Five detached bungalows at Land To Rear Of 57-91 Orford Road, Warrington

The site and surroundings

The site was untidy wasteland behind Orford Road, accessed by an existing track, with a public right of way and all land in Flood Zone 3.

“The application site is a linear strip of land located to the rear of Nos.57-91 Orford Road, Poulton. The land is accessed via an existing track adjacent to No.57 Orford Road. The track also gives access to the fields to the north-east. The land is identified as Suburban Warrington by Policy DC1 (Warrington’s Places) of the Local Plan. The site is also located in the Greater Manchester Nature Improvement Area and the Mineral Safeguarding Area (MSA) for sand and gravel.”

“The land is currently untidy wasteland, with soil/waste dumping and a cinder path running through it. Some encroachment of rear gardens of dwellings on Orford Road has occurred over the years. A Public Right of Way (PROW) runs along the northern edge of the application site. All of the application site is within Flood Zone 3 and a small bund runs along the long north-eastern boundary of the site.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

An earlier five-dwelling scheme was refused and dismissed on appeal because of private outdoor amenity space; other applications were withdrawn or approved with conditions.

“Decision: Refused and appeal ref. APP/M0655/W/23/3331683 dismissed for reasons relating to the configuration of private external amenity space. Date of Decision: 12 th October 2023 Planning Ref: 2020/37650 Description of Development: Full Planning - Proposed demolition of existing stabling. Erection of five detached bungalows. New access (including turning head). Associated parking and landscaping.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to conditions and a legal agreement securing off-site biodiversity net gain.

“Statutory expiry date (as extended): 26 th September 2025 Recommendation: Grant subject to conditions with delegated authority given to the Development Manager to make non- material changes to planning conditions and reasons as may be necessary prior to the issue of the decision and subject to Section 106 Agreement to secure off- site BNG.”

“However, in the event that the S106 remains unsigned three months after this resolution, that the application is reviewed by the Development Manager and if no meaningful progress is being made to sign an agreed S106 then delegated authority is given to the Development Manager to refuse the application in the absence of an agreed S106 undertaking, without which the development will be unacceptable in planning terms…”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the principle, flood tests, design, living conditions, highways and biodiversity acceptable, subject to conditions and mitigation.

“The principle of a residential development at the site would be acceptable. • The proposals would not comply with Building Regulation Standard M4(2), however, the applicant has demonstrated that this would not be technically feasible due to the site being in Flood Zone 3. • The development would comply with the sequential and exception tests relating to flood risk in the NPPF, and it has been demonstrated that the development can be made safe for its lifetime.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Transport, environmental protection, flood risk, ecology and utilities consultees raised no objection subject to conditions; other consultees also did not object.

“No objection subject to the following conditions:”

“No objection subject to condition requiring adherence to submitted Flood Risk Assessment including finished floor levels of habitable areas being no lower than 9.05m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD).”

Officer report

What residents and councillors said

Four neighbour objections and ward councillor objections covered flooding, drainage, ecology, privacy, access, garden size, disability access and highway safety.

“Proposed access would be highway safety risk • Insufficient access for emergency services due to road width…”

“Houses are dependent on stairs for access to the detriment of less mobile residents • Proposed gardens insufficient in size • Development creep • Flooding • Highway safety…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Representations were heard both in favour of and against the application.

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application, contrary to the officer recommendation, because the outdoor amenity space did not meet the required minimum depth, particularly for plots 1 and 3.

“The application was refused contrary to office recommendations for the following reason:”

“The outdoor amenity space did not comply with section 05.2.7 of the Warrington Design, which states a minimum depth of 10 metres from the rear elevation. As such the application would not provide a suitable standard of accommodation particularly, but not limited to, plots 1 and 3.”

Minutes