Five-bay jet wash at 311 Kingsway, Rochdale
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Rochdale Planning Committee on 2 Sept 2026.
What was proposed
The application proposed removing the existing structures and creating five jet-wash bays, outbuildings, fencing, gates, parking and self-service facilities.
“The proposed development seeks permission for the removal of existing building and structures and installation of 5no. jet wash bays, erection of outbuildings, perimeter fencing with access gates and parking area…”
“The proposals include several standalone self-service units, including a vacuum cleaner where the user parks up to use the cleaner. Additionally, a laundrette pod, dog wash pod and vending machine are also proposed on site, with these all self-service operational.”
Officer report
The site and its setting
The site was a former car dealership in the Defined Urban Area, with hardstanding, a canopy, two rear buildings, perimeter fencing and two highway access points.
“The application site is located within the Defined Urban Area and relates to the former ‘Paul Price Cars’ car dealership. The existing site consists of a hard surfaced area, the existing overhanging canopy and two buildings towards the rear of the site. The site is protected by 2m high mesh fencing along the perimeter. The materials of the existing building appear industrial and have sheet corrugated metal facing.”
Officer report
Earlier planning history
A 1999 application for changing a petrol station to car sales and adding workshop buildings was granted subject to conditions.
“99/D36828 - Change Of Use From Petrol Filling Station To Car Sales, And Erection Of Two Workshop Buildings For Ancillary Car Repairs/Servicing And Valeting – Grant subject to conditions 21/09/1999”
Officer report
What consultees said
Highways and transport consultees raised no objections, environmental health supported conditions, ecology raised no objection, and United Utilities sought a drainage condition.
“RBC Environmental Health (Land Contamination) No objections raised. A watching brief following the recommendations within the report is proposed to be secured via condition.”
Officer report
What residents said
Twenty-one objections raised concerns about noise, traffic, lighting, late-night activity, litter, pollution, ecology and impacts on residential character.
“The objections received are summarised below. Noise and residential amenity • The proposed use of jet wash bays, vacuum facilities, dog wash facility and the comings and goings of vehicles on the site and customers will result in a significant intensification of the use in very close proximity to neighbouring properties. Concerns regarding the proximity of the jet washing equipment to the residential boundaries.”
“Existing safety issues will be made worse by the traffic associated wiht the site • Resident’s cars park frequently on the road outside the application site and these will be displaced. Environmental Impacts • No details of lighting levels or any external lighting Anti-Social Behaviour • The vending and waiting areas encourage loitering • Opening hours proposed encourage late night activity • Possibility of littering, vermin and disturbances associated with the site…”
Officer report
The committee’s concerns
Members considered that the jet-washing use and related vehicle activity would create unacceptable noise and disturbance for nearby residents.
“The Committee considered that the proposed jet-washing facility, by reason of the nature, intensity and operation of the use, would result in unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance to nearby residential occupiers.”
“The Committee concluded that the cumulative impact of these activities would have a significant adverse effect on the living conditions and residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers through increased noise and disturbance. The proposal was therefore considered contrary to Policies G9 and DM1 of the Rochdale Core Strategy, Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan, and Policy P3 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”
Minutes
How members voted
Members moved and seconded refusal against the officer recommendation, and the vote was unanimously in favour of refusal.
“It was MOVED and SECONDED that the application be REFUSED AGAINST OFFICER RECOMMENDATION.”
“On being put to the vote, it was UNANIMOUSLY cast IN FAVOUR of refusal.”
Minutes
The members' reasons
“Members noted that the development would generate impulsive and intermittent noise associated with the operation of jet-washing equipment, plant and machinery, together with additional disturbance arising from vehicle movements, including frequent arrivals and departures, vehicle doors opening and closing, and vehicle engines starting and idling.”
Minutes
Source: the council's minutes, quoted word for word.
Sources
- Rochdale Planning Committee minutes, 2 September 2026
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Rochdale's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Committee
- Rochdale Planning Committee
- Council
- Rochdale
- Date
- Wednesday 2 September 2026
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended approval
- Committee decided
- Refused, against officer advice
- Vote
- Unanimous
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- View application →
- All decisions
- Rochdale committee decisions →
This committee's year
17 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 3 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.