Transcript

You will see a resources tab, select this and I'll link to the agenda will appear. This will enable you to open this meeting. This meeting will be webcast, and I call it retained on the Council website. For people at home viewing the webcast, if you look above the meeting, you will see a resources tab. Select this and I'll link to the agenda will appear. This will enable you to open the agenda reports in PDF. My role is to ensure that the meeting runs smoothly, having regard to procedures, behaviours and ethics. To explain who are with us, planning and departmental officers, they will present the applications and provide any technical advice that may be required. The Council solicitor will give advice on any procedural or legal matters that may arise. There is also the clerk and IT support. The elected members will consider the applications and collectively make the decisions. Those whom will be by show of hands. Each application will be introduced by the planning officers, and where there is a qualifying objection, I will invite their representative to adjust us for five minutes. Strategy Councilees, local Councilees and ward Councillors may also adjust the committee. Finally, I will invite the applicants or their agents to adjust us for five minutes. Once all representations have been made, I'll follow in any questions or clarification from members, speakers may not participate in any debate that follows within the committee. The application will then be open to debate and discussion by members, and we will then make a decision on the application. When making decisions, members must have regard for the provisions of planning acts in case law, which amongst other things require decision makers to only have regard to material planning considerations. Members must also have regard to local planning policies and to the national planning policy framework and guidance. The national framework makes a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It requires approval of development proposals that accorder the look-to-date development plan without delay, unless the adverse impacts are doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the framework taken as a whole. It's a matter for each member individually to balance any material considerations and to decide what way to give them. Members must not predetermine any matter which comes to the committee for a decision. However, it is permissible for members to be predisposed toward a particular outcome with regard to the application, provided they don't make up their minds on how to vote before formally considering the application details, listening to the presentations and the four debates. Members must have listened to the debate and considered all the facts before deciding whether or not to move any motion. If a member is minded to put forward a motion, it's good practice to first seek advice from officers on the wording of a potential motion. Members are reminded to use their microphones while speaking, and if all mobile phones could be turned to silent, please. Item two then is apologies for absence of noted George Davis in for Brian Kelly. And I have some three to approve the accuracy of the minutes of the meeting held on 14th March, 2024. I'll move those minutes. I'll form the second chair. He was all agreed with a simple nod of the hat. Thank you. Members of the committee are asked whether they have any personal or prejudicial interests in connection with any item on the agenda and so to declare it and to state the nature of the interest. All happy. Okay. In terms of agenda order, I'm aware of speakers here for agenda item 7th. Thank you, Chair. Item 7 on the agenda is for a residential development at the car park on Woodhead Street, New Ferry. This is before planning committee due to a qualifying number of objections. I draw a member's attention to an addendum published today detailing the petition of objection received on 12th April. The application site covers the existing car park on Woodhead Street and vacant units along New Chester Road to the east. The site is allocated for housing under the emerging local plan. Next slide, please. The proposal consists of 33 houses set out as a terrace along New Chester Road and semi-detached on small terrace rows of three within the Woodhead Street section. The development proposes 100% affordable housing provision and financial contributions to support recreational pressure. The proposal also includes templates to the north of the site constructed as a part two story and a part three story building. The Woodhead Street element of the development includes an area of shared common green space that the houses will have outlook over. The vehicle access and roadway run in a circular fashion around this green space. There are 43 off-street spaces, parking spaces and seven additional visitor spaces located alongside the green space. The vehicle access into the site is from the existing southern end that serves the current car park off New Chester Road. The layout of the site also retains the pedestrian walkway points from Woodhead Street into Bevington Road to pedestrian shopping area to the northwest and to boundary road to the southwest. Next slide, please. Thank you. The flats and terraces along New Chester Road shown at the top of the slide will have dual style frontage with access to the east along New Chester Road and access to parking to the rear so that the buildings will have active frontages to New Chester Road as well as internally to the site seen from Woodhead Street. The dwellings and flats have a mix of two and three storey heights and the staggered height allows for a break in mass of the new buildings along New Chester Road. The buildings set slightly further back from the pavement than the existing buildings to allow for a small entrance area off the pavement. The typical house designs for within Woodhead Street can also be seen on the lower images. There is a detailed variation to the houses, although they were continuity in terms of the site as a whole. Next slide, please. This imagery shows the height variation along New Chester Road of the houses and flats. Terraces are a common feature within the surrounding locality and is therefore not considered to be able to keep in with the established scale and pattern of development within the area. The new residential terrace has an interface distance from the shops opposite of between 15 and 18 metres. The current relationship is approximately 13 metres. Therefore, the new terraces are considered a betterment to the current distances while maintaining the character along New Chester Road. Next slide. This slide shows the internal imagery of Woodhead Street with houses set around the common green space. The houses within Woodhead Street take design cues from the wider area. In particular, ports unlike village and that there are buried house types that have repeated design themes set around an open green space. The houses have off-street park and allocation, private rear gardens and appropriate outlook both within the site and to establish neighbouring properties. The houses meet the required separation distances to existing neighbouring houses and there are two pinch points within the site that fall short of the interface guidance at 13 metres from a habitable elevation to a blank elevation. This is not considered to compromise existing dwellings and is therefore considered acceptable in terms of internal distances given the benefits of the scheme. The development as a whole results in a well set out residential development within a sustainable location as part of the land allocation of the emerging local plan. This area is designated as residential development and brings brownford land forward for redevelopment. Next slide. Concerns have been raised with regards to the loss of the public car park and the detrimental impact that would have to the businesses as well as residential properties surrounding new ferry. That may see an increase in visitor parking in residential roads. The Woodhead Street car park contains more than 150 spaces and nine accessible parking spaces. There have been no council highway objection to the loss of the car park and it's considered that there is sufficient off-street parking within designated car parks around New Ferry. Mainly the larger Grove Street car park outlined in red to the top of this slide that contains 84 spaces, five of which are blue badge designated. Rural Council also proposed to improve an existing car park shown at the bottom of this slide. This site is also accessible from Grove Street to create 54 spaces, seven of which are blue badge designated. The smaller Grove Street car park will retain a pedestrian route from the car park through to the pedestrian area of Babington Road. It is therefore considered that within and around New Ferry there is sufficient off-street car parking. The car parks are also considered to not be at full capacity and the loss of Woodhead Street car park in favour of sustainable residential development is therefore acceptable. The local planning authority therefore recommends that the proposal be approved subject to the conditions and planning obligations set out within the officer report as the proposal seeks to provide affordable dwellings within a sustainable location, achieving the Brownfield first objectives of the emerging local plan. Thank you, Chair. Okay, thanks for that. Okay, so we'll move to the objective. Mr Craig, if you want to just come and take your seats. Excellent. Okay, Mr Craig, you're five minutes to make your objection. Thank you. Thank you, Chair, for allowing me to speak today. My name is Mark Craig and I've lived in New Ferry since 1988. Since 2004, I've been Chair of the New Ferry Residence Association and I've run the New Ferry Online Facebook group, which now has almost 12,000 followers who make comments on important community issues. It is those opinions expressed by many that I'm here today sharing with you. In 2019, the Council engaged consultants to suggest ways in which the centre of New Ferry could be regenerated following the explosion in 2017. Three plans were put to public consultation and the community was asked to comment. Crucially, the plans showed the whole of Woodhead Street car park being built over with new homes. The community rejected those plans. Absolutely. Businesses pointed out the importance of the car park to them, their staff and their customers who all use it. The worry was that without the car park in Woodhead Street, with all the other roads being double yellow lined or with cycle lanes, everyone would park in the already crowded side streets where residents struggled to park near their own homes. Responding to those objections, I personally drew a new plan showing half of the car park with 70 spaces being retained. The Council accepted this plan as being workable and it became the master plan that was submitted and approved in the outline planning application. So, with the car park now all gone from these proposals, we have to ask what is the point of the Council holding public consultations and they clearly aren't going to listen and respond to the views of local people. It's no wonder there's a disconnect between communities, residents and the local authorities meant to represent them. The Council has said the new alternative car park will be an existing small car park on the northern side of Bebington Road, behind Patton's jewelers. But the top end of this car park is filled every weekday with staff who work at Grove Street School, while the bottom end is not overlooked, hidden away and has always been a neglected rubbish dump where no local resident would park their vehicle even if you paid them to. As several of the business owners in New Ferry precinct who are women have told me, they have no intention of ever parking in that car park because they would feel unsafe and threatened because of the way that it is hidden from view and will continue to be under the current proposals. The Council have said they would enlarge it slightly, but even with what they're proposing, half of it will still be used by Grove Street School staff, while the rest will be taken up by business owners and staff if they use it. There will still be nowhere for their customers to park, and another factor already mentioned, the nine disabled spaces currently in Woodhead Street Park will go. For myself and other people with disabilities, walking from the alternative car park to businesses along the southern end of New Chester Road would be absolutely impractical. So disabled people are going to have to walk much further from a more distant car park to get to businesses they want to visit, that is unfair. And if they can even get to the car park which is accessed from Grove Street and already has an overloaded junction under New Chester Road, when parents are delivering or collecting their kids from Grove Street School, that junction becomes a notorious bottleneck. If you're stuck in the key on Grove Street trying to get out, you can be queuing for 20 minutes to drive just 50 yards, you should try it. Some days, the existing Woodhead Street car park is well over a third in use, but when the surveys were conducted, which were part of the planning application, these were done in the days shortly after COVID, when less people were travelling to the centre because of the virus. We believe that a new more comprehensive car park count is required. In October, I set up a petition and I petitioned to raise the issue of the loss of the car park, to date 330 people have signed that petition to object to the total loss of the car park and understand it's been shared with you. So can I summarise, 330 people believe it is not right that following a public consultation on this redevelopment where the community made it very clear that losing the entire Woodhead Street car park and its disabled parking spaces was unacceptable, that the community's views have now been totally dismissed. What is now proposed in this application should be regarded as an overdevelopment of the site with every square inch stolen from the community to make way for new homes, which actually we don't object to in the new homes, but just too many of them. We respectfully ask that this application in its current form is paused and that it is reworked to at least retain some parking for the shops as the community was promised following the public consultation back in 2019. Or, as I have said, what is the point of holding public consultations if you're not prepared to listen and respond to the views expressed. If these plans are approved as they are now, the loss of the car park and its replacement with the totally inadequate one behind Patton's jewellers will have a serious impact on the surviving businesses of New Ferry, particularly those in Beverlyton Road precinct and the southern end of New Chester Road. Traders will lose their customers and ultimately their business too. If these plans are accepted now as they are, for those traders, this will be a bigger disaster for them than the 2017 explosion was. Thank you for listening. Thank you for keeping. More or less. More or less to take. I'll just say if any members of the committee have any questions of clarification we want to put at this point. So much has been said. Any questions? No, Mr. Craig. Thank you very much for your presentation. Thank you very much for your presentation. Okay. In terms of the-- I received an unusual example of a politician using the WhatsApp properly. I received a WhatsApp message from the local council who couldn't be here, from a local council who couldn't be here. So I'll just ask Matthew to insert into a passallist Councillor BEAT and put it to us. Yeah, thank you, Chair. [INAUDIBLE] Yeah. So this is, as the Chair mentions, a short message. As follows, regarding Woodhead Street, New Ferry, Bromberg Councillors are in favour of this planning application. Our community needs affordable, warm homes with good public transport. There are lots of car parking spaces elsewhere in New Ferry District Centre, including Grove Street, New Ferry Park and Islander Street. That's the end of the message. So that was short and sweet, so we have it on there, of course. Okay, if we can now invite Mr. Green of the-- above the applicants, the applicants agents. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Green, you also have five minutes. Thank you. I'm not going to go over the planner's presentation again. They've kind of covered the scheme in some quads and details. I'd like to pick up a few kind of minor technical points that maybe kind of weren't kind of carried over into the planning application. So, I mean, we are providing 43 new homes, which are 33 of them are new houses, 10 flats, and it's 100% affordable. It's a mixture of affordable rent and a rent to buy 10 years. Of these homes, four of them will be fully wheelchair accessible, which are to the highest accessibility standards required under the building regulations. That's alongside the 13 we're already providing in phase one of this development. The aspirations of this scheme are to provide homes for 33 families in two, three, and four bedhouses, each with private gardens and parking, alongside 10 new flats for couples, individuals, and for smaller families. They're all be built using the highest levels of insulation and modern methods of construction, which will deliver very efficient draft-free homes, which will be affordable to keep warm. And as the planners, as I've mentioned, it's certainly built around shared public green space, which will not only be a pleasant outlook for all of the residents, but will increase local biodiversity and serve as a passive drainage feature to reduce over flooding load on the local drainage network. Both elements will enjoy mixed pallet and materials using traditional facing materials in response to the rich local built form. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I'll just see if there's any questions that members might want to put at this point. Any questions for the average age? Thank you. I was just going to say on the Woodhead Street visuals, which shows there's like a mock-up. There's solar panels on the roof, but I didn't notice that in the application. We have, it's a very interesting kind of technical bit of time. We're in the minute in terms of how we get energy to kind of work out. So we've included in the application the provision of solar panels on the rear, the south facing element. At the minute, the last kind of meeting we had with our technical team, we don't need them at the moment, but we just wanted to make sure that there was the provision there under planning. So should it needs to happen, it would go in. Unfortunately, the way that we're building ones have changed recently is throwing everyone up a little bit, so we're just trying to cover all the bases. No worries. Thank you, Chair. Just to clarify so, I couldn't really see the slide. You said there was car parking spaces for all of these. Each house? Is it just for one car? Each house has a single car parking space, but there is, the site is kind of laid out, such that should in the future, it need to be expanded. There is provision there to expand. Thank you. Mr. Green, thank you very much for your presentation. Open to members for shorting debate questions as well. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your comprehensive report on representing the residents of Newbury. I'd like to, as a woman who shops a lot, allay your fears about not having as many car parking. Sorry, Chair, please. There's not having as many car parking positions as you would like. I grew up in Brombra and I used to get the bus with my mom to Newbury to shop in the quick save. I used to go home on the bus. I live in Hassel and I very rarely drive to the shops. I walk and the shopkeepers much prefer people that walk to the shops and go in a car. Because if you walk to the shops, you meet the shopkeepers, you shop impulsively. If you've forgotten something, you can walk a couple of yards back. If you've gone to go out in the car to the shops, you're more likely to go further distance and get everything in one go. I'm hoping that the people that move into these houses which look very nicely designed and I think one car parking space is adequate to prefer. I know Jason and the Greens will be happy with my comments with regard to that. I show every day and I walk and if I need anything that's heavy, I've got my little shop in trolley and I use that. I find that it's a far more enjoyable experience going to the shops walking than it is getting in a car. In terms of the viability of Newbury, car parks don't spend money but residents do. There will be lots of people living in the houses with families who will send little Johnny out to go and get a loaf. So please be assured that I think Newbury will come up and it will be a nice community area with beautiful homes and a nice park in the middle. I would commend the developers for the design and the mix. And I think the shopkeepers should have their fear of the maid that they will not get the revenue that they think they will. I think it will go up and it will be up to them to make sure that they do. So I would commend this application chair. Sorry, thank you. I just wanted to ask the officers just a question and then I'd just like to expand on something else please. In the second car park, the smaller one where it's going to be. There is an existing building there that's due to be pulled down I understand. Will that car park be ready by the time the development is up and running? Thank you. Yes, so I've spoken to the regeneration team and they have confirmed that the changes to the car park would take place prior to any residential development going ahead. It wouldn't necessarily need a planning application because it works by the council, but that's all in hand. Thank you for that. Can I just say I'm just following, please chair if I can. I think this is a really nice little development and I agree with what Councillors and says on this. I think it has the potential to make the area enhance the area significantly and I'm only in favour of this application. Thank you chair. Yeah, I mean, thanks for the contributions from both the developer and the residents association stroke business representative. Very familiar with the area working at Unilever spent a lot of my time up that neck of the woods. Went to look at the car parks and ice on the way from work. Very few cars in terms of numbers well below 70 if that's going to be the replacement. It just seems to be a clash between the opinion of the local Councillors who were now told by WhatsApp, very convenient. That they're all in favour of that yet the overwhelming which seems the residents have come to another view. And I think the view is based around whether car parking in itself is a lifeblood for businesses or people actually living in the area on a regular basis and shopping and using the area is a regenerative effect as well. And it would appear that the overall plan for Newfairy is taking a shape where we admit there are far too many empty shops within Newfairy. So the shopping and retail offer will contract into a smaller space and that will then be fed by the new developments of properties and people to become more sustainable. So I would be very pleased to see the row of shops that will come down which are basically most of them are occupied by pigeons that when I see go past their demand they're partly boarded up. So it seems to be do people regenerate more than cars and it would appear that the balance is at the moment that people regenerate more than car parks. However, there are occasions and it's not always associated with the retail offer. There are events on the village portal like village that are events in and around the lady lever and there are 5k run for example is a good example where car parks will be chocker because people come to a particular event. So there will be some displacement. There's no doubt about that. But I do wish Newfairy and its residents and its business as well it needs to turn the corner after the horrific explosion. It was struggling prior to the explosion it would all be frankly honest with ourselves. It does need regeneration and it needs it gone carefully. Sometimes we can take all the people with us and sometimes we can't. It would appear that we haven't taken everyone with us on this occasion but it appears the balance is that people regenerate more than car parks. Thank you chair. Really enjoyed your comments Kathy. So yeah, now I think this is an exciting time for Newfairy. If we get this right I think I believe this is a positive step forward for the area. It's welcome that the homes are 100% affordable and I think this is the same people who are working on the ones in Rock Ferry which looks to be a good development as well. I think the shared green space is a really nice feature. It's really attractive and it's just going to help the area and the residents who live there. Again, the residents will be able to as Kathy has already pointed out be able to just walk into Newfairy which needs more people walking there. And as Kathy has said, you shop locally more when you walk and it's well connected to a good bus route on Newchester Road. There's a good cycle route there. It's a short walk to Babington station. I visit Newfairy quite regularly because I live in the area in Babington. I have used that car park but if I was to drive I'd just use another one because there is already plenty of car parking. So I'm minded to support the application. Okay, yeah, I think the outline application, the design for that is always going to be indicative. It's clear from questions of us in the world to the meeting that at the time they were thinking of keeping 70 car parking spaces on the sites. So there was no intention at that point to enhance the second ghostly car park by increasing the capacity by 20. So the overall net loss of car parking spaces are fairly seriously objectors. They're not arguing for the full car park to be retained. The argument was that we should try and keep 70 on that site but it seems to be across the piece. The actual reduction in car parking spaces is only in fact 50. And if we balance that against the surveys that we've done, the surveys that we've done prior to COVID, the issues involved in COVID. It's very clear that none of those car parks operate at capacity and look at the figures in the survey which were which were put forward at the time of the outline application. It's clear that more people, in fact, park in the ghostly car parks than are parking in the much bigger one. At Woodhead Street, I feel like they've been driven to New Ferry and parked in both Woodhead and in grocery by the virtual. And Woodhead has always been, I'd say almost as if it had been there. The results in the survey do show that it reaches 30-35% capacity. And that's our starting point. It's very clear that this isn't effective use of the land that we have at our disposal. And it's clear that the proposal to enhance and expand the second car parking groceries will mitigate the losses there. The scheme, obviously, it's a piece here, some will be for social events and rent to buy. It all falls into the capacity of 100% affordable housing. And in terms of affordability, it's refreshing to see some of that affordability is actual housing. Because often when we get a mixed scheme with affordable housing, it's the flats. They're the affordable, but we move people who are on lower incomes, you can live in the flats. But in this case, we've got a really good mix of flats to me, any of them, a number of four bedroom houses. And they're the positives for this. Planning is about balancing the arguments against and the benefits. And I think it's clear to me an agreement with those who have spoken that the benefits of the application clearly and wants to be out way. The perceived negatives and even when looking at the negatives that have been put to us in terms of car parking capacity. The evidence that we have access to clearly shows there is massive over capacity for car parking in that area. I agree with the comments, but many of the shops will be fed by the residents that live where there are some bespoke shops. Like the jewellers whose name now escapes me. I'm sure. What's it got? Hatters. There you go. Name check in at the committee clearly. Once local residents will want to buy jewellery, they won't be doing it on a weekly basis. But people will obviously want to travel in for that. And I would urge them to do so. In order to keep bespoke businesses like that alive. They are my observations on the objections and the use. I will move approval based on the recommendation. I'll second chair. Members will see the recommendation seeks to secure the affordable housing by way of 106 and recreational pressure. Recreational pressure contributions are from 12,051 pounds for SSI areas. If those car be secured, then officers will be delegated to refuse the application after a period of six months. So I'll move that. That's been seconded. Any other contributions before we vote? Okay. All against or abstaining on the motion to approve. See those in favour please. Okay. That was probably the application has been approved unanimously. Thank you for your contributions on that one. We've now reversed to the agenda order as printed. It brings us then to general item 5 application at 70 Charlotte Street angular month. Can I ask the officers to introduce the application please? Thank you chair. So moving on to the next agenda item relating to law for development certificate for the change of use of the development site 70 Charlotte Road to use as a children's home. This application is being determined here at committee due to being called in by the local ward member. Next slide please. So the site is located centrally within a grant within a primarily residential area designation. The project self is split over three floors. Next slide please. The existing floor plans show the property as it's currently laid out, which is as a residential unit. The proposed floor plans. Next slide please. There's very little change in the proposed layout to what the property is as existing. One of the first floor bedrooms will be being replaced by a living room. Other than that, the property layout remains as existing. There's a bedroom on the ground floor there that is intended to be used as staff accommodation for this children's home and the remaining floor bedrooms on the upper floors of the property are intended to be occupied by up to four children. So procedurally in terms of the application. So we're looking at what is a lawful development certificate where the applicants are seeking only to determine whether or not their works are lawful. It is not a planning application. So procedurally we can't look at any planning merits or any planning policy. The only relevant matter for consideration is whether or not there will be a material change of use of this site. So to look at the evidence that the applicant has supplied in terms of how they're looking for this children's home to function. As I've said before, there'd be a maximum of four children at the site. The property would be staffed 24/7. During the working week Monday to Friday, there'd be a daytime manager on site. Other than that, there'd be two full-time members of staff who would sleep in on a road to basis. The shift can't happen mid-morning. That wouldn't take more than 10 minutes. That's anticipated. In terms of general comings and goings to and from the site, they're intending to operate the site as close to a conventional family home as is possible. So the children will attend school as normal. For those who don't attend school, any schooling will be done virtually, so there won't be any extra tutors or anything attending the site. For visits, any family visits undertaken off-site or virtually, it may be that the children can bring home friends from school as a playdate. That kind of normal family thing, but that would also be risk assessed as part of the children home setting in any event. In terms of any additional visits with the site being a care home, social workers, off-stared, etc. Social workers are anticipating on a monthly basis, approximately, and then off-stared with doing annual inspection. Other than that, they're not anticipating any kind of additional visits that you can say will go beyond a kind of domestic household setting. So in looking at whether or not there is a material change of use from the evidence that we've been provided, it's quite clear that the character and activity associated with the proposed use wouldn't be significantly different than the use of the site as is now that being a single residential dwelling. So with this in mind, the local authority don't consider that the works represent a material change of use at this site, and therefore recommend that the lawful development certificate is issued since, in our view, there is no material change of use associated with these proposals. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Chair. Here, because of referral from Council Williamson. Councilman, would you like to come forward and take a seat? Good evening, Emma. Thank you for allowing me to come along. You have five minutes. I would say five minutes. So I'm Councillor Williamson, Ward Council for this card, Megromance. I do beg committees and indulgence. I have not ever been a member of this committee, and my attendance here has been restricted to come along representing my residence on a handful of occasions since I've been Councillor for the past 12 years. So I accept that what I'm about to say tonight might probably go above and beyond your remit, and I fully understand. You can tell me that these won't be considerations that you can look at. I think the first thing I have to say is I felt so strongly about this, that I needed to come along anyway and speak. And the second thing was I was absolutely staggered that something as crucial in a child's development has been placed in a children's home. It's actually not treated as in the way it should be, and planning legislation doesn't really do us any favours here, given that we're talking about vulnerable children's lives. So I'm going to read out what I brought, and the final thing was I don't know whether or not planning officers have spoken to children's services, because for me that would be an obvious thing to do given the nature of this proposal. I have spoken to them, and I have an email from the director of children's services who very much is not supportive of this application. So I'm going to read out what I've got anyway, and thank you again for listening to me. First we turn to the company, which is Serenity Care Northwest, and there's very little information available on this company. I did a bit of digging around this company, previous children's homes, companies, house, etc. There are no previous officer registrations or reports on them, and what the company's house, it seems the company is a private, limited company, was only incorporated on the 19th of January this year, that's this year, that's two, just over two months ago. And it was seen that this is the first home they're seeking to open. A search on the applicant to see whether they have been associated with the companies has not yielded any results. Information back from the director of children's services is the following. She said, With regard to the plan, she's read the application and looked at the floor plans. Her concerns are, the application states the children's home models to create a warm and nurturing family-style environment. However, in the plans there's no reception room, no living room, dining room or communal spaces. The floor plans do not represent a family-style environment. Even the terminology used is bed-sit rather than bedroom. The application states the home will help to develop the social and life skills needed when the children no longer live within an institution. Again, without communal spaces, I'm not sure how they would achieve that. The floor plans do not promote socialization. There's a limited outdoor space if they're attending and providing a home for children aged, ate and upwards. Outdoor space would be preferable if not vital. The number of visitors stroke visits indicated by the applicants are unrealistic. They suggest one visit per month by a social worker and one visit per month by a regulation 44 visitor. It's very likely that each child, and there could be up to four, would have to have their own social worker who would need to visit at least once a week. This would mean that up to 16 social worker visits per month would take place. For the regulation 44 visitor, again each child would have their own and that would mean four visits per month. Therefore, they could only be up to 20, there could be up to 20 visits per month rather than the two indicated in this application. It also fails to acknowledge that there could be visits from health workers, youth workers, etc. The applicants suggest that if the children are not in school, then tutoring would be done virtually. This is not our preferred method of learning. We have a home tutoring service which provides face-to-face tutoring in the home environments. It seems that the applicant is more concerned about limiting contact in the home and reducing visitors rather than effectively meeting the needs of the children. Next we turn to the concerns I have about the unsutability of the location. In January 2023, the Royal Globe reported that after searching an address in Charlotte Road, everyone's police officers as part of an ongoing investigation, discovered a large cannabis farm with numerous cannabis plans found at the premises. On the 8th of February 2023, Mayor Society Police conducted an action date targeting organised crime in hotspots and rural, including Evermont in and around the area of Charlotte Road. Gregorian were executed in Evermontan policy during which heroin and air rifles were seized and the inquiries are still ongoing. Crime statistics for 2024 show that the crime rates in Liskard and Cecum and Evermont were almost double what they are in the neighbouring Wall of Sioux Village, driven in the main by factors such as deprivation, inequality, worklessness and a high ratio of HMOs. On the grounds of the area for me, and I know the area really well, is highly unsuitable to place our vulnerable children in to live there. And in fact, I would go further to say that the area that they would be placed in is potentially damaging to their development. We have a corporate responsibility to those children. And also, joined with the lack of experience and proven track record from Sioux Energy Care, I ask members to think very carefully about this application tonight within the confines of what they can do as a committee given the application before them. Our duty of care must lie with children and we can and do better than this. It seems to me that the property was bought because of its price rather than its desirable location. And it is not somewhere that I would be happy for vulnerable children to be placed in. And I do hope that you would at least consider my points. Whether or not they stretch above your room as a committee, I appreciate that they possibly will. But I think that children's homes are not just another building and not just another business for out of area companies to make money from their children and where their core parents. Thank you. Thanks for that. I'll just say a very, that was a really questions at this point to support. I've just got one. I do have a daughter who has learning difficulties and she lives in a home, that sort of thing. It's a bit bigger. I'm surprised that you've talked down your area, your ward as much as you have because it strikes me that it's not really nice enough for anybody to live in from the way you've described it. Children, whether they've got learning difficulties or vulnerable or deserve to be in a home where they're looked after. My understanding of this application are probably not strange, I think, away from the question really. But the question I want to ask, I suppose, really is. Thank you for being self-aware. Yeah, thank you. What is it about a care home from C3 to C2? And the only difference really is that, obviously, most homes have people visiting. If you've got four children, they could have lots of friends. I know I'm waffling. I'm sorry. So, what is it about this application in planning terms that you don't agree with? Yeah, so we'll just take your first point first. And really, I'm not talking down my area and being realistic. I'm sure most of us do have pockets in our own wards whereby there are challenges and we have to acknowledge those. I'm not saying it's a terrible area to live in. What I'm saying is the proposal to pull vulnerable children in an area given all of the other factors is not something that sits easily with me. The difference for planning terms, as I said when I started to speak, I'm not a planning expert and I haven't been on this committee. So, I probably strayed way above what you're able to consider and I accept that. But this is a different scenario to a normal family where this is not just the same as the house next door that might have four children. These are vulnerable children who we are the parents of and I just think we have an extra responsibility there to think very carefully about where they're placed. And I think also as well, the concerns around the company doesn't have any proven record for delivery and ownership. It was only incorporated just over two months ago. I do have concerns. Thank you very much for your presentation. We'll just check it. Is the applicant here? Really ought to give notice if you wanted to speak to us, but given that objective spoken, would you like to? I've got middle Boston, and again, you have five minutes. All right. We had a new company that set up in the area, but we've also got set up. I do beg your pardon for this option. If you could give your name, who you represent. Michael Parks, Celinecy K in northwest. Thank you. I'll marry her five minutes. Cheers, thank you. We are a new company that's just been incorporated. The property in question, it's not just a cheap property. We've actually spent nearly 200,000 pounds on renovating it. We've liaised with little council children's commissioner, Alison Abraham. She's been able to visit the property. She looked forward to working with us. She met our management team. She met the other directors and all the qualifications and the impressions we got from her. She was very happy with how we were looking to approach setting up this care home. Now, we've got all their businesses as well, which it's not just a case of opening a care home. There's a commercial aspect to it. I've got a construction company. A floor and company. The other directors got hairdressers and beauty salons. This is something that's a little bit close to our heart. We're looking to bring the children into the homes and give them a clear pathway into adulthood. So, we're going to be also putting applications in for a supported living for 16 to 18, so that there's a clear pathway through from the children's home into the supported living and then apprenticeship rather than the companies. So, it's not just about opening up a company and looking to make loads of money off the back of it. Obviously, there's a commercial aspect to it. But there's also something close to our heart and a clear pathway there. Sorry, I'll just introduce you. This is Jake, manager as well. He's got massive experience working in the children's care industry. And I'll push it over to him and hopefully he can answer some more of the questions on that side of the business. If that's okay. That's fine. Yeah, that's fine. Yeah. Sorry. Yeah, my name's Jake, and as Michael says, I've been working with children, young people, families, adults in lots of different ways for the past 17 years. So, we bring a wealth of experience to the table. We may be a new company as such, but, you know, I'm very confident within the world. Something that I do quite well. I'm quite proud to say that. And we are passionate about wanting to be, you know, a new standard. We've been working in partnership quite openly and transparently with other agencies. As we said, Michael said before we had some of the guys from the council come down. We were really open with them and they were happy with the standard staff. We were putting forward up to now. And, you know, as we develop further, we know that some of our policies and stuff like that are sort of in basic format at the moment. That's being done quite purposely so that we can work around the needs of, you know, of our children as to come into placement rather than shoehorning into a service where we're at a sort of a point we feel where we can be quite sort of instead of shoehorning, I'm lost a bit lost for words now, sorry, tongue tied. Or, you know, we are at a place where I feel where, you know, skills capable and flexible is the way that I was looking for, sorry. To tailor it towards the needs of our children to make sure that they are safe and that they can thrive and we will ensure from the inside of our homes that, you know, we are equipped with the knowledge and skills that they need and support and supervision they need as well to keep themselves safe at all times. I've got time to just add one more. I'd also like to add this. I've sat in on committee meetings previously with the children's care homes, with other councils and what we seem to find is you try and open these care homes up in what a class does affluent areas and there's massive pushback from the residents. You don't want these kids in their area. So then you try and open them up in areas where people maybe look down the nose a little bit and say, Oh, the children are vulnerable. You find it depends on the area, you're opening them up and people view the children. We just view them as children and we're looking to safeguard them, risk-assess and look after them the best we can in these loads. We've got the homes from the inside and what we can prepare them for for the outside where it's not the other way around. And realistically as well, how many numbers of children leave the care system and can move into as well or, you know, other sort of more affluent areas? The chances are we were talking about before, you know, there's affordable revenues, one, two red flats or the rest of it. The chances are that they're going to be residing in these areas once they, you know, so why not work with them now in these areas and prepare them for what is. In the real world, it's my soul to take on it. Cheers. Okay. Thanks, Jake. I missed the second name, just as you said. Sorry, my name's Jake Bonette. Bonette. Thank you. I'll just see you're very members of any questions. Do you want to put your clarification? James. Sorry. Ah, marvellous. So if you can just clarify me. So you've opened this up. This is a speculative business or you've already dealt with the council and you know that you're going to get children into it. We've already been liaising with the council, with the children's commissioner, Alison Abraham. She told us there's a need for this type of accommodation over the world. They've actually asked us and pointed us in directions where they'd like some more of the accommodation where there's a need for it. So it's not something that we've just set up and we're hoping for the best. We have been in consultation with the council and we've got email sales to prove it. We've been working with the local police authorities. We've been risk-assessing the areas and there's all the policy documentation which is in line with what we're trying to do. It's not something that's just speculative that we've just opened on a whim. There we go. And I was just going to ask, so why list guard, why not Birkenhead or another area? I'm intrigued by why you chose list guard. Why not? It's the way we look at it as well. We've been risk-assessed the area. We actually think there's a lot to offer over on the world. And as I say, there obviously has to be a demand for what we're trying to supply as well. And into discussions with Alison Abraham that is a demand for it over on the world. Thank you. Guys, thank you very much for your, but I can't say any other indication questions. Thank you very much for your question. [inaudible] Okay. This list is telling me we're off-peast slightly with you. So I'll invite you to take your seats. And what I will also now do, because once everyone's talking, I've got both of you. It's telling us that we're not to consider material. We're not to consider this as a planning application. It isn't it's a certificate of law for use. So I think before I bring you in, I'll choose to make a comment on this. And lastly, I'll say once again, just to brief us on the difference between a planning application, which we've had a lot of arguments which would mostly be addressed to a planning application. And indeed, some of our question on that. But this isn't a plan application. It's a certificate of law for use. So tell us again, maybe we'll get it this time. Thank you, Chair. So I'll refer you to section six of the committee report. So in that section of the report, we set out some information that tries to guide the remit of this application. Paragraph two says in relation to such applications, material planning considerations, which are, as a matter of course, considered in planning applications, are not relevant to this application. The decision in this matter is to be based strictly on factual evidence, the planning status, stroke history of the site, and the relevant law applicable to the circumstances of the case. The planning merits of the proposed use applied for do not fall to be considered. So again, just to recap, this is an application for a lawful development certificate. It is not a planning application. This application seeks to demonstrate that the change of use from C3 dwelling house to a care home, which we consider falls into use class C2. The application seeks to demonstrate that planning permission would not be required because it would not result in a material change of use of the land. The case officers report, set out in some detail and provide some case law around principles to be considered around that debate. And the recommendation is that the whilst there may be a change of use from C3 to C2, what we have to consider is whether or not that results in a material change of use, not just that change of use from one class to another. And in our view, and based on the information put forward with the application, it would not result in a material change of use, and therefore the change of use would be lawful. OK, so there's probably a whole set. There's probably a whole unit within the degrees that these guys take for town planning, which will take, which will discuss lawful use as certificate. So let's see what we do based on whether the system gets angry with us. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. And thank you for that, Michael and Jake. It was very interesting to listen to what you had to say, and thank you Jeanette for yours as well. There is a need for good children's homes, and you are right. It doesn't matter where they are on the whirl, as long as we have good children's homes, and we shouldn't be demonising any area or any particular building as long as it's fit for purpose and meets the criteria. And I do have one or two concerns, and they are concerns, but I think I'd like to mention them. There is a lack of internal space here, and there is a lack of open space, which really doesn't lend itself for me, particularly for young children to develop in ways that having those outdoor spaces, it's good for the wellbeing and also for the mental health. That said, there is government guidance on setting up a children's homes, and the comments on the quality of standards and to quote, Residential care should provide a safe and stimulating environment in a high-quality building with spaces that support nurture and privacy, as well as common open spaces and spaces that young people can be active in. You know, again, I'm reminded of the fact that we're all called preparence here, and that the children in our care, we must be seen as to be acting in the best interest, and we must all be promoting their physical and mental health wellbeing. That said, however, this is a certificate, and it's a development for that. It's not an application for planning. It doesn't fit any of that criteria. The overarching regulatory body for this would be offset, and that would be what the authority would be looking at to ensure that standards are maintained within this home, and I would be mindful to be approving this application. Thank you, Chair. Through you, Chair, just to sort of get back on track slightly, in effect, the only thing that we are discussing here tonight is whether it's lawful or not, whether it's C3 to C2. The difference between the C3 and the C2 is the fact that the care workers, looking after them, will not be living in the house. They will be going off-site and living somewhere else. That's the only difference. In reality, everything that we've heard tonight is immaterial and irrelevant in what we decide, because we're only deciding is there a material difference between C3 and C2, and legally, lawfully, there is not. Whilst it's very commendable of the ward, Councillor would come and speak, and obviously the developer, the applicants, the homeowner. Without being disingenuous towards them, we just really don't take any notice of what's been said, really. And in effect, and not being me, but you don't mean. All we're talking about is whether or not it's a lawful development, and to be frank, we should have gone straight to the vote almost immediately, if we're only saying is it lawful or not? Yes or no? Am I correct, Chair? Well, just to agree with what Kath has said, and we should probably go to the vote. Without listening to her, Councillor. Councillor? Madam Chair, please. Just a couple of things I want. Sorry, Steve. Now, you know, let's all be honest about this. We all live in the real world, and we will have been contacted in the past, no doubt, about these type of uses in our own wards. And there's genuine concern from residents, and it's only right and proper that the local ward, Councillor, reflects those concerns. And with the added issue of vulnerability of the clientele, that they be put at the forefront of any concerns. So clearly, there needs to be conversations within the other departments of the Council around the use and how it's operated in the future. That's not for this committee. And when you look at what we're being asked to give lawful use, is it a lawful use for that house to be occupied by four children, those number of people attending? Well, of course it is, because any other house in that road could have exactly the same number of comments and goings, and people living in their large family house. In fact, probably the probably large family houses there, where the kids unfortunately go all day without any supervision, and possibly all night without any supervision. So in those sort of terms, it is probably better than some of the situations that are there. So we are being asked to consider whether they can generally be used for the use, it's being asked, and that's what it is. But right and proper that you will all face these concerns and considerations as we go through the Planning Committee, and it's only right that we hear them here, and the ward council has the right to draw it out of delegation. And I think it's been, you know, from what I've heard, a positive discussion. We've heard facts that we wouldn't have heard had it not been taken out of delegation. So I'm fairly confident that we will make the right decision tonight, and it will have had a public hearing, and whatever the decision is, I wish both all parties well in the future. Thanks for that. Yeah, I was just going to call it first of all on the, the applicant mentioned, as has been mentioned by others, I detected that the ward council was raising concerns primarily on the welfare of the children going into the home as opposed to concerns that they themselves would be a problem in the local area. I mean, that's what was clearly said. So clearly it's before us for the best of intentions, because of concern about the welfare of the children in care themselves, as opposed to any perceived issue that that myself, I know that was raised. And it is certainly the case that there will be an application, something we had recently, where residents have expressed concern. And I know that, you know, from day one, the ward council has obviously taken advice on what is and what is not possible at the planning committee, because, you know, people think we enjoy powers which we don't. And we don't in this instance. As has also been mentioned, children's care services, is a heavily regulated activity. The applicants will require licenses from, I've said, and approval by children's services. So we've had two conflicting pieces of evidence put to us on the view that children's services might take for it. Nevertheless, that avenue remains open to make representations to the enforcement, like a licensing authority, as to the suitability of it. I picked up that comment was made about the submitted plans, and submitted plans through fairies and bedrooms as bed sits. And I did ask to develop that, because it didn't look to me to be laid out as a family home. The reason the plans are, as they are, I will share with the committee, is because its last lawful use was as a family home for, I don't know, up to four children and two adults which then became derelict and was then taken over with the intention of turning this into a five bedroom HMO. And HMO's in their own right cause some people potty. But a five bedroom HMO, for those who were listening to me at the last council, doesn't require planning permission, so they could have gone ahead of it. So the drawings that were submitted were for the way it's actually laid out as bed sits. That was its intended use, before it was purchased, so I'm stunned by the applicants. So there's no disjoint between its previous legal use and the proposal in that it was purchased halfway through. It's renovation to a two or later round. I don't know whether to say people involved, but nevertheless, that's why the rooms are described as bed sits. So I don't want to obsess, upset me, he'll be able to put it off as an elephant. The question of course is straightforward, straightforward, simple one. That is there any material difference to a builder being used by four children to adults related to one another, as opposed to four children and to adults not related to one another? I think my judgment is that there is no material difference there for the use is lawful. I just have a slight concern overall that speaking this application would never have come to the planning committee that hadn't been taken out of delegation by the Ward Councillor. All Ward Councillors are entitled to take applications out of delegation. I tend to say to my Ward colleagues, if you don't have a planning reason, don't take it out of delegation. Having said that, this application would have been only heard by what would have been decided to be delegated powers by the planning officer, spokes and chairs but not have been involved. I'm a bit concerned that if Ward Councillors start using what they are allowed to do to take applications such as this out of delegation, we will be debating a lot of applications that we shouldn't be when there is a lot of planning time to be taken up with ones that do have to be heard by the planning committee. So I don't know what the correct channel would be, maybe it's a legal thing, but maybe all the terms of reference that we look at on the planning committee. But I think we need to make it sort of pretty watertight that we only have applications coming to the committee where there's a reasonable planning reason and not where, like this, it should never have come here in the first place. Chair, I think the issue here isn't any deficiencies with the scheme of delegation. Could that make it clear that a ward member or a member of a ward where the application, who has the effect on the ward, can request that require a mass to be called in to a committee, provided there are sound planning grounds. I think on this occasion there was a fairly generous interpretation made by an officer as to the submission in terms of the developments of the planning grounds. So there's more about the interpretation of the scheme of delegation of the scheme of delegation itself. I'm just concerned about its setting of precedent going forward. I suppose that's the thing we'll have to look at. Well, I'm reluctant to, yes. I'm reluctant to curtail the powers of members in bringing things to our attention. I don't perceive that our agendas are overly long. I feel that if we perceive at some point in the future that there is abuse of the system, then we will take action, I guess, to reconsider. I don't conclude that there's abuse of the system. And I certainly don't conclude that there's abuse of the members' powers in this particular example either. So perhaps you could leave that there for now. Any further considerations? Just to say, I did visit the site. And there's clearly been a lot of the developer mentioned. Now, there's been a great financial investment in the property, which was, and I've seen it in its derelict state. So, you know, and there are other properties in that area that need code to look at. Now, there's a board and a pub across the road, everyone remembers the little Nelly, as I used to call it, because it's got the big Nelson and the little Nelly. So, you know, there are positives around the application. And I think if it's a container of one ward council, then it should be the concern of the whole committee. And that's what we're here to do, is hear those concerns and come to a proper decision. Okay, that being said then, I'll move the recommendation that's lawful use. I second it. There you go. Voteable before against abstaining. I think there's some wording words missing on the recommendation that the lawful use application be granted, I suppose. It should, should we say that just for the point and for the need, any doubt? I'm sure, I'll see you carefully, I'll tell you that. So, anyway, move the privilege to be seconded. Those will be for against abstaining on motion to approve. See those in favour, please? That's unanimous, Chair. Well, the application then has been approved. Thank you very much for your time and presentations. Please just to agenda item six, the quadrant hoylach. Can I ask the officers to introduce the application, please? Thank you, Chair. Item six is for the quadrant building on the corner of Albert Road and station road and hoylach. This has been heard at planning committee due to qualifying number of objections. The proposal is to vary the wording of condition 12 that was imposed on the original approval. 2017 01191, which was for commercial and residential development. Next slide. Condition 12 originally sought the submission of details of a phasing plan. This was submitted and subsequently approved under discharge of conditions application and the split can be seen on this slide. Phase one in red and phase two in blue. Phase one is for the commercial community uses within the old town hall building. And phase two includes commercial units at ground floor and residential flats above. The proposal is to vary the wording of condition 12 to allow the two phases to complete and become occupied independently from one another. This varied wording does not prevent either phase one or phase two from being completed before the other, just to continue and complete work separately. The design and the use of the site as a whole and as two independent phases has previously been approved. The variation of condition does not alter the appearance or use of the building as originally approved. The units within the town hall phase one element can still be brought forward at any time and the varied condition would not restrict either phase in terms of completion or occupation. Concerns have been expressed with regards to phase one potentially remaining vacant. However, under the planning application, the completion and occupation of the units within phase one cannot be enforced, but the varied condition would also not prevent them from being occupied. Additional concerns have been raised regarding funding sources for phase one. However, this has been undertaken separately to the planning application and was not secured through a planning obligation for the original application, and therefore cannot form part of the determination of this proposal. The planning authority therefore recommends that the application to vary the condition is approved on the basis that the two phases acting independently from each other is not harmful to the character of the area and is acceptable in accordance with the adopted whirl unitary development plan and the MPPF. Thank you, Chair. Okay, thanks for that. Angie, please. Council gardener, I mean, please join us. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, you have five minutes. Yeah, I won't need five minutes. I'm Council Andrew Gardener, Councillor Holyacken-Mells. This application comes before you because it was a qualifying petition made. I was minded to call it in myself, but referring to the last debate, I was struggling to find a true planning reason, to be honest. But there is a great deal of disquiet in the village, so I think it's only appropriate the committee discusses it to give that transparency to people, to residents. For those who don't know, this is the Beacon Project. This was a signature development in Hoi Lake. That was meant to be completed by 2020, here on 2024. There's no cinema, workers stop completely. We can get no information out of the government, or the developer really has to when that is going to come forward. So, changing the phasing actually creates sort of residents' worst nightmare in that you get the flats. You don't get the development which everyone was so excited about. I'm sure certain members will be on the committee at the time. I can remember the buzz around that. I think it was highlighted in the Office's report that really this should have perhaps been section 106 to make it legally binding within the permission that we gave, a lot of condition which can be varied. The apartments themselves do appear to be over development of the site. It's 40 flats, no parking. And they were enabling development for the commercial side. So, this is a project that has got horribly awry. We're not getting what we were promised, and now we're having to basically get the nightmare of the flats, but no cinema. A huge amount of goodwill was given to the project, and it passed planning with, I'm not going to say without any scrutiny, that would be unfair because officers did their job, but it, considering you all know the way, the conservation area works in Holynek and Mells. Elsewhere in Holynek and Mells in that conservation area, 40 flats in a four-story building would receive a lot of attention. This basically breathes through planning with a lot of goodwill. So, people are understandably angry about that. However, out of pure pragmatism, I'd urge the committee to grant this request tonight, because what we don't want is 40 empty apartments within their in Holynek forever in the day, perhaps. So, I would urge the committee to have an open debate around the issues, but also to, at your wisdom, to grant permission for this, because it's only going to attract bad actors as time goes forward. So, I'd rather see it developed, and people living there. I urge, for last, to see if anyone knows any questions, questions of clarification, they want to pass. So, I don't know. It comes together, I think I would feel that. I'm just going to announce, as you're off returning to your seat, the original application was 2017, before my watch. (Laughter) This is classic regeneration, isn't it, and how difficult it is to get investment in former public buildings as well as the former town. It really is difficult, because it needs the private sector to work together jointly with the public sector, and that's not always the case, and finances are always normally the key. And I suppose Andrew's point is quite fair, it's a case of the chicken and the egg, and the Richard came first, well, you know, quite logically, the people wanted this planning committee to favour in place of the goodies. If you like, you know, the ground floor part of the developments, and we tried to do that, but it wasn't a section 106, as I understand it. It's not directly an enabling development, as I understand, but they were inextricably linked, and in a public eye they are still inextricably linked together. Is it a case of chicken and the egg, or are we going to settle for two eggs, or are we going to settle for two chickens? That is something of a dilemma. On the positive side, though, we do need properties on brownfield sites to enhance the local plan moving forward, and that is certainly a key area. And in town living does not demand car parking provisions that other areas do. Market Street is a main route for transport, train stations as well. So my view is that, you know, development is good generally for an area. We can't say houses in New Ferry is going to regenerate New Ferry, and then say apartments in horylates are not going to have a negative effect. It's obviously going to have a positive effect on businesses and those in and around Market Street, which is a vibrant town centre area. So my view is that I think Andrew used it, and quite often agree with Andrew, as much as people might not think so. The word pragmatic comes to mind, and I think the pragmatic approach is to allow the development that is ready to go, go, but keep the pressure on for the other development to fulfill its full promise, and that would be the view I would take. Thank you, Chair. It's following on from Steve, really, and speaking as a member of the Planning Committee, and also Ward Councillor, if I digress, I'm sure Matthew will tell me. So, yes, so the Beacon Project on Flats has been considerable focus for Holy Lake, and my colleagues and I, due to the, of course, the public monies injected into it. It's now effectively a private development that the Council and hence also as Councillors have little to no say in. And as we know from the report, the block development, the flat development is now owned by a separate company to the old town hall. So the scheme aimed to turn the former Holy Lake District officers or the town hall into the two screen picture house, a centre for fine dining, this ground vision with artisan workspaces for the enabling development. Also, it's worth mentioning the setting of it being within parameters of a listed building being Holy Lake station, the key location being the quadrant, which is in Niles Drive Conservation Area. And the concerns that Council regards and has raised that all we would end up with is the block of flats with no redevelopment to date appears to be the case. Now, of course, I, as sure we all do, hope that the town hall will be completed due to the vast amounts of public funds plowed into it, coming from the coastal communities fund. And of course, we as local Councillors had no powers over it. I mean, there was a fantastic photograph of the town hall during the Queen's coronation taking place with flags and with daily air. And as a statement building, it really is marvellous in Holy Lake. Anyway, digressing as I thought it would. So 8.22 in the report refers to the point that whether the changes to the conditions are acceptable will be assessed within the report. In terms of the impact those changes have to the development as a whole and the wider commercial and neighbouring residential areas. So that really brings me to my overriding concern shared with ward colleagues. That's the variation of condition 12. I think as Council folks mentioned, would remove the fundamental principles of the original approval for the flat development, which in turn would enable the restoration of the historic building and the renovation of the town hall itself. Because speaking to people and businesses, residents brought into a plan of restaurants, artisan units, bistros, commercial units. And for four years, they've been asking those questions. The £3.6 million that was received and no immunity has came to fruition. So of course, concerns and frustrations will persist and remain, especially around the parking provision, transparency, funding and enhancing this statement building as Council God mentioned. Having said all of that here, I agree. The last thing I want in my ward is 40 empty apartments. So while I have remaining concerns, overriding concerns and questions that other people I'm sure will be able to answer maybe, I'm acknowledging that this application is referring to the flat block. And as a result, I am also minded to support the application. It's not very often we get an opportunity to build 40 flats that don't have parking spaces right next to a main tier of a train station. One of the main reasons I would support it is that we don't get this opportunity very often, and I think we really should support this application. I'll keep it short. I was just going to say that Jason's going to love me even more now because like for New Ferry, you can walk to the shops, you can do the same in Hoi Lake. And although I'm agreed with supporting the application that it's now where it is and idealistically, we've wanted it to be somewhere else, but it's not. And I'm sure once 40 flats are occupied and there's the units underneath that will be retail that build it and they will come or whatever that film was with Kevin Cosner. So you might find that the actual cinema and everything else happens once there are 40, 80 or more residents to spend the money and go to the picture. So it might happen at the end anyway. We can all hope, aren't we? So I'm supporting this application. We can also. I mean, the original application was 2017. Obviously there was a downtime, wasn't there? Since then, which, you know, will indeed impact it quite heavily on the private sector. I mean, the message really is, there's no justification for deliberately attempting to leave 40 flats empty at a time of 8 hours in crisis. And Steve's like, we're entirely dependent upon the private sector coming in, say, field of dreams, which is the sort of thing you have on a video, isn't it? And then don't bother having to transfer to the reason. When you find that. Okay, is there any further contributions on that? It won't be to move approval, Chair. I'll second that, then. I suppose it will be for the gates of staying out on motion to approve. See those in favour, please? Okay, let's get on to Ms. Chair. Okay, I was as requested. Don't forget that. Okay, so let's move on through the performance reports then. If we can go to agenda item 8, development management performance updates related to planning applications. Officers want to? Thank you, Chair. So, before committee, we have three performance reports. Each report sets out, gives a breakdown of our performance, the development management service against national and local performance targets. Performance is split out in each of the reports to show statistics for quarter two, quarter three and quarter four of the last financial year, 2023, 24. Item number eight on the agenda is the report that sets out our performance in relation to the determination of planning applications. The report sets out that we have performance targets set by central government in relation to the speed in which we should determine planning applications. That performance target set out that we should aim to for 60% of major planning applications to be determined within 18 weeks, within 13 weeks, or within an agreed extended period and 70% of non-mages within eight weeks or an agreed extended period. The tables at section 3.8 of the report set out that four majors, 75% were dealt with within 13 weeks or an extended period in quarter two, 100% in quarter three, 78% in quarter four. For non-mages, 83% were dealt with within eight weeks or an extended period in quarter two, 89% in quarter three and 94% in quarter four. So in each quarter, performance targets have been exceeded for both major and non-major applications. So planning committee is recommended to note and endorse that performance update report. Any questions on any of those things you posted? Yeah, I'm not going to object. I'm just intrigued because I'm still learning how this works. What would happen if we did object to it? I'm not going to. I'm not going to. I just would like to know what the implications of objecting to this would be. No, I suppose you'd have to put an alternative recommendation and I'm not aware of what. I think we should be having these targets and then we vote on it and that would, it would somebody would then say, oh, I think we should be having these targets and then we vote on it. Oh, I see. My understanding is these are government targets, but I can get officers to speak further on that. So these aren't local ones. I think the issue is failing to meet them gets us, if you like, under the microscope. We get improvement boards. Any questions on the figures or any of the figures behind them? I'll move recommendation that we note and endorse this performance report. Seconded. I second performed support dealing this time with appeals performance of appeals. Thank you, Chair. So, yeah. Item nine on the agenda is a report setting out how we've performed in relation to how our appeal decisions have come through. Performance in quarter one of last year was reported, the planning committee previously, but it is repeated at paragraphs 3.5, put paragraphs 3.6 to 3.8, give a breakdown of performance for quarters two, three and four. There are no nationally set performance targets, but the average over the last five years across England is when you look at all the authorities that 28% of appeal decisions have been allowed on average. So if we bear that in mind against our performance, so in quarter two, three appeals were allowed out of a total of 19 appeals, which equates to 16% in quarter three. Two appeals were allowed out of a total of six appeals, which equates to 33%, and in quarter four, six appeals were allowed out of a total of 17 appeals, 35.3%. So the performance over the year as a whole was that we had 13 appeals allowed out of a total of 45 appeals, which is 28.9% or 29%. So again, roughly consistent with the national average in terms of how we're fairing, in terms of how planning spectra to view in the decisions that we're making. So again, there isn't much more to say in terms of that report. Recommendation is that you note and endorse the performance report. Thank you very much. It's consistent in those terms. It says on their results implications. So I'm presuming no costs were awarded for any of these appeals. Not for any of the appeals in quarters two, three and four, you'll notice the in quarter one we had the West Kirby fire station and there is an ongoing appeal costs award. First of that, but then said there's no cost, was there a cost to that? And does that have to go into private session? Thank you. Yeah, all I can tell about that is there's an ongoing discussion about the level of costs. In general terms, I'm not talking about specifics, in general terms, when there's a cost award. The party with the benefit of the cost award can have that turned into an order of the court. And then there is a process of assessing that of costs. I'm happy to brief council, I focus on the other member who's interested privately, but I don't think it's appropriate to deal with the specifics. OK, I don't want to jeopardise any ongoing negotiations, so believe it that that. Yeah, I mean, what are you going to do? You can't read the minds of these guys. Sometimes there are the greatest friends and sometimes they just get mad long into favouring with local democracy. The best thing we can do is, is just see that we compare well, I guess, with our neighbours' members' performance, we respect people separately, we're selling them all about that. And if we just continue to make our decisions based on our own experience and interpretation of planning. I'll move that recommendation to note and endorse the performance update report for appeals. Seconded. By a sentence. Thank you. And finally then, generate some ten performance, related to enforcement activity. Thank you, Chair. So, yeah, planning enforcement performance report. So, there are no nationally prescribed performance targets for planning enforcement, but here we do have some local performance targets which are set out in our planning enforcement policy. And that local performance target aims for 80% of cases to reach a key milestone within 13 weeks. And the definition of a key milestone is set out in the enforcement policy itself and are also set out at paragraph 3.2 of the report. But at paragraph 3.4 to 3.6, you'll find two tables for each of the three quarters. The first table gives an indication of the number of new cases opened during the quarter compared to the number of cases closed during the quarter. Across the three quarters, we opened 271 new cases and closed 319. In terms of cases reaching a key milestone, so that's the second table in each quarter. For quarter 2, of the 89 cases that reached a key milestone, we had 76% of those reached the key milestone within 13 weeks. For quarter 3, 68% of the 50 cases, 57 cases reached a key milestone within 13 weeks, and in quarter 4, 84% of the 61 cases that reached a key milestone in quarter 4 did so within 13 weeks. As requested by members, the last time we reported panel enforcement performance to committee, paragraph 3.3 also sets out the total number of enforcement cases that are actively being investigated at this time as well. And that figure being 366 and in August 2023, we had 394 cases on the go at that point. So again, members are recommended to endorse the performance reports. Thank you. Any questions on this particular report? Clearly, the M targets, the locally set targets, hasn't been met this year and that's almost entirely down to the performance in quarter 1, which we received a report on in July, the issues for that mostly being around staffing and staffing numbers. So it's we're acknowledging clearly that we didn't meet our locally set target, but the reasons for that have been rehearsed with us. Quarter 2, 3, 4, clearly much closer to targets and with 4 exceeding targets as well. So we just monitor that during our next quarter report on performance, which we presumably be in July again. Any questions or can we move to the vote sign? Can the vote be by a cent? It can, excellent. Oh, sorry. I'm keen to come to the conclusion. Members, members, this is in fact the final plan of courtesy of this municipal year. Normally we would sit around and commiserate with members who were up for election. In the May with varying degrees of sensitivity, as far as that's concerned, clearly the cycle, or we've got to get past hours on group AGMs, I guess, to decide whether we're going to be here again next year. But I just wanted to thank members for their contributions during the last 12 months. I also want to thank their officers for their service on the committee and advising us over and over again, presumably on the same points, and their service to the departments in the municipal year, particularly to Kathleen alone, so this is our last planning committee, to be moving away behind the scenes, making it more nice and smoothly for us. Thank you again for that. Thank you, Chair, as well, for the year. For being a good Chair. Even more of this. As Vice Chair, and obviously from the Labor Group, thank you, Chair, for your conduct throughout the year. Can I thank all members of the Planning Committee for what's been a committee by-large, held with good humour and grace, and those who have been naughty again will return to the Planning Committee, but wish everyone the best to look at their AGMs. Thanks a lot, and I'll declare the meeting closed.