Councillor Eddie Boult said he had been on the Site Visit. He said that there were two plots and did the second plot have planning permission? Matthew Rushton replied that the adjacent plot had planning permission for a similar development, which had been approved in 2009. Approval for planning permission was proposed by Cllr John … Continue reading “Planning Committee 25th October 2011 Agenda Item 6 APP/11/00834 & APP/11/00909 Part 4”
Councillor Eddie Boult said he had been on the Site Visit. He said that there were two plots and did the second plot have planning permission?
Matthew Rushton replied that the adjacent plot had planning permission for a similar development, which had been approved in 2009.
Approval for planning permission was proposed by Cllr John Salter and seconded by Cllr Eddie Boult.
For the planning application: Cllr David Elderton, Cllr Eddie Boult, Cllr Wendy Clements, Cllr Peter Johnson, Cllr Dave Mitchell, Cllr Stuart Kelly, Cllr Patricia Glasman (deputy for Cllr Brian Kenny), Cllr John Salter, Cllr Joe Walsh and Cllr Bernie Mooney (10)
Against the planning application: Cllr James Keeley (deputy for Cllr Paul Hayes) & Cllr Denise Realey (2)
Therefore planning application APP/11/00834 was approved.
The committee then considered planning application APP/11/00909 for time extension for a vacant shop in Heswall. Matthew Rushton said this was for an extension of time for a refurbishment and extension. He said it had been granted previously, the only change that had happened since was that planning policy 6 had been replaced by planning policy 4. There were the same conditions as on the original application as outlined at 11.3 .
Cllr David Elderton asked officers to respond on demolition & security, parking & access. The officer said Wright Street had been raised in the past. There was a lack of space and there had previously been waiting restrictions. The restrictions had been removed for extra parking spaces. The view expressed was that one more property would not lead to much extra highway demand. Access to the garage was dependent on whether it was used as a garage or storage. The size of any vehicle would also affect access. If a vehicle was obstructing the way out the police could take action, however there were no grounds to refuse the application on highway safety as it was already recommended the application be subject to conditions 2 & 5. He said there were no grounds to object to the application on highway safety.
Matthew Rushton said that the issues raised by the petitioner were not planning issues, safety on the site was the Health and Safety Executive‘s responsibility. He said any damage caused by construction was a civil matter between the two parties. Construction could be looked at under the building regulations to make sure it was safely built.
Cllr John Salter said he had been to the Site Visit. He sympathised with the residents, as parking even in the garage if there was a vehicle parked opposite would be “very, very hard”. Cllr Salter understood that it was not under their remit and there was nothing to turn the application down for refusal. He said he supported the application.
The Chair, Cllr David Elderton asked if there was a petitioner who wished to address the Committee.
A Stephen Walker, who lives in Wright Street did want to address the Committee. Stephen said the petitioners had concerns over the new build, its effect on the character of the area and parking concerns. He referred to the site visit the day before at noon and said they had struggled to park. He highlighted the fact that flats had been converted on King Street and Wright Street which had led to extra demand on parking. Mr. Walker said that if the user of the proposed garage had a car it would be a struggle to park there and there would be a struggle over access. He was concerned over the proposed building and damage by the builder during demolition to a neighbouring property. Mr. Walker was concerned that the site was not secure and the fences were down.
Cllr David Elderton thanked the petitioner and summarised his concerns as being about parking & access, demolition and security. He asked if the applicant was present and wished to speak? The applicant didn’t wish to speak, however a councillor representing the ward Cllr Darren Dodd did.
Cllr Darren Dodd said the site visit had taken place, parking was difficult, it was a narrow road and he had dealt with parking issues here for over a year. He said his concern was that the extra building would make existing issues worse. There were issues surrounding site safety as the area was an unguarded building site which led to antisocial behaviour. Cllr Dodd said the residents had genuine concerns and he asked for these to be taken into account.
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.