Family's message as they hit back at party claims in neighbourhood row

Yahoo

a day ago

A row over a balcony to allow a mother and daughter to sit together came to a head as neighbours complained the extension would rob them of light. Plans for a number of changes to 33 Beacon Drive in Newton near West Kirby on the Wirral were approved by a Wirral Council planning committee on June 5.
This included a two storey side extension, a single storey rear extension and balcony, front porch, and changes to a garden including a new patio. The plans were put forward to allow a family to care for an elderly relative with some of the changes designed to make the house more accessible.
Two people in favour of the development said it would be a positive contribution to the area. However the plans came under fire from 27 neighbours as well as West Kirby councillor Jenny Johnson.
READ MORE: Trent Alexander-Arnold's 'generous' act as lasting gift to Liverpool confirmed
READ MORE: Police swarm area as boy, 15, 'seen with gun'
The main concerns raised included overlooking and privacy with the extension described as 'overbearing and dominating' and a balcony they claimed towered over its neighbours.
At the planning committee meeting, two neighbours spoke against the plans. They argued it would cause lasting harm to neighbours, arguing the wrong house had been bought.
One neighbour said it had been 'the most stressful nine months for us' as they had battled against the plans, adding: 'It will rob us of light and loom over our heads when we are outside.' He claimed that 'whenever we go outside we will wonder who is looking down on us.'
Cllr Johnson urged councillors to refuse the plans but if they were to approve it, they should make sure the balcony couldn't be extended further. She told the committee: 'This is one of the worst cases I have come across in my time as a councillor.'
Challenging these claims was Emma Breen, speaking on behalf of the applicant. She said it was a household application for a family home that would allow multiple generations to live together and allow a family member to be cared for.
She argued each house in the area was different. Responding to claims the balcony would be used for parties, she said: 'This is a personal, household development. The balcony for example was never meant for parties.
'It was a way for the applicant and her mother, who is no longer able to travel, to enjoy a quiet moment together while overlooking the water. In truth, the revised balcony is now so reduced that accommodating this would be difficult.'
She also claimed that some neighbours had been approached directly to support objections. She argued the process must 'remain fair and impartial when essential care needs are at stake.'
Following a debate, committee chair Cllr Stuart Kelly said there was no doubt the type of application before them was difficult, adding: 'It isn't about 'there can't be any views into any neighbouring properties in an urban area'. That would be ridiculous.'
He added: 'It's whether it is to an unacceptable degree. At my house, if I look out of my rear bedroom windows, I have got a fairly clear view of most of my neighbour's gardens as it stands.'
Councillors voted to unanimously approve the application with a condition including restricting the size of the balcony. In the same meeting, a seven-bed house of multiple occupation was also refused on Serpentine Road in Liscard following a number of concerns raised by local councillor Graeme Cooper.
Councillors from all parties criticised the fact changes had been made to the building to accommodate seven bedrooms and called for standards to be maintained. Cllr Paul Stuart said: 'This can only be described as trying to pile them in and pack them as high as possible to get as much out of a smaller space.'