12 Planning Committee councillors vote to refuse a planning application for a sports hall at Great Meols Primary School

12 Planning Committee councillors vote to refuse a planning application for a sports hall at Great Meols Primary School

12 Planning Committee councillors vote to refuse a planning application for a sports hall at Great Meols Primary School

                       

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 application (APP/14/00011:Great Meols Primary School, Elwyn Road, Meols, CH47 7AP: Erection of a sports hall and relocation of store buildings) starts at 2:45 in the video above

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 20th March 2014 twelve councillors vote to refuse planning application for sports hall at Great Meols Primary School one abstains
Twelve councillors on Wirral Council’s Planning Committee (Cllr Stuart Kelly, Cllr Simon Mountney, Cllr Kathy Hodson, Cllr Phil Brightmore, Cllr Joe Walsh, Cllr Irene Williams, Cllr Bernie Mooney, Cllr Eddie Boult, Cllr Tony Norbury, Cllr David Elderton, Cllr Christina Muspratt and Cllr Paul Hayes) vote to refuse a planning application for sports hall at Great Meols Primary School

Sheila Day explained the reasons why officers were recommending this planning application was approved. She explained that it was for a sports hall and for moving a storage building. The sports hall had the potential for community use. Sports England response to being consulted on the application had been that its size with only one court and lack of changing facilities would limit its potential for use by the community.

The proposed height of the sports hall roof was seven to eight metres, however there was an amended design for the roof different to the original application. It would be at least forty-five metres away from the nearest houses with greater separation distances in other directions.

A condition proposed limited the use of the sports hall on Monday to Friday from 7am to 9.30pm, Saturdays 9am to 6pm and no use at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays without the prior approval of Wirral Council. Wirral Council’s traffic and transportation division had no objection to the application on highway safety grounds. There was a qualifying petition of fifty-three residents opposing the application being granted.

A Robert Davidson of 23 Guffets Rake, Meols addressed the Planning Committee on behalf of the petitioners. He described the area the site was in as a “residential area” and referred to policies HS15 (Non-Residential Uses in Primarily Residential Areas), RE1 (Criteria for Urban Recreation Facilities) and RE10 (Criteria for Community Centres and Facilities).

He quoted from the report which stated “The scale of the proposed sports hall is considered appropriate to surrounding two-storey dwellings” and disagreed with this opinion as in his view it was of an inappropriate scale. Mr Davidson asked the Planning Committee to look at a photo of the existing school buildings which were all at a low-level and built with traditional residential materials.

Mr Robert Davidson was also concerned about a change in ground levels between the school and housing and described the proposed sports hall as a “featureless rectangular box” with “industrial cladding” that looked like it was “straight off an industrial estate”. He did not feel it had any place in a residential landscape. Mr Davidson said that the school had started as a village school and that fourteen previous planning applications for the school were unopposed. The local residents had asked the school to compromise by reducing the height and changing the materials used. However the school had refused to do this.

Mr Davidson referred again to policy RE1 (Criteria for Urban Recreation Facilities) and quoted from section two that “the proposals would not give rise to unacceptable levels of noise or other disturbance, particularly to areas of residential property”. He referred to the proposed condition limiting its use, however access to the school would be along small residential roads. The school was surrounded by housing and was a quiet environment when the school was closed and at night there was darkness and silence.

In his view, the community use of the sports hall would be the opposite of this as it could be permanently open with noisy aerobics classes and cars coming and going. He referred to the view expressed in the report by an environmental health officer that any noise or light pollution could be dealt with under existing environmental health legislation. Mr Davidson felt however that this should be addressed as part of the planning process. He urged the Planning Committee to refuse the planning application on the grounds that it was not of an acceptable scale and design and finished with a quote from the architect for the Shard (Renzo Piano) “Architecture is a very dangerous job. If a writer makes a bad book, people don’t read it. But if you make bad architecture, you impose ugliness on a place for a hundred years.”

The applicant chose not to address the Planning Committee, however a ward councillor for Hoylake & Meols Councillor John Hale did. He referred to the “excellent summary” by the petitioner and also referred to policy HS15 (Non-Residential Uses in Primarily Residential Areas).

Councillor Hale said that HS15 allowed small scale developments in residential areas, but only ones that had no detrimental impacts on the character of the area or the amenities of the occupiers. The proposed height of the sports hall was twice the height of the existing buildings and a little higher which Cllr Hale described as an “alien feature” like the buildings found on an industrial estate. In his view it was out of character for that residential area.

He felt that the community use of the sports hall and the resulting noise meant that it couldn’t comply with policy RE1. Although the residents expected noise form the school during the day from children, noise in the evening was a different situation. The school was a local amenity appreciated by the residents but he felt that as the maximum age of the children at the school was eleven that all that was required was a single storey building as a sports hall. Cllr Hale said that very few children he knew could hit a shuttlecock higher than the height of a normal ceiling. His objection was to the Planning Committee approving an application for a “monstrosity” in a residential area.

Cllr Tony Norbury asked what the reason was for the height of the sports hall? Sheila Day replied that the height was a recommendation by Sports England as it would be used for badminton. Cllr Simon Mountney asked to see elevations of the proposed buildings. Cllr David Elderton said that he lived about half a mile away from the school and that he had lived in the area since the 1950s. In his opinion it was of a “grossly intrusive industrial style” and based on what he’d seen on the site visit would affect the visual and local neighbourhood amenities. He said he was all in favour of facilities but that it was a “bridge too far”, “too big” and that he’d prefer they go away and come back with something more sympathetic. Cllr Elderton said he would be voting against approval.

Cllr Christina Muspratt asked why they were no changing facilities? Sheila Day answered that the school had existing changing facilities elsewhere on the site. Cllr Phil Brightmore described the sports hall as “huge” compared to the surrounding buildings. Sheila Day replied that the officer’s opinion was that the height of the proposed sports hall was similar to the heights of the surrounding houses.

Cllr Eddie Boult asked what the extra height added to the existing building would be if planning application for the sports hall was approved? As it was a sloping roof on the sports hall an officer answered that it would be an extra 3.5 metres at one end and 2.5 metres at the other. Cllr Eddie Boult said he had listened to people’s point of view and was proposing refusal of the application based on his view that the height and bulk of the building was unsympathetic and that it affected the amenities of the surrounding area contrary to policy HS15. Cllr Simon Mountney seconded refusal of the application.

Twelve councillors voted to reject the application (Cllr Stuart Kelly, Cllr Simon Mountney, Cllr Kathy Hodson, Cllr Phil Brightmore, Cllr Joe Walsh, Cllr Irene Williams, Cllr Bernie Mooney, Cllr Eddie Boult, Cllr Tony Norbury, Cllr David Elderton, Cllr Christina Muspratt and Cllr Paul Hayes). No councillors voted against refusal but Cllr Anita Leech abstained. The planning application for the sports hall was refused.

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

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) 22nd August 2013 APP/13/00842: Corbiere, Thorsway, Caldy, CH48 2JJ – Demolition of existing house and erection of new dwelling within a similar footprint

A report on the Planning Committee meeting of Wirral Council on the 22nd August 2013 about planning application APP/13/00842: Corbiere, Thorsway, Caldy, CH48 2JJ – Demolition of existing house and erection of new dwelling within a similar footprint

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.

After the decision on the Tesco in Wallasey Village was made, the Planning Committee went on to consider an application for Corbiere in Thorsway, Caldy.

The officer said that Cllr Jeff Green had requested the decision be made by the Planning Committee (and not by officers) and that there was a qualifying petition of twenty-nine against it as well as five letters of objection. The application was in a conservation area and was for a two storey house. The officer said that the property had not been occupied for the last two years and that the application was recommended for approval.

The petitioner, David James said he lived next to Corbiere and that he was a member of the Caldy Society and spoke with their full support. He asked why they would agree to demolish part of Caldy’s heritage that fitted perfectly in the conservation area? The petitioner said that the current building could be economically restored. Mr. James said that the footprint of the new building would be greater than the footprint of the original house and that it looked like a “huge office block” and would be a “carbuncle”.

The applicant handed out handouts to the Planning Committee and introduced himself as Stuart Wilson, of 10 The Willow, Lea Park, Meols Drive, Hoylake, Wirral. He said that they had spent eight months discussing the application with planning officers and that Conservation Area officers past and present had said they had worked within the guidelines.

The property was an unoccupied family home, which they had bought in a dilapidated state, it was dangerous in certain parts due to a bodged extension. He felt that its character had been lost beyond economic redemption. Part of the building would be underground which increased the cost and he disputed claims about loss of privacy due to the balcony. The balcony he explained was a service balcony and the windows referred to would be made of opaque glass.

Cllr Watt was next to address the Planning Committee. He said that in the press that Thorsway was one of the highest priced roads in Merseyside and one of the highest points in the Caldy Conservation Area. Although much of the application would be hidden behind screening, he asked the Planning Committee to ask to see the artist’s impression of the new building. Cllr Watt referred to the concerns of the petitioners and asked the Planning Committee to find reasons to refuse the application.

Cllr Elderton asked if they needed permission in a conservation area to demolish and how much influence the Conservation Area officer had had on the application? Cllr Moutney asked for the plans to be displayed.

Matthew Davies replied that there was a conservation area consent application for demolition of the existing building, but it wouldn’t be granted unless there was an acceptable scheme for a replacement dwelling. Therefore it wouldn’t be decided until the application was decided. If the application was approved, then consent for demolition would be granted.

In terms of the input that Conservation Area officers had had, it had been subject to considerable pre-application advice and advice from the urban design officer.

Cllr Elderton said he’d like to see the elevations and artist’s impressions to compare with the previous design. Matthew Davies showed the footprints of the existing building as well as replacement. He also showed the elevations and artists impressions.

Cllr Elderton described it as a out of character for the conservation area and a “1930s office block”. He thought it was unsuitable and wanted to move refusal. Cllr Hayes asked why the conditions only required the trees to stay in place for one year and whether it could be extended?

Matthew Davies replied that they were trying to retain the existing vegetation, but that condition 18 required a full landscaping scheme to be submitted which would detail any replacement trees. Condition 17 sought to retain the existing vegetation while new vegetation was planted.

Cllr Elderton moved refusal of the application on the basis that it was contrary to policy CH11. This was seconded by Cllr Eddie Boult.

The following councillors voted for refusal, Cllr Stuart Kelly, Cllr Les Rowlands, Cllr Simon Moutney, Cllr Paul Hayes, Cllr Eddie Boult, Cllr David Elderton and Cllr Irene Williams (7)
Labour councillors (apart from Cllr Irene Williams) voted against (6)

The application was therefore refused.

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) (27th June 2013) Minutes | Declarations of Interests | Site Visits

A blog post about the Planning Committee meeting of the 27th June 2013 | Declarations of Interest | Minutes | Requests for site visits

In an attempt to report on what happened at the Planning Committee, despite being prevented filming here is a transcript of what was said.

Chair (Cllr Bernie Mooney): Welcome to the err Planning Committee errm, just thank you.

Errm, just for all your information, errm on my first right where we have the usual, errm our usual adviser in the Authority who gives very good legal advice indeed errm, errm, especially at the minute and on the left we have  all these planning officers who will offer us help and guidance this evening. The rest of the people you see around the table are the councillors who will actually be taking the decisions, the Members.

Errm, this evening for each agenda item, errm we will have a presentation of the application by an officer so we all know what’s going on. Errm if there’s a qualifying petition, that means a petition of twenty-five separate names and separate households on it, one representative can address the Committee for five minutes and five minutes only errm on behalf of the petitioners. No sorts of representations will be heard by the Committee, I’m sorry about that errm it’s out of my hands.

So only one of the petitioners can talk errm for five minutes. Errm if the applicant is present, errm they will then be given the right to reply, but please note, if there are no representations, then no one present can talk.

Actually errm the, the, the, the, the errm, the errm, any ward councillor can be introduced at any time that they like and provided that the councillor is errm the errm, errm, sorry ladies and gentleman, just a minute errm. Errm my role here, is just to maintain discipline and to make sure that the people in this small room know the rules and regulations and that if we have a split vote, usually errm I as the Chairman vote. Normally all being well, it won’t.

Errm so the first thing on the agenda is the minutes. So, errm first can we approve the minutes of the previous meeting,

Cllr David Elderton (Conservative spokesperson): So is everyone happy with them? Thank you very much.

Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair): Is that ok? Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Errm is there any declarations of interest? Anita?

Cllr Anita Leech: Yes, Chair, I have errm, a personal interest to declare in item number 14. It says home address, errm a board member of Leasowe Homes, errm with the Your Housing Group on the, on the written report, but it’s normally as an ordinary member of the Board.

Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair): OK, thank you. Are there any other declarations? OK. Thank you very much. So, the requests for site visits, which is item, item number three, site visits?

Cllr Eddie Boult: Thank you Chair, errm, item number twelve, Hoylake Lawn Tennis Club.

Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair): Thank you. Any other site visits?

Cllr Steve Foulkes: Chair, errm, given its implications err and being within the green belt, err I would like a site visit for items four and nine, items fifteen, err and it is an SDA err application but I can request a site visit.

Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair): Is there any other site visits? I’ll move then to the first agenda item number nine, for a site visit? We’ve requested agenda item number nine for a site visit. Yeah?

Continues at Planning Committee (Wirral Council) (27th June 2013) Site Visits | OUT/13/0040 41 Noctorum Avenue, Noctorum, CH43 9RZ.

Planning Committee 25th October 2011 Agenda Item 6 APP/11/00834 & APP/11/00909 Part 4

Councillor Eddie Boult said he had been on the Site Visit. He said that there were two plots and did the second plot have planning permission?

Matthew Rushton replied that the adjacent plot had planning permission for a similar development, which had been approved in 2009.

Approval for planning permission was proposed by Cllr John Salter and seconded by Cllr Eddie Boult.

For the planning application: Cllr David Elderton, Cllr Eddie Boult, Cllr Wendy Clements, Cllr Peter Johnson, Cllr Dave Mitchell, Cllr Stuart Kelly, Cllr Patricia Glasman (deputy for Cllr Brian Kenny), Cllr John Salter, Cllr Joe Walsh and Cllr Bernie Mooney (10)

Against the planning application: Cllr James Keeley (deputy for Cllr Paul Hayes) & Cllr Denise Realey (2)

Therefore planning application APP/11/00834 was approved.

The committee then considered planning application APP/11/00909 for time extension for a vacant shop in Heswall. Matthew Rushton said this was for an extension of time for a refurbishment and extension. He said it had been granted previously, the only change that had happened since was that planning policy 6 had been replaced by planning policy 4. There were the same conditions as on the original application as outlined at 11.3 .