Planning Committee refuse Magenta Living application for 11 houses and 2 bungalows in Upton (Kenilworth Gardens)

Planning Committee refuse Magenta Living application for 11 houses and 2 bungalows in Upton (Kenilworth Gardens)

Planning Committee refuse Magenta Living application for 11 houses and 2 bungalows in Upton (Kenilworth Gardens)

                                                             

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.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

The Kenilworth Gardens item starts at 8 minutes 19 seconds in the video clip above and continues to the video clips below of Wirral Council’s Planning Committee meeting of the 20th November 2014.

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.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

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.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

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.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Cllr Matthew Patrick explains to Wirral Council's Planning Committee why they should reject planning application APP 14 00951 in Kenilworth Gardens Upton 20th November 2014
Cllr Matthew Patrick explains to Wirral Council’s Planning Committee why they should reject planning application APP 14 00951 in Kenilworth Gardens Upton 20th November 2014

The long running saga of planning application of planning application APP/14/00951: Unused Land, KENILWORTH GARDENS, UPTON, CH49 4ND – proposal to develop the site with residential units for affordable housing use, providing 11 no. two storey 2 bedroom houses, and 2 no. 2 bedroom bungalows (including 1 fully disabled access unit) finally reached a decision at Wirral Council at the Planning Committee meeting of the 20th November 2014.

The applicant was Wirral Partnership Homes Limited (T/A Magenta Living) and the agent Ainsley Gommon Architects.

Wirral Council had received this planning application on the 18th July 2014. At the Planning Committee on the 25th September 2014 a site visit was agreed. After that took place it had been due to be decided at the Planning Committee on the 22nd October 2014. However at the Planning Committee meeting on the 22nd October 2014 it was deferred to the Planning Committee meeting on the 20th November 2014 (making it over 4 months for a decision on this planning application to be reached.

Wirral Council planning officers had recommended in a report that the planning application be approved with various conditions.

The Planning Committee heard from the lead petitioner Jean Robinson, Chair of the Overchurch Residents Association who spoke against the planning application being approved. She referred to heritage reasons, ecological reasons and highway reasons why she thought the planning application should be refused.

The petitioner in favour of the application did not speak.

Rob Ware of Ainsley Gommon Architects (the agent on behalf of the applicant Wirral Partnership Homes Limited T/A Magenta Living) spoke after and explained the reasons why he thought that councillors should accept the planning application. He referred during this to a 34 year old tenant of the applicant with spinal injuries that was in need of a bungalow and would benefit from such a planning application being granted. He also referred to the highway concerns.

Cllr Matthew Patrick (ward councillor for Upton ward) also addressed the Planning Committee. He referred to the petition against the planning application, the petition in favour, the protection of urban greenspace, the uses that local residents put the land which included Easter egg hunts and litter picking.

He pointed out that trees on the site were protected by tree protection orders and how he felt that the application should be rejected because of policy HS4 as in his opinion it did not meet all the criteria for new housing as it would change the character of the area as well as another criteria in HS4.

Cllr Patrick also referred to the need to reduce crime, allow emergency vehicles access and the issue of bats, in fact three different species of bat! He felt the lighting would disturb the insects that the bats feed on and referred to a letter written from Wirral Wildlife in 2007 about the bats. He referred the Planning Committee to their legal obligation with regards to species protection and went on to refer again to policy HS4.

He wondered how the proposed disabled tenant would be able to safely access the property by foot as the proposed pavement was too narrow and finished by referring to the strength of feeling from the Overchurch Residents Association as residents had contacted him by phone, email and letter about this planning application. He urged the Planning Committee to reject the application.

After much discussion over many issues to do with the planning application ranging from highway issues, disability issues, bats and wildlife, emergency vehicle access, refuse vehicle access and garages, someone asked one of Wirral Council’s solicitors for legal advice about the issue of the application needing to rely on a future decision to unadopt the highway to proceed.

The solicitor referred to the proposed condition 9 which meant approval was conditional on the access road being formally stopped up and unadopted. She referred to the other reasons (other than a development) as to why the highway might be unadopted.

After much further debate, Cllr Stuart Kelly (Lib Dem spokesperson) moved refusal. This was seconded by Cllr Denise Realey (Vice-Chair).

All thirteen councillors present on the Planning Committee voted in favour of refusal.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Wirral Council’s Planning Committee agrees to outline planning application for four bungalows on the Paddock, Kinloss Road, Greasby (OUT/13/00826) (31st October 2013)

Wirral Council’s Planning Committee agrees to outline planning application for four bungalows on the Paddock, Kinloss Road, Greasby (OUT/13/00826) (31st October 2013)

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.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

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.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

The first planning application starts at 5:15 in the first video above.

Wirral Council’s Planning Committee agrees to outline planning application for four bungalows on the Paddock, Kinloss Road, Greasby (OUT/13/00826) (31st October 2013)

                              

This continues from Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 31st October 2013 Minutes, Declarations of Interest and Site Visits.

The first planning application decided (and the one that many people had come along to see a decision made on) was for four bungalows and some amenity open space on the Paddock, Kinloss Road, Greasby.

The Chair, Cllr Bernie Mooney asked an officer to introduce the planning application. He explained what it was for, why the officers had recommended it for approval and the officer’s response to the objections raised (which were mainly highway safety issues). He said that although it had a value as an open space, it was not designated as a green space or open to the public.

The lead petitioner introduced herself as Helen O’Donnell and explained why a hundred and forty-nine people had signed a petition objecting to the planning application. The first area of concern was safe access into and out of the housing estate, the petitioners felt that leaving this land open had been integral to the design of the original RAF estate. The petitioners felt that building here would lead to a loss of sight lines and a reduction in highway safety. Concerns were also raised about what would happen to the laybys which the petitioners felt were needed for a free flow of traffic. Helen O’Donnell also wanted the green rural route protected by the Planning Committee not approving the planning application.

The applicant, who introduced herself as Mrs. Glynn said that she hadn’t seen the photos circulated by Helen O’Donnell. She pointed out that the planning officers had recommended it for approval and that the proposed buildings were single storey and of a low density. She felt that everything had been done to meet the objector’s needs and repeated that it was recommended for approval by the planning department.

Cllr Steve Foulkes said he would like to hear from councillors who had been on the site visit. The Chair said that she had been on the site visit and that she couldn’t see what difference four households would make to access. Cllr Wendy Clements asked where the dwellings would be and asked for a response from the officers about the speed of traffic.

Matthew Rushton referred to an extra condition on the late list and that the greenery on the other side of the roundabout was maintained as public open space. An officer responded on highways safety grounds that there had been no accidents there over the last five years.

Cllr Eddie Boult said that he couldn’t see a problem with traffic on the site visit and that he found the photo circulated by the petitioners misleading as it was of a different area.

Cllr Geoffrey Watt said that he had also been on the site visit. Although he would be sad to see the loss of openness, there were still some green spaces left and he couldn’t think of a good planning reason for rejecting the planning application. He asked if a condition could be added to restrict the buildings to a single storey?

Cllr David Elderton pointed out that the photos weren’t of the site and that the police enforced the speed limit on this stretch of road, he agreed with Cllr Watt that it was nice to see urban green space, but again he couldn’t see any reasons for objecting to it.

Cllr Stuart Kelly agreed with what was said about traffic and pointed out that in the report it stated that it wasn’t designated as urban green space, however in the open space assessment it had been designated as open space (although officers had advised him this was in error). He referred to paragraphs seventy-four and seventy-seven of the National Planning Policy Framework and policy HS4. Cllr Kelly didn’t feel there were grounds to refuse it on highway safety grounds. He referred to a covenant on the land stating it was for grazing purposes.

The Chair thanked Cllr Kelly for his contribution. Cllr Foulkes said that when he had first joined the Council [in 1990], he had been on the Unitary Development Plan Working Party, but nobody had lobbied them then to make this land green space. He recognised that local people believed it was green space, but that the developer had set aside part of the land as an amenity space, he said he would struggle to support refusal if Cllr Kelly moved it. He felt that the extra car movements from four bungalows was insignificant and that he welcomed the comments from people who’d been on the site visit and pointed out that the photo was of somewhere else.

Matthew Davies said that it was designated in the Unitary Development Plan as a primary residential area. He referred to the criteria for a green space designation under the National Planning Policy Framework and said it couldn’t be described as beautiful and that it didn’t have historic or recreational value. If the planning application was refused on these grounds he thought that they would struggle to defend the decision at appeal.

Cllr Wendy Clements said she had looked at the map online and it was designated as urban green space.

Matthew Davies said that they had had a piece of work undertaken as part of the core strategy as to where the open spaces were. The consultant had picked this site, whereas Wirral Council had meant the consultant instead to include the site maintained by the parks and recreation department on the other side of the roundabout.

Cllr Watt asked again about a condition limiting the bungalows to a single storey. Matthew Davies replied that there could be a condition added restricted it to a single storey.

Cllr Denise Realey proposed approval (with the extra condition), Cllr Irene Williams seconded this. Eight councillors voted in favour. Three (Cllr Stuart Kelly, Cllr Geoffrey Watt and Cllr Paul Hayes) voted against. One councillor abstained, so the application was approved.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 26th September 2013 APP/13/00827: Mapleholme, 101 Beckwith Street, Birkenhead, CH41 3JP – Demolition of the two existing vacant buildings on the site and the development of 16 two-bedroom 2 storey houses and 2 two-bedroom bungalows with associated private garden space and car parking (18 Dwellings in total – amended description)

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 26th September 2013 APP/13/00827: Mapleholme, 101 Beckwith Street, Birkenhead, CH41 3JP – Demolition of the two existing vacant buildings on the site and the development of 16 two-bedroom 2 storey houses and 2 two-bedroom bungalows with associated private garden space and car parking (18 Dwellings in total – amended description)

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.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 26th September 2013 APP/13/00827: Mapleholme, 101 Beckwith Street, Birkenhead, CH41 3JP – Demolition of the two existing vacant buildings on the site and the development of 16 two-bedroom 2 storey houses and 2 two-bedroom bungalows with associated private garden space and car parking (18 Dwellings in total – amended description)

                             

Continues from Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 26th September 2013 APP/13/00676: Ring O Bells Hotel, Village Road, West Kirby, CH48 7HE – New external children’s play equipment. This planning application starts here in the video.

The officer said that it was a proposal for one hundred percent affordable housing. The site was a vacant care home surrounded by housing. Although it didn’t meet the usual separation distances, falling short by half a metre they had relaxed this policy as it only related to blocks within the proposed development. It was reusing a brownfield site and the officers recommended it for approval.

The Chair asked if there were any questions or comments? Cllr Stuart Kelly said that it was exactly the sort of proposal he was in favour of so he was happy to move approval. Cllr Anita Leech seconded his proposal for approval. All councillors voted in favour of approval.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 26th September 2013 APP/13/00748: Amenity Open Space, Tollemache Road, Birkenhead – Erection of 12no two bedroom single storey dwellings

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 26th September 2013 APP/13/00748: Amenity Open Space, Tollemache Road, Birkenhead – Erection of 12no two bedroom single storey dwellings

Tollemache Road greenfield photo 1
Tollemache Road greenfield photo 2
Tollemache Road greenfield photo 3

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 26th September 2013 APP/13/00748: Amenity Open Space, Tollemache Road, Birkenhead – Erection of 12no two bedroom single storey dwellings

                          

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.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Continues from Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 26th September 2013 APP/13/00866: 151 Victoria Road, New Brighton, CH45 9LB – Change of use of a property from a single residence to a house of multiple occupation to provide 12 bedrooms with communal kitchen, living rooms and bathrooms. Also to include alterations to windows to the front elevation.

The officer introduced the report for this item and said it was a vacant greenfield site that was there to give an area of land as amenity open space for the new development. The objections received were about the loss of the open space. The applicant contended that the amenity open space was surplus to requirements, but the local planning authority (Wirral Council) contended that it had value.

The officers had assessed the proposed development and had no problems with it except for the policy issue about the loss of the amenity open space. Included in the late list was further information, the applicant had offered a sum of £40,000 to be spent on the adjacent play area, but the officers were still recommending refusal.

The Chair asked if a ward councillor wanted to talk to the Planning Committee?

Cllr Ann McLachlan said that any plans for the open green space would cause tension with the local residents, but that the plans were for low-cost affordable housing. In respect of the views of the local residents there were six key objectors, however she understood their concerns, but their fears had been allayed and assurances given. She wanted to speak in favour of the application for a dozen two bedroom bungalows. Although a provider had not yet been identified, this could be secured through a condition or a s.106 agreement.

Cllr McLachlan said that the properties would be “a drop in the ocean” but a welcome development. She had concerns about the benefit reforms as people were “crying out for two bedroom” properties. The local area to the site was residential and it would be on an amenity piece of green space. It’s use was for informal play and it did have some community use, however it was quite overgrown. There had been some dog owners pulling up in cars allowing their dogs to foul this piece of grass and in her view approving the application would deal with a number of the current problems. The applicant had offered £40,000 (subject to the plans being approved) to be spent on the adjacent play area and for these reasons she supported the application.

Cllr Wendy Clements asked a question about the affordable housing requirement. Matthew Davies responded by saying that if the application was approved it would be subject to a s.106 agreement for affordable housing. There would also be a commuted sum to upgrade the existing play facilities and a condition for highway improvements if councillors decided to approve it in addition to a number of other conditions.

Cllr Brian Kenny said he had read the paperwork and listed to the discussion. In his view a dozen two bedroom bungalows satisfied a demand for affordable housing. He accepted the officer’s view that it needed a s.106 agreement and thought it would fit well with the area. Cllr Kenny referred to antisocial behaviour issues raised by the local councillors and was heartened that the applicant had suggested giving £40,000 to upgrade the adjacent play area. He said that if you believe everything you read in the press that the Cabinet Member for Housing (Cllr George Davies) was keen. Cllr Kenny was in favour of approving the application.

Matthew Davies said they would need to give a reason why they were approving it contrary to the normal policies and that this needed to come from the Planning Committee. He explained that if approved, extra conditions that would need be attached to the approval including a site waste management plan.

Cllr Paul Hayes said he accepted the need for affordable housing, but didn’t buy into the argument that it was needed because of antisocial behaviour and dog fouling. In his view those sorts of issues would only be dealt with through tougher enforcement.

The Chair, Cllr Bernie Mooney, referred to the extra money for the play area, the extra money for upgrading the highway and the extra £1,500 for the school crossing patrol. She asked the Planning Committee if they were happy?

Cllr Stuart Kelly was not happy. He accepted that affordable housing was important, but in his view the need to build more houses shouldn’t mean they should lose green space sites. Cllr Kelly said the site was used for informal play and that they had to get the balance right between building houses they knew they needed and providing people with space for children to play, he was not happy with building houses on a piece of green land, as there was lots of overgrown green land and it would set a precedent for further applications for housing on green space.

Cllr Kelly said that it had been set aside as part of the original planning application and put there for a reason, he was not willing to set aside policies as in his view they needed the amenity space as much as they needed affordable housing. He said that they had a policy which said they should have this sort of amenity put in place and he felt that backing out sent out a poor message as he felt developers should build on brownfield sites rather than a site used for informal play.

Cllr Denise Realey asked if the site had been identified for housing under the Strategic Housing Assessment? The officer said it hadn’t.

Cllr Brian Kenny said that he wanted to move approval of the application on the grounds that it would provide affordable housing that there was a demand for. He said it fitted well with the character of the area and removed a number of current problems. Cllr Kenny said it was important they approved it and the applicant had agreed to invest £40,000 in the adjacent play area. He moved approval. Cllr Joe Walsh seconded approval.

Cllr Kelly moved an amendment to the proposal to approve, that it would be refused for the reasons given in the officer’s report. Rosemary Lyons (legal adviser) advised the Chair not to accept the amendment as in her view it wasn’t amending the proposal to accept the planning application. She said that Cllr Kelly could vote against the proposal to approve the application.

The Chair took a vote on the motion to approve the planning application.

For (9): Cllr Denise Realey, Cllr Anita Leech, Cllr David Elderton, Cllr Bernie Mooney, Cllr Irene Williams, Cllr Christina Muspratt, Cllr Brian Kenny, Cllr Joe Walsh and Cllr Eddie Boult
Against (4): Cllr Stuart Kelly, Cllr Simon Mountney, Cllr Wendy Clements and Cllr Paul Hayes

The application was therefore approved.

Continues at Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 26th September 2013 APP/13/00779: Hillfield, 82 Brimstage Road, Barnston, CH60 1XQ – New conservatory to rear of house.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Do you like green fields and weeds, or is it better to meet people’s housing needs?

Do you like green fields and weeds, or is it better to meet people’s housing needs?

Tollemache Road greenfield photo 1
Tollemache Road greenfield photo 2
Tollemache Road greenfield photo 3

Do you like green fields and weeds, or is it better to meet people’s housing needs?

                          

Do you like green fields and weeds,
or is it better to meet people’s housing needs?

The officers wanted green fields and weeds,
they did not want to meet people’s housing needs.

The local councillor said we want bungalows here and there,
and that she didn’t want dog fouling anywhere.
Kids will have to play where we want,
we blame all this on the government!

Cllr Kelly wanted the green fields and weeds to stay,
was he going to vote with Labour, no way!

Cllr Kenny did not want dog fouling here or there,
he didn’t want dog fouling anywhere.
He did not want green fields and weeds,
he wanted bungalows to meet people’s needs.

Cllr Realey asked if the green field was assessed for housing?
No, the officers said, who she was rousing.
We do not want to meet people’s housing needs,
we’d prefer to keep green fields and weeds.

The vote was taken to approve the plans,
Nine councillors voted for with their hands,
Four councillors voted against,
So the building of bungalows will be commenced.

If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:

Privacy Preference Center

Necessary

Advertising

Analytics

Other