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?
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:
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
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.
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 Chair asked Cheryl to introduce the report for item 14. Cheryl said that it was for a change of use from a single dwelling to a house of multiple occupation with a communal kitchen, living rooms and bathrooms. The communal facilities would be on the lower ground floor of the three storey building. Two rooms would have en suite bathroom facilities. She said that the level of communal facilities were the subject of discussions with the Housing Standards Team and that it met an identified need. Subject to the conditions the officers had recommended it for approval.
The Chair asked if the petitioner wished to talk to the Planning Committee? He did and introduced himself as Steven Regan of Flat 2, 149 Victoria Road. He said that the residents had been startled when they had heard of the planning application a month ago as houses of multiple occupation did not have a good reputation in the media. The petition had attracted around fifty signatures including all the residents of the attached house next door to 151 Victoria Road. Several traders on Victoria Road were also opposing the approval of this development.
The petitioners concerns were about noise and disruption from the development, despite assurances of the developer that they would put up good noise insulation. If the development went ahead they would be very diligent in complaining to the HMO licence holder, Wirral Council and the local press if this was a problem.
The petitioner said that Victoria Road was historically the main thoroughfare through New Brighton and they didn’t want to see its regeneration put at risk by a development such as this being approved. The petitioners were also concerned that they were unsure what type of tenants this type of development would attract. In addition to the noise issue, they had parking concerns due to double yellow lines nearby. However their local councillor was looking into whether these double yellow lines were still necessary. He thanked the ward councillors for going on the site visit but expressed disappointment that they didn’t go in and just had just viewed the property from the pavement.
The Chair asked if the applicant wished to talk to the Planning Committee. The agent Jo Liz Jones of Cheshire Planning Solutions Limited said she wished to talk to the Planning Committee on behalf of the applicant. She said that they believed they had complied with the policies, that there was a condition on soundproofing and that they fully appreciated the concerns of the local neighbours who had originally felt it would be some sort of bail hostel.
She also appreciated the concerns over the number of tenants, but pointed out that it was a large property over four floors and too large for an individual residence. Ms Jones referred to the repairs needed to the building and pointed out that the type of tenants wasn’t a planning issue. She said that the applicant already ran several properties like this one and that a lot of people in desperate need of housing couldn’t afford a flat but enjoyed sharing in a communal multi-let way as it was cheaper as all bills were all inclusive.
Ms Jones felt that the type of tenants that would move in (young professionals) wouldn’t have a car and that it was in walking distance of bus and train routes. They had amended the plans for a secure cycle storage and fully appreciated the objections. She said there had been a misunderstanding of the petitioners of the phrase houses in multiple occupation, but that it wouldn’t be a bail hostel. The tenants wouldn’t be criminals but be young professionals who would have to first go through credit checks and ID checks. Prospective tenants would also have to give references. The applicant didn’t want tenants to cause problems.
She said the applicant would not just run the property, but planned to live in it. The property had previously had planning approval for four flats, which she claimed could lead to more people than were proposed with this application. Ms Jones thanked the committee for listening to her.
The Chair asked if a ward councillor wished to talk to the Planning Committee? Cllr Pat Hackett said that although councillors didn’t go into the building on the site visit, that he was shocked by the building’s condition particularly its upper floors which were derelict. In his view a number of the original fears of the petitioners had not been substantiated but a meeting between the developer and the petitioner had eased some of the original fears.
Cllr Hackett said that the building was absolutely huge and a throwback to the glorious days of New Brighton when there had been big bed and breakfasts and hotels. He confirmed that highways officers would look at the road to see if the many yellow lines were still necessary. Cllr Hackett also referred to the condition on sound insulation. He said that the developer had taken the petitioner to Rock Ferry to see a property similar to what was envisaged in New Brighton.
Cllr Brian Kenny said that the agent on behalf of the applicant had said that the property was quality and affordable, but that the local councillor had said he was shocked at the state of the property. He asked officers to comment on these different descriptions of the building was more accurate.
Matthew Davies confirmed that the building needed repair work, but said that the agent was alluding to the applicant’s plan to bring it back to a good state of repair. He said the purpose of the application was to bring it back to a good standard of accommodation.
Cllr Denise Realey said that it lacked amenities as only two bedrooms were en suite, that there were shared bathrooms between ten people and only one kitchen? She said that it could have twenty-four people and had grave concerns about over development.
Cllr Stuart Kelly referred to the report and that officers said they shouldn’t concern their heads with matters covered by legislation or other enforcement bodies. He refreshed their memory about a previous decision about a planning application in Argyle Street, in which the Planning Committee had taken the view that it didn’t have the level of amenities they expected in the twenty-first century.
He was not comparing the Argyle Street “doss house” application to the one they had to decide on as there were differences in layout and there had been a persuasive presentation on behalf of the applicant about the level of management. He referred to former university students, who were used to shared communal areas and facilities, but notwithstanding the presentation he didn’t feel comfortable with this level of shared facilities in the modern age.
He said he wasn’t objecting on grounds of noise and it would be difficult to object on grounds of parking. He had raised an issue about bin storage which was dealt with through another condition, however they were looking at bulk bins as a more appropriate solution as four of each bin took away one of the car parking spaces.
Cllr Brian Kenny said he had sympathy with the people opposed to the plans, however their decision had to be based on planning grounds, not who might live there. He said he couldn’t think of any sound planning reasons to object to it.
Cllr Stuart Kelly said that he had said the same thing about the Argyle Street application, which had been rejected, appealed and the Council’s rejection had been upheld at appeal. The Planning Inspector had agreed there were planning grounds to reject it. Cllr Kelly asked if there was an appropriate ratio of bedrooms to welfare facilities and that he would move rejection on these grounds.
The Chair said that there had been changes to housing benefits and that consideration needed to be given to the need for this type of housing. She pointed out that if anything went wrong then the HMO licence holder would lose their operating licence.
Cllr Christina Muspratt asked why young professionals would need a supervised kitchen? The Chair answered that supervision related to being cleaned, looked after and maintained. The agent confirmed the Chair’s answer.
Cllr Stuart Kelly moved refusal on the grounds that it conflicted with policy HS14 of the Unitary Development Plan. Cllr Denise Realey seconded refusal.
The vote was as follows:
In favour of refusal: Eight councillors
Against refusal: Cllr Wendy Clements, Cllr Eddie Boult, Cllr Joe Walsh, Cllr Brian Kenny and another councillor (5)
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 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.
Agenda Item 6: Matters Requiring Approval By The Council
The Mayor asked for agreement of items (i) Minute 175 (Cabinet – 3/11/11) – Provision for Inflation 2012/13, (ii) Minute 198 (Cabinet – 24/11/11) – Insurance Fund Budget 2012/13 and (iv) Minute 211 – Council Tax Base 2012/13.
Items (i), (ii) and (iv) were agreed.
Items (iii) Minute 210 – Corporate Plan 2012/13, (iv) Minute 215 – Capital Programme and Financing 2012-15 and (vi) Minute 216 – Budget Projections 2012-15 in accordance with Standing Order 7(2) were dealt with as Agenda Item 10 (Matters for Debate).
Agenda Item 7: Matters for Noting
Minute 232 (8/12/11) – Local Account (Reason – waiving of call-in) was noted.
Agenda Item 8: Questions
The Mayor invited Mr. John Brace (a member of the public) to address his first question to Cllr Steve Foulkes. John Brace addressed his question to Cllr Steve Foulkes. Cllr Steve Foulkes answered his question. John Brace addressed his supplementary question to Cllr Steve Foulkes. Cllr Steve Foulkes answered his supplementary question. Cllr Jeff Green wanted to ask a supplementary question but was refused permission by the Mayor.
Cllr Pat Williams addressed a question to Cllr Harry Smith (Cabinet Member for Streetscene and Transport) about 20mph zones.
Cllr Harry Smith answered Cllr Pat Williams’ question.
The Mayor asked Cllr Pat Williams if she had a supplementary question.
A question of Cllr Ann Bridson (representing Prenton) was asked by Cllr Stuart Kelly of one of Wirral Council’s Merseytravel representatives on the subject of a new station for Prenton and Beechwood on the Bidston – Wrexham Borderlands line as well as electrification.
The question was answered by the Merseytravel representative.
The Mayor asked Cllr Ann Bridson (and Cllr Stuart Kelly) if they wished to put a supplementary question.
Cllr Mark Johnston (Chair)
Cllr Simon Mountney
Deputy Mayor Cllr Gerry Ellis
Cllr Tony Cox
Cllr Denise Realey
Cllr Pat Hackett
Cllr Stuart Wittingham
Cllr Steve Niblock
The Chair, Cllr Johnston started the meeting by telling everyone that Cllr Kelly had to go home as his daughter had banged her head. He asked for declarations of interest. Cllr Hackett declared a personal interest with regards to Reach Out. The minutes of the meeting held on the 5th September 2011 were agreed. Cllr Johnston said he wanted to raise a couple of things from page six, which would lead to the work program being amended.
Cllr George Davies (Cabinet member for Housing and Community Safety) arrived.
Cllr Johnston referred committee members to an email from Cllr Phil Davies and Cllr George Davies which he gave councillors a couple of minutes to read.
Once they had read the email, the Chair invited Paula Basnett, Head of Investment in the Department of Regeneration, Housing and Planning to give a presentation to the committee.
Earlier problems with the computer in Committee Room 1 meant a laptop had to be used instead for the Powerpoint presentation. Black and white paper copies of the presentation were handed out to councillors on the committee.
Paula Basnett, wearing something that reminded me of dazzle camouflage on ships, explained what the business support team does and that since September with more funding they had given extra business support they hadn’t previously. At the end of October Business Link North West had gone along with all its business advisers. Business support was given through five relationship managers. These managers had a target of contacting five businesses a week to make businesses aware of what support was available.
.jpg){kind=link}