Planning Applications Decided (Delegated) 16/11/2011 to 15/12/2011 (Bidston & St. James ward)

Application No.: APP/11/01263 Application Type: Delegated Decision Level: Full Planning Permission Ward: Bidston and St James Decision Date: 07/12/2011 Decision: Approve Case Officer: Miss S McIlroy Applicant: Mr Andrew Haselgrove Location: 4 LILLIE CLOSE, BIDSTON, CH43 7YS Proposal: Retention of galvanised steel window guard railing to first-floor rear elevation to restrict opening arch and facilitate closing of french windows … Continue reading “Planning Applications Decided (Delegated) 16/11/2011 to 15/12/2011 (Bidston & St. James ward)”

Application No.: APP/11/01263 Application Type: Delegated

Decision Level: Full Planning Permission
Ward: Bidston and St James
Decision Date: 07/12/2011 Decision: Approve
Case Officer: Miss S McIlroy
Applicant: Mr Andrew Haselgrove

Location: 4 LILLIE CLOSE, BIDSTON, CH43 7YS
Proposal: Retention of galvanised steel window guard railing to first-floor rear elevation to restrict opening arch and facilitate closing of french windows

===========================================================================================

Application No.: APP/11/01120 Application Type: Delegated
Decision Level: Full Planning Permission
Ward: Claughton
Decision Date: 28/11/2011 Decision: Approve
Case Officer: Miss K Elliot
Applicant: Mr & Mrs Davin
Location: 381 UPTON ROAD, BIDSTON, CH43 9SE
Proposal: Erection of a two storey side/rear extension

===========================================================================================

Application No.: APP/11/01151 Application Type: Delegated
Decision Level: Full Planning Permission
Ward: Bidston and St James
Decision Date: 28/11/2011 Decision: Approve
Case Officer: Miss S McIlroy
Applicant: Mr MA Khan-cheema

Agent: Mr T Khan
Location: 7 BOWGREEN CLOSE, BIDSTON, CH43 7NW
Proposal: Extension to existing garage and formation of a new driveway

===========================================================================================

Application No.: APP/11/01256 Application Type: Delegated
Decision Level: Full Planning Permission
Ward: Bidston and St James
Decision Date: 07/12/2011 Decision: Approve
Case Officer: Miss S McIlroy
Applicant: Mr Byrne

Agent: Bryson McHugh Architects
Location: 43 DESMOND CLOSE, BEECHWOOD, CH43 9XN
Proposal: Erection of an attached garage to the side of property

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 Site Visits rearranged

Two Planning Committee site visits originally scheduled for Monday 20th June 2011 have now been rearranged to Thursday 16th June.

This is because the original date of Monday 20th June 2011 clashed with the “Flay a Flag ceremony”.

10 a.m. – APP/00065 – TOWNFIELD CLOSE, CLAUGHTON, CH43 9JW – Demolition of existing petrol filling station and erection of a class A1 retail unit.

10:45 a.m. – APP/11/00283 – 7-9 ROSE MOUNT, OXTON, CH43 5SG – Proposed refurbishment of existing restaurant/bar with the erection of a conservatory within the rear courtyard and change of apartment within outrigger to become part of restaurant/bar and supporting office accommodation, installation of air conditioning units to rear.

Planning Committee – 25th January 2011 – Part 2 – Item 4 – APP/10/01315 – 2 Target Road, Heswall – Demolition of existing dwelling and attached garage. Construction of replacement dwelling and detached garage

The committee then proceeded to consider item 4 – APP/10/01315 -2 Target Road, Heswall – Demolition of existing dwelling and attached garage. Construction of replacement dwelling and detached garage.

There was a qualifying petition. The petitioner Paul Foley of 1 Target Road, Heswall (which is adjacent to no 2) addressed the Committee. He told the committee about his concerns over privacy in the front and rear gardens as the new building would be two stories. He had bought his property for privacy. He would also lose sunlight and felt it was inconsistent with previous applications where 2 storey dwellings had been refused. He also cited other similar planning applications refused and felt it was not uniform. Approving this application would lead to a greater density of development and didn’t match.

Trevor Earp, the agent then addressed the committee about the concerns raised by the petitioner. He referred to the officer’s report and stated there were other 2 storey buildings in the area. In the Design and Access statement a number of these were referred to. One had living accommodation on the 1st floor. There had been a 2007 application for a replacement dwelling in Broad Lane which the replacement had had with a 8m ridge height. He said officers had commented on the simple attractive design in keeping with the scale and design of the area. Regarding overlooking the front overlooks the road and although the rear overlooks the rear garden this falls within guidelines. He asked the committee to see the merits which the officers have.

Cllr Elderton said it would be helpful to see the existing elevation and proposed elevation. A photo was handed round which agitated the agent so much he interrupted the meeting by heckling.

Cllr Elderton was told there was a difference in metre in the ridge height. Cllr Realey pointed out the increased should be 15%. Cllr Kenny referred to the claim of the petitioner that similar applications were refused. An officer answered that they were not aware of refusals in the immediate area.

Cllr Mitchell asked the officers to point out the elevations. Cllr Elderton asked them to relate the difference in ridge height to the impact.

Cllr Mitchell asked for any further comments or questions. There were none. Cllr Mitchell proposed approval, seconded by Cllr Kenny. 11 councillors voted for. Cllr Peter Johnson voted against.

Planning Committee – 4/1/2011 – Part 1 – dry silo mortar bagging plant (Bromborough)

The <A HREF=”http://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=157&MId=3116″>agenda</a> for last night’s Planning Committee can be found on Wirral Council’s website.

All councillors usually on the committee were present. The minutes were agreed, there were no declarations of interest and no requests for site visits.

The first item for consideration was the extension of a planning consent for a dry silo mortar bagging plant in Bromborough. Cllr Gilchrist stated that he was interested in a particular aspect of this planning application due to a long running desire to have the coast open for people. He was anxious if the opportunity arose that the owners would be approached over access to the coast. Cllr Salter asked that as this was an extension of a planning consent wasn’t it more usual to reapply? The answer given was that permissions can be extended.

Cllr Elderton asked if another fee applied? The answer given was that the applicant only had to pay a reduced fee as they don’t have to submit all the forms again. Part of the previous government’s changes to planning in 2008-2009 to make it more flexible had meant that applicants could apply for an extension of time. Cllr Elderton was concerned over the true cost and was told that the planning fees were set nationally.

Cllr Mitchell asked if a noise assessment had been done and what the highway effects would be. He also referred to the Wirral Waters projects and the need it would have for cement and sand. The answer given was that in the original planning application there had been a statement regarding noise. The nearest residential property was 660m away. It was an industrial area, but the noise would be of a contained nature. It wouldn’t result in any signficant traffic and was near the motorway and A41. There were no grounds to object on traffic management.

A councillor asked about the 3 years limit on development, when the original planning application had been given 5 years and was told the 3 year limit was brought in in 2007, with the original application being made just before.

Cllr Mitchell proposed the application be approved, with Cllr Salter seconding it. It was approved unanimously.