PLANS to build a two-storey extension to a house in Eccleston have been approved – despite objections from some residents who fear it could be used to host private parties.

The property in question is a large, detached house on the northern side of Chapel Lane.

The applicants sought permission from St Helens Borough Council to erect a two-storey side extension, forming a snug and a gym on the ground floor, and a home office/family room on the first floor.

READ > Heartbreak as much-loved teacher, 63, dies from Covid-19

The proposal also includes an enclosed rear terrace with a Juliet balcony.

A previous application for the site, which was extended in 2018, was submitted last year but officers found the plans to be unacceptable and they were subsequently withdrawn.

Officers found the revised plans to be acceptable, however, and they recommended planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

The application was brought before the planning committee on Tuesday after six letters of objection were submitted to the plans.

The majority of issues raised by residents in the six objection letters related to the impact the extension will have on residential amenity.

Planning officers found the impacts to neighbouring properties would be acceptable, despite the size of the proposed extension exceeding dimensions outlined in planning guidelines.

The officer notes in his report that there is provision, however, for larger detached homes to have extensions in excess of these guidelines provided the site can accommodate an extension of greater size without being to the detriment of the surrounding neighbours or streetscene as a whole.

Two objectors spoke at Tuesday night’s virtual planning meeting to urge the committee to reject the proposals.

Neighbour Clare Ashton-Hunt told councillors that the previous extension to the property, which received planning permission in 2018, continues to have a “massive negative impact” on the area.

Ms Ashton-Hunt said the proposed extension will only impact neighbouring properties further, complaining it would allow people to sit for hours at the Juliet balcony, “prying on our personal space”.

“The sheer size is overbearing, intrusive and absolutely detrimental to those sharing a border and potentially other surrounding residents,” she said.

In response, Kieran Birch, the council’s development control team leader, said the distances between neighbouring properties clearly exceeds the space and standards accepted by the council.

The property to the rear of the site would sit 64m away from the extension – well in excess of the distances set out in the council’s planning guidelines.

The next-door neighbour to the West would be the worst affected, but even then there would be 11m distance between the two properties, which is also well in excess of guidelines.

Ms Ashton-Hunt said it was inevitable that people would gather at the terrace, which she said would increase noise levels.

She suggested a cap on the amount of people who could use the terraced area at any one time and time constraints to when the balcony could be in use.

However, Mr Birch said this would not be enforceable.

He said that as long as the property was used for domestic use, this would be acceptable to the council as the local planning authority.

Another objector, Ian Leech, said the intrusion caused to neighbouring properties caused by potential social gatherings will be “massive”.

“Significantly, a terrace is a dedicated and accepted social gathering space,” Mr Leech said.

“Not only is our privacy and amenity going to be further affected but we will suffer from social gatherings held in an elevated position from where noise will travel far and wide.

“The intrusion will be massive and cause great duress to many neighbouring properties.”

Mr Birch reiterated that planning permission is not needed for private, social gatherings, only for commercial ones.

Any inappropriate behaviour is a matter of the police, he said.

Labour councillor Seve Gomez-Aspron said any concerns the extension would be used to host private parties held “no weight”.

“If they are noisy neighbours and they’re having parties then there’s a different route to deal with all that, it’s not this planning process,” the former chairman of the planning committee said.

“So that holds no weight in this whole thing.”

Cllr Gomez-Aspron said there was no reason to refuse the application and therefore proposed to move a motion to grant planning permission.

“It’s the age-old problem that we always have,” he said.

READ > GPs in St Helens on course to deliver 25k Covid jabs

“Not liking something isn’t a material reason to refuse the planning application. It’s an opinion, it’s taste – and it’s not material.”

Liberal Democrat councillor Geoff Pearl, who represents the Eccleston ward and who also sits on Eccleston Parish Council – which raised no objections to the plans – said he could not see any problems with the extension.

Planning permission was unanimously approved, subject to conditions, following a vote.