Cllr Mitchell asked why numbers 3, 4 and 5 were only 10.5 metres apart? The officer said they recommended a flexible approach between new properties. Cllr Realey asked if there was any possibility that the speed limit could be reduced to below 20mph as this was “really fast”. The officer from technical services said there … Continue reading “Planning Committee 25th October 2011 APP/7/00887 Part 14”
Cllr Mitchell asked why numbers 3, 4 and 5 were only 10.5 metres apart? The officer said they recommended a flexible approach between new properties.
Cllr Realey asked if there was any possibility that the speed limit could be reduced to below 20mph as this was “really fast”.
The officer from technical services said there would be physical measures to slow vehicles down and that it was Wirral Council policy to have 20mph speed limits on residential roads. If the speed limit was below 20mph it would be difficult to enforce as speedometers were not accurate at these low speeds.
Cllr Glasman referred to the comments from Merseytravel and the extra traffic that would result from the Asda development in Birkenhead.
The officer from the Technical Services Department asked if she meant whilst it was constructed?
Cllr Glasman said the submission was about buses and was likely to be a problems.
The officer from the Technical Services Department said that in the process of construction, vehicles going to and from the site can be disruptive. It was on a main classified road.
Cllr Salter referred to tree protection and wanted to make sure the trees were reinstated. The officer said there were two conditions on the retention and protection of trees.
Cllr Clements asked about a condition for renewable energy and whether this was feasible or viable?
The officer said that regional policy on this matter gave the developer a get out. However it would be up to the developer to prove.
Cllr Mitchell referred to a Notice of Motion a decade ago and how it was already council policy. He thought they should be doing more to make sure developers were environmentally friendly and reducing the carbon footprint of developments.
Cllr Salter and Cllr Mitchell proposed accepting the application. All councillors voted in favour.
Cllr Mitchell asked about separation distance and whether the windows were obscurely glazed.
The officer said they haven’t asked for obscure glazing. Separation distance weren’t considered as the two dwellings face at an oblique angle.
Cllr John Salter and Cllr Eddie Boult proposed and seconded the application. Ten councillors voted for the application and Cllr Kelly and Cllr Mitchell voted against, so the application was approved.
The committee then considered planning application APP/11/00714. The officer said this was a residential development of sixty-two houses. These would be mainly two storey, with ten being two and a half storeys high. It would largely use the existing road layout, but there would be gardens and off-road parking. The key issues were separation distances, which were internally shorter than normal standards. Two properties’ windows were within 14 metres and were only partly obscured. The people moving in would be aware of this. 30% of the housing would be purchased by Wirral Partnership Homes as affordable housing due to the development agreement with Keepmoat. There would be a 20mph speed limit on this residential development.
Cllr Elderton asked about the fear that the roads would lead to a rat run under the proposed layout. Cllr Mitchell asked about the implications of the separation distance being below the normal requirement.
The officer said that it had been proposed to make Brett Street a through road, but had led to concerns expressed by Merseyside Police. The plans had now been amended to a cul-de-sac, so there was not an extra route.
Cllr Dave Mitchell asked to see what the front elevation would look like. Cllr Elderton stated that there was a nineteen person petition against the application. He asked if there was a ward councillor present? There wasn’t.
Cllr Dave Mitchell asked about the raised elevation to the rear, which Cllr Elderton described as “quite dramatic”. The officer said they had a sketch of the rear elevation. When this was shown to Cllr Dave Mitchell he said it was “sufficient for me not to like it”. Cllr Salter said it would be about a hundred metres from the front, well inside the Mariner’s area, not pronounced or on a corner. Cllr Stuart Kelly said it was a pity the petitioner had not met the threshold, he had a concern about the very open aspect. He had seen additional plans on the internet and felt it was “too big, intrusive and alien”. He said it “looked horrible” and he was not “enamoured by the impact”.
Cllr Elderton referred to representations received on this application in the areas of cycle parking, privacy, preferable sites nearby and an objection over rehousing.
Cllr Kelly joked that it was a pity it was not a retirement village for planning officers. Cllr Keeley referred to the considerable petition. Matthew Rushton said the petition was on one sole issue, to do with accommodation during development. Cllr Mooney said the main objection was that the people rehoused are elderly, there would be disruption which was not a planning issue but was “heartbreaking”.
Cllr Keeley asked a question about appearance and amenity. He referred to a recent appeal decision, where the committee’s decision had been overturned. The A4 use was upheld at appeal, but it was not mentioned in the report which he felt was subjective.
Matthew Davies said the planning regulations were clear, planning appeals are material as long as they are relevant to the application being assessed.
Cllr Keeley said it was material as it was on the same road, however it was subjective and they had to be careful.
Matthew Rushton said he hadn’t got a copy. Cllr Elderton said he had raised valid points.
Cllr Keeley moved refusal on the grounds it contravened guidance in SPD 3 & would led to a proliferation. Cllr Realey seconded refusal. Cllrs Stuart Kelly, James Keeley and a number of other councillors voted to refuse the application. Cllr Dave Mitchell and Cllr Wendy Clements voted to accept the planning application. The application was refused.
Cllr Elderton said they had all got the gist, but they would require something specific afterwards.
Cllr Keeley said it had not met the separation distances in SPD 3 & would lead to a proliferation. Cllr Elderton asked Cllr Keeley to email Matthew.
Cllr Bernie Mooney returned (having previously declared a prejudicial interest in this item).
The Planning Committee then considered Planning Application APP/7/00887. The officer said there would be temporary accommodation for the residents who would need relocating and that the closest dwelling was at number twenty, it was recommended for approval.