Re-submitted planning application: 247 Sunny Bank Road

A planning application previously refused in April 2016 has been re-submitted by the owners of the Unsworth Smile Clinic Dentists (currently located on Parr Lane) to convert the house at 247 Sunny Bank Road. The previous application proved particularly unpopular with local residents and saw 30 members of the public submit comments to Bury Council’s planning portal, none of which were in favour of the proposed development.

The new planning application is detailed on the Bury Council planning portal as follows:

Application number: 60320
Application Received:     Fri 01 Jul 2016
Application Validated:     Fri 01 Jul 2016
Address:     247 Sunny Bank Road, Bury, BL9 8JU
Proposal:     Change of use from dwelling (Class C3) to dental surgery (Class D1) (relocation of existing dental practice from 57 Parr Lane); Single storey extension at front with new entrance, two storey extension at side, single storey extension at rear and gate to existing vehicular entrance.

The application can be viewed online here:

Change of use from dwelling (Class C3) to dental surgery (Class D1) (relocation of existing denta… – 247 Sunny Bank Road, Bury, BL9 8JU

There are a number of important differences between the new application and the one that was refused in April 2016, which appears on the face of it, genuine attempts to address the reasons for refusal given by the council’s planning committee previously.

The new application removes all parking facilities on-site and closes off the existing vehicle access off Sunny Bank Road, leaving only a pedestrian access remaining. In theory, this makes the parking situation worse than before, as the Dental Surgery staff now have no on-site parking (as opposed to the previous application, which did provide for staff parking only on-site). The new application attempts to address the parking concerns raised by both local residents and the planning officers by offering to refund patients the costs associated with parking in the pay and display car park behind the Bay Horse public house at the pole.

The new application does not fundamentally differ from the original application, in terms of the addition of extensions to existing building. This was an area of concern to both local residents and the planning committee.

As it stands, the new application certainly addresses two of the refusal points (parking and access problems). There are two points, I feel, the new application does not address. One is, the “undue intensification of the site and commercialisation  of the residential property”. The other is that the development still does not comply with the local plan, also known as the UDP.

It is important to note that the original application’s refusal notice stated the following “There were[are] no amendments to the scheme, or conditions which could reasonably have been imposed, which could have made the development acceptable and it was therefore not possible to approve the application.”

It seems reasonable to assume that the planning committee would be of the same view as just 3 months ago and recommend refusal once.

I would encourage all local residents to, once again, comment on the newly submitted application, as previous comments recorded on the original application will not likely be taken into account by the planning committee. I will attempt to contact those who commented before over the next couple of weeks to invite them to comment again.

I will keep you all advised as and when the application comes before planning for consideration.

As always, if there is anything else in Unsworth ward I can help with, please do not hesitate to ask – my contact details are below.

Steve Middleton
Unsworth community campaigner
Bury Liberal Democrats
36 Chadderton Drive, Unsworth
tel: 07870 444 235
email: steve@stevemiddleton.net

Comments

  1. Andrew Lightbown July 10, 2016 at 9:35 pm

    This yet again would also be bad for my house behind where I and other families have young children and do not want to be over looked by anyone in the dentist.

    It was first built as a house and should stay a house.

  2. Andrew Lightbown July 10, 2016 at 9:32 pm

    This yet again is a bad idea for traffic congestion, For the dangers to children at the local schools and would also be bad for my house behind where I and other families have young children and do not want to be over looked by anyone in the dentist.

    It was first built as a house and should stay a house.

Comments are closed.