The Planning and Development Management Committee of Trafford Council met on Thursday, 15 October 2026, to discuss several planning applications. The committee granted permission for a dental practice expansion on Delahays Drive in Hale and for a change of use to a Gypsy and Traveller caravan site on Philomenes Court in Urmston. However, permission was refused for a dental surgery extension on Manchester Road in Altrincham and for additional parking and boundary treatment at 22A Hope Road in Sale.

Dental Practice Expansion on Delahays Drive, Hale

The committee granted permission for the change of use of a dwelling at 2 Delahays Drive, Hale to a dental surgery, creating a third treatment room and associated facilities. This decision was made despite objections from local residents concerning parking, road safety, and the intensification of use impacting the residential character of the area. Officers recommended approval, noting that while there would be an intensification of use, the impact on parking would not be severe enough to warrant refusal, and recommended conditioning operating hours to 9 am to 5:30 pm, Monday to Friday. Councillor Taylor, representing the ward, stated they would vote against it due to concerns about parking and the lack of benefit to their residents, suggesting the practice should expand in areas with greater need. Councillor Eckersley expressed concern about the impact on residential amenity and the lack of parking provision. Councillor Jerome, however, supported the application, citing ample parking in the wider area and the positive impact of the conditioned operating hours. Ultimately, after a tied vote, the Chair exercised their casting vote in favour of granting permission.

Gypsy and Traveller Site on Philomenes Court, Urmston

Permission was granted for a five-pitch residential Gypsy and Traveller caravan site for four families on Land Known As Philomenas Court, Eeasebrook, Urmston. This decision was made despite significant objections from local residents and community groups concerning Green Belt impact, flood risk, landscape character, ecology, biodiversity, and amenity. Officers recommended approval, highlighting that the site now met the definition of grey belt land under the updated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and that the benefits of addressing the unmet need for traveller sites outweighed the adverse impacts. The Flood Risk Assessment and Flood Evacuation Plan were reviewed and accepted by the Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Authority, subject to conditions on finished floor levels. The emerging Trafford Local Plan also allocates this site for five traveller pitches. Councillor Harding, the ward councillor, read a statement on behalf of residents expressing strong opposition, citing unresolved concerns about Green Belt harm, flood risk, highway safety, and ecological damage. Collette Day, an occupant, spoke passionately about the need for a stable home and the desire to integrate with the community. Councillors Minnis and Savary spoke in favour, emphasizing the legal requirement to provide traveller sites and the lack of alternative locations. Councillor Eckersley and Councillor Jerome also supported the application, commending the officers' work and the applicant's personal circumstances. Councillor Proctor voiced strong objections regarding road safety and flood risk, proposing refusal. Ultimately, the motion to refuse was not seconded, and the motion to grant was carried.

Dental Surgery Extension on Manchester Road, Altrincham

Permission was refused for the erection of a single-storey rear extension to create an additional dental surgery at 63 Manchester Road, Altrincham. Councillor Welton, who called in the application, and neighbour Tom Edwards raised concerns about overdevelopment, negative visual impact, massing, shading, overlooking, and the applicant's justification for the expansion in relation to NHS provision. Councillor Welton also raised concerns about the unpermitted installation of air conditioning units. The applicant, Dr. Hashim Hafiz, stated the extension was necessary to increase NHS appointments without reducing existing capacity. Mr. Day, for the planning officers, advised that the air conditioning units were not part of the application and would be dealt with separately. Councillor Minnis expressed concerns about the compact space and impact on residential amenity. Councillor Eckersley argued against refusal based on planning merits, while Councillor Jerome proposed refusal due to the oversized development and impact on residents. Councillor Twose also opposed the application due to the confined space and loss of outlook. Ultimately, the committee voted to refuse planning permission, citing harm to residential amenity due to the overbearing nature and loss of outlook.

Additional Parking at 22A Hope Road, Sale

Permission was refused for the widening of a driveway, boundary treatment, and creation of a dropped kerb at 22A Hope Road, Sale. This application was a resubmission following a previous refusal and dismissed appeal. The previous refusal was based on the harmful loss of outlook and overbearing impact on residents at Nos. 24-26 Hope Road, particularly concerning their protected characteristics. The applicant had since purchased the land and amended the scheme to move the fencing away from the rear boundary. Officers recommended approval, considering the amenity impact mitigated and no objections on design or highways grounds. However, Councillor Minnis and Councillor Proctor, who were present at the previous refusal, maintained their opposition, citing detriment to neighbours and the loss of communal land. Councillor Eckersley sought clarification on land ownership and the mitigation of perceived harm. Ms. Lowes, from the planning department, advised that land ownership was not a planning consideration and that the amended scheme was materially different. Councillor Eckersley stated they would side with the planners, finding the decision difficult but believing an appeal would be hard to defend. Councillor Minnis proposed refusal, citing the impact on residential amenity and the loss of open space. Councillor Proctor seconded the refusal. After a tied vote, the motion to refuse was carried.

Other Business

The committee noted that an additional information report was available for consideration. The meeting also addressed a typo in the Green Belt assessment for the Philomenes Court application.