Agenda item

A report from the Development Manager was submitted in relation to the applications for planning permission. Supplementary information was also submitted in respect of application numbers: 60696, 60798, 60808, 60924, 61022, 61089 and 61159.

The Committee heard representations from applicants and/or objectors in respect of the applications submitted.  This was limited to three minutes for each speaker.

Prior to the Committee meeting, Site Visits had taken place in relation to Planning Applications 60798 and 60808.

Councillor Smith spoke as Ward Councillor in respect of Planning Application 60808.

Delegated decisions:

1.        That Approval be given to the following applications in accordance with the reasons put forward by the Head of Development Management in the report and supplementary information submitted and subject to the conditions included:

60696 Land at rear of Porada, 231 Bury New Road, Whitefield, Manchester – Whitefield & Unsworth – Pilkington Park Ward

Change of use of grassed area to car park.

60808 The Bridles, 2 Riders Gate, Bury – Bury East Ward

Change of use of existing stable block to pet crematorium with incinerator.

61015 Lumb Carr Farm, Lumb Carr Road, Ramsbottom, Bury – Ramsbottom & Tottington – Ramsbottom Ward

Single storey extension at rear.

61016 Lumb Carr Farm, Lumb Carr Road, Ramsbottom, Bury – Ramsbottom & Tottington – Ramsbottom Ward

Listed building consent for single storey extension at rear.

61018 The Oddfellows House, 94 Manchester Road, Bury – Bury East – Redvales Ward

Change of use from mixed use development to create 5 no. self-contained flats; refurbishment of Oddfellows meeting house and erection of 2 no. semi-detached dwellings.

61056 Garden at side of 4 Wentworth Avenue, Whitefield, Manchester – Whitefield & Unsworth – Pilkington Park Ward

Residential development of 1 no.Bungalow.

61089 Garden at side of 29 Ludlow Avenue, Whitefield, Manchester – Prestwich – Holyrood Ward

Erection of detached dwelling.

61159 449A Bury New Road, Prestwich, Manchester – Prestwich – St Mary’s Ward

Change of use of ground floor from café (Class A3) to café/wine bar (Class A3/A4).

2.        That the Committee be Minded to Approve the following application in accordance with the reasons put forward by the Head of Development Management in the report and supplementary information submitted and subject to the conditions included:

60798 Land off Rochdale Road, Bury – Bury East Ward

Proposed development of 6 no. shops and 24 no. flats in 3 and 4 storey building

3.        That the following Planning Application be Deferred for a Site Visit:-

60924 54 Ringley Road, Whitefield, Manchester – Whitefield & Unsworth – Pilkington Park Ward

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 7 no. flats

Note:  During the debate and prior to the determination of the application, Councillor D’Albert proposed an alternative motion - to defer consideration of the application for a Site Visit.  This motion was Seconded by Councillor Harris and the Committee voted in favour of the motion to defer the application for a Site Visit.

4.        That the following application be Refused:-

61022 45 Bury Old Road, Prestwich, Manchester – Prestwich – Sedgley Ward

Extension and change of use to existing dwelling to form a mixed use comprising of first floor self-contained flat (Class C3) with post graduate study centre on ground floor (Class D1); Formation of new vehicular access from Kings Road

Note:  This planning application had an Officer recommendation to Approve with Conditions.  The Committee debated an alternative motion proposed by Councillor Preston which was Seconded by Councillor Harris not to accept the Officer recommendation to Approve with Conditions and to Refuse the application.  The Committee voted in favour of the alternative motion and the application was Refused for the following reason:-

REASON:

The proposed change of use of the extended semi-detached property to a post graduate study centre by reason of the scale, noise and disturbance together with associated activities arising from the use would have a seriously detrimental impact upon the residential amenity of the adjoining residential property and those to the rear of the site. As such the proposal would conflict with UDP Policies H2/3, SPD6, H3/1, EN1/2, EN7/2, CF1/1 and CF2