Objections follow New Brighton apartments plan

Wirral Globe: Objections follow New Brighton apartments plan Objections follow New Brighton apartments plan

PLANS to construct two apartments atop one of New Brighton's most prominent seafront buildings have triggered a protest from the local community.

A petition signed by residents from 36 households in the area oppose the Pier House proposal.

They say the scheme will create parking problems, noise and disturbance as well as harming the appearance of the building.

Wallasey Civic Society lodged an objection along with almost a dozen opposition letters and emails from householders in the surrounding area.

Pier House was the first glimpse of New Brighton for tens of thousands of day-trippers streaming off Mersey Ferry boats in the resort’s 1950s heyday.

In recent years, the building on Tower Promenade was home to the Chelsea Reach nightclub. It is now divided into 30 apartments with parking spaces for 16 flats in front of the building.

No further parking provision is planned.

Labour councillors Pat Hackett and Patricia Glasman have added their weight to the opposition, claiming the resort’s parking resources are already stretched.

Councillor Glasman said: "New Brighton has a problem already with access to parking during busy periods and can become gridlocked causing concern should the lifeboat be required to launch.

"The building work already planned for the construction of flats next to the Floral Pavilion will cause inconvenience to residents of Pier House, who will be faced with the construction work of another floor and disruption to their lives going on all around them in their own homes."

Councillor Hackett said: "There is currently insufficient parking with the number of apartments at present.

"This additional accommodation would add greatly to parking pressure in the area, particularly as New Brighton becomes busier as a seaside resort after regeneration efforts.

"We will also have the new apartments to be built by Neptune Developments next door to these properties, adding extra demand for parking spaces."

In a report to Thursday’s meeting of Wirral planning committee, planners insist parking demand could be met by existing on-street parking in the vicinity.

They claim the designs replicate the appearance of the existing building and will have a "minimal visual impact" on the area.

They have recommended the scheme should be approved, although the final decision will be up to councillors.

Comments (6)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:09pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Westerly9 says...

An ordinary person can barely put up so much a as a garden shed without the planning department descending on you them, but if a property company transform an iconic Victorian landmark into a medium rise block of flats is just fine by them.
An ordinary person can barely put up so much a as a garden shed without the planning department descending on you them, but if a property company transform an iconic Victorian landmark into a medium rise block of flats is just fine by them. Westerly9
  • Score: 14

2:52pm Mon 17 Mar 14

mickey1more says...

Problem solved with parking. Get rid of the flower beds in the parking areas and secondly why not fill in most of the Marine lake, as nobody hardly uses it anyway. Plus the are far too many mother's and children and disabled parking slots in the main Morrisons car park, ridiculous amount.
Problem solved with parking. Get rid of the flower beds in the parking areas and secondly why not fill in most of the Marine lake, as nobody hardly uses it anyway. Plus the are far too many mother's and children and disabled parking slots in the main Morrisons car park, ridiculous amount. mickey1more
  • Score: -1

3:45pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Positive thinker says...

Usual objectors (idiots)
Usual objectors (idiots) Positive thinker
  • Score: -12

7:56pm Mon 17 Mar 14

David Scott says...

I can see there are possible arguments for or against the design or appearance, but to bring parking into it is really weak. Sounds as though the local councillors want to stop any further development in New Brighton.
I can see there are possible arguments for or against the design or appearance, but to bring parking into it is really weak. Sounds as though the local councillors want to stop any further development in New Brighton. David Scott
  • Score: 1

8:09pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Jack Boot says...

Am I missing something? There's already an extra floor on top of this building, which looks to contain 10 flats, where are these two extra apartments going to fit?
Am I missing something? There's already an extra floor on top of this building, which looks to contain 10 flats, where are these two extra apartments going to fit? Jack Boot
  • Score: 2

3:09pm Tue 15 Apr 14

colindyas says...

It is difficult to imagine a UK seaside town more maligned than New Brighton over the last 50 years. You might consider Margate or Rhyl as worse, but neither had the recent advantage of proximity to a European Capital of Culture or the rich depth of heritage and architecture once possessed by Victorian and Art Deco New Brighton.
But there seems no rationale reason to forbid planning consent on the basis of limited car parking in an area where economic activity is marginal and prevalent upon a single supermarket, a modest casino and loss making theatre. And in all three cases these seem to have their own car park provisions. And as for future development, when did developers guarantee anything? The God of development is Loki, not Neptune
But there may be a rational to reject this proposal based on quality of design. As others have said how do you "bolt" additional apartments onto a pre-existing "bolt-on" structure; a structure which is as anonymous and insensitive as it is ugly.
I've nothing against flats, but the planners should insist that New Brighton is built with quality, not with breeze blocks, zinc, and dubious over massing.
It is difficult to imagine a UK seaside town more maligned than New Brighton over the last 50 years. You might consider Margate or Rhyl as worse, but neither had the recent advantage of proximity to a European Capital of Culture or the rich depth of heritage and architecture once possessed by Victorian and Art Deco New Brighton. But there seems no rationale reason to forbid planning consent on the basis of limited car parking in an area where economic activity is marginal and prevalent upon a single supermarket, a modest casino and loss making theatre. And in all three cases these seem to have their own car park provisions. And as for future development, when did developers guarantee anything? The God of development is Loki, not Neptune But there may be a rational to reject this proposal based on quality of design. As others have said how do you "bolt" additional apartments onto a pre-existing "bolt-on" structure; a structure which is as anonymous and insensitive as it is ugly. I've nothing against flats, but the planners should insist that New Brighton is built with quality, not with breeze blocks, zinc, and dubious over massing. colindyas
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree