Tag: Cllr David Elderton

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 3rd January 2011 Part 2 APP/11/00954 – 6 MILLBROOK ROAD, POULTON, CH41 1FL – Change of use from industrial unit to auctioneers – sui generis

The Chair directed those present to page 27 and agenda item 6 (APP/11/00954), 6 Millbrook Road, Poulton, CH41 1FL, Change of use from industrial unit to auctioneers. Matthew said it was for a change of use to an auctioneers which was the sui generis class. It was in a mainly industrial area on an industrial … Continue reading “Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 3rd January 2011 Part 2 APP/11/00954 – 6 MILLBROOK ROAD, POULTON, CH41 1FL – Change of use from industrial unit to auctioneers – sui generis”

The Chair directed those present to page 27 and agenda item 6 (APP/11/00954), 6 Millbrook Road, Poulton, CH41 1FL, Change of use from industrial unit to auctioneers.

Matthew said it was for a change of use to an auctioneers which was the sui generis class. It was in a mainly industrial area on an industrial estate, the Unitary Development Plan allowed uses B1, B2 and B8 here so it was not an acceptable use as they should locate somewhere easy and sustainable. There was a shortage of land for industrial purposes. One auction was held a week on Wednesday evening. It was not conflicting with adjacent businesses, but was still not an acceptable use. There was insufficient information to justify the loss on two grounds, Unitary Development Plan EM8 and the fact it was not sustainable.

Cllr John Salter said he would declare a personal interest as he had had a chat with the owner and a discreet visit to the premises. He said the business needed a large premises and the business had been established for eight years. There was no parking problem and no problem on the one day they had sales. He wanted to draw attention to the fact that 75% of the trade at the public auction was to other businesses, local traders such as second hand shops and it was not mainly for the public.

On the subject of public transport he disagreed with officers as about hundred metres away was Birkenhead Park railway station which he had walked many times. He wanted to overturn officer’s recommendation that it was up for refusal and asked for it to be approved, he did have a form of words.

The Chair said he wanted everybody to have their say, his only concerns was supporting the Unitary Development Plan except for good reasons especially in Bromborough and Ellesmere Port.

Cllr Dave Mitchell asked whether the applicant had been in touch with the Economy & Regeneration Department over moving to more acceptable premises. He commented that the business had been running for eighteen months and said it might benefit from having a look at venues available.

The Chair asked officers if they’d like to come back on alternative venues?

Matthew said that there were vacant sites in the Town Centre, but they hadn’t pushed the applicant to go through hte process. He said it was difficult to make the case.

Cllr Stuart Kelly said it was interesting as it was a sui generis class and in Latin. He had googled it and hadn’t come across auctioneer in government advice. He said that Matthew’s advice was surrounding a change of use. He asked what assessment had been done to see if it didn’t fall into the acceptable B1, B2 or B8 categories? He said there was no mention in the Unitary Development Plan and there was an absence of advice. He had resorted to Google to see what was out there and what it really is? He said it cut across B1, B2 and B7 and referred to Cllr John Salter’s comments about the auction being once a week. The rest of the time it was storage and distribution (class B8) which they didn’t appear to have a policy for the B-class and sui generis. He asked where would they be on appeal as it was near B8 and was 50/50. The report established the numbers of cars used and that B1/B2/B8 uses which was close enough to make no difference, unless the officers came up with a good argument to the contrary.

The Chair thanked Cllr Kelly for his interesting points.

Matthew said the element of concern was the public sales as a proportion were to the general public. People movements were not supposed to happen here but to the Town Centre where there was public transport provision. He agreed that some of the use was storage and distribution (B8 class), but the sales to the general public were moving it to an A1 use. There was some case law categorising it as A1 use. However the balance of case law was that each sui generis class should be decided on its own merits. The sole issue was sales to the general public.

Cllr Brian Kenny said he would not be happy to support an application not in accordance with the planning policies, but as detailed in the application it had been running for ten years and this was a retrospective application. There were no highway issues, no health and safety implications, no environmental implications which made it difficult to oppose. In principle he was not happy in opposing the Unitary Development Plan. He asked what words they would use to support it. He reserved the right to decide.

The Chair said there would have to be an urgent reason to outweight the Unitary Development Plan.

Cllr John Salter said that 75% of the business was wholesale, there were similar business in the area such as Moreton Alarms who did lighting and were no different (in selling to members of the public). Cllr Dave Mitchell asked if Moreton Alarms were on the main road as it made a difference? Cllr Mitchell apologised for interrupting Cllr John Salter. Cllr John Salter said he wanted to move it and he’d passed a form of words to Matthew, with alterations on hours. He said it was very accessible, well established for eight years and to move elsewhere he would lose clientele.

The Chair asked if there was something to move? He said each application should be considered on its merits especially the sui generis class.

Cllr John Salter said it was a sustainable business with 78% of its trade being not to the public, but to wholesale. He added a condition that the total number of auctions not exceed one a week. These would happen on a Wednesday from 1700 to 2100 and at no other time. This would not compromise the operation regarding industrial uses in the area. He referred to policy EM6 of the Unitary Development Plan and said that public access would be limited.

The Chair said that the proposal had been proposed and seconded and that it was a unique application and the circumstances had been demonstrated.

The first vote was on approving the application.

For: Cllrs Elderton, Clements, Boult, Johnson, Kenny, Salter, Realey, Mooney, Walsh, Kelly (10)
Against: Cllr Dave Mitchell (1)
Absentions: None (0)

Application APP/11/00954 was approved (10:1:0)

The Chair said they now needed to consider the conditions which he asked an officer to reiterate.

Matthew said they had one condition which was that the total number of auctions not exceed one a week and that this sole auction was restricted to Wednesday between 5pm and 9pm.

The second vote was on the condition.

For: Cllrs Elderton, Clements, Boult, Johnson, Kenny, Salter, Realey, Mooney, Walsh, Kelly (10)
Against: Cllr Dave Mitchell (1)
Abstentions: None (0)

The condition was approved (10:1:0). Two members of the public left.

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 15/11/11 Part 2 Petition against APP/10/01105

This is what a petitioner against Planning Application APP/10/01105 had to say on Tuesday evening. This is the first three minutes whole five (and a bit minutes) .

The missing bits are either gaps in the audio record or personal information (as it’s a member of the public) that have been removed at the request of the Chair of the Planning Committee, editor, our legal department etc..

Petitioner: “I live at *** and I’m representing not only *** of the *** but also ***. Errm, I’d just like to take this opportunity to say you have before you a booklet errm promoting the *** but also to work to some contextual framework of the *** and the **** we’re talking about. There is also a *** so that you can orientate yourselves to the wider issue of the ***.

Errm, I’d first like to say that we feel as *** that this does not meet the HS4 err criteria for new housing developments in *** , and therefore we’d like to say that we feel if this was to be approved, that it would be a signficant and *** change to the character of the ***, *** in policy terms is not our *** . As *** we feel the appearance and amenities in the area will be significantly affected.

If you did come to the Site Visit yesterday, you’ll have noticed we did mention the 48 apartments which are approved to be on the right-hand side of this property, *** dwellings. We did say that those 48 ***, sorry flats are going to be three storey big, houses that are *** are three storey and to the left of the site apartments are three storey. This will be signficantly unusual for this errm, cluster of three storey properties if you will in that *** of ***. ***properties but not all in the little cul-de sac as we would errm see it and as it’s been referenced in the council’s documents as well.

Errm, we would like to take up errm the part as of *** of the design. The errm, you know we feel that English Heritage are saying they have *** the recommendations. They literally for us have been ***ed. Yes they’ve dropped the chimneys and they’ve added a few things like a gable end at the fork of this twenty metres. I’m sorry that they errm we did meet with the council officer and show a *** observation with a ruler and it’s 20.5 at that point. So I think there’s some discrepancy that needs to be a bit of, bit of investigation there. When we talk about the *** in terms of metres, the mean average of a separation window to window is 25 metres.

The mean average of what we’re effectively saying this cul-de-sac is if we’re going to errm as *** has said is twenty to twenty-one metres. Errm, the fact that the shortest in the village is 21.127 *** metres which is in *** Errm, if anyone would want to take me up on that. So this development will be very top-heavy. It’s three stories and it’s also to **** a care home that’s built *** same time. That care home together with the Gardener’s errm Lodge if you look at the detail of the design again it’s very much a concern of *** that *** know.
Today’s people have invested their money their hard earned money buying properties. *** keep those properties within the **** to scratch all the *** industry. I’d just like to draw your attention to a the map on one of the pages there as ** the aerial view *** and see how much density is in that area. So we’ve got a care home which is spread out over two floors. In actual total that means a lot of people from the *** living there however we’ve got 21 apartments as I’ve said and I know I’m going to repeat myself here. I’ve got this 48 apartments which you’ve all just agreed in this year to amend five years plans. So those plans are still in existence for four to five years. So it becomes densely populated as I’ve said.

To go with we’re really concerned about that the architectural features that are left. I think that once that they’re there, what are the two most *** buildings *** never came to fruition ** particular care home ** slate tiles. I do accept as *** we need to move to to the 21st century ** 22 homes per a hectare *** significantly appropriate for a *****…

Cllr David Elderton: Can I ask you to try and bring your comments to a conclusion? You’re way over five minutes at the moment.

Petitioner: Yes Chair, just quick as a quick, I talked about need to *** I’d also like to say about the alien aspect of three of the houses looking into backs of other houses which is alien. We did have an alternative second to last page of your document. To reiterate really and summarise. That we feel as *** and ***, this will break rules of CH2, CH9 , ??15 *** damage and approval of this application furthermore damage the special *** of ***, an historic *** resulting in irrational failure of the local planning authority’s statutory duty to pay special attention to the exercise of its planning functions. You have all agreed and adopted as a Council the Unitary Development Plan. If this was to be agreed that would be contravening your own UDP and would potentially result in further action being taken. Thank you Chair for allowing me to ***.

Cllr David Elderton: That’s ok, thank you very much.

Planning Committee Part 1 Cllr Elderton interrupts proceedings, Planning Committee discusses freedom of speech

The Chair of the Planning Committee, Cllr Elderton interrupted Cllr Niblock tonight during the Planning Committee during its consideration of planning application APP/10/01105 (agenda item 4).

This is what Cllr Elderton (and others) said (or at least what could be heard on the recording as there are segments on the recording where there is more than one voice talking at a time) so some words may be lost. There are five speakers in this segment.

Speakers
Cllr David Elderton (Conservative Party), Chair of the Planning Committee
John Brace (this is myself)
Leonora Brace (this is my wife and editor of this blog)
Cllr Chris Blakeley (Conservative Party), Standards Committee member
Legal adviser (Legal adviser to the Planning Committee)

Chair Cllr David Elderton: Sorry, can I just stop you councillor for a minute? Somebody is videoing proceedings in the front row and that is not allowed.

John Brace: I’ve got a letter from Steve Foulkes that says it is.

Chair Cllr David Elderton: Sorry?

John Brace: I’ve got a letter from the Leader of the Council that says it is.

Chair Cllr David Elderton: Who’s told you it is?

John Brace: Cllr Steve Foulkes in response to a question at full Council.

Chair Cllr David Elderton: I’m going to get some legal advice on this.

John Brace: OK.

Chair Cllr David Elderton: We do not normally have these proceedings errm errm.

Cllr Chris Blakeley: Can I?

Chair Cllr David Elderton: photographed because we have problems in terms of personal people’s personal activities do not necessarily want them recorded.

Cllr Chris Blakeley: Chairman, can I help as a member of the Standards Committee? The Standards Committee earlier this year approved the Council be open and transparent in the use of media to be allowed in all meetings.

Chair Cllr David Elderton: Very good, I’m just concerned that it might err influence the way people speak in an open manner. And I’ll take some legal advice on that.

Legal adviser: I’m not sure of the errm of the issue in regards to what.

John Brace: Sorry I can’t hear you, could you use the microphone?

Legal adviser: not sure of the difference in what Cllr Foulkes has told you or the errm take what the Standards Board have said into account. It is highly unusual for the for the undertaking to be errm recorded, and I’m not sure if what the Standards Committee have recommended has actually been passed down to this committee as as a as a decision.

Chair Cllr David Elderton: Certainly not.

Legal adviser: I would think that until that has been until it’s been actually passed down to the various committees, that that would not be accepted as usual practice. I think there is transparency with regards to the media and in an around the success and publicity

Editor Leonora Brace: Turn it off!

Legal adviser: with regards to the decision making process but the actual visual recording something I would expect the Chairman to be aware of to be acceptable. If the Chairman hasn’t been informed by the Leader then I would think that pending clarification and confirmation with the Chairman I would think that it must be acceptable.

Cllr Chris Blakeley: Can I just?

Chair Cllr David Elderton: I’m not having an open public meeting.

Cllr Chris Blakeley: I’m just trying to be helpful. Those minutes were approved by Council, then Council has agreed to allow filming and photography at council meeting. That’s all I’m saying.

Editor Leonora Brace: Turn it off.

Cllr Chris Blakeley: If Council has agreed those minutes then that’s allowed.

Chair Cllr David Elderton: I need some help with it. My first concern is to avoid people being compromised and being intimidated by a cameraman.

Editor Leonora Brace: Turn it off!

Recording ends as per instruction from editor to cease recording and the practical reason of running out of tape. 

Planning Committee 25th October 2011 Agenda Item 6 APP/11/00834 Part 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.

Planning Committee 25th October 2011 Agenda Item 6 APP/11/00834 Part 2

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.