Tag: APP/10/01105

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 15/11/11 Part 3 Applicant/agent Planning Application APP/10/01105

*** This starts part way through*** *** refers to points on the tape where what is said is inaudible It relates to Planning Application APP/10/01105. Applicant or agent: I do have some paperwork that I’ve already ***. Can I pass it around Chair? Chair Cllr David Elderton: Pass it around if you want please. Applicant … Continue reading “Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 15/11/11 Part 3 Applicant/agent Planning Application APP/10/01105”

*** This starts part way through***

*** refers to points on the tape where what is said is inaudible

It relates to Planning Application APP/10/01105.

Applicant or agent: I do have some paperwork that I’ve already ***. Can I pass it around Chair?

Chair Cllr David Elderton: Pass it around if you want please.

Applicant or agent: Thank you. It’s just two sides of paper Chairman. In main it’s photographs, they’re just a few brief little notes.

The first page I’d like to draw the Planning Committee to is the matter of an aerial photograph of the site. The site border is in white here. The reason why I’ve included this photograph is that it shows that the site was a depot owned by the Trust since its conception in 1999.

It was based at the time at Continental Landscapes until January 2006. The original site is pictured here to 2005. A white line showing the area in which planning permission is sought. The first application submitted for this site potentially in 2002, application 02/06035 on the 20th *** .

Port Sunlight Village Trust has been a seeking a planning solution since then. At the bottom of the page, you’ll see sites A and B on the plan ***. Site B *** consent for forty-eight apartments at appeal in 2005. The Trust allowed the permission gained to lapse and never sought to have it reconfirmed.

The Trust has over the years carefully reconsidered what would be appropriate for this *** part of the village *** site B shown at the bottom, will now remain a light commercial site *** new *** store ***.

This constitutes *** forty-eight residential units *** then reduced to twelve units from the twenty originally conceived in 2002. My point Chair is the trustees have therefore listened and responded to the various issues facing this part of the village. They’ve done so over a very long period of time.

This planning application is ***. On the reverse page as already stated ***. This is looking across from *** Road. *** depot and in fact *** although on the elevations is seen *** Conservation Area *** .

I ask the committee to note *** already improved *** see the great *** of the nursing home *** adjacent to the proposed *** proposal *** no greater than the established two storey houses. Due to their elevated position the eaves line proposed is actually lower ***.

Finally Chair *** point out someone from the Port Sunlight Village Trust *** three-storey development is permitted within a Conservation boundary, as adopted by Council in March of this year. I quote, “Buildings should pre-dominantly be domestic in size and scale; of two storeys with any third floors within attic type roofs.” *** Thank you very much.

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.

Planning Committee 25th October 2011 Part 1 Minutes, Declarations of Interest, Site Visit

Present:
Cllr David Elderton
Cllr Eddie Boult
Cllr Wendy Clements
Cllr James Keeley (deputy for Cllr Paul Hayes)
Cllr Peter Johnson
Cllr Dave Mitchell
Cllr Stuart Kelly
Cllr Patricia Glasman (deputy for Cllr Brian Kenny)
Cllr John Salter
Cllr Denise Realey
Cllr Joe Walsh
Cllr Bernie Mooney

The agenda and reports for this meeting can be found by clicking on the link.

The Chair, Cllr David Elderton thanked people for coming, he introduced himself, the councillors on the Planning Committee and officers.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on the 6th September and 20th September were agreed.

The Chair, Cllr David Elderton asked for any declarations of interest. Cllr Bernie Mooney declared a prejudicial interest on item 11 with regards to an email she sent on behalf of Cllr Darren Dodd.

The Chair then asked for any requests for site visits. A site visit was requested by Cllr John Salter with respect to agenda item 4 (APP/10/01105) for a dozen houses on vacant land at the junction of Wharf Street and Water Street in Bromborough. This was agreed by the Planning Committee.

The Chair asked to vary the order of the agenda to take into account petitions. This was agreed.

The first planning application to be considered was APP/11/00834 – Land adjacent to 47 WRIGHT STREET, EGREMONT, CH44 8BD – Erection of a new dwelling. Matthew Rushton said it was a planning application for a new dwelling which followed the existing building line. It was also for a garage for one car. He said it was in line with Supplementary Planning Document 4. He said the staircase and the rear terrace had been deleted and mentioned the separation distance.