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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
This blog post continues from the previous one entitled Planning Committee refuses plan for Tesco in Wallasey Village. The video for this part of the Planning Committee can be viewed above.
Cllr Paul Hayes asked questions about the percentage for parking in the report and why there was no transport statement. An officer answered that the reason there was no transport statement was because the applicant had included details of parking and servicing. In his opinion its location on a primary route would not generate a significant volume of traffic as people in vehicles already using the road would nip in to do some shopping.
Cllr Kelly said that he had looked at the Unitary Development Plan map and that the proposal was on the edge of the commercial area where a finger came out to take in the development on the shop. One two sides it was residential properties as well as a school and a public house. One the site visit he had noticed sheltered housing to the rear. The servicing arrangements were next to the houses, in his opinion there would be deliveries first thing in the morning at 7am and throughout the day. The distance between the site and these houses was only five metres.
He also had concerns about waste disposal and storage. There had been an extra condition around plans for waste disposal on the late list but in his opinion this should’ve been included with the application. Cllr Kelly was not happy with the lack of clarity about waste disposal. Looking at the plans for how lorries would enter and leave the delivery area, he felt that cars parked would have to be moved in order for this to be done safely. It would be difficult to find the shoppers who owned the cars, therefore in his view it was unsatisfactory. The effect on the residential area was also unsatisfactory.
Cllr Pat Glasman said that it was on an extremely busy road and due to the school parents parked in silly places. In her view there would be a detrimental effect on traffic. In her view the orientation of the building should be changed to reduce the effect on residential properties.
Cllr Hayes asked how the applicant had demonstrated there would be no overspill parking? He said on the day of the site visit, there were only fifteen there but the school had not been open due to the holidays. The officer said that in his view they would struggle to defend a refusal on highway safety grounds.
Cllr Leech asked if the delivery times could be restricted by a condition. An officer said they could.
Cllr Kelly referred to policy SPD4. Cllr Paul Hayes moved refusal on the grounds that it would be detrimental to the amenities that residents of nearby residential properties could reasonably expect to enjoy, that is was contrary to policy SPD6 and that the parking standards in SPD4 hadn’t been met.
Matthew Davies said that the reason could be sustained at appeal, but they would have to word it carefully.
Cllr Kelly said he would second it, with a reference to the National Planning Policy Framework. Matthew Davies suggested a form of words for refusal on the second reason. Cllr Kelly asked if it was SH4 or SH6 it was contrary to? The Chair answered SH6. It was put to the vote.
In favour of refusal: (11) Cllr Bernie Mooney, Cllr David Elderton, Cllr Stuart Kelly, Cllr Philip Brightmore, Cllr Anita Leech, Cllr Irene Williams, Cllr Eddie Boult, Cllr Paul Hayes, Cllr Simon Mountney, Cllr Patricia Glasman and Cllr Les Rowlands
Against refusal: Cllr Joe Walsh and Cllr Denise Realey (2)
The application was therefore refused.
Continues at Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 22nd August 2013 APP/13/00842: Corbiere, Thorsway, Caldy, CH48 2JJ – Demolition of existing house and erection of new dwelling within a similar footprint.