PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
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
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.
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
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
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
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
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
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
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
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
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.
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. Standard Condition M05 Site investigation
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)
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
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:
03/45607/FUL
APPLICANT:
Salford RC Diocesan Trustees
LOCATION:
St Patricks R C High School Guilford Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of detached sports hall and changing rooms
WARD:
Winton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land at the rear of St. Patrick’s Roman Catholic High School, Eccles. This
application is for the erection of a detached sports hall and changing rooms to the rear of the existing gym.
This site is approximately 35,650sq.m, of which the proposal will incorporate one single-storey building
covering 893sq.m (10metres in height), with an option to install in future a small additional floor. Materials
will include a light grey steel insulated roofing system, and buff facing bricks (lower), light grey steel
panels (upper) for the walls.
The proposed sports hall is to be sited detached at the rear of the main building, 13.27metres apart, and
partly screened by the railway embankment to the north and large trees and school buildings to the east.
Some trees are to be removed along the western side of the extension, including two large and three small
trees. It is intended that two smaller trees to the south are to be removed upon a future application as part of
the proposed future link between the existing gym and proposed sports hall.
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
The locality is predominantly residential, with a range of post-war properties including semi’s and flats, and
one row of large Edwardian semi’s at New Lane. To the north is the Liverpool-Manchester railway that
bounds the site beyond a public footpath. The west of the site is entirely open.
SITE HISTORY
In January 2003, planning permission was granted for the erection of 1.8m high palisade fence at the rear
and 2.4m high crusader railings with matching gates at the front of St. Patrick’s RC High School, Guildford
Road, Eccles (02/45265/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Sport England – considers that the provision of an indoor sports facility will outweigh the detriment caused
by loss/ partial loss of the playing field.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 25th February 2003.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
1A, 1, 3 Guilford Road
2-28(e) Guilford Road
23, 2-20(e) Clarendon Avenue
58-80(e) New Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of support.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV1, 2; development criteria, good design
DEV3, 4; extensions, design & crime
R1 – protection of recreation land & facilities
R3 – provision of open space
SC3 – education land and buildings
EN3 – protected open land
EN7 – conservation of trees
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none.
Other policies:
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
DES1 – Respecting Context
S1 – Provision of New Retail & Leisure Development
R1 – Protection of Recreation Land & Facilities
R6 – New and Improved Recreation Land & Facilities
PLANNING APPRAISAL
This purpose of this development is to provide improved sport facilities for the school community and
related sport activities. This analysis will have particular regard to issues of siting, design, amenity, and will
be set against Policy SC3 (education land and buildings).
I consider that the siting of the sports hall to the rear of the main building combined with the screening
effect of the railway embankment, will help alleviate the visual impact on neighbouring properties. The
nearest residential properties within view are at 10-20 Clarendon Avenue, over 45metres away, thus the
visual impact will be minimal.
Some trees are to be removed however, two large and three small trees: including one Holly. The agent has
specified verbally a willingness to accept a landscape condition upon grant of planning. I also recommend
the use of a ‘2-4-1’ tree replacement condition which will help offset the loss of five existing trees. It is
intended that two smaller trees (south elevation) are to be removed upon a future application as part of the
proposed future link between the existing gym and proposed sports hall. The site is extensively screened by
trees and the loss of five trees is not significant in overall treescape terms.
I have received one letter in favour of the application, with regard to enhanced facilities for the pupils. No
objections were received from consultee’s or neighbours, although comments were received regarding the
need to prevent flooding. With this issue in mind I note that the site plan no.3745/05 provides a cross
section showing the floor level 250mm above ground level (a ‘gransprung floor on damp-proof membrane
on concrete slab’), which I consider to be acceptable.
Policy SC3 states that the city council will safeguard land and buildings in education use, with priority
given to the retention of surplus school playing fields for public use and the re-use of school buildings to
provide social facilities where an identified need exists. Here I consider that the siting and footprint of the
proposed building will not significantly detract from existing space available within the school grounds,
and also provides changing facilities immediately adjacent to the existing playing field and hard play area.
Further to the comments outlined above, and the need to provide improved facilities for schools (SC3), I
consider this application to be acceptable, with particular regard to Policy DEV1, 2, & 3.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. During the first available planting season following the felling of the 5 trees they shall be replaced by
10 standard tree(s) in accordance with British Standard 3936:Part 1:1965 (Specification for Nursery
Stock Part 1: Trees and Shrubs) and which shall have a clear stem height from the ground of 1.8m, a
minimum overall height from the ground of 2.75m, a minimum circumference of stem at 1m from the
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
ground of 8 cm. The species and location of the replacement trees shall be agreed in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
3. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the roofing and
exterior walls of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
4. The facing panels hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior to
the commencement of the development by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/45609/LBC
APPLICANT:
B Campbell
LOCATION:
Islington Mill James Street Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Listed Building Consent for the conversion of the main mill and
paramatta outbuilding into 30 apartments with workshop and gallery
space on ground floor of main mill.
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Islington Mill which is a grade II listed spinning mill complex originally built in
1838. The application relates to the new mill building, a three storey building which lies to the rear of the
old mill which fronts James Street. The complex comprises a stable block, old mill building, Paramatta,
and engine house, which are all listed and arranged around a central courtyard. To the north lies a primary
school, to the east a piece of open land, with tower block beyond, to the south the Regent Trading Estate and
to the west a car park area and commercial properties beyond.
The proposal seeks consent for the conversion of the existing industrial space on the ground floor of the mill
to a gym, the conversion the existing gym on the first floor and the industrial space and music rehearsal
studios on the second floor to provide a total of ten apartments. A total of 30 car parking spaces would be
made available for the use of the mill complex. The proposal would include limited alterations to the
internal building fabric and its elevations. These would principally be removal of existing internal walls
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
and creation of new internal layouts. A new glazed entrance would also be provided. The elevations would
otherwise remain little changed from existing. The entrance to the car park and gym is currently through
the Regent Trading Estate. It is proposed to take access to the car park from Gibb Street and to provide
pedestrian access to the flats and gym from the internal courtyard.
An application for planning permission appears elsewhere on this agenda (03/45612/FUL).
Applications with regard to residential development of the old mill building and the stable block will be
brought to a later Panel meeting.
SITE HISTORY
The mill complex has been the subject of a number of relevant applications:
00/41453/COU and 00/41464/LBC: Change of use of first floor of the New Mill to gym and second floor to
music rehearsal studios and storage, with Listed Building Consent for internal alterations, at New Islington
Mill Gibb Street (James Street) Salford 3
00/41094/FUL and 00/41095/LBC: Planning and listed building consent granted for alterations to
elevations at the Stables And Lodge House Islington Mill James Street Salford 3.
00/41092/LBC and 01/41093/COU: Planning permission and Listed Building Consent to convert Engine
House and Paramatta Buildings, Islington Mill James Street, to two studio apartments with attached artists
workshops
97/37328/LBC: Listed Building Consent granted for cable attached to the outside of the
building.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
St Philip’s Primary School
Units 4 and 5 Regent Trading Estate
Islington Mill
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CS7 Islington
Other policies: EN12 Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings
PLANNING APPRAISAL
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
Policy EN12 states that the City Council will not normally permit any development that would detract from
the architectural and historic character of a Listed Building or would destroy or obscure any significant
architectural or historic feature. The policy goes on to state that in seeking to encourage new uses for listed
buildings, favourable consideration will generally be given to new uses that comply with the above criteria.
The listed mill is under utilised at present, and therefore an important consideration is securing the reuse of
the building, to allow for its maintenance and future preservation. Under policy EC3, reuse of premises for
similar or related uses is favoured, except where other material factors provide mitigating circumstances.
Here, I consider that as the premises are an old mill, they are poorly designed for modern manufacturing due
to poor access and delivery provision. Further, as an adjacent part of the mill complex has been converted
to an artist studio with residential accommodation, I consider that the proposed mixed use (residential and
gym) is more in keeping with the changing nature of the area and the mixed use nature of the mill complex.
The alterations to the Listed Building are minimal and will both result in the restoration of the building and
the improvement of its architectural character.
This application has been submitted in conjunction with a planning application (02/45306/FUL), which
appears elsewhere on this agenda. I am satisfied that the proposal would significantly improve this Listed
Building and that consent should be granted.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of all new facing materials to be used for the
development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R038 Section 18
2. To safeguard the character of the Grade II Listed Building in accordance with policy EN12 of the City
of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/45612/COU
APPLICANT:
B Campbell
LOCATION:
Islington Mill James Street Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Conversion of main mill and paramatta into 30 apartments with
workshop and gallery on ground floor of main mill.
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
8th May 2003
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Islington Mill which is a grade II listed spinning mill complex originally built in
1838. The application relates to the old mill building, a six storey building which fronts James Street. The
complex also comprises a stable block, the new mill building, Paramatta building and engine house, which
are all listed and arranged around a central courtyard. To the north lies a primary school, to the east a piece
of open land, with tower block beyond, to the south the Regent Trading Estate and to the west a car park
area and commercial properties beyond.
This proposal seeks to convert that part of the Mill fronting James Street into a mixed use scheme
comprising 3 workshops and a gallery on the ground floor and 30 apartments on the remaining five floors.
A total of 30 car parking spaces would be made available for the use of the mill complex. The proposal
would include limited alterations to the internal building fabric and its elevations including a new fully
glazed lift and stair tower. It is proposed to take access to the car park from Gibb Street and to provide
pedestrian access to the flats from the internal courtyard.
An application for listed building consent appears elsewhere on this agenda (03/45609/LBC)
SITE HISTORY
The building itself has been subject to very similar applications that were approved in October 2001,
01/42704/COU and 01/42705/LBC: Conversion of mill to a mixed use development comprising 3
workshops and a gallery on the ground floor with 22 apartments on the first to fifth floors.
The mill complex has been the subject of a number of relevant applications:
00/41453/COU and 00/41464/LBC: Change of use of first floor of the New Mill to gym and second floor to
music rehearsal studios and storage, with Listed Building Consent for internal alterations, at New Islington
Mill Gibb Street (James Street) Salford 3
00/41094/FUL and 00/41095/LBC: Planning and Listed Building Consent granted for alterations to
elevations at the Stables And Lodge House Islington Mill James Street Salford 3.
00/41092/LBC and 01/41093/COU: Planning permission and Listed Building Consent to convert Engine
House and Paramatta Buildings, Islington Mill James Street, to two studio apartments with attached artists
workshops
97/37328/LBC: Listed Building Consent granted for cable attached to the outside of the
building.
Members will also recall that at the last meeting of the Panel applications for the New Mill were approved
that proposed the conversion of the upper two floors of the building to 10 apartments with a gym on the
ground floor, (02/45306/COU and 02/45305/LBC).
CONSULTATIONS
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
Director of Environmental Services – No comments received to date but his comments on the previously
approved application for 22 apartments were that he had concerns over noise, and recommended a noise
assessment and mitigation measures.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Has a number of concerns regarding security
issues. Objections are made to an open car park and it is recommended that the car park be fenced and has
appropriate secure gating. Objections are also made to having mixed uses sharing car parking and access
and to there only being access to the building from within the courtyard. Objection is also made to the full
height glazing proposed to the ground floor.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
St Philip’s Primary School
41, 45, 47 and units 4 and 5 Regent Trading Estate
C and A Moore, Islington Mill
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CS7 Islington
Other policies: EN12/EN13 Enhancement of Listed Buildings, T13 Car Parking, H1 Meeting Housing
Need
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1/2 Development in Mixed Use Areas – Chapel Street West
Other policies: CH2 Works to Listed Buildings, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in
New Developments, H1 Provision of New Housing Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy CS7 specifically addresses the Islington Area, focusing, inter alia, on environmental improvement. I
consider that bringing this dominant and important building into use would greatly assist in improving the
local environment. Further, the Chapel Street regeneration strategy, which furthers CS7, seeks to improve
the corridor, bringing commercial and residential uses into the area. Consequently, this scheme accords,
whilst the addition of owner occupier housing into an area of Islington dominated by public sector stock,
will assist in mixing tenure and providing housing supply in accordance with policy H1.
The replacement plan calls for a broad range of uses in this area and its policies are generally similar to
those of the adopted plan in respect to this development. I have, however, attached a condition with regard
to disabled, cycle and motorcycle parking provision.
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
The police concerns relate primarily to detailed security issues that can be addressed by the applicant. I
have forwarded a copy of their letter to the applicant. The car park is currently fenced and I do not consider
that it is appropriate to provide separate car parking and access points to the residential and workshop units.
The acceptability of converting this underused listed mill has been established by the previous permission
for 22 apartments with the same workshop and gallery space on the ground floor. That scheme allowed for
just 11 car parking spaces within the courtyard and as a result of negotiations with the owner of the new mill
within the complex an agreement has been reached whereby the 30 car parking spaces served off Gibb
Street are made available for the whole mill complex thereby allowing the internal courtyard to be
landscaped to the advantage of both parties. This car park has always according to my records always been
available in connection with the use of the new mill building and although included in the red line site
boundary of previous applications it has never been subject to any conditions requiring its use with the new
mill solely. Therefore given the proximity to the regional centre location, the proximity to the Chapel Street
bus corridor, train stations and the ample opportunities for walking I consider that this parking provision is
acceptable in light of PPG13 guidance.
The site lies adjacent to commercial uses. It also lies in close proximity to the busy Oldfield Road/Chapel
Street junction where traffic raises the ambient noise levels. The remainder of the mill complex is also in
mixed sue, with workshops and residential accommodation, therefore there may be noise created in the
complex which might affect the flats. A noise survey was undertaken in support of a previous application
for the adjacent Paramatta building that forms part of the Mill complex. Whilst it does not directly relate to
this building, The Director of Environmental Services was satisfied that its results show that the amenity of
future occupiers of the proposed scheme can be ensured. Therefore, in accordance with PPG24, I attach
conditions to ensure that a full noise assessment with recommendations is carried out and implemented
prior to occupation.
The scheme would provide 30 residential units, and therefore would fall within the remit of the Chapel
Street S106 policy, requiring a commuted sum contribution towards environmental improvements.
However, as the scheme would restore and preserve a listed building, provide a local community facility
through the new gym and encourage sustainable transport, it is considered that the full contribution is not
appropriate. In line with a previous legal agreement relating to the previous application the applicant has
entered into a legal agreement to provide £6,000 towards environmental works in the immediate area.
This application has been submitted in conjunction with a listed building consent application
(03/45609/LBC), which appears elsewhere on this agenda. This details the acceptability of the physical
works that maintain and preserve the integrity and character of the building, in accordance with policies
EN12/13. Therefore, I am satisfied that the proposed uses are in keeping with neighbouring uses, are in
accordance with UDP policy and the Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION
1.
that the City Secretary be authorised to enter into a legal agreement to secure the following:
a. the provision of the sum of £6000 to be used for environmental improvements in the
immediate local area.
2.
that the applicant be informed that the Council is minded to grant planning permission subject
to the conditions stated below on completion of such a legal agreement,
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
3.
that authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application to be issued (subject to
the conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned agreement,
4.
that authority be delegated to the Director of Development Services to refuse the application
should the legal agreement not be entered into by the applicant within a reasonable time scale.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall undertake an assessment to determine
the noise levels that the residents will be subjected to (daytime and nightime). The developer shall
detail what steps are to be taken to mitigate the disturbance from the above. The assessment shall have
due regard to Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 'Planning and Noise' and BS4142:1997 'Rating
Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas'. The assessment and proposed
mitigation measures shall be submitted for the approval of the Director of Development Services and
any such measures as are approved shall be implemented in full prior to any occupation of the
apartments.
3. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
4. The rating level of noise emitted by any fixed plant or equipment shall not exceed the existing
background noise level by more than 5dBa. The noise level shall be determined at the nearest noise
sensitive premises. The measurement and assessment shall be made according to BS4142:1997 'Rating
Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas'.
5. No development shall commence until a scheme for disabled car parking, cycle and motorcycle parking
provision has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.
Such details as are approved shall be implemented in full and made available at all times prior to the
occupation of any apartment.
6. The workshops and gallery hereby approved shall only be operated between the hours of 8am to 10pm
Mondays to Saturdays and 10am to 5pm Sundays and Bank Holidays.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
3. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
4. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
6. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under Section 106
of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, prior to the granting of planning permission.
2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Greater Manchester
Police Architectural Liaison Unit.
3. This permission shall relate to the amended site plan received on 4 April 2003 showing the car park
within the red line boundary.
APPLICATION No:
03/45619/COU
APPLICANT:
Mrs K Dixon
LOCATION:
14 Laburnum Avenue Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Change of use of alleyway at the rear to make private garden and
erection of 2m high fencing across highway
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates part of an alleyway to the rear of a mid terrace property. The proposal seeks to
change the use of the alleyway behind No.14 Laburnum Avenue for use as a private garden, which would
link the existing rear garden and allotment space beyond the alley.
The section of alleyway would be enclosed by a 2m panel fencing, which would match and join that already
erected on the allotment.
CONSULTATIONS
Peak and Northern Footpath Society – No response to date
Open Spaces Society – No response to date
Ramblers Association – Object
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association - No response to date
PUBLICITY
Two site notices were displayed on 1st April 2003
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser on 27th March 2003
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1 – 7 (odd) Anson Road
1 – 5 (odd) Gorse Road
2 – 12 & 16 – 28 (even) Laburnum Avenue
9 – 13 Thorn Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received ten letters of objection in response to the application publicity. I have also received a letter
of objection signed by the residents on the even side of Laburnum Avenue. The following comments
having been made:
Congregation of youths
Restrict servicing
Vehicles would have to reverse back down the alley
Block a Public Right of Way
Visual impact
Out of keeping with the area
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies: .
None
DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV4 Design and Crime
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, DES11 Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining
applications, including the visual appearance of the development, its relationship to its surroundings and
any other material consideration. DEV4 seeks to deter vandalism, theft and other criminal activity in the
interests of personal and property security.
The replacement plan policies update and are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
I have received several objections from the surrounding neighbouring properties who use the alley to the
rear of Laburnum Avenue. I do not agree that the visual impact would be out of keeping with the design and
appearance of the surrounding area, as the proposal would consist of a traditional wooden garden fence.
Concerns have been raised by neighbouring residents that this proposal would create two dead ends where
youths could congregate. The applicant has stated that should this application be approved, CCTV
equipment would be installed to discourage any such anti-social behaviour. The applicant has also stated
that the local Community Beat Officer has given full support to the proposal, moreover, the proposal would
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
stop anyone using the alley as a ‘rat run’. I have spoken with the Police Architectural Liaison Unit with
regard to crime prevention/reduction issues. They are of the opinion that the blocking of the alley in the
middle would reduce the means of access and escape routes for any would be thief. However, they were
also of the opinion that this scheme would result highway safety issues.
Therefore, I consider the main planning issues with regard this application are the existing rights of way and
the implications for highway safety. The erection of fencing across the alleyway would require a road
closure. The number of objections referring to the use of the alleyway would suggest that the alley has not
become unnecessary, therefore any closure order would not be supported by the Council as highway
authority. The fencing of the alley in the middle would not provide sufficient manoeuvring space to enable
vehicles to enter, turn around and leave in a forward gear necessary for highway safety.
Therefore I am of the opinion that this proposal should be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed fencing would not provide sufficient manoeuvring space to enable vehicles to enter, turn
around and leave in a forward gear necessary for highway safety contrary to policy DEV1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/45638/LBC
APPLICANT:
Frank Pine Ltd
LOCATION:
The Black Friar Public House Blackfriars Road Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Listed Building Consent for two single storey extensions and internal
alterations
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the construction of two single storey extensions, internal alterations and the
installation of security screens to the ground and first floor windows at the Black Friar, Blackfriars Road,
Salford 3. The premises, a Grade II listed building, was formerly a public house but has been vacant since
June 2002. An application for planning permission for the change of use of the premises to offices appears
elsewhere on this agenda.
One of the extensions will provide a link between the two buildings and will extend from the south
elevation of the Black Friar to the north elevation of the applicant’s existing warehouse/office building. The
stonework surrounding the window in the proposed extension will be designed to match the existing
windows of the listed building. The link will be 3.5m long and 1.6m wide. The second extension will be
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
located within what is currently a rear yard. Again, the stonework around the window will match existing
details. The extension will be 2.5m long and 2.9m wide and both extensions will have pitched roofs. As a
result of the extension in the rear yard, the yard wall is to be demolished. The internal alterations proposed
are relatively minor in nature and include additional doors and the removal of the ground floor toilets to
allow for an office.
The applicant originally proposed to install ‘Optiguard’ security screens to the outside of all the ground and
first floor windows of the listed building. The applicant has since decided to omit this aspect from the
application.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 6th March 2003
A site notice was posted on 18th March 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
41 Blackfriars Road
Dolby Hotel, Trinity Way
Renault Manchester, Trinity Way
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified
are as follows:
The application does not include any off-street car parking provision
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CS3 – Greengate South
EC14/2 – Improvement Proposals
Other policies: EN12 – Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1/1 – Development in Mixed Use Areas (Chapel Street East)
Other policies: CH2 – Works to Listed Buildings
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy CS3 of the adopted UDP outlines the Council’s aim to improve the Greengate South area through a
number of measures, including the retention and improvement of industrial and commercial uses.
Policy EC14/2 states that the Council will seek improvements in a number of commercial and industrial
areas, including Greengate South.
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
Policy EN12 states that the Council will not normally permit any development which would detract from
the architectural and historic character of a Listed Building. In order to do this, the Council will seek to
ensure that extensions are in keeping with the character of a building and that new uses are sought where it
can be shown that the building is not able to support its original use. New uses should be compatible with
surrounding land uses.
Policy MX1/1 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan identifies the Chapel Street East area as one to
be development as a vibrant mixed use area. Office use is considered appropriate in this area.
Policy CH2 states that proposals involving the alteration, extension or change of use of a listed building will
only be permitted where they would preserve or enhance the character of the building. Changes of use will
only be permitted where the original use is not practicable or feasible or where a new use is required to
secure the long term use of the building.
One objection has been received. This relates to the absence of dedicated car parking for the proposed
change of use and is therefore not relevant to this application but has been addressed in my report for the
planning application (ref: 03/45639/COU).
In terms of the proposed use, I consider this to be appropriate in this location. It is identified as a
commercial area under Policy EC14/2, whilst Policy CS3 advocates the improvement of commercial uses.
Office use is identified as being appropriate under Policy MX1/1. The proposed change of use would bring
a vacant building back into use and would ensure improvement and ongoing maintenance and repair of this
listed building. The proposal is therefore also in accordance with policies EN11 and CH2.
In terms of the proposed extensions, I consider these to be acceptable. The siting of the proposed extensions
means that neither would be highly visible from the surrounding area. Both are to be single storey and have
been designed to respect the character of the listed building in terms of their size, location and proposed
materials. As the proposed internal alterations are relatively minor in nature and are necessary to bring the
building back into use, I consider them to be acceptable.
In conclusion, I consider the proposal to comply with all the relevant policies of the UDP. I therefore
recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D01B Materials to Match
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R038 Section 18
2. Reason: To ensure the development fits in with the existing building in accordance with policy DEV3 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/45639/COU
APPLICANT:
Frank Pine Ltd
LOCATION:
The Black Friar Public House Blackfriars Road Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from public house to offices
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the change of use of the Black Friar, Blackfriars Road, Salford 3. The premises, a
Grade II listed building, was formerly a public house but has been vacant since June 2002. It is proposed to
change the use of the building from a public house to offices, erect two single storey extensions, undertake
internal alterations and install security guards to the ground and first floor windows. An application for
listed building consent appears elsewhere on this agenda.
One of the extensions will provide a link between the two buildings and will extend from the south
elevation of the Black Friar to the north elevation of the applicant’s existing warehouse/office building. The
stonework surrounding the window in the proposed extension will be designed to match the existing
windows of the listed building. The link will be 3.5m long and 1.6m wide. The second extension will be
located within what is currently a rear yard. Again, the stonework around the window will match existing
details. The extension will be 2.5m long and 2.9m wide and both extensions will have pitched roofs. The
internal alterations proposed are relatively minor in nature and include additional doors and the removal of
the ground floor toilets to allow for an office.
The applicant originally proposed to install ‘Optiguard’ security screens to the outside of all the ground and
first floor windows of the listed building. The applicant has since decided to omit this aspect from the
application.
The applicant occupies the adjacent warehouse/office building and wishes to use the listed building for
additional office/storage space. A large car parking area for the existing premises is accessed off Garden
Lane, to the south of the property. The proposed hours of operation will be the same as the existing adjacent
premises, that is Monday to Friday between 8am and 6pm.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections
PUBLICITY
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
41 Blackfriars Road
Dolby Hotel, Trinity Way
Renault Manchester, Trinity Way
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified
are as follows:
The application does not include any off-street car parking provision
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CS3 – Greengate South
EC14/2 – Improvement Proposals
Other policies: EN12 – Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV3 – Alterations/Extensions
T13 – Car Parking
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1/1 – Development in Mixed Use Areas (Chapel Street East)
Other policies: CH2 – Works to Listed Buildings
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES8 – Alterations and Extensions
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy CS3 of the adopted UDP outlines the Council’s aim to improve the Greengate South area through a
number of measures, including the retention and improvement of industrial and commercial uses.
Policy EC14/2 states that the Council will seek improvements in a number of commercial and industrial
areas, including Greengate South.
Policy EN12 states that the Council will not normally permit any development which would detract from
the architectural and historic character of a Listed Building. In order to do this, the Council will seek to
ensure that extensions are in keeping with the character of a building and that new uses are sought where it
can be shown that the building is not able to support its original use. New uses should be compatible with
surrounding land uses.
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria against which applications for planning permission are assessed.
Of most relevance to this application is the visual appearance of the development.
Policy DEV2 states that applications for alterations and extensions will not normally be permitted unless
the Council is satisfied with design and appearance of the proposed development. Regard should also be
had to the character of the surrounding area.
Policy DEV3 states that all applications for alterations and extensions should respect the scale, style,
proportion and materials of the original building. The character of the surrounding area should also be
respected.
Policy T13 requires the provision of adequate and appropriate car parking to meet the needs of new
development.
Policy MX1/1 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan identifies the Chapel Street East area as one to
be development as a vibrant mixed use area. Office use is considered appropriate in this area.
Policy CH2 states that proposals involving the alteration, extension or change of use of a listed building will
only be permitted where they would preserve or enhance the character of the building. Changes of use will
only be permitted where the original use is not practicable or feasible or where a new use is required to
secure the long term use of the building.
Policy DES1 of the First Deposit UDP requires development to respond to its physical context. It states that
in assessing whether proposals comply with this policy, regard should be had to a number of factors,
including the relationship to existing buildings and the appropriateness of proposed materials to the
location.
Policy DES8 states that planning permission for extensions will only be permitted where the general scale,
character, details and materials of the original structure are respected.
Policy A10 of the First Deposit UDP states adequate provision should be made for car, motorcycle and
bicycle parking.
One objection has been received. This relates to the absence of dedicated car parking for the proposed
change of use. I have however been informed by the applicant that no new members of staff will be
employed as a result of the application. The proposed conversion is intended to provide additional office
space for existing employees, who will be transferred from the existing premises. The proposed conversion
will also include additional storage space. There is already a large car park to the rear of the warehouse
building, accessed off Garden Lane, which currently accommodates existing employees. I do not therefore
consider it necessary for the applicant to provide additional car parking, given that no new members of staff
are to be employed. The application therefore complies with policies T13 and A10.
In terms of the proposed use, I consider this to be appropriate in this location. It is identified as a
commercial area under Policy EC14/2, whilst Policy CS3 advocates the improvement of commercial uses.
Office use is identified as being appropriate under Policy MX1/1. The proposed change of use would bring
a vacant building back into use and would ensure improvement and ongoing maintenance and repair of this
listed building. The proposal is therefore also in accordance with policies EN11 and CH2.
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
In terms of the proposed extensions, I consider these to be acceptable. The siting of the proposed extensions
means that neither would be highly visible from the surrounding area. Both are to be single storey and have
been designed to respect the character of the listed building in terms of their size, location and proposed
materials. As the proposed internal alterations are relatively minor in nature and are necessary to bring the
building back into use, I consider them to be acceptable.
In conclusion, I consider the proposal to comply with all the relevant policies of the UDP. I therefore
recommend that 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 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:
03/45646/FUL
APPLICANT:
Westbury Homes Holdings
LOCATION:
Agecroft Hall Residential Site Agecroft Road Pendlebury Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 48 dwellings (Amendment to planning permission
02/43597/REM)
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former Thermalite site on the corner of Lumns Lane and Agecroft Road,
within the Croal Irwell Valley, which in July last year was granted permission through a reserved matters
application for the erection of 287 dwellings, reference 02/43597/REM.
This application is seeking permission to amend the layout of 45 dwellings within the overall development.
The changes include amending garden boundaries, garages, parking courts and also the housetypes on some
of the plots.
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections subject to the submission of a site investigation report.
Environment Agency – no further comments to add to those previously given for permission
02/43597/REM.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – is concerned that where the parking courts
contain dwellings, the dwellings are not well overlooked and would be vulnerable to attack.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 10th April 2003.
A site notice was displayed on 3rd April 2003.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EN23 Croal Irwell Valley
Other policies: DEV4 Crime and Design, DEV2 Good Design
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none.
Other policies: DES11 Design and Crime, DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The application relates to part of a larger site which was granted permission last year and therefore the main
issues to be addressed relate to the impact of the proposed amendments, particularly in relation to DEV2
and DEV4 of the UDP and policies DES11, DES1 and DES2 of the draft UDP. Policies DEV4 and DES11
are both seeking to ensure that design does not encourage crime or anti social behaviour within a
development. Policy DES1 seeks to ensure that any development responds to its physical context whilst
DES2 ensures that any new development is fully accessible to all people including the disabled or those
with limited mobility, pedestrians and cyclists. It also states that a development must enable pedestrians to
orientate themselves and navigate their way through an area by providing appropriate views, vistas and
visual links.
The proposal has retained the village green within the central area of the development and also the views
and vistas leading to this. These features would enable residents to orientate themselves and I therefore
consider that the proposal complies with policy DES2. I also consider that the proposed changes have
respected the context of the previous permission so that the overall character of the site once completed
would be retained.
The proposed layout is very similar to that previously approved. I consider that it respects the character of
the remainder of the layout and therefore would contribute towards local identity in accordance with policy
DES1. In relation to the concerns of the Architectural Liaison officer there were parking courts within the
previously approved scheme and I do not consider that this proposal would exacerbate any situation further.
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
The entrances to the parking courts which are part of this application are adjacent to dwellinghouses and
therefore would be overlooked. I have no objections on highway grounds and I therefore recommend that
this application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The developer shall undertake an assessment in accordance with planning and noise guidance
document PPG24 to assess the impact of transport related noise on the new housing developments
(including noise from trains and traffic on Agecroft Road).
A scheme shall be submitted prior to the commencement of development and with the approval of the
Local Authority, outlining the results of the assessment and where necessary what mitigation measures
should be implemented. These measures shall then be implemented prior to first occupation of any of
the dwellings hereby approved.
3. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be used
for the walls and roof 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. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This permission shall relate to the amended plan D537:003 Rev P with revised layout for plots 260 and
261 and house type change to a 2 storey Sutton, received 8 April 2003.
APPLICATION No:
03/45656/FUL
APPLICANT:
General Practice Investment Corporation Ltd
LOCATION:
Monton Group Practice Surgery Canal Side Monton Green Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of three storey medical centre incorporating pharmacy, siting
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
of temporary surgery accommodation together with associated car
parking and alteration to existing vehicular and pedestrian accesses
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The existing medical centre is located within the western edge of the Monton Green Conservation Area.
The site is bounded by the Bridgewater Canal to the west and south, Parrin Road to the north and Canalside
and the green to the east. The green over Canalside is characterised by mature trees and shrubbs, which
screen the site from the majority of the Conservation Area.
Permission is sought for the erection of a three storey replacement building and a temporary single storey
replacement building with associated car park and highway alterations. An application for Conservation
Area Consent for the demolition of the existing building also appears on this agenda 03/45657/CON. The
surgery would provide 10 consulting rooms including one minor surgery room. A pharmacy and other
support services would also be provided as part of the facility.
The proposed three sided, part three/two storey, building has a maximum height of 11.2m from ground
level. Materials are fairly uniform on the three sides with plastic and aluminium windows proposed.
Ground floor level is proposed to be finished in terracotta colour bricks with feature pillars on the south
west (Canal facing elevation) and South East (Monton Green facing elevation) elevations developed in the
same brick. The remainder of the building would be in contrasting blockwork. A proposed pharmacy set
within the building facing Monton Green would have a simple glazed shopfront and would be next to a
double height glazed patients waiting room. The mono pitch sloping roof would be finished in aluminium
and would be supported on two corners by supporting pillars.
The footprint of the proposed building would be slightly larger than the existing surgery and the existing car
parking would be moved from a position next to the canal to an area next to Parrin Lane, twelve car parking
spaces are proposed in total including one disabled space. Space for an ambulance is also provided for as is
access to the adjacent land owners site. A turning head to facilitate the ambulance pick-up / drop-off is
proposed which encroaches onto the green area. A temporary surgery is also proposed whilst the
replacement surgery is constructed. The proposal would involve the loss of three trees, the applicant
proposes two for one replacements.
SITE HISTORY
In 1985, planning permission was granted for the change of use from a building contractors office to a
doctors group practice (E/19075).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections recommends conditions.
English Heritage – No comments received.
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
GM Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objection.
Monton Village Traders Association – Siting and principle of redevelopment deemed acceptable however
objects to; exterior design, relationship to Canal and Conservation Area, materials not appropriate and
landscaping could be improved by reducing the shrubbery.
The Coal Authority – No objection.
Manchester Ship Canal Company – No objection.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was posted on the 5th March 2003.
A press notice was displayed on the 6th March 2003.
The following neighbours have been notified:
1 to 10 Canal Bank
Flat 10, Cranford House, Half edge Lane
1, 32 to 39 Marsden Street
The Barge Public House, Parrin Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received five letters of objection in response to the application publicity, including a letter from the
local history group. The main issues are:



Acceptance of the need for an updated medical facility
Appearance of the building would detract from the Conservation Area and proposed World
Heritage Site.
Building should be in conventional materials and not in blockwork/aluminium roof
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EN11 Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas, EN13 Works to Listed Buildings
and Buildings within Conservation Areas, SC9 Health Care Facilities, DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2
Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CH1 Proposed World Heritage Site
Other policies: CH6 Demolition of Buildings Within Conservation Areas, CH5/7 Works Within
Conservation Areas, DES1 Respecting Context, DES6 Waterside Development, DES11 Design and Crime,
A10 Parking and EN10 Protected Trees
PLANNING APPRAISAL
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
Policies EN11 and CH5/7 seek to preserve or enhance the special character of conservation areas and
indicates that the City Council will give particular consideration to the extent to which any development is
consistent with this general approach. In particular the policy promotes the retention and improvement of
existing buildings, and high standards of development that are in keeping with the area. Although the
medical centre is not a listed building, policies EN13 and CH6 do indicate that the demolition of unlisted
buildings within a conservation area will be critically considered, having regard to a number of defined
criteria including the importance of the building, both intrinsically and relatively, its condition, the cost of
repairing and maintaining it to ensure its continuing survival in relation to its importance, and whether an
alternative use could be found. Policy CH1 relates to the proposed World Heritage Site and states that
permission would not normally be granted for development that would detract from the character,
appearance or setting of the proposed World Heritage Site. SC9 relates to the improvement of healthcare
facilities.
The existing surgery building, is finished in poor quality brick with a flat roof and an uninspiring design.
When considered in relation to other properties within the Conservation Area and also the public house
across the Canal the existing medical centre is considered to be inferior in its appearance and would detract
from the proposed World Heritage Site. I consider that the exiting two storey building on the site does not
contribute to the character and appearance of the site or indeed views within and out of/into the
Conservation Area.
The applicant and the Doctors Practice operating at the site have explained that the existing building is
insufficient in meeting the healthcare needs of local people. As such a replacement building is sought in
order to maintain and improve the existing healthcare provision within the local community. As discussed
in the planning application report I consider the replacement building to be acceptable at this location.
Given that the existing building has no merit and that the replacement building would maintain and improve
health care provision I am satisfied that the proposal to demolish this building clearly outweigh reasons to
retain the building.
The replacement building needs to be assessed against other policies in both UDP’s. DES6 relates to the
introduction of a pedestrian walkway where appropriate alongside the canal, which is not possible here due
to separate ownership between the site and the high banking of the Parrin Lane bridge over the Canal. DES6
also requires the highest standards of design alongside the canal, including enhancing views across and
along the canal and the provision of visual links to the waterside. CH1 also requires high quality
development here as do the Conservation Policies EN11, CH5/7, EN13 and CH6. Policies DEV1, DEV2,
DES1, A10, DEV4 and DES11 all relate to the need for good quality design and a building that fits in with
its surroundings including the provision of appropriate parking. Policies EN7 and EN10 relate to the
protection of trees and provision of replacement trees if felling is considered acceptable.
Objection has been received to the appearance and materials of the proposed building and the impact upon
the Conservation Area and Proposed World Heritage Site. The proposed siting of the building retains a
similar footprint to that of the existing building. The impact of the additional storey upon the rest of the
Conservation Area is minimised by the isolation of this site away from other buildings within the
Conservation Area and the natural screening by the many mature trees to the east of the site. Indeed the
modern design would in my opinion enhance this part of the Conservation Area. The elevation fronting
Monton Green, toward the Conservation Area, has a feature bay and a large element of glass, the slope of
the roof would be evident from this side of the building. The Parrin Road elevation is simpilified in
comparison but retains the same principles.
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
The aluminium mono pitch roof is of a very shallow pitch which I consider would have a minimal impact
upon the surrounding Conservation Area. I also consider that the replacement surgery design would not
have a negative impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
The elevation fronting the canal has a central stair feature constructed principally from glass and a strong
horizontal emphasis from the fenestration and overhang of the roof. The angled support poles together with
simple lines would produce a nautical styled building. Pedestrian access is maintained around the front of
the building as at present. Views of the building will be maintained across along the canal with the
horizontal emphasis aiding this process. I consider that the proposal would be in accordance with Policies
CH1 and DES6.
Twelve car parking spaces are proposed for the development some of which will be on Canal Side itself.
The maximum standards are three spaces per consulting plus one for two staff. I am satisfied with the
turning arrangements for these spaces and am satisfied with the ambulance bay subject to the appropriate
road closure being secured by the developer. I have no objection to an open car park at this location given
that railings would reduce the visual appearance of the area fronting the green. The Architectural Liaison
Officer of the Police is also satisfied with the security of the whole site. A turning head would be installed
partly into the green area. A loss of a tree here and for the car parking would result. The loss of a tree on the
green during the siting of the temporary surgery accommodation would also result. The City Council’s
senior Arborist is satisfied that the loss of these trees can be satisfactorily negated through the replacement
on a two for one basis. I intend to propose a condition requiring the reinstatement of the green to its state
prior to the erection of the temporary surgery, and also for the removal of the temporary surgery prior to
occupation of the replacement surgery.
I consider that the applicant proposes a much improved replacement health care facility which would
benefit the local community. I consider the design, materials and siting of the proposed building to be
appropriate to its location alongside the Bridgewater Canal and within the Monton Green Conservation
Area. I am satisfied with the loss of three trees and propose a landscaping condition for the whole site. I
consider the proposal provides an appropriate level of parking and servicing and I have no highway
objections. I therefore recommend that the application be approved subject to the following conditions.
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 twelve car parking spaces
shall be provided within the curtilage of the site to the satisfaction of the Director of Development
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
Services and such spaces shall be made available at all times the premises are in use.
5. No external plant or equipment shall be permitted, nor shall any additional openings be formed in the
elevations or roof of the building which directly ventilate the building or which discharge from any
internal plant or equipment, without the prior written permission of the local planning authority.
6. The rating level of noise emitted from the site shall be lower than the existing background noise level
by at least 5dB(A) when determined at the nearest noise sensitive premises. The measurement and
assessment shall be made according to BS4142:1997:Method for Rating Industrial Noise Affecting
Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas.
7. Prior to the commencement of the development the developer shall submit a site investigation report for
the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and
distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on 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 Local Planning Authority prior to the
start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the
approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.
8. Prior to the commencement of the development a scheme showing the location and girth of the
replacement trees shall be submitted to the Director of Development Services for approval. Prior to the
first use of the medical centre the replacement trees shall be planted in accordance with the approved
scheme. Any trees dying within five years of planting shall be replaced in accordance with the approved
scheme.
9. Prior to the commencement of the surgery the developer shall submit a scheme for the approval of the
Director of Development Services detailing methods and time for the removal of the temporary
surgery. Such scheme shall include details of how the site shall be restored to its condition immediately
prior to the commencement of the development.
Once approved the above scheme shall be implemented in full by the developer in accordance with the
approved methods and timeframe.
10. 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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
7. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
9. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
10. For the avoidance of doubt.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The developer is advised to consult The Manchester Ship Canal Company (Property Division - Alan
Hodkinson on 0161 629 8200) at Peel Dome, The Trafford Centre, Manchester, M17 8PL prior to the
commencement of development over how the canal and canal users are to be protected during
demolition and construction works and how the canal will be protected over any additional loading.
APPLICATION No:
03/45657/CON
APPLICANT:
General Practice Investment Corporation Ltd
LOCATION:
Monton Group Practice Surgery Canal Side Monton Green Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of the existing medical
centre
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The existing medical centre is located within the western edge of the Monton Green Conservation Area.
The site is bounded by the Bridgewater Canal to the west and south, Parrin Road to the north and Canalside
and the green to the east. The green over Canalside is characterised by mature trees and several bushes,
which screen the site from the majority of the Conservation Area.
Consent is sought for the demolition of the existing two storey medical centre. A proposed three storey
replacement building and a temporary single storey replacement building are sought, an application for
planning permission for this also appears on this agenda 03/45656/FUL.
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
SITE HISTORY
In 1985, planning permission was granted for the change of use from a building contractors office to a
doctors group practice (E/19075).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections recommends conditions.
English Heritage – No comments received.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was posted on the 5th March 2003.
A press notice was displayed on the 6th March 2003.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity. I have
however received letters to the associated planning application. None of these letters object to the
demolition of the existing building.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EN11 Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas, EN13 Works to Listed Buildings
and Buildings within Conservation Areas, SC9 Health Care Facilities
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CH1 Proposed World Heritage Site
Other policies: CH6 Demolition of Buildings Within Conservation Areas, CH5/7 Works Within
Conservation Areas
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policies EN11 and CH5/7 seek to preserve or enhance the special character of conservation areas and
indicates that the City Council will give particular consideration to the extent to which any development is
consistent with this general approach. In particular the policy promotes the retention and improvement of
existing buildings, and high standards of development that are in keeping with the area. Although the
medical centre is not a listed building, policies EN13 and CH6 do indicate that the demolition of unlisted
buildings within a conservation area will be critically considered, having regard to a number of defined
criteria including the importance of the building, both intrinsically and relatively, its condition, the cost of
repairing and maintaining it to ensure its continuing survival in relation to its importance, and whether an
alternative use could be found. Policy CH1 relates to the proposed World Heritage Site and states that
permission would not normally be granted for development that would detract from the character,
appearance or setting of the proposed World Heritage Site. SC9 relates to the improvement of healthcare
facilities.
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
The existing surgery building, is finished in poor quality brick with a flat roof and an uninspiring design.
When considered in relation to other properties within the Conservation Area and also the public house
across the Canal the existing medical centre is considered to be inferior in its appearance and would detract
from the proposed World Heritage Site. The replacement building is considered under the planning
application, also on this agenda, for its interaction with the proposed World Heritage Site and Conservation
Area. I consider that the exiting two storey building on the site does not contribute to the character and
appearance of the site or indeed views within and out of/into the Conservation Area.
The applicant and the Doctors Practice operating at the site have explained that the existing building is
insufficient in meeting the healthcare needs of local people. As such a replacement building is sought in
order to maintain and improve the existing healthcare provision within the local community. As discussed
in the planning application report I consider the replacement building to be acceptable at this location.
Given that the existing building has no merit and that the replacement building would maintain and improve
health care provision I am satisfied that the proposal to demolish this building clearly outweigh reasons to
retain the building. I therefore recommend that the application be approved subject to the following
conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R038 Section 18
APPLICATION No:
03/45661/FUL
APPLICANT:
Bellway Homes Ltd
LOCATION:
Land To Rear Of 30-42 Mulgrave Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a two/three storey building comprising 22 apartments
together with associated landscaping, car parking and construction of
new vehicular access
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a piece of land to the rear of 30-42 Mulgrave Road, Roe Green, Worsley. To the
north of the site is existing housing on Mulgrave Road. To the east is a steep sided embankment leading up
to the M60 Motorway. To the south is Worsley Brook, beyond which is Brindley Court, a relatively recent
residential development. The application site is located within the Roe Green/Beesley Green Conservation
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
Area. The site is occupied by a wide variety of trees which are the subject of a Woodland Tree Preservation
Order. The TPO is currently provisional, although it is due to be confirmed in the near future.
It is proposed to construct a part two, part three storey building comprising 22 apartments. The building will
be ‘L’ shaped with the two storey element closest to the rear gardens of the properties on Mulgrave Road
rising to three storeys to the east.
Vehicular access to the site will be achieved from Mulgrave Road. It is proposed to provide a total of 29 car
parking spaces within the application site, including 2 disabled spaces, as well as a cycle storage area on the
eastern boundary of the site. Pedestrian access would also be achieved from Mulgrave Road and the
applicants propose to clearly mark out the pedestrian route across the parking area to the main entrance of
the apartments.
The application would result in the loss of a significant number of trees from the site, including in the region
of 24 mature trees, along with others from the various groups identified within the site. The majority of
these are located within the centre of the site. The applicants have submitted an arboricultural survey in
support of the application which provides details of the trees within the site. The applicants intend to retain
a number of mature trees and propose replacement planting on a two for one basis for any mature trees lost.
Amenity space for the residents of the proposed apartments would be located between the building and the
valley, and would include a lawn, pathway and tree and shrub planting.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections subject to conditions
Environment Agency – no objections subject to conditions
Highways Agency – no objections subject to conditions
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – the woodland supports a wide range of wildlife, including a number of
UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Species (song thrush and reed bunting). It also contributes to the
functioning of the adjacent wildlife corridor and is therefore linked to much larger areas of open space. It
should not therefore be viewed in isolation. The landscape and ecological value of the site would be
significantly altered by the loss of large numbers of trees. The site is of local ecological importance and
should be retained.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 6th March 2003
A site notice was posted on 19th March 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
22-42 (E) Mulgrave Road
61-67 (O) Glen Avenue
36-74 (E) Manthorpe Avenue
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 88 letters of objection and two petitions signed by 41 and 50 local residents in response to
the application publicity. The main issues identified are as follows:
The removal of the trees would affect the amenity of residents
The site is within a Conservation Area
The application would result in an increase in traffic along Mulgrave Road and Glen Avenue which
would cause disturbance and inconvenience to local residents
The apartments proposed would exacerbate the national shortage of affordable housing
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
EN3 – Protected Open Land
EN7 – Conservation of Trees and Woodland
EN20 – Pollution Control
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
T13 – Car Parking
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CH5 – Works Within Conservation Areas
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
H2 – Location of New Housing Development
EN3 – Greenfield Land
EN10 – Protected Trees
EN14 – Air Pollution, Noise, Odour and Vibration
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES11 – Design and Crime
DES13 – Design Statements
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy H1 outlines the Council’s approach to ensuring that the City Council’s housing stock is able to meet
the housing requirements of all groups within Salford. This will be achieved through a number of measures,
including the release of land to accommodate new house building.
Policy EN3 states that the Council will seek to protect and enhance all areas of open land. Applications for
development on open land not protected by Green Belt will normally be refused, subject to a number of
exceptions, including development required by or in accordance with the UDP as a whole, development
consistent with open land status and limited infilling which would not affect the character or scale of
existing settlements and open spaces. The reasoned justification expands on the above, stating that open
land can make a significant contribution to quality of life for a number of reasons, including where it
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
contributes to the character or identity of a specific part of the City and where it is important in landscape
terms.
Policy EN7 aims to conserve trees and woodland by supporting the retention of trees and woods and
making TPOs. The reasoned justification emphasises the importance of woodland and trees and their
protection and enhancement. It states that the loss of mature and semi mature trees is particularly damaging
due to the length of time required for trees to reach this condition.
Policy EN11 states that in considering applications within Conservation Areas, the Council will consider
the extent to which they are consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the area. In doing so, the
Council will have regard to a number of factors, including encouraging the retention of existing mature
trees and encouraging high standards of development which are in keeping with the character of the area.
Policy EN20 outlines the Council’s aim to reduce air pollution, land contamination and problems of noise.
It states that housing will not normally be permitted where existing pollution, including air, noise and land
contamination is unacceptable unless it can be demonstrated that the proposal includes adequate mitigation
measures to reduce the nuisance to an acceptable level.
Policy DEV1 sets out a number of factors to which the Council will have regard in the determination of
applications, including the location and nature of the proposed development and the impact on existing
trees.
Policy DEV2 states that the Council will not grant permission unless it is satisfied with the quality of design
and the appearance of the development. Proposals will also be required to pay due regard to the character of
the surrounding area.
Policy DEV4 encourages greater consideration of crime prevention. The Council will have regard to a
number of factors including the relationship of car parking to buildings and the position and height of
fencing and gates.
Policy T13 requires new developments to provide adequate and appropriate car parking.
Policy CH5 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP states that within Conservation Areas,
development will only be permitted where it would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the
area. In determining applications, regard will be had to the extent to which the proposal retains features
which contribute to that character and retains existing mature trees.
Policy H1 requires new housing development to meet a number of criteria, including being consistent with
other policies and proposals of the UDP. The release of unallocated sites will be managed having regard to
a number of factors, including, in the case of greenfield sites, the availability of previously-developed sites.
Policy H2 relates to housing development on unallocated sites and such development must meet a number if
criteria, including that the site is, or will be made, accessible by public transport, accessible to jobs, shops
and services and that the development would be consistent with other policies and proposals. In the case of
greenfield land, the development should make a significant contribution to the regeneration of a deprived
area, form an integral part of an area strategy approved by the Council and maintain a high level of
environmental quality and amenity within the local area.
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
Policy EN3 updates the same policy of the adopted UDP. It states that development of greenfield land will
only be permitted where the benefits clearly outweigh the impact of, or loss of, greenfield land.
Policy EN10 states that development which would result in unacceptable loss of, or damage to, protected
trees will not be permitted. Adequate replacement provision will be required where the loss is considered
acceptable.
Policy EN14 updates Policy EN10 of the Adopted UDP, stating that where existing air pollution or noise
exceed local or national standards, permission will only be granted for uses, including housing, where
measures to ensure that there is no unacceptable risk to occupiers are incorporated.
Policy DES1 requires development to respect the character of the area in which it is located, as well as
contributing to local identity and distinctiveness. Regard will be had to a number of factors when assessing
the extent to which applications comply with this policy, including the impact on existing landscape.
Policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4.
Policy DES13 requires applicants for major developments to submit a written statement explaining design
principles and how these are reflected in the development’s layout, density, scale, appearance, landscaping
and relationship to the site and its wider context.
Policy A10 requires developments to make adequate parking provision for cars, motorcycles and bicycles.
It is also important to consider the relevant aspects of national planning policy. Planning Policy Guidance
Note 1: General Policy and Principles sets out the Government’s approach to the planning system,
including the promotion of sustainable development. It highlights the importance of developing previously
developed sites before considering the development of greenfield sites. PPG1 also outlines the
Government’s commitment to a plan-led system, where, under Section 54A of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990, applications for planning permission should be determined in accordance with the
development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing emphasises the need to make better use of previously developed
land and to give priority to the development of such land in preference to greenfield sites. Of particular
relevance are the criteria listed at paragraph 31, against which applications for residential development
should be assessed. These are as follows:





The availability of previously-developed sites;
Location and accessibility;
The capacity of existing and potential infrastructure;
The ability to build communities; and
The physical and environmental constraints on development of land.
Paragraphs 35 and 36 of PPG3 deal with windfall sites, which are defined as those which have not been
specifically identified as available in the local plan process. It states that no allowance should be made for
greenfield windfalls.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport promotes greater use of public transport, walking and cycling
and a reduction in car dependence.
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
Regional Planning Guidance for the North West (RPG13), issued in March 2003, sets a target of at least
90% of new dwellings within Salford to be provided on brownfield sites. The City Council is also required
to manage housing development so as to achieve an average annual rate of housing provision of 530
dwellings.
I will now deal with each of the objections received in turn. Firstly, whilst I accept that the proposed
development would result in an increase in traffic on the surrounding roads, in particular Mulgrave Road
and Glen Avenue, I do not consider that this would be unduly problematic. I have no objection to the
principle of the proposed development on traffic grounds and could recommend a number of conditions
which would adequately deal with this increase. These are traffic calming on approach roads and the
introduction of a 20mph zone and a suitable traffic management scheme, for example, give way signs, at the
junction of Mulgrave Road and Greenleach Lane. In terms of the actual increase, at peak times, an
additional 14 vehicle movements would be generated as a result of the proposed development.
Secondly, I do not consider the absence of affordable housing to be a matter of concern in this instance.
Indeed, Policy H4 of the First Deposit UDP only requires the provision of affordable housing within
developments on sites of more than 1 hectare or where 25 or more dwellings are proposed. This application
falls below both thresholds. I do not therefore consider the provision of an element of affordable housing to
be a necessary requirement.
Turning to the third objection, as the site is located within the Roe Green/Beesley Green Conservation Area
the development should accord with Policies EN11 and CH5. The fourth objection relates to the loss of a
number of trees from the site. I will deal with both these issues in subsequent paragraphs.
I consider the main issues in the determination of this application to be the principle of residential
development on the site, the loss of an area of open land as a result of the proposal, the impact on the
Conservation Area and the loss of protected trees. I will deal with each in turn
In terms of the principle of residential development, PPG3 emphasises that priority should be given to the
re-use of previously developed land in preference to the development of greenfield sites. As the site is not
allocated in either the adopted or first deposit UDP, it falls to be considered as a windfall site. PPG3 is
however clear on this matter, stating that no allowance should be made for greenfield windfalls in
calculating housing provision. The City Council has not been having difficulty meeting the RPG housing
requirement and does not therefore consider there to be any justification for the release of any unallocated
greenfield sites. The target of 90% of new dwellings to be provided on brownfield land has been exceeded
in each of the last few years, demonstrating that the supply of brownfield sites has not been a constraint. The
draft UDP identifies adequate land to meet the housing requirement over the lifetime of the Plan. The
proposal does not meet any of the criteria listed at paragraph 31 of PPG3. I therefore consider there to be no
justification for the release of this greenfield site for residential development.
I do not consider that the proposal meets any of the criteria listed in Policy H2 of the draft UDP, as it does
not form part of an approved area strategy and would not contribute to the regeneration of a deprived area.
In addition to this policy, the application must also accord with Policy EN3 of the draft plan, which relates
to greenfield land more generally. The policy sets out the functions of the land which may be considered
important, one of which is that it constitutes an important landscape or amenity resource. It is clear that this
site does constitute such a resource, by virtue of the TPO. I therefore consider that the benefits of the
development would be heavily outweighed by the loss of this land.
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
In terms of the loss of this area of open land, the application must be assessed against Policy EN3 of the
Adopted UDP. I do not consider that the application would fall into any of the categories listed under this
policy. The proposal is, in my opinion, too large to constitute limited infilling and would adversely affect
the character of the existing settlement and open spaces on the basis of the loss of a significant number of
trees. I therefore consider the proposal to be contrary to this policy.
As stated previously, the application site is located within the Roe Green/Beesely Green Conservation Area
which is characterised by trees, wooded areas and open areas of land. I consider these areas to give the
vicinity its sense of place and special character. Given the contribution this site makes to the leafy and open
character of the area, the development of this site would, in my opinion, adversely affect the overall
character and appearance of the Roe Green/Beesely Green Conservation Area. Policy EN11 of the Adopted
UDP encourages the retention of mature trees within Conservation Areas. I therefore consider the
application to be contrary to Policy EN11 of the Adopted UDP and Policy CH5 of the draft UDP.
The final issue to be considered relates to the loss of a significant number of trees as a result of the proposed
development. As stated previously, a provisional Woodland TPO is currently in place and is awaiting
confirmation. Policy EN7 of the adopted UDP and Policy EN10 of the first deposit UDP outline the
presumption against the loss of protected trees. The application site is visible from two public vantage
points and, as stated above, contributes to the general open character of the Conservation Area. I am of the
opinion that all the trees within the site contribute to the woodland and that the retention of some and an
element of replacement planting would not compensate for this loss. A significant proportion of the
replacement planting proposed is located on the adjacent motorway embankment, outside the application
site and within the ownership of the Highways Agency. Whilst the applicants have indicated that the
Highways Agency is agreeable to the principle of such planting, I do not consider that, in the absence of
written confirmation from the Highways Agency itself, this can be relied upon. I consider that, even if the
proposed building was to be reduced in size, it would be unacceptable due to the loss of the woodland in its
entirety.
Turning to other issues, following consultation with the Council’s Environmental Health Department, I
have no objection to the application on noise, contamination or air quality grounds subject to conditions
requiring a site investigation, noise survey and appropriate mitigation measures. I therefore consider the
application to accord with Policy EN20 of the Adopted UDP and EN14 of the First Deposit Plan.
In conclusion, I consider the application to be contrary to national and local planning policies, which seek to
direct residential development towards brownfield sites. I do not consider there to be any special
circumstances which justify the release of this unallocated greenfield site. The development would result in
the loss of an area of open land and a protected woodland. It would also have an adverse impact on the
Conservation Area as a result. I therefore recommend refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposal would result in the development of a greenfield site and an area of protected open land
and as such is contrary to both Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing and Policies EN3 of the City
of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan.
2. The proposed development would result in the loss of a protected woodland within the Roe
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
Green/Beesley Green Conservation Areas and as such is contrary to Policy EN7 and Policy EN11 of
the City Of Salford Unitary Development Plan and EN10 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/45665/COU
APPLICANT:
Web Lighting Ltd
LOCATION:
Web Lighting Ltd Ravenscraig Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Change of use to film studio and ancillary uses, overclad Clegg's Lane
And Ravenscraig Road elevations, over-roof and new glazed entrance
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former Alpine soft drinks depot on the corner of Ravenscraig Road and
Cleggs Lane. The site is adjacent to the former Ashton Fields Colliery. Opposite the site is Brookdale Park
Caravan Park, a residential use. Ravenscraig Road is unadopted.
The proposal seeks to change the use of the building to use as a film studio and ancillary uses. The proposal
also seeks to re-clad the elevations fronting Ravenscraig Road and Cleggs Lane and to erect a new glazed
entrance feature. The alterations would brick up one of the existing roller shutter openings fronting
Ravenscraig Road and then re-clad in a metallic silver. The roof panels would be finished in goosewing
grey. The single storey element, fronting Cleggs Lane, would be rendered to match the proposed
alterations.
The new glazed entrance feature would be located adjacent to the single storey element closest to the corner
of Ravenscraig and Cleggs Lane and would project 3m X 2m and would be 2.4m in height with a pitched
roof. This proposal would use the existing access points on Ravenscraig Road.
The North West Development Agency are currently working on proposals for the redevelopment of the
former colliery site for storage and distribution and open space. As part of this redevelopment, Ravenscraig
Road would be brought up to an adoptable standard.
SITE HISTORY
In March 1978, outline planning permission was granted for the use of the site for plant hire equipment
(E/6257)
In August 1978, planning permission was granted for the erection of a soft drinks manufacturing depot
(E/7128)
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
In March 1984, outline planning permission was granted for vehicle repairs (E/16999)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
1 – 5 (con) Brookdale Caravan Park, Ravenscraig Road
Dukes Gate P.H., Cleggs
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV3 Alterations/Extensions, EC3 Re-Use of Sites
and Premises
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DES1 Respecting Context, DES8 Alterations and Extensions, E4 Employment
Development on Unallocated Sites
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining
applications, including the visual appearance of the development, its relationship to its surroundings and the
amount, design and layout of car parking provision. DEV3 requires any alterations and extensions of
existing buildings to respect the general scale, style, proportion and to complement the character of the
surrounding area. Policy EC3 seeks to re-use or redevelop sites or buildings for similar or related uses.
The replacement plan policies are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
I am of the opinion that the main issues with regard this application are the design of the scheme and the
impact of the use on the neighbouring residential site. The building is currently vacant and suffering from
vandalism. The reuse of the building is supported by policies within both the current and future
replacement development plans. The hours of operation applied for by the applicant would be 9 till 5, five
days a week. Therefore I am of the opinion that this use would not have a detrimental impact upon the
residential properties.
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
With regard to design, I am of the opinion that the proposed cladding improves the appearance of the
building.
I have no highway objections to the proposal. However, should Ravenscraig Road be brought up to an
adoptable standard the width of the road would be reduced. If so, then amendments to the existing access
would be required to safeguard highway safety. I have attached a condition to this end.
I am of the opinion that this proposal would be in accordance with the policies contained within the existing
and forthcoming development plans and would provide a modern design to an existing vacant and run down
building. Therefore, I recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Should Ravenscraig Road be brought up to an adoptable standard within five years of the date of
commencement, the servicing access shall be amended so that a minimum 6m radii and 7.3m access
width is provided and gates set back 10m from the rear of the footway. A sightline splay of 4.5m X
90m shall be provided at the servicing access point. The car park access closest to Cleggs Lane shall
also be amended so that a minimum 4.5m radii and 4.5m access width is provided. These works shall
be carried out within six months of the date of adoption.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
APPLICATION No:
03/45686/FUL
APPLICANT:
Valentine Homes Limited
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To 42 Roe Green Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of one pair of semi detached dwellings and detached garage
together with the creation of new vehicular access
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant plot within the Roe Green / Beesley Green Conservation Area and is to
erect a pair of semi detached dwellings and a detached garage.
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
The area is predominantly residential in nature. The site is bounded by a two storey Victorian cottage to the
west and bungalow to the north. In front of the site is the green itself. The site is flat and currently vacant
with an approximately 2m high hedge along the entire front and eastern boundaries. The majority of the
remaining boundaries consist of 1.8m wooden fencing. The shared boundary to the front of number 42 Roe
Green is 1m in height.
Plot A (the left hand semi) has an integral garage. The main accessible frontage would be 7.4m from the
back of the footpath and would maintain the established building line further along Roe Green. The second
element projects closer toward the road and has been angled to match the frontage and building line of the
properties on the western boundary. The elevation closest to number 42 Roe Green would maintain 1.8m to
the common boundary, 3.4m to the neighbouring property and would measure 5m to the eaves. There are
no habitable windows within this elevation. A 6.4m drive length would be provided in front of the proposal
garage.
Plot B would also be located 6.4m from the back of the footpath to match that of the neighbouring plot. The
entrance point would be set back a further 0.9m. The gable elevation would measure 11m in length X 7.4m
in height and would match the rear kitchen projection of the neighbouring bungalow. This plot would
maintain 7.6m to the common boundary. There are no habitable windows within this gable. A detached
garage measuring 2.8m (w) X 5.6m (l) X 3.4m at the ridge would be located in the northern corner, 7.6m
from the proposed dwelling.
The rear boundary fence is 10.5m from the properties on Blandford Avenue. The proposed dwellings
would be 14m to the common boundary at its closest.
SITE HISTORY
In September 1997, outline permission was granted for one detached dwelling together with creation of new
access and associated landscaping 97/36726/OUT
In March 2001, outline permission was granted for the erection of a detached house (01/41914/OUT)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Coal Authority – Advice provided
PUBLICITY
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser 10th April 2003
A site notice was displayed 5th March 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
10 – 16 (even) Blandford Avenue
38 – 42 and 58 (even) Roe Green
REPRESENTATIONS
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
I have received one objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified are as
follows:
Proximity to existing dwellings
Building lines
Types of materials to be used
Construction issues
Details of dimensions
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, EN12 Protection and
Enhancement of Conservation Areas
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
CH5/15 Works within Conservation Areas
DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining
applications, including the visual appearance of the development, its relationship to its surroundings and the
amount, design and layout of car parking provision. Policy DEV2 seeks quality through good design.
Policy EN12 will seek to preserve or enhance the special character of areas of architectural and historic
interest and will consider the extent to which that development consistent with the desirability of preserving
or enhancing the conservation area.
I consider the design and scale of the development to be appropriate to this residential area and to be in
accordance with policies DEV1, DEV2, DES1, and DES7 of the two UDPs. The replacement plan policies
with regard the Conservation Area are similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this development.
I have received one letter of objection to the application publicity which raised a number of points. As
stated earlier, plot A would be 1.8m from the common boundary and 3.4m to the gable of the Victoria
cottage. There are no habitable windows in either the gable elevation of the neighbouring cottage or the
proposed dwelling. Plot B would maintain 7.6m to the neighbouring elevation. The bungalow does have a
habitable secondary window to the living room within this side elevation, the main window fronts Roe
Green. I am satisfied that the proposal provides sufficient separation to the surrounding properties.
The proposal has been designed to reflect the difference in building lines. I am of the opinion that the siting
unifies the existing buildings on each side of the site and adds variety and character to this vacant area of the
conservation area. Noise during construction, however, is not a material planning consideration.
The principle of residential accommodation has already been established on this site with the approval of
two outline schemes. Therefore I am of the opinion that the main planning issues with regard to this
application is the design and impact upon the conservation area. I am of the opinion that part render and
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
part brick would be appropriate and in keeping with the character of the conservation area. I have attached
a condition to ensure that the materials are agreed prior to the commencement of development.
I am of the opinion that design is of a high standard which is in keeping with the conservation area. The
retention of the majority of the existing hedge along the frontage also helps protect the character of the
conservation area in accordance with policy EN11. I therefore recommend that the application be
approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be used
for the walls and roof 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. Standard Reason R006A Character - conservation area
APPLICATION No:
03/45692/FUL
APPLICANT:
Residential Design Limited
LOCATION:
Monton Lodge 3 Parrin Lane Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing office building and erection of one three storey
block comprising 12 apartments together with associated carparking
and alterations to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Winton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a 0.13 hectare site which currently has a three storey office block within the site.
Surrounding uses are mainly residential, a three storey block of flats lies to the west, two storey housing to
the south and a public house lies to the east. Parrin Lane, slightly elevated lies to the north. The current
building, which would be demolished, has a northerly aspect with car park and access from Montonfields
Road.
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
Planning permission is sought for the erection of twelve two bed flats in one three storey block. The
proposal consists of four flats at ground level, four at first floor and four at second floor level. The site
slopes up from south to north as such the northern half would be built one metre above the southern half.
Permission is also sought for twelve associated car parking spaces and landscaping. Access would as
existing.
SITE HISTORY
In 2002, planning permission was granted for ten two bed flats over 2.5 storeys (02/44490/FUL).
In 1997, planning permission was granted for a three storey extension for offices (97/36507/FUL).
In 1989, planning permission was granted for the erection of a two storey extension (E/25036).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections but recommends a condition requiring a ground gas
investigation report
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Advice recommended
British Coal – No objections
United Utilities – No comment received
Manchester Ship Canal Company – No objection
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by way of press notice and site notice.
The following neighbours were notified :
1 –6 consecutive Bridge Court, Montonfields Road
1-21 odd Montonmill Gardens
7 – 13 odd Parrin Lane
Public House, 1 Parrin Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 Meeting Housing Needs, DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4
Design and Crime
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 Provision of New Housing Development; DES7 Amenity and Users of Neighbours;
DES1 Respecting Context
PLANNING APPRAISAL
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
Policy H1 relates to meeting housing needs whilst DEV1 seeks, inter alia, to ensure development fits in
with the locality. Policy DEV2 requires a good standard of design. DEV4 requires a secure development.
The policies within the first deposit draft plan are similar to those within the adopted plan in respect of this
development.
The area is residential and I consider that the redevelopment of the site for residential will be compatible not
only with surrounding uses but also with neighbouring residential amenity. The development is also very
similar to the previous approval in design and layout, the only difference is this proposal is some 0.8m
higher than the previous approval. The siting of the proposal is such that a minimum of 15m is maintained
to the gable end of Bridge Court to the west and 19m is maintained from the gable end of the proposal to the
rear of facing properties on Montonmill Gardens, I consider these distances to be in accordance with the
City Councils standards. Although the development proposed is close to the rear boundary of the site I
consider it is sufficient distance from the United Utilities sub station, which is unlikely to be redeveloped, in
order that amenity would be maintained.
I consider that the design of the development has interest with large glazed entrances and a good standard of
finished design including contrasting brick courses throughout the elevations. The flats benefit from
balustrading to enhance design and amenity whilst the proposal includes communal amenity spaces. I am
satisfied that the proposal meets the thrusts and aims of policies DEV1 and DEV2. The developer intends to
build to secure by design standards and included would be secure entrance and 2.1m high railings around
the site. I consider the balustrades are sufficiently spaced and segregated to prevent penetration from one
flat to the next. I consider the proposal to be in accordance with policy DEV4.
The Director of Environmental Services has recommended a condition requiring a ground gas investigation
because of the proximity to a land fill site to the north of the Canal. This condition was not recommended on
the previous residential scheme however it should be added given the proximity to the landfill site. The
Director of Environmental Services also proposes an informative to limit the lighting levels in the car park
area.
The existing access is proposed to be utilised and twelve parking spaces are proposed for the ten flats. I
consider this level of parking to be acceptable given the good public transport links with bus services and
train services from Patricroft station. I have no highway objections. I consider the proposal would
complement other uses and buildings in the area and recommend approval.
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
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
4. Prior to the commencement of the developmnet the developer shall submit for the approval of the
Director of Development Services a scheme showing the type and colour of 2.1m high external railings
2.1m in addition to methods of achieveing secure by design status. Once approved such scheme shall be
implemented in full prior to first occupation of the development.
5. Prior to commencement of development the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the
approval of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and
distribution of underground gases on site and its implications on the risk to human health as defined
under the Environmental Protection Act, 1990 Part IIA. The sampling and analytical strategy shall be
approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of the survey and recommendations and
remedial works contained within the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to
occupation of the site.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R040A Secured from crime
5. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The lighting provided in the scheme should 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),
however a standard maintained illumination (LUX) of between 5 and 20 LUX would be appropriate.
APPLICATION No:
03/45747/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr & Mrs Fearnhead
LOCATION:
54 Ellesmere Street Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Retention of a single storey side extension
WARD:
Swinton North
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi detached house on Ellesmere Street which is on the corner of Carden
Avenue. The application is for a single storey side extension to provide a dining room and enlarged kitchen.
It is 2.95m in width and be the full length of the house at 7.5m long. The applicant had started construction,
thinking that the extension would have the benefit of permitted development, so that most of the external
work has now been completed. I understand that work has now ceased.
The ward Councillor, Cllr Antrobus, has requested that this application be determined by Panel.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
52, 56, 67, 69, 71 & 73 Ellesmere Street
16 Dryden Avenue
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
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 – Amenity of users and neighbours
DES8 – Alterations and extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV 8 of the UDP states that
The City Council will only grant planning permission for proposals relating to the extension of a dwelling,
including its roof, where the following criteria can be satisfied:
the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring
residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light;
the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the character of the street scene;
the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, by
reason of its siting, height, massing design and appearance.
The Draft Deposit Replacement Plan have two policies, DES7 & DES8, which seek to ensure that
extensions do not have an adverse impact on the occupiers of neighbouring properties, and to ensure that
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
extensions respect the general scale, proportions, materials etc of the original structure and that they
complement the general character of the area.
Both these policies are now supported by specific guidance within the Council’s SPG for house extensions.
Guidance Note HH14 would be the relevant note for consideration to this specific proposal. This Guidance
Note states:
Planning permission for a single storey or two storey extension to dwellings on corner plots will not
normally be granted unless a minimum distance of 2m is maintained between the boundary or back of
service strip and the nearest part of the extension.
This particular part of the street is identified by a line of semis along Ellesmere Street and at this junction
with Carden Avenue the houses are all set back nearly 4m from the kerb edge, which gives the visual
impression of a wide junction. Side extensions have recently been built at both 56 Ellesmere Street, across
Carden Avenue, and at 16 Dryden Avenue to the rear. Both of these have maintained a 2m distance to the
side boundary and therefore they have reduced their impact into the street scene.
The applicant’s extension is set back only 1m from the boundary with the highway. It also spans the full
length of the house. Therefore I would consider that this would be a prominent extension within the street
scene, particularly when viewed along Ellesmere Street from the easterly direction. I would consider that
this prominence is at present emphasised by the colour of the brick, which when viewed against the original
house are a much redder colour and would take a few years to weather to a better match.
I am mindful that the applicants have mentioned other properties within the area that have been built.
However, these appear to have been approved prior to the adoption of the SPG and therefore were solely
considered on the individual merits of the individual scheme at the time. In determining this application, I
would consider that regard must be had to the SPG as well as the individual merits of the scheme. The
application is contrary to Guidance Note HH14 of the SPG as it does not maintain 2m from the edge of the
highway. In this particular location, the other properties along Carden Avenue are set back from the road
which I consider emphasises the prominence of this extension. Although this is a single storey extension, I
would still consider that this is a prominent extension which ahs a detrimental impact on the appearance of
the street scene.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The garage is only set back 1m from the boundary with Carden Avenue and as such has a significant
detrimental impact upon the amenity and character of the area and is contrary to policy DEV8 of the
Unitary Development Plan and HH14 of the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance - House
Extensions.
2. The garage, owing to it's size, siting and the construction materials used is an overly prominent feature
within the street scene and as such has a significant detrimental impact upon the general amenity and
character of the area and the amenity of neighbouring residents, contrary to policy DEV8 of the UDP.
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/45769/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr G Hymanson
LOCATION:
9 Vernon Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of detached garage with store above at the rear.
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing residential property. At the rear of its garden there is currently a
detached garage, which is accessed from an alley off Singleton Road. The proposal is to demolish the
garage and to build a two storey building, with a garage on the ground floor and a domestic store room on
the first floor. The building would be 10.4m long, 4.4m wide and it would be 5.8m high to the ridge and 4.4
m high to the eaves. The roof would have 4 skylights.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
5, 7, 11, 13, 15 Vernon Road
484, 490, 492, 490a, 490b, 490c, Bury New Road
8-16a (even) Cavendish Road
5-8 Jacobite Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received six letters of objection, from the occupiers of 10 households. The main issues identified are
as follows:
it would be intrusive and unreasonably large and would overlook other houses
it would block light from surrounding gardens and houses
out of keeping with this residential neighbourhood, especially as all other garages are single
storey
do not consider that this is for domestic storage. Instead there is concern that it would be for an
industrial or commercial use and there is concern about the type of goods stored in the building
the size of the storage area would generate an increase in the level of traffic along the
unadopted access road which is very narrow and in a poor state of repair
the possible increase in traffic could be harmful to children who play in the area safely
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV 8 – House extensions
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 – Amenity of users and neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 of the UDP requires that consideration be had to the location and nature of the proposed
development in relation to existing land uses, the effect on sunlight and privacy for neighbouring properties
as well as visual appearance of the development.
Policy DES7 of the Deposit Draft Replacement Plan requires that all development to provide potential users
with a satisfactory level of amenity in terms of space daylight, privacy etc whilst ensuring that it would not
have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of users of other development.
The application has been submitted as domestic and the applicant has written to confirm that it is not the
intention to use the premises for commercial use. Therefore the application should be considered as a
domestic facility ancillary to the existing dwellinghouse.
The objectors are concerned that the size of this building would be obtrusive and unreasonably large which
would overlook houses and block light from surrounding gardens and houses. The proposal shows that the
only windows into the building would be skylights so that there would be no possibility of overlooking or
loss of privacy. It would be two storey and therefore would be visible from the surrounding properties and
would be larger that the other single storey garages to the rear of the houses. However, I do not consider this
would necessarily make the proposal unacceptable.
The proposed garage would be approximately 30m away from the applicant’s property, the neighbours on
Vernon Road, properties on Jocobite Close and properties facing the proposal on Bury New Road. There is
a further property on Bury New Road, the corner of which is 21 metres away, but which does not face the
proposal. Road, Cavendish Road and Singleton Road. Given that the City Council would normally require a
minimum of 21 metres separation between properties with facing sets of habitable windows, this proposed
building could be considered to provide more than adequate separation to the surrounding residential
properties.
I am aware also of the residents concerns about the possible impact on the level of traffic along the private
road, and the possible effect of children within the area. Given that this proposal would be for domestic use,
I do not consider that there should be any more impact on traffic levels than the applicants existing garage
which is to be replaced.
I have balanced the issues, in terms of the siting and size of this proposed garage and store against the
concerns of the residents. Notwithstanding the objections, I do not consider that the impact of the proposed
building would have a seriously detrimental impact in terms of loss of light, visual intrusion or loss of
privacy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
03/45773/OUT
APPLICANT:
Mrs B Humphries
LOCATION:
Site At Former Builders Yard Fountain Street Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2 three storey buildings comprising of 12 flats together with
associated car parking
WARD:
Barton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a 0.12 ha site. Outline planning permission is sought for the siting and access of
a residential development comprising two three-storey blocks. A total of 12 two-bedroom flats would be
provided.
The footprint of each block would be 13.4 metres by 12.2 metres and would be a maximum of 10 metres in
height. Each block would be orientated so that the majority of habitable room windows would face east and
west. One lounge/dining window on all three floors of each building would be inserted into the northern
elevation.
Vehicular access would be from Fountain Street and there would be a total of 18 on site car parking spaces.
Amenity space has not been identified, there are, however, areas of landscaping proposed, in particular
along the northern and south-western boundaries of the site.
The site is currently used as a builders yard – there is an existing building positioned to the north-west of the
site which would be demolished. The remainder of the site is used in conjunction with the builders yard and
for associated parking. The site is bounded by 2.4 to 3.0 metre high galvanised steel palisade fencing.
The site is located adjacent to the Barton-upon-Irwell Conservation Area. To the north, east and south of the
site are two-storey dwellings. To the west of the site is the Barton Metals business building with associated
yard to the rear, the Fountain Street part of this building appears to be used as a dwelling (525 Barton Lane).
The site level rises towards the southern part of the site by approximately 0.5 metres and the properties on
Havenscroft Avenue are at a higher level of approximately 1.0 metres.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Contaminated land condition recommended.
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
Environment Agency – No objection in principle.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit - No objection in principle. The final scheme should
incorporate some private defensible space around the buildings.
Health and Safety Executive - Does not meet consultation criteria – no comments.
PUBLICITY
Site Notice displayed: 18th March 2003
Press Notice published: 20th March 2003
CA Site Notice displayed: 22nd April 2003
CA Press Notice published
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
509 – 519 (o) Barton Lane
2 – 20 (e) Havenscroft Avenue
24 – 28 (e) Casterlea Close
51 – 53 (o) Grand Union Way
525 Barton Lane
Barton Metals, Barton Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 8 letters of objection in response to the application publicity, in addition to a 34 signature
petition. The main issues identified are as follows:
loss of privacy
overlooking or rear gardens
loss of daylight, sunlight and changes to skyline
concerns of security
devaluation of property
Manchester Methodist Housing Group has 16 shared ownership properties on Havenscroft Avenue/
Grand Union Way – it is considered that their income would be effected from devaluation and sales
of these properties
there are already enough flats in the area
without the metal fence that currently surrounds the fence, people with have easy access to
surrounding properties
three storey buildings would be out of character with surrounding two-storey housing
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H9/23 – Sites for New Housing
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
T13 – Car Parking
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES11 – Design and Crime
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The site is allocated in the Unitary Development Plan as a site for new housing (Policy H9/23). The
majority of this allocation, in particular to the north, east and south of the application site, has now been
developed for residential use. 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
land uses; the amount, design and layout of car parking provision and the provision of open space.
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.
UDP policy T13 states that the City Council will ensure that adequate parking provision is made where
necessary. The City Council’s car parking standards for flats with communal parking (1.25 spaces per
dwelling) would require a minimum of 15 car parking spaces to be provided at the site. The Draft
Replacement UDP requires a maximum standard of an average of 1.5 spaces per flat, with at least 5% of the
car parking spaces allocated for disabled persons parking. Provision should also be made for 1 cycle secure
locker per 5 flats, with a minimum of 2 spaces. Policy DES1 of the Draft Replacement UDP states that
regard will be had to a number of factors in assessing whether a development respects its physical context
including the relationship to other buildings, the impact on and quality of views and vistas and the potential
impact of the proposed development on the redevelopment of an adjacent site. Policy DES7 of the Draft
Replacement UDP states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable
impact on the amenity of occupiers of other developments.
With regards to the objections raised, I can confirm that effect on property value is not a material planning
consideration. Neighbouring residents have raised concerns in relation to security if the existing palisade
fencing around the boundary of the site is removed. Whilst this fencing may provide additional security, I
consider that it is unsightly and inappropriate in this residential area. The position, height and design of any
new boundary treatment would be dealt with at the detailed planning stage. The main objections raised
relate to loss of privacy, loss of light and overlooking.
Block ‘B’ would be sited to the rear of 2 to 8 Havenscroft Avenue and 509 to 513 Barton Lane. At its closest
point, the corner of Block ‘B’ would be 14.8 metres from the properties on Havenscroft Avenue and 22.8
metres from the properties on Barton Lane. None of the habitable windows to Block ‘B’ would directly face
the existing dwellings surrounding the site. However, Block ‘B’ would be overbearing to Havenscroft
Avenue since standards would normally require a 16m separation.
I have a number of concerns in relation to the siting of Block ‘A’. Block ‘A’ would be positioned between
2.0 metres and 5.0 metres from the Fountain Street boundary – I am concerned that a three–storey building
set back 2.0 metres from the highway would have a detrimental impact on the streetscene. There would be a
distance of 16 metres from what appear to be habitable windows of the first floor of 525 Barton Lane and
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
the proposed bedroom windows of Block ‘A’. A minimum of 21 metres separation distance between main
habitable windows is normally required. Furthermore, there would be just 9.4 metres from the proposed
bedroom windows of Block ‘A’ and the corrugated steel fence to the yard area of Barton Metals. I consider
this relationship to be poor and that there would be a detrimental impact on future residents, in terms of both
visual amenity and potential disturbance. With regards to the relationship between this block and existing
dwellings on Barton Lane and Havenscroft Avenue, I do not consider that residents on Havenscroft Avenue
would suffer any loss of privacy as there is a minimum separation distance of 14 metres and there would be
no principle windows on this elevation of Block ‘A’. Furthermore, given that the properties on Havenscroft
Avenue are at a higher level, I do not consider that the proposed development would be overbearing on
these residents. There would however be a distance of just 18 metres between the main habitable windows
of 519 Barton Lane and the proposed lounge/dining windows on the northern elevation of Block ‘A’. This
poor relationship is further exacerbated given the that the development would be three storey and that the
application site is at a higher level to the properties on Barton Lane. The siting of Block ‘A’ would therefore
have a detrimental impact on the streetscene (being three storey and up to 2.0m from highway) and would
be detrimental to amenity of neighbouring residents, in particular 525 and 519 Barton Lane.
With reference to amenity space, although areas of landscaping have been identified along the northern and
south-western boundaries, I do not consider that a satisfactory level of useable amenity space for future
residents would be provided at the site, in particular as the dwellings would be two bedroom-flats and can
therefore be considered as family accommodation. With regards to on-site car parking, the provision of 18
spaces would be in accordance with current car parking standards. No disabled persons car parking or cycle
parking provision have, however, been identified.
Whilst I consider that the principle of residential development at this site is acceptable, I consider that the
siting of the proposed development combined with the height is unsatisfactory and would be detrimental to
the amenity of surrounding residents and the visual amenity of the area. I do not consider that efficient use
has been made of the space available at this site. Large areas of hard surfacing have been identified and
virtually no useable amenity space is provided, resulting in a poor form of development.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would be out of character with the surrounding area by reason of its size
and siting and would be an overdevelopment of the site and have an overbearing effect on neighbouring
properties that would be contrary to Policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
2. The proposed development would result in a loss of privacy for neighbouring residents, in particular
525 and 519 Barton Lane and as such would be contrary to Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1.
3. The site layout and disposition of buildings creates large of areas of hard surfacing and car parking
resulting in the inadequate provision of useable amenity space for future residents, contrary to policy
DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/45824/FUL
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
APPLICANT:
Jawhar Lateef Mohammed
LOCATION:
392 Liverpool Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Variation of previous condition to allow opening hours of between 4.00
p.m. and 1.00 a.m. on Fridays adn Saturdays and 4.00 p.m. and 12.00
midnight on weekdays and Sundays.
WARD:
Winton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a property already in use as a hot food takeaway. It is a mid-terrace property with
a narrow access to the rear and a Costcutter store to the west (no.394) and a barbers shop to the east
(no.390). It is opposite a single storey retail showroom and residential properties, and there are residential
houses to the rear.
Liverpool Road itself is a significant highway to the west of Salford & Eccles, and although there are
numerous retail outlets scattered along the road, the site is not within a designated key local centre. The
surrounding area is primarily residential with other land-uses nearby including two Churches.
The Panel should note that this application does not concern the principle of a hot-food outlet but only the
proposed alterations to the existing approved hours of use. The proposal is for the variation of previous
condition (no.2 of E/18573) to allow opening hours of between 4.00 p.m. and 1.00 a.m. on Fridays and
Saturdays and 4.00 p.m. and 12.00 midnight on weekdays and Sundays. Existing approved hours (E/18573)
are 8.00am – Midnight on Friday and Saturday, and 8.00am – 11.00pm on weekdays, with no operation on
Sundays and Bank Holidays.
SITE HISTORY
In 1996, planning permission was refused for the ‘continued use as a hot food takeaway with extended
hours of operation from 12noon-12midnight Monday, Thursday, and Sunday and from 12noon-1am Friday
and Saturday’ (96/36042/FUL). A subsequent appeal was dismissed.
In 1985, planning permission was granted for the ‘change of use from shop to shop for the sale of hot food’.
(E/18573)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Awaiting Comments
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
386-390(e) Liverpool Road
394-400(e) Liverpool Road
337-379(o) Liverpool Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two (2) representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The
main issues identified are as follows:






Pollution: Noise, smells & litter
Too close to residential properties
Lack of car-parking – noise from stationary engines and car radios
Fume extraction unit causes smells to enter neighbouring properties
Present owners have operated outside existing approved opening hours
Congregation of youths and drunks
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
S5 – Control of Food & Drink Premises
DEV1 – Development Criteria
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
DES1 – Respecting Context
S1 – Provision of New Retail and leisure Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Having considered the objections received it is clear that numerous problems exist at present, particularly
with regard to parking problems and the proximity to neighbouring residential. Any noise from stationary
vehicles late in the evening would also present a negative impact on occupiers of upper storey flats.
Policy S5 states that proposals for the sale of hot food and drink will only be permitted where the use would
not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenities of surrounding residential properties and would
not be significantly prejudicial to the safety of pedestrians and road users. The property is already in use as
a hot food takeaway and there are residential flats at first floor level above and aside the premises.
Occupiers of these flats will already suffer some loss of amenity from the associated noise and fumes and
general disturbance.
It can be considered that while the hot food takeaway is an existing use, any extension in opening hours
during the late evening would constitute an intensification of use. Due that the site is not within a designated
key local centre I consider that any extension of hours would be unacceptable to neighbouring residential
amenity and therefore cannot be compromised.
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
The proposed increase in the hours would result in further loss of amenity to an unacceptable level beyond
that experienced at present. I consider this to be contrary to policy S5 and therefore recommend refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed extension of opening hours into the late evening, would be seriously detrimental to
neighbouring residents and would injure the amenity of the area by reason of smell and fumes, noise,
disturbance and general activity, and thus would be contrary to policy S5 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/45826/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr & Mrs A Ryder
LOCATION:
34 Lawnswood Drive Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a conservatory to side
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application property is semi-detached. The property is situated on a bend at Lawnswood Drive, the pair
of semi-detached properties are slightly angled away from properties on either side. The application site is
situated to the towards the top of a slope.
The proposal is for the erection of a conservatory on the gable elevation. The conservatory would project
3.12m in total X 3.55m with a total height of 3.1m. The proposal would be approximately 0.8m from the
side boundary.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
32, 35, 36, 37 and 41 Lawnswood Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection from the occupier of the neighbouring property in response to the
application publicity. The main issues identified are as follows:
The proposal would have an overpowering and unsightly effect on No.36
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
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 (Draft UDP)
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.
HH3 of the supplementary planning guidance reflects and supports DEV8..
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 extension would be approximately 0.9m from the boundary with No.36. The proposal would overlook
the gable and front garden of No.36. The applicant has agreed to obscure glaze two of the panels which
overlook the front and side. There are no habitable room windows on the gable elevation of No.36. The
application site is approximately 0.6m higher than No.36, which is south of the proposal, the conservatory
is 3.1m high and would be constructed with a dwarf wall and wood grain UPVC frame which would be in
keeping with the existing windows on the property.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The glazing for the element of the conservatory which includes the double doors and the angled return
that runs parallel to the side boundary with No. 36 Lawnswood Drive shall be obscured and shall be
maintained thereafter.
3. The facing materials shall be in accordance with those details contained in the applicant's letter dated
23rd April 2003. The facing brick shall match the existing house and the UPVC frame match the
existing house windows.
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
3. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
03/45839/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Carter
LOCATION:
22 Ashford Avenue Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey rear extension, first floor rear extension and
first floor side extension supported by columns
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property. To the rear of the applicant’s property is more
residential development. The proposal is for the erection of a single storey rear extension along the
adjoining boundary, a first-floor rear extension away from the adjoining boundary, and a first floor side
extension supported by brick columns.
The single storey rear extension would project 2.74m along the adjoining boundary and back 3.85m to
adjoin the existing outrigger. The first-floor rear extension would project out 2.4m and back 3.34m over the
existing outrigger and partially over the proposed single storey rear extension. It would be set in 2.8m from
the adjoining boundary. The side element of the proposal would project 1.24m to the adjacent boundary
and back 2.69m. It would be set back 5.4m from the front of the house.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No Objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
19, 20, 21 and 24 Ashford Avenue
41-45(odd) Ringlow Park Road
REPRESENTATIONS
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
I have received a letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified are
as follows:
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.
The three elements of the proposal conform to Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions with
regards to the relevant projection distances and so I am of the opinion that they would not lead to a
significant loss of light for either the adjoining or adjacent neighbours. Although the first floor side
extension would face an existing ground floor window to the gable elevation of the adjacent neighbour’s
house (approx 1.4m away), this window is secondary and so I am of the opinion that the proposal would not
lead to a significant loss of light for the adjacent neighbour.
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
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/45840/COU
APPLICANT:
A Beaumont
LOCATION:
1A Clarendon Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Continued use of property as a nails, beauty and sunbed centre
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a single storey property at 1A Clarendon Road, Swinton. It is proposed to
continue using the property as a nails, beauty and sunbed centre. The hours of opening would be 3pm – 8pm
on Mondays and Tuesdays, 10am – 8pm on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, 10am – 6pm on Saturdays
and 11am – 3pm on Sundays. One member of staff is employed on the premises.
The property is located on the edge of Swinton Town Centre. The surrounding area is a mixture of
residential and commercial premises.
SITE HISTORY
In 1991 planning permission was granted for the change of use from offices and builders storage to
distribution with ancillary retail use (ref: 28657).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
113-117, 111 Chorley Road
1-11 (O), 2-12 (E) Clarendon Road
REPRESENTATIONS
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified
are as follows:
The application does not provide any off-street car parking
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: DES1 – Respecting Context
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria against which applications for planning permission are assessed.
Of most relevance to this application are the location and nature of the proposed development and the
amount of car parking provision.
Policy DES1 of the First Deposit UDP requires development to respond to its physical context. It states that
developments should be appropriate to the nature and setting of the local area.
I consider the main issues in the determination of this application to be the appropriateness of the use in this
location and car parking provision. Given the property’s location on the edge of Swinton Town Centre, the
area’s mixed use character and the property’s commercial history, I consider the use to be appropriate. The
proposed use would compliment existing facilities within the Town Centre. In terms of car parking, given
the site’s location, I do not consider the provision of off-street car parking to be necessary in this instance
for a number of reasons. The property has a history of commercial and retail use. Only one member of staff
is employed on the premises and there are no parking restrictions on Clarendon Road. Staff and visitors to
the premises would therefore be able to park on Clarendon Road itself or use the Town Centre parking
facilities, which are in close proximity to the application premises. I consider that this would adequately
address the concerns of the objector.
On the above basis I recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve - unconditional
APPLICATION No:
03/45845/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Grayson-Mahon
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
LOCATION:
11 Entwistle Street Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Eection of two storey side extension and part single/part two storey
rear extension
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property with neighbours on either side. To the rear of the
applicant’s house is recreation ground. The proposal is to erect an L-shaped extension that wraps around
the side and rear of the house. It would comprise of a two-storey side extension and a part single/part
two-storey rear extension.
The side element of the proposal would project out 1.8m to the adjacent boundary and extend back 9.2m
(2.64m past the rear of the existing house). The first floor element would be set back 2m from the front of
the house and would extend 2.1m past the rear of the house. The single-storey element of the rear extension
would project 2.64m along the adjoining boundary and back across the width of the house to adjoin the
two-storey element of the proposal.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No Objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
9, 13 and 18 Entwistle Street
9-14 Sindsley Court, Entwistle 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
Loss of boundary fence
Noise and disruption during the development phase
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV8 – House Extensions
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
8th May 2003
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.
Loss of boundary fence: There is no indication that the boundary fence would be removed. Furthermore,
it is not a planning consideration.
Noise and disruption during the development phase: Again this is not a planning consideration but the
development phase is likely to be relatively brief and would not lead to prolonged disruption for
neighbouring residents.
Loss of Light: The extension conforms to Council Policy with regards to the relevant projection distances
and so I am of the opinion that it would not lead to a significant loss of light for either the adjoining or
adjacent neighbours.
The proposal is in accordance with Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions.
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 fact that there is a sewer in close proximity to the house, and
that United Utilities must be contacted prior to ant development being started. They can be contacted
on 0161 6080431.
2. The approval relates to the amended plans that were received on 10th April 2003 and which show a
reduction in the projection of the first floor rear extension from 2.64m to 2.1m.
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
APPLICATION No:
03/45880/COU
APPLICANT:
C White
LOCATION:
28 Hopwood Avenue Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Retention of use of single dwelling as two flats
WARD:
Eccles
8th May 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a mid-terrace dwelling. Planning permission is sought for the continued use of
the property into two one-bed flats. It appears that the conversion has already taken place, however, this has
not yet been confirmed by the applicant.
No external alterations are proposed to the elevations. There is presently no off-street car parking and no car
parking provision has been identified at the site. There is a rear yard and a small garden area to the front.
The site is located in a residential area predominantly comprising terraced properties.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
Site Notice displayed 3rd April 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
22 – 26 (e), 30 Hopwood Avenue
17 – 33 (o) Hopwood Avenue
21 – 23 (o) Richmond Grove
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified
are as follows:
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION





8th May 2003
the conversion has already taken place and there are tenants living in the flats – it is therefore a bit
late to notify residents of the proposal
the use of the property as two flats rather than a single household is inappropriate to the character of
the area
results in an intensification of the use, including vehicle movements and general activity
would result in an increase in the number of cars parked in the Avenue – there is already a parking
problem without intensifying the situation
any additional parking would cause an increase in the general disturbance in the area and could
result in dangerous and unsatisfactory parking arrangements
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H5 – Dwellings Sub-Divided into Self-Contained Flats or in Multiple Occupancy
T13 – Car Parking
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: H5 – Provision of Residential Accommodation Within Existing Buildings
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy H5 states the City Council will only permit proposals for the sub-division
of dwellings where there would not be an unacceptably adverse effect on the amenity of neighbouring
residential properties, or on the character of the surrounding area by reason of noise and disturbance, loss of
privacy, the cumulative effects of the concentration of such uses and the parking requirements. The City
Council’s adopted car parking standards for this type of development are a minimum of 1.25 spaces per flat.
The First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP policies are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in
respect to this development.
The main objections raised relate to car parking, the effect on the character of the area and the fact that the
conversion has already taken place. With regards to the effect of the proposal on the character of the
surrounding area, I do not consider that the proposal would result in any significant increase in noise and
disturbance or loss of privacy to surrounding residents. Furthermore, I do not consider that the subdivision
of one dwelling into two constitutes a significant intensification of use that would have an unacceptable
adverse amenity on neighbouring residents or the character of the surrounding area. There are no external
alterations proposed (eg no external fire escapes, which can affect the character of the property).
I consider that the main issues for consideration relate to the provision of car parking and amenity space.
With regards to amenity space, there is a small rear yard area and area to the front of the property, which I
consider to be satisfactory. No new car parking provision has been identified as part of the proposal and
there is no existing on-site car parking. The Government’s policies on housing are set out in Planning Policy
Guidance (PPG) Note 3: Housing (March 2000). Paragraph 61 of PPG3 states that local authorities should
revise their parking standards to allow for significantly lower levels of off-street parking provision,
particularly for developments in locations where services are readily accessible by walking, cycling or
public transport. The parking standard identified for a C3 Use in the UDP First Deposit Draft Plan is a
maximum of 1.5 spaces per dwelling. Paragraph 14 of PPG13 (Transport) states that local authorities, in
assessing the suitability of sites for housing development should consider their location and accessibility to
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
jobs, shops and services by modes other than the car. The application site is located within walking distance
of Monton Key Local Centre and Eccles Town Centre (via M602 footbridge). Whilst I do have some
concerns in relation to the lack of on-site car parking, there is on-street car parking available to the front of
the property and I believe that the site is located in a good position for access to local services and public
transport.
I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds and I consider that residential use would be in
keeping with the surrounding area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The conversion must be above ground level due to a history of foul flooding within the area.
APPLICATION No:
03/45916/FUL
APPLICANT:
Lowry Development Co
LOCATION:
Lowry Centre Salford Quays Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Erection of enclosed external high level bridge link between the
artworks space and with The Lowry and a central service core
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to The Lowry Centre which is located site at the western end of Pier 8, Salford
Quays. It is situated within the mixed use area of Salford Quays. Planning permission is sought for a minor
extension to the Lowry Centre at first floor level. The extension would involve the construction of a link
partly within the existing internal frame of the building between the Artworks Space and the main body of
the Lowry. This link would be 2.2m wide by 4m long by 2.5m high. The link would be 8.2m above ground
level. The applicant has explained this application will provide a link between the service core and the
artworks space and would facilitate greater use of the artworks space through improved servicing of the
area. This section of the Lowry is on the south side facing Trafford MBC over the Ship Canal.
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
The land subject to this application is owned by the City of Salford.
SITE HISTORY
In 1996, planning permission was granted for the erection of the Lowry Centre for the performing and
visual arts (96/35728/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Trafford MBC – no comment received.
PUBLICITY
Three site notices were posted on the 11th April 2003
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: TR7/2 – Pier 8, Salford Quays
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1/3 Development in Mixed-Use Areas
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The proposed extension is very small and although at a height of 8m above ground level it would be
concealed from views because of its location within a lightwell between the existing curves of the Lowry
Centre. The applicant intends to finish the extension in materials to match the existing building. I consider
that the small extension if constructed in matching materials will not detract from the appearance of the
Lowry Centre or upon views across and along the Manchester Ship Canal. I also consider that the proposed
link will generate enable the artworks space to be utilised more. I consider the proposal to be in accordance
with policies within the adopted and deposit draft UDP, I have no highway objections and recommend
approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
2. Standard Condition D01B Materials to Match
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
03/45939/TEL56
APPLICANT:
O2 (UK) Limited
LOCATION:
Pavement To Front Of 258 Eccles Old Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Prior Notification for the installation of one 12.1m high
telecommunications monopole with non-operational lighting arm
together with two associated equipment cabinets at ground level
(Resubmission of 03/45588/TEL)
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land at Eccles Old Road, within a small key local centre (Weaste & Seedley
ward). The proposal is for the installation of one 12.1m high telecommunications monopole with
operational lighting arm together with two associated equipment cabinets at ground level.
The proposed type.3 monopole will be based approximately between the post office at no.258, and no.205
Eccles Old Road, sited 300mm apart from the boundary of the footpath and car-park, in between the
post-box and existing cabinet. The two equipment cabinets proposed are to be sited 7metres to the East
along the same boundary (access panels to face Eccles Old Road).
The monopole (including two antennas) has been designed to appear as an item of street furniture complete
with a non-operational lamp to match existing surrounding lampposts, and sited 14.9metres to the West of
an existing lamppost to create a realistic street-scene.
The Applicant has submitted a certificate indicating that the proposed equipment and installation would be
ICNIRP compliant. Seventeen alternative sites have been considered, but have been discounted (including
five due to lack of interest and 10 due to environmental constraints). The reason for the development is to
provide ‘coverage, upgrade, and capacity’ for the city population.
SITE HISTORY
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
The Panel will recall that in March 2003 a previous application was made for the installation of one 12.1m
high telecommunications monopole with non-operational lighting arm together with two associated
equipment cabinets at ground level. This was refused by reason of negative visual amenity as in policy
SC14. (03/45588/TEL56)
This application follows an earlier application at 254 Eccles Old Road (Beaucliffe Hotel) for the erection of
one fake brick chimney shroud enclosing nine antenna on roof top and installation of four equipment cabins
at ground floor level. This was withdrawn in January 2003. (03/45346/TEL)
CONSULTATIONS
No objections received.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 8th April 2003.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:
254-264(e) Eccles Old Road
189-215(o) Eccles Old Road
1-11(o) Park Road
1-18 Portland House, Park Road
1-18 Zyburn Court, Park Road
9-23(o) Victoria Road
10-20(e) Victoria Road
1-40 Knowles Court, Eccles Old Road
1-6 Honiton House, Park Place
1-16 Credition House, Devon Close
1-12 Silverton House, Devon Close
1-12 Tiverton House, Eccles Old Road
5 Devonshire Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received thirteen (13) representations/ letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
The following issues have been raised:









Aesthetic quality of the area – visual impact
Obstruction & hazard to pedestrians including the disabled and partially sighted shoppers risk to
public safety
Pavement too narrow – forcing people nearer to fast moving traffic
Environmental & health implications
Already enough street-furniture
Already many telecommunications masts in area
Not appropriate to a community district
Too close to the Post Office and other shops
Unproven business case/ technical justification
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION



8th May 2003
Size & shape of ground installations
Cabinets will attract vandalism, graffiti, and intimidating youths
Pavement will also be taken up by maintenance needs, a further obstruction
I have also received two petitions: one containing 28signatures and one substantial petition containing
365signatures, both to the following effect:
‘Petition against O2 (UK) Limited installation of telecommunication monopole. Site adjacent to 258
Eccles Old Road, Salford 6. (Re-Application April 2003)’
It should be noted that Councillor Mrs Heywood has requested this application should go to Panel.
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
A2 – Cyclists, Pedestrians, and the Disabled
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES2 – Circulation & Movement
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.
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
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
Non-Iodising Radiation Protection) guidelines to limit public exposure from telecommunication
developments.
The applicant has made amendments to the siting of the street-lamp structure, including setting the
monopole back 300mm from the side of the footbath along the car-park boundary (also preventing overlap
of foundations beneath adjoining land). The monopole has been placed in a position that gives a realistic
distance between this and the two nearest existing lamp-posts thereby allowing the structure to fit in with
the alignment of other street-furniture.
Significant objections have been received, including two petitions containing a large number of signatures,
as detailed above. Objections raised include risk to public health and the environment. The applicant has,
however, provided a Certificate declaring that the proposed installation conforms to ICNIRP Public
Exposure Guidelines.
A frequent objection is the inconvenience of the equipment cabinets at ground level, which the Panel should
note are the same size as those in the previous application (03/45588/TEL56). However, although the
monopole and cabinets can be considered to be similar to the size of existing street furniture, I consider the
overall appearance to cause street-clutter and is visually unappealing. Objectors point out there is already
enough street-furniture on this section of pavement and that there are several masts/monopoles already in
the surrounding area. I consider that the applicant has not provided any evidence to show any reduction in
size to improve the visual appearance and minimise any overbearing impact.
Having analysed this application with the above issues in mind, I conclude that this application is
unacceptable, with particular regard to policies SC14, DEV1 & DEV2.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development by reason of its size, siting and appearance would add clutter to the street
scene adversely affecting the visual amenity of the area contrary to Policy SC14 of the City Of Salford
Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/45598/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Housing Services
LOCATION:
2-10 Rigel Place, 10-20, 49-61 And 87-145 Heath Avenue Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Environmental and security improvements to gardens, to include new
drives, paving, timber boundary treatments, metal gates and railings to
flats, tree planting, new roads, realigned roads, car park/parking bays
74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
8th May 2003
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to proposed environmental and security improvements in the vicinity of Rigel Place
and Heath Avenue, a large residential area and part of the Spike Island area. The proposed improvements
will involve the addition of new driveways, fencing and tree planting, with new and realigned roads. The
proposal includes the closure of highway and footpath, principally to provide secure car parking but also
closing off a number of the many access points to the walkway alongside the river in line with Police and
Government advice regarding security. It also includes the provision of two new footpaths and the
improvement of existing footpaths.
The existing estate suffers from significant levels of crime and generally has a poor physical environment.
Existing car parking provision is to the rear of houses, situated within exposed courtyards. Car crime is
significant in the area, and the existing arrangements do not provide secure parking for residents.
Ten trees, of various maturity and species will be removed as a result of the scheme, with 34 new trees
proposed.
Consultations between the applicant’s agent and the police architectural liaison team took place prior to the
submission of the scheme. The footpath societies were also consulted by the agent earlier this year.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections but provide advice
Peak and Northern Footpath Society – No response to date
Open Spaces Society – No response to date
Ramblers Association – No response to date
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association - No response to date
Greater Manchester Police Authority - No response to date
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on the 5th March 2003
The following neighbours were notified :
17 to 23 (odd) Carina Place
1 to 34 Harry Hall Gardens (Heath Avenue)
37 to 47 (odd) and 22 to 36 (even) Heath Avenue
1 to 7 (odd) and 2 to 8 (odd) Myrtle Place
1 to 9 (odd) Orion Place
REPRESENTATIONS
75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
I have received no representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
H2 – Maintaining and Improving Public Sector Housing
DEV4 Design and Crime
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
none
DES1 Respecting Context, DES11 Design and Crime, H3 Housing Improvement
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan Policy DEV1 states that in determining planning applications the City Council
should pay due regard to a number of issues, including the visual appearance of a development; the amount,
design and layout of car parking provision, landscaping and open space provision and the impact on trees
within or adjacent to the development site. In addition, Policy H2 states that the City Council will seek to
maintain and improve public sector housing stock through improving security, improving the general
housing environment and through the provision of adequate car parking facilities. Policy DEV4 states that
the City Council will encourage greater consideration of crime prevention and personal and property
security.
The replacement plan policies update and are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
The proposal remodels the estate in line with Policy DEV4 and both Government and Police advice
regarding security issues. The number of ginnels that run alongside houses and lead on to the riverside
walkway are reduced in number. At the same time access to the riverside walkway is improved by the
provision of more appropriately sited footpaths. I am satisfied that this development will lead to a
significant improvement in the housing environment in the area. The proposed improvements will improve
security for residents, and will also improve car parking facilities. The development involves the removal
of a number of mature and semi-mature trees, however, their removal is required in order to facilitate the
environmental and security improvements. I am satisfied that their replacement with 34 trees, five of which
will be ‘extra heavy standard’ specimens, will mitigate any negative impacts.
I am satisfied that the proposed works will improve visual and residential amenity in the area, and serve to
combat crime and vandalism in the housing environment. I therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The felling of the trees hereby granted consent shall be replaced during the first available planting
76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
season. The five replacement trees located on the approved plan opposite Orion Place shall be replaced
by "heavy standard" trees in accordance with British Standard 3936:Part 1:1965 (Specification for
Nursery Stock Part 1:Trees and Shrubs) and shall have a clear stem height from the ground of 2.5m, a
minimum overall height from the ground of 4.0m, a minimum circumference of stem at 1m from the
ground of 18cm and the trees shall be root balled. The species of the replacement trees shall be agreed
in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the felling of the trees.
3. No development shall commence until the necessary road closures have been secured under the
necessary legislation.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
APPLICATION No:
03/45696/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Housing Services Directorate
LOCATION:
Alleyway To The Rear Of 2-70 Fairfield Street And 193 - 257 Bolton
Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Erection of six alley gates to provide residents only access and
improved security
WARD:
Claremont
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the erection of six alley gates to provide residents only access and improved
security. The gates would be located at the six entrances to the alleyway between 2-70 Fairfield Street and
193-257 Bolton Road.
The gates and railing would be erected to the same height as their adjoining walls to a maximum of 2.4m.
Existing vehicular accesses would be retained and walls would be built up where necessary to make up the
height of the wall and the width would be adjusted to fit each alley.
The gates would be black with silver finials to match in with other nearby features.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 25th March at the rear of 235 Bolton Road.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
77
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
193-257 (o) Bolton Road
2-70 (e) Fairfield Street
1-11 (o) Moorfield Road
A press notice was published in the Salford Advertiser on 10th April 2003.
The following societies have been notified:
Peak and Northern Footpath Society.
Ramblers Association.
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association.
Open Space Society.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
I have received an verbal concern from the Open Spaces Society regarding access to the Post Office and
letter box that would be lost if the gates were permitted. Reservations relate to gates 5 and 6 as shown on the
plans. They have confirmed that they are not making a formal objection at this stage.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV4 Design and Crime.
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other Policies: DES11- Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV4 states that the City Council will encourage greater consideration of crime prevention and personal
and property security in the design of new development and in the improvement of existing buildings and
land. It also states that in particular the City Council will have regard to the provision of security fences and
the position and height of fencing and gates.
The City Council’s traffic section have expressed concerns that the “stopping up” of the passageways will
mean that the land reverts to the adjacent properties and as a result any property could extend their boundary
wall to the centre of the passageway. This could therefore result in lack of access to the rear of the
properties. They recommend that a prohibition of driving be introduced and bollards introduced to prevent
access to vehicles rather than revert to the stopping up of the highway.
I consider that as the erection of the alley gates is in conjunction with the Council’s Burglary reduction
scheme due to the security issues at the site, it is necessary to use alley gating as bollards will not provide
the level of security needed. All residents would be issued with a key to access the rear of their properties
and would still be able to access the site with vehicles. If residents wish to extend their properties back in
78
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
the future, planning permission would be needed. The residents have also been notified that the land at the
rear is communal to dissuade them from extending to the rear.
The Post Office and letterbox are located at 217 Bolton Road and I consider they will still be able to be
accessed by alternative route without hindering pedestrians.
I consider that the alley gating is in accordance to the provisions of DEV4, and will aid to deter vandalism,
theft and other criminal activity in the interests of personal and property security. I have no objections on
highway grounds and therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The development shall not commence until the necessary approval for the closure as required under the
necessary legislation has been served.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
3. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Applicant should contact united utilities with regards to the legal closure of the highway and existing
sewers.
APPLICATION No:
03/45812/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
St Paul's CE Primary School (Mrs Doris Eaton)
LOCATION:
St Paul's C.E. Primary School Heathside Grove Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Replace existing flat roof with new pitched roof
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to St Paul’s CE Primary School, Heathside Grove, Worsley. It is proposed to
replace the existing flat roof with a new pitched roof. The proposed replacement roof is to be black, with the
barge boards and gable cladding matt silver. The fascia is to be white.
79
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
The school’s immediate surroundings are playing fields. Beyond this, the surrounding area is
predominantly residential.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
29-59 (O) Egerton Road
29-49 (O) Wilbraham Road
1-8 (E) Heathside Grove
12 & 27 Leaside Grove
103-125 (O) Whittle Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV3 – Alterations and Extensions
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 of the Adopted UDP outlines a number of criteria against which applications for planning
permission will be assessed. Of most relevance to the application is the visual appearance of the
development.
Policy DEV3 requires applications for alterations to respect the general scale, style, proportion and
materials of the original structure and to complement the character of the surrounding area.
Policy DES1 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan states that development is required to respond to
its physical context. In assessing whether proposals comply with this policy, regard will be had to a number
of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings.
I consider that the proposal will result in improvements to the appearance of the school and is in keeping
with the appearance of the building and the surrounding area. The application accords fully with the
80
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
relevant policies of the adopted and first deposit draft replacement plans. I have no objections to the
application and therefore recommend that the application be approved.
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 roof 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. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/45815/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
New Prospect Housing
LOCATION:
20 Irwell Avenue/ 79 Eastham Way Little Hulton Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 1.8m high timber fencing and gates
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to proposed environmental and security improvements in the vicinity of Irwell
Avenue and Eastham Way, a residential area and part of the Mountskip Estate area. The proposed
improvements will involve the addition of new driveways, and 1.8m high timber fencing and gates to the
rear of 20 Irwell Avenue and 79 Eastham Way. The proposal would also provide other environment
improvements that would not require planning consent.
The existing estate suffers from significant levels of crime and generally has a poor physical environment.
Car crime is significant in the area, and the existing arrangements do not provide secure parking for
residents.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
81
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
77 and 81 Eastham Way
22, 67 – 75 (odd) Irwell Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
H2 – Maintaining and Improving Public Sector Housing
DEV4 Design and Crime
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
none
DES1 Respecting Context, DES11 Design and Crime, H3 Housing Improvement
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan Policy DEV1 states that in determining planning applications the City Council
should pay due regard to a number of issues, including the visual appearance of a development; the amount,
design and layout of car parking provision, landscaping and open space provision and the impact on trees
within or adjacent to the development site. In addition, Policy H2 states that the City Council will seek to
maintain and improve public sector housing stock through improving security, improving the general
housing environment and through the provision of adequate car parking facilities. Policy DEV4 states that
the City Council will encourage greater consideration of crime prevention and personal and property
security.
The replacement plan policies update and are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
The proposal remodels the estate in line with Policy DEV4 and both Government and Police advice
regarding security issues. I am satisfied that this development will lead to a significant improvement in the
housing environment in the area. The proposed improvements will improve security for residents, and will
also improve off street car parking facilities.
I am satisfied that the proposed works will improve visual and residential amenity in the area, and serve to
combat crime and vandalism in the housing environment. I therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
82
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
03/45816/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
New Prospect Housing
LOCATION:
Rear Of 2- 24 Davis Street Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Retention of 2m high fence (Re-submission of previous planning
application 00/40556/DEEM3)
WARD:
Barton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land to the rear of three blocks of flats on Davis Street. The site is surrounded by
residential development and in particular, by the terraced housing on Garden Street to the east of the site.
The application has been submitted retrospectively and seeks the retention of 2m high timber fencing to the
rear and side boundary where the site is adjacent to highways.
SITE HISTORY
00/40556/DEEM3 - Retention of 2m high fence at rear of properties. Application Withdrawn.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
1a, 1 – 57 (o) Garden Street
2 – 58 (e) Garden Street
2 – 24 (e) Davis Street
102 – 108 (e) Davis Street
1 – 5 (o) Davis Street
25 – 31 (o) Davis Street
1 – 44 (o) Alma Street
29a, 12a Alma Street
14 – 34 (e) Irwell Grove
13 – 21 (o) Irwell Grove
1, 3, 7 The Grove
77, 79, 81, 83 Barton Lane
Ward Councillors were also notified.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations or letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
83
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV4 – Design and Crime
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES11 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account
when determining planning applications, these include the visual appearance of the development and its
relationship to its surroundings. Policy DEV4 states that regard will be had to the position and height of
fencing and gates. The policies of the First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP are generally similar to those
of the adopted plan in respect to this development.
The timber fence has already been erected and is currently in a poor state of repair, with a number of
sections missing. I consider that this design and height of timber fencing is compatible with the residential
nature of the area. In order to improve the appearance of the fence, I recommend that the necessary repairs
are undertaken and that a scheme of planting is provided immediately adjacent to the fencing.
I have received no objections to the proposal and providing that the fence is repaired and that a scheme of
landscaping is provided, I do not consider that it would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services within 1 month of the date of this planning
permission. Such scheme shall include full details of the repairs to be carried out to the fencing and the
trees and shrubs to be planted and shall be carried out within 3 months of the date of this planning
permission 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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/45817/DEEM3
84
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
APPLICANT:
New Prospect Housing
LOCATION:
2-16 And 18- 32 Kersal Avenue Worsley Little Hulton
PROPOSAL:
Creation of two car parking areas
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to two grassed areas between properties on Kersal Avenue, Little Hulton. The
proposal seeks to provide one off street car parking space for each of the above properties. The properties
are located at right angles to Kersal Way with pedestrian footpaths on each side of the grassed areas.
The estate suffers from significant levels of crime and generally has a poor physical environment. Car
crime is significant in the area, and the existing arrangements do not provide secure parking for residents.
This proposal forms part of the wider Mountskip Estate environmental improvements and would replace
the grassed areas with 16 spaces in total.
A normal parking arrangement would be bays 2.4 m wide by 4.8 m long with a 6 m wide manoeuvring aisle.
Due to the restricted width available between the existing houses, the scheme proposes wider bays of 3 m
with a manoeuvring aisle of 5 m in width.
PUBLICITY
Two site notices were displayed 1/4/03
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
83 – 105 (odd) Coniston Avenue
9 - 29 (odd) and 2 – 32 (even) Kersal Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
H2 – Maintaining and Improving Public Sector Housing
DEV4 Design and Crime
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
none
DES1 Respecting Context, DES11 Design and Crime, H3 Housing Improvement
85
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan Policy DEV1 states that in determining planning applications the City Council
should pay due regard to a number of issues, including the visual appearance of a development; the amount,
design and layout of car parking provision, landscaping and open space provision and the impact on trees
within or adjacent to the development site. In addition, Policy H2 states that the City Council will seek to
maintain and improve public sector housing stock through improving security, improving the general
housing environment and through the provision of adequate car parking facilities. Policy DEV4 states that
the City Council will encourage greater consideration of crime prevention and personal and property
security.
The replacement plan policies update and are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
The proposal remodels the estate in line with Policy DEV4 and both Government and Police advice
regarding security issues. I am satisfied that this development will lead to a significant improvement in the
housing environment in the area and the design and layout is to an acceptable standard. The proposed
improvements will improve off street car parking facilities. I have however suggested a condition be
imposed to provide a more generous access radius onto Kersal Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Prior to the use of the car parking spaces commencing, a minimum 4.5m radii shall be provided for each
access point to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
APPLICATION No:
03/45818/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Governors Of Marlborough Rd Primary School
LOCATION:
Marlborough Road County Primary School Marlborough Road
(Willock Street) Salford 7
86
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing entrance canopy to main entrance and replace
with a glazed barrel roof
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Marlborough Road County Primary School Marlborough Road, Salford 7. To the
east of the junior school building is the infant school. To the west, south and north are playing fields.
Beyond this, the surrounding area is predominantly residential.
It is proposed to demolish the existing entrance canopy to main entrance of the junior school and replace it
with a glazed barrel roof. The main entrance door will also be replaced with two painted hardwood doors
with laminated glass panels. The roof will be a metal barrel vault roof covered in clear polycarbonate sheet.
The front of the proposed canopy will be pierced metal with polycarbonate glazing. The metal framework is
to be coloured dark blue. New circular columns would also be constructed to replace the existing columns.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was posted on 7th April 2003.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV3 – Alterations/Extensions
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 of the Adopted UDP outlines a number of criteria against which applications for planning
permission will be assessed. Of most relevance to the application is the visual appearance of the
development.
Policy DEV2 states that permission will only be granted where the Council is satisfied with the quality of
the design of the proposed development.
Policy DEV3 requires applications for alterations to respect the general scale, style, proportion and
materials of the original structure and to complement the character of the surrounding area.
87
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
Policy DES1 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement states that development is required to respond to its
physical context. In assessing whether proposals comply with this policy, regard will be had to a number of
factors, including the relationship to existing buildings.
The proposed works are intended to improve the appearance of the building and to present a more modern
entrance feature to the building for staff, pupils and visitors. The replacement entrance canopy and door
would enhance the visual appearance of the school and would be in keeping with the building, in
accordance with the relevant UDP policies. The applicant has confirmed that the proposed entrance would
be designed to be accessible to all. The entrance is flat and can therefore be accessed by those in
wheelchairs. The double doors also facilitate wheelchair access.
I consider that the application would result in improvements to the appearance of the school, providing a
more modern and attractive entrance feature than at present. The proposal complies with all the relevant
policies of the adopted and First Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs. I therefore recommend that the
application be approved.
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 materials to be used for the roof have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/45888/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Environmental Services Directorate
LOCATION:
Parr Fold Park, Off Walkden Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 1.8m high fence and gates at Walkden Road entrance
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to the entrance to Parr Fold Park on Walkden Road, which is between Worsley
College and the linear walkway. The boundary consists at present of a low brick wall approximately 0.6m
88
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
high, and a bar gate across the vehicular entrance. The proposal is to remove the wall and erect 1.8m railings
and gate. The railings would be coloured black, with gold finial detailing.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was posted on 8 April 2003
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV4 – Design and Crime
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES11 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV4 and DES11 seek to improve security whilst still having regard to the quality of the design and
the amenity of the area. This proposal is intended to replace the existing wall, which is now in a poor state of
repair with attractive railings. I am satisfied that this boundary treatment would not be detrimental to the
street scene but would instead create an attractive feature on this road.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The railings hereby approved shall be coloured black with gold detailing prior to their erection on site,
unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/45936/DEEM3
89
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
APPLICANT:
Development Services Directorate
LOCATION:
Civic Centre Site Chorley Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Siting of a two storey temporary building to form a public library and
offices (resubmission of previous Planning Application number
03/45670/DEEM3)
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to part of the lawned gardens in front of the Civic Centre adjacent to Partington
Lane and the traffic lights across to the Lancastrian Hall. There are a couple of flower beds including a
group of mature conifers within the garden area and there are mature plane trees growing within the
adjacent highway.
The proposal is for the erection of a temporary portable building for two and a half years, which would be
part single, part two storey. The building, which would be new and mushroom coloured, would measure
48m by 18m with the first floor accommodation at the northern end of the building. It would be sited
outside the spread of the adjacent highway trees. Permission was recently granted in outline for the use of
the Lancastrian Hall site for a new primary health and social care facility. Detailed plans for the
redevelopment of the site are currently being developed but they will include replacement facilities for the
public library that occupies the existing hall. In order to allow redevelopment to proceed, it is necessary to
relocate the library on a temporary basis. The temporary building would therefore be used to house the
library whilst the works in association with the recent LIFT application are undertaken. The temporary
accommodation would be required from July this year until the new building is completed which is
expected to be in 2005.
SITE HISTORY
In March an application was withdrawn from consideration for a temporary building 36m by 24m but on the
Memorial Gardens to the south of this application site, reference 03/45670/DEEM3. This was owing to
concern about the impact of the proposal upon the trees growing in the memorial garden and along the
highway.
CONSULTATIONS
City’s Arboricultural Officer – no comments received to date.
PUBLICITY
A site notice has been posted on 4 March 2003.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no response to the application publicity.
90
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
8th May 2003
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none.
Other policies:DEV1 Development Criteria, EN7 Conservation of Trees
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:EHC1 Provision and Improvement of Education, Health and Community Facilities, DES1
Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle
Parking in New Developments.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The proposal has been submitted following the granting of permission for the development of primary care
and community facilities at the Lancastrian Hall. The portable building would be required for a maximum
of two and half years to house the library whilst works are undertaken to the Hall. The main issues to be
considered are the impact of the temporary building for this time period, particularly the visual impact
within the street scene and the impact upon the trees in accordance with EN7.
The building would be sited at the corner of the lawned area in front of the Civic Centre buildings and this
site has been chosen because of its convenience to library users and its ability to accommodate a building of
the size required. The building has been specifically designed and sited to be outside of the branch spread
of the trees on the highway and geoweb would be utilised to safeguard the trees if necessary. On this basis
I am satisfied that there should not be a significant detrimental impact upon these trees and have appended
a condition to secure the use of geoweb.
The building would be sited on a prominent junction but would be partially screened by the trees growing
along the highway. I am also mindful of the fact that the permission is only for a temporary period and that
it would be a brand new portable building that would be used which would be more visually pleasing than
an older building. Disabled access ramps would be incorporated allowing access by all and taking into
account all of these factors, I am satisfied that the benefits are considerable whilst the works are completed
at the Lancastrian Hall and thereby recommend that this application is approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The building hereby permitted shall be removed on or before the expiration of a period ending on 8
October 2005 when the site shall be restored to its condition immediately prior to the commencement of
development, unless a further permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
91
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
92
8th May 2003
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
93
8th May 2003
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
94
8th May 2003