House extensions and driveway at 2 Rectory Close, Croston, Leyland

What was proposed

The application sought side and rear extensions, a front porch, a dropped kerb and landscaping removal for a front driveway.

“Planning permission is sought for a single storey side extension, single storey rear extension, and a front porch.”

“Permission is also sought for a dropped kerb and removal of landscaping for the provision of a front driveway. The application site is located on Highfield Road which is a classified A road. Full planning permission is therefore required for the dropped kerb crossing.”

Officer report

The site

The property is a modern semi-detached house in the Croston Conservation Area, facing a classified road with a front garden.

“The application site is in the settlement of Croston, and within the Croston Conservation Area. The application property is a modern, semi‑detached house, which is accessed off Rectory Close to the rear and has its front elevation facing east onto Highfield Road, a classified A road (A581).”

“It is constructed in dark red brick with an interlocking concrete tile roof and a central chimney. The front elevation features a projecting canopy over a bay window and entrance doors, with the upper part of the elevation finished in white render. The front garden to the property is enclosed by a low brick wall backed with a hedge and planting.”

Officer report

Earlier application

The site has a recorded 1985 application for a kitchen extension, marked as permitted.

“Ref: 85/00185/FUL Decision: PERFPP Decision Date: 30 April 1985 Description: Kitchen extension…”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval because the proposal would not harm the conservation area, dwelling, neighbours or highway safety.

“In conclusion LCC Highways do not consider the proposed movements from the proposed driveway would not have a detrimental effect on highway safety. There is already parking on the highway with no recorded collisions despite vehicles having to reverse in the highway.”

“The proposed development would not be harmful to the setting of Croston Conservation area or the character and appearance of the existing dwelling or the surrounding area, and nor would it cause any unacceptable adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties or highway safety.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Growth Lancashire raised no heritage objection, highways raised no objection, and the parish council did not comment.

“Croston Parish Council – has not commented on the application.”

“Growth Lancashire – As Growth Lancashire are required to do so, they have given s.72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 considerable weight in their comments.”

Officer report

What people said

Twenty representations raised safety, congestion, visibility, parking and character concerns, while four supported the application and cited possible congestion benefits.

“Driveway will create a clear and avoidable risk to pedestrian safety • Proposal would reduce visibility along the pavement particularly for vulnerable users on the pavement – existing parked cars, hedges, walls are all minor obstructions which can make it difficult to see approaching pedestrians, especially young children – a driveway could also create a blind spot due to reduced visibility • Safety of motorists on the 90 degree corner whist vehicles enter & exit the…”

“Area already gets congested at school open/closing times – would displace scarce parking • Triangular area to front is used for parking to manage congestion • Property already has 2no. car parking spaces to rear – applicants have not been truthful about available parking • Chorley Council need to be held to account if this application is approved when there are catastrophic consequences • The owners stated they would find it easier to site an EV charger at the front of the…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke at the committee meeting.

The committee vote

Members voted against deferring the item for a site visit, then voted nine to two to approve permission subject to conditions.

“After careful consideration, it was proposed by Councillor Craige Southern and seconded by Councillor Alan Whittaker that the item be deferred to allow members the opportunity to visit the site, this was lost (3 for, 8 against). It was then proposed by Councillor Alex Hilton, seconded by Councillor Sarah Ainsworth and subsequently resolved (9 for, 2 against) that planning permission be approved subject to conditions.”

Minutes