Cheshire planning applications: Crewe and its surrounding areas

Pictured above: Market Street, Crewe. Pic: Google Street View

Submitted by David Norbury

The following planning application decisions have recently been announced:

Crewe

An adult gaming centre gained approval in Crewe, Cheshire. The application was made by Cashino Gaming Ltd at 53 Market Street.

Planning officers at Cheshire East Council were told full planning permission was being sought for the change of use of the ground floor and first floor of the vacant retail premises. The first floor would be occupied for storage and staff use.

Main issues were said to include the effect on the character of the area and the amenity of users and neighbours.

The two-storey mid-terraced property is located within a primary shopping frontage in Crewe town centre, according to a report. It is surrounded by other retail and commercial uses.

Seven of the 14 units between 39 and 83 Market Street are retail shops and four are non-retail including an optician, a beauty spa, a betting office and a Chinese medicine establishment, the report stated.

Crewe Town Council expressed concerns relating to the potential introduction of additional gambling machines in the town centre in the light of the growing impact and risks of gambling addictions on a national scale.

Planners pointed out, however, this was not a planning consideration which carried any weight in the determination of the application. Environmental protection officers had no objections subject to a noise impact assessment.

No responses were received from neighbouring premises.

Planners said the proposal was in line with planning policies, as the leisure related activity would complement the existing mix of retail and commercial uses on Market Street, Victoria Street and Queensway.

The vast majority of units within the surrounding primary frontages would still remain in retail use. It was not believed there would be any significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the surrounding town centre.

The proposal broadly complied with national and local planning policy, and approval was recommended. This was agreed by Cheshire East Council.

Shavington

Parish councillors and neighbours had no comments on the prospect of an extension to a semi-detached property in Shavington, Cheshire. Applicant Mr S. Butler proposed the feature at 6 West Way.

Mr Butler told planning officers at Cheshire East Council he was proposing to remove an existing conservatory at the two-storey home and to replace it with a feature in line with a previously built extension.

Main issues were said to include design and residential amenity. Shavington Parish Council had no comments, and there were no other representations.

The new build would provide an extension to the kitchen area, according to a report. It would appear subordinate to the original dwelling, and the design was appropriate.

There were neighbouring dwellings either side, and the property most affected by the proposal would be the adjoining neighbour at 8 West Way.

Planners explained that the extension would create a better amenity relationship with number 8 due to the removal of the existing conservatory, which projected beyond a conservatory at the neighbouring home.

No other amenity concerns were raised within the application. There were no changes to the parking and access arrangements.

Recommending approval, planners found the proposal was of an acceptable design that would have minimal impact upon the amenities of the surrounding residential properties.

Cheshire East Council agreed Mr Butler could have permission subject to conditions.

Alsager

An extension to a property in Alsager, Cheshire, would improve the amenity of neighbours, planners believed. The application was raised by Mrs E. Bailey at 7 Meadow Croft.

Mrs Bailey told planning officers at Cheshire East Council approval was being sought for the demolition of an existing addition at the rear of the semi-detached dwelling and the construction of a new extension including a laundry and a family room.

Main issues were said to include the impact upon the character of the area and residential amenity.

Full planning permission was sought for the demolition of an existing single-storey aspect to the rear and the erection of a new, single-storey rear extension, according to a report.

Alsager Town Council said it had no comment, and there were no other representations.

There was a flat-roofed extension to the rear, which would be replaced with a slightly larger extension including a pitched roof and a gable.

This was considered to be an improvement and would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the house.

The proposed extension would not have any significant adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

At present, windows faced a conservatory at number 8, but the proposed extension would have no windows facing that property, which was considered to be an improvement.

There would be no change to the access or loss of parking provision.

Recommending approval, planners suggested the proposed development was not considered to adversely impact upon the amenities of neighbours or highway safety.

Cheshire East Council granted Mrs Bailey permission.

Nantwich

An application to fell a protected tree on a residential estate in Nantwich, Cheshire, was supported by the tree officer. The request was lodged by Mr and Mrs Loxton at 3 Lewis Close.

Mr and Mrs Loxton told Cheshire East Council they were looking to remove the sweet chestnut from the rear of the two-storey detached dwelling. No comments were received from Nantwich Town Council.

The tree is covered by the St Joseph's Nantwich tree preservation order made in 1986, according to a report.

It was said to have some significant and large dead branches and was showing signs of die back.

Other issues included significant wounds on the main stem and evidence of the Chicken of the Woods fungus was found on the ground nearby. The application had been submitted on safety grounds due to the risk of failure.

The tree officer believed the safe useful life of the tree was greatly reduced, and the proposal to remove it was supported.

The impact of felling on the amenity of the area would be low as the tree was not clearly seen by members of the public in general.

The property was at the end of a cul-de-sac, and visual amenity was broadly restricted to residents and visitors to the property.

An inspection from the ground had confirmed evidence of structural features or disease that may present a risk to people or property.

Consent for the work was recommended, and Cheshire East Council agreed the tree could be removed subject to the replacement planting of a more suitable tree as the garden was of a small size.

Nantwich

An extension was proposed at a semi-detached property in Nantwich, Cheshire. Applicants Mr and Mrs Doyle told planning officers at Cheshire East Council they were seeking approval for the feature at 33 Whitehouse Lane.

The single-storey extension at the side of the dwelling would form extra living accommodation, according to a report. The area is predominantly residential.

Main issues included the design and residential amenity. Nantwich Town Council had no objections, and there were no other representations.

The principle of residential development within the Nantwich boundary is acceptable subject, in the case of the application, to aspects including design, residential amenity and parking, the report stated.

The proposed extension would serve as a garage, ground-floor W/C and a utility and would be constructed in materials to match the house.

Overall, the proposed extension would appear subordinate to the original dwelling, and there were other similar side extensions within the immediate streetscene.

The design was considered to be acceptable. There were neighbouring properties to either side, but there were no amenity concerns.

As a result of the proposal, the dwelling would lose driveway space, and in addition the proposed 'garage' did not meet the requirements to be classed as an off-street parking space.

But planners explained the remaining driveway would meet the requirements to provide two off-street parking spaces.

Recommending approval, they believed the proposal was of an acceptable design that would have minimal impact upon the amenities of the surrounding residential properties.

Cheshire East Council agreed Mr and Mrs Doyle could have permission.

Alsager

Plans for extensions and alterations to a corner plot property in Alsager, Cheshire, did not give rise to any objections. Applicant Duncan Broad submitted the proposal at 36 Leicester Avenue.

Mr Broad told planning officers at Cheshire East Council he was looking for full planning permission for single-storey extensions to the side and rear of the property.

The dwelling is on the corner of Leicester Avenue and Cavendish Crescent, according to a report.

Main issues included the impact upon the character of the area, residential amenity and highways, the report said.

Alsager Town Council had no comment, and there were no other representations.

Local planning policies sought to ensure, amongst other issues, that proposals were not detrimental to neighbouring residential amenity and were appropriate in design and highway terms, the report explained.

The rear extension would be a traditional pitched roof feature that was considered to be acceptable. To the side, a single-storey extension was proposed to replace a uPVC porch, which was also considered to be acceptable.

The proposals were thought to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the property and the surrounding area.

The rear extension would be adjacent to the boundary with 34 Leicester Avenue, which was screened by close boarded fencing and trees.

As such, there would be no adverse impact on that property. The side extension would have no impact on neighbouring dwellings due to its position. There would be no change to the access or loss of parking provision.

Planning officers recommended approval, and this was agreed by Cheshire East Council.

The council said that although the rear extension would project well beyond the rear of the adjacent property at no 34, a refusal on loss of amenity grounds to that house would not be sustained at appeal.

Crewe

An extension was considered at an end terrace property in Crewe, Cheshire. Mr and Mrs Balan sought permission for the new build at 56 Capesthorne Road.

The single-storey extension would be added at the rear of the property, according to a report. It was established on a site visit that much of the work had been completed.

However, it had not been fully completed and work had stopped until the outcome of the application was known.

The single-storey, flat-roofed extension could have been built under prior approval if no neighbouring objections had been received, the report stated.

No views were received from Crewe Town Council, and there were no other representations. The proposed extension would serve as a living room for the property, the report explained.

Matching materials would be used, and overall, the proposed extension would appear subordinate to the original dwelling. The design was appropriate for the property and was considered to be acceptable.

There were neighbouring dwellings on either side, but the proposal was unlikely to cause any significant harm to neighbouring amenity.

Recommending approval subject to conditions, planners considered the proposal was of an acceptable design that would have minimal impact upon the amenities of the surrounding residential properties.

Cheshire East Council agreed Mr and Mrs Balan could have permission.

Shine a spotlight on your neighbourhood by becoming an Area Ambassador.

Click here to learn more!