The Public Protection Sub-Committee of Trafford Council met on Thursday 15 October 2026, discussing three planning applications and one item regarding penalty points. The committee granted permission for a dental practice expansion on Delahaye's Drive in Hale after a tied vote, refused permission for a dental surgery extension on Manchester Road in Altrincham, and granted permission for a gypsy and traveller caravan site at Philomenes Court in Ermston. The committee also considered an accumulation of penalty points, with one driver's licence granted with conditions, another refused, and a third to be reviewed at a later date.

Dental Practice Expansion on Delahaye's Drive, Hale

The committee considered an application to change a dwelling house element of a property on Delahaye's Drive, Hale, into a larger dental practice. The proposal included minor external alterations, a new cycle store, and ramp access, resulting in three treatment rooms, an interview room, a recovery room, a waiting room, and staff facilities. Ten letters of objection were received from local residents and the local ward councillor, citing concerns about parking, road safety, intensification of use, noise, disturbance, and the impact on the residential character of the area. Two letters of support highlighted the benefits of bringing the property back into use and the improved facility.

Officers recommended approval, noting that while there would be an intensification of use and a shortfall in parking provision according to the council's Supplementary Planning Document 3 (SPD3), the impact was not considered severe enough to warrant refusal, especially given existing on-street parking. A condition was recommended to limit operating hours to 9 am to 5:30 pm, Monday to Friday.

During the debate, Councillor Millis expressed empathy for residents but noted that the issue of NHS dentistry provision was not a planning matter. She proposed a condition for the land at the rear to become a car park, but officers advised this could not be a condition as it would constitute additional development not consulted upon. Councillor Taylor stated she would not support the application, citing no benefits to her ward and potential chaos for residents, suggesting expansion should occur in areas with a greater need for dental services. Councillor Eckersley raised concerns about the loss of a dwelling and the impact on residential amenity, particularly regarding parking. Councillor Jerome, however, supported the application, citing ample parking in the wider area and the positive impact of the operational hours condition. He also noted a shortage of dental spaces in the area.

Ultimately, a motion to refuse the application was tied at six votes all. The Chair exercised their casting vote against refusal, and a subsequent tied vote on granting permission was also decided by the Chair's casting vote in favour of granting. Therefore, planning permission was granted.

Dental Surgery Extension on Manchester Road, Altrincham

The committee discussed an application for a single-storey rear extension to an existing dental practice on Manchester Road, Altrincham, to provide an additional dental surgery. Objections were received from five nearby residential properties and called in by Councillor Welton, who raised concerns about the extension's height impacting residential amenity, noise from dental treatment and external plant, design, ecology, and trees. The Council's Environmental Health Officers, Local Highway Authority, Greater Manchester Ecology Unit, and Council's Arboriculturalists raised no objections, subject to conditions.

Officers recommended approval, considering the development acceptable in terms of design, residential amenity, parking, highways, ecology, landscaping, and accessibility. They highlighted the public benefits of improving local healthcare facilities.

Mr. Tom Edwards, speaking on behalf of neighbouring residents, argued that the proposal was inappropriate due to its size, disregard for the area's character, and potential for noise and overlooking. He questioned the weight given to public benefit when the practice also served private patients and suggested the NHS label should not grant carte blanche. Councillor Welton echoed these concerns, detailing the negative visual impact, massing, shading, and overlooking, and also raised issues regarding the applicant's installation of air conditioning units without planning permission.

Dr. Hashim Hafiz, the principal dentist and owner, stated the practice was committed to expanding NHS dentistry and that the extension was necessary to accommodate new trainees without reducing existing capacity. He acknowledged neighbours' concerns and highlighted that the revised extension was modest in height and positioned to minimise impacts.

During the debate, Councillor Minnis expressed concerns about the confined space and impact on residential amenity, while Councillor Eckersley sought clarity on overlooking and the size of the extension compared to permitted development. Councillor Jerome supported the application, commending the practice's professionalism and noting the need for dentists in the area. Councillor Twos and Councillor Minnis proposed refusal, citing the confined space, loss of outlook, and potential noise. Councillor Eckersley, however, proposed granting permission, believing the grounds for refusal were not strong enough to stand at appeal.

A motion to refuse planning permission was carried, with reasons for refusal including an oversized development for the space, overshadowing, massing, and detrimental impact on residential amenity and noise.

Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Site at Philomenes Court, Ermston

The committee considered an application for a change of use of land at Philomenes Court, Ermston, to establish a five-pitched residential gypsy and traveller caravan site for four families. The site is located within the Green Belt and Flood Zone 2. Officers recommended approval, noting that Trafford is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable sites for gypsies and travellers. The new Local Plan draft proposes allocating this site for such a use.

Previous objections related to Green Belt, landscape character, flooding, ecology, biodiversity, and amenity. Officers considered these concerns to be overcome due to changes in national planning policy, the site now meeting the definition of grey belt (partly previously developed land that does not strongly contribute to Green Belt purposes), and the submission of a flood risk assessment and evacuation plan. The sequential and exception tests for flood risk were considered met due to the lack of alternative sites in lower flood risk areas and the wider sustainability benefits of addressing the unmet need for traveller sites.

Ms. Colette Day, speaking on behalf of the applicant, emphasised her family's desire for a peaceful, stable life and to remain proud of their gypsy and traveller heritage. She stressed their commitment to being legal, paying council tax, and contributing to the community, highlighting that they had been living on the site for two years without issue.

Councillor Minnis and Councillor Savory supported the application, acknowledging the need for traveller sites and the importance of not discriminating against communities. Councillor Eckersley was satisfied with the conditions and the location, while Councillor Jerome commended the applicant and supported the integration of the community. Councillor Proctor, however, expressed strong objections, citing concerns about flooding, highway safety on the narrow access road, and the potential for conflict with existing residents. Councillor Taylor also supported the application, praising the applicant's passion and desire to be part of the community. Councillor Sheridan, a local ward councillor, voiced concerns about flooding, despite the proposed evacuation plan.

Ultimately, the committee voted to grant planning permission for the development, with conditions attached.

Accumulation of Penalty Points

The committee considered reports detailing failures to disclose an accumulation of penalty points within the required timeframe. For one Private Hire driver, the licence was granted with conditions. For another, the licence was refused. A third case was to be reviewed at a later meeting.

Widening of Driveway at 22A Hope Road, Sale

The committee considered an application to widen an existing driveway and erect boundary treatment at 22A Hope Road, Sale. This application had been refused in 2023 due to its impact on amenity and protected characteristics, with the appeal being dismissed. The current application was resubmitted with amendments to the proposed fence line, moving it away from the rear boundary adjacent to properties at 24 and 26.

Officers recommended approval, considering the design acceptable and the impact on amenity minimised by the revised fence line. They noted that the proposal would have an acceptable impact on residents, including those with protected characteristics. A confidential Part 2 report was also considered.

Councillor Minnis proposed refusal, stating her view remained unchanged from the previous application and that the harm to neighbours outweighed the benefit to one household. Councillor Proctor seconded the refusal, stating she would never allow anything to be built on the triangular piece of land. Councillor Twos also opposed the application, citing detrimental impact on residential amenity and the communal garden space. Councillor Eckersley, initially undecided, ultimately supported granting permission, believing the applicant had made sufficient changes and that an appeal would be difficult to uphold.

After considerable debate regarding the balancing of individual protected characteristics against planning merits and the public sector equality duty, a motion to refuse planning permission was moved and seconded. The motion was carried, and planning permission was refused.