If anyone wants to use/pass on/ignore any of the follwing, then please do! Open source rules OK!
TO:
Wirral Borough Council / Applicant / Agent / Greasby Library
Hoylake Civic Society / Merseyside Archaeology / c.c. File / c.c. Open
Wirral Planning Application APP/11/01418
Development at Red Cat Car Park, Greasby
I am writing as a former resident of Greasby, as historian of Greasby, and at the request of several residents of Greasby.
I have noted that discussions and changes have taken place since the previous application was withdrawn and I welcome those.
Sources:
DASS – Design Access & Sustainability Statement, submitted by applicant
PSA – Planning Statement, submitted by applicant
UDP – Unitary Development Plan, from local Council
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Ancient+lights accessed today
BACKGROUND / SITE / BUILDINGS – notes from visits 10 and 14 May 2011
Figures 2 and 3 and the aerial photograph are all out-of-date, in as far as there is a new Children’s Centre adjoining the Library, on the south side, and this does not appear in the above illustrations, nor can I find any mention of it in the text.
The car park is surrounded by low brick walls on north and south and other parts of the site. These are mentioned in the DASS para 2.2, but, for some reason,
this does not mention that they are all in an extremely poor, probably unsafe condition. The ancient boundary on the west side (behind the public house) is actually crumbling and eroding, and I would therefore not be surprised, if this application were to be passed, that a further application would, in time,
be submitted for complete rebuilding of the walls.
The site was formerly the garden area of the New Inn, replaced in 1962/63 by the present public house. It is also actually adjacent to one of the Listed Buildings in the original village centre, Manor Farm, parts of which date from 1678; such a sensitive location would require, at minimum, a Watching Brief by professional archaeologists, and possibly a full archaeological excavation depending on what came out of the watching brief.
.
The library has also been affected several times by flooding on the west side, adjacent to the proposed site, and this they feel is due to a fault with the draining of the site. Whether the proposed development will change this situation in any way is not known, but it should be noted before any work takes place.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
UDP Policy SH01 / PSA para 4.7 “In considering proposals for new retail development, the Local Planning Authority [in this case W.B.C.] will seek to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of key town centres, traditional suburban centres and other shopping provision in the Borough…”
I fail to see how a new Sainsbury’s or indeed any other brand of supermarket could do this. This particular parade of shops, one of several throughout Greasby, has 100% occupancy and includes a modern Co-op.
This issue has been addressed by the applicants and I can only accept their figures, as there is no way I can duplicate that research. However, the key point still stands, namely that people only have a limited amount of money to spend.
UDP policy SH4 / PSA para 4.8 “…the proposals should not cause nuisance to neighbouring uses or lead to loss of amenity…”. A doctrine of English Common Law that gives a landowner an Easement or right by prescription to the unobstructed passage of light and air from adjoining land if the landowner has had uninterrupted use of the lights for twenty years, the library being 25 years old. Once a person gains the right to ancient lights, the owner of the adjoining land cannot obscure them, such as by erecting a building. If the neighbour does so, he or she can be sued under a theory of Nuisance, and damages could be awarded. However, it is not always this straightforward and a legal opinion should be sought if this happens.
The roof line has been amended in this application and some landscaping – at least a few trees – has been added. This is better, but it is not at all clear if it will in fact obstruct light, or mitigate noise and fumes from mechanical plant or delivery vehicles or electrical interference from the sub-station. Remember that there is a brand new children’s’ reading garden immediate adjoining.
UDP policy HS15 / PSA para 4.9 also states that [it must] “….make adequate provision for off-street car parking”.
This is directly contradicted by the new figures in the revised layout which are even worse than the old one.
At present there are 109 spaces, the previous application reduced this to 63 and this application further reduces it to 56, for both the public house and the new shops. Why anyone would consider that halving the car parking provision whilst at the same time trebling the number of businesses on the site could be felt to be “adequate” beats me. However, the applicants have now provided a detailed study of the figures and projected visits and again I can only accept their figures.
However the actual layout of the parking is the worst part.
(a) it appears that no-one on the design team is disabled or has any experience of disability – and this problem I have seen in far too many car parks. In this case, anyone using the two ‘disabled’ bays need to unload wheelchairs or walking aids directly from the back of the vehicle into a stream of traffic and then actually cross the traffic to get to the two shops. (NO, you can’t back in, or the open doors will obstruct the disabled person getting out)
(b) there are no ‘mother&child’ spaces
(c) there are no spaces at all in front of unit 2, where customers would bring pet carriers and baskets
(d) there is no dropping-off / unloading bay for older or heavily-laden customers using a taxi – wherever they stop they will cause a blockage and yet…
(e) there are spaces for seven ‘normal’ parking bays right outside unit 1, where able-bodied customers would park.
This all needs a total rethink
PSA Paras 5.19 – 5.22 Regarding the possibility of using the former Ethel Austin building, I agree with the applicants – it was worth looking into but it won’t work.
PSA para 5.13 “The proposed development will have a positive impact upon the regeneration of the local centre…”
This is merely an opinion, not a planning policy.
PSA Para 5.31 “….Furthermore it would provide significant benefits to local people by increasing the range and choice of goods available, and provide spin-off benefits for other retailers….” Again, this is merely an opinion, not a planning policy, and there is no reason to suppose that other shops could not start stocking a wider range.
PPS1 / PSA para 4.4 states that “Design which ….fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions should not be accepted”.
and
PPS1 para 36 goes even further and states that “…developments should….optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development….”
THE WAY FORWARD? – A PERSONAL NOTE
This application still fails to grasp the opportunity available – the layout had been amended in many ways but ideally the developers should grasp the nettle, plan on completely rebuilding the public house and the site as a whole. Not only would this then meet the PPS requirements as above, it would give the chance for rebuilding the walls, better car park layout and a whole new appearance to a very tired-looking site.
A second, and very much a second, option would be to refuse the application pending a further application, which would have to meet a longer than usual list of major conditions, including, but not only, the following (in no special order):
1. Developers to allow full access to archaeologists as needed (this is a legal requirement) and pay for all relevant research, as public funding for H.E.R. has now been withdrawn.
2. A detailed tree planting scheme to be submitted (this has been offered) and fully funded by the developers
3. An upgrade of the pedestrian crossings on BOTH the Greasby Road and the Frankby Road to be fully funded by the developers (this seems to be partly offered in the documents – it is not clear which one of the two is referred to)
4. The whole car parking plan to be redrawn
5. The location of the substation, other plant and delivery bays to be agreed with the library staff/relevant WBC officers
6. Sun paths to be clearly marked on all plans and roof lines etc to be so arranged to minimise loss of light to all adjoining buildings
7. Any possible drainage issues to be discussed with the library and works to include mitigation if any such issues are identified
8. Any possible change of use of unit 2 to be refused for a minimum period
9. Opening hours of either unit to never exceed the opening hours of the public house
Yours sincerely,
Jim O’Neil
