Round-the-clock storage facility rejected

PLANNING chiefs at Warrington have thrown out a controversial proposal for a 24-hour, seven day a week storage facility.
Officers had recommended the scheme in Bridge Road, Woolston be approved, but members of the borough council’s development management committee thought otherwise.
They refused the application by Williams Tarr Construction after hearing vehicles using the facility would travel down Bridge Road – a residential road..
Cllr Sheila Woodyatt (pictured) said: “This  was an absolutely appalling proposal.
“We went on a site visit and I couold not believe the officers had recommended it for approval.
“This was totally unacceptable in a residential area.”
The application was for permission to change the use of land currently used for parking and storage to a storage container rental facility with 56 containers which would be available for use 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
It was opposed by Woolston Parish Council, 11 local residents and by borough councillor Bill Brinksman.
He said the proposed operating hours were not in keeping with the existing hours of work on the site. Residents of Bridge Road did not want 24/7 access, which would mean ehicle movements up and down a road which was normally very quiet after working hours.
“It would be alien to the road which is essentially a cul de sac,” he said.
He pointed out the site would not be manned so there would be no control over hours or what could be stored there. The containers could be used by firms for storing goods which would go out at unreasonable times. There appeared to be no CCTV monitoring of the site.
Woolston Parish Council objected on similar grounds and believed there would be a detrimental impact on the amenity of residents. There would be an increase in vehicles using the road after the hours of work of existing firms on the site.
Residents feared increased traffic, noise, disturbance  and road safety issues.
Officers argued that the development was acceptable in terms of impact on the character and appearance of the area and would not cause significant harm. They did not believed there would be highway safety concerns if conditions were imposed.
While there would undoubtedly be an increase in traffic, this would not result in significant harm to residential amenity.
But the committee decided to refuse consent.