Refusal by Planning Committee for Wallasey Village Tesco Store is appealed

Refusal by Planning Committee for Wallasey Village Tesco Store is appealed

Refusal by Planning Committee for Wallasey Village Tesco Store is appealed


In August 2013, Wirral Council’s Planning Committee refused an application for a Tesco in Wallasey Village by 11 votes to 2. An appeal against the Planning Committee’s decision has been accepted by the Planning Inspectorate but it’ll be months before the Planning Inspectorate come to a final decision.

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) 22nd August 2013 refuses plan for Tesco in Wallasey Village

A report on what happened at the Planning Committee meeting of Wirral Council on the 22nd August 2013 involving a planning application for a Tesco in Wallasey Village.

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.

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.

Planning Committee refuses plan for Tesco in Wallasey Village

A report on Wirral Council’s Planning Committee meeting of the 22nd August 2013 and its decision to turn down an application to build a Tesco in Wallasey Village. APP/13/00629 Classic Cars Of Wirral Ltd CH45 3LP

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.

Unusually I got to film the Planning Committee meeting. The first planning application was the controversial application for a Tesco in Wallasey Village (the officer’s report can be read here and here is a link that takes you straight to the start of that item in the video I took of it.

The officer introduced the item by saying a decision on the application was deferred on the 25th July for a site visit. She explained the planning history and the reasons why the officers were recommending it for approval. There was a petition objecting to it signed by over 1,200 people.

The lead petitioner gave his name as Lee Kendall and said that he was the principal transport planner at SCP (a transport consultancy based in Manchester). He referred to a technical report SCP had submitted and how they felt the level of parking was inaccurately described in the officer’s report and below the levels they’d expect. The lack of parking would lead to overspill parking in the nearby streets which in his opinion was contrary to policies SH6 and TR9.

Using an industry standard database they had estimated that the traffic would exceed the spaces in the car park leading to overspill parking which would have an impact on traffic flow and road safety. He also felt that the application should have included a proper transport statement. Mr Kendall also said that the amenities of local residents would be affected by noise during unsocial hours.

The main road it was on already had a poor road safety record and he listed the different types of accident recorded over the last seven years. Although a puffin crossing was a condition, with a school situated opposite the site there was the concern that there was the potential for an accident involving a child crossing the road by not using the crossing. In his view overspill parking would also increase the likelihood of an accident involving a child.

The first floor was only accessible via a stairwell, so he felt that this meant the application wouldn’t comply with part M of the building regulations, Disability Discrimination Acts and the Equality Act 2010. Although this was not a material planning consideration he asked why would they approve a scheme that would breach building regulations? He urged the committee to refuse the application.

Matthew Brooke (of Edgeplan, the Manchester based agents) replied on behalf of the applicant Alfa Trustees. He referred to the officer’s recommendation to approve the application and that it was an underused site. Mr Brooke said that a superstore would create jobs for local people and was a substantial change from the earlier refused proposal.

There were a lot of highways related conditions from the puffin crossing and officers could go further and put in yellow lines. He felt that the scale of development was correct but they were aware of traffic accidents in Wallasey Village. Mr Brooke said that the first floor of the store would not be accessible to the public and used for staff use only. He finished by asking the Planning Committee to approve the application.

A ward councillor, Cllr Leah Fraser also addressed the Planning Committee. She started by saying that she had asked officers for a copy of the traffic survey, but she’d been told over the phone that a survey hadn’t been done. Therefore Cllr Fraser felt the officer’s assertions in the report weren’t backed up by evidence. She’d asked how the estimated traffic level figure was arrived at. Cllr Fraser had been told that the figure was calculated using the proposed floor area.

In her opinion if parking would be contained solely in the car park she estimated that each customer would have to park, shop, pay and leave within ten minutes. This wasn’t likely to happen so overspill parking in the surrounding streets would result due to the under provision of car parking. She said a figure of twenty full-time staff had been given and that the parking needs of staff would further exacerbate the parking issue. As an example of this she said that at the site visit one of the Planning Committee had had to park on double yellow lines and there had only been fifteen on the site visit.

Cllr Fraser said that the overspill parking would affect the residents in sheltered accommodation at Granville Court as there were regular visitors and ambulances going to and from there. Customers would also park outside the nearby residential properties and the residents would see a decrease in the amenities they’d come to reasonably expect to enjoy.

She asked how the new store would employ disabled staff if the first floor was inaccessible for disabled people? Residents were also concerned about the noise of deliveries and air conditioning. The previous use of the site in her opinion had been an important buffer between commercial premises, however she didn’t consider a Tesco as a buffer.

Further concerns of hers were that there would be overlooking from nearby flats of the service area and deliveries from 7 am in the morning. Although a new store might create new jobs, Cllr Fraser felt jobs would be lost as some remaining shops would end up closing. She referred to the over a thousand people who had signed a petition against despite it being widely publicised. Cllr Fraser was amazed that the report did not include the results of a traffic survey and referred to the estimated vehicle movements and the “tremendous opposition” to the proposal. She asked the Planning Committee to refuse it on the grounds that it was contrary to policy SH6 and that the impact of vehicles and footfall had not been assessed.

The Chair invited the Planning Committee to discuss the application.

Continues at Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 22nd August 2013 refuses plan for Tesco in Wallasey Village.