by timpickstone on 30 June, 2020
On the 23rd June was the monthly meeting of Bury Planning Control Committee. This is the meeting made up of the 11 Councillors who represent the various wards of the borough of Bury. The committee determines planning applications for certain major developments and others where objections have been received. Councillor Cristina Tegolo reports:
Bury Planning Control Committee met remotely and the meeting was live streamed.
In response to the emergency Government instructions on Covid-19. Due to the Government’s social-distancing guidelines no site visit took place.
At the Planning Control Committee meeting none of the submitted applications were refused but I commented on the following applications:
38 Deyne Avenue, Prestwich, Manchester, M25 1EJ.
Application Ref: 65261/Full
We discussed an application for a two-storey terraced house in Prestwich, near the Metrolink. The application site relates to the side garden and garage of the end-of-terrace house. The plot is located at the most north eastern end of Deyne Avenue with the front of these houses accessed by a pedestrian walkway only, the road itself is stopping 35m away. There is an unmade cobbled access at the rear (Back Deyne Avenue), which is a single car width and is used by residents to access their garages, back yards and bins stores.
I raised concerns about access and facilities for the Fire Service. I was reassured that there is access for a pump appliance to within 45 m of the property as recommended by Building Regulation requirement B5.
I was also concerned about construction vehicles blocking the access road at the rear of the property, the Officer assured me that the Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) will have to be submitted in advance of any work taking place.
45 Bury Old Road, Prestwich, Manchester, M25 0EY.
Application Ref: 65456/Full
We discussed an application for a semi-detached residential plot on the corner of Bury Old Road and Kings Road. This semi-detached house had recently received planning permission for an extension. However, the house had been demolished and the new application was seeking permission to construct a new building along the lines of the approved scheme.
I understood that to resolve this matter quickly and to put the next-door neighbours out of their misery this application needed to be granted and the property needed to be rebuilt in line with the previous approval as soon as possible.
However, I expressed straightforwardly maximum outrage on how the applicant, who had just talked in support of the application, had justified the fact that the property had been unlawfully demolished as a “misunderstanding” and that this was just a “hiccup”.
I supported this application but I clearly said that I found shocking that someone could describe this matter as a simple misunderstanding and I added that I was sorry for the family living next door, I also doubted that for them this issue had been a small hiccup.
More information and the full papers for the meeting are here.Leave a comment