PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1
19th June 2003
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/45570/FUL
APPLICANT:
Gachet Developments Ltd
LOCATION:
Ellesmere House 1 Sandwich Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing nursing home and erection of one 4 storey
building comprising twenty five apartments together with associated
car parking
WARD:
Eccles
At the meeting of the Panel held on 5th June 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR
AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
My previous observations are stated below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Ellesmere House which is situated at the junction of Sandwich Road and Victoria
Road, within the Ellesmere Park Conservation Area. The existing building, a large three storey Victorian
Villa, has previously had two modern extensions attached, one with the benefit of planning permission. The
building has previously been used as a nursing home but has been vacant for well over a year. The parent
building has a height of 10.6m from ground level, whilst it has a footprint of 370sq.m. The building is
surrounded by hardstanding and lawned areas and is set within a site area of 0.28 hectares or 2,800sq.m.
The site is surrounded by mature trees to both the Sandwich Road and Victoria Road frontages whilst there
are smaller trees within the site. Surrounding uses are all residential and buildings consist of a mixture of
mature residential houses, modern houses and modern apartment buildings. Existing vehicular access to the
site is from Sandwich Road.
Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing building and for the erection of a part four
storey/part three storey L shape building to consist of 25 two bed apartments. The application would utilise
the existing vehicular access and consists of 30 car parking spaces. The 25 units would be at a density of 89
units per hectare. An associated Conservation Area Consent Application (03/45759/CON) has also been
submitted and also appears on this agenda for a decision. The proposed building varies in eaves and ridge
height. All windows are proposed to be recessed and have cills and window heads.
The proposed four storey element is predominantly at the Victoria Road frontage, here the applicant
proposes to lower ground level by a metre, whilst the top floor windows would appear as dormers within the
roofspace, as a gable end within the roof or within one of two turrets. The maximum height above ground
level would be 15m (16m including the lowered floor level). The eaves level varies between 8.5m and 9.5m
above the lowered ground floor level.
The Sandwich Road elevation also has a turret at either end with a similar relationship of the part four storey
element within the roof and the three storey element within the roof as dormers. The ridge height varies and
decreases from 16m to 15m then 13m towards the north of the site. The eaves height also varies between
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
9.5m and 7m on this elevation. The original main entrance doorway is shown as being retained on this
elevation.
The north elevation also has variations in roof height, eaves level between 6.8m and 8.2m high and ridge
height at 13.2m. This element of the north elevation, nearest to neighbouring property at 1 Sunnybank
Avenue features the second floor windows as dormers within the roofspace. The recessed north elevation
has eaves level of 7.5m and has a ridge height of 15m. The west elevation, facing Queenscroft, is part three
and part four storey with top floor windows within the roofspace.
The proposed building has a footprint of 573sq.m. and would be sited centrally within the site. Aspects
provide distances of 40m to the east over Sandwich Road, 55m to properties to the south, 13m and 16m to
the west and a minimum of 21m to the north. The applicant has submitted an economic evaluation, design
statement and aboricultural report in support of his application. In addition to parking the development
would provide a communal garden area.
SITE HISTORY
In 1982, planning permission was granted for the change of use from house in multiple occupation to a
private nursing home together with associated car parking (E/13628) (Implemented).
In 1984, planning permission was granted for the erection of a single storey rear extension (E/16780). (Not
implemented).
In 1985, planning permission was granted for the erection of a two storey rear extension to care home
(E/18956). (Not Implemented)
In 1991, planning permission was granted for the erection of a two storey side extension, renewal of
E/18956 (E/277281). (Not Implemented)
In 1992, planning permission was granted for the erection of single storey extension to care home
(E/29931) (Not Implemented).
In 1993, planning permission was granted for the erection of a part single/part two storey extension to
provide an enlarge kitchen and lounge on ground floor with new bedroom on first floor at rear of existing
residential care home, alteration of E/29931, (93/31251/FUL). (Implemented).
In 1995, planning permission was granted for the erection of a two storey extension to existing residential
home (Renewal of planning permission E27281) (95/34775/FUL). (Not implemented).
In 1998, planning permission was granted for the conversion of loft space to form 3 additional bedrooms
and facilities and revised proposals for 2 storey extension already
approved for residential care home (98/37575/FUL). (Not implemented).
The applicant also submitted and then withdrew an application for the demolition and erection of a new
build apartment block (02/45050/FUL) in 2003.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Environment Agency – No objections
Ellesmere Park Residents Association – Object to the loss of the existing building, the footprint being larger
than the existing and to the over-development of the site.
The Coal Authority – No objections
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections subject to a 1.8m high fence
surrounding the site.
English Heritage – Consider the application can be determined by the City of Salford and do not wish to
comment.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 18th February 2003
A press notice was published on 21st February 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
1 – 5 odd, 5A, 5B, 7 – 9 odd Half Edge Lane
2 – 12 even, 7& 9 and Denefield Place, Sandwich Road
1 –4 Sunnybank Avenue
16 & 22 Clarendon Crescent
1 –19 Queenscroft, Victoria Road
2 & 6A Victoria Road
1 & 18 Westminster Road
17 Rutland Road
3, 9, 10, 34 & 36 Ellesmere Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 34 letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified
are as follows:
Most residents consider that the existing building should be retained but some considered that the
existing building could be demolished although the replacement proposal is unsatisfactory
Over-development of the site
Harm of a four storey building
Harm to the building line
Effect upon trees
Impact upon road safety
Too much car parking
Problems during construction
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:DEV9 Ellesmere Park Development Control Policy
Other policies:DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, EN11 Protection and Enhancement of
Conservation Areas
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
Other policies:DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES7 Amenity of Users and
Neighbours, DES13 Design Statement, H1 New Housing Development, H2 Location of New Housing
Development, CH5 Works within Conservation Areas, CH6 Demolition of buildings within Conservation
Areas.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
With regard to the objectors’ concerns over the demolition of the existing building Members will be aware
of the existing Ellesmere Park Development Control Policy which states the Council will only grant
planning permission where a number of criteria are met. Criteria point ‘iii’ states that planning permission
will only be granted if it can be demonstrated that the existing property cannot be retained and converted
economically for an acceptable alternative use appropriate to the residential character of the area. To
address this the applicant has submitted an economic evaluation of four options; upgrading the nursing
home to comply with health care regulations, converting the existing premises into a single dwelling,
converting the existing dwelling into flats and demolishing the existing building and rebuilding with flats.
An assumption, by the applicant, has been made that only a residential type use is acceptable to the
residential character of the area. I agree that only a residential use would be acceptable at this site.
The report details the cost and explains profit/loss levels of alternatives for the site. The property was
marketed for 22 months with no interest in retaining the existing use or conversion to flats or use as a single
house. The report also states that the previous owner had to close the business down as it had become
unviable. Costs have been provided which show a loss for the conversion of the existing building into flats.
Costs also show that the conversion into one dwelling would be high and demand is low for this size of
property as a single dwelling. In summary the economic report provided by the applicant explains that the
only residential use that is economically viable at the site is for the demolition and construction of a new
build apartment development given that the costs are prohibitive to retaining the existing building. Having
studied the report I am of the opinion that the findings are acceptable, and that there is little demand in the
market for a single house of this size. Furthermore I am satisfied that the costs quoted in support of the
redevelopment are acceptable and are not inflated.
Although the building has merit in its original architectural form and is an older building within the area I
do not consider that the existing building is worthy of being placed on the Statutory List, or indeed of being
retained. English Heritage have been consulted but have no comments regarding the application and are
happy for the application to be determined by the City of Salford. Given that the building is within the
Ellesmere Park Conservation Area there are other policy controls over the demolition of the existing
building. Policies within the Adopted UDP and First Deposit Draft UDP require that buildings should be
encouraged to be retained and that any proposals for replacement buildings have due regard to siting, design
and mature trees. I consider the demolition of the existing building would be in accordance with policies
principally because the interior has been altered quite extensively and also because of the poorly designed
extensions to two sides and inherent building design faults. The applicant has demonstrated that the an
economically viable option is for demolition and rebuild I consider that the demolition accords with section
‘iii’ of Policy DEV9.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) provides detailed guidance on
the assessment of the demolition of a non-listed building within a Conservation Area. As detailed in the
report on the associated Conservation Area Consent application (03/45579/CON) the proposal to demolish
the existing building is deemed acceptable subject to a suitable replacement. Policy DEV9 and
Conservation Policies EN11 & CH5 cover a number of issues and states that planning permission will only
be granted where a number of criteria have been followed. These criteria include that the development
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
would maintain the predominantly residential character of the area and that due regard has been had to
matters of siting, design and height of buildings, facing materials, provision of car parking and the
protection of trees. Policy states that within the Victorian core of Ellesmere Park, unless the nature of the
site and its surroundings dictate otherwise, the City Council would normally expect new residential
development to be in the form of apartments of at least three storeys. In this instance I consider this
proposed redevelopment to be appropriate and that it would preserve and enhance the Conservation Area
subject to a design which is consistent with the site and its surroundings.
Policies DEV1, DEV2, DES1, DES2 & DES7 all require good quality development, that respects the site
and neighbouring property. The building line of the proposal is set at a minimum of 11m from Sandwich
Road and some 14m from Victoria Road. The adjacent property at 1 Sunnybank Avenue is also 11m from
Sandwich Road, whilst the forward building line on Victoria Road is almost to the back of footpath at 2
Victoria Road.
Given the corner site location and the curved road I consider that the proposal will not impinge upon the
building line of this site at the junction of Sandwich Road and Victoria Road.
Objection from local residents and the Ellesmere Park Residents Association has also been raised to the
over development of the site. The proposed development has roughly twice the footprint of the existing
building and 25 apartments are proposed on the site. Policy H1 explains that developments should be a
minimum of 30 units per hectare, or 50 units per hectare on sites adjoining mixed use and town centres and
major public transport nodes. This proposal would provide 89 units per hectare which given that the site is
at the southern end of Ellesmere Park, and is close to facilities within Eccles town centre and the various
transport nodes available there, I consider the proposal to be in accordance with that policy. Residents have
stated that the proposal should be no greater than 60 units per hectare, this would also be in accordance with
Policy H1. As to the question of over development the proposal complies with the Council’s standards of
privacy and sunlight/daylight standards in relation to neighbouring residential property. Indeed permission
was approved in 1995 which allowed a two storey extension which if implemented would have been within
15m of the adjacent property on Sunnybank Avenue, closer by 6m than this application. The location within
the centre of the site and the part four/part three storey building are in line with the Councils guidance on
height and scale for flatted development within the Victorian Core of Ellesmere Park. As such I consider the
scale and mass of the development to be acceptable and the provision of additional housing units to be in
accordance with Policies H1 and H2.
The design of the proposed building includes steep roof pitches, materials, elevational detailing and
window patterns that area appropriate to the area. Dormer windows formed in the roofspace and gable ends
in addition to turrets marking the three principal corners of the site aid the compatibility with the Victorian
Core of the area. The varied roof line and stepped line of the elevation also add to the interest in the building
as do the recessed windows and traditional glazing patterns and balcony details. I consider the proposed
design would produce a good quality building encompassing the thrust of design related policies DEV1,
DEV2, DES1, DES2 & DES7.
The siting of the building has ensured the mature trees, subject of TPO’s that bound the site on the
Sandwich Road and Victoria Road elevations to be retained. In order to facilitate development eight
younger trees will have to be removed but these are not worth of retention.
Objection has been raised to the level of parking and road safety issues. Turning to parking a ratio of 120%,
given the 30 spaces per 25 units, is considered to be in accordance with parking standards of the Adopted
and First Deposit Draft UDP. The existing access to the site is to be utilised and I am satisfied that
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
satisfactory visibility splays for both vehicles and pedestrians would be maintained. Boundary treatments
include a two metre high acoustic fence to the northern boundary of the site and decorative entrance gates
with brick piers surrounding are proposed to the highway frontages. Railings to match the entrance gates at
1.8m high would surround the remainder of the site, to provide security to the development. A bin store
close to the entrance to the site would be introduced and would be behind a brick wall to Sandwich Road.
Concern has also been expressed by residents over construction traffic blocking the road and this causing a
road safety problem. I propose to advise the developer to consult the Transportation manager over the
lawful parking of construction vehicles.
I consider that the existing building although with some external merit remaining in its form has been
adapted both internally and externally to an extent not warranting retention. I consider the proposed
building respects nearby residential amenity and is of a scale and mass appropriate to its location. The
retention of the mature boundary trees will help to retain the character and amenity of this part of the
Conservation Area. The design of the proposal will I consider preserve and enhance the character of the
Ellesmere Park Conservation Area. I am satisfied with the level of parking proposed and the use of the
existing access and have no highway objections. I recommend approval of this application subject to the
following conditions. I also recommend the associated Conservation Area Consent Application is
approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within twelve of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
3. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
4. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use not less than 30 (thirty) car parking spaces
shall be provided within the curtilage of the site to the satisfaction of the Director of Development
Services and such spaces shall be made available at all times the premises are in use.
5. Standard Condition C03X Fencing of Trees/no work within spread
6. Prior to commencement of development the developer shall submit for the approval of the Director of
Development Services a scheme showing the underlaying of the car parking area with a geo-webbing
system or similar system to ensure the existing trees are retained. Once approved such scheme shall be
implemented in full.
(Reasons)
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
6. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The developer is advised to consult the Transportation Manager over the parking of construction
vehicles during construction of this development.
APPLICATION No:
03/45579/CON
APPLICANT:
Gachet Developments Ltd
LOCATION:
Ellesmere House 1 Sandwich Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of existing building
WARD:
Eccles
At the meeting of the Panel held on 5th June 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR
AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
My previous observations are stated below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Ellesmere House which is situated at the junction of Sandwich Road and Victoria
Road, within the Ellesmere Park Conservation Area. The existing building, a large three storey Victorian
Villa, has previously had two modern extensions attached, one with the benefit of planning permission. The
building has previously been used as a nursing home but has been vacant for well over a year. The parent
building has a height of 10.6m from ground level, whilst it has a footprint of 370sq.m. The building is
surrounded by hardstanding and lawned areas and is set within a site area of 0.28 hectares or 2,800sq.m.
The site is surrounded by mature trees to both the Sandwich Road and Victoria Road frontages whilst there
are smaller trees within the site. Surrounding uses are all residential and buildings consist of a mixture of
mature residential houses, modern houses and modern apartment buildings. Existing vehicular access to the
site is from Sandwich Road.
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
Conservation Area Consent is sought for the demolition of the existing building. Planning permission is
also sought under application 03/45570/FUL for the erection of a part four storey/part three storey L shape
building to consist of 25 two bed apartments. The application would utilise the existing vehicular access
and consists of 30 car parking spaces. The 25 units would be at a density of 89 units per hectare. The
planning application also appears on this agenda for a decision. The proposed building varies in eaves and
ridge height. All windows are proposed to be recessed and have cills and window heads.
The proposed four storey element is predominantly at the Victoria Road frontage, here the applicant
proposes to lower ground level by a metre, whilst the top floor windows would appear as dormers within the
roofspace, as a gable end within the roof or within one of two turrets. The maximum height above ground
level would be 15m (16m including the lowered floor level). The eaves level varies between 8.5m and 9.5m
above the lowered ground floor level.
The Sandwich Road elevation also has a turret at either end with a similar relationship of the part four storey
element within the roof and the three storey element within the roof as dormers. The ridge height varies and
decreases from 16m to 15m then 13m towards the north of the site. The eaves height also varies between
9.5m and 7m on this elevation. The original main entrance doorway is shown as being retained on this
elevation.
The north elevation also has variations in roof height, eaves level between 6.8m and 8.2m high and ridge
height at 13.2m. This element of the north elevation, nearest to neighbouring property at 1 Sunnybank
Avenue features the second floor windows as dormers within the roofspace. The recessed north elevation
has eaves level of 7.5m and has a ridge height of 15m. The west elevation, facing Queenscroft, is part three
and part four storey with top floor windows within the roofspace.
The proposed building has a footprint of 573sq.m. and would be sited centrally within the site. Aspects
provide distances of 40m to the east over Sandwich Road, 55m to properties to the south, 13m and 16m to
the west and a minimum of 21m to the north. The applicant has submitted an economic evaluation, design
statement and aboricultural report in support of his application. In addition to parking the development
would provide a communal garden area.
SITE HISTORY
In 1982, planning permission was granted for the change of use from house in multiple occupation to a
private nursing home together with associated car parking (E/13628) (Implemented).
In 1984, planning permission was granted for the erection of a single storey rear extension (E/16780). (Not
implemented).
In 1985, planning permission was granted for the erection of a two storey rear extension to care home
(E/18956). (Not Implemented)
In 1991, planning permission was granted for the erection of a two storey side extension, renewal of
E/18956 (E/277281). (Not Implemented)
In 1992, planning permission was granted for the erection of single storey extension to care home
(E/29931) (Not Implemented).
In 1993, planning permission was granted for the erection of a part single/part two storey extension to
provide an enlarge kitchen and lounge on ground floor with new bedroom on first floor at rear of existing
residential care home, alteration of E/29931, (93/31251/FUL). (Implemented).
In 1995, planning permission was granted for the erection of a two storey extension to existing residential
home (Renewal of planning permission E27281) (95/34775/FUL). (Not implemented).
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
In 1998, planning permission was granted for the conversion of loft space to form 3 additional bedrooms
and facilities and revised proposals for 2 storey extension already
approved for residential care home (98/37575/FUL). (Not implemented).
The applicant also submitted and then withdrew an application for the demolition and erection of a new
build apartment block (02/45050/FUL) in 2003.
CONSULTATIONS
English Heritage – Consider the application can be determined by the City of Salford and do not wish to
comment.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed and a press notice was published on 21st February 2003.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 34 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The main issues
identified are as follows:








Most residents considered that the existing building should be retained but some considered that the
existing building could be demolished although the replacement proposal is unsatisfactory
Over-development of the site
Harm of a four storey building
Harm to the building line
Effect upon trees
Impact upon road safety
Too much car parking
Problems during construction
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:DEV9 Ellesmere Park Development Control Policy
Other policies:DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, EN11 Protection and Enhancement of
Conservation Areas
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES7 Amenity of Users and
Neighbours, DES13 Design Statement, H1 New Housing Development, H2 Location of New Housing
Development, CH5 Works within Conservation Areas, CH6 Demolition of buildings within Conservation
Areas.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
The demolition of a non listed building within a Conservation Area should be assessed against guidance
within Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) which provides detailed
guidance on the assessment of the demolition of a non-listed building within a Conservation Area. I have
assessed the application in the light of this guidance and have produced my analysis below.
Local Planning Authorities are required by PPG15 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving
or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area in question; and, as with listed building
controls. This should be the prime consideration in determining a consent application. In the case of
conservation area controls account should clearly be taken of the part played in the architectural or
historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is proposed, and in particular of the wider
effects of demolition on the building’s surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole.
Whilst the property is Edwardian it contains no outstanding architectural features. It has also been extended
to the west (fronting Victoria Road) and to the north (fronting Sandwich Road). The extension fronting
Victoria Road is of a modern design and is constructed of reclaimed hand made bricks that are not identical
to the Manchester Red bricks of the original building. Whilst the roof covering of grey slate matches the
original building the pitch is steeper and has a gable wall to the west rather than a hip, as the main house. I
can find no association with historically famous residents, or details of the architect.
PPG15 also states that the general presumption should be in favour of retaining buildings that make a
positive contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation area. The building can be treated as
a listed building if it does make a positive contribution to the character of the area. Where the building
makes little or no such contribution the LPA will need to have full information about what is proposed for
the site after demolition.
The property is located at the edge of the Ellesmere Park Conservation Area. It is adjacent to the former site
of a large pair of semi-detached properties (fronting onto Victoria Road) that were demolished some years
ago and replaced by a large block of three storey apartments. Whilst the replacement block has some
architectural embellishments the materials forming the walls and roof are modern. Ellesmere House is set
back from Sandwich Road and has a large grassed area with mature trees positioned behind a similarly
mature hedge. The shape of the garden follows the curved Sandwich Road and footpath that is unique to the
plot.
The grid-iron pattern of Ellesmere Park is one of the main features of the conservation area, with large
properties set back from the front garden wall to create tree lined large spaces between the opposing front
main walls. The Ellesmere House plot is different in that no 1 Sandwich Road does not line up or face the
opposite property 2 & 4 Sandwich Road. They can not be said to respect one another in the same way that
most of the other properties do in Ellesmere Park.
There are certain other prominent properties in the conservation area but Ellesmere House is not one. The
adjacent plot to the north (3 Sandwich Road and the three properties in Sunnybank Avenue are much
younger than Ellesmere House. They date from the 1950’s. This has a tendency to isolate Ellesmere House
even more from the grid-iron pattern. The trees on the plot of Ellesmere House contribute more to the
character of the Ellesmere Park Conservation Area rather than the house.
The final consideration in determining the significance of Ellesmere House is that the elevation fronting
Victoria Road faces the rear detached annexes to properties fronting Half Edge Lane. That is, the grid-iron
pattern is further isolated from this particular part of the conservation area.
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
For the forgoing reasons I feel that this particular property could not be said to either be prominent or
contribute to a great extent to the character of the Ellesmere Park Conservation Area.
From the conclusions reached above I do not feel that the property needs to be considered as a listed
building.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No demolition shall commence until a development contract has been signed for the construction of the
replacement building as approved under planning permission reference 03/45570/FUL
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R038 Section 18
2. In order to protect dereliction and appearance of the Conservation Area.
APPLICATION No:
03/45594/FUL
APPLICANT:
Clifton Properties
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To 200 Anson Street Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of four storey building comprising 49 apartments and
associated car parking together with alteration to existing vehicular
access
WARD:
Winton
Since the report was presented to the Panel on the 22nd May I have received an additional letter of objection
from a resident who had already registered their objections. I have received a total of six objections from
residents to the application, all these letters were reported in the amendment report of the 22 nd May. This
letter seeks clarification on the number of objections and the dimensions of the proposal. I have also
received a letter of support from the Westwood Park Community Association. In addition I have received
one letter with 29 signatures in support of the application, although no contact details are attached.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At the meeting of the Panel held on 22nd May 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR
AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
My previous observations are stated below:
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land adjacent to 200 Anson Street which has been used as a haulage depot. The
site has a combination of low quality single storey shed buildings, a two storey house with most of the site
has been used as storage for haulage units. The site is at the junction of Verdun Road and Anson Street and
also backs onto the Bridgewater Canal close to the Parrin Lane bridge over the canal. The area is
predominantly residential and the appearance and previous use of the site is out of keeping with the area.
Planning permission is sought for the erection of an L shape part four part three storey block which would
contain 49 one and two bed flats. The height of the block would be 13m to the ridge of the main four storey
and 10.5m to the ridge of the three storey element. Over the entire development the top storey (ie fourth and
third floor respectively) is located within the roofspace giving an appearance of a three and two storey
development with dormer windows in the roof space.
The proposal would be 26.5m to the nearest residential houses property on Parrin Lane, the elevation facing
these two storey houses on Parrin Lane has angled windows essentially presenting a gable wall, albeit with
features added. With regard to the 3 storey flats, Old Fold which is on Parrin Lane. The gable end of the
development would be 16m away from the old fold flats. The nearest property on Verdun Lane would be
11m away although this distance is measured form the corner of each building.
The proposed flats are to be finished in brick with a tiled sloping roof. The elevations are broken by a mix of
windows and windows with balustrades fronting Anson Street, the elevation fronting the rear of Parrin Lane
has a mix of half dormers whilst the elvation fronting the canal has balconies. The proposal includes 43 off
street car parking spaces. A public right of way around the site is to be untouched whilst the site would be
enclosed with railings. The proposal would involve the demolition of all buildings on the site. The
applicant has indicated the reopening of Verdun Road and Anson Street, although this is not directly
required to facilitate this development.
The application has been amended to reduce the number of units from 53 to 49, to relocate the building
further away from nearby dwellings and the boundary of the site and to relocate the binstore away from
nearby dwellings.
SITE HISTORY
A similar development was recently withdrawn.
CONSULTATIONS
The Coal Authority – No objections
GM Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Recommends controlled gated access
Director of Environmental Services – Given its historical use it is recommended that a contaminated land
condition is attached. It is also recommended that the developer complies with Building Regulation
Document E to minimise noise disturbance between incompatible adjacent rooms (eg living room to
bedroom).
Manchester Ship Canal Company – No representations received
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
Ramblers Association – No representations received
Peak and Northern Footpath Society – No representations received
Open Space Society – No representations received
G.M. Pedestrian Association – No representations received
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 27th February 2003.
A site notice was displayed on 25th February 2003.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:188 to 200 even Anson Street
73 to 91 odd Anson Street
1 to 12 Old Fold, Parrin Lane
8A, 10A, 16A, 18A, 18B, 18C and 20 to 26 even Parrin Lane
1 to 11 odd and 2 to 20 even Verdun Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Loss of privacy
Loss of Sunlight to Parrin Lane
Concern over height of the proposal
I have also received a neighbour letter stating that they consider the development would enhance the street
but raised concerns over:
The bin store location
Security between the proposal and existing property – wishing to ensure that an alley is not created
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: A wildlife corridor runs alongside the Bridgewater Canal
Other policies:
DEV1 Development Criteria
DEV2 Good Design
DEV4 Design and Crime
H1 Meeting Housing Needs
EC3 Re-Use of Sites and Premises
EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodland
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES6 Waterside Development, DES11 Design and Crime, DES1 Respecting Context
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy H1 relates to the adequate supply of housing. I consider that the intended use conforms to this policy
and also to Governments guidance for higher density sites and the re-use of previously developed land. The
site at present is occupied by a haulage depot, that detracts from the character of the area, thus appropriate
residential redevelopment in accordance with other policies in the plan should be encouraged in accordance
with policy EC3. DEV1 seeks, inter alia, to ensure good quality developments that respect surrounding
uses/buildings with regards to design and also privacy/sunlight/daylight. DEV2 requires all development to
be of good quality design/appearance. Policy DEV4 seeks to deter vandalism and other criminal activity.
EN7 requires a high priority is placed upon the protection and enhancement of trees. Policies of the draft
plan are similar with regard to this proposal whilst the policies relating to development near the
Bridgewater Canal, and DES11, seek high quality development that ensures pedestrian access to the Canal.
Objection has been received to the impact upon privacy and sunlight given the height and location of the
proposal. The proposal has three main elevations, those being the elevations facing the canal, facing Parrin
Lane and facing Anson Street. Given that the Parrin Lane facing elevation is designed with an innovative
window preventing direct views straight ahead and only allowing long views at an angle I consider the
distance to properties on Parrin Lane to be acceptable given this elevation would privacy wise be a part
gable, albeit with added interest from the feature windows. The fourth floor consists of dormers in the
roofslope, set back from the main elevation and consequently the distance of 26.5m is in accordance with
City of Salford normal standards.
Separate pedestrian access to the flats improves the security of the development as does the enclosure by
railings. The proposal would not result in an alley between 200 Anson Street and the development, the
boundary is to be enclosed by railings with brick piers. The bin store has been relocated to move it away
from surrounding residential properties. Landscaping is proposed to the Anson Street frontage and to the
part of the site facing the canal. I consider the proposed residential development would be an improvement
to the visual character of the surrounding area. I therefore consider the respects the character of the
surrounding area as intended within policies DEV1, DEV2 and DES1.
The proposal includes just less than 100% parking (43 spaces for the 49 flats) and revised access. The car
parking would be secured behind fencing with controlled access. I consider that this level of parking and
proximity to public transport links is acceptable and is in line with the City Councils and Governments
maximum parking standards. A cycle store is also proposed within the development. I am satisfied that the
development would be secure from crime given the controlled vehicular and separate pedestrian access.
The applicant has not submitted a tree report however the Councils SPG for Trees in relation to distances
from trees requires developments to be a minimum 3.6m away from the nearest point of the tree. The site
itself is devoid of trees the only trees near the site are over 3.6m away from the development. A landscaping
scheme would aid the visual improvement of the site. As such I consider the proposal to be contrary to be in
accordance with policy EN7 and the SPG on trees.
The redevelopment as housing of this site would be desirable with respect of the current bad neighbour use
located here. This proposal, although larger in scale than two storey dwellings on Anson Street, is similar in
height to the existing flats behind the site on Parrin Lane. I consider that the distance to nearby property is
sufficient in conjunction with the design of the proposal to ensure that occupiers of nearby property would
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
be not be subject to a loss of amenity in terms of privacy or sunlight and daylight. Consequently I consider
the siting, height and massing of development proposed to be inappropriate to the location. I consider the
site to be acceptable for housing development and I consider that the proposal would make a positive
contribution to the area, I have no highway objections and recommend approval. The applicant will require
a section 278 agreement under the Highways Act to re-open Verdun Road with Anson Street.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Since writing my report I have received five additional letters of objection. Points of objection relate to; the
height of the development and impact upon daylight and privacy, too many cars will result from the
development and cause road safety concerns. As stated in the main body of the report I am satisfied with
height, scale, level of parking and highway safety of the proposal.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls and roofs
of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
3. Standard Condition C01X Landscaping
4. This permission shall relate to the amended plans received on the 28th April 2003.
5. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use not less than 43 car parking spaces shall
be provided within the curtilage of the site to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services
and such spaces shall be made available at all times the premises are in use.
6. Prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall submit a site investigation report for
the written approval of the Director of Development Services. The investigation shall address the
nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on the site and shall include
an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection
Act 1990, Part IIA, focussing primarily on risks to human health and to controlled waters. The
investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions on the health and safety of site
workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider
environmental receptors including ecological systems and property. The sampling and analytical
strategy shall be approved by the Director of Development Services prior to the start of the site
investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report shall
be implemented in full by the developer and a verification report confirming measures installed and
remedial works shall be submitted for written approval prior to occupation of the site.
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
7. The lighting provided in the scheme for the undercroft far parking area and other car parking area shall
be erected and directed so as to avoid nuisance to residential accommodation in close proximity.
Guidance can be obtained from the Institute of Lighting Engineers which relates to these matters
(guidance notes for the reduction of light pollution). The lighting shall be designed to provide a
standard maintained illumination (LUX) of between 5 and 20 LUX with the lower level being the
preferable one.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
7. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding details
of drainage.
APPLICATION No:
03/45684/FUL
APPLICANT:
G Wimpey Manchester Ltd
LOCATION:
Former 'Restawhile Beds' Factory Worsley Road North/ Devonshire
Road Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 125 two, three and four storey apartment, mews and
detached dwellings together with associated car parking, landscaping
and construction of new, and alteration to existing, vehicular access and
provision of new footpath link.
WARD:
Walkden North
At the meeting of the Panel held on 22nd May 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR
AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
My previous observations are below:
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Since writing my report I have received an objection from the Ramblers’ Association. The objection is on
the grounds that the development would obstruct a definitive footpath, namely Walkden 117 (at the south
west corner of the site).
In response I would state that the footpath runs through both this site and adjoining industrial premises but
has been closed off for many years, and possibly more than 20 years, and does not actually exist on the
ground on the line shown on the definitive footpath plan. However, the presence of this footpath has been
brought to the attention of the applicant. The layout could be amended to accommodate a footpath link but
as currently proposed I must object to the application in accordance with the views of the Ramblers’
Association.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of the Restawhile Beds factory situated on Worsley Road North between
Devonshire Road and Hirst Avenue. The factory ceased manufacturing in November 2000. The building is
single storey with two storey offices to the front of the site. The site covers an area of 3.2 hectares and
forms a part of the Oakhill Trading Estate that lies to the north and west of the site. There area industrial
premises opposite on Worsley Road North with residential properties to the south beyond Hirst Avenue. To
the rear of the site there are industrial premises and the former Ashton Fields Colliery site that is a site of
proposed open space and industrial development.
It is proposed to demolish the factory and erect a total of 125 residential units on the site. The proposal
comprises a broad mix of house types including two-bedroomed apartments, two and three-bedroomed
terraced houses, three-bedroomed semi-detached houses and four-bedroomed detached houses. All
properties would be two-storey with the exception of twelve three-storey townhouses and two blocks of
four-storey apartments on the Worsley Road North frontage. The main access to the site would be from
Hirst Avenue and the application proposes the widening of the kerb radii at the junction of Hirst Avenue
and Worsley Road North. In addition three units would be accessed from Hirst Avenue itself along with
access to the garages for twelve other houses. Emergency access is provided from Devonshire Road. A
total of 162 parking spaces are provided, less than 1.3 per dwelling.
Three areas of open space are proposed within the development, one semi-private area at the junction of
Hirst Avenue and Worsley Road North adjacent to the apartment blocks, another semi-private square to the
rear of the site that would provide an enclosed public seating area to those properties on the square and a
third area of public open space measuring 0.17 hectare in compliance with requirements on public open
space within housing developments. The total open space provision within the site amounts to just over 0.3
hectare. The applicant has agreed to fund children’s equipped open space within the local area.
The layout is imaginative and unusual. As stated above a traditional square is created to the rear of the site
with its own public garden in the centre. Cars are separated from curtilages and garages are located to the
rear of squares of houses thereby enhancing the pedestrian friendly nature of the development and reducing
the overall parking provision by removing driveways to the front of garages. This emphasis on pedestrian
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
access to dwellings has also resulted in a reduction in some of the traditional interface distances between
units.
SITE HISTORY
Members will recall that planning permission was refused for a similar scheme on this site in November
2002 (02/44736/FUL). The application was refused on the following grounds:The proposed equipped childrens play area would seriously injure the amenity of future occupiers and
neighbouring residents by reason of its layout and siting. As such it would be contrary to both policies
DEV1, H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
The layout of the proposed development does not adequately address crime prevention and as such is
contrary to policy DEV4 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
The proposed development would result in the loss of an employment site leading to a material shortfall in
the range of sites available for economic development. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policy
EC3 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
The proposal would result in the loss of a mature tree protected by City of Salford Tree Preservation Order
266 that would have a significant detrimental effect on the amenity of the area. As such the development
would be contrary to both policies DEV1 and EN7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
The proposed development would be detrimental to highway safety and the free flow of traffic on
Devonshire Road as a result of cars backing out of car parking spaces accessed of that road. As such the
development would be contrary to policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services - The site is a former manufacturing site. The consequences of this are
likely to be potential contamination of the sub-soil with unknown substances. I would recommend therefore
that an in-depth examination of the site for contamination is undertaken. Again with the past potential of
contamination, it is also recommended that the site is investigated for gas contamination. The site is not
within 250 metres of any known landfill sites, but is on the edge of the motorway cutting, which may have
involved a certain amount of unknown waste moved or deposited on or around the site during it’s
construction. From a noise point of view, the application information indicates that a noise survey is on its
way to Planning. Any noise survey which is carried out will need to account for a couple of significant local
noise sources. The previous noise survey appeared to reflect a PPG24 noise assessment only, which will
account for noise from transport – relevant bearing in mind the proximity to Worsley Road North, the M61
and also the adjacent industrial estate. The survey from memory only addressed areas along the Worsley
Road North elevation. Consideration must be given to the other potential sources also, including any
transport noise which may arise due to the adjacent industrial estate. Noise from the industrial estate should
also be considered from a Statutory Nuisance point of view. Operations on the industrial estate may occur
on a 24 hour basis, so any noise from the estate could well give rise to a significant disamenity due to noise
for residential properties on the whole site, but especially on the adjacent or facing properties. Law
Distribution is known to operate on a 24 hour basis for 5 days per week. This site is immediately opposite
plots 88 to 90 and will significantly affect these properties on a noise amenity value for the times when the
site is operational. A full noise assessment will be required to look at all areas of noise generation on or
around the site, any recommendations to reduce the impact on the proposed site should be considered and
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
proposed prior to any decision being possible from Environmental Health. Only when the full noise
assessment including associated noise mitigation measures has been presented can Environmental Health
consider this application for suitability for the proposed use of the site. (The applicant has submitted this
full noise assessment as requested by the Director of Environmental Services and I am currently awaiting
his further comments) Further conditions will be recommended for this application if the submitted noise
proposal is approved in full. The further condition recommended for this application relates to the
submission of a site investigation report.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Has a number of concerns with regard to security
issues including the garage courts, recessed doors on one of the house types and the underpass on another
house type.
Greater Manchester Fire Service – No objections
The Coal Authority – No objections
The Environment Agency – Objects to the application due to the following. Although there would be no
flood defence objections to the principle of culverting the watercourse, the applicant has not determined its
existing route entering and leaving the site as recommended in the Agency’s previous response to
application 02/44736/FUL. In addition the applicant has not taken into account any potential effects of
diverting the flow into the sewer system. The applicant must ensure that third parties downstream would
not be affected by the interruption of the flows. The Agency would again suggest that this issue is
addressed before the granting of planning permission. The Agency is in general opposed to the culverting
of watercourses because of the adverse ecological, flood defence, health and safety and other effects that are
likely to arise. Although there are no flood defence objections to the principle of culverting this particular
watercourse, the Agency would prefer that the applicant pursue the opportunity of retaining the open
watercourse or ensure that the loss of open watercourse is mitigated for elsewhere. Mitigation could take
place on the development site or preferably by constructing a compensation wetland in a more ecologically
viable site where there is connectivity to other semi-natural sites; such as the nearby Blackleach Country
Park. This would also meet with Salford UDP policies EN10 and EN15 of improving landscape quality and
promoting improvements along identified wildlife corridors. The Agency would suggest the applicant
contact the Blackleach Country Park to assess the viability of accommodating a wetland mitigation scheme
within the Park, compensating for the loss of open watercourse within the proposed development site. Any
culverting of a watercourse requires the prior written approval of the Agency under the terms of the Land
Drainage Act 1991 and the Water Resources Act 1991. The agency seeks to avoid culverting, and its
consent for such works will not normally be granted except for access crossings. The Agency advises
against building over any new or existing culverted watercourses. If this matter can be satisfactorily
resolved the Agency requests that a number of conditions regarding contamination and surface water
drainage be attached to any permission as well as a number of informatives.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1 to 39 Hirst Avenue
1 to 16 (incl.) Gorton Grove
Units 15B, 23, 19, 16, 20 and 30 Oakhill Trading Estate Devonshire Road
1 to 27 and 2 to 16 Arthur Avenue
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
1 to 15 and 2 to 12 Albert Avenue
115 to 125 Worsley Road North
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one verbal representation in support of the scheme.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EC3 Re-Use of Sites and Premises, EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands, H1
Meeting Housing Needs, H6 and H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments, DEV1
Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, EN10 Landscape, EN15
Environmental Improvement Corridors
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EN14 Air Pollution, Noise, Odour and Vibration, E5 Development Within Established
Employment Areas, DES1 Respecting Context, DES11 Design and Crime, H8 Open Space Provision
Associated With New Housing Development, H1 Provision of New Housing Development, DES7 Amenity
of Users and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EC3 states that where existing industrial premises become vacant, the City Council will seek to
re-use or redevelop them for similar uses, except where one or more of three criteria apply. These criteria
include that the site could be used for other purposes without a resulting material or unacceptable shortfall
in the range of sites and/or premises available for economic development. EN7 encourages the
conservation of trees and woodlands. Policy H1 relates to the provision of an adequate supply of housing
stock. Policies H6 and H11 require a provision of both informal open space and equipped play space for
developments incorporating dwellings designed predominantly for family accommodation. Policy DEV1
states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when dealing with applications for
planning permission. These factors include the location of the proposed development and its relationship to
existing land uses, the relationship to the road network, the potential for noise nuisance, the visual
appearance of the development and the effect on trees. Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not
normally grant planning permission unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance of the
development and policy DEV4 encourages greater consideration of crime prevention in the design of new
development. Policy EN10 states that the City Council will seek to protect and enhance landscape quality
through the protection and wherever possible the enhancement of features of the landscape that are of
intrinsic value or that make a contribution to the quality of the landscape in which they are found. Such
features include streams and ditches. Policy EN15 states that the City Council will promote environmental
improvements along its main road, rail and waterway corridors.
The replacement plan policies update and are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
The applicant has taken steps to address the reasons for refusal on the last application. I consider that the
applicant has been successful with regard to open space, the retention of the protected trees on the site that
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
are now incorporated into open space or landscaped areas and the highway arrangements. In addition I
consider the layout of the site to be both imaginative and innovative and with the inclusion of additional
physical security measures it would satisfy the concerns of the Police Architectural Liaison Unit.
I remain concerned, however, with regard to the loss of this employment site and the effect that this would
have.
Problems have arisen elsewhere in the City where housing has been permitted in close proximity to noise
generating employment uses. This has resulted in complaints from the occupants of the new housing, and
pressure to constrain the operation of the employment uses, which reduces the attractiveness of the area as
an employment location and hence contributes to its decline. It is important that this does not reoccur,
particularly in the Walkden North and Little Hulton area where unemployment levels are above the City
average. Thus, should the Restawhile site be developed for housing, it is essential that occupiers of the new
housing are provided with a satisfactory level of amenity and protection from noise pollution.
The issue of employment land supply is more complex than the assessment provided by the applicant
suggests. Their assessment concentrates on the supply of land at a City level. In addition to providing
employment opportunities at key locations in the City, (such as Salford Quays, Chapel Street, Agecroft etc)
it is considered important to provide more local employment opportunities, particularly in those areas where
unemployment is relatively high. Consequently, the Draft UDP allocates sites for employment in the
Walkden and Little Hulton area, such as land at Wharton Lane, and land at Clegg’s Lane, to augment the
existing estates such as Oakhill, and replace the declining Linnyshaw Industrial Estate.
The Restawhile site does have a role to play in this distribution of employment land across the area. More
importantly, Oakhill has a significant contribution to make and should therefore be protected from
development that could lead to its erosion. In these terms, the proposal can still be judged to be contrary to
Adopted UDP policy EC3 (Re-Use of Sites and Premises).
I therefore recommend that the application be refused on the following ground.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would result in the loss of an employment site leading to a material shortfall
in the range of sites available for economic development. As such the proposal would be contrary to
Policy EC3 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
2. The proposed development does not adequately take account of footpath Walkden 117 and would
preclude any footpath link between Hirst Avenue and the proposed public open space to the west,
contrary to policies T10 and DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/45865/OUT
APPLICANT:
ACT Management Services
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
LOCATION:
Land At 2-12 Crescent Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Outline application for the siting and design of ten storey residential
development of 192 flats(13000 sq.m), basement and ground floor
parkingfor 111 cars, 911 sq.m office/commercial floorspace (B1,A2) at
ground floor level, alterations to existing and creation of new vehicular
accesses
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of the former Charles Taylor auction house that lies adjacent to the site of
the former Transport and General Workers Union building and to a former adjoining waste transfer station.
The site lies within the Crescent Conservation area and currently comprises the office building associated
with the auction use and the former single storey waste transfer building. The auctions rooms and
associated storage buildings were destroyed in a fire some time ago. The total site covers an area of just
under 0.5hectare. The site is bounded by Crescent, Gaythorne Street, an unmade road that runs parallel to
Oldfield Road and Hulme Street. Three buildings currently border the site. At the junction of Crescent and
Oldfield Road is the site of the former TGWU building. This building has been demolished in the last few
weeks and members will recall that planning permission has been granted for a six storey building on this
prominent corner site. To the rear on Hulme Street there is the single storey Hulme Street Nursery, a
Council owned building. Adjacent to the site on Crescent is the Black Horse public house, this is a three
storey Victorian property that is not a Listed Building but is on the Local List of Buildings, Structures and
Features of Architectural, Archaeological or Historic Interest.
Beyond the immediate buildings and roads bordering the site the development would face the river and
Adelphi Street to the north, there is vacant Council owned land to the west, the Henry Sutcliffe industrial
premises to the south and a small row of shops and the Salvation army premises beyond Oldfield Road to
the east.
The application has been submitted in outline and the applicant is seeking approval for the siting, means of
access and the design of the proposed building. The proposed development would comprise a total of ten
storeys with additional car parking at basement level. There would be more car parking at ground floor and
office space at ground floor on the Crescent and Gaythorne Street elevations. Elsewhere there would be
flats from first through to the 10th storey. The application has been amended in order to accommodate
concerns of English Heritage regarding the height of the building and its relationship to the adjoining
buildings on the Crescent. The development now steps in and steps back from both the road frontage and
the two neighbouring buildings on the Crescent frontage. The development would provide road frontage
development on Crescent, Gaythorne Street and Hulme Street. The height of the Crescent elevation has
been further reduced from ten to seven storeys as a result of my concerns.
The development would comprise 178 one, two and three-bedroomed apartments. Access to the
development would be from Hulme Street with the existing access on Crescent being closed. Parking for
111 cars would be provided, 80 at basement level and 31 at ground floor.
CONSULTATIONS
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
Environment Agency – No objections in principle but requests that any approval includes a number of
conditions
English Heritage – The amendments that have been made to this scheme appear to have gone some way in
attempting to reduce the impact that the initial proposals would have had on the conservation Area. The
Crescent is an elegant and impressive piece of townscape and forms one of the most memorable approaches
to the City. In this context the site in question is clearly important and the handling of this proposal will be
crucial to the ongoing regeneration of the wider Crescent and Chapel Street area. In considering this
application it is essential that your Authority consider the impact that a new building of this scale will have
on the Conservation Area. Although the area contains buildings of a variety of dates and sizes, this site will
predominantly be seen in the context of the adjoining historic buildings. The impact that a scheme of this
scale may have can be seen elsewhere in the immediate area and should not be underestimated. (Since
providing this advice the developer has reduced the size of the building on the Crescent frontage from nine
to seven storeys.)
Director of Environmental Services – Traffic noise in this area is very high and residents may suffer loss of
amenity as a result. In these circumstances forced mechanical ventilation will be required to habitable
rooms and conditions will be required to this effect. Conditions are also required with regard to
soundproofing and a contaminated land survey.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – There are existing security problems with this and
adjacent sites. Access control to the parking court must be robust and remotely operated to ensure
unauthorised. The crossing to the vehicular access must be strongly defined and physically designated to
ensure unauthorised parking is prohibited. ‘Target hardening’ of the premises must be to a high standard
with security components to a high priority on the ground floor. Access to residential units should be
exclusively dedicated to residents and within their control.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified of the application:Transport House
13, 15 and 16 Crescent
1 to 9 and 15 to 23 Oldfield Road
Hulme St Day Nursery
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified
are as follows:
Overdevelopment of the site
Development is too close to the adjoining buildings
Out of character with the Conservation Area
Building is too high
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, EC3 Re-Use of Sites and Premises, EN11 Protection and
Enhancement of Conservation Areas, EN13 Works to Listed buildings and Buildings Within Conservation
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
Areas, EN15 Environmental Improvement Corridors, EN23 Croal-Irwell Valley, T13 Car Parking, CS7
Islington, DEV2 Good Design
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, E4 Employment Development on Unallocated sites, MX1/2
Development in Mixed Areas: Chapel Street West, CH5 Works Within Conservation Areas, CH6
Demolition of Buildings Within Conservation Areas, EN18 Environmental Improvement Corridors, EN6
Irwell Valley, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when determining
applications. These factors include the relationship to existing and proposed land uses, the amount of car
parking provision, the effect on neighbours and the visual appearance of the development and its
relationship to its surroundings.
Policy EC3 states that where existing industrial and non-retail commercial sites or premises become vacant
the City Council will seek to re-use or develop them for similar or related uses except where one of three
criteria apply. These criteria are that the site could be used for other purposes without a resulting material or
unacceptable shortfall in the range of sites or premises available for economic development; that alternative
employment generating development would be more appropriate; or that there is a strong environmental
case for rationalising land uses or creating open space.
Policy EN11 states that the City Council will seek to preserve or enhance the special character of areas of
architectural and historic interest and that regard will be had to encouraging the retention and improvement
of existing buildings; promoting environmental improvement and enhancement programmes and
encouraging high standards of development that are in keeping with the character of the area.
Policy EN13 states that demolition of buildings within Conservation Areas will be critically considered and
that regard will be had to the importance of the building both intrinsically and relatively; the condition of
the building and the importance of any alternative use for the site.
Policy EN15 states that the City Council will promote environmental improvements along its main road
corridors with an emphasis on removal of dereliction; the refurbishment of existing properties and the
encouragement of high standards of design and maintenance.
Policy EN23 relates to the Croal-Irwell Valley and refers to the improvement of road corridors within the
Valley and to the restoration of derelict land. Policy T13 requires sufficient car parking to be provided and
policy CS7 relates to the Islington area within Central Salford and states that the City Council will promote
the improvement and renewal of the area through selective redevelopment of the Chapel Street frontage for
commercial uses, the improvement of vehicular access and environmental improvement to the area as a
whole. Policy DEV2 states that the City council will only grant planning permission where it is satisfied
with the design and the appearance of the development. The policy also states that development must pay
due regard to existing buildings and townscape and to the character of the surrounding area.
The replacement plan policies are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
With regard to the objections that have been received, two have come from occupiers of adjoining sites.
The developers of the TGWU building have objected to the relationship between this development and their
own. A meeting has been held with both parties and the application has been significantly amended as a
result. An objection has also been received from the proprietor of the nursery on Hulme Street. This site is
owned by the City Council. The proprietor does not object to the principle of development but is concerned
about the effect of major building works close to her nursery I understand that colleagues are assisting in
the search for appropriate new premises for the nursery.
With regard to the objections listed I agree that the submitted scheme did represent an over-development of
the site, was too close to adjoining buildings, was out of character with the Conservation Area and was too
high. However, as a result of the significant amendments that have been received that have moved the
development away from both the TGWU and the Black Horse pub, and have reduced the height of the
development on the Crescent frontage from an original ten storeys to a maximum of seven storeys. In
addition the design of the proposed development has been amended so that it is lower than both
neighbouring buildings at the common boundaries between the sites. I consider that the proposed
development does not now represent an over-development of the site, that it is not too close to neighbouring
buildings, is not out of character with the Conservation Area and is of a height that is appropriate to
neighbouring buildings and the area generally.
I consider that the provision of 111 car parking spaces for 178 apartments is an appropriate level of
provision in light of the development’s location close to the Regent Road shops and on a major public
transport route into the regional centre. I consider that this parking provision is compatible with policy T13.
The existing premises were largely destroyed by fire some time ago and I therefore consider that the
redevelopment of this site for a mixed scheme that includes office accommodation is consistent with policy
EC3. The existing buildings that remain have very little merit or significance and the site currently detracts
from the Conservation Area and from the setting of neighbouring buildings. I am satisfied that the
redevelopment of the site is of significant benefit both to the site itself and the wider Conservation Area. I
am now satisfied that the proposed design is of sufficiently high quality and that it will contribute
significantly to the appearance of the Conservation Area and will enhance the street scene and character. I
therefore consider that the development is consistent with policies EN11, EN13, EN15, EN23 and DEV2.
In accordance with City Council policy the applicant has entered into a legal agreement to contribute
£192,000 towards environmental improvements in the local area.
The redevelopment of this site brings a derelict and vacant site back into use, it enhances the street scene
and continues the successful regeneration and redevelopment of the Chapel Street corridor.
RECOMMENDATION
1)
that the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under Section
106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to secure the following:i)
the payment of a commuted sum of £192,000 towards environmental improvements in the local
area
2. that the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded to grant planning permission subject to
the conditions stated below on completion of such legal agreement,
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
3. that authority be given for the decision notice to be issued subject to the conditions below on
completion of the legal agreement,
4. that authority be given to refuse the application should the legal agreement not be signed within a
reasonable time period.
Conditions:
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been submitted
to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
- the colour and type of facing materials to be used for all external walls and roofs;
- a landscape scheme for the site which shall include details of trees and shrubs to be planted, any
existing trees to be retained, or felled indicating the spread of the branches and trunk positions, walls,
fences, boundary and surface treatment.
3. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
4. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a report for the approval of the
Director of Development Services that details calculations to show the sound/vibration attenuation of
the proposed wall on Crescent and the adjacent apartments. The wall must be made capable of
attenuating noise to BS 8233 (Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings - Code of Practice)
and World Health Organisation recommendations for living rooms / sleeping accommodation. Noise
mitigation measures (where necessary) shall be submitted to, and approval in writing by, the Director of
Development Services prior to commencement of development. Any noise mitigation measures shall
be implemented in accordance with any approved scheme prior to the commencement of development.
The level of attenuation required must be agreed in writing by the Director of development Services
prior to the submission of the report.
5. The windows of all habitable rooms shall be acoustically galzed in accordance with the details set out in
the Sol Acoustics Environmental Noise Study dated May 2003. Alternative mechanical means of
ventilation which shall be sound attenuated shall also be provided to habitable room windows in
accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services. Such alternative means of ventilation shall be implemented concurrently with building works
and no apartment shall be occupied until such time as the approved works have been installed.
6. No development shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such scheme
shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans.
7. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface
water drainage from car parking shall be passed through an oil interceptor designed and constructed to
have a capacity and etails compatible with the site being drained. Roof water shall not pass through the
interceptor.
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
8. No development shall commence until a scheme of soundproofing that adresses the issue of
incompatible adjacent uses has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services. Such scheme as is approved shall be implemented in full prior to the
occupation of any unit.
9. Standard Condition M05 Site investigation
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
4. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
6. To ensure a satisfactory means of drainage in accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
7. To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
8. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
9. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
APPLICATION No:
03/45902/TPO
APPLICANT:
A Sethi
LOCATION:
21 Stafford Road Monton Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Fell four horse chestnut trees (T1,T2,T3,T4)
WARD:
Eccles
At the meeting of the Panel held on 22nd May 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR
AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
My previous observations are stated below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
The application relates to the felling of four Horse Chestnut Trees that are protected within group 73 of the
City of Salford’s Tree Preservation Order No13. The mature trees are located along the Southwest
boundary of the site and are approximately 14.5m tall.
The applicant has had a drainage report which concludes that the assumed cause of the problems he is
facing due to sewage leakage onto his driveway and blocked drains, is root ingress into the drains. For this
reason he would like to fell the trees.
SITE HISTORY
In 2001, an application to fell the trees was refused as it was considered the removal of the trees would
seriously injure the amenity of the area and that insufficient evidence was provided to justify the removal of
protected trees contrary to EN7 of the Unitary Development Plan. (01/42067/TPO)
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
Branwood Preparatory School, Stafford Road.
23, 4a, 6 Stafford Road
1 Thornbank Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified
are as follows:


The removal of the trees would be detrimental to the character of the area.
The trees should not be removed unless absolutely necessary.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: EN7- Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:EN10-Protected trees.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
EN7 of the Unitary Development Plan; Conservation of Trees and Woodlands states that the City Council
will encourage the conservation of trees and woodland by supporting the retention of trees, woods, copses
and hedgerows as trees are of considerable ecological, recreational, educational and landscape value within
both the rural and urban environment. Therefore the City Council places a high priority on their protection
and enhancement. It also states that the loss of mature trees can be particularly damaging given the time
required for trees to reach this condition.
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
EN10 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan – Protected trees states that development that results in
the unacceptable loss of, or damage to, protected trees will not be permitted.
The objector is concerned that the removal of the trees would adversely affect the character of the area. The
City’s Senior Arboriculture Officer has inspected the trees and is of the opinion that they appear to be in a
stable condition and that their removal would seriously, adversely affect the treescape. He also considers
that if the roots have ingressed into the sewers, the sewers can be reinstated to stop this problem and the
treescape can be retained. He considers that if the sewers are adequately reinstated it is unlikely that the
problem would reoccur.
I agree with the Arboriculture Officer that there is not enough evidence to support the felling of the trees
and that if the drains were to be properly reinstated the problem is unlikely to reoccur. Therefore to retain
the character of the area and comply with EN7 of the Unitary Development Plan, I recommend this
application be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed felling of trees within the City of Salford Tree Preservation Order No. 13, would
seriously injure the amenity of the area and insufficient evidence has been provided to justify the
removal of protected trees. The removal of these tree would be contrary to policy EN 7 (Conservation
of Trees and Woodlands) of the City of Salford's Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/45992/OUT
APPLICANT:
Williams,Tarr And Co.Ltd.
LOCATION:
Land Between Cadishead Way And Irlam Wharf Road Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for the erection of industrial units (B1,B2,
And B8) with all matters reserved.
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant 3.7ha site to the east of Cadishead Way. Outline planning permission is
sought for the use of the land for B1, B2 and B8 uses. All matters have been reserved for the detailed
planning stage.
The site is located within the Northbank Industrial Estate and is separated from Cadishead Way by a
landscaped buffer area.
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
SITE HISTORY
95/33608/TPDC - Reclaiming of land for future development. Approved 27.4.95.
96/35170/TPDC - Erection of distribution warehouse class B8 with ancillary offices,
trailer & car parking and creation of new access/egress points onto proposed Irlam Wharf Rd extension.
Approved 30.5.96.
01/42274/FUL - Erection of 2.4m high palisade security fencing. Approved 14.6.01.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections.
Environment Agency – A number of conditions relating to drainage and contamination have been
recommended.
Health and Safety Executive – No objections.
Manchester Ship Canal Company – No comments to date
Northbank Management Company – No comments to date
Trafford MBC – No comments to date
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections in principle.
PUBLICITY
Site Notice displayed 25th April 2003
Press Notice published 24th April 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
United Parcel Service, Cadishead Way
MAN Manchester, Irlam Wharf Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations or letters of objection to date in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EC13/31 – Sites for Industry and Warehousing
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
Site specific policies: E3/9 – Sites for Employment Development
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The proposal is in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policy EC13/31 which allocates the site for
industry and warehousing. UDP policy DEV1 states that regard should be had to a number of issues when
determining applications for planning permission, including the relationship to existing and proposed
buildings. The policies of the First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP are generally similar to those of the
adopted plan in respect to this development.
The proposed development would be located on a site allocated for industry and warehousing in the UDP
and as such, I have no objection to the principle of the proposed use. The landscaped buffer to the north of
the site would remain and would provide some element of screening to the site.
I have received no objections to the proposal and have no objections on highway grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
2. Standard Condition B01X Reserved Matters
3. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of
foul and surface waters has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme
shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans.
4. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a desk study has been
undertaken and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority to investigate and produce an
assessment of the risk of the potential for on-site contamination. If the desk study identifies potential
contamination a detailed site investigation should be carried out to establish the degree and nature of
the contamination and its potential to pollute the environment or cause harm to human health. If
remediation measures are necessary they will be implemented in accordance with the assessment and to
the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
5. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface
water drainage from vehicle parking shall be passed through an oil interceptor designed and constructed
to have a capacity and details compatible with the site being drained. Roof water shall not pass through
the interceptor.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
3. To ensure a satisfactory means of drainage.
4. To ensure a safe form of development that poses no unacceptable risk of pollution.
5. To prevent pollution of the water environment.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Irlam Wharf Road is presently a private road. Please contact the Director of Development Services
(Highways Maintenance Section) regarding possible limits of adoption, if Irlam Wharf Road is ever
adopted in the future.
2. Vehicle visibility splays of 4.5m x 90.0m will be required.
3. It is likely that a Transport Assessment will be required to be submitted for consideration at the
Reserved Matters stage. The Transport Assessment should illustrate accessibility to the site by all
modes and the likely modal split of journeys to and from the site and should also give details of
proposed measures to improve access by public transport, walking and cycling, to reduce the need for
parking associated with the proposal and to mitigate transport impacts.
4. The framework for a Green Travel Plan shall be prepared and submitted alongside any subsequent
application for Reserved Matters.
5. Any subsequent Reserved Matters planning application shall include full details of proposed parking
provision for disabled people, cycle and motorcycle parking.
6. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment Agency
dated 9th June 2003.
7. Any facilities for the storage of chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by
impervious bund walls, details of which shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for
approval. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank
plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound should be at least equivalent to 110% of the
capacity of the largest tank, or 25% of the total combined capacity of the interconnected tanks
whichever is the greatest. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the
bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or
underground strata. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from
accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge
downwards into the bund.
APPLICATION No:
03/46011/FUL
APPLICANT:
Hutchinson 3G UK
LOCATION:
Site At The Corner Of Eccles Old Road/ Stott Lane Salford 6
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
PROPOSAL:
Retention of 12.5m telecommunications mast, three antennas and one
300mm microwave dish and an equipment cabin
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land at the south-east corner of the junction of Stott Lane and Eccles Old Road
(Weaste & Seedley ward). The proposal is for the installation of one 12.5m high telecommunications
monopole together with two associated equipment cabinets at ground level.
The proposed monopole will be sited on highway land, in between the existing lamp-post and existing
cabinet. The proposed dimensions of the cabinets are 1.8m x 0.95m by 1.5 in height (volume 2.565cbc.m)
and 0.8m x 0.45m by 1.2m in height (volume 0.432cbc.m). The total volume is 2.997cbc.m and the larger
equipment cabinet is to be sited 3.75metres to the North (access panels to face the library).
The Applicant has submitted a certificate with application 02/44935/TEL56 indicating that the proposed
equipment and installation would be ICNIRP compliant. Eighteen alternative sites were considered, but
have been discounted (including seven due to lack of interest). The reason for the development is to provide
‘coverage, upgrade, and capacity’.
The Panel is informed that this application is not for the development of, but for the retention of a
telecommunications monopole and associated ground equipment. The applicant’s previous application
(02/44935/TEL56) remains valid, although the applicant chose not to erect the proposal in the approved
location due to the existence of existing underground utilities. Apart from the specific location (which
differs from that approved by approximately 1metre) of the mast and two equipment cabinets, the only
difference is that this application includes a colouring effect, to be grey for the monopole, and green for the
two ground-based cabinets.
SITE HISTORY
In November 2002, planning permission was granted for the installation of a 12.5m telecommunications
mast, three antennas, one 300mm microwave dish and an equipment cabin (02/44935/TEL56).
CONSULTATIONS
No consultations.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was erected on 9th May 2003.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
The Hope Public House, Eccles Old Road
Hope Hospital, Eccles Old Road
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
The Library, Eccles Old Road
Isobel Heywood And Lottie Hobson Centre, Eccles Old Road
Meadow Court
Stott Lane Nursery School
St James Church, Vicarage Close
1-5 Meadow Court
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 16 (sixteen) representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The
main issues identified are as follows:







The applicant has already erected a telephone mast at this junction
Visual impact is unsightly and does not blend in with surrounding area
Objectors were unaware of impact of the previous application
Close proximity to Hope Hospital – impact of signals on sensitive electronic equipment
Proximity to a Special Needs School, and Hope Library
Proximity to residential
Obstruction to sight-lines required for drivers turning left from Eccles Old Road
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
SC14 – Telecommunications
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
S3 – Key Local Centres: Eccles Old Road
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
S2/12 – Location of New Retail & Leisure Development
Other policies:
DEV1 – Telecommunications
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES3 – Design of Public Space
DES11 – Design & Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy SC14 states that the City Council will normally grant planning
permission for telecommunications development where such development would not have an unacceptable
impact on visual amenity residential amenity, natural historical value, and built historical value.
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
The City Council will also take into account whether there are any satisfactory alternative sites for
telecommunications development available and whether there is any reasonable possibility of sharing
existing telecommunication facilities. Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 (PPG8) – Telecommunications,
sets out national policy in relation to telecommunication development. The Government's policy is to
facilitate the growth of new and existing telecommunications systems whilst keeping the environmental
impact to a minimum. The Government also has responsibility for protecting public health. The Stewart
Report (2000) recommended that the Government adopt ICNIRP (International Commission on
Non-Iodising Radiation Protection) guidelines to limit public exposure from telecommunication
developments.
With regards to the siting and appearance of the proposed development, I consider that the ultra slim-line
monopole design is acceptable, being a similar height to existing street lighting columns in the vicinity. I
have also checked the dimensions of the two cabinets (erected one metre apart from the site approved); the
dimensions are equal to those in application 02/44935/TEL56, approved in 2002. Given that the
development would be sited within a largely civic area, with the exception of the residential locality to the
south-east of the site, I consider this will help attain at least an appropriate distance to the dwellings and the
hospital, and the design will allow the structure to fit in with the existing street scene. I am satisfied that
alternative sites have been considered, and I have no objections on highway grounds.
Having analysed this application with the above issues in mind I conclude that this application is
acceptable, with particular regard to policies SC14, DEV1 & DEV2.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The telecommunications monopole and ground equipment cabin, hereby approved shall be treated in
the colours grey and green respectively as agreed in writing. The applicant must submit samples of
colour coding to the Director of Development Services within two months of the date of permission,
and implemented within two months of the date of written approval.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/46014/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs D Jones
LOCATION:
133 Eldon Road Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a two storey rear extension
WARD:
Irlam
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
`DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a mid terrace property.
The proposal is for a part two storey / single storey rear extension. The proposal would be situated along the
boundary with No.131 and would be 3.6m wide, the ground floor element would project 3.6m from the rear
elevation and the first floor would project 2.8m with a height of 6.3m (slightly lower than existing) with a
hipped roof.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
131 and 135 Eldon Road
26 and 28 Ferryhill Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection from the occupiers of No.135 in response to the application publicity.
The main issues identified are as follows:
Loss of light to kitchen / dining room and bathroom
Subjected to dirt, dust and noise throughout the building period
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 Alterations and Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 states that planning permission will not be granted for extensions that have an unacceptable adverse
impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance loss
of light or privacy nor would it have an unacceptably adverse impact on the character of the street scene,
this is re-iterated in policy DES7.
HH12 of the Supplementary Planning Guidance states in the absence of an extension along the common
boundary to the adjoining dwelling planning permission will normally be granted for a two storey / first
floor extension provided its’ projection is equal to its distance from the nearest common boundary.
DES8 states that the design of alterations and extensions must ensure that the resultant building appears as
an attractive and coherent whole
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
As mentioned the proposal would be closest to the boundary with No.131, No. 131 has an existing part
single / part two storey rear extension on the boundary that projects the same distance as the proposal.
The proposal is approximately 1.9m from the boundary with No.135. With regards to the first point of
objection the City Council do not consider bathrooms to be habitable rooms and therefore do not protect the
light to them. The kitchen / dining room window of No.135 is situated approximately 5m from the
proposed extension, I would therefore not consider the proposal to have a detrimental impact on these
windows.
With regards to the second point of objection, there is quite often inconvenience for neighbours during the
construction stage of any proposal but this would be for a limited period and is not a planning consideration.
The proposal is contrary to Policy HH12 in that the first floor extension projects 2.8m and is 1.9m from the
boundary with No.135. This policy is intended to protect habitable room windows from two-storey
extensions with regards to light and overbearing. In this case the nearest habitable room window is 5m
from the proposal and with this separation I would therefore not consider the proposal to have a detrimental
impact on neighbouring residents.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The glazing for the element of the kitchen facing the boundary with No.135 shall be obscured, and shall
be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
APPLICATION No:
03/46038/HH
APPLICANT:
D Wright
LOCATION:
15 Alfred Street Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey rear extension
WARD:
Eccles
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
At the meeting of the Panel held on 22nd May 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR
AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
My previous observations are stated below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a single storey extension at the rear of a semi-detached property. There are
dwellings on all sides of the property. The extension would project 2.74m along the adjoining boundary
with 17 Alfred Street and would be flush with the gable wall of the property. The extension would have a
kitchen/dining room window in the rear, which would be the only light-giving window to this room and
would have a sloping roof 3.7m at its highest point.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal - No objections.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
11 and 17 Alfred Street
14 and 16 Granville Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified are
as follows:
 Loss of light and view.
 Devaluation of property.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 - House Extensions
DEV3 – Alterations/Extensions.
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7- Amenity of Users and Neighbours.
DES8- Alterations and Extensions.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
DEV8 of the Unitary Development Plan states that permission would be granted if the extension would not
have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking,
overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light.
DES7 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan Policy supports DEV8 of the Unitary Development Plan
and states that all new development, alterations and extensions to existing buildings, will be required to
provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity, in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy,
aspect and layout.
DEV3 of the Unitary Development Plan states that alterations or extension should respect the general scale,
style, proportion and materials of the original structure and to complement the general character of the
surrounding area. They should also respect the amenities of neighbouring residents with regard to privacy,
daylight, sunlight and outlook.
DES8 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan supports DEV3 of the Unitary Development Plan.
The first objection is that the extension would cause a loss of light and view to the kitchen-dining room
window at the rear of the adjacent property. I do not consider there would be a significantly detrimental
impact on the light to this room or the view from it, as the extension would not project beyond the rear wall
of 11 Alfred Street. There is also another main habitable window at the rear of 11 Alfred Street in line with
the existing rear main wall of 15 Alfred Street. The Supplementary Planning Guidance for House
Extensions states that a single storey extension should not project beyond a 45-degree line drawn from the
midpoint of the closest main habitable window of an adjacent window. The extension would not project
beyond this 45-degree line and I do not consider there would be a significantly detrimental impact caused to
this window.
The second objection is that the extension could negatively affect the value of the adjacent property.
However this is not a planning issue.
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS.
A further site visit has revealed that the aforementioned kitchen/dining room window in 11 Alfred Street is
in the South East elevation of the building facing the proposed extension, rather than in the rear wall of 11
Alfred Street. The window is situated 3.5m away from the proposed extension and 1.8m from the boundary
fence. If the applicant were to erect a 2m fence under his permitted development rights, there would be a
similar loss of light and view to the room as the erection of an extension 2.8m to the eaves (and 3.5m in
height directly opposite the extension), 3.5m away from the window would cause. Therefore I do not
consider the erection of the proposed extension would have more of a significantly detrimental impact on
the amenity of the neighbour at 11 Alfred Street than a fence that could be erected under permitted
development rights.
The adjacent property has a kitchen/dining room in the existing outrigger but this is a small room
predominately used as a kitchen.
I do not consider that it is reasonable to prevent even the smallest extension being built at the rear of 15
Alfred Street due to this window and I recommend the application be approved.
There has been a further letter received from the objector that highlights the objections detailed above again
and requests a site visit.
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the brickwork and roofing of the development shall be the same
type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
3. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 21.05.03 which shows reduced projection
to 2.74m.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
APPLICATION No:
03/46045/FUL
APPLICANT:
B Carroll
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To 20 Worcester Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a detached dwelling
WARD:
Claremont
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land adjacent to 20 Worcester Road, Claremont, on the site of previously
demolished garages, and is for the erection of a detached dwelling. Worcester Road is a cul-de-sac of
semi-detached dwellings. To the west of the site is public land with numerous trees, sloping upwards
towards Rivington flats, 37metres away. An existing footpath is to be re-aligned from the west to the east of
the site, thus creating space for the proposed dwelling.
The proposed dwelling will be two-storeys and incorporates an integral garage and parking for two
vehicles. The dwelling would have front and rear garden areas and is within the forward building line of
Worcester Road as shown in the amended plan.
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
The land is under the ownership of the City Council.
SITE HISTORY
No previous history.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services
Peak & Northern Footpaths Society
British Coal
Ramblers Association
Open Spaces Society
Greater Manchester PTA
- No objection, but suggests ground condition.
- No objection
- No objections, but points out land is within zone of influence of
8 seams of coal at 540m-970m depth.
- No comments received
- No comments received
- No comments received
PUBLICITY
A site notice was erected on 1st May 2003.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
2, 2a, 4 Cholmondeley Road
1-10 Rivington
11-21 Rivington
20, 18 Worcester Road
33, 35 Wocester Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
T10 – Pedestrians
T12 – Public Right-of-Way
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design & Crime
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
ST2 – Housing Supply
ST11 – Location of New Development
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES11 – Design & Crime
H1 & H2 – Provision & Location of New Housing Development
A2 – Pedestrians, Cyclists, and the Disabled
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The Panel is advised that the main policies to be considered are T12 (Public Right-of-Way), H1 (Meeting
Housing Needs), DEV1 (Development Criteria), and DEV2 (Good Design). These relate to the existing
public right-of-way, housing needs, and the design & siting of the proposed dwelling. I consider that
policies in the replacement UDP are similar to adopted UDP policy, with regards to this development.
The proposal will involve the re-alignment of the existing footpath and lamp-post from the west to the east
side of the site. It is essential that such an alignment is provided for in order to retain public access in
accordance with policies T10 and A2.
The size and siting of the dwelling is acceptable and the design will compliment the existing residential
neighbourhood.
With regards to issues of terracing, the applicant has submitted an amended plan showing improved
separation distances from the adjacent dwelling at no.20 and has also reduced the size of the rear of the
property by bringing the footprint back by 0.5m, as well as keeping the footprint within the front building
line of Worcester Road. I consider the amended plans to be acceptable and that this proposal will also
compliment policy H1 (Meeting Housing Need) through the release of land to accommodate a new house.
A further consideration is that of Policy DEV4 (Design & Crime). Here it is essential to provide safe
pedestrian access between Worcester Road and Cholmondeley Road. Further to this I recommend a
condition that details are submitted for replacement street-lighting at the side of the property alongside the
re-aligned footpath, which I consider maintains public safety.
Having analysed this application above, I consider this proposal to be acceptable.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be carried out until the Applicant has obtained the relevant footpath closure.
3. There must be a 2m x 2m pedestrian/vehicular visibility splay at both the foot access to the
re-positioned footpath, and the driveway access to the site. There should be no obstructions between
600mm and 2000mm above carriageway level.
4. Prior to commencement of development the applicant shall submit for the written approval of the
Director of Development Services, details of the design and siting of a replacement operational
street-lamp along the re-aligned public footpath. Replacement lamp-post shall be erected prior to the
closure of the existing footpath in accordance with the approved particulars.
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
5. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the roof and
exterior walls of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Reason: So as not to interfere with the free flow of the existing public right-of-access between
Worcester Road and Cholmondeley Road; in accordance with policy T12 and DEV 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
4. Reason: In the interests of public safety in accordance with policy DEV 4 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Coal Authority.
2. This grant of planning permission does not authorise the closure or diversion of the public right of way
as indicated on the approved plan, until the appropriate order has been made.
3. Once earth works commence on site, should site operatives discover any adverse ground conditions and
suspect it to be contaminated, they should report this to the Director of Environmental Services. Works
in that location should cease and the problem should be roped off until representative soil samples are
sent for analysis and the results assessed by the Director of Environmental Services, who can then
advise on the appropriate action.
APPLICATION No:
03/46049/FUL
APPLICANT:
Leaway Manchester Limited
LOCATION:
Monks Hall 42 Wellington Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Conversion of existing building to flats and erection of three two and
three storey buildings in the grounds for provide a total of 21 flats and
two houses
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
19th June 2003
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the existing Monks Hall situated at the corner of Wellington Road and Monks
Hall Grove. Monks Hall, dating back originally to Tudor times when it was a farmhouse, is a Grade II listed
building and is currently in use as a restaurant. Previous uses have included use by a doctors surgery and as
a museum by the City of Salford. The building is part two storey and part single storey and is double fronted
facing Wellington Road where it its highest ridge line is 8m. To the rear of the building are a number of
single storey extensions with the highest ridge height here being 7.25m. The building is situated in the
southwest corner of the site and has a footprint of 273sq.m. within the total site area of 3,185sq.m. The rest
of the site is covered by a mixture of lawn, planting and car parking. There are two vehicular access points
from Monks Hall Grove and an additional pedestrian access to Wellington Road. The rectangular site is
surrounded by several mature trees whilst some established trees are also found within the site.
Planning permission is sought for the conversion of the existing building into four self contained flats. The
conversion would involve the taking down of some modern extensions together with external and internal
alterations. Permission is also sought for the erection of three blocks containing a total of 19 flats, one 4
storey, one 3 storey and one 2 storey block within the grounds of Monks Hall. On the submitted plans the
developer has labelled Monks Hall as block A, the 4 storey block as block B, 3 storey block C and 2 storey
as block D. Each block would sit in one corner of the rectangular shape site. A total of 23 units are proposed
on the site.
Monks Hall itself would be converted into four flats each with rooms on ground and first floors. Three
single storey extensions are to be demolished, including the conservatory, whilst one single storey building
is proposed to be rebuilt. The ridge height of the existing single storey extension at the southwest of the
building is to be raised and two rooflights are proposed. Internal partitions are to be added and some
existing walls are to be removed with two void roof spaces being created as well. Some windows are
proposed to be blocked up with replacement windows proposed to all first floor windows.
Block B (4 storeys) would be in the north east corner of the site and would rise to a height of 13m with a
footprint of 102sq.m. This block would be 23m at its nearest point from the rear of houses on Albert Road,
although no habitable room windows face properties on Albert Road. This block would be about 1.5m from
an 11m high Silver Birch tree along the eastern boundary and 4m from trees to the northern boundary. An
existing Ash tree sits where the building would be constructed. Block B would be 16m from Monks Hall
and would be 15m from block C.
Block C (3 storeys), 11.5m in height and footprint of 247sq.m. would be in the north west corner of the site
and would front onto Monks Hall Grove, positioned between Monks Hall and 2 Monks Hall Grove. Block
C would be 7.9m from the gable end and 11.7m from the outrigger with habitable room at first floor of 2
Monks Hall Grove. It would be 27.4m from the properties across Monks Hall Grove and would protrude 3m
beyond the established building line of Monks Hall Grove. This block would be 13m from Monks Hall.
Block C would be 1m from a line of trees along the northern boundary of the site including two Ash trees at
14m and 15m in height.
Block D (2 storeys), 8.5m in height and footprint of 168sq.m., is a pair of semi-detached dwellings fronting
onto Wellington Road and in line with the forward building line of Monks Hall. The block is set behind the
building line of the adjacent dwelling at 40 Wellington Road by 6m and would be 10m from the same
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
dwelling which has habitable windows on three floors facing the site. This block would be 12m from
Monks Hall. The block would be less than 1m from a line of poplar trees to the western boundary which
stand around 17m in height.
A new vehicular entrance is proposed from Monks Hall Grove and the existing vehicular entrances would
be closed. The proposal involves the 23 on site car parking spaces, including disabled bay provision. Cycle
parking is proposed within the site.
The application has been submitted with a planning statement and a tree report. The planning statement
asserts that Monks Hall is the oldest non-ecclesiastical building in Eccles with part of the building dating
from the late 16th Century. The statement also declares that re-use of the existing building will have a
positive impact upon the historic building and that the three proposed blocks will also have a beneficial
impact on the listed building and surrounding streetscape. The tree report explains that of the 38 trees on the
site; 21 are proposed to be removed or are to be considered for removal either because a tree is dead or to
enable development, 16 are identified as could be removed for development and one tree is shown as being
definitely retained.
An associated application for Listed Building Consent 03/46050/LBC also appears on this agenda for a
decision.
PLANNING HISTORY
In 2002, planning permission was granted for the change of use from Change of use from restaurant to
educational facility (02/44852/COU).
In 2002, listed building consent was granted for change of use from restaurant to educational facility
requiring minor remedial works/alterations (02/44853/LBC).
In 1997, Listed Building Consent was granted for amendments to the existing permitted external and
internal alterations (97/36620/LBC).
In 1997, planning permission was granted for continued use as a restaurant without complying with
Condition No. 8 (no tables for consumption of meals outside building)of planning permission
95/34284/COU (97/36294/FUL).
In 1996, planning permission was granted for Change of use from museum (class D1) to public house (class
A3) at ground floor with ancillary residential
accommodation at first floor (96/34938/DEEM4).
In 1995, consent was granted for alterations to form public restaurant (95/34399/LBC).
In, 1995 planning permission was granted for the conversion to form public restaurant together with
associated car parking (95/34284/COU).
CONSULTEES
English Heritage – No formal comments as outside of the their remit. However do suggest that the existing
single storey extension (to the west of the existing building) should not be taken down and rebuilt.
Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to a condition requiring a PPG24 noise
assessment.
British Coal – No objections
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – No comments received
Environment Agency – No objections
Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Provides advice about the openness of the scheme and possibilities for
crime to occur.
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
PUBLICITY
A press notice was displayed on the 1st May 2003.
A site notice was posted on the 7th May 2003.
The following neighbours have been consulted:
2 –16 even Abbey Grove
5 – 7 &11 Abbey Grove
Priory Court and Abbey Court, Abbey Grove
3 – 27 odd Albert Road
4 – 12 even Albert Road
2 –8 even Monks Hall Grove
5 – 19 odd Monks Hall Grove
38 – 40 even Wellington Road
44 – 48 even Wellington Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received eleven letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The comments are:
Not enough car parking given the site is close to a motorway junction as well as public transport
facilities
Increase of on street parking
Entrance should be on Wellington Road
Value of property would reduce
The building heights are excessive
The number of dwellings proposed should be reduced
The proposed blocks are too close to existing dwellings with regards to privacy and
sunlight/daylight
Trees should be retained
Harm to the character of the area
Block C breaches the forward building line of Monks Hall Grove
Blocks B & C dominate the site and are too tall
The proposal does not preserve the appearance and character of the listed building
A Covenant means that the gardens are supposed to be open for use by local people
A covenant restricts the renting out of dwellings or use as public houses in the area
UNIATERY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES
EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodland, EN12 Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings, EN13
Works to Listed Buildings, H1 Meeting Housing Needs, H6 & H11 Open Space Provision, DEV1
Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime.
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN
DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES8 Alterations and Extensions,
DES11 Design and Crime, H1 Provision of new housing development, H5 provision of residential
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
accommodation within existing buildings, H8 Open Space Provision Associated with new Housing
Development, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments, CH2 Works to
Listed Buildings, CH4 Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policies EN12 and EN13 require that permission should not be granted if a proposal detracts from the
architectural or historic interest in the listed building or detracts from the setting of the listed building.
Policy EN7 encourages the conservation of trees and woodlands. Policies DEV1, DEV2 and DEV4 require
good quality development that respects its surroundings, respects existing and future amenity, respects
existing building patterns, provides adequate parking and protects existing trees whilst ensuring appropriate
safety from crime. Policy H1 requires improvements to the housing stock whilst H6 & H11 require the
provision of open space for developments. The above policies are contained within the Adopted UDP
whilst the policies within the First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan, which are described in the next
paragraph, although similar in many respects should be given less weight than those of the adopted plan.
DES1 requires consideration of issues including scale, character impact on views and vistas, respecting
existing building lines, vertical and horizontal rhythms and impact upon local identity. DES7 requires that
developments respect sunlight, daylight, aspect and privacy and general amenity of future occupiers and
surrounding occupiers. H1 requires development to contribute to a balanced mix of dwelling types and to
provide accommodation at an appropriate density for the site. H5 allows conversion of non-residential uses
into residential where a number of criteria are satisfies. H8 requires adequate provision for formal and
informal open space. A10 requires appropriate parking on site. CH2 requires alterations to respect the
special architectural merit or historic interest and requires new uses to secure the long term future of the
building. CH4 explains permission will not be granted if a proposal causes harm to the setting of the listed
building in terms of siting, scale and quantity.
There are two main aspects to this proposal; the alterations and change of use of the existing Monks Hall
building and the erection of three blocks within the grounds of Monks Hall. I shall address each aspect in
turn however a decision should be made on both aspects together.
The change of use of the existing listed building into four flats would allow the building to be converted to
its original residential use and would provide a stabilised use which would be in line with policies EN12,
EN13 and CH2 of the UDPs and also national guidance within PPG15. Although this would be acceptable
in principle the actual internal and external alterations to convert the property into four self contained flats
need to be considered. The applicant has stated new partitions would be reversible and existing windows
would be reused which I consider to be appropriate. I consider the internal and external work would not
harm the integrity of the listed building. Indeed the application has been amended to show that the very old
single storey extension to the northwest of the building will be retained and underpinned as existing. The
proposed changes to the listed building including the taking down of the modern conservatory and making
good the original wall and the reuse as flats and the submitted layout can be considered to be acceptable and
would be welcomed alterations for the future safeguarding of the building. I consider that the proposed
alterations to Monks Hall to be in accordance with policies EN12, EN13 and CH2.
The three proposed blocks and the conversion of Monks Hall would provide a mix of dwelling types which
is in accordance with policies. The site density at 72 units per hectare would perhaps at some sites as close
to major public transport nodes and Eccles town centre be acceptable however the density proposed here
has a direct impact upon the character and setting of the listed building and the character of the surrounding
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
area. I consider Monks Hall to have an open feel given existing gaps around the building and established
trees at the boundary of the site.
Block D is of a similar height to Monks Hall whilst blocks C and D are one and two storeys higher
respectively than Monks Hall. Block C would sit 3m forward of the existing building line and would be
4.25m higher than Monks Hall.
I consider the proposals to have a detrimental effect upon the setting of the listed building and a harmful
effect on the street scene. Blocks B, C and D together take up slightly under 20% of the total land
surrounding the listed building and when considered together with additional hardstanding areas and bin
stores would have an impact on the setting of Monks Hall. Given the close proximity of all the blocks to the
historic Monks Hall, the height of the blocks and breach of the building line I agree with the objection
received and consider that a significant detrimental impact would result upon the setting of this listed
building and consider the proposal to be contrary to policies EN12, EN13, DEV1, DES1 and CH4. I
consequently consider that the density of this proposal to be too great for this particular site.
Objection has also been raised to the proposal on the grounds of privacy and impact upon sunlight and
daylight. The distance to the rear of properties on Albert Road, 40 Wellington Road and 2 Monks Hall
Grove all with habitable room windows overlooking this site is quite tight however privacy would not be
compromised as habitable room windows do not overlook these properties. I am also satisfied that distances
ensure a satisfactory level of sunlight/daylight to existing properties. Within the site the proposed flats
would also have satisfactory separation distances. Little amenity space is proposed on site and although
policies within the UDPs allow for a commuted sum payment in lieu of some open space I consider there to
be inadequate outside amenity space around the blocks and Monks Hall. I consider the proposal to be
acceptable with regards to privacy and sunlight/daylight.
The Councils Senior Arborist has assessed the applications impact upon existing trees on the site in light of
the tree report submitted. An Ash in the centre of the site has died and should be removed. Of the other trees
the Arborist advises that only a London Plane and an Ash should be considered for removal. The very large
polar trees may also be considered unsuitable in such close proximity to a proposed housing site although
they provide a good level of amenity. Following my colleagues advice I am of the opinion that of the
majority of the trees on the site are worthy of retention given the individual visual impact and site amenity
value provided and also objections received. These trees also contribute to the setting of Monks Hall and to
the amenity of the surrounding townscape. As such I consider appropriate distances in accordance with
British Standards and the Councils SPG on Trees should be adhered to in order to retain these trees. As most
of the trees are situated around the perimeter of the site to comply with these distances Blocks B, C and D
would need to be moved toward Monks Hall which would result in a more detrimental impact upon the
setting of Monks Hall and amenity between the proposed flats. It may however be possible to propose a
scheme that retains most of the trees on the site and if this could be achieved I may be amenable to losing
some trees. As the scheme stands however the impact upon the trees, which form the backdrop to the Listed
building would be unacceptable, therefore I consider the proposal to be contrary to policies DEV1 and EN7.
Objection has been raised to the impact of the proposal upon on street parking along Monks Hall Grove. I
consider that the proximity to Eccles town centre with its many services and shops and the railway, bus
interchange and Metrolink along with bus services along Wellington Road that the proposed 100% parking
to be in accordance with policies and standards in the replacement plan and with national guidance. I also
raise no highway objection to the proposed revised vehicular access.
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
The Police suggest the addition of internal barriers within the site to separate different areas to restrict
movement of visiting strangers. I consider the addition of barriers would result in a more detrimental effect
upon the setting of the Listed Building. The Police also suggest that the entrance to block C should not be
recessed, should members be minded to grant approval I suggest that secure by design should be ensured.
With regard to the matter of Covenants I do not consider these to be of significant material weight to be
brought into the assessment of this application.
In summary I consider the reuse of Monks Hall as four self contained flats to be a positive proposal for the
long term stability of the historic building. I consider that the scale, mass, density and consequently design
of the proposed blocks to be inappropriate to the setting of the listed building and to the amenity of
surrounding and proposed residences. I also consider that the impact upon and loss of existing trees to be of
detrimental impact to the amenity of the area and character of the site. I have no highway objections to the
proposal. I recommend that planning permission be refused for the following reasons.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. Standard Reason RR29C Amenity/Loss of Trees
2. The proposed development by reason of its scale, mass and siting would seriously injure the setting of
the listed building and as such the proposal is contrary to policies EN12, EN13 of the Adopted City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan 1995 and policy CH4 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement
Unitary Development Plan 2003.
APPLICATION No:
03/46050/LBC
APPLICANT:
Leaway Manchester Limited
LOCATION:
Monks Hall 42 Wellington Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Listed Building Consent for the conversion of existing building to flats
and erection of three - two and three storey buildings in the grounds to
provide a total of 21 flats and two houses
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPSAL
This application relates to the existing Monks Hall situated at the corner of Wellington Road and Monks
Hall Grove. Monks Hall, dating back originally to Tudor times when it was a farmhouse, is a Grade II listed
building and is currently in use as a restaurant. Previous uses have included use by a doctors surgery and as
a museum by the City of Salford. The building is part two storey and part single storey and is double fronted
facing Wellington Road where it its highest ridge line is 8m. To the rear of the building are a number of
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
single storey extensions with the highest ridge height here being 7.25m. The building is situated in the
southwest corner of the site and has a footprint of 273sq.m. within the total site area of 3,185sq.m. The rest
of the site is covered by a mixture of lawn, planting and car parking. There are two vehicular access points
from Monks Hall Grove and an additional pedestrian access to Wellington Road. The rectangular site is
surrounded by several mature trees whilst some established trees are also found within the site.
Listed Building Consent is sought for the conversion of the existing building into four self contained flats.
The conversion would involve the taking down of some modern extensions together with external and
internal alterations. Permission is also sought for the erection of three blocks containing a total of 19 flats,
one 4 storey, one 3 storey and one 2 storey block within the grounds of Monks Hall. On the submitted plans
the developer has labelled Monks Hall as block A, the 4 storey block as block B, 3 storey block C and 2
storey as block D. Each block would sit in one corner of the rectangular shape site. A total of 23 units are
proposed on the site.
Monks Hall itself would be converted into four flats each with rooms on ground and first floors. Three
single storey extensions are to be demolished, including the conservatory, whilst one single storey building
is proposed to be rebuilt. The ridge height of the existing single storey extension at the southwest of the
building is to be raised and two rooflights are proposed. Internal partitions are to be added and some
existing walls are to be removed with two void roof spaces being created as well. Some windows are
proposed to be blocked up with replacement windows proposed to all first floor windows.
A new vehicular entrance is proposed from Monks Hall Grove and the existing vehicular entrances would
be closed. The proposal involves the 23 on site car parking spaces, including disabled bay provision. There
is no proposed cycle parking.
The application has been submitted with a planning statement and a tree report. The planning statement
asserts that Monks Hall is the oldest non-ecclesiastical building in Eccles with part of the building dating
from the late 16th Century. The statement also declares that re-use of the existing building will have a
positive impact upon the historic building and that the three proposed blocks will also have a beneficial
impact on the listed building and surrounding streetscape. The tree report explains that of the 38 trees on the
site; 21 are proposed to be removed or are to be considered for removal either because a tree is dead or to
enable development, 16 are identified as could be removed for development and one tree is shown as being
definitely retained.
An associated application for Planning Permission 03/46049/FUL also appears on this agenda for a
decision.
PLANNING HISTORY
In 2002, planning permission was granted for the change of use from Change of use from restaurant to
educational facility (02/44852/COU).
In 2002, listed building consent was granted for change of use from restaurant to educational facility
requiring minor remedial works/alterations (02/44853/LBC).
In 1997, Listed Building Consent was granted for amendments to the existing permitted external and
internal alterations (97/36620/LBC).
In 1997, planning permission was granted for continued use as a restaurant without complying with
Condition No. 8 (no tables for consumption of meals outside building)of planning permission
95/34284/COU (97/36294/FUL).
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
In 1996, planning permission was granted for Change of use from museum (class D1) to public house (class
A3) at ground floor with ancillary residential
accommodation at first floor (96/34938/DEEM4).
In 1995, consent was granted for alterations to form public restaurant (95/34399/LBC).
In, 1995 planning permission was granted for the conversion to form public restaurant together with
associated car parking (95/34284/COU).
CONSULTEES
English Heritage – No formal comments as outside of the their remit. However do suggest that the existing
single storey extension (to the west of the existing building) should not be taken down and rebuilt.
Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to a condition requiring a PPG24 noise
assessment.
British Coal – No objections
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – No comments received
Environment Agency – No objections
Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Provides advice about the openness of the scheme and possibilities for
crime to occur.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was displayed on the 1st May 2003.
A site notice was posted on the 7th May 2003.
The following neighbours have been consulted:
2 –16 even Abbey Grove
5 – 7 &11 Abbey Grove
Priory Court and Abbey Court, Abbey Grove
3 – 27 odd Albert Road
4 – 12 even Albert Road
2 –8 even Monks Hall Grove
5 – 19 odd Monks Hall Grove
38 – 40 even Wellington Road
44 – 48 even Wellington Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received eleven letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The comments are:
Not enough car parking given the site is close to a motorway junction as well as public transport
facilities
Increase of on street parking
Entrance should be on Wellington Road
Value of property would reduce
The building heights are excessive
The number of dwellings proposed should be reduced
The proposed blocks are too close to existing dwellings with regards to privacy and
sunlight/daylight
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
Trees should be retained
Harm to the character of the area
Block C breaches the forward building line of Monks Hall Grove
Blocks B & C dominate the site and are too tall
The proposal does not preserve the appearance and character of the listed building
A Covenant means that the gardens are supposed to be open for use by local people
A covenant restricts the renting out of dwellings or use as public houses in the area
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES
EN12 Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings, EN13 Works to Listed Buildings
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICIES
CH2 Works to Listed Buildings, CH4 Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policies EN12 and EN13 require that permission should not be granted if a proposal detracts from the
architectural or historic interest in the listed building or detracts from the setting of the listed building. The
above policies are contained within the Adopted UDP whilst the policies within the First Deposit Draft
Replacement Plan, although similar in many respects should be given less weight than those of the adopted
plan. CH2 requires alterations to respect the special architectural merit or historic interest and requires new
uses to secure the long term future of the building. CH4 explains permission will not be granted if a
proposal causes harm to the setting of the listed building in terms of siting, scale and quantity.
There are two main aspects to this proposal; the alterations and change of use of the existing Monks Hall
building and the erection of three blocks within the grounds of Monks Hall. I shall address each aspect in
turn however a decision should be made on both aspects together. No supporting evidence has been
submitted regarding any justification for enabling development for the conversion of Monks Hall to flats.
However there is no UDP policy to require this and guidance within PPG15 advises that enabling
development should not be approved where detrimental impacts occur upon the architectural or historic
interest and setting of a Listed Building. Indeed the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas)
Act, 1990 advises LPA’s to have special regard to the impact upon a Listed building including the impact
on its grounds.
The change of use of the existing listed building into four flats would allow the building to be converted to
its original residential use and would provide a stabilised use which would be in line with policies EN12,
EN13 and CH2 of the UDPs and also national guidance within PPG15. Although this would be acceptable
in principle the actual internal and external alterations to convert the property into four self contained flats
need to be considered. The applicant has stated new partitions would be reversible and existing windows
would be reused which I consider to be appropriate. I consider the internal and external work would not
harm the integrity of the listed building. Indeed the application has been amended to show that the very old
single storey extension to the northwest of the building will be retained and underpinned as existing. The
proposed changes to the listed building including the taking down of the modern conservatory and making
good the original wall and the reuse as flats and the submitted layout can be considered to be acceptable and
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
would be welcomed alterations for the future safeguarding of the building. I consider that the proposed
alterations to Monks Hall to be in accordance with policies EN12, EN13 and CH2.
The three proposed blocks and the conversion of Monks Hall would provide a mix of dwelling types which
is in accordance with policies. The site density at 72 units per hectare would perhaps at some sites as close
to major public transport nodes and Eccles town centre be acceptable however the density proposed here
has a direct impact upon the character and setting of the listed building and the character of the surrounding
area. I consider Monks Hall to have an open feel given existing gaps around the building and established
trees at the boundary of the site.
Block D is of a similar height to Monks Hall whilst blocks C and D are one and two storeys higher
respectively than Monks Hall. Blocks C and D also come forward of the respective building lines and I
consider have a detrimental effect upon the setting of the listed building and a harmful effect on the street
scene. I consider the proposals to have a detrimental effect upon the setting of the listed building and a
harmful effect on the street scene. Blocks B, C and D together take up slightly under 20% of the total land
surrounding the listed building and when considered together with additional hardstanding areas and bin
stores would have an impact on the setting of Monks Hall. Given the close proximity of all the blocks to the
historic Monks Hall, the height of the blocks and breach of the building line I agree with the objection
received and consider that a significant detrimental impact would result upon the setting of this listed
building and consider the proposal to be contrary to policies EN12, EN13, DEV1, DES1 and CH4. I
consequently consider that the density of this proposal to be too great for this particular site.
In summary I consider the reuse of Monks Hall as four self contained flats to be acceptable and a welcome
improvement for the building. I consider that the scale, mass, density and consequently design of the
proposed blocks to be inappropriate to the setting of the listed building and to the amenity of surrounding
and proposed residences. The applicant asserts that this proposed level of development is needed in order to
retain and secure the character of the listed building however given the above analysis I recommend that
planning permission be refused for the following reasons.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development by reason of its scale, mass and siting would seriously injure the setting of
the listed building and as such the proposal is contrary to policies EN12, EN13 of the Adopted City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan 1995 and policy CH4 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement
Unitary Development Plan 2003.
APPLICATION No:
03/46061/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr C Cheadle
LOCATION:
7 Chessington Rise Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension and single storey rear extension
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
19th June 2003
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a semi-detached house. The proposal is to erect a two storey side extension. It
would be 3.18m in width, and would be 9.3m in length, with the first floor element being set back 1m from
the front main wall of the house. It is also proposed to erect a single storey rear extension across the whole
of the house and side extension, and would project out 2.3m from the rear of the house.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
1, 3, 5 Ellerby Ave
2, 4, 5, 9 Chessington Rise
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified
are as follows:






the occupiers of the house to the rear are concerned that the two storey extension would block
sunlight from their property, especially the patio
the occupier to the side is concerned that a loss of light will be to the kitchen/ dining room and
bedroom
the extension would shadow the patio, where time is spent owing to poor health
the proposal would leave no driveway and add to problems of cars parking on the street and
blocking the drive, which already happens
the extension would affect the sale of the property
the noise and disturbance during construction would cause considerable anguish and
exacerbate poor health.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:DEV8 – house extension
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that development must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of
neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light. This
is reiterated in Policy DES7.
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
The proposed two storey side extension only shows 1m set back at first floor level. Although the properties
are staggered on the street, I would consider that if no 5 were to have a two storey side extension it would
still lead to possible terracing effect. Therefore a 2m set back is required at the first floor of this extension in
order for the proposal to comply with the Council’s SPG for house extensions.
I have considered the objections from the neighbouring residents. The neighbour to the rear is concerned
that they will suffer a loss of sunlight, particularly to their garden. I understand their concern as the
application property is located to the south east of their house and the two storey extension may have some
effect on sunlight that currently affects their garden. However, the orientation of their house and other
surrounding houses also would have an affect on the direct sun that they can benefit from. I am satisfied that
the proposed extension provides adequate separation from the house to the rear, at over 9m to the nearest
part particularly given the angled relationship between the two houses. Therefore I do not consider that this
would have an adverse impact in terms of loss of light or overbearing impact on the house to the rear.
I am mindful that the neighbouring property is concerned, particularly given that the applicants property is
set back in relationship to her house. However, the projection of the 2 storey extension would be equal to
the distance that the neighbours house is from the boundary. Therefore I would consider that this extension
would comply with the Council’s SPG and would not have a seriously detrimental impact on the neighbours
hose in terms of loss of light, overlooking or overbearing. As the objector’s patio is set on the far side of her
property I do not consider that the extension would have such an overshadowing or overbearing impact on
her garden.
The proposed extension would still provide a drive of at least 6m in length and therefore the applicant could
still achieve off-road parking for at least one car, which is what I would normally require.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. Standard Reason RR35D Creation of Terracing Effect
APPLICATION No:
03/46068/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Manton
LOCATION:
30 Brotherton Drive Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
The application relates to a semi-detached property. The proposal is for the erection of a two-storey side
extension. The extension would project 2.3m from the front of the house to the adjacent boundary, and
back 8m to finish flush with the main rear wall. The first floor element would be set back 2m from the front
of the house. The proposal would extend 2.9m past the rear of the adjacent neighbour’s house as the
properties are staggered.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
11,15,28,32 Brotherton Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 1 letter of objection from the adjacent neighbour in response to the application publicity.
The objector has made the following comments:


The proposal would be visually intrusive and would cause an imbalance to the existing
property.
Loss of light
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV8 – House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that development must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of
neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light. This
is reiterated in Policy DES7.
I am of the opinion that the proposal respects the size and character of the existing dwelling and surrounding
houses and does not represent development that would be visually intrusive. However, as the proposed
extension would extend 2.9m past the rear of the adjacent neighbour’s house and would be only 1.7m from
the gable of this neighbour, I am of the opinion that it would have an overbearing impact and is contrary to
Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions. The guidance states that,
“Extensions at first floor level….will normally be acceptable provided that the distance away from the
common boundary (in this case the adjacent neighbour’s gable) is equal to the projection of the extension
itself”.
RECOMMENDATION:
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The two-storey side extension would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents living at 28
Brotherton Drive by reason of its size and siting and is contrary to Policy DEV8 of the adopted City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan, Policy DES7 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan, and Supplementary Planning Guidance - House Extensions.
APPLICATION No:
03/46071/HH
APPLICANT:
P O'Toole
LOCATION:
12 Thornway Ellenbrook Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey side extension and two storey rear extension
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached house. The proposal is for the erection of a single storey side
extension and a two-storey rear extension. The single storey side extension has two elements. The first is
the widening of the existing garage by 0.9m. The second element would project 1.8m from the front main
wall of the house and back 11m to the rear of the proposed two-storey rear extension. The two-storey rear
extension would project 3.5m and would extend across the full width of the house to adjoin the single storey
side extension.
At present the applicant’s house extends 1.2m beyond the adjacent neighbour’s house to the north (14
Thornway), but is angled away from this property. Taking into account the siting of the houses, the
proposal would result in development that would extend 5.6m past the rear of this neighbour’s house, but
there would be 5.2m to the gable of the single-storey element and 7.1m to the gable of the two-storey
element.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
3, 5, 10 and 14 Thornway
33 and 35 Edenvale
REPRESENTATIONS
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
I have received 1 letter of objection from the occupier of 14 Thornway in response to the application
publicity. This neighbour is of the opinion that the two-storey element represents development that would
have an overbearing impact on their property and would also lead to a significant loss of light. No objection
has been raised with regard to the single storey element.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV8 – House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that development must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of
neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light. This
is reiterated in Policy DES7.
The side element of the proposal has not been objected to and is in accordance with ‘Supplementary
Planning Guidance – House Extensions’ in that it would not project beyond a 45-degree line drawn from
the centre of the adjacent neighbour’s (14 Thornway) ground floor habitable room window.
There are two policies set out in ‘Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions’ that must be
considered with regard to the impact of the two-storey rear extension on neighbouring residents. The first
states that planning permission will normally be granted for a two storey extension provided it does not
exceed a 45-degree line drawn from the mid point of any ground or first-floor habitable room window in the
adjacent dwelling. The proposal is in accordance with this policy.
The second states that planning permission will normally be granted for a two-storey extension provided
that the distance away from the nearest common boundary (in this case the adjacent neighbour’s gable) is
equal to the projection of the extension itself. Again, due to the siting of the applicant’s house in relation to
the neighbour’s house, the proposal is in accordance with this policy. Therefore, I am of the opinion that
the proposal would not have a significant impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents and does not
represent development that would be significantly overbearing.
All elements of the proposal are in accordance with Council Policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
03/46072/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Evans
LOCATION:
4 Sunnybank Avenue (Sandwich Road) Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey rear extension (amendment to previous
planning application 02/45276/HH)
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a residential property in Ellesmere Park Conservation Area.
The application relates to a single storey rear extension, which consists of a kitchen extension and
conservatory at the rear of the property. Permission has already been granted for rear extension in January
2003 (02/45276/HH), this permission had an obscure glazing condition attached in regards to the
conservatory elevation facing No.3. The current application is for the same size extension in the same
location but with only part of the elevation facing No.3 being obscure glazed, the elevation has five panes of
glass and two would be obscured..
SITE HISTORY
In January 2003 permission was granted for the erection of a single storey rear extension (02/45276/HH)
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No objections
PUBLICITY
I have not advertised the application as although the application site is within a Conservation Area, I would
not consider the proposal to effect the character of the Ellesmere Park Conservation Area, the application
site is a modern property and the proposal would be situated to the rear.
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
3 Sunnybank Avenue
1 – 9 Denefield, Sandwich Road
8 Westminster Road
5 Ellesmere Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity from the occupier of No.3
Sunnybank Avenue. The main issues identified are as follows:
Loss of privacy
Would be satisfied if the whole of the side elevation was obscured glazed or a higher fence was
erected
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 Alterations and Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 states that planning permission will not be granted for extensions that have an unacceptable adverse
impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance loss
of light or privacy nor would it have an unacceptably adverse impact on the character of the street scene.
HH2 of the Supplementary Planning Guidance states that planning permission will not normally be granted
for extensions that introduce windows close to and directly overlooking the gardens of neighbouring
dwellings.
DES7 states that alterations or extension shall not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of
neighbouring developments.
DES8 states that the design of alterations and extensions must ensure that the resultant building appears as
an attractive and coherent whole
The proposal is 2.7m from the boundary with No.3 at its closest point increasing to 4m at its furthest. There
are five panes of glass on the side elevation, the applicant is proposing to obscure glaze the two panes of
glass closest to the boundary. Having re-visitied the site I would consider the part obscure glazing in
conjunction with the existing 1.5m boundary fence to be sufficient to protect privacy. I would not consider
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
the remaining panes of glass to be close to or directly overlooking the boundary. I would not consider the
proposal to have a unacceptable adverse impact on the privacy of No.3
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The glazing for the element of the conservatory facing the party boundary with No.3 shall be obscured
as shown in the amended plan received 2nd June 2003, and shall be maintained thereafter to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Please note this permission relates to the amended plan received on 2nd June 2003, which shows
obscure glazing on the side elevation.
APPLICATION No:
03/46074/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr E F Flaherty
LOCATION:
37 Stetchworth Drive Boothstown Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of side extension at first floor level and erection of two storey
rear extension
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a semi-detached house. The proposal is for the erection of a part first floor / part
two-storey side and rear extension. The proposed extension would project 3.1m from the side of the house
and back 8.6m. It would be set back 2m from the front of the house and would extend 2.6m past the rear of
the house.
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No Objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
35,38,39,40 Stetchworth Drive
77 and 79 Ellenbrook Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection from the occupier of the adjacent property in response to the
application publicity. The main issues identified are as follows:



Loss of Light
The objector has stated that his consent is required under the Party Wall Act for the
development to be carried out. He has confirmed that his consent has not been given.
The objector has also commented that the proposal would require him to re-fix his gutters
in a different location at his own expense.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV8 – House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that development must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of
neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light. This
is reiterated in Policy DES7.
The proposal would extend 2.4m past the adjacent neighbour’s first floor bedroom window at the front, and
0.6m past this bedroom at the rear. However, it would be in accordance with Supplementary Planning
Guidance – House Extensions which states:
“planning permission will normally be granted for a two storey/first floor extensions along the common
boundary provided that the first floor does not project more than 2.74m.”
Therefore, I am of the opinion that it would not lead to a significant loss of light for this neighbour, or other
neighbouring residents.
The second and third issues raised, which refer to the Party Wall Act and guttering respectively, are not
planning considerations, and are matters which should be resolved privately.
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
The proposal is in accordance with Council Policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Coal Authority.
APPLICATION No:
03/46102/COU
APPLICANT:
Mariyka Bolubasz
LOCATION:
Kennedy House Rutland Street Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Retention of use of former dental laboratory as dance school
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Kennedy House on the corner of Rutland Street and Cemetery Road South. This
proposal is for the retention of the dance school which currently operates on the first floor of Kennedy
House. The hours of use are varied to accommodate different classes, but in general operate from 4.30pm –
8.30pm Monday till Thursday and approximately 9am – 4pm on Saturdays.
The ground floor is currently used as a veterinary surgery. There are no hours of use restrictions associated
with the ground floor use.
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
The property is bounded by a mixture of industrial and commercial premises to the north and east along
Rutland Street. Adjacent to the site, on the southern elevation are three residential terrace properties.
Opposite Kennedy House is a public car park which can accommodate seventeen vehicles.
Parking provision for the building itself is off Rutland Street which can accommodate four vehicles for both
ground and first floor use.
SITE HISTORY
In 1993, planning permission was granted to change the use of ground floor from offices to veterinary
surgery (93/31598/COU)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Is concerned about noise and vibration from the first floor use causing
detriment to the noise sensitive ground floor use. It is therefore recommend that the application be refused
on the grounds of the detriment to the ground floor use due to noise and vibration from the activities above.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 12th May 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
1, 4 & 6 Rutland Street
2 – 6 (even) Cemetery Road South
Veterinary Surgery, Kennedy House, Cemetery Road South
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received twenty one letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues
identified are as follows:
Concern over noise issues impacting on the veterinary surgery
Car parking problems
Traffic generation
Safety
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV1 Development Criteria, EN20 Pollution Control, T13 Car Parking
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DES1 Respecting Context, EN14 Air Pollution, Noise, Odour and Vibration, A10
Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycling Parking in Dew Development
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when dealing with
applications for planning permission. These factors include the location of the proposed development and
its relationship to existing land uses, the relationship to the road network and the potential for noise
nuisance. Policy EN20 of the City Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan states that the City
Council will encourage and support measures to reduce, air and water pollution, land contamination and the
problems of noise, dust and vibration. Development will not normally be allowed if it is considered likely
to cause an unacceptable increase in existing air pollution, noise vibration levels, particularly around
sensitive uses such as housing, schools or hospitals.
The replacement plan policies are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
A total of twenty one letters of objection have been raised to the application publicity.
Of these, nine make direct reference to the noise and impact of the proposal on the veterinary surgery
below. I have also received a letter from the veterinary surgery stating that noise is causing difficulty in
treating patients. Traffic congestion and car parking problems on Cemetery Road has also been raised as a
concern. Approximately half of the letters received are from the surrounding residential properties in
proximity of Cemetery Road South. The remainder are from further a field who would not be directly
affected by this proposal. Concerns have also been raised with regard access and fire safety.
I am advised that with regard to the issue of fire safety the existing access arrangements are satisfactory for
this proposal.
I am also aware of the residents concerns regarding the level of traffic generation around the junction of
Cemetery Road South and Rutland Street. The current parking standards would seek a maximum of three
spaces to be provided to accommodate this use. There are currently two spaces available within the
applicant’s control and a public car park which can accommodate seventeen spaces opposite. I am also of
the opinion that on street parking along Rutland Street would not have any detrimental impact upon the
residents of Cemetery Road South. I have no highway objection and as such consider that there is sufficient
car parking provision within the area to accommodate this use.
I am concerned, however, with regard the noise and disturbance that the use has upon the ground floor use.
The nature of the ground floor use relies upon a quite environment to provide a high level of treatment and
recovery.
Contact with the Veterinary Practice has revealed that noise and vibrations are currently being transmitted
to their business which are causing problems when treating animals. Nervous animals are made more
nervous and it is alleged that the noise / vibration is interfering with the diagnosis of conditions that require
listening observations. I understand that the proposed dance studio has been partially fitted with an isolated
floor in an attempt to alleviate the above mentioned problems. This measure has made a difference
however, noise and vibration disturbances are still a serious problem. The Director of Environmental
Health is of the opinion that a reduction of noise and vibration to a level that will result in no amenity being
lost in the noise sensitive business below will be very difficult to achieve and certainly can not be
guaranteed.
I therefore recommend that this application be refused on the following ground.
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of the ground floor use by reason of
noise and vibration contrary to policy EN20 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
2. Further Recommendation
Director of Corporate Services be authorised to take enforcement action to secure the cessation of the
use
APPLICATION No:
03/46111/HH
APPLICANT:
J Joseph
LOCATION:
127 Leicester Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey side and rear extension
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi detached house. The proposal is to remove the existing small single storey
kitchen and erect a single storey rear extension across the whole of the rear of the house, to provide a
kitchen and succah extension. It would be a maximum of 7.44m wide and would project out 4.5m from the
rear of the house.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
125, 127A Leicester Road
8 Castlefield Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection from the occupier of the adjoining semi, who objects to the side wall
of the extension being built on their land.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House extensions.
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that development must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of
neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light. This
is reiterated in Policy DES7.
The objector is concerned about the proposed extension being built partially on their property, but does not
object to the size of the extension. The applicant has served the correct legal notice on the neighbouring
owners, and therefore whether the extension can encroach onto the neighbouring property is a civil matter
between the two parties.
I am concerned about the possible effect on the neighbouring property because of the size of the proposed
extension. The adjoining house does not have any extension on their side of the party boundary, and in such
an instance the Council’s SPG seeks to limit such an extension to 2.74m in length. This proposed extension
is almost twice the length, at 4.5m. Therefore I am concerned that there would be a serious effect on the
adjoining property in terms of loss of light, overshadowing and an overbearing appearance. Consequently I
would recommend that this application be refused, because of this detrimental impact.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of
its size, loss of light and overbearing appearance, contrary to the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan Policy DEV8 and the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions.
APPLICATION No:
03/46113/HH
APPLICANT:
G McNally
LOCATION:
6 Wentworth Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension and single storey rear extension
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
This application relates to a semi-detached property. The application is to build a two storey side extension
and single storey rear extension. The two storey side extension would be 2.6m wide, and 6.2m in length,
with the whole extension being set back 2m from the front main wall of the house.
The single storey extension would project out 2.9m from the back of the house and would be 8.75m in
length, spanning the width of the original house and the side extension.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
4,5,7, & 8 Wentworth Road
301 Worsley Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 4 letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified are
as follows:







the two storey side extension would affect the neighbours’ kitchen and dining area, which has 2
windows which face sideways towards the boundary
the adjoining property has a rear facing lounge which is already dark with a conservatory
extension to the rear of this room. Their conservatory would suffer a loss of light from the
proposed brick extension adjoining,
the proposed single storey roof so close to the bedroom window at the neighbours house would
make it easier for burglars to gain access,
the side extension would affect the boundary fencing on either side, which would either be
impossible to retain or would cause maintenance problems in the future,
the extension would not leave car parking space for the applicants and this could aggravate
on-street parking,
the extension would spoil the appearance of the street from that originally designed and if
everyone did the same, the residential tree lined roads would become little more than terraces
the open view for the facing neighbours between the two properties would be lost
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House extensions
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
Policy DEV8 states that development must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of
neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light. This
is reiterated in Policy DES7.
The Council’s SPG for house extensions outlines sizes of extensions and separation distances which would
normally be considered acceptable in order to limit any adverse impact on the neighbouring properties in
terms of loss of light, loss of privacy or overbearing impact.
The neighbouring property has an original side facing window on the ground floor for their dining area. The
two storey part of the extension would be approximately 2.5m away from this window, and I am concerned
that it would have an overbearing appearance on this room and result in a loss of light. The SPG would
normally require a separation of 13m from a ground floor habitable window and a blank gable wall.
Although the neighbours facing room is a combined kitchen and dining room, so that there would some
light from the kitchen end of the room, the neighbours use the dining area as their main area for eating.
Therefore I am concerned that such close proximity of the proposed extension would have an unacceptable
impact on this dining area because of the overbearing impact and loss of light.
I have considered the other grounds of objection. The adjoining property is concerned that the single storey
extension would take light from their conservatory and lounge. The proposed extension would project 2.9m
out from the rear of the house, which would line up with the objectors conservatory. This would comply
with the SPG and I do not consider that it would have a particularly overbearing impact or result in an
unacceptable loss of light from the conservatory.
The issue of boundary fences would be a private matter for the parties to resolve. As the proposed extension
would be set back 2m from the front of the house, it would allow over 6m drive length which would allow
one vehicle to be parked off road. I am mindful that the objectors are concerned that there would be
increased problem of vehicles on the road, but I would not object to a proposal that could maintain at least
one vehicle off road. The objectors are also concerned that the extension would start introducing a terraced
appearance to the street. I would not consider that this extension could introduce a terracing effect as the
whole extension would be set back 2m from the front of the house.
Although I do not consider that I could support all the grounds of objection, I do consider that the proposed
impact on the adjoining property, in terms of loss of light and overbearing impact, would be unacceptable,
as well as contrary to the SPG.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of a
loss of light and overbearing impact, contrary to the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan Policy
DEV8 and the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions.
APPLICATION No:
03/46116/ADV
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
APPLICANT:
Adshel
LOCATION:
Central Reservation Opposite Shell Garage And Sainsburys Car Park
(Site1) Regent Road Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Display of one double-sided internally illuminated free-standing
advertisement unit
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The proposal is to erect a freestanding double-sided internally illuminated advertisement unit. The display
unit would be approximately 1.4 metres in width and 2 metres in length and would be 0.6 metres above
ground level. The unit would be located on the eastbound side of the central reservation of Regent Road. To
the north of the site is the Sainsburys supermarket car park and to the south is the Shell petrol station.
There is an existing advertising unit located at a distance of approximately 2 metres from the application
site, on the westbound carriageway. Members should also note that a proposal for an identical unit
approximately 40 metres to the east is also under consideration on this Panel Agenda (03/46119/ADV).
SITE HISTORY
01/41950/ADV - Display of two internally illuminated double sided free standing six sheet advertisement
units (Sites 26 and 27). Approved 15.03.2001.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
Sainsburys, Regent Road
58 – 65, 114 – 121 Imogen Court
Shell Garage, Regent Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: DEV2 – Advertisements
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
PLANNING APPRAISAL
There are no specific policies within the Unitary Development Plan which relate to the display of
advertisements. The First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP includes a specific policy, DEV2, relating to the
display of advertisements. This policy states that consent will only be given for the display of
advertisements where they would not have an unacceptable impact on amenity or public safety and that all
advertisements will be required to be of a size and scale consistent with their surroundings, respect the
sensitivity of the location, avoid creating signage clutter and where appropriate incorporate artistic features.
The sign would be positioned approximately 2 metres from an existing freestanding unit. I consider that this
would add to the clutter in the streetscene and as such would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the
area. Furthermore, I consider that this proposal will interfere with forward visibility into the right turning
lane and as such would be detrimental to highway safety.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed sign when seen with existing freestanding advertisement units on Regent Road would
create a 'cluttered' appearance to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area, contrary to PPG19.
2. The proposed display of the freestanding advertisement unit would interfere with forward visibility into
the right turn lane and as such would be detrimental to highway safety and contrary to PPG19.
APPLICATION No:
03/46117/ADV
APPLICANT:
Adshel
LOCATION:
Central Reservation Between The Red Rose Centre And West Crown
Avenue (Site 1) Regent Road Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Display of one double-sided internally illuminated free-standing
advertisement unit
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The proposal is to erect a freestanding double-sided internally illuminated advertisement unit. The display
unit would be approximately 1.4 metres in width and 2 metres in length and would be 0.6 metres above
ground level. The unit would be located on the westbound side of the central reservation of Regent Road.
To the north of the site is the Red Rose Retail Park and to the south is an area of landscaping.
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
The applicant has submitted a plan indicating that the unit would be located approximately 5 metres from an
existing advertising unit on the eastbound side of the central reservation.
Members should also note that a proposal for an identical unit approximately 90 metres to the east is also
under consideration on this Panel Agenda (03/46118/ADV).
PUBLICITY
Site Notice displayed 14th May 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
6 – 15 (inc) West Crown Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: DEV2 – Advertisements
PLANNING APPRAISAL
There are no specific policies within the Unitary Development Plan which relate to the display of
advertisements. The First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP includes a specific policy, DEV2, relating to the
display of advertisements. This policy states that consent will only be given for the display of
advertisements where they would not have an unacceptable impact on amenity or public safety and that all
advertisements will be required to be of a size and scale consistent with their surroundings, respect the
sensitivity of the location, avoid creating signage clutter and where appropriate incorporate artistic features.
Whilst the applicant has submitted a plan indicating that there is an existing unit located approximately 5
metres from the application site (01/41952/ADV; Site 31) the approved plan for the existing unit indicates
that it should have been located at a distance of approximately 60 metres to the west of where it has actually
been sited. As indicated on the submitted plan, I consider that the proposed unit would add to the clutter in
the streetscene and as such would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area. However, because the
existing unit is not located in the approved position, it is unauthorised and must be relocated. Providing that
the unauthorised sign is relocated to the approved location, I do not consider that the addition of the
proposed unit would constitute clutter in the streetscene. I consider the proposed advertisement to be
acceptable in this commercial context and in accordance with the guidance set out in PPG19 relating to
outdoor advertising control.
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Prior to the siting of the advertisement unit hereby permitted, the adjacent freestanding unit (Site 31)
must be removed and relocated to the site approved by planning permission 01/41952/ADV to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
2. Standard Condition K01S Standard Advertisement Condition
3. Standard Condition K02E Illumination of Advertisements
4. Standard Condition K06 Luminance levels
5. No advertisement shall be displayed at the site until full details of a protective rail to be installed at the
base of the freestanding unit have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services. The protective rail shall thereafter be installed and maintained at all times to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
2. Standard Reason R034 Advert
3. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
4. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
5. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
APPLICATION No:
03/46118/ADV
APPLICANT:
Adshel
LOCATION:
Central Reservation Between The Red Rose Centre And West Crown
Avenue (Site 2) Regent Road Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Display of one double-sided internally illuminated free-standing
advertisement unit
WARD:
Ordsall
74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The proposal is to erect a freestanding double-sided internally illuminated advertisement unit. The display
unit would be approximately 1.4 metres in width and 2 metres in length and would be 0.6 metres above
ground level. The unit would be located on the eastbound side of the central reservation of Regent Road. To
the north of the site is the Red Rose Retail Park and to the south is an area of landscaping.
The applicant has submitted a plan indicating that the unit would be located approximately 4 metres from an
existing advertising unit on the westbound side of the central reservation.
Members should also note that a proposal for an identical unit approximately 90 metres to the west is also
under consideration on this Panel Agenda (03/46117/ADV).
PUBLICITY
Site notice displayed 14th May 2003
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: DEV2 – Advertisements
PLANNING APPRAISAL
There are no specific policies within the Unitary Development Plan which relate to the display of
advertisements. The First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP includes a specific policy, DEV2, relating to the
display of advertisements. This policy states that consent will only be given for the display of
advertisements where they would not have an unacceptable impact on amenity or public safety and that all
advertisements will be required to be of a size and scale consistent with their surroundings, respect the
sensitivity of the location, avoid creating signage clutter and where appropriate incorporate artistic features.
Whilst the applicant has submitted a plan indicating that there is an existing unit located approximately 4
metres from the application site (01/41952/ADV; Site 30) the approved plan for the existing unit indicates
that it should have been located at a distance of approximately 35 metres to the west of where it has actually
been sited. As indicated on the submitted plan, I consider that the proposed unit would add to the clutter in
the streetscene and as such would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area. However, because the
existing unit is not located in the approved position, it is unauthorised and must be relocated. Providing that
the unauthorised sign is relocated to the approved location, I do not consider that the addition of the
proposed unit would constitute clutter in the streetscene. I consider the proposed advertisement to be
75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
acceptable in this commercial context and in accordance with the guidance set out in PPG19 relating to
outdoor advertising control.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Prior to the siting of the advertisement unit hereby permitted, the adjacent freestanding unit (Site 30)
must be removed and relocated to the site approved by planning permission 01/41952/ADV to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
2. Standard Condition K01S Standard Advertisement Condition
3. Standard Condition K02E Illumination of Advertisements
4. Standard Condition K06 Luminance levels
5. No advertisement shall be displayed at the site until full details of a protective rail to be installed at the
base of the freestanding unit have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services. The protective rail shall thereafter be installed and maintained at all times to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
2. Standard Reason R034 Advert
3. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
4. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
5. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
APPLICATION No:
03/46119/ADV
APPLICANT:
Adshel
LOCATION:
Central Reservation Opposite Shell Garage And Sainsburys Car Park
(Site 2) On Regent Road Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Display of one double-sided internally illuminated free-standing
advertisement unit
WARD:
Ordsall
76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The proposal is to erect a freestanding double-sided internally illuminated advertisement unit. The display
unit would be approximately 1.4 metres in width and 2 metres in length and would be 0.6 metres above
ground level. The unit would be located on the westbound side of the central reservation of Regent Road.
To the north of the site is the Sainsburys supermarket car park and to the south is the Shell petrol station.
There is an existing advertising unit located at a distance of approximately 3.5 metres from the application
site, on the eastbound side of the central reservation. Members should also note that a proposal for an
identical unit approximately 40 metres to the east is also under consideration on this Panel Agenda
(03/46116/ADV).
SITE HISTORY
01/41950/ADV - Display of two internally illuminated double sided free standing six sheet advertisement
units (Sites 26 and 27). Approved 15.03.2001.
PUBLICITY
Site Notice displayed 14th May 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
58 – 65 Imogen Court, Regent Road
Sainsbury’s, Regent Road
1 – 8 Miranda Court, Regent Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: DEV2 – Advertisements
PLANNING APPRAISAL
There are no specific policies within the Unitary Development Plan which relate to the display of
advertisements. The First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP includes a specific policy, DEV2, relating to the
display of advertisements. This policy states that consent will only be given for the display of
advertisements where they would not have an unacceptable impact on amenity or public safety and that all
77
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
advertisements will be required to be of a size and scale consistent with their surroundings, respect the
sensitivity of the location, avoid creating signage clutter and where appropriate incorporate artistic features.
The sign would be positioned approximately 3.5 metres from an existing freestanding unit. I consider that
this would add to the clutter in the streetscene and as such would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the
area. Furthermore, I consider that this proposal will interfere with forward visibility into the right turning
lane and as such would be detrimental to highway safety.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed sign when seen with existing freestanding advertisement units on Regent Road would
create a 'cluttered' appearance to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area, contrary to PPG19.
2. The proposed display of the freestanding advertisement unit would interfere with forward visibility into
the right turn lane and as such would be detrimental to highway safety and contrary to PPG19.
APPLICATION No:
03/46120/ADV
APPLICANT:
Adshel
LOCATION:
Traffic Island At Entrance To Multi Storey Car Park The Quays Road
Salford Quays Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Display of one double-sided internally illuminated free-standing
advertisement unit
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The proposal is to erect a freestanding double-sided internally illuminated advertisement unit. The display
unit would be approximately 1.4 metres in width and 2 metres in length and would be 0.6 metres above
ground level. The unit would be located on a traffic island to the east of the entrance to the multi-storey car
park and at right-angles to the flats at Winnipeg Quay.
CONSULTATIONS
The Lowry Development Company - No comments received to date.
Orbit Developments – No comments received to date.
PUBLICITY
78
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
11 – 29 Winnipeg Quay
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: TR7/2 – Sites for Tourism Development
Other policies: None.
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1 – Development in Mixed Use Areas
Other policies: DEV2 – Advertisements
PLANNING APPRAISAL
There are no specific policies within the Unitary Development Plan which relate to the display of
advertisements. The First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP includes a specific policy, DEV2, relating to the
display of advertisements. This policy states that consent will only be given for the display of
advertisements where they would not have an unacceptable impact on amenity or public safety and that all
advertisements will be required to be of a size and scale consistent with their surroundings, respect the
sensitivity of the location, avoid creating signage clutter and where appropriate incorporate artistic features.
This unit would be located in a partially commercial context between the multi –storey car park and at
right-angles to the flats on Winnipeg Quay. There is existing signage associated with the Lowry Designer
Outlet and the car park. I consider the proposed advertisement to be acceptable in this commercial context
and in accordance with the guidance set out in PPG19 relating to outdoor advertising control. I have no
amenity or highway (public safety) objections, subject to the recommended conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition K01S Standard Advertisement Condition
2. Standard Condition K02E Illumination of Advertisements
3. Standard Condition K06 Luminance levels
4. No advertisement shall be displayed at the site until full details of a protective rail to be installed at the
base of the freestanding unit have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services. The protective rail shall thereafter be installed and maintained at all times to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
79
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R034 Advert
2. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
3. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
4. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
APPLICATION No:
03/46121/ADV
APPLICANT:
Adshel
LOCATION:
Site Adjacent To Exchange Quay Metrolink Station Ordsall Lane
Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Display of one double-sided internally illuminated free-standing
advertisement unit
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The proposal is to erect a freestanding double-sided internally illuminated advertisement unit. The display
unit would be approximately 1.4 metres in width and 2 metres in length and would be 0.6 metres above
ground level. The unit would be located on the footpath between Ordsall Lane and the industrial units on
Taylorson Street South. To the north of the site is Quays Campus and to the west is the Exchange Quay tram
stop.
PUBLICITY
Site Notice displayed 14th May 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
100 – 104 (e) Taylorson Street South
2 – 4 Hagley Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
80
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1 – Development in Mixed Use Areas
Other policies: DEV2 – Advertisements
PLANNING APPRAISAL
There are no specific policies within the Unitary Development Plan which relate to the display of
advertisements. The First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP includes a specific policy, DEV2, relating to the
display of advertisements. This policy states that consent will only be given for the display of
advertisements where they would not have an unacceptable impact on amenity or public safety and that all
advertisements will be required to be of a size and scale consistent with their surroundings, respect the
sensitivity of the location, avoid creating signage clutter and where appropriate incorporate artistic features.
This site is located in a generally commercial setting. There are a number of 48 sheet and 96 sheet
advertising hoardings further down Ordsall Lane, towards its junction with Trafford Road – these relate to
development sites. I consider the proposed advertisement to be acceptable in this area of mixed uses and in
accordance with the guidance set out in PPG19 relating to outdoor advertising control. I have no amenity or
highway objections, subject to the recommended conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition K01S Standard Advertisement Condition
2. Standard Condition K02E Illumination of Advertisements
3. Standard Condition K06 Luminance levels
4. No advertisement shall be displayed at the site until full details of a protective rail to be installed at the
base of the freestanding unit have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services. The protective rail shall thereafter be installed and maintained at all times to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R034 Advert
2. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
3. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
4. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
81
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/46122/ADV
APPLICANT:
Adshel
LOCATION:
Central Reservation Adjacent To Junction Of Broadway And Trafford
Road Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Display of one double-sided internally illuminated free-standing
advertisement unit
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The proposal is to erect a freestanding double-sided internally illuminated advertisement unit. The display
unit would be approximately 1.4 metres in width and 2 metres in length and would be 0.6 metres above
ground level. The unit would be located on the central reservation of Trafford Road, between a landscaped
area and traffic light. At a distance of approximately 30 metres to the east of the site is a dwelling (1
Crowther Avenue) and to the west of the site is the Salford Central United Reformed Church.
PUBLICITY
Site Notice displayed 14th May 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
1 – 7 Crowther Avenue
1 – 7 Trafford Road
Units 4 – 8 Salford Central United Reformed Church
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None.
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: DEV2 – Advertisements
PLANNING APPRAISAL
There are no specific policies within the Unitary Development Plan which relate to the display of
advertisements. The First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP includes a specific policy, DEV2, relating to the
82
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
display of advertisements. This policy states that consent will only be given for the display of
advertisements where they would not have an unacceptable impact on amenity or public safety and that all
advertisements will be required to be of a size and scale consistent with their surroundings, respect the
sensitivity of the location, avoid creating signage clutter and where appropriate incorporate artistic features.
The proposed unit would be at right-angles to the dwellings on Crowther Avenue. I consider the proposed
advertisement to be acceptable in this area of mixed uses and in accordance with the guidance set out in
PPG19 relating to outdoor advertising control. I have no amenity or highway (public safety) objections,
subject to the recommended conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition K01S Standard Advertisement Condition
2. Standard Condition K02E Illumination of Advertisements
3. Standard Condition K06 Luminance levels
4. No advertisement shall be displayed at the site until full details of a protective rail to be installed at the
base of the freestanding unit have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services. The protective rail shall thereafter be installed and maintained at all times to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R034 Advert
2. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
3. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
4. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
APPLICATION No:
03/46123/ADV
APPLICANT:
Adshel
LOCATION:
Grass Verge Between Huron Basin And Multi-storey Car Park The
Quays Road Salford Quays Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Display of one double-sided internally illuminated free-standing
advertisement unit
83
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
19th June 2003
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The proposal is to erect a freestanding double-sided internally illuminated advertisement unit. The display
unit would be approximately 1.4 metres in width and 2 metres in length and would be 0.6 metres above
ground level. The unit would be located on a grass verge, adjacent to Huron Basin and facing residential
properties on Winnipeg Quay.
CONSULTATIONS
Orbit Developments - No comments received to date.
The Lowry Development Company - No comments received to date.
Grain Wharf Residents Association – No comments received to date.
PUBLICITY
Site Notice displayed 14th May 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
30 – 54 Winnipeg Quay
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None.
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1 – Development in Mixed Use Areas
Other policies: DEV2 – Advertisements
PLANNING APPRAISAL
There are no specific policies within the Unitary Development Plan which relate to the display of
advertisements. The First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP includes a specific policy, DEV2, relating to the
display of advertisements. This policy states that consent will only be given for the display of
advertisements where they would not have an unacceptable impact on amenity or public safety and that all
advertisements will be required to be of a size and scale consistent with their surroundings, respect the
sensitivity of the location, avoid creating signage clutter and where appropriate incorporate artistic features.
84
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
The application site is situated in a very prominent position adjacent to Huron Basin and facing the
residential properties on Winnipeg Quay. I do not consider that the proposed unit demonstrates the high
standards of design expected in this prominent quayside location and I consider that the proposal would be
detrimental to residential amenity and the visual amenity of the area generally.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed advertisement would, by virtue of its size, siting and design be an obtrusive feature in the
street scene and would have a significant detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the Salford Quays
area and the amenity of the Winnipeg Quay residents.
APPLICATION No:
03/46124/ADV
APPLICANT:
Adshel
LOCATION:
Pavement Area Opposite Furness Quay Adjacent To Metrolink Stop
The Quays Road Salford Quays Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Display of one double-sided internally illuminated free-standing
advertisement unit
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The proposal is to erect a freestanding double-sided internally illuminated advertisement unit. The display
unit would be approximately 1.4 metres in width and 2 metres in length and would be 0.6 metres above
ground level. The unit would be located on a paved area adjacent to the boundary wall of the former Salford
Quays Project office site. There is a line of semi-mature trees on this section of the highway.
CONSULTATIONS
Grain Wharf Residents Association – No comments received to date.
PUBLICITY
Site Notice displayed 14th May 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
85
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
3 The Quays Road
1 Furness Quay
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None.
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1 – Development in Mixed Use Areas
Other policies: DEV2 – Advertisements
PLANNING APPRAISAL
There are no specific policies within the Unitary Development Plan which relate to the display of
advertisements. The First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP includes a specific policy, DEV2, relating to the
display of advertisements. This policy states that consent will only be given for the display of
advertisements where they would not have an unacceptable impact on amenity or public safety and that all
advertisements will be required to be of a size and scale consistent with their surroundings, respect the
sensitivity of the location, avoid creating signage clutter and where appropriate incorporate artistic features.
The proposed unit is set back approximately 20 metres from the ‘Salford Quays’ entrance stone and would
not be visible from Ontario Basin. The unit has been positioned towards the back of the footway and is
located close to a bend in The Quays Road and as such would only be visible over a short distance.
Furthermore, the line of trees would provide some element of screening to the site. I consider the proposed
advertisement to be acceptable in this partially commercial context and in accordance with the guidance set
out in PPG19 relating to outdoor advertising control. I have no public safety objections, subject to the
recommended conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition K01S Standard Advertisement Condition
2. Standard Condition K02E Illumination of Advertisements
3. Standard Condition K06 Luminance levels
4. No advertisement shall be displayed at the site until full details of a protective rail to be installed at the
base of the freestanding unit have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services. The protective rail shall thereafter be installed and maintained at all times to the
86
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R034 Advert
2. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
3. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
4. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
APPLICATION No:
03/46125/ADV
APPLICANT:
Adshel
LOCATION:
Grass Verge Adjacent To South Stage Broadway Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Display of one double-sided internally illuminated free-standing
advertisement unit
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The proposal is to erect a freestanding double-sided internally illuminated advertisement unit. The display
unit would be approximately 1.4 metres in width and 2 metres in length and would be 0.6 metres above
ground level. The unit would be located on the grass verge between Broadway and the car park for South
Stage. Uses in the surrounding area are predominantly industrial/commercial.
PUBLICITY
Site Notice – 14th May 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
Units 2A – 2D, South Stage, Broadway
92 – 94 North Stage, Broadway
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
87
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
Other policies: None
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1 – Development in Mixed Use Areas
Other policies: DEV2 – Advertisements
PLANNING APPRAISAL
There are no specific policies within the Unitary Development Plan which relate to the display of
advertisements. The First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP includes a specific policy, DEV2, relating to the
display of advertisements. This policy states that consent will only be given for the display of
advertisements where they would not have an unacceptable impact on amenity or public safety and that all
advertisements will be required to be of a size and scale consistent with their surroundings, respect the
sensitivity of the location, avoid creating signage clutter and where appropriate incorporate artistic features.
I consider the proposed advertisement to be acceptable in this area of mixed uses and in accordance with the
guidance set out in PPG19 relating to outdoor advertising control. I have no amenity or highway objections,
subject to the recommended conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition K01S Standard Advertisement Condition
2. Standard Condition K02E Illumination of Advertisements
3. Standard Condition K06 Luminance levels
4. No advertisement shall be displayed at the site until full details of a protective rail to be installed at the
base of the freestanding unit have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services. The protective rail shall thereafter be installed and maintained at all times to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R034 Advert
2. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
3. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
4. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
88
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/46126/ADV
APPLICANT:
Adshel
LOCATION:
Grass Verge Opposite The Junction Of Michigan Avenue And
Broadway Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Display of one double-sided internally illuminated free-standing
advertisement unit
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The proposal is to erect a freestanding double-sided internally illuminated advertisement unit. The display
unit would be approximately 1.4 metres in width and 2 metres in length and would be 0.6 metres above
ground level. The unit would be located on the grass verge between Broadway and 10 Dakota Avenue,
opposite Michigan Avenue. Uses in the surrounding area are predominantly industrial/commercial.
PUBLICITY
Site Notice displayed – 14th May 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
Unit 2D South Stage, 72 North Stage, 64 Broadway
Unit 10 Dakota Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None.
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1 – Development in Mixed Use Areas
Other policies: DEV2 – Advertisements
PLANNING APPRAISAL
89
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
There are no specific policies within the Unitary Development Plan which relate to the display of
advertisements. The First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP includes a specific policy, DEV2, relating to the
display of advertisements. This policy states that consent will only be given for the display of
advertisements where they would not have an unacceptable impact on amenity or public safety and that all
advertisements will be required to be of a size and scale consistent with their surroundings, respect the
sensitivity of the location, avoid creating signage clutter and where appropriate incorporate artistic features.
I consider the proposed advertisement to be acceptable in this area of mixed uses and in accordance with the
guidance set out in PPG19 relating to outdoor advertising control. I have no amenity or highway objections,
subject to the recommended conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition K01S Standard Advertisement Condition
2. Standard Condition K02E Illumination of Advertisements
3. Standard Condition K06 Luminance levels
4. No advertisement shall be displayed at the site until full details of a protective rail to be installed at the
base of the freestanding unit have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services. The protective rail shall thereafter be installed and maintained at all times to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R034 Advert
2. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
3. Reason: To provide for the safety and convenience of users of the highway in accordance with policy
DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
APPLICATION No:
03/46127/HH
APPLICANT:
Miss J Bracken
LOCATION:
163 Greenleach Lane Roe Green Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of first floor side extension
90
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
19th June 2003
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a end of terraced house within the Roe Green Conservation Area, which is on the
corner of Greenleach Lane and Summerfield Road. This proposal is to erect a first floor side extension,
which would project out over the pavement like an enclosed balcony. It would project out 600m from the
side of the house, would be 2m wide and would be set a minimum of 2.4m above pavement level.
Work is currently under way on the property to construct extensions that have already been approved,
although the builders have already created the side opening in the brickwork for this proposal.
SITE HISTORY
In December 2002, planning permission was granted for a single storey rear extension, a first floor rear
extension and a detached garage (02/45298/HH).
In April 2003, permission was granted for a slightly larger rear extension than previously granted, together
with the detached garage (03/45479/HH). This scheme is currently under construction.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published in the Salford Advertiser on 22 May 2003
A site notice was displayed on 27 May 2003.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
161,165, 100, 40 Greenleach Lane
3 Mulgrave Road
REPRESENTATIONS
Councillor Boyd has requested that this be determined by Panel, as he objects to the design of this extension
in this position.
I have also received 2 letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues
identified are as follows:
 This side extension overhanging the street is out of character with the original structure and
vastly different from other buildings in the conservation area.
 It would harm the visual amenity of the area
 The approved extensions have been designed to minimise the impact on the area, so it is a
shame to now include this side extension which sticks out like a sore thumb
 The work is already well underway and it seems strange that is being allowed to start before a
decision can be made.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
91
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: EN11 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
DEV 8 – House extensions
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:CH5/15 – Work in Conservation Area
Other policies: DES8 – Alterations and extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 states that planning permission will not be granted for proposals that have an unacceptably adverse
impact on the character an appearance of the street scene. Policy En 11 seeks to p[reserve or enhance the
special character of the conservation area by encouraging high standards of design which are in keeping
with the character of the area. Policies CH5 and DES8 reiterate these aims.
I am aware that one objector is concerned that work has already commenced on site. The majority of the
construction undertaken has already been approved, and it just the additional first floor side extension that
is now under consideration.
I am concerned that as this proposed first floor extension would project out over the side highway, it would
be a more prominently feature within the street scene. I am of the opinion that it would be an incongruous
feature on this house and therefore would be detrimental to appearance of the street scene. I would therefore
consider that it would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the conservation area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed first floor extension would be detrimental to the visual appearance of the street scene and
therefore would be detrimental to the character of the Roe Green Conservation Area, contrary to
Policies DEV8 and EN11 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/46129/COU
APPLICANT:
Pauls White
LOCATION:
175 Gerald Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from shop to shop for the sale of hot food
WARD:
Pendleton
92
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The property is the end unit in a row of terraced properties. The ground floor of the property is currently an
off licence/general store. The first floor is vacant but was previously used as a flat.
It is proposed to change the use of the property from a shop to a shop for the sale of hot food. No external
alterations are proposed and the applicant has stated that should permission be granted, the first floor flat
would remain vacant. The proposed hours of opening would be12 noon – 2pm, 4pm – 10pm Monday to
Friday, 4pm – 10pm on Saturdays and closed on Sundays.
The surrounding area is predominantly residential, although there are a number of non-residential uses in
the immediate vicinity, including a surgery at 167-169 Gerald Road, a hot food shop at 94 Seaford Road and
a small parade of shops at 100-106 Seaford Road. The site is located within the Charlestown and Kersal
New Deal for Communities Area.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – objects to the application on the grounds that the property is adjacent
to a dwelling
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
1-4 St Bernard’s Close
290-308 (E) Gerald Road
163-173 (O) Gerald Road
101-115 Seaford Road
92-94 (E) Seaford Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified
are as follows:
There are already enough hot food shops in the area
Parking is inadequate
It does not accord with the wider regeneration plans for the area
It is too close to a residential area
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: S5 – Control of Food and Drink Premises
DEV1 – Development Criteria
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
93
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
Other policies: S4 – Amusement Centres and Food and Drink Uses
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy S5 states that the Council will only permit applications for hot food shops where the amenity of
neighbouring residents would not be unacceptably adversely affected or where the safety of pedestrians and
road users would be prejudiced.
Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria against which applications for planning permission are assessed.
Of most relevance to this application is the relationship of the proposed use to existing land uses.
Policy S4 of the First Deposit UDP states that proposals falling within Class A3 of the Town and Country
Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 will not be permitted where, either in isolation or cumulatively, there
would be an unacceptable impact on the amenity of surrounding residents, the safety of pedestrians and
road users, the vitality and viability of a town or neighbourhood centre or visual amenity.
I will deal with each of the objections received in turn. Firstly, whilst the cumulative impact of shops selling
hot food is a matter for consideration, as highlighted by Policy S4 of the First Deposit UDP, I do not
consider there to be a concentration of hot food shops in the immediate vicinity and I do not therefore
consider that this application would contribute to the creation of an adverse cumulative impact as a result.
The closest hot food takeaway at 94 Seaford Road is to be demolished as part of the regeneration of the area
under the New Deal. I do not therefore consider this to constitute a reason for refusal.
In terms of car parking, I do not consider it necessary for off street car parking to be provided given the
previous use of the property as an off licence/general store. I do not consider that a hot food takeaway would
generate any more traffic than a successful off licence/general store. On this basis, I consider it
unreasonable to require the provision of off-street parking in this instance. There are no parking restrictions
on the majority of Gerald Road, which would enable vehicles to park on the street.
In terms of the regeneration of the area, plans for this part of Kersal and Charlestown are yet to be finalised.
It is likely however that the area will remain predominantly residential. As the details of the regeneration of
the area have not been finalised, I do not consider this to be an issue on which I can place much weight in
the determination of this application.
Finally, the last objection relates to the proximity of the premises to residential properties. Whilst the first
floor, although formerly used as a residential flat, is currently vacant and the applicant has confirmed that
this would remain the case should permission for the change of use be granted, 173 Gerald Road, adjacent
to the application site, is a house with residential accommodation on both floors. The surrounding area is
also predominantly residential, with houses to the rear of, and across the road from, the application site. The
applicant has offered to erect an additional wall within the property, which would separate the area to be
used for the hot food shop from 173 Gerald Road by creating a ‘corridor’. I do not consider however that
this would be sufficient to address my concerns regarding the detrimental impact on residential amenity and
to merit approval of the application. I therefore consider that the proposed change of use to a hot food shop
would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents due to noise and
general disturbance.
In conclusion, I consider that the proposal would have an adverse impact of neighbouring residents, in
particular 173 Gerald Road. The application is therefore contrary to Policy S5 of the Adopted UDP and
Policy S4 of the First Deposit UDP. I therefore recommend refusal.
94
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would be seriously detrimental to neighbouring residents, in particular 173
Gerald Road, and would injure the character and amenity of the area by reason of smell and fumes,
noise and disturbance and general activity and thus would be contrary to Policy S5 of the Adopted City
of Salford Unitary Development Plan and Policy S4 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary
Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/46134/HH
APPLICANT:
New Prospect Housing
LOCATION:
11 Wallbrook Crescent Little Hulton Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey side extension
WARD:
Little Hulton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to the end house in a row of semi-detached properties. There are no neighbouring
properties directly to the side or rear; there are dwellings to the south east of the proposed extension (nos 13
– 23 Wallbrook Crescent) that are set at a 90 degree angle. The proposal is for the erection of a single-storey
side extension. The extension would measure 3.31m x 6.08m and would be set back 0.85m from the front
wall of the property. There would be a pitched roof.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal - no objections.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
9 and 13 Wallbrook Crescent
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
95
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
Other policies: DEV8- House Extensions
DEV3 – Alterations/Extensions.
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours.
DES8 – Alterations and Extensions.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 of the Unitary Development Plan states that permission would be granted if the extension would not
have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking,
overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light. DES7 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan
Policy supports this.
DEV3 of the Unitary Development Plan states that alterations or extension should respect the general scale,
style, proportion and materials of the original structure and to complement the general character of the
surrounding area. They should also respect the amenities of neighbouring residents with regard to privacy,
daylight, sunlight and outlook. DES8 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan supports this.
I consider as the proposal meets with the guidelines in the City’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for
House Extensions and the City’s Unitary Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the brickwork and roofing of the development shall be the same
type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/46135/HH
APPLICANT:
New Prospect Housing
96
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
LOCATION:
101 Brackley Street Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of part side/part front single storey extension
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a semi-detached property located on the corner plot of Brackley Street and
Kinglsey Road. The proposal is for the erection of a part side and part front single storey extension. The
extension would measure 3.65m in width at the rear and would be flush with the rear main wall. It would be
8.59m long and would be 6.02m wide at the front of the property. It would have a pitched roof.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – no objections.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
99,103 and 40 Brackley Street
2 Kingsley Road.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions.
DEV3 – Alterations/ Extensions.
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 – alterations and Extensions.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 of the Unitary Development Plan states that permission would be granted if the extension would not
have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking,
overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light. Policy DES7 of the First Deposit Draft replacement
Plan reiterates this.
97
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
DEV3 of the Unitary Development Plan states that alterations or extension should respect the general scale,
style, proportion and materials of the original structure and to complement the general character of the
surrounding area. They should also respect the amenities of neighbouring residents with regard to privacy,
daylight, sunlight and outlook. DES8 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan supports this.
The closest part of the extension would be set in 2m from the back of the pavement, which complies with
the guidelines set out in the City’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions. There would
be no main habitable room windows in the rear of the extension and the extension would be directly facing
an electricity sub station. I do not consider the extension would have a significantly detrimental impact on
the amenity of the surrounding neighbours by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of
privacy or light.
Therefore I consider as the proposal meets with the guidelines in the City’s Supplementary Planning
Guidance for House Extensions and the City’s Unitary Development Plan, I recommend the application be
approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the brickwork and roofing of the development shall be the same
type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/46144/HH
APPLICANT:
A Barlow
LOCATION:
42 Leamington Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey rear extension and first floor rear extension
WARD:
Winton
98
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site is a semi-detached property in a residential area.
The application relates to a single storey rear extension and a first floor rear extension. There is an existing
single storey rear element positioned 2.4m from the common boundary with the adjoining semi (No.44).
The proposed single storey would project 2.3m along the common boundary X 2.4m to meet with the
existing single storey element, it would be 3.2m in height with a sloping roof. The proposed first floor
extension would be situated above the existing single-storey rear element and would project 2.3m x 2.6m
with a total height of 5.6m with a hipped roof.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
40 and 44 Leamington Road
140 –146 (evens) Worsley Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection from the occupier of the adjoining semi in response to the application
publicity. The main issues identified are as follows:
Loss of light to lounge
Loss of view from the lounge
Not beneficial to my well being and may affect future sale of property.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 Alterations and Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 states that planning permission will not be granted for extensions that have an unacceptable adverse
impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance loss
99
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
of light or privacy nor would it have an unacceptably adverse impact on the character of the street scene,
this is re-iterated in policy DES7.
HH9 of the Supplementary Planning Guidance states that planning permission will not normally be granted
for single storey extensions to semi detached dwellings located along the common boundary that exceed
2.74m.
HH12 of the Supplementary Planning Guidance states in the absence of an extension along the common
boundary to the adjoining dwelling planning permission will normally be granted for a two storey / first
floor
Extension provided its’ projection is equal to its distance from the nearest common boundary.
DES8 states that the design of alterations and extensions must ensure that the resultant building appears as
an attractive and coherent whole
The proposed single storey element would project 2.3m along the common boundary with the adjoining
semi, which is in line with policy HH9, I would therefore not consider the proposal to have an adverse
detrimental impact on the light to the lounge window of No.44.
With regards to the latter two points of objection, loss of view and de-valuation of property is not a planning
consideration, there is quite often inconvenience for neighbours during the construction stage of any
proposal but this would be for a limited period and is not a planning consideration.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
03/46226/ADV
APPLICANT:
Orbit Investments (Salford) Limited
LOCATION:
Lowry Galleria Pier 8 Quays Road Salford Quays Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Display of two internally illuminated box signs on south elevation (signs
C and E)
WARD:
Ordsall
100
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site is the south elevation of the Lowry Galleria at Salford Quays, which is owned by
Salford City Council.
The proposal is for the display of two permanent internally illuminated signs on the south elevation. The
signs would be in connection with the cinema situated on the site and would be approximately 14m above
ground level, measuring 7.4m X 7.4m. The south elevation overlooks the waterfront of Central Bay.
SITE HISTORY
In October 2002 permission was granted for a Nike company logo side on the south elevation
(03/44807/ADV) which has now been displayed.
In January 2003 permission was granted for the display of two signs on either side of the south elevation
(03/45427/ADV), these signs have not yet been displayed.
In October 2001 permission was granted for a new cinema sign on the south elevation (01/42982/ADV) this
sign has now been erected.
CONSULTATIONS
Grain Wharf Residents Association – No comments received to date
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 2nd June 2003
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any letters of representation or objection to date in response to the publicity, if letters are
received they will be reported verbally.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1 / 3 - Development in mixed-use areas
Other policies: DEV2 - Advertisements
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV2 states that consent will be only be given for the display of advertisements where they would not have
an unacceptable impact on amenity or public safety.
101
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
PPG19 “Outdoor Advertisement Control” suggests that highway safety and amenity are the key
considerations when considering such applications. I consider that the main issues concern the appearance
of the advertisement and its impact upon the amenity of the area and neighbouring residents.
The Galleria is a predominately commercial area and there are no residential properties overlooking this
particular elevation. There are several existing signs already approved along this elevation, I would
consider the proposed signs in keeping with the existing signage and scale of the building. I have no
objections on highway grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition K01S Standard Advertisement Condition
2. Standard Condition K02E Illumination of Advertisements
3. Standard Condition K06 Luminance levels
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R034 Advert
2. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
3. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
APPLICATION No:
03/46227/ADV
APPLICANT:
Orbit Investments (Salford) Limited
LOCATION:
Lowry Galleria Pier 8 Quays Road Salford Quays Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Display of two non illuminated box signs on east elevation
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site is the east elevation of the Lowry Galleria at Salford Quays, which is in Council
ownership.
The proposal is for the display of two permanent non illuminated signs on the east elevation. The signs
would be in connection with the cinema situated on the site and would be approximately 7m above ground
level, measuring 7.4m X 7.4m. The south elevation overlooks properties on Winnipeg Quay.
CONSULTATIONS
102
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
Grain Wharf Residents Association – No comments received to date
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 2nd June 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
11-54 Winnipeg Quay
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any letters of representation or objection to date in response to the publicity, if letters are
received they will be reported verbally.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1 / 3 - Development in mixed-use areas
Other policies: DEV2 - Advertisements
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV2 states that consent will be only be given for the display of advertisements where they would not have
an unacceptable impact on amenity or public safety.
PPG19 “Outdoor Advertisement Control” suggests that highway safety and amenity are the key
considerations when considering such applications. I consider that the main issues concern the appearance
of the advertisement and its impact upon the amenity of the area and neighbouring residents.
There is an existing sign on the elevation, the same size as the proposed advertisements. I would consider
the proposed signs in keeping with the existing signage and scale of the building. As the signs are
non-illuminated I would not consider them to have a unacceptable adverse impact on the residential
properties that are situated approximately 22m away. I have no objections on highway grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition K01S Standard Advertisement Condition
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R034 Advert
103
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/46228/ADV
APPLICANT:
Orbit Investments (Salford) Limited
LOCATION:
Lowry Galleria Pier 8 Quays Road Salford Quays Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Display of four illuminated perforated banner signs
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site is the car park elevation (north) of the Lowry Galleria at Salford Quays, which is in
Council ownership.
The proposal is for the display of four illuminated banners for a period of twelve months, the banners would
be in connection with the on site cinema. There would be two landscape banners in the middle with two
large portrait banners on either side of them. The two portrait banners would measure 7.2m X 18.6m and
would be situated close to two stairwells with two landscape banners situated in the middle, one measuring
15m X 7.6m and the other 17m X 8.8m. The north elevation overlooks the Huron Basin waterfront, on the
opposite side of the waterfront a new housing development NV Countryside is just under construction and
is expected to be completed in in 12 / 18 months.
CONSULTATIONS
Grain Wharf Residents Association – No comments received to date
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 2nd June 2003
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any letters of representation or objection to date in response to the publicity, if letters are
received they will be reported verbally.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1 / 3 - Development in mixed-use areas
Other policies: DEV2 - Advertisements
104
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV2 states that consent will be only be given for the display of advertisements where they would not have
an unacceptable impact on amenity or public safety.
PPG19 “Outdoor Advertisement Control” suggests that highway safety and amenity are the key
considerations when considering such applications. I consider that the main issues concern the appearance
of the advertisement and its impact upon the amenity of the area and neighbouring residents.
The Galleria is a predominately commercial area and there are no residential properties currently
overlooking this particular elevation. There are six much smaller projecting banners that would be
removed, and replaced by the proposed non projecting banners. The banners would be situated on quite a
small area of the elevation, I would consider them to be in scale with the existing building and would not
consider them to have a detrimental impact on the street scene or highway safety.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition K01S Standard Advertisement Condition
2. Standard Condition K02E Illumination of Advertisements
3. Standard Condition K06 Luminance levels
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R034 Advert
2. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
3. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
APPLICATION No:
03/46248/ADV
APPLICANT:
Orbit Investments (Salford) Limited
LOCATION:
Lowry Galleria Pier 8 Quays Road Salford Quays Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Replacement of one internally illuminated box sign on the south
elevation (sign D)
WARD:
Ordsall
105
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site is the south elevation of the Lowry Galleria at Salford Quays which is owned by
Salford City Council.
The proposal is for a replacement cinema logo sign due to the cinema having a change of name. Permission
was granted for the original sign in October 2001 (01/42982/ADV) The sign would be situated
approximately 16m above ground level and measure 9.1m X 1.8m, which would be illuminated internally.
The south elevation overlooks the waterfront of Central Bay
SITE HISTORY
In October 2002 permission was granted for a Nike company logo side on the south elevation
(03/44807/ADV) which has now been displayed.
In January 2003 permission was granted for the display of two signs on either side of the south elevation
(03/45427/ADV), these signs have not yet been displayed.
In October 2001 permission was granted for a new cinema sign on the south elevation (01/42982/ADV) this
sign has now been erected.
CONSULTATIONS
Grain Wharf Residents Association – No comments received to date
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 2nd June 2003
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any letters of representation or objection to date in response to the publicity, if letters are
received they will be reported verbally.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1 / 3 - Development in mixed-use areas
Other policies: DEV2 - Advertisements
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV2 states that consent will be only be given for the display of advertisements where they would not have
an unacceptable impact on amenity or public safety.
106
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
PPG19 “Outdoor Advertisement Control” suggests that highway safety and amenity are the key
considerations when considering such applications. I consider that the main issues concern the appearance
of the advertisement and its impact upon the amenity of the area and neighbouring residents.
The area is predominately commercial and there are no residential properties overlooking this elevation.
There are several existing signs already approved along this elevation, I would consider the replacement
sign in keeping with the existing signage and scale of the building. I have no objections on highway
grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition K01S Standard Advertisement Condition
2. Standard Condition K02E Illumination of Advertisements
3. Standard Condition K06 Luminance levels
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R034 Advert
2. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
3. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
107
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
APPLICATION No:
03/46137/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Consignia PLC
LOCATION:
Land On East Side Of King Street Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Continued use of land as car park
WARD:
Barton
19th June 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a site measuring 13 metres by 18 metres to the rear of the Post Office in
Eccles town centre. Planning permission is sought for the continued use of this land as car parking.
Vehicular access to the site is from King Street, a stopped-up highway. The site is bounded by 3 metre
high palisade fencing, with 5 metre wide access gates. The applicant has stated that 20 heavy goods
vehicles will visit the site during a normal day and that these will reverse into the site from King Street.
The hours of operation are 4.30am to 7pm Monday to Friday and 4.30am to 1pm on Saturdays.
SITE HISTORY
00/41129/DEEM3 – Erection of 3m high security fencing, construction of new vehicular access.
Temporary planning permission approved, expired 30th October 2002
01/43426/DEEM3 – Retention of security fencing to parking area. Approved unconditionally.
CONSULTATIONS
None.
PUBLICITY
Site Notice displayed 16th May 2003.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
1 King Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: S6/4 – Maintenance and Improvement of Town Centres - Eccles
Other policies: T13 – Car Parking
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
S2/2 – Location of New Retail and Leisure Development - Eccles
PLANNING APPRAISAL
108
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
Unitary Development Plan policy T13 states that car parks should be designed to a high standard with
particular regard to access arrangements, surface materials, boundary treatment and security measures.
The policies of the First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP are generally similar to those of the adopted
plan in respect to this development.
Planning permission has already been approved (01/43426/DEEM3) for the retention of the palisade
fencing and vehicle access gates.
The site is located within Eccles town centre. There are no residential uses in close proximity and as
such, I do not consider that the specified hours of operation would result in any disturbance. I consider
that the parking layout and access are acceptable and have no objections on highway grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 4th June 2003 which shows car
parking layout.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R013A Use of parking areas
APPLICATION No:
03/46142/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Mrs C Thomas (Headteacher)
LOCATION:
Irlam Endowed Primary School Chapel Road Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Re-roof existing flat roof with cladding
WARD:
Irlam
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Irlam Endowed Primary School, Chapel Road, the school is set in a
residential location.
The proposal is to re-roof a 10m wide section existing roof on the Chapel Road elevation.
proposal would increase the section of roof from 4.5m in height to 5.3m in height.
The
The application is on City Council land.
SITE HISTORY
In June 2002 planning permission was granted for the erection of fencing (02/44094/FUL)
In 2001, planning permission was granted for the erection of 2.4m high palisade fencing
(01/43123/DEEM3).
109
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th June 2003
In 1998, planning permission was granted for the demolition and replacement of the existing hall,
together with a new classroom block to the north east with link to new hall and associated car parking
for 30 vehicles (98/37249/DEEM3).
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on the 23rd May 2003.
The following neighbours were notified :
47 and 49 Chapel Road
St John The Baptist Vicarage, Vicarage Road
2-10(evens) Platts Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any representations in relation to the application
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: SC4 – Improvement / replacement of schools
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: EHC1 – Provision and Improvement of Education, Health and Community Facilities
PLANNING APPRAISAL
SC4 and EHC1 both state that planning permission will be granted for the improvements to existing
education facilities provided that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on
residential amenity and character or environmental quality.
The proposal is for minor amendments to the existing roof, increasing the height by 0.8m. The new roof
would not be higher than parts of the existing roof and the materials used would match the existing roof.
I would not consider the proposal to have a detrimental impact on the street scene or residents of
neighbouring properties
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the roof of the development shall be the same type, colour and
texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
(Reasons)
110
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
111
19th June 2003
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
112
19th June 2003