Thought some of you might want to have a look at this and (if you agree with me) object:

http://www.wirral.gov.uk/planning/D...t.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=92106

I'm in agreement that we need more houses but with all of the empty plots and derelict buildings in Wirral there is no justification for building on green belt other than greed - profit is much better there as there's no previous infrastructure to deal with and the only residents who object are the wildlife!

If you're not happy like me, then please go to the applicaiton and fill in an objection on the consultation page - it's currently running at 25:3 against!

Done.

Greenbelt is greenbelt. East Wirral has no shortage of empty and derelict plots within its urban areas and around the docklands. These should be developed (CPO'd if need be) first.

Click onto documents and then 5th item down . Quite a report on wildlife in the vacinity.
Hope I have that right!

Not exactly the "affordable housing" for which there is the greatest need, either - the proposal is for 10 four bedroomed detatched houses, which are not going to be cheap in Higher Beb.

The last new houses built in the area were "Edward Manton Close" on the old VW garage site and they're definitely not affordable!

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/home-values/higher-bebington/edward-manton-close/

Yes Granny the site backs onto Storeton woods so there's going to be lots of wildlife. I'd add sparrow hawks, badgers, foxes, hedgehogs and hares to the list of animals that I've seen in the vicinity

This development was mentioned in the last edition of the Friends of Storeton Woods newsletter. I think this is totally unsuitable development. I've objected.
Here's a view of this unspoilt corner.
http://binged.it/1c8V8eS

It would appear PP has already been granted for 3 of the 10 houses, to be built where the stable block currently stands (the "L" shaped building on chriskay's link). Which is a shame, when on a local horsey forum there are a number of posts from people wanting (and struggling to find) stabling with a bit of land to either rent or buy. It'd be perfect for anyone with horses too, with the nearby permissive access through Storeton Woods.

Didn't know they were that expensive, no wonder they want to build even more on the Marsh Lane land.

Actually, as I read it, planning permission has been granted for the conversion of the stable block into three dwellings. This new application would supercede that permission. A main difference is that conversion of the stable block (without much alteration to the exterior) is on a completely scale from the new proposal.
Although I have no interest in horses, your point about that aspect is a good one, and the permissive bridle path through the woods is a good alternative to riding along Mount Rd.
Anyway, although I don't hold out much hope, I hope the application gets thrown out.

I have objected and agree that there should never be permanent building of any sort on our green belt. I remember my parents fighting for the green belt and am happy to follow their example.

Another point is that the main road is a danger at any time of the day due to the amount and type of traffic and no possibility of road widening.

Build on all the vacant plots first and replace those buildings past their sell-by date.

Another point. How many shop units are standing vacant now? I see them all over the place - often looking tatty as hell.

This many shops were built for another age. Internet shopping and supermarkets aren't going away, so it really would be best to demolish/repurpose them into usable homes. Should make a dent into the housing crisis.

Now 30 against to three for.

My concerns are that its going to cause increased congestion on an already busy main road running from the motorway.

You only have to see the queues of cars pulling out of the side roads (and sticking half the bonnet out into the road).

Its not a "rat run" either because Birkenhead is clearly signposted from that motorway junction.

At least they've realised that risk and have incorporated a decent splay at the entrance.
I really hope this gets the thumbs-down, simply because it will destroy one of my childhood haunts.

It will also give the green light to attempts to build on the fields on the same side of Mount Road - between there and Lever Causeway, between Lever Causeway and Stanley av and the one that I'm most worried about is Hancock's wood which is the second part of Storeton woods (between Rest hill and Red Hill road). Although it's treated as part of the woods, it's actually owned by the Lever family trust who may want to sell it to realise funds at any time and it would be prime development land. The Friends of the woods tried to buy it a few years ago but the trust didn't want to sell


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storeton

We all know the council will probably approve this, regardless of widlife etc. As long as no councillors object after all its typical "as long as its not in my back garden etc"

I have filled out form and objected
There is now the problem of councils pinching little parts of the greenbelt hoping no one will notice
Terrible abuse of this valuable land which will no doubt end up being lost forever unless everyone objects

Interactive greenbelt map here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/gr...Interactive-map-Englands-green-belt.html

Hmmmm suddenly 18 votes in favour have appeared

I've just checked with the planning office. It's now too late to put in a protest on-line; the decision date is the 19th.December and comments in writing are accepted until then.
You're right about Hancock's wood; Lever Estates wouldn't sell to the Friends of Storeton Woods and I suspect, like you, that they've got their eye on development possibilities.

Current figures:

In Favour: 22
Against: 35

I've just spoken to planning. It should be decided today and will be shown as an update on the page linked by AR_One in the first page of this thread. Unofficially, she said it's recommended for refusal.

LOL, good.

Just as a matter of interest Chris. Has the green belt designation changed since 1947? I have a map showing the Wirral green belt at that time.

There's an interactive map showing greenbelt boundaries throughout the country at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/gr...Interactive-map-Englands-green-belt.html

Moonstar; sorry, I've no idea.
Cobby; that's a useful map.

Having compared the 1947 map and that from the website they appear to be exactly the same. Long may it remain so.

Refused, Phew

Three reasons given:

1. In green belt and not considered a special circumstance
2. Road access was to be dangerous at that point
3. Not enough consideration given to risk to protected tress

Excellent news! (fingers x'd there's no appeal)

That is good news. I would expect there to be an appeal, since it must have cost thousands to prepare and submit the application.

Private developers are not duty bound to build affordable houses are they? It is for the locals to object to, as the only viable means of restricting the project. Presently that seems to be going well which can be viewed as good news.

As a private enterprise, they build for profit which is the whole idea of having a business.

Perhaps it should be the council which commissions affordable housing with grants from the government of the day to help out. Profits can then be kept low if sold, or rental if not.

NB Reading further down I see the objections have been successful, that is called 'democracy in action', peaceful, paper based protest.

There's no actual evidence that the project was rejected because of objections; we don't know what was said or by whom. The actual reasons were listed by AR_One.
I like this idea, nem12esis: "Perhaps it should be the council which commissions affordable housing with grants from the government of the day to help out. Profits can then be kept low if sold, or rental if not."
Maybe they could be known as "Council Houses".

I don't believe I said they were! My comment was in response to the OP's original comment that
i.e. these are not the type of houses that are needed, it would be bad enough to sacrifice precious greenbelt land for the affordable housing for which there is a real need, but even worse for overpriced "premium" housing that could only be afforded by a small minority of Wirral residents and of which there is no shortage

Brilliant news, thanks to the OP for bringing this matter to our attention.

They have appealed.

Appeal ref: 2214002 - Appellant's Name: Smith

Outline proposal for the redevelopment of land adjacent to Mount Road for residential purposes - land adjacent to Marsh Lane, Higher Bebington, CH63 5PP.

The Secretary of State will receive all written representations but further representations can me made or the original ones withdrawn.

Representations must be made within five weeks of 27 February 2014.

Mrs C Parker is the Principal Planning Officer.

Here's the appeal:

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?caseid=2214002&coid=114

Appeal is to be heard next Wednesday, 23rd July at 10.00

http://www.wirralnews.co.uk/news/local-news/planning-inspectorate-decide-green-belt-7455482

I've just received the latest edition of the magazine of the Friends of Storeton Woods. The result of the appeal is in it and I'm copying it here.

PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF LAND ADJACENT TO MARSH LANE
Last year, a planning application was made to build several houses between Storeton
Woods and Marsh lane. This was rejected by WBC not least due to concerns regarding
traffic on Mount Road. The applicant appealed against this refusal, which resulted in a
hearing on the 23rd July at Wallasey town hall conducted by a planning inspector from
London.
Following enquiries from members about the proposed development the FOSW consulted
the Woodland Trust, who raised concerns in writing to the WBC against the original
application due to the proximity to the edge of the woods.
With the hearing imminent and having spoken to more people about the proposal our new
Chair, Peter Exley went to the town hall to study the plans and report back to the Committee.
Although written submissions were not allowed at this stage, the Committee agreed that
Peter should attend the hearing to raise the concerns expressed by the owners of the
woods the Woodland Trust. Their concerns related to the risk of the wood edge overhanging
gardens, branches and whole trees could be indiscriminately lopped/felled, causing a
reduction in the woodland canopy. There would inevitably be safety issues in respect of
trees adjoining the proposed development , which would be threatening to the longer term
retention of such trees. The Woodland Trust have also found that when gardens abut
woodland there is a tendency for garden waste to be dumped in the woods and even for
some landowners to extend gardens into woods.
However the Planning Inspector thought the main issue was whether the proposal would
be an appropriate form of development in the Green Belt. The applicant had argued in the
appeal that the need for housing outweighed any harm that would be done to the Green
Belt. The Inspector concluded that it was an inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
The Inspector also considered Openness, Character and Appearance, Housing and Land
Supply and Highway safety. The latter being the only factor that the Inspector seemed to be
in favour with the appellant on.( This is a curious one because WBC had objected strongly
over the proposal that would have involved putting an island in the middle of Mount Road. I
suppose it depends on your view of road safety; do obstructions make roads safer or more
dangerous).
Decision
I wonder if you jumped here first before reading the story? The Inspector concluded that the
proposal would represent an inappropriate form of development... harmful by definition, that
would permanently reduce the openness of the Green Belt and have a detrimental impact on
the character and appearance of the immediate area. On the other hand, the proposal would
lead to an improvement in highway safety on Mount Road. The Inspector stated, “ For the
reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed”.

Report by Peter Exley, Chairman, Friends of Storeton Woods
Issue No.94 Sept 2014 Autumn Issue.

Registered Charity No. 1001472 www.friendsofstoretonwoods.org.uk

Excellent news!

Here's a PDF of the appeal, which was dismissed:

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.u...36.300.12.6813250&NAME=/Decision.pdf

Its a well well written report, kudos to it's author. Might be worth keeping it bookmarked for future use.

Thanks for that, Gibbo.

There are so many brownfield sites around this area there can't be any dire need to destroy any green space it's just a lazy way of getting sites, no need to clean up previous misdoings. The council planners here are the same as elsewhere, in hoc to the developers. We're goosed as a country that' for sure.