Cheshire East Council has lost an appeal against their refusal to grant planning permission for the change in use of a former petrol filling station to a hand car wash and valet business.
Shines appealed to the Planning Inspectorate over the committee's refusal of their plans for two car wash bays - consisting of a spraying area and a valeting area - at the site of the former Kings Arms Service Station on Alderley Road in Wilmslow.
They company were also awarded full costs because the Council failed to submit a statement in support of its reasons for refusing planning permission within the given timescales.
Despite being recommended for approval by the Planning Officer, the Northern Planning Committee refused planning permission in July 2017 on the grounds that it would be detrimental to the character of the area and not enhance this important gateway site to Wilmslow. Additionally, the committee decided the proposed development would be contrary to the interests of highway safety because of the potential for cars waiting to access the site queuing back onto the public highway.
However, Shines appealed on the grounds that "There would be no harm to the character and appearance of the area, neighbouring amenity or highway safety. The proposal would comply with the development plan and in accordance with paragraph 14 of the NPPF, should be approved without delay. There are no material considerations to indicate otherwise."
The Planning Inspectorate allowed the appeal, stating the following reasons:
- The use of the site as a car wash and valeting business would not be out of place given its planning history and the nature of the adjacent land uses.
- Neither those operations nor the nature or volume of vehicle movements generated would be such as to have a significant adverse effect on the overall character of the area.
- Its redevelopment and re-use would be of positive benefit in removing the adverse effect that the vacant site currently has on the appearance of this section of the road.
- None of the proposed buildings or structures would be inappropriate in the context of the surrounding uses when seen from Alderley Road. From Knutsford Road and from residential properties on Donkey Lane they would largely be screened by the intervening buildings and stored materials on the Travis Perkins site. There would, accordingly, be no material effect on the character or appearance of these streets or of the wider area of Fulshaw Park.
- Based on this evidence there would be limited risk of vehicles queuing on the public highway to access the site. I also accept the appellant's argument that car wash facilities are, to some extent, self-regulating in that, if customers see a long queue, they would be likely either to go to a different facility or come back at a quieter time.
- I consider that the nature and level of vehicle movements into and out of the site would not cause significant risks to cyclists or to pedestrians using the footway. I note that the bus stop is used by school children and other users but, given its location roughly midway the proposed vehicle entrance and exit points and the generous width of the footway, I do not consider that the proposal would lead to a significant risk to the safety of those using the bus stop.
The applicant Mr Isa Dajci also appealed for a full award of costs against Cheshire East Council. Irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, costs may only be awarded against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.
However, a full award of costs was granted because Cheshire East Council failed to submit a Statement of Case in support of its reasons for refusal within the timescales set out. The Council sought to submit a statement after the relevant date but, because the Planning Inspectorate received notification of this request after he'd completed his site visit, the statement was not accepted as late evidence as it would have delayed the issue of the decision.
Paul Singleton, Planning Inspectorate, said "The Council is entitled not to accept the advice of its professional officers and to reach a decision on a planning application which is contrary to the recommendation of those officers. When it does so it must be able to show that it had reasonable grounds for taking that decision and must produce evidence at the appeal stage to substantiate each of its reasons for refusal of planning permission. By not submitting a Statement of Case the Council has failed to explain why it took a decision contrary to the professional advice it received and failed to substantiate the reasons for the refusal of planning permission.
"I find that these failures amount to unreasonable behaviour on the Council's part and that, had the officers' advice been followed, the appeal could have been avoided entirely. That unreasonable behaviour has, accordingly, resulted in the appellant incurring unnecessary and wasted expenditure in submitting the appeal and related evidence. A full award of costs is, therefore, justified."
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
Simple stuff ignored, and its the Notorious Planning Dept again !!
Why did the Planning Dept fail to submit a statement in support of its reasons for refusing planning permission within the given timescales.??
This isn't Rocket Science .. its simple due process !!
Incompetent.
And our Wilmslow CEC Councilors have to say what about this ??.............. Silence..........
Given that the company (Shines) went to the time and expense (the cost of which will all be paid by Cheshire East Council now) to take this to appeal and won I would expect their intention is to proceed with their plans for a car wash and and valet business on Alderley Road.
I have to say that I have been struck by how close to the deadline some Appeal statements have been submitted, but I also know that this maybe because the Appeals Casework Portal seems to be regularly taken down for "essential maintenance".
Still, our Conservative Cllrs tell us there is nothing to worry about and it is all okay.
Which worries me even more...
Then planning try and stop this development but let other stuff through.
It’s absolutely absurd.
Given that the officer report recommended approval that the councillors overturned, an appeal was inevitable and a second campaign of submissions to the Planning Inspector was organised.
As the ward councillor involved in both campaigns I am bitterly disappointed at the PI decision. The fact that Planning failed to send in their submission before the deadline is inexcusable. I have already made known to the head of planning and to Cabinet members that this is unacceptable.
I apologise to all those residents who have voiced their very legitimate concerns for this specific service failure.
The task that I will now undertake is to ensure that the applicants do not stray from the conditions imposed within this PI approval.
The Stanley Green car wash is now £9, so there is definitely room for more competition.
I know the supermarket case that the Southern Planning Committee (SPC) were looking at in Crewe, and I too read the papers you refer to.
Like you, I too was struck by the quality of the report that was submitted by the planing case officer to SPC. Unbiased, accurate and what's more, consistent with extant Cheshire East plans.
............................
Hello Ryan,
This weekend, doubters need to travel up to the similar car wash set up next to The Waggon & Horses in Handforth and see the impact on traffic flows.
I'm not sure you see that it's accurate to draw parallels between the old Esso & what "Shines" propose for the site.
The last time we remember cars queueing on the road to get into what was the Esso fuel station was during the 1970s fuel crisis. Different customer demographic and use pattern to a car valet.
Very sad that Cheshire East planning weren't able to get the papers in to the Planning Inspectorate. Too late now. . .
It’s a mess, common sense has not prevailed - and Robinson’s Brewery who ultimately own the land should hang their head in shame.
Local residents contacted me with their opposition to the original application and the appeal. I agreed with their views and acted accordingly
Nick Jones
'The fact that Planning failed to send in their submission before the deadline is inexcusable. I have already made known to the head of planning and Cabinet members that this is unacceptable.'
45 complaints (many from developers) and only ONE upheld
It's Planning's incompetence in failing to follow simple process that has landed us with the bill for costs. Will anyone actually be held responsible for that inexcusable omission? Will it come up on someone's annual review (assuming they exist in the Planning Department) with consequences for the miscreant(s)?
I really would like to know.
Different customer demographic? Use pattern? Cars entering for fuel. Cars exiting on use.
Cars entering for cleanse. Cars exiting on use.
Average stay pattern likely to be higher. But still movements of cars!
I very much doubt this statement is backed up by any evidence.
parallels .... aren’t you doing exactly the same thing?
This is about the inevitable adverse road safety impact from the approved, Kings Arms car wash.
You say :-
" . . .I very much doubt this statement is backed up by any evidence"
So you didn't get to look at the cars queuing outside at Wagon & Horses as suggested then ?
Incidentally, there are similar problems around the corner on Earl Road & that site is 5 x bigger than Kings Arms.
All the best,
Martin
It’s a busy main road. It was a petrol station. Cars entering and cars exiting.
I rest my case
Yes the evidence is there. Up the road. Just gone past on way to B&Q.
Worth a look.
All the best,
Martin
Looked ok when I drove past at about 1pm.
Realities vs perceptions!
Try a weekend maybe and I'll wave at you as we both get stuck in the ensuing traffic jam. (LOL)
Mines the red Renault.
Yours ?
All the best,
Martin
Appeal lodged.
CEC Planning Officers neglected to send in documents on time; appeal granted, CEC Planners get their way, against the wishes of residents... etc, etc.
Were any of the same people in CEC Planning involved in both approving the application and forgetting to send in the papers?
Ahh yes, Shines at Monks Heath.
Nice big forecourt up there so no dangerous queues in the road then (Wry smile)
Pleasant ride out too. A sandwich lunch from the filling station and a chance to window shop at the posh car showroom next door.
Oh the simple things in life !
All the best,
Martin