Planning Committee (Wirral Council) (27th June 2013) APP/13/00574 5 Speedwell Drive, Barnston, CH60 2SY Change of use of garage to dog grooming parlour
Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair): OK, so are there any questions?
Cllr David Elderton (Conservative spokesperson): Thank you Chair, I think councillors that the petitioner in his very articulate way of articulating many of the concerns I have about this proposal and knowing what problems dogs can cause if they’re not under control or are out and running in a domestic residential environment, I think that’s asking for trouble if we allow this proposal to proceed. Errm, I’m quite happy to put forward my reasons for refusal on this proposal Chair, the proposal proposed is considered inappropriate in a residential area but I’d be interested to hear first what others have to say on this matter.
Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair): Denise?
Cllr Denise Realey: Thank you Chair and I don’t actually have a problem with it. All I can see is a younger woman just trying to make a little bit of a business for her, you know, to make a little bit of extra cash and I can’t really see the problem. It’s not going to be a nuisance, it’s going to be noise proofed and everything else and I just can’t see what you’re talking about. We’re talking five dogs per a day and we’re not talking about anything that would lead to a disturbance of the area. You know I live right opposite a dog grooming business and I never hear anything, not one peep out of them. I just don’t have a problem with this and I hope you know ….
Cllr Steve Foulkes: My issue is is very much around the errm the the the sort of errm pattern, so the reasons for refusal would be that dwellings sited on this rear garden area as proposed would introduce a pattern of development that would lead to a detrimental change in the character of the area and furthermore by introducing additional domestic activity into this backland site, the existing standards of residential amenities in the immediate vicinity of the properties surrounding the site will be seriously diminished.
Therefore I believe the proposal is therefore contrary to the guidance in HS4 and HS10 and those are my reasons for refusal, so moved.
Councillor Bernie Mooney (Chair): So, errm, the recommendation is for voting is that this application is for refusal, for those refusal reasons which have been been recommended and have been recommended and seconded. So could we put that to the vote please? Errm all those who are minded to refuse this application for those recommended refusal reasons.
(Matthew Rushton mutters something that can’t be heard to Cllr Bernie Mooney).
Cllr Steve Foulkes: OK, the proposal therefore meets the National, National Planning Policy Framework, can’t hurt to add those small words.
Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair): Is everybody happy with that? Does everybody understand? No, so we can go to the vote on this for refusal so can we have a vote on refusal? OK, that application has been unanimously refused.
Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair): We’ll move onto number thirteen please, errm could we have a presentation for number thirteen please?
A brief blog post outlining the long running saga regarding filming public meetings of Wirral Council, covering the recent ban by the Chair of the Planning Committee, Eric Pickle’s advice and a brief run down of the history.
So, although the articles are broadly correct I’d like to correct a slight error and make a few clarifications.
Liverpool Echo
“At a meeting of the planning committee on Thursday, a local blogger was again told to stop filming.”
This should read “Shortly before a meeting of the planning committee on Thursday, a local blogger was again told to stop filming.” If it had been at the meeting itself I would’ve posted the footage online, however yes, it has happened before (18th December 2012) on a close 6:5 vote. Back then Cllr Mooney said it would be “just for this meeting” (see video below).
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.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
After a ban on filming happened at a Health and Wellbeing Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting (on which Cllr Mooney sat) on the 28th March 2013 to discuss the controversial closure of Moreton Day Centre, I sent a letter before claim to Wirral Council (which is the first stage of a judicial review of a decision). I received this response by email back from Wirral Council’s Monitoring Officer Surjit Tour (the same Surjit Tour that Cllr Mooney said told her she could stop filming at meetings).
Tour, Surjit
to
stephengerrard, me
Tue, 2 Apr 2013 16:08:47 +0100
Dear Mr Brace
I am on annual leave until 15 April. I am somewhat surprised by your email and letter given that I have asked you a number of times to meet me to discuss this issue.
Furthermore, there no ban on filming as you and another have been filming a number of committee meetings.
I would suggest that no proceedings are issued until I have had the opportunity to respond. I therefore request an extension of time to 30 April.
I await your response.
Please can you also include Stephen Gerrard in any further response.
Yours sincerely
Surjit Tour
Sent from my HTC Touch Pro 2 on Vodafone
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
I was allowed to film meetings until the Planning Committee meeting of 27th June 2013, a further letter before claim (with a proposed reply date of 12th July) was sent to Wirral Council’s legal department and interested parties on the 28th June 2013. At the time of writing I have not received a reply from either Wirral Council or the interested parties.
I will also make one small response to Cllr Mooney’s comments, I did say that if she as Chair asked a petitioner if they didn’t want to be filmed and they said no I wouldn’t. However she said, “I can’t do that” rejecting what I felt was a reasonable compromise. Despite her assertion that Planning Committee is the only committee where members of the public regularly address it, there are in fact others ranging from the Highway and Traffic Representation Panel, Licensing Act 2003 committee, Licensing, Health and Safety & General Purposes Committee and full Council meetings (public question time). I hope the above sets the record straight somewhat.
Cllr David Elderton (Conservative spokesperson): Maybe after we have instructions to vote.
Cllr Steve Foulkes: Oh well I’ll hold this discussion and think I’ll find we have a bit of a discussion.
Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair): So what will we do?
Cllr David Elderton (Conservative spokesperson): Yes, again we have this situation where a site visit was most beneficial particularly the three-dimensional view on the ground that the impact would likely to occur and would result in this development taking place. I must say I have to agree with errm Steve that the concern about the impact on the area and the changing character of the area so errm I was unhappy about the development and it’s potential to do so. I’ll declare my powder dry until I see what Steve moves and I’m certainly unhappy about that and I’m not happy with the procedures in place. Thank you. Thank you.
Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair): Errm, I’m just going to say briefly to you that I have family and declare an interest in this item which I do and I’m extremely errm underestimated that the challenge, very late and it’s interesting, so has anybody else got any other comments before we go back to Steve? Steve?
Cllr Steve Foulkes: Whilst I hear issues around community safety, err and those issues I don’t personally think, err I haven’t seen the border treatment to many of the plots in that area that lies at making community safety worse or better and I don’t think the highways issue is one that we could reject in terms of movements to new extension properties are probably minimal err given it’s in a residential area.
Cllr Denise Roberts: Using the justification of HS4, states that the environment around the home has a major impact on resident’s quality of life and it is important that new housing blends in well with that already built and creates a safe external environment.
However the backs of the houses will replace the boundary wall that housing will contrive and this will create a lattice, effecting a fundamental change to the area.
The proposed development does not sit happily with the pattern of existing homes and a large built wall will remove another green area in an established neighbourhood and change the nature of a simple municipal area of Wirral. Members I urge you to reject this application.
Cllr David Elderton: Thank you.
Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair): Members of the Committee and to make representations by councillors on the Planning Committee at the site visit with me.
Cllr Denise Roberts: Chair, thank you Chair, although it was impossible to attend myself, I did actually go round yesterday and I’m just a little bit disappointed with officers actually actually granting this for approval, ermm, the reasons repeated in HS10 are that undue noise and disturbance that you know and loss of privacy and I just can’t see how on their own what somebody in a garden isn’t going to be undue noise and loss of privacy and I believe it would be an over development in that site.
Cllr Bernie Mooney: Steve.
Cllr Steve Foulkes: Chair, obviously errm, I have known the area since I’ve been extremely careful not to preempt any decision making process, errm and I can see that when actually we gained access to the property that the inviting nature of the rear garden.