Planning Application: FUL/363266/21

Shaw Ward Liberal Democrat Councillors have asked that the  latest planning application to convert the former Weavers Answer PH on Milnrow Road, Shaw; to a nine bedroom premises to provide ‘supported living’; is raised from a council officer delegated decision to the full council planning committee in order that the application can receive full public scrutiny.

Councillor Howard Sykes said: “this application was refused in January 2021 by planners, when the applicants applied for an 18 bedrooms hostel.”

“Despite major revisions to the plan, residents and ward councillors still have grave concerns about the proposed use of these premises and the lack of detail in the application and as a consequence we have asked for it to be raised to Planning Committee so it can be scrutinised and the developers challenged in an open and transparent forum if required.”

The reasons submitted to the planning department as listed below:

1. No Design and Access Statement to satisfy, amongst other things, compliance with relevant equality legislation in terms of design.  

2. The internal arrangements of the premises would provide insufficient living space for residents. 

3. Fear of increased crime and anti-social behaviour that current residents are witnessing already, the premises themselves have already been subject to substantial criminal damage, fly tipping has taken place adjacent to the site. ASB already takes place outside. 

4. Two recent HMOs in immediate vicinity may be contributing to this increase.

5. Policing services are stretched and will be so further if these premises become a hostel for transient residents.

6. Impact on health services. Application now states supported living, where is there a need for supported living of this type? What type of supported living is required and if there is a medical need what impact will this have on the current stretched services in Shaw and Crompton where patients are having to attend Royton for appointments/treatment.

7. Applicants have (contrary to their statement upon application) closed off the front main entrance to premises and put a window in, and now intend to use another entrance obscured by a bus shelter which would impact upon bus stop users particularly if residents congregated at the door smoking etc. 

8. Highways, no provision identified for staff vehicles or residents vehicles in an area already struggling for short and long term parking to service the shops thereby impacting upon current local amenities.

9. Visual impact. It is unclear if developers intend to render this property as per last application, it is unclear if applicants intend to alter the current roof design. If this is still the case that is totally unacceptable for the street scene and should be a planning condition whatever this development subsequently becomes.