To approve the accuracy of the minutes of the meeting held on 10 November 2016.

The Director for Business Services submitted the minutes of the meeting held 10 November 2016.

Resolved – That the minutes be approved.

Councillor Cleary declared a prejudicial interest in respect of item 5 by virtue of him residing on the road in question.

Councillor Lewis declared a prejudicial interest in respect of item 11 by virtue of his close friendship with the applicant

Councillor Hodson declared a prejudicial interest in respect of item 11 by virtue of her close friendship with the applicant.

Councillor Davies declared a personal interest in respect of item 12, delegated decision APP/16/01314, by virtue of her employment.

The following site visits were unanimously approved:

APP/16/00732: CO-OP ESWA CLUB, 54-56 PARK ROAD SOUTH, BIRKENHEAD, CH43 4UY – PROPOSED CONSERVATION AND REINSTATEMENT OF FORMER SOCIAL CLUB THROUGH CONVERSION TO 11 NO. APARTMENTS, FACILITATED THROUGH ENABLING DEVELOPMENT SCHEME OF 7 NO. TOWNHOUSES AND 21 NO. APARTMENTS WITH ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING WORKS.

APP/16/00967: WESTWAYS, 16 LINGDALE ROAD, WEST KIRBY, CH48 5DQ – THE SUBDIVISION OF THE EXISTING DWELLING TO CREATE 5 NO. APARTMENTS AND OFF STREET PARKING ( AMENDED DESCRIPTION).

APP/16/01501: REDCLIFFE, 34 WELLINGTON ROAD, NEW BRIGHTON – ERECTION OF TWO DETACHED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO THE REAR OF REDCLIFFE WITHIN THE CURTILAGE OF THE SITE.

LBC/16/01077; 34 WELLINGTON ROAD, NEW BRIGHTON, WIRRAL – WORKS TO THE BOUNDARY WALL TO CREATE TWO NEW ACCESS POINTS.

The Chair agreed to vary the order of business

Resolved – That consideration of this item be deferred for a formal site visit.

Resolved – That consideration of this item be deferred for a formal site visit.

The Managing Director for Delivery submitted the above application for consideration.

The Lead Petitioner waived his right to address the Committee.

A Ward Councillor addressed the Committee.

Councillor Elderton proposed that he would be moving refusal upon two grounds

The Chair asked that each reason be voted upon separately and this was agreed by the Committee.

On a motion by Councillor Elderton and seconded by Councillor Boult it was moved that the application be refused upon the following grounds:

“The protection of the openness of the Green Belt is an overriding planning consideration and there is a presumption against inappropriate development within it. The proposed building of a community fire station together with associated accommodation, external drill and training facilities and car parking would constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The Council has carefully considered the justification put forward by the applicant in support of the proposals but has concluded that these considerations do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. Therefore, very special circumstances required to justify inappropriate development within the Green Belt have not been demonstrated to justify the development which is considered would be contrary to Policy GB2 of the Wirral Unitary Development Plan and the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

The motion was put and lost (6:7)

Councillor Elderton, seconded by Councillor Lewis then moved his second reason for refusal on the following grounds:

“ Having regards to location of the development proposed and proximity to residential properties and the nature of the activities proposed, particularly with regards to the sudden and/ or emergency nature of activities, together with the character of the local highway network, the Council considers that the proposal would result in harm to the visual amenities of the Green Belt, the character of the area and the amenities of the neighbouring residents and the wider locality. Therefore, the development would be contrary to Policy GB2 of the Wirral Unitary Development Plan and the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework”

Resolved (7:6) That the application be refused on the following grounds:

Having regards to the location of the development proposed and the proximity to residential properties and the nature of the activities proposed, particularly with regards to the sudden and/or emergency nature of activities, together with the character of the local highway network, the Council considers that the proposal would result in harm to the visual amenities of the Green Belt, the character of the area and the amenities of neighbouring residents and the wider locality.  Therefore, the development would be contrary to Policy GB2 of the Wirral Unitary Development Plan and the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Resolved – That consideration of this item be deferred for a formal site visit.

Resolved – That consideration of this item be deferred for a formal site visit.

The Managing Director for Delivery submitted the above application for consideration.

A Petitioner addressed the Committee

The Agent addressed the Committee

A Ward Councillor addressed the Committee

On a motion by Councillor Realey and seconded by Councillor Walsh it was:

Resolved (9:4) That the application be approved subject to the following conditions:

The Managing Director for Delivery submitted the above application for consideration.

A Petitioner addressed the Committee

The Agent addressed the Committee.

On a motion by Councillor Foulkes and seconded by Councillor Kelly it was moved that the application be refused on the following grounds:

“Notwithstanding the principle of residential development within the Primarily Residential Area, the development proposed would result in a form of development that does not relate well to existing properties located at the head of Wernbrook Close having regards to the number of units proposed and the layout of the development within the site.  The development would have a detrimental impact upon the character of the area and on residential amenities of adjoining occupiers and those of future occupiers of the dwellings proposed contrary to Policies HS4 (New Housing Development) and GR7 (Trees and New Development) of the Wirral UDP.  The development would also have a detrimental impact on the character and high environmental quality of the local area and the wider Noctorum Ridge contrary to Supplementary Planning Guidance SPG2: Design and Density Guidelines: Noctorum Ridge resulting in an unsustainable form of development contrary to the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework”

Resolved (13:0) That the application be refused on the following grounds:

Notwithstanding the principle of residential development within the Primarily Residential Area, the development proposed would result in a form of development that does not relate well to existing properties located at the head of Wernbrook Close having regards to the number of units proposed and the layout of the development within the site.  The development would have a detrimental impact upon the character of the area and on residential amenities of adjoining occupiers and those of future occupiers of the dwellings proposed contrary to Policies HS4 (New Housing Development) and GR7 (Trees and New Development) of the Wirral UDP.  The development would also have a detrimental impact on the character and high environmental quality of the local area and the wider Noctorum Ridge contrary to Supplementary Planning Guidance SPG2: Design and Density Guidelines: Noctorum Ridge resulting in an unsustainable form of development contrary to the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Having previously declared prejudicial interests in respect of this item, Councillors Lewis and Hodson left the room during consideration of this application.

The Managing Director for Delivery submitted the above application or consideration.

On a motion by Councillor Realey and seconded by Councillor Davies it was:

Resolved (11:0) That the application be approved subject to the following conditions:

The Managing Director for Delivery submitted a report detailing planning applications decided under delegated powers between 31/1/2016 and 5/12/2016.

Resolved – That the report be noted.