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.

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 22nd August 2013 Planning Applications affecting Bidston and St. James ward

A report on recent planning applications decided affecting Bidston and St. James ward and upcoming decisions on planning applications by Wirral Council’s Planning Committee affecting Bidston and St. James ward | 330B St Anne Street | Verosa, 122 Eleanor Road | Rosemead Residential Home 49-51 School Lane | Keepmoat | Cosy Cats Cattery Limited, 2 Lymm Road

cat Firstly a brief update on planning applications decided by Wirral Council officers affecting Bidston & St. James ward from 1st July 2013 to 11th August 2013.

The first is an application type I haven’t seen before called “Planning Pre-Application Enquiry”. Rather confusingly the decision is down as “pre-application reply” (and as it’s not classed as a planning application searching on Wirral Council’s website doesn’t bring up a decision either), but I presume if the applicant gets a positive response indicating that a planning application would be accepted then they’ll then go on to submit a planning application.

Application No.: PRE/13/00078/ENQ Application Type: Planning Pre-Application Enquiry
Decision Level: Delegated
Ward: Bidston and St James
Decision Date: 16/07/2013 Decision: Pre-Application Reply
Case Officer: Mrs S Day
Applicant: Mr Carl Haskalyne Agent:
Location: 330B ST ANNE STREET, BIRKENHEAD, CH41 4FQ
Proposal: Change of use from vacant offices to 2 flats (self contained)

The second (approved) is for a conservatory in Eleanor Road. As usual you can click on the planning application number for further details on Wirral Council’s website.

Application No.: APP/13/00510 Application Type: Full Planning Permission
Decision Level: Delegated
Ward: Bidston and St James
Decision Date: 16/07/2013 Decision: Approve
Case Officer: Mr S Williamson
Applicant: Mr R Connolly Agent: Mr Colin Medlicott
Location: Verosa, 122 ELEANOR ROAD, BIDSTON, CH43 7QS
Proposal: Conservatory to the side of the building

The third (also approved) is to change Rosemead Residential Home in School Lane back to its former use as residential properties. Again for further details you can click on the planning application number.

Application No.: APP/13/00772 Application Type: Full Planning Permission
Decision Level: Delegated
Ward: Bidston and St James
Decision Date: 02/08/2013 Decision: Approve
Case Officer: Mr N Williams
Applicant: Agent:
Location: Rosemead Residential Home, 49-51 SCHOOL LANE, BIDSTON, CH43 7RE
Proposal: Change of use from closed nursing home back to two residential semi-detached dwellings (without internal or external building works)

Unusually there are three planning applications affecting Bidston and St. James ward to be decided by the Planning Committee on Thursday (assuming that the Planning Committee doesn’t decide to go on site visits to them).

The first is Keepmoat’s plan to build 125 houses in the Milner Street/Carrington Street/Rundle Street/Laird Street area. A 20mph zone and traffic calming scheme is included as one of the conditions. Merseyside Police’s architectural liaison officer has concerns that the open nature of the scheme may increase opportunities for crime and makes some recommendations.

The area of this planning application has had houses partly demolished for some time. As tenants living in the area have been moved out and owner occupiers subject to compulsory purchase orders, it’s part of the reason why many of the nearby Laird Street have closed down. I notice also there’s a recommendation for a s.106 agreement with the developer for a very small area of public open space, although with Birkenhead Park, a play area and a games court nearby that’s why it’s smaller than the size of open space you’d expect for 125 houses. A condition (probably as a result of the police’s concerns about crime) also requires security lighting for the open space and the “proposed link to existing footpath”. Hopefully it’ll get approved (as is recommended by officers) and houses will replace the current eyesore of a site that is currently mud and half demolished houses.

The other two planning applications to be decided by the Planning Committee affecting Bidston and St. James ward are related and are both submitted by the alliteratively named Cosy Cats Cattery Limited. They are planning application APP/13/00688 for a cattery comprising of an outbuilding of fifteen small units to house a maximum of twenty cats and an isolation unit and planning application ADV/13/00689 which is for advertisement consent for a fascia sign and hanging sign (for the cattery which is planning application APP/13/00689).

Such minor planning applications would normally be decided by planning officers rather than the Planning Committee, but Cllr Jim Crabtree has removed the application from delegation following one objection to each planning application by the resident of number 2 Eleanor Road.

On the planning application for the signs, the resident objects on the basis of illumination of the signs and confusion as to where the signs will be located. However the report states the signs won’t be illuminated. The report also details where (if approved) the signs will be, one hanging from a post 1.8m high and one on the fence adjacent to the driveway facing east towards the cul-de-sac.

However the main objections from the resident of number two Eleanor Road are in relation to the proposed cattery (eleven separate objections are listed in the report). The report written by planning officers is of the opinion that the objections raised aren’t enough to refuse the application (the officers also dispute the factual accuracy of some of the objections). It’s therefore recommended it for approval, subject to conditions limiting the number of cats to twenty and the hours of operation to between 8 am and 9 pm.

I was barred from filming Wirral Council’s Planning Committee tonight, usual excuses health and safety, data protection both are bogus reasons

I was barred from filming Wirral Council’s Planning Committee tonight, usual excuses health and safety, data protection both are bogus reasons

Planning Committee (Wirral Council) bans filming again

Labour ban filming again at Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 18th December 2012

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 Committee bans filming again on 6:5 vote.

Present:
Cllr Bernie Mooney (Chair)
Cllr Eddie Boult
Cllr Stuart Kelly
Cllr Brian Kenny
Cllr Denise Realey
Cllr Joe Walsh
Cllr Paul Hayes
Cllr Steve Foulkes
Cllr David Elderton

Planning Committee started late, due to a discussion between myself and Surjit Tour about whether to film the meeting. He tried to persuade me not to. Needless to say I didn’t agree and stuck to the NUJ Code of Conduct which states “At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed”. The following notice of motion (agreed the evening before) was given as the rationale as to why the Planning Committee meeting of the 18th December 2012 should censor any filming. Personally I believe this breaches my article 10 rights on Freedom of expression.

ARTICLE 10
Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Despite the notice of motion (below) stating the complete opposite to what was agreed at Planning Committee, councillors refused to even bring up the notice of motion on the screen and read it before voting.

Proposed by Councillor Bill Davies
Seconded by Councillor Moira McLaughlin

Delete everything and replace with the following:

(1) Council notes that the Administration has not banned the public from being able to attend and film at meetings.

(2) The issue of filming is under review. The Acting Director of Law, Human Resources & Asset Management has been asked to look at how a balance can be struck between maintaining openness and transparency and addressing concerns among some members about what safeguards can be put in place on how video recordings might be used.

(3) Council notes that the wider issue of the Council streaming its committee meetings is being considered by the cross-party members Equipment Steering Group.

(4) Council asks for the outcome of the review to be presented to the Licensing, Health and Safety and General Purposes Committee for detailed consideration.

I discussed this with a Labour councillor after the meeting. He said that one of his councillors had tried to film their grandchildren’s nativity play at a school and been stopped by school staff. This guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office entitled “Data Protection Good Practice Note Taking Photographs in Schools” shows this was incorrect.

The same councillor also stated that if he took a photo of me and put it on a website, he could be accused of bullying under the Members Code of Conduct. I really don’t mind if people take a photo of me though, I’m not as camera shy as the Labour councillors are! He then went on to state they have more important things to think about like the 2013/2014 Budget.