Agenda item

The consultation procedure undertaken was outlined in the report together with background information in respect of the site.

Ms Ray, the applicant, addressed the Committee.  She commented that there was a need for a private dentistry service in the area as there were none currently.  She advised that by nature private dental practice saw reduced numbers of patients throughout the day due to appointments generally taking between 30-45 minutes each.  She also advised Members of a new NHS service that would offer advanced dentistry practice, with referrals being made to the private sector, so they would be available for local patients referred in this way.  She had worked closely with planners and the proposal was policy compliant. 

Councillor Woolfall addressed the Committee in his capacity as local Ward Councillor for Birchfield, objecting to the proposal.

He questioned whether Halton needed another private dentist at this time.  He circulated a newspaper article to the Committee where it stated that Halton was the eighth worst Borough in the Country for shortage of dentists.  He argued that:

·         The property was in a small residential area where 100 objections to the proposal had been received;

·         Private dentists earned double that of NHS ones;

·         A bungalow dwelling would be taken out of use which were highly sought after in the Borough;

·         Out of 8 parking bays four of these would be used by staff;

·         The property was on a busy junction and cars would have to reverse out onto the road to exit;

·         There were parking issues already with Cronton College students parking on the road due to Hillcrest Hotel now charging for parking; and

·         The proposal was contrary to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

In conclusion he stated that Halton needed NHS dentists but in the right locations and that the applicant did not have a contract with the NHS.  He urged the Committee to refuse the application due to insufficient parking and highway safety issues.

Members debated the proposal and raised concerns over residential properties being turned into businesses and the impact this has on nearby residents.  Officers responded to questions over the potential for breaches of Human Rights and the loss of a bungalow dwelling, in relation to appealing. 

Concerns were also raised in relation to highway safety and the potential for increased on-street parking and congestion around the junction at Cronton Lane and Hill View.  Members also noted the comments made by Cheshire Police in relation to parking complaints already being received around the shops.  Questions were also raised over the number of parking spaces and the fact that at least four of these would be used by staff and therefore occupied throughout the day.

Officers advised that the Council’s Highway’s Officer had conducted surveys at different times of the day and concluded that traffic did fluctuate at peak times but was not congested. 

One Member proposed a motion to refuse the application based on highway safety concerns and insufficient parking as described above.  This was seconded and the motion to refuse was carried.

RESOLVED:  That the application is refused as the proposed development would not provide sufficient parking provision. This would result in on-street parking that would be detrimental to highway safety and pose a danger to pedestrians, particularly with on-street parking close to the junction of Hill View and Cronton Lane and on-street parking in Tynwald Crescent.