m representing not only *** of the *** but also ***. Errm, I’d just like to take this opportunity to say you have before you a booklet errm promoting the *** but also to work to some contextual framework of the *** and the **** we’re talking about. There is also a *** so that you can orientate yourselves to the wider issue of the ***.

Errm, I’d first like to say that we feel as *** that this does not meet the HS4 err criteria for new housing developments in *** , and therefore we’d like to say that we feel if this was to be approved, that it would be a signficant and *** change to the character of the ***, *** in policy terms is not our *** . As *** we feel the appearance and amenities in the area will be significantly affected.

If you did come to the Site Visit yesterday, you’ll have noticed we did mention the 48 apartments which are approved to be on the right-hand side of this property, *** dwellings. We did say that those 48 ***, sorry flats are going to be three storey big, houses that are *** are three storey and to the left of the site apartments are three storey. This will be signficantly unusual for this errm, cluster of three storey properties if you will in that *** of ***. ***properties but not all in the little cul-de sac as we would errm see it and as it’s been referenced in the council’s documents as well.

Errm, we would like to take up errm the part as of *** of the design. The errm, you know we feel that English Heritage are saying they have *** the recommendations. They literally for us have been ***ed. Yes they’ve dropped the chimneys and they’ve added a few things like a gable end at the fork of this twenty metres. I’m sorry that they errm we did meet with the council officer and show a *** observation with a ruler and it’s 20.5 at that point. So I think there’s some discrepancy that needs to be a bit of, bit of investigation there. When we talk about the *** in terms of metres, the mean average of a separation window to window is 25 metres.

The mean average of what we’re effectively saying this cul-de-sac is if we’re going to errm as *** has said is twenty to twenty-one metres. Errm, the fact that the shortest in the village is 21.127 *** metres which is in *** Errm, if anyone would want to take me up on that. So this development will be very top-heavy. It’s three stories and it’s also to **** a care home that’s built *** same time. That care home together with the Gardener’s errm Lodge if you look at the detail of the design again it’s very much a concern of *** that *** know.
Today’s people have invested their money their hard earned money buying properties. *** keep those properties within the **** to scratch all the *** industry. I’d just like to draw your attention to a the map on one of the pages there as ** the aerial view *** and see how much density is in that area. So we’ve got a care home which is spread out over two floors. In actual total that means a lot of people from the *** living there however we’ve got 21 apartments as I’ve said and I know I’m going to repeat myself here. I’ve got this 48 apartments which you’ve all just agreed in this year to amend five years plans. So those plans are still in existence for four to five years. So it becomes densely populated as I’ve said.

To go with we’re really concerned about that the architectural features that are left. I think that once that they’re there, what are the two most *** buildings *** never came to fruition ** particular care home ** slate tiles. I do accept as *** we need to move to to the 21st century ** 22 homes per a hectare *** significantly appropriate for a *****…

Cllr David Elderton: Can I ask you to try and bring your comments to a conclusion? You’re way over five minutes at the moment.

Petitioner: Yes Chair, just quick as a quick, I talked about need to *** I’d also like to say about the alien aspect of three of the houses looking into backs of other houses which is alien. We did have an alternative second to last page of your document. To reiterate really and summarise. That we feel as *** and ***, this will break rules of CH2, CH9 , ??15 *** damage and approval of this application furthermore damage the special *** of ***, an historic *** resulting in irrational failure of the local planning authority’s statutory duty to pay special attention to the exercise of its planning functions. You have all agreed and adopted as a Council the Unitary Development Plan. If this was to be agreed that would be contravening your own UDP and would potentially result in further action being taken. Thank you Chair for allowing me to ***.

Cllr David Elderton: That’s ok, thank you very much.