PLANNING officers have voted overwhelmingly to refuse an application from a housing developer to open up a already busy lane in Middlewich to construction traffic, saying it poses a road safety risk.

In a strongly worded riposte to the application, Cllr Mike Hunter, Chair of Cheshire East Council's Strategic Planning Board, said accepting the plan would be 'dangerous' and that he wasn't prepared for the developers to ride 'roughshod' over the council and its authority.

Seven members of the committee voted to refuse the application, which would have allowed construction traffic to use Warmington Lane to access the Taylor Wimpey site Glebe Farm site.

Although traffic access will be allowed to and from the site once the 450 dwelling development is completed, at the moment access to the site for construction vehicles is only allowed via Booth Lane.

The matter had been referred to the board as the condition that only the adjacent Booth Lane be used due to highway safety concerns, was part of the planning permission that was granted back in 2014.

Taylor Wimpey wanted access via Warmington Lane as a way of speeding up completion of the project and allow them to build up to 75 houses in the north west corner of the site.

In the application, the developer stated that only two HGV's per hour would be using the lane, which Cllr Mike Hunter also said was 'disingenuous' and 'wrong'.

With many houses being built in the area since 2014, Warmington Lane was now being used by other developers during their own construction process and that the road safety issue had actually got worse, not better.

He said: "Nothing has changed other than that there is now more traffic and more houses.

"Yes there has been construction traffic from two other sites, but the difference is, they can only access those from Warmington Lane.

"This site has a choice.

"This committee decided back in 2014 that that choice should be Booths Lane because it was safer.

"I find it a bit disingenuous that accesses are now in the wrong place.

"Nothing is different, in fact things are worse.

"Booths Lane is a better option as there are two laybys nearby that can be used for vehicles waiting to get access to the site.

"To say there will only be two vehicles an hour is just wrong, it isn't two an hour.

"We've had six or seven at eight o' clock in the morning blocking driveways on a narrow lane where a car can only just get passed.

"To say it's not a safety issue is just wrong."

When asked by Cllr Steven Edgar if the developer had carried out any kind of traffic study about the likely cumulative effect of the plan, Highways Development Manager Paul Hurdus, confirmed they hadn't.

Mr Hurdus added: "Given the relatively low numbers there isn’t the requirement to do a traffic count.

"We have to look at this on its own merits.

"It would be very difficult for us to demonstrate there would be a significant harm created by that volume of construction traffic for the limited period of construction.

"It would be for a very short period and be a very limited number of HGV's.

"We don't feel that there will be a material harm of these extra vehicles using Warmington Lane."

Northwich Guardian: The submitted showing the Glebe Farm development site, with Warmington Lane marked in red on the left.

The submitted showing the Glebe Farm development site, with Warmington Lane on the left.

Other members of the committee were concerned that a refusal of the application would likely lead to an appeal that could eventually cost the council financially after any legal challenge.

Cllr Stewart Gardiner said: "I think if we were to refuse this application today, without the support of Mr Hurdus, any applicant would likely appeal that decision and would not only be successful but would also go for costs against the council.

"I fully accept that we have a problem in the existing situation with developers within the vicinity of this site.

“But we are required to consider cases on their individual merits.

“I cannot see, that with the proviso of a physical barrier preventing construction traffic from one part of the site to the other, I don’t see how on any grounds we can refuse it."

However, Cllr Hunter firmly disagreed with his colleague, saying he did not concur with what Highways had to say and that the application to amend the condition should be refused on the grounds of safety.

He added: "It is unsafe.

"If anybody is to be hurt if this goes ahead, I would recommend to any member of the public to sue the council because we are going to give permission to something that is dangerous.

"They've (the developer) taken no notice of local residents.

"They will ride roughshod over everything we do because it's not about we want, it's about what they want.

"We have to be firm and we have to make sure that we're saying to these people, 'no you can't ride roughshod over us, we're the planning authority'.

Seven of the committee voted to refuse the application while three made a decision not to vote.