PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
APPLICATION No:
02/44704/COU
APPLICANT:
Bedspace Northwest Limited
LOCATION:
Cromwell Court Cromwell Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Continued use of student accommodation as multi-occupation
establishment
WARD:
Pendleton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a two-storey building, formerly a Council owned elderly persons home, but more
recently used to provide private accommodation to up to 64 students. The building has been vacant since
the end of 2001. The application refers to the continued use to a multi-occupation establishment and this
specifically relates to the applicants intention to provide accommodation to students who are also asylum
seekers, refugees or people seeking refugee status. These people would in the main be in the age range of
16 to 18. The applicant has made it clear that all residents would be students but that this would also include
residents who arrived at the property and who were then in the process of being registered as students within
a matter of days.
There is therefore little actual change in planning terms in the use of the property but the applicant is
specifically seeking planning permission for his actual use of the property.
The site lies within the new deal area and is surrounded by a mix of residential uses that includes a day
centre.
SITE HISTORY
In October 1994, planning permission was granted for the change of use from an elderly persons home to a
residential home for mature/post graduate students (94/32951/COU).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
The Coal Authority – No objections
New Deal for Communities Team – No response to date
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified of the application
1 to 9 Petrie Court, Cromwell Road
St George’s Day Centre
Kings Court, Langley Road South
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
23 and 24 Manifold Street
1 to 22 Heraldic Court, St Georges’s Way
27 Tabley Street
1 to 11 Walsall Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received an objection to the application from Councillors Warmisham and Hulmes on the grounds
that the building is to be used fro asylum seekers and that the building is too large a building to house so
many together and is not in an ideal position. The councillors consider that the building should be retained
as student accommodation. They mention an incident a few years ago when 53 17-year-old asylum seekers
were housed at the property.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, H5 Dwellings Sub-Divided into Self-Contained Flats or in
Multiple Occupancy
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the nature of the proposed use and the effect upon neighbours.
The replacement plan policies update and are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development
Planning permission has already been granted for the use of the property as student accommodation. The
future use of the property will continue to be for students but the applicant is specifically seeking
permission through this application for a multi-occupation establishment to provide accommodation to
students who are also seeking asylum or refugee status or who are refugees.
This development would not normally require planning permission.
However, of relevance to the application is a covenant that exists on the site in favour of the City Council
that states that the premises shall be used for the sole purpose of accommodation for mature students. The
applicant has stated that residents would be in the age range of 16 to 18. This would not be in accordance
with the covenant.
I am of the opinion that such a concentration of young people as is proposed by this application would have
a significant detrimental effect upon the amenity and character of the area and on neighbouring residents by
reason of the noise and general disturbance that is likely to be created by such a large number of young
people.
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
I therefore recommend that the application be refused on the following grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed use would be in breach of a covenant on the site and would, by reason of noise and
general disturbance, have a significant detrimental effect on neighbouring residents and the amenity
and character of the area generally, contrary to policy H5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/45585/FUL
APPLICANT:
A Buxton
LOCATION:
Pet Medics Vetinerary Surgery Memorial Road Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey extension and link extension
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Petmedics Vet Centre between Memorial Road and Walkden Road. The site is
bounded predominantly by residential uses. To the south is a car wash.
The proposal would provide a single storey side extension and a single storey link extension to the adjacent
end terrace on Memorial Road. The main vetinerary surgery is constructed of brick and steel cladding.
The link extension would measure 1.3m wide X 3.4m in height and would continue along the gable of the
terrace of a distance of 11.1m. The side extension would project 3.5m from the frontage of the building
towards Walkden Road and would return to follow the established building line. It would be single storey
with a flat roof at a height of 2.8m. This part of the proposal would maintain 2.9m to the back of the
footpath.
SITE HISTORY
In 2002, planning permission was granted to change the use of the adjacent end terrace to an office.
(02/44337/COU)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
74 – 78 (even) & 71 – 77 (odd) Memorial Road
The Old Nick (1-5)
1 – 13 (odd) Stanley Road
57 – 65 (odd) & 72 – 108 (even) Walkden Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two representations in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified are
as follows:
Visual impact
Maintenance issues
Car Parking
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV1 Design Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors in determining
applications for planning permission, including the location and nature of the proposed development; the
amount, design and layout of car parking provision; the arrangements for servicing and access and the
visual appearance of the development.
The objectors site car parking and the expansion of the premises as a concern. I am of the opinion that the
provision of a link extension and a single storey storage extension would not constitute a demonstrable
increase in floorspace to necessitate additional car parking provision. The applicant has indicated on this
application and the previous change of use that no additional staff would be employed as a result of the
improvements.
Reference is also made to the visual impact that the proposal single storey side extension would have on
Walkden Road. The proposal would project 3.5m from the frontage of the property to a point level with the
frontage of the neighbouring property. This element would replace the area currently used for outside
storage. It would maintain 3m to the common boundary and measure 2.8m in height with a flat roof. No car
parking spaces would be lost to facilitate this proposal. Therefore, I do not consider that this element of the
proposal would have a significant detrimental impact upon the street scene. The third point raised,
maintenance issues, are not a material planning consideration.
I am of the opinion that these improvements would improve the existing facilities on site. I am also of the
opinion that the proposed single storey brick extension is in keeping with the adjacent residential character,
I therefore recommend the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
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 R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
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
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
has a mix of half dormers whilst the elvation fronting the canal has balconies. The proposal includes 43 off
street car parking spaces. A public right of way around the site is to be untouched whilst the site would be
enclosed with railings. The proposal would involve the demolition of all buildings on the site. The
applicant has indicated the reopening of Verdun Road and Anson Street, although this is not directly
required to facilitate this development.
The application has been amended to reduce the number of units from 53 to 49, to relocate the building
further away from nearby dwellings and the boundary of the site and to relocate the binstore away from
nearby dwellings.
SITE HISTORY
A similar development was recently withdrawn.
CONSULTATIONS
The Coal Authority – No objections
GM Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Recommends controlled gated access
Director of Environmental Services – Given its historical use it is recommended that a contaminated land
condition is attached. It is also recommended that the developer complies with Building Regulation
Document E to minimise noise disturbance between incompatible adjacent rooms (eg living room to
bedroom).
Manchester Ship Canal Company – No representations received
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
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Loss of privacy
Loss of Sunlight to Parrin Lane
Concern over height of the proposal
I have also received a neighbour letter stating that they consider the development would enhance the street
but raised concerns over:
The bin store location
Security between the proposal and existing property – wishing to ensure that an alley is not created
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: A wildlife corridor runs alongside the Bridgewater Canal
Other policies:
DEV1 Development Criteria
DEV2 Good Design
DEV4 Design and Crime
H1 Meeting Housing Needs
EC3 Re-Use of Sites and Premises
EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodland
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN
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
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
roofslope, set back from the main elevation and consequently the distance of 26.5m is in accordance with
City of Salford normal standards.
Separate pedestrian access to the flats improves the security of the development as does the enclosure by
railings. The proposal would not result in an alley between 200 Anson Street and the development, the
boundary is to be enclosed by railings with brick piers. The bin store has been relocated to move it away
from surrounding residential properties. Landscaping is proposed to the Anson Street frontage and to the
part of the site facing the canal. I consider the proposed residential development would be an improvement
to the visual character of the surrounding area. I therefore consider the respects the character of the
surrounding area as intended within policies DEV1, DEV2 and DES1.
The proposal includes just less than 100% parking (43 spaces for the 49 flats) and revised access. The car
parking would be secured behind fencing with controlled access. I consider that this level of parking and
proximity to public transport links is acceptable and is in line with the City Councils and Governments
maximum parking standards. A cycle store is also proposed within the development. I am satisfied that the
development would be secure from crime given the controlled vehicular and separate pedestrian access.
The applicant has not submitted a tree report however the Councils SPG for Trees in relation to distances
from trees requires developments to be a minimum 3.6m away from the nearest point of the tree. The site
itself is devoid of trees the only trees near the site are over 3.6m away from the development. A landscaping
scheme would aid the visual improvement of the site. As such I consider the proposal to be contrary to be in
accordance with policy EN7 and the SPG on trees.
The redevelopment as housing of this site would be desirable with respect of the current bad neighbour use
located here. This proposal, although larger in scale than two storey dwellings on Anson Street, is similar in
height to the existing flats behind the site on Parrin Lane. I consider that the distance to nearby property is
sufficient in conjunction with the design of the proposal to ensure that occupiers of nearby property would
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
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
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)
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:
03/45656/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
of temporary surgery accommodation together with associated car
parking and alteration to existing vehicular and pedestrian accesses
WARD:
Eccles
At the meeting of the Panel held on the 8th May 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
English Heritage have objected, letter dated 13th May 2003, to the proposed scheme. English Heritage are of
the opinion that the existing buildings do not make a positive contribution to the Conservation Area and that
the demolition needs to be assessed. The demolition has been assessed as part of the assessment of the
development. English Heritage state that the proposed building being higher and bulkier than the existing
building will have considerably more impact upon the Conservation Area and that the proposal could be
construed as over-development. The report below explains that the site below is in an isolated location from
the rest of the Conservation Area and of the canopy of trees between the rest of Conservation Area and this
site. English Heritage also state that the design is over-assertive but state that a model or perspectives would
help to assess the proposal.
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
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
Director of Environmental Services – No objections recommends conditions.
English Heritage – No comments received.
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
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
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
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
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
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.
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.
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
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
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
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
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
At the meeting of the Panel held on the 8th May 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
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.
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
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.
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
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
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. 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:
03/45684/FUL
APPLICANT:
G Wimpey Manchester Ltd
LOCATION:
Former 'Restawhile Beds' Factory Worsley Road North/ Devonshire
Road Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 125 two and four storey apartment, mews and detached
dwellings together with associated car parking, landscaping and
construction of new, and alteration to existing, vehicular access
WARD:
Walkden North
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of the Restawhile Beds factory situated on Worsley Road North between
Devonshire Road and Hirst Avenue. The factory ceased manufacturing in November 2000. The building is
single storey with two storey offices to the front of the site. The site covers an area of 3.2 hectares and
forms a part of the Oakhill Trading Estate that lies to the north and west of the site. There area industrial
premises opposite on Worsley Road North with residential properties to the south beyond Hirst Avenue. To
the rear of the site there are industrial premises and the former Ashton Fields Colliery site that is a site of
proposed open space and industrial development.
It is proposed to demolish the factory and erect a total of 125 residential units on the site. The proposal
comprises a broad mix of house types including two-bedroomed apartments, two and three-bedroomed
terraced houses, three-bedroomed semi-detached houses and four-bedroomed detached houses. All
properties would be two-storey with the exception of twelve three-storey townhouses and two blocks of
four-storey apartments on the Worsley Road North frontage. The main access to the site would be from
Hirst Avenue and the application proposes the widening of the kerb radii at the junction of Hirst Avenue
and Worsley Road North. In addition three units would be accessed from Hirst Avenue itself along with
access to the garages for twelve other houses. Emergency access is provided from Devonshire Road. A
total of 162 parking spaces are provided, less than 1.3 per dwelling.
Three areas of open space are proposed within the development, one semi-private area at the junction of
Hirst Avenue and Worsley Road North adjacent to the apartment blocks, another semi-private square to the
rear of the site that would provide an enclosed public seating area to those properties on the square and a
third area of public open space measuring 0.17 hectare in compliance with requirements on public open
space within housing developments. The total open space provision within the site amounts to just over 0.3
hectare. The applicant has agreed to fund children’s equipped open space within the local area.
The layout is imaginative and unusual. As stated above a traditional square is created to the rear of the site
with its own public garden in the centre. Cars are separated from curtilages and garages are located to the
rear of squares of houses thereby enhancing the pedestrian friendly nature of the development and reducing
the overall parking provision by removing driveways to the front of garages. This emphasis on pedestrian
access to dwellings has also resulted in a reduction in some of the traditional interface distances between
units.
SITE HISTORY
Members will recall that planning permission was refused for a similar scheme on this site in November
2002 (02/44736/FUL). The application was refused on the following grounds:The proposed equipped childrens play area would seriously injure the amenity of future occupiers and
neighbouring residents by reason of its layout and siting. As such it would be contrary to both policies
DEV1, H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
The layout of the proposed development does not adequately address crime prevention and as such is
contrary to policy DEV4 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
The proposed development would result in the loss of an employment site leading to a material shortfall in
the range of sites available for economic development. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policy
EC3 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
The proposal would result in the loss of a mature tree protected by City of Salford Tree Preservation Order
266 that would have a significant detrimental effect on the amenity of the area. As such the development
would be contrary to both policies DEV1 and EN7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
The proposed development would be detrimental to highway safety and the free flow of traffic on
Devonshire Road as a result of cars backing out of car parking spaces accessed of that road. As such the
development would be contrary to policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services - The site is a former manufacturing site. The consequences of this are
likely to be potential contamination of the sub-soil with unknown substances. I would recommend therefore
that an in-depth examination of the site for contamination is undertaken. Again with the past potential of
contamination, it is also recommended that the site is investigated for gas contamination. The site is not
within 250 metres of any known landfill sites, but is on the edge of the motorway cutting, which may have
involved a certain amount of unknown waste moved or deposited on or around the site during it’s
construction. From a noise point of view, the application information indicates that a noise survey is on its
way to Planning. Any noise survey which is carried out will need to account for a couple of significant local
noise sources. The previous noise survey appeared to reflect a PPG24 noise assessment only, which will
account for noise from transport – relevant bearing in mind the proximity to Worsley Road North, the M61
and also the adjacent industrial estate. The survey from memory only addressed areas along the Worsley
Road North elevation. Consideration must be given to the other potential sources also, including any
transport noise which may arise due to the adjacent industrial estate. Noise from the industrial estate should
also be considered from a Statutory Nuisance point of view. Operations on the industrial estate may occur
on a 24 hour basis, so any noise from the estate could well give rise to a significant disamenity due to noise
for residential properties on the whole site, but especially on the adjacent or facing properties. Law
Distribution is known to operate on a 24 hour basis for 5 days per week. This site is immediately opposite
plots 88 to 90 and will significantly affect these properties on a noise amenity value for the times when the
site is operational. A full noise assessment will be required to look at all areas of noise generation on or
around the site, any recommendations to reduce the impact on the proposed site should be considered and
proposed prior to any decision being possible from Environmental Health. Only when the full noise
assessment including associated noise mitigation measures has been presented can Environmental Health
consider this application for suitability for the proposed use of the site. (The applicant has submitted this
full noise assessment as requested by the Director of Environmental Services and I am currently awaiting
his further comments) Further conditions will be recommended for this application if the submitted noise
proposal is approved in full. The further condition recommended for this application relates to the
submission of a site investigation report.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Has a number of concerns with regard to security
issues including the garage courts, recessed doors on one of the house types and the underpass on another
house type.
Greater Manchester Fire Service – No objections
The Coal Authority – No objections
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
The Environment Agency – Objects to the application due to the following. Although there would be no
flood defence objections to the principle of culverting the watercourse, the applicant has not determined its
existing route entering and leaving the site as recommended in the Agency’s previous response to
application 02/44736/FUL. In addition the applicant has not taken into account any potential effects of
diverting the flow into the sewer system. The applicant must ensure that third parties downstream would
not be affected by the interruption of the flows. The Agency would again suggest that this issue is
addressed before the granting of planning permission. The Agency is in general opposed to the culverting
of watercourses because of the adverse ecological, flood defence, health and safety and other effects that are
likely to arise. Although there are no flood defence objections to the principle of culverting this particular
watercourse, the Agency would prefer that the applicant pursue the opportunity of retaining the open
watercourse or ensure that the loss of open watercourse is mitigated for elsewhere. Mitigation could take
place on the development site or preferably by constructing a compensation wetland in a more ecologically
viable site where there is connectivity to other semi-natural sites; such as the nearby Blackleach Country
Park. This would also meet with Salford UDP policies EN10 and EN15 of improving landscape quality and
promoting improvements along identified wildlife corridors. The Agency would suggest the applicant
contact the Blackleach Country Park to assess the viability of accommodating a wetland mitigation scheme
within the Park, compensating for the loss of open watercourse within the proposed development site. Any
culverting of a watercourse requires the prior written approval of the Agency under the terms of the Land
Drainage Act 1991 and the Water Resources Act 1991. The agency seeks to avoid culverting, and its
consent for such works will not normally be granted except for access crossings. The Agency advises
against building over any new or existing culverted watercourses. If this matter can be satisfactorily
resolved the Agency requests that a number of conditions regarding contamination and surface water
drainage be attached to any permission as well as a number of informatives.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1 to 39 Hirst Avenue
1 to 16 (incl.) Gorton Grove
Units 15B, 23, 19, 16, 20 and 30 Oakhill Trading Estate Devonshire Road
1 to 27 and 2 to 16 Arthur Avenue
1 to 15 and 2 to 12 Albert Avenue
115 to 125 Worsley Road North
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one verbal representation in support of the scheme.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EC3 Re-Use of Sites and Premises, EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands, H1
Meeting Housing Needs, H6 and H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments, DEV1
Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, EN10 Landscape, EN15
Environmental Improvement Corridors
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EN14 Air Pollution, Noise, Odour and Vibration, E5 Development Within Established
Employment Areas, DES1 Respecting Context, DES11 Design and Crime, H8 Open Space Provision
Associated With New Housing Development, H1 Provision of New Housing Development, DES7 Amenity
of Users and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EC3 states that where existing industrial premises become vacant, the City Council will seek to
re-use or redevelop them for similar uses, except where one or more of three criteria apply. These criteria
include that the site could be used for other purposes without a resulting material or unacceptable shortfall
in the range of sites and/or premises available for economic development. EN7 encourages the
conservation of trees and woodlands. Policy H1 relates to the provision of an adequate supply of housing
stock. Policies H6 and H11 require a provision of both informal open space and equipped play space for
developments incorporating dwellings designed predominantly for family accommodation. Policy DEV1
states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when dealing with applications for
planning permission. These factors include the location of the proposed development and its relationship to
existing land uses, the relationship to the road network, the potential for noise nuisance, the visual
appearance of the development and the effect on trees. Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not
normally grant planning permission unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance of the
development and policy DEV4 encourages greater consideration of crime prevention in the design of new
development. Policy EN10 states that the City Council will seek to protect and enhance landscape quality
through the protection and wherever possible the enhancement of features of the landscape that are of
intrinsic value or that make a contribution to the quality of the landscape in which they are found. Such
features include streams and ditches. Policy EN15 states that the City Council will promote environmental
improvements along its main road, rail and waterway corridors.
The replacement plan policies update and are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
The applicant has taken steps to address the reasons for refusal on the last application. I consider that the
applicant has been successful with regard to open space, the retention of the protected trees on the site that
are now incorporated into open space or landscaped areas and the highway arrangements. In addition I
consider the layout of the site to be both imaginative and innovative and with the inclusion of additional
physical security measures it would satisfy the concerns of the Police Architectural Liaison Unit.
I remain concerned, however, with regard to the loss of this employment site and the effect that this would
have.
Problems have arisen elsewhere in the City where housing has been permitted in close proximity to noise
generating employment uses. This has resulted in complaints from the occupants of the new housing, and
pressure to constrain the operation of the employment uses, which reduces the attractiveness of the area as
an employment location and hence contributes to its decline. It is important that this does not reoccur,
particularly in the Walkden North and Little Hulton area where unemployment levels are above the City
average. Thus, should the Restawhile site be developed for housing, it is essential that occupiers of the new
housing are provided with a satisfactory level of amenity and protection from noise pollution.
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
The issue of employment land supply is more complex than the assessment provided by the applicant
suggests. Their assessment concentrates on the supply of land at a City level. In addition to providing
employment opportunities at key locations in the City, (such as Salford Quays, Chapel Street, Agecroft etc)
it is considered important to provide more local employment opportunities, particularly in those areas where
unemployment is relatively high. Consequently, the Draft UDP allocates sites for employment in the
Walkden and Little Hulton area, such as land at Wharton Lane, and land at Clegg’s Lane, to augment the
existing estates such as Oakhill, and replace the declining Linnyshaw Industrial Estate.
The Restawhile site does have a role to play in this distribution of employment land across the area. More
importantly, Oakhill has a significant contribution to make and should therefore be protected from
development that could lead to its erosion. In these terms, the proposal can still be judged to be contrary to
Adopted UDP policy EC3 (Re-Use of Sites and Premises).
I therefore recommend that the application be refused on the following ground.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would result in the loss of an employment site leading to a material shortfall
in the range of sites available for economic development. As such the proposal would be contrary to
Policy EC3 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/45731/REM
APPLICANT:
Peel Holdings Plc
LOCATION:
Harbour City, Dock 9 And Broadway Salford Quays Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Details of the siting, design and external appearance of a thirteen and
twenty storey building comprising 160 apartments together with
associated car parking (162 spaces) and A3 (cafe/restaurant)
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This site comprises a portion of the larger Dock 9 site at the junction of the Quays Road and Huron Basin
and includes the dockside walkway. Approval is now being sought for reserved matters in respect of the
siting, design and external appearance, and means of access in respect of 153 apartments.
SITE HISTORY
Outline permission was granted in July of 2000 for mixed use development including 600 residential units.
Ref: 97/36749/OUT.
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 13th March 2003
A site notice was displayed on the 22nd January 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:Freshbake Foods
Countryside Properties Ltd
Orbit Developments
On receipt of amended plans the above and the objector were notified.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection from a resident of Imperial Point (Orbit development) raising the
following:- Impact on the “feel” of the immediate environment.
- Design unsympathetic to the other buildings.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – requests conditions in respect of noise and contaminated land (this
issue is controlled by the existing outline planning permission).
GMPTE – No objections and comments that pedestrian links to the Metrolink stops should be considered in
the designs.
Trafford MBC – No comments received
Environment Agency – No comments received
Greater Manchester Police – No objections
Lowry Trust – No response
Greater Manchester Archaelogical Unit – advises that there are no archaeological features of interest.
Greater Manchester Waste Regulation Authority – No response
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EC11/1
Other policies: DEV 1 – Development Criteria
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1/3
Other policies: DES1 – respecting context
DES5 – Tall Buildings
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The principle of residential development has been established through the outline consent for the broader
Dock 9 site. The issues to be resolved are:
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
Whether it is appropriate to use this particular part of the Dock 9 site for residential purposes.
Residential use on this particular site is considered to be appropriate in terms of its location adjacent to the
residential scheme now known as NV Countryside, although other uses may also have been appropriate
because of the proximity to the Lowry Plaza.
Is the design appearance and quality of the scheme acceptable?
The design reflects the context of modern design and tall buildings on Salford quays and is therefore
consistent with existing and proposed UDP policies. Following discussions and advice from Peter Hunter
the scheme is now amended and considered to be of the right quality in terms of design, appearance and
relationship to the NV Countryside scheme.
Are satisfactory access and parking arrangements to be made?
Access is to be taken off the Quays Road via an access agreed to in the approval of the NV Countryside
scheme and represents the most suitable access having regard to the curvature of the Quays Road, future
access to the remainder of Dock 9 and the possible metrolink stop adjacent to the Lowry.
Does the development provide for satisfactory treatment to the Dock side?
The applicants have confirmed that the treatment will continue that now approved for the NV Countryside
scheme, which meets the Council’s standards for dockside treatment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. An assessment of external noise shall be undertaken (having due regard to Planning Policy Guidance
Note 24 - Planning and Noise). The assessment and the mitigation measures shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development commences and the measures
approved shall be implemented prior to first occupation of any dwelling.
2. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/45735/FUL
APPLICANT:
Morston Western Region Properties Ltd
LOCATION:
Land On Morston Close Ellenbrook Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two three-storey buildings comprising 18 flats together with
associated car parking
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
22nd May 2003
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land at the junction of Ellenbrook Road and Bridgewater Road. It lies to the
south of the new medical centre and shops, to the east of the Boundary Stone public house and the brook
and to the north of a new public footpath and village green. The site measures approximately 0.25 hectare.
The site is partially cleared and contains a large number of self-seeded trees and approximately a dozen
mature trees of various sizes.
It is proposed to erect two blocks of three storeys comprising a total of eighteen two-bedroomed
apartments. The blocks would each measure 28m by 8m and would be positioned at 90 degrees to each
other. A total of sixteen parking spaces would be provided in a secure car park. Access to the car park
would be from the unadopted access into the medical centre and shops from Ellenbrook Road.
The site formed part of the larger development on the site of the former Mosley Common Colliery car park
and is allocated in the adopted UDP as a site for retail development.
SITE HISTORY
In July 2001, planning permission was granted for a mixed use scheme comprising a two storey nursery,
single storey medical centre, dental surgery and shop and two storey building comprising four retail units
and seven self-contained flats on the larger site of which this current site forms a small part
(00/41137/FUL). This site was to have been the site of the nursery.
In 1999 planning permission was granted in outline for a mixed development subject to the creation of a
‘village green’ (99/39543/OUT). This are of open space was subject to a Section 106 legal agreement. This
work has now been completed.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Provides detailed information and requests a number of conditions
relating to ground contamination and soundproofing.
Greater Manchester County Fire Service – Provides advice.
Greater Manchester police Architectural Liaison Unit – Express concern regarding the access to three of the
apartments.
The Coal Authority – No objections.
Environment Agency – No objections in principle but requests that a number of conditions be attached with
regard to protection of the brook.
PUBLICITY
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
The site has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
The Boundary Stone Public House
34 to 40 Oriole Drive
The Red Lion and 481 Ellenbrook Road
7 and 20 Mallowdale
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: S7/4 Sites for New Retail Development
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV4 Design and Crime, T13 Car Parking
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES4 Relationship of
Development to Public Space, DES11 Design and Crime, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle
Parking in New Developments.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy S7 allocates the site for retail development. This retail development has taken place and the
approved application referred to above proposed a nursery on this site. The previous approved application
was not judged to be a departure from policy S7 and I therefore take the same view with regard to this
application that proposed apartments instead of the nursery.
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the nature and location of the proposed development and its relationship
to existing land uses, the amount of car parking, the effect on neighbouring residents and the impact on
trees. Policy T13 states that the City Council will ensure that adequate parking and servicing provision is
made where necessary.
The Draft Replacement Plan does not allocate the site, the majority of the site having already been
developed. Policies DES1, DES11 and A10 seek to achieve the same as policies DEV1, DEV4 and T13 of
the adopted UDP. Policy DES2 states, amongst other points, that the design and layout of new development
will be required to maximise the movement of pedestrians through and around the site through the provision
of safe and direct routes. Policy DES4 states that planning permission will only be granted for development
where it would have a strong and positive relationship with any adjoining public spaces.
The principle of development on this site has been established. I have noted that the approval of the nursery
building resulted in the removal of all the trees from this part of the site, not just those that were self seeded
but also those few mature trees as well. I therefore have no objections with regard this aspect of the current
proposal that would result in the retention of some of those mature trees.
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
Members may recall that the original design concept for the larger mixed use development was based
around the creation of a courtyard, framed by buildings on two sides with public open space and circulation
routes between the buildings and the main road frontages. The applicant has made it clear that the boundary
treatment to the car park to the flats would be kept low so that this area had the appearance of being open
and not cut off from the remainder of the development. I consider therefore that the proposal broadly
conforms with this design concept. The line of the fencing around the flats has been amended so that it
conforms with the amount of open space defined in the legal agreement.
The applicant has provided three additional car parking spaces as a result of my concerns. The number of
spaces previously approved for the scheme that included the nursery building was 47. It is now proposed to
provide 40 public car parking spaces. I accept that the nursery would have required a certain number of
parking spaces and I therefore consider that the reduction from 47 to 40 does not result in a material loss in
spaces for the remainder of the development.
I share the concern of the Police Architectural Liaison Unit with regard to the access to a number of the
apartments and the applicant has amended his proposals to show secure access only to those apartments that
caused concern.
I consider that the design of the apartments is appropriate and I have no objections on highway grounds.
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 12 months 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. Prior to the commencement of development and during the course of construction, temporary
protective metal fencing shall be erected along Ellen Brook. Details of the type of protective fencing to
be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services before it
is erected.
5. No development, including gardens, roads and fences, shall take place within the 4m marginal strip of
land provided between the development and Ellen Brook.
6. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use not less than 18 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.
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
7. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 and Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (and any subsequent amending order), there shall be no
development within the curtilage of any dwelling hereby approved as defined in Part 2 of Schedule 2 of
the above Order without the prior grant of planning permission by the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
4. To protect the watercourse and prevent debris and construction material from encroaching into the
area in accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5. To protect the river corridor in accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
6. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
7. Standard Reason R037A Additional measure of control
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This permission shall relate to the amended plans received on 16 May 2003 that show revisions to the
parking layout.
2. The landscape proposals referred to in condition 2 should include only native British species of trees,
shrubs and wildflowers, preferably of local provenance. This will maximise the nature conservation
potential of the site and also improve the success rate of the new plantings.
3. No rainwater contaminated with silt/soil from disturbed ground during construction must drain to the
surface water sewer or watercourse without sufficient settlement.
4. All downspouts should be sealed directly into the ground ensuring the only open grids present around
each building are connected to the foul sewage systems.
5. No building material or rubbish must find its way into the watercourse.
APPLICATION No:
03/45747/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr & Mrs Fearnhead
LOCATION:
54 Ellesmere Street Swinton
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
PROPOSAL:
Retention of a single storey side extension
WARD:
Swinton North
22nd May 2003
At the meeting of the Panel held on the 8th May 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
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;
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
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
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
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
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.
APPLICATION No:
03/45756/FUL
APPLICANT:
Makro (Metro Real Estate Ltd)
LOCATION:
Makro Liverpool Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Change of use of first floor from wholesale warehousing and
warehousing space to office area, creation of additional internal floor
area for office use and erection of new entrance canopy
WARD:
Irlam
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the existing Makro premises in Irlam opposite the Green Belt between Eccles and
Irlam. The site is bounded by the Boysnope Park golf course to the west and north and the existing Makro
premises to the east and south. It is proposed to install a mezzanine level within the existing building and
utilise the part of the existing wholesale warehouse building which would produce 5530 sq.m. of floorspace
to serve as national headquarters for Makro whose current offices are in Eccles town centre. A new entrance
canopy is also sought for the store.
There are 962 car parking spaces, including existing staff and customer parking, at the Makro site at
present, the applicant states that 184 of these spaces would be used for the office development. The
applicant has submitted a green travel plan and transport assessment in support of the application. The
transport assessment has been submitted with the application. This states that the existing bus services
along the A57 provide adequate direct connections and that an improved access junction would be able to
accommodate the expected traffic movements as well as encourage non vehicular modes of travel. It also
states that parking provision is consistent with current local and national policies and that measures of
influencing travel demand through a green commuter plan are to be implemented. Finally it states that
major highway works are not required due to the restricted size of the proposed development.
The applicant has stated that the move would involve no job losses and would instead generate new job
opportunities.
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
Members will recall that a previous permission at the site, 00/41358/FUL, was approved next to the site to
facilitate a new head office for Makro in a purpose built development. The applicant will not implement that
permission through a legal agreement.
SITE HISTORY
In 2001, planning permission was granted for the erection of three storey office building together with
landscaping, 141 car parking spaces, alteration to existing vehicular access and associated works
(00/41358/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections but requests that a condition regarding ground
contamination be attached.
Environment Agency – No objections in principle but request that conditions be attached and provide
advice.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – The proposed green travel plan should be adhered to
and closely monitored.
Highways Agency – Are satisfied that this level of development given the previous consent for a three
storey office will not have a detrimental impact on the trunk road network and as long as all proposals put
forward to reduce the impact of increased traffic to this development are implemented and that measures to
junction of the A57 and the M60 are incorporated.
PUBLICITY
Site Notice posted on 16th April 2003
Press Notice published on 3rd April 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
The Cottage, Park Hall Farm and Park Hall Farm, Liverpool Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any representations in response to application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EC10/1 Major High Amenity Sites in Strategic Locations
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
Other policies: E5 Development within established employment areas, A1 Transport Assessments and
Travel Plans
PLANNING APPRAISAL
This site forms a very small part of the much larger Barton Strategic site that comprises 116.3 hectares. The
reasoned justification to the policy refers to a desired mix of uses on the site. It also states that full
development of the site will require a link road between the A57 Liverpool Road and the M62 motorway
and that prior to considering any planning application to develop the whole site (or in the event of a phased
development, prior to the consideration of each phase), a Traffic Impact Assessment will be carried out
jointly with the Department of Transport (Highways Agency), to assess the accessibility of the site and the
impact of the proposal on the existing and future trunk and local road network. As well as UDP policies,
advice given in Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 is relevant with regard to the promotion of accessibility
to jobs and the reduction in the need to travel by car. Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have
regard to a number of factors when considering applications. Policy E5 states that modernisation of
existing buildings and improvements to circulation to allow greater choice of travel mode is acceptable as
long as other policies in the plan are not compromised. These include the location and nature of the
proposed development, the scale of traffic generation, the amount of car parking provision, the visual
appearance of the development and the impact on existing trees.
I share the concerns of the GMPTE and the Highways Agency with regard to the operation of the green
travel plan and the importance this would have in reducing travel by private car. I consider that the main
planning issues are compliance with policy, the design of alterations to the building, and highway issues.
The site is allocated in the UDP and the use for offices is in compliance with the desired mix of uses on the
larger strategic employment site. PPG13, places significant emphasis on the need to reduce reliance on the
need to travel by car. This involves a move from existing offices in Eccles town centre to a location that is
more isolated away from the town centre. The applicant is aware of the need to implement green transport
measures and the transport assessment and green travel plan submitted with the application make a number
of recommendations including monitoring that the applicant is willing to incorporate into a legal agreement.
The Highways Agency require improvements to the junction of the M60 and the A57, as per the previous
application, I intend to resolve this through a financial contribution of £5000 from the applicant toward the
cost of safety improvements to the junction.
The applicant has stated that the existing lease has expired on the current premises within Eccles town
centre. Makro have to relocate and can relocate to this location by implement the existing permission. By
implementing the three storey permission the whole site would have a greater level of parking. Given that
the previous application would not be implemented I am satisfied that this proposal would not result in a
detrimental impact upon the vibrancy of Eccles town centre.
I do not consider that this development would compromising the comprehensive development of the larger
Barton Strategic site which is adjacent.
The purpose of this development is to provide office accommodation within the existing building as an
alternative to the previous scheme for freestanding office development approved in 2001 (ref:
00/41358/FUL).
With regard to the external changes to the building I am satisfied that the proposed alterations to the
elevations will have a minimal impact at this site and would not harm the amenity of the surrounding area.
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
The existing trees on the site would be retained and the applicant proposes to undertake a planting scheme
to improve the amenity of the area.
The 184 car parking spaces proposed complies with both the City Council maximum guidelines, within the
First Deposit Draft UDP, that call for 184 spaces maximum and also guidelines stated in PPG13. The
previous permission would have added a further 141 spaces at the site, this development will utilise 184 of
the existing spaces on site, thereby reducing the level of parking available considerably from the previously
approved scheme.
With regard to the highway issues the Highways Agency has no objections subject to the imposition of a
condition regarding works to the Peel Green roundabout and the M60 slip roads at that junction. I am
satisfied that with the imposition of a green travel plan and improved pedestrian and cycle access into the
site that the extra employees at the site will not unduly rely on the private car. A Section 278 agreement
would be required to be entered into for the alterations to the highway.
I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted subject to the following legal agreement
regarding the implementation of a green travel plan and the conditions below.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of
the Town and Country Planning Act to secure the following:That the previous planning permission 00/41358/FUL is not implemented.
The implementation of a green travel plan for the site
Prior to the commencement of development a commuted sum of £5,000 towards highway safety
improvements at the A57 Liverpool Road roundabout at junction 11 of the M60 shall be paid to the
City Council
That the applicant be informed that the Council is minded to grant permission subject to the
conditions stated below on completion of such legal agreement
That Authority be given for the decision notice to be issued subject to the conditions below on
completion of the legal agreement.
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 12 months 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. Within six months of the commencement of the development hereby approved a scheme for the
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
improvement of the access to the site by both pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles shall be submitted to the
Director of Development Services. Within twelve months of the commencement of the development
the approved scheme shall be implemented in full.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
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.
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
At the meeting of the Panel held on the 8th May 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
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
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
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
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
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
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
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
03/45775/FUL
APPLICANT:
Prestigious Living NW Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Adjoining Summerhill Mansion Nursing Home Chaplin Close
Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Alterations to apartment block, block three and gatehouse block
(Amendment to planning permission 01/42421/FUL)
WARD:
Pendleton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site of 0.52ha (1.28 acres) lies directly to the rear of Summerhill Mansion Estate, which is a
Grade II listed building. The rear gardens to Castleway abut the site to the east whilst to the west lie the rear
gardens of houses on Keystone Close. At present the site is bound by a 2m high brick wall along the west
and far north eastern part of the rear boundary, a 1.5m brick wall along the remainder of the rear boundary,
and finally a 2m high fence along the east. Along the north boundary there are various established trees
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
beyond which lies Chaseley Fields and, there is also a small group of trees within the site in the far north
west corner comprising Acacia, Cherry, Laburnum and Sycamore.
The land is level at the rear of the site, however it slopes downwards by approximately 4m towards the
entrance and along the boundary with Keystone Close, where the land rises slightly towards the site road.
Those properties on Castleway are considerably lower than the site, whereby the first floor windows of
27-33 (o) lie just above ground level.
Planning permission is sought for the alteration to the previously approved planning permission
02/44701/FUL, which approved the erection of 18 dwellings and 11 apartments together with associated
landscaping and car parking. This current application proposes to amend the existing approval through a
variation of one metre of the siting of the apartment block, the elevations of the seven town houses (block 3)
and the elevation of the gatehouse building.
The apartment block is located in the north east corner of the site and is located behind 31 – 35 Castleway
and 21 Blyborough Close. The apartment block would be exactly the same as that already approved except
it would be one metre closer to 21 Blyborough Close, the approved distance was 27m and a distance
between the two properties of 26m is now sought. The distance to properties on Castleway remains
unchanged from the existing approval.
The seven townhouses, which are immediately to the west of the apartment block, are proposed to be
amended by the enclosing of the previously approved balconies at rear first floor level with glass. These
conservatories would face onto the rear of Chasely Field to the north. The roof is proposed to be hipped to
match other blocks on the site. The enclosure of the front gardens is also sought as part of the application.
The gatehouse, in the south west corner of the site, is proposed to be amended by the conversion of the
approved angular bay of the two storey block into a rounded bay and by the reduction in the length of the
elevation facing 15 Chaplin Close. The application has been amended to ensure that the property does not
come closer to 15 Chaplin Close than the original approval .
The distances between the existing residential properties on Keystone Close and the dwellings subject of
this application would be the same as the previous approval 01/42421/FUL & 02/44701/FUL.
SITE HISTORY
In 2002, planning permission was granted for the erection of 16 dwellings and 11 apartments, amendment
to planning permission 02/44701/FUL.
In 2001, planning permission was granted for the erection of sixteen dwellings, one - three storey building
comprising nine flats, and one gatehouse comprising two flats, together with associated car parking
(01/42421/FUL).
In 1995, planning permission was granted for the erection of 22 x 1 and 2 bed apartments, 10 x 3 and 4 bed
town houses, and 33 sheltered apartments, together with associated car parking and landscaping (ref:
95/34256/FUL). The development was of high density, with the townhouses sited along the boundary with
Keystone Close and Chaseley Fields, apartments within the north west corner, and the sheltered apartments
adjacent to Castleway. Both the townhouses and apartment blocks were effectively four storey, with a
height of just over 11m. The planning permission involved the construction of an access road, which has
been constructed and therefore the permission is extant.
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
In November 1994 planning permission was granted for the erection of 8 houses and 13 flats, together with
the associated works and construction of a new vehicular access (ref: E/32926).
In 1993 planning permission was approved for the erection of 57 retirement apartments, a 40 bed nursing
home and the conversion of the existing mansion to 8 flats (ref: E/30952).
In April 1991 planning permission was approved for the erection of 10 houses together with associated car
parking and construction of new vehicular access (ref: E/32046).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections
Environment Agency – no objections
Greater Manchester Police- Comments received relating to private open space being secured. Amendments
have been received resolving this issue.
British Coal Authority – no objections
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by way of press and site notices.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
2 – 12 (e) Keystone Close
1 – 11 (o) and 15 Chaplin Close
1-19 (inc) Bogart Court, Monroe Close
17 – 21 (o) Blyborough Close
23 – 39 (o) Castleway
Summerhill Mansion Nursing Home, Chaplin Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 3 representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main
issues identified are as follows:



Objection if the development moves nearer to properties on Blyborough Close.
Objection to the location of the gatehouse.
Objection to the materials of the means of enclosure.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H9 Sites for New Housing
Other policies: DEV 1 Development Criteria
DEV 2 Good Design
DEV 4 Design and Crime
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
Site specific: none
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Given the recent approval for the development of this site for housing and that this proposal is for minor
changes to the approval I consider the relevant policies are DEV1 with respect to the character of the
development and its relation to surroundings, including surrounding residential amenity and DEV2
concerning good quality design. I also consider DEV4 to be relevant in relation to designing out crime. The
policies of the deposit draft UDP reiterate policies of the adopted plan in relation to this application.
The three storey apartment block in the north east of the site as stated above would not be any closer to
Castleway Close than the existing approval. The block would be one metre closer to 21 Blyborough Close
than the approved situation, I have received an objection based on this amendment. 21 Blyborough Close is
a two storey house and is situated at a higher level than the proposed apartment block, the normal City of
Salford standard for such a situation is 24m separation given the apartment block is three storeys. As a
distance of 26m would be ensured between the two buildings I consider that this proposal is in line with
City of Salford standards and indeed policies DEV1 and DES1.
The proposed conservatories at rear first floor of the townhouses adjacent to the aforementioned apartment
block would only be visible from view from the rear of Chasley Field. I consider the replacement of the
balconies with conservatories to be a minor change to the appearance and something that would not
detrimentally harm the appearance of the block. Similarly the alterations to the gatehouse would be not
harm the apperance of the building or the surrounding area. As the siting of the gatehouse has been
amended to revert back to the originally approved position I am satisfied that the neighbour objection to the
siting has been resolved.
The proposal has also been amended to provide enclosed private areas with a mixture of 1.5m, 1.8m and
2.1m high timber fencing to be in accordance with the GM Police comments and policy DEV4. Objection to
the material of the means of enclosure has been received. This objection suggests that a wall in stone to
match existing walls of surrounding properties should be installed. The applicant has agreed to replace the
existing timber fences with walls to be in keeping with the surroundings, I propose a condition to ensure this
is undertaken.
I do not consider the proposed changes to the scheme would harm the character or appearance of the area
detrimentally. I also consider that proposed changes to these units will not effect the amenity of nearby
residents. I consider that the approval of this planning application will not result in any detrimental impact
upon neighbouring residences. I have no highway objections and recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
2. Standard Condition M01 Removal of Permitted Development Rights
3. 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 three months of the date of this permission.
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 six months 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.
4. The group of five trees comprising 1 Fig, 1 Prunus, 1 Locust and 2 Laburnum, situated in the north west
corner of the site shall be replaced during the 2003/2004 planting season, with a group of five extra
heavy standard size trees of the same species as the original group within the curtilage of plot 6, in a
position to be agreed in writing to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
5. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
6. A detailed scheme of working around those trees protected by T.P.O. shall be submitted to and
approved in writing prior to the commencement of development, and shall thereafter be adhered to, to
the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
7. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the external
elevations, roofs and boundary walls of the development have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Director of Development Services.
8. Standard Condition J04X Bin Stores
9. The windows hereby approved to the elevation facing Keystone Close (west facing elavation) of block
number 1 shall be obscured glazed and shall therefater be maintained as obscured glazed.
10. Details of the design and location of the stone boundary walls on plots 3,4,5 and 6 shall be submitted to
and approved by the Director of Development Services prior to construction. The walls shall be
constructed, using the approved materials, within four months of the date of this permission.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
9. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
10. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/45803/FUL
APPLICANT:
Mr Baree
LOCATION:
47 Bolton Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Erection of second floor rear extension
WARD:
Pendleton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing semi-detached house, which is three-storey at the front, and two
storey across the rear part of the property. The proposal is to erect a second floor extension over the rear in
order to provide an additional bedroom and bathroom. The extension would be 6.15m in length, 3.9m in
width and would have a mono pitched roof. The extension would tie in to a similar proposal that was
approved in July 2002 at the adjoining semi in order to make one extension to the rear of the two houses
(02/44284/HH).
To the rear of the applicant’s house is Langworthy Road and to the front is Bolton Road. The adjacent
neighbour’s house is at the end of a terrace of six and is also three-storey.
SITE HISTORY
In 2002 (02/44283/HH), a similar planning application was withdrawn as it was being considered as a
householder application. Due to the ground and first floor being used as multiple occupation
accommodation and the second floor as a self-contained flat, the application could not be considered as a
householder application, and has therefore been re-submitted as a full application.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
45 and 49 Bolton Road
405 and 407 Langworthy Road
REPRESENTATIONS
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
I have received a letter of objection from the occupier of 45 Bolton Road: The objector is concerned that the
second floor extension will be converted, at some point in the future, into an additional self-contained flat
which would add to traffic problems within the area. He is also concerned that the proposal would lead to a
loss of light and privacy for him. Finally, he questions the suitability of the foundations to support a
third-storey.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV8 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 application has been submitted as a house extension to provide another bedroom and bathroom for the
self-contained flat situated on the second floor. Although the objector is of the opinion that this proposed
extension would eventually be converted into an additional self-contained unit, the conversion would
require a new planning application. This application is for a house extension and therefore it will be
considered on the details as submitted.
The existing building is part 2 storey/part 3 storey and this extension would create an entirely 3 storey
building. The adjacent block of terraced properties, 35-45 Bolton Road, are already all 3 storey. Therefore
this proposal would not be out of character with the neighbouring houses. I am aware that the objector is
concerned that the proposal would lead to a loss of privacy to his property. For this reason it has been
requested that the window facing the objector be removed, as was agreed in the previous application. A
condition has been attached to that effect. Although the objector is also concerned that the proposal would
lead to a loss of light, the extension is located on the part of the property away from the boundary with the
objector, and am of the opinion, therefore, that there would not be a particular problem with overshadowing
or loss of light. Therefore I would not object to the proposal.
Finally, the objector questions the suitability of the foundations. This is not a planning consideration, but
would be considered under building regulations if the application were approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
3. The bedroom window shown as proposed for the side elevation shall be deleted from the proposal.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
APPLICATION No:
03/45842/FUL
APPLICANT:
S Dale
LOCATION:
Milan Restaurant 17-21 Barton Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of one ground floor and two first floor rear extensions
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the Milan restaurant, 17-21 Barton Road, Worsley. The application site is within
the Worsley Village Conservation Area. To the south of the restaurant is the Bridgewater Hotel public
house. The surrounding area is mixed use, comprising residential and commercial properties.
It is proposed to erect two first floor extensions to the rear of the property. These would provide additional
kitchen and staff facilities on the premises. An office would be provided above the existing cellar on the
south elevation of the property, towards the boundary with the Bridgewater Hotel. On the ground floor, the
existing kitchen will be extended by 1.8m towards the boundary with the adjacent property on Barton Road.
It is proposed to provide a new staff room above this extension. As a result of the extensions, it is proposed
to amend the internal layout by removing the existing staff toilet to allow for a small bar area on the first
floor.
SITE HISTORY
This site has a long planning history. The most relevant applications are as follows:
In October 2001, planning permission was refused for the change of use of 19/21 and the first floor of 17
Barton Rd to create one restaurant, the erection of a single storey rear extension, alterations to front/side
elevations, laying out car park to rear, erection of 3 two storey offices and car park to rear of 13-15 Barton
Rd (ref: 01/42727/COU). The applicant appealed this decision and the appeal was upheld.
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
In November 2001, planning permission was granted for the change of use of 19, 21 and the first floor of 17
Barton Road to form one restaurant with the erection of single storey rear extension, alterations to
elevations, new entrance canopy and formation of car park to rear (ref: 01/42739/COU).
In March 2002, planning permission was granted for the change of use of 19, 21 and the first floor of 17
Barton Road to form one restaurant with the erection of a two storey rear extension, alterations to
elevations, a new entrance canopy and a new car park to the rear (amendment to planning permission
01/42739) (ref: 02/43622/COU).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections from pollution control, although a number of concerns
have been raised in relation to food hygiene/health and safety
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 2nd April 2003
A press notice was published on 24th April 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
1A, 1-11 (O), 10-16 (E), 7A, Bridgewater Hotel, 13, 1-7 Black Penny Chambers, Barton Lane
2-14 (E), 1-11 Kenwood Lane
2-10 (E) Heathfield
13 Mellor Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified
are as follows:
The application would result in an increase in customers and therefore an increase in noise and car parking
problems
The application would result in the creation of a bar area on the first floor
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV3 – Alterations/Extensions
EN11 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CH5/13 – Works Within Conservation Areas
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES8 – Alterations and Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
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 extensions will not normally be permitted unless the Council is
satisfied with the 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 extensions should respect the scale, style, proportion and
materials of the original building. The character of the surrounding area should also be respected.
Policy EN11 outlines a number of factors to which the Council will have regard when assessing
applications for development within Conservation Areas. These include the improvement of existing
buildings and encouraging high standards of development which are in keeping with the character of the
area.
Policy CH5 of the First Deposit UDP relates to development within conservation areas, stating that such
development will only be permitted where it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the
area. Regard will be had to a number of criteria, including the standard of design.
Policy DES1 requires development to contribute to local identity and distinctiveness. In assessing whether
a proposal complies with this policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to
existing buildings and the scale of the proposed development.
Policy DES8 states that permission for extensions will only be granted where the general scale, character,
proportion, details and materials of the original structure are respected.
The objections received relate to increasing noise and parking problems in the area as a result of the
proposed development and the proposed internal alterations. I have had no objections to the application
from the Director of Environmental Services on noise grounds. In terms of car parking, the proposed
extensions would provide an office, staff room and a larger kitchen area. The applicant has confirmed that
no new staff will be employed as a result of the proposal. The number of car parking spaces currently
provided (six plus two disabled spaces) was considered adequate when the previous application was
granted, and a condition was attached requiring these to be made available at all times. I do not consider that
this application necessitates an increase in on-site car parking provision, given that no new staff would be
employed. The proposal would result in a number of internal alterations which would in turn lead to an
increase in dining space on the first floor of the restaurant by in the region of 24 covers. Customer car
parking is currently provided within the public car park on Barton Road, which I consider capable of
accommodating any increase in customers as a result of this application. I therefore consider this to be
acceptable.
Turning to the issues raised by the Director of Environmental Services in relation to food hygiene and
health and safety, I do not consider these to be matters of concern in the determination of this application.
The removal of the existing staff toilets on the first floor and the dumb waiter have been highlighted.
However, as planning permission is not required for such internal alterations, I do not consider that the loss
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
of these two features should carry any weight in the consideration of this application. Such matters are
controlled by health and safety and food safety legislation and it is not the role of the planning system to
duplicate the controls of other legislation. I have therefore attached an informative advising the applicant to
contact Environmental Services to ensure that any works undertaken on the premises will be in accordance
with the relevant food hygiene and health and safety legislation. Notwithstanding this, the applicant has
confirmed that, subject to further discussion with the Director of Environmental Services, a replacement
staff toilet may be provided within the proposed new staff room and a waiter station would be
accommodated within the new bar area on the first floor.
The proposed extensions would be located at the rear of the property and would not be highly visible from
the surrounding area. I consider their design to be of a sufficiently high standard and that they would be in
keeping with the existing building and the character of the area generally. I consider that, through the use of
materials which match those of the existing building, and due to the relatively minor scale of the proposals,
the application would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.
In conclusion, I consider the proposal to comply with all relevant policies of the development plan. I
therefore recommend approval.
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 R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The alterations to the internal layout as a result of the proposal, namely the removal of the dumb waiter
and staff toilets from the first floor, may result in Food Hygiene/Health and Safety issues. The
applicant should contact Lynne Ratcliffe, Environmental Health Officer, on 793 2017, to discuss the
alterations in more detail. Contact is recommended so that any works carried out on the premises can be
undertaken in accordance with the relevant Food Safety Legislation and to prevent subsequent legal
action being taken by the Directorate of Environmental Services to enforce the relevant legislation.
APPLICATION No:
03/45872/HH
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
APPLICANT:
Key Estate Management
LOCATION:
5 Arthur Street Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing outhouse and erection of two storey rear
extension
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a derelict dwelling in the middle of a terraced block. The proposal is for the
demolition of a small existing outhouse (1.5m X 1m) and the erection of a two-storey rear outrigger
extension. The proposal is currently in the process of construction. The proposed rear extension would
mirror and adjoin the outrigger of 7 Arthur Street that is currently under construction (7, 11 and 13 Arthur
Street are new dwellings that are still under construction). It would project 4.5m from the back of the house
and back 2.4m, leaving a distance of 2.2m to the common boundary shared with 3 Arthur Street.
SITE HISTORY
In 2001 (01/43373/OUT), outline planning permission was granted for the erection of three terraced
dwellings on the land between 5 and 13 Arthur Street.
In 2002 (02/44649/REM), the reserved matters of the above application were approved.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
3 and 13 Arthur Street
1 Poplar Road
4 Beaufort Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV8 House Extensions
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
22nd 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. Guidance Note HH12 of Supplementary Planning Guidance – House
Extensions states that in the absence of an extension along the common boundary to an adjoining dwelling,
planning permission will normally be granted for a two storey extension provided its projection is equal to
its distance from the nearest common boundary.
With regard to Guidance Note HH12 and the adjoining neighbour in this case (3 Arthur Street), the current
proposal exceeds its projection distance limitations by 0.8m (i.e. to be in accordance with HH12 the
projection distance of the proposed two-storey outrigger would have to be reduced from 4.5m to 3.7m).
The reasoning behind this Guidance Note is to protect the amenity of adjoining neighbours in terms of light
and/or to prevent development that would be overbearing. In this instance I am of the opinion that the
proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of 3 Arthur Street and consider the proposal to
represent development that is consistent with existing outriggers on neighbouring dwellings. A number of
factors have led me to this view. Firstly, 3 Arthur Street has an existing two-storey outrigger that is similar
to that being proposed in this application, and the habitable room windows of this neighbour are set in away
from the applicant’s property. Secondly, approval was given for identical outriggers as part of a scheme to
build three new dwellings on land between 5 and 13 Arthur Street. It is worth highlighting that the subject
property is currently derelict and is being developed in conjunction with the new dwellings that are being
built. Thirdly, no objections have been received to the application.
I am of the opinion that the renovation of this derelict property would contribute to the amenity of the area,
and that the proposed outrigger would not have a detrimental impact on the adjoining neighbour and is in
keeping with similar outriggers on both the adjoining neighbours properties.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the 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
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
APPLICATION No:
03/45902/TPO
APPLICANT:
A Sethi
LOCATION:
21 Stafford Road Monton Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Fell four horse chestnut trees (T1,T2,T3,T4)
WARD:
Eccles
22nd May 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to the felling of four Horse Chestnut Trees that are protected within group 73 of the
City of Salford’s Tree Preservation Order No13. The mature trees are located along the Southwest
boundary of the site and are approximately 14.5m tall.
The applicant has had a drainage report which concludes that the assumed cause of the problems he is
facing due to sewage leakage onto his driveway and blocked drains, is root ingress into the drains. For this
reason he would like to fell the trees.
SITE HISTORY
In 2001, an application to fell the trees was refused as it was considered the removal of the trees would
seriously injure the amenity of the area and that insufficient evidence was provided to justify the removal of
protected trees contrary to EN7 of the Unitary Development Plan. (01/42067/TPO)
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
Branwood Preparatory School, Stafford Road.
23, 4a, 6 Stafford Road
1 Thornbank Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified
are as follows:


The removal of the trees would be detrimental to the character of the area.
The trees should not be removed unless absolutely necessary.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: EN7- Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:EN10-Protected trees.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
EN7 of the Unitary Development Plan; Conservation of Trees and Woodlands states that the City Council
will encourage the conservation of trees and woodland by supporting the retention of trees, woods, copses
and hedgerows as trees are of considerable ecological, recreational, educational and landscape value within
both the rural and urban environment. Therefore the City Council places a high priority on their protection
and enhancement. It also states that the loss of mature trees can be particularly damaging given the time
required for trees to reach this condition.
EN10 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan – Protected trees states that development that results in
the unacceptable loss of, or damage to, protected trees will not be permitted.
The objector is concerned that the removal of the trees would adversely affect the character of the area. The
City’s Senior Arboriculture Officer has inspected the trees and is of the opinion that they appear to be in a
stable condition and that their removal would seriously, adversely affect the treescape. He also considers
that if the roots have ingressed into the sewers, the sewers can be reinstated to stop this problem and the
treescape can be retained. He considers that if the sewers are adequately reinstated it is unlikely that the
problem would reoccur.
I agree with the Arboriculture Officer that there is not enough evidence to support the felling of the trees
and that if the drains were to be properly reinstated the problem is unlikely to reoccur. Therefore to retain
the character of the area and comply with EN7 of the Unitary Development Plan, I recommend this
application be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed felling of trees within the City of Salford Tree Preservation Order No. 13, would
seriously injure the amenity of the area and insufficient evidence has been provided to justify the
removal of protected trees. The removal of these tree would be contrary to policy EN 7 (Conservation
of Trees and Woodlands) of the City of Salford's Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/45911/HH
APPLICANT:
S Boothby
LOCATION:
8 Cricketfield Lane Worsley
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
PROPOSAL:
Erection of first floor rear extension and erection of conservatory at
rear
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached property. The proposal is to erect a first-floor extension and a
conservatory at the rear of the house. The proposed conservatory would project 2.13m and would adjoin an
existing single-storey kitchen outrigger. It would extend from this outrigger across the remaining width of
the house (5.8m). The first-floor element of the proposal would project 2.13m and back 3.8m, extending
over the existing kitchen outrigger. There are detached properties on both sides of the applicant’s house and
there would be a distance of 21.6m from the proposed extensions to houses at the rear.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
4, 6 and 10(even) Cricketfield Lane
16-18 Windale
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified are
as follows:


Loss of Privacy
Negative impact on local property values
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV8 – 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 two 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 privacy for either of the adjacent neighbours or those neighbours to the rear of the
applicant’s property. There would be a minimum distance of 23.3m from the proposed extensions to the
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
objector’s property. This exceeds the 21m requirement as set out in Supplementary Planning Guidance –
House Extensions.
The negative impact on local property values is not a planning consideration and cannot, therefore, be taken
into account.
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
APPLICATION No:
03/45921/FUL
APPLICANT:
Brackley Conservative Club
LOCATION:
Brackley Conservative Club Hazelhurst Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Variation of condition 01on planning permission 94/33359/FUL to
allow the use of the floodlights up to 10.00pm on any competition match
day during the period 1st April to 15th October
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the bowling green area of the site. The green is flanked by five houses on
Lawson Close to the west some 12m distant. A row of terraced houses fronting Hazelhurst Road to the
south are some 15m distant. Houses on Hazelhurst Fold to the north east are further away the nearest being
20m distant.
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
Permission is sought to vary a restrictive use condition on an application approved in 1995 (94/33359/FUL)
which also varied the original restrictive condition imposed on the application for the erection of four 10m
high floodlighting columns approved in August 1993 (93/30705/FUL). The combination of these two
consents allows the use of the floodlights between the hours of 7.00pm to 10.00pm on any day between 1st
April and 16th May and the 1st August and 16th October. Permission is now sought to extend the use of the
floodlights to include usage in June and July with the same hours. This extended period would allow the
completion of matches on overcast evenings.
SITE HISTORY
In 1993, planning permission was granted for the erection of four lighting columns, 10 metres high to
provide floodlighting (E/30705)
In 1994, planning permission was granted to vary condition 01 on planning permission E/30705 to allow
use of floodlights between 1st April to 16th May and 1st August to 16th October
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections but provide advice
PUBLICITY
A site notice was published 8th April 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
6A & 2 – 10 (even) Hazelhurst Fold
32 – 50 (even) Hazelhurst Road
2 – 10 (even), 1 – 7 (odd) Lawson Close
5 – 7 (odd) Partington Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received five letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified
are as follows:


The extension of use would further curtail the enjoyment of residents’ rear gardens given noise and
light spillage
The light spillage is intrusive
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV1 Development Criteria
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DES7 Amenity of users and neighbours
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 seeks to ensure good quality developments that respect surrounding uses/buildings and that
developments will have regard to a number of issues including environmental pollution. Policy DES7 of
the draft replacement plan seeks to ensure that development would not have an unacceptable impact upon
the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.
The main consideration in this case rests on whether the extended use of the floodlights between 7:00pm
and 10:00pm during the summer months of June and July would have a detrimental effect on the amenity of
residents that flank the site.
The main thrust of the objection from local residents relates to the alleged light spillage/glare from the use
of the floodlights. This issue has been investigated previously by the Council’s Street Lighting Engineers
when the lights were first installed. The properties on Lawson Road were visited and light readings taken.
These readings were consistent with the projections made at the time the original application was
considered and no further action was taken.
The applicant has made it clear that the floodlights would only be used when circumstances dictate and it is
not the case that the floodlights would be used for every single day in June and July and that matches are
normally finished and the lights extinguished before the permitted time of 10.00pm. I am of the opinion
that this proposal is consistent with the times already approved for the Spring and Autumn. I am also of the
opinion that due to the hours of sunlight during June and July, it is likely that the floodlights would be used
infrequently.
In conclusion, I consider that the extension of the use of the floodlights would not be unreasonable in terms
of the additional impact of the proposal over and above that of the original planning permission
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The floodlights shall only be used within the hours of 7.00 pm and 10.00 pm on any day during a period
between 1st April and 16th October, in any year and at no other time.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
APPLICATION No:
03/45924/FUL
APPLICANT:
Stowell Community Group
LOCATION:
Former Stowell Memorial Playing Fields Montford Street Salford 5
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
PROPOSAL:
Construction of community recreational facility to include two youth
shelters, all weather surface football pitch and skate park
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former Stowell Memorial playing field, adjacent to the Stowell Technology
Centre. The proposal is to create a skate park to the west of the site and an all weather surfaced kick about
court on the site of the existing football pitch to the east of the site. The central area would remain as a grass
kick about area. A 3 metre high rebound fence would be erected around the all weather pitch. Various skate
jumps and rails would be provided within the skate park, the maximum height of the jumps would be 1.8
metres.
Two youth shelters are also proposed, one would be located adjacent to the kick about area and one adjacent
to the all weather pitch. Each shelter would be a maximum of 3.8 metres in height and 7.2 metres in width
and would incorporate seating and a viewing platform.
New pedestrian access is proposed from Montford Street. A feature entrance gateway and combined
motorcycle barrier would be erected, this would necessitate the removal of one small sapling. Paths would
be laid out within the site, linking the skate park and all weather pitch with the access. The existing railings
and fencing to the boundaries of site would be repaired and repainted as part of the proposal.
The field is generally flat, with mounding to the boundaries. There are trees and shrubs to the boundaries of
the site. There are no dwellings adjoining the site. To the north of the site is the Territorial Army site, to the
east is the Stowell Technology Centre, to the south is a timber yard and to the west are vacant industrial
units. The closest dwellings are located on Quay View, Chambers Field Court and Howard Street.
SITE HISTORY
None relevant.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Unwanted noise is generated from bikes, roller blades and
skateboards banging when people fall off or take off/land on the surface of the ramps and other apparatus.
The intermittent banging noises will be very intrusive and affect the amenity of the surrounding area.
Recommend conditions requiring that skate park is at least 100m from the boundary of the nearest
residential property and at least 30m from office windows and requiring that football kick-about area is at
least 30m from the closest residential property and office windows. A contaminated land condition is also
recommended.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No comments to date
Sport England – No comments to date
PUBLICITY
Site Notice displayed 14th April 2003
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
1 – 21 (o) Chambers Field Court
2 –22 (e) Chambers Field Court
2 – 22 (e) Quay View
1 – 27 (o) Quay View
32 – 48 (e) Howard Street
32, 2, 4 Montford Street
Stowell Technology Centre, Montford Street
GE Robinson And Co Limited, Montford Street
Sitec Training, Stowell Technology, Montford Street
Territorial Army, Haldane Barracks, Eccles New Road
22, 24, 2 – 8 (e) Thurlow Street
Units 7 - 11, 15 – 18 Lord Byron Square
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: R12/1 – Provision of Recreation Land and Facilities
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
R10 – Private Recreation Facilities
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: R6/10 – New and Improved Recreation Land and Facilities
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES11 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy R12/1 relates to the provision of recreation land and facilities and states
that the City Council will seek to improve and develop the sites for either formal or informal recreational
use and that this particular site offers the potential to provide a valuable facility for both organised junior
football and a local kick-about area. Furthermore, UDP policy R10 states that the City Council will support
the development and improvement of private sector facilities where these are appropriate and do not
conflict with other policies. Policy DEV1 states that regard will be had to a number of factors in
determining applications for planning permission, including the location and nature of the proposed
development, including its relationship to existing and proposed land uses, the likely scale and type of
traffic generation and the visual appearance of the development. Policy DEV2 states that the City Council
will not normally grant planning permission for new development unless it is satisfied with the quality of
design. The policies of the First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP are generally similar to those of the
adopted plan in respect to this development.
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
I consider that the main planning issues to consider are whether the proposal would result in any loss of
amenity to residents in the locality and the visual appearance and design of the proposed development. The
siting of the proposed skate park is in accordance with the Director of Environmental Services requirements
that a distance of at least 100 metres is maintained between the nearest residential property and at least 30
metres to office windows. The football kick-about area is the required 30 metres minimum from the closest
residential property, it is, however, approximately 16 metres from some of the windows of the adjacent
Stowell Technology Centre building. The majority of this building, approximately two-thirds, is set back 30
metres from the application site boundary. Given that this part of the site is currently set out as a football
pitch, I do not consider that the proposed kick-about pitch would result in any significant increase in noise
and disturbance.
The youth shelters have been designed in consultation with the local community and a further session is to
be held to determine the final design details, for example the seating arrangements. I do not consider that the
proposal would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area.
It is unlikely this proposal would generate additional traffic as it is envisaged that the scheme will be used
by the local youth and as such would visit the site by walking and public transport. The proposal would
maintain and improve the recreational use of the site and would provide a valuable facility for local
residents. I have received no objections to the proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Prior to commencement of the development the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the
approval of the LPA. 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 LPA 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.
3. No development shall be started until full details of the two proposed meeting shelters and the entrance
gateway (including dimensions, details of materials and colour treatment) have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.
4. The fencing 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)
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the future users of the development in accordance with policy
DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The Director of Environmental Services (Pollution Control Section) should be consulted regarding
details of the materials and surface finishes to be used for the skate park equipment.
APPLICATION No:
03/45930/ADV
APPLICANT:
Jonathan Fisher
LOCATION:
159 Bridgewater Road Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Retention of two shop signs
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The proposal is for the retention of two non-illuminated shop signs situated above facia level to advertise a
tanning studio that is located at first-floor level. Both signs are the same and are 1.8m X 0.9m in size. One
of the signs is displayed on the south facing elevation and the other is displayed on the west facing
elevation.
The building on which these signs are displayed is situated on the corner of a busy cross-road junction and
is located at the end of a terrace of dwelling houses. The ground-floor is currently being used as a
hairdressing salon, and signs at facia level are displayed on both the south and west facing elevations.
Located around the junction are a combination of business and residential uses.
SITE HISTORY
In 1989 planning permission was granted for a change of use from first-floor self-contained flat to an office
suite (class A2). The premise is now being used as a tanning studio.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
57, 58 and 60 Park Road
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
128 and 157 Bridgewater Road
1A and 2 Newearth Road
523 Hilton Lane
34 Calder Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 2 letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified are
as follows:
The signs are too bright and are not in keeping with the building
Advertisements should not be displayed close to residential properties
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV1 Development Criteria
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV2 Advertisements
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that regard must be given to the visual appearance of development and its relationship
to its surroundings. Policy DEV2 indicates that consent for advertisements will only be given where they
would not have an unacceptable impact on amenity or public safety. Reference to a number of factors is
made including the size and scale of advertisements, sensitivity of surrounding uses, and the creation of a
cluttered appearance.
The two signs are very colourful and large and are displayed in a very prominent location. I am of the
opinion that they are not in keeping with the ground floor or the building as a whole and represent a strident
feature in the street scene by reason of their size, siting and design. Furthermore, due to their being signs
displayed at ground floor level which contrast greatly with those being considered in this application, I feel
that they create a cluttered appearance on the building.
Due to the size, siting and design of the subject advertisements I consider that they represent a strident
feature in the street scene and are detrimental to the amenity of the area and neighbouring residential uses.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed signs would seriously injure the amenity of the area because they would be strident
features in the street scene by reason of their size and siting and design.
2. Standard Reason RR50D Creation of 'Cluttered' Appearance.
FURTHER RECOMMENDATION
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
That the Head of Law and Administration be instructed to institute legal proceedings to secure the
removal of the signs.
APPLICATION No:
03/45941/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr M & Mrs J Watson
LOCATION:
3 Booths Hall Grove Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a two storey side extension and conservatory at rear
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property. The proposal is to erect a two-storey side extension
and a conservatory at the rear. The side element of the proposal would project 2.8m from the front of the
house and extend back 8.2m to the rear main wall with the first floor set back 2m from the front of the main
wall. The conservatory would project 2.74m along the adjoining boundary at which point it would angle
away at 45 degrees from the adjoining neighbours house. The total projection distance would be 3.8m with
a width of 2.94m.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No Objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
1, 4, 5, 6 Booths Hall Grove
30 Landrace Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The objection was from the
adjacent neighbour who is of the opinion that the proposed two-storey side extension represents an intrusive
feature to his property and would lead to a loss of light.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV8 House Extensions
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
22nd 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.
The side element of the proposal would extend 1.8m past the main rear wall of the adjacent neighbours
house and would be 0.5m from the gable wall of this neighbour’s property. However, this neighbour has a
bay window at the rear which projects 0.7m and which would be a distance of 2m from the proposed side
extension. Therefore, the side element would project only 1.1m past the adjacent neighbours bay window.
I am of the opinion that the separation distance to the bay window is sufficient and that the proposal would
not lead to a significant loss of light or be an intrusive feature to his property. The proposal is in accordance
with Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions.
No objections have been received towards the proposed conservatory and it is in accordance with Council
Policy. Although there would be a separation distance of only 13m to the existing conservatory at the rear
of 30 Landrace Drive, a 2m fence protects the common boundary and so I do not envisage any significant
loss of privacy for this neighbour.
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.
3. Standard Condition B06A Glazing Element
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/45953/HH
APPLICANT:
P Johnson
LOCATION:
42 Douglas Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing garage, erection of single storey side extension,
construction of pitched roof over existing flat roof at the rear, erection
of single-storey rear extension with balustrade and access to basement.
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property on a residential road with a mixture of housing types
such as detached houses, semi-detached houses and bungalows. At the rear of the property the ground level
drops in two different garden levels and then eventually steeply slopes away to meet Sindsley Brook.
The proposal is to demolish the existing garage and replace it with a new one with an additional utility room
to the rear of it. To the rear would be a conservatory with a balustrade and a new pitched roof over the
existing kitchen to replace a flat roof. The proposed garage would be the same width as the existing garage
x 7.6m, it would have a total height of 3.9m with a hipped roof. The conservatory would project 2.5m
beyond the rear elevation of No.44 with a height of 5m with a sloping roof (3m above ground level), the
balustrade would then angle in at 45 degrees away from the neighbouring property. The kitchen has an
existing flat roof and the proposal would increase the height by approx. 1.2m
SITE HISTORY
In June 2000, planning permission was refused for the erection of a two-storey side extension and erection
of a single-storey rear extension on the grounds that the:
proposed side extension would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents at 40
Douglas Road by reason of its size and siting. It would appear overbearing and cause a loss of light
to the first floor side bedroom window. Therefore it is contrary to policy DEV 8 of the UDP.
The proposed two-storey side extension would, in conjunction with a similar extension to the
neighbouring house, seriously injure the amenity of the area because it would result in the creation
of a ‘terraced’ effect which would be out of character with the general street scene.
In July 2001, planning permission was refused for the erection of a two storey side extension and single
storey rear extension on the grounds that:
1.
The proposed side extension would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents at 40
Douglas Road by reason of its size and siting. It would appear overbearing and cause a loss of light to
the first floor side bedroom window. Therefore it is contrary to policy DEV8 of the UDP
CONSULTATIONS
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
The Coal Authority – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
31, 33, 40 and 44 Douglas Road
88 and 990 Ringlow Park Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified
are as follows:
Loss of light
Creation of tunnelling effect
Loss of privacy
Structural stability
Landlord of land would need to be notified
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 Alterations and Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 states that planning permission will not be granted for extensions that have an unacceptable adverse
impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance loss
of light or privacy nor would it have an unacceptably adverse impact on the character of the street scene.
HH9 states that planning permission will not normally be granted for single storey extension located along
the common boundary that exceed 2.74m.
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 adjoining neighbour (No. 44) is concerned about the loss of natural light, creation of a tunnelling effect
and overbearing impact. The adjoining property has a large rear lounge window close to the boundary and
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
on the opposite side lies a single-storey extension. The window faces south west. Owing to the objector’s
single-storey extension coupled with the large rear window the neighbour is concerned over a tunnelling
effect and therefore resulting in a loss of natural light. In relation to the single-storey element, this would
project 2.5m along the common boundary and the balustrade would be angled 45 degrees away from the
neighbouring property which complies with the Supplementary Planning Guidance. It would stand
approximately 4.3m away from the objector’s single-storey extension.
The balustrade as originally submitted would have resulted in a loss of privacy. The applicants have
amended their plans and the balustrade no longer projects along the common boundary but is angled away
from the neighbouring property by 45 degrees. I would not consider the proposal to have an unacceptable
impact on privacy.
The final two points of objection raised relate to possible subsidence issues and issues with landlords. The
adjoining resident claims that their property was subject to subsidence many years ago and any works close
to the boundary may cause future problems. It would be a consideration in terms of Building Regulations. I
have also been informed that the neighbouring property is leasehold and any works affecting it would have
to be reported to the landlord. This is a private matter between the occupiers and the landlord.
The garage would be fitted with a roller shutter door and have a hardstanding of 4.8m, I would not consider
the proposal to have an unacceptable impact on the occupiers of neighbouring properties or the street scene.
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. Please note this permission relates to the amended plan received on 6th May 2003 which shows the
setting back of the garage and a roller shutter door and the angling in of the balustrade.
APPLICATION No:
03/45963/COU
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
APPLICANT:
A Geddal
LOCATION:
5 Church Street Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from shop to shop for the sale of hot food
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application is for the change of use from retail (A1) to shop for the sale of hot food (A3). Proposed
hours are 1100-2300 on Monday-Thursday, 1100-Midnight on Friday & Saturday, and Midday-2200 on
Sundays.
It is a mid-terrace property with a lottery office to the north (no.1-3) and a solicitors to the south (no.7-9). It
is opposite a public house and carpet showroom; most properties have offices or residential flats on upper
floors. There is no customer parking but there is pay parking and a range of public transport in the
surrounding area, while servicing will be via rear access.
Church Street itself is a significant shopping street forming part of Eccles Town Centre, a designated town
centre with regard to Policy S1. The surrounding area is largely retail and employment related, with any
ancillary residential flats connected to local shops.
SITE HISTORY
In 1986, planning permission was granted for the installation of a new shop front (E/21205).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No comments received.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
2-30(e) Church Street
1-3(o) Church Street
7-15(o) Church Street
9-21(o) Church 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: smells, litter & public hygiene
Drainage & Rodents – problems in recent years
Lack of car-parking/delivery access
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION


22nd May 2003
Security – lack of shutters on adjacent properties
Character of vicinity – development would detract from recent improvements
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
S1 – Town Centres
Other policies:
S2 – Location of New Retail Development
S5 – Control of Food & Drink Premises
DEV1 – Development Criteria
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
S2/2 – Location of New Retail and Leisure Development – Eccles Town Centre
Other policies:
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES3 – Design of Public Space
DES11 – Design & Crime
S1 – Provision of New Retail and leisure Development
S4 – Amusement Centres and Food & Drink Uses
ST9 – Retail, Leisure, Social, and Community Provision
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The primary concern is the relationship of the proposal site to neighbouring residential dwellings, with
regard to Policy S5 (control of food & drink premises) and Policy DEV1 (development criteria). This states
that such proposals must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on surrounding residential amenity, or be
significantly prejudicial to the safety of pedestrians and road users.
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 presently a vacant
retail outlet and although there are no flats at first floor level of adjacent premises, there is a flat opposite.
However, while there are few flats I do not consider this to be a residential area and any existing occupiers
of these flats will already suffer some loss of amenity from the associated noise, fumes and general
disturbance normally expected in a Town Centre.
Of further importance is the suitability of the proposed development within Eccles Town Centre, which
must be supported by Policy S1 (Town Centres). This states that the City Council will normally permit
changes of use or re-development to Class A1 and A2, unless this would have an unacceptable effect on the
amenity, environment, vitality or viability of a town centre, either individually or by virtue of the
cumulative effect of such developments. Policy S2 requires that all new retail development should be
located in or immediately adjacent to existing shopping centres, with particular reference to regeneration,
local benefits, economic effects, environmental effects, accessibility, alternative sites, suitability, and
suitability/locational requirements.
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
Objectors have drawn attention to the character of the proposed development as out-of-character with the
locality. However, the ‘Salford Retail Activity Assessment of 2001’ shows the nature of this part (upper
Church Street) of Eccles Town Centre as mainly A3, A1 and B1 uses; other A3 uses include 4
bars/restaurants adjacent to Eccles Railway Station, thus suggesting that the proposed development will be
infitting with nearby uses.
With regard to car-parking I consider this to be a lower priority given the proposed location within a Town
Centre where many shoppers would find the outlet to be conveniently located close to shops, as well as
providing food for persons attending evening entertainment. In order to respond to concerns regarding litter
and pollution I shall recommend a condition to provide a litter bin on-street prior to opening.
Further to my analysis above, I consider this application to be acceptable, with particular reference to
appropriate development and residential proximity.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition G09X Extraction of Fumes etc.
3. Prior to the development hereby approved coming into use, the applicant shall provide a litter bin to the
front of the premises. The applicant shall first submit details of the design and position of the litter bin
(in liaison with the Director of Environmental Services), for the written approval of the Local Planning
Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/45964/COU
APPLICANT:
M Hill
LOCATION:
147 Worsley Road Winton Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from shop to office (Class A2 Financial and Professional
Services) (resubmission of previous application 03/45687/COU)
WARD:
Winton
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This proposal is for the change of use of both floors from shop (A1) to office (A2) at 147 Worsley Road,
Winton, Eccles. This is a resubmission of previous application 03/45687/COU, which was withdrawn.
There will be three parking spaces at the rear as shown on the parking plan submitted and proposed hours of
use are 1100-2300 Monday-Thursday, 1100-Midnight Friday & Saturday, and Midday-2200 on Sundays.
The site is within Winton Park key local centre, (thereby relating to Policy S3: Key Local Centres), a
compact centre with small concentration of activity at the busy junction of Worsley Road (B5211) and New
Lane. This vacant property was previously a butchers shop (A1), sited between a hair salon and gift shop.
The ‘Salford Retail Activity Assessment of 2001’ describes the butchers as a key use and the majority of
units in this centre are A1 uses, as healthy since 1998.
SITE HISTORY
No recent history.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No comments received.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
143-145(o) Worsley Road
149-153(o) Worsley Road
128-134(e) Worsley Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two (2) representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The
main issues identified are as follows:


Lack of car-parking - both on site and on street (partly due to over-provision of traffic restrictions)
If intended (respectable) occupant leaves what is to stop an undesirable future occupant?
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
S3 – Key Local Centres
Other policies:
EC3 – Re-use of sites & premises
T13 – Car Parking
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
SC1 – Provision of Social & Community Facilities
DEV1 – Development Criteria
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
ST1 – Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods
ST9 – Retain, Leisure, Social, and Community Provision
DES1 – Respecting Context
S3 – Loss of Shops
A2 – Cyclists, Pedestrians, and the Disabled
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy S3 (Key Local Centres) is a principal consideration. This policy allows change of use to Class A1
(Retail) and A2 (Financial & Professional), unless this would have an unacceptable effect on the amenity,
environment, vitality, viability of the centre either as an individual unit or by the cumulative effect of such
development.
The applicant has stated the property had been vacant for 18 months.. I therefore consider that a change of
use to A2 is an acceptable alternative to long-term vacancy.
Objectors have pointed out the lack of on-site parking, with the key centre already subject to parking
restrictions. The applicant has indicated that three car parking spaces would be provided. I have no
objection to this level of car parking.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
03/45978/FUL
APPLICANT:
Retail And Roadside Developments Limited
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
LOCATION:
Land At Junction Of New Lane And Liverpool Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of new supermarket together with vehicle unloading area,
customer car park and alterations to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Winton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This site is at 510 Liverpool Road, adjacent to Peel Green district local centre, and incorporates land of the
Waggon & Horse public house (grade A on the City of Salford local list), motor service yard, two small car
parks and a sizable amount of wasteland at the rear, adjacent to no.2 Hardy Street. The pub itself is on the
site of one the oldest in Eccles, dating from around 1800, while the adjacent car-repair garage is thought to
have formerly contained stabling facilities. To the south and east is Peel Green local district centre, and to
the west is Barton Hall Works (warehousing and light industry) and the site of the proposed new Police HQ.
To the north are residential terraces.
Members may recall that at your April meeting it was resolved to refuse permission for a supermarket on
highway safety grounds. Before the decision notice was issued the planning application was withdrawn.
The current application is a resubmission addressing the reason for refusal.
The application comprises a new supermarket building (947sq.m), together with associated servicing/
unloading area, customer car-park (57 spaces total), and alterations to existing highway access. There will
be two access points, modified on existing positions at New Lane (entry only) and Hardy Street, effectively
restricting access through the site to one-way only.
The new building will be single storey (with pitched roof) compared with the present two-storey Horse &
Waggon public house while the combined footprint covered will also be similar as existing. Materials will
be ‘metal sheeting’ for the roof and ‘facing brick’ for the walls both of which the colours are to be agreed
via a condition should this application be approved. There would be glazing along the Liverpool Road
frontage and New Lane car-park elevation.
The main entrance will be at the northern corner of the building, central to the car-park but also within easy
pedestrian access of Liverpool Road and New Lane, while the service area will be relatively hidden to the
rear along the southern boundary. All fencing (north & south boundaries) will be 2.4metres high ‘Sentry
Bar Fencing’ to be galvanised and coated in a colour to be agreed, while the Western boundary with consist
of bollards and at the Eastern boundary, a 900mm high brick wall.
The proposed operating hours are 0700 to 2000 Monday to Saturday; 1000 to 1800 on Sundays. I have been
advised that the delivery patterns of the tenant would involve up to 2 HGV deliveries per day.
An area for recycling facilities would also be provided within the car park.
HIGHWAY REPORT SUMMARY:
The applicant has submitted a copy of the ‘Supporting Statement on Highway Issues’, provided by highway
consultants ‘Sanderson Associates’ as part of the earlier application 03/45502/FUL and dated December
2002. This includes junction improvements, safety & accident data, traffic generation and servicing details
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
The applicant has also submitted an ‘Additional Highway Assessment’, provided by highway consultants
‘Sanderson Associates’ and dated April 2003, including junction improvements, traffic generation, and
capacity assessment.
Proposals include ‘entry only access’ from New Lane (capable of accommodating a 16.6 articulated
vehicle), a new right-turn lane on New Lane (facing south), and a hydraulically operated rising kerb to
prevent vehicles mis-using the ‘entry only’ access from New Lane.
RETAIL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY:
The applicant has provided a copy of an analysis (by DTZ Pieda Consulting) of retail capacity and policy
(commissioned earlier in association with application 03/45502/FUL).
SITE HISTORY
In 1993 planning permission was granted at the public house for the erection of a single storey rear side
extension to provide a kitchen, enlarged lounge and new toilet (93/30669/FUL).
In 1988 planning permission was granted for the use of land for a self-drive car-hire business and erection
of a 2metre high security fence with 4 security lights (88/23938).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services
British Coal
Environment Agency
Architectural Liaison Officer
Greater Manchester PTE
– No comments received.
– No objections
– No comments received.
– No comments received.
– No objections; encouraged to see the application takes into
account a range of non-car transport.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 17th April 2003.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:
22-31 Atherton Way
5-12 Atherton Way
2-16(e) Hardy Street
Barton Hall Works (Texas Group - Site Manager)
2-10(e) Joseph Street
441-455(o) Liverpool Road
477 Liverpool Road
478-508(e) Liverpool Road
497-521(o) Liverpool Road
510 Liverpool Road (Waggon & Horses Public House)
522-552(e) Liverpool Road
556-566(e) Liverpool Road
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
152-166(e) New Lane
258 & 260 Peel Green Road
37 Breck Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a petition containing approximately 308 signatures stating:
“We the undersigned Residents of Peel Green and customers of the Waggon and Horses Public House
strongly oppose the planning application made to the Local Planning Department in respect of the
Redevelopment and change of use of the said Public House to a Supermarket”.
I have received 11 (eleven) representations/ letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:












Overprovision of supermarkets in the area
Likely shift of trade from existing shops to new supermarket – possible collapse of existing shops
Proposal is contrary to council policy to support small businesses
Priority should be given to re-use of old/vacant Morrison’s store in central Eccles
Noise & pollution
Very heavy traffic on Liverpool Road
Junction is prone to accidents – risk to public safety
Much traffic uses the A57 (Liverpool Road) as a short cut past M602
Obstruction to emergency vehicles
Proposed layout not suitable
Residents and shopkeepers have not been consulted on regeneration
Loss of local landmark – should be renovated & returned to ‘former glory’.
It should be noted that Cllr Mr D. Eglin has expressed his view in favour of this application with regards the
highway report and regeneration potential.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies:
DEV1 Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 Crime and Design;
DEV5 – Equality of Access
DEV7 – Development of Contaminated Land
S2 Location of New Retail Development;
S3 – Key Local Centres; Peel Green
T1 – A Balanced Transport Network
T9 – Equality of Access
T10 Pedestrians;
T11 - Pedestrians
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
T12 - Cycling
T13 - Car Parking;
EC3 – Re-use of Sites and Premises
EC4 – Improvements to employment Areas
EN20 Pollution Control;
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none, although site is immediately adjacent to S2/15 (Peel Green Key Local Centre).
Other policies:
ST1 – Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods
ST3 – Employment Supply
ST6 – Major Trip Generating Development
ST9 – Retail, Leisure, Social and Community Provision
ST11 – Location of New Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES2 – Circulation & Movement
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES9 – Landscaping
DES11 – Design & Crime
DES13 – Design Statements
S1 – Provision of New Retail & Leisure Development
S2 – Location of New Retail & Leisure Development
A1 – Transport Assessments & Travel Plans
A2 – Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
A8 – Impact of Development on the Highway Network
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle, and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
EN11 – Derelict, Underused, and Neglected Land
EN13 – Contaminated Land
EN14 – Air Pollution, Noise, Odour, and Vibration
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Traffic & Highways
At your meeting in April, members and objectors raised two areas of concern:
Junction capacity at Hardy Street and Liverpool Road/Peel Green Road
Safety of vehicle access points
The applicants traffic consultant has prepared and submitted a report which examines the cumulative
impact of this proposed development, the police station development, and residential development on a
section of Barton Hall Estate. Using traffic counts and established modelling it is concluded that the
junction will operate satisfactorily with this and approved schemes. I consider this analysis to be robust and
I concur with the conclusions of the applicant’s report.
74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
On the question of highway safety, the proposed redevelopment of the site will result in the closure of
existing vehicular access points to the public house, which sits very close to the existing junction of New
Lane with Liverpool Road; the existing entry/exit access on New Lane to the motor service facility will be
replaced by an ‘in only’ access with an appreciable reduction in the width of the access and increased
provision of pavement. The footway beyond the site, along the west side of New Lane will also be increased
in width, again providing improved protection for pedestrians.
The provision of access and egress off Hardy Street will also reduce the reliance on the New Lane ‘in only’
access point. These physical measures will greatly improve the vehicle and pedestrian environment.
Furthermore as this site is close to the traffic controlled junction of New Lane and Liverpool Road the
phasing of the traffic lights themselves reduces any possible conflict between vehicles. I remain of the view
that this development would not be prejudicial to highway safety and furthermore would provide an
optimised solution to facilitate safe access to site users.
The applicant has taken on board a significant range of transportation issues raised during negotiations,
with particular regard to non-car transport and equal access, and following up with a ‘Supporting Statement
on Highway Issues’, submitted by Sanderson associates and dated December 2002, including junction
improvements, safety, and servicing details.
Amended plans show provision of pedestrian access from both New Lane and Liverpool Road, as well as
providing parking which will be likely to aid retail stability of the district local centre and negate the need to
park off site particularly on Hardy Street, an issue previously raised by local residents. Thus I consider
parking provision is in line with parking standards and is acceptable for this store which will attract a degree
of pedestrian traffic. Objections received also refer to the issue of loading/unloading occurring at all hours;
should this application be approved I would recommend a condition to restrict delivery hours, with regard
to neighbouring residential amenity.
With regard to issues of site security and appearance, the applicant has submitted amended elevations
showing greater provision of window frontages and bollards to prevent ram-raiding. In response to potential
conflict of traffic freeflow and safety at the Liverpool Road/ New Lane junction, the plans show the New
lane access as entry only, while the Hardy Street access will allow both entry and exit flow.
Policy
The site is unallocated in the UDP but is located immediately adjacent to the Peel Green key local centre as
identified in Policy S3.
Policy S2 normally requires all new retail development to be located in or immediately adjacent to existing
shopping centres and to be appropriate in terms of scale and character to the area it serves. This approach is
compatible with government guidance in PPG6. The provision of a foodstore is in my view of a scale (less
than 1000sq.m) and character appropriate to a key local centre and as there are no sites of comparable size
within the centre itself, I conclude the proposed development is appropriate in terms of serving a local need.
Retail
One issue is that of the impact of the floorspace on the existing retail district. It is now self-evident that this
particular retail centre requires physical and economic regeneration. Indeed the centre is identified as being
in quite severe decline with vacancies increasing by almost 300% between 1994-2001 (City of Salford
Research Paper 2001); vacancies now represent 19% of total units, with A1 (retail) uses having declined to
75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
form an equal proportion. The dominant use remains as C3 (including dwellings and small domestic
businesses), representing 42% of total units (City of Salford Research Paper 2001).
The applicant has commissioned an analysis (by DTZ Pieda Consulting) of retail capacity and policy. This
analysis is based on policies S1 and S2 as set out in the ‘City of Salford UDP First Draft Replacement Plan
2002-2011’. The analysis acknowledges that while policy S2 does not specifically identify sites on the edge
of neighbourhood centres, it does identify the need to site development in a location that makes it
functionally part of that centre. This analysis suggests that the proposal is consistent with policies S1 and S2
(in the Draft UDP). I conclude that this analysis adequately responds to the question of need for a store of
the scale and type proposed in Peel Green as well as aiding potential for investment and regeneration.
Overall, I consider this proposal will help regenerate the area by attracting new shoppers and increasing
relative footfall, thereby replacing the patchy nature of this key centre with a more focused centre of retail
activity supported with improved short-term parking availability.
Design & Appearance
The position of the building is located at the south/south-east corner of the site and maintains a suitable
glazing frontage, facing Liverpool Road itself and also towards New Lane, to fit in with the traditional
window frontage of existing shops, thereby aiding on-street safety by providing windows overlooking the
street (DEV4). The addition of a central tower feature (11.8m high) would be visible but well separated
from neighbouring houses (in excess of 35m). Its addition it would result in an improved design and more
clearly highlight the presence of the store from Liverpool Road.
Heritage & Conservation
With regards the existing buildings on site, these are of substantial size and are thought to be sited on the
site of the original pub which dates back to 1800. The pub that now exists has not been maintained in its
original condition (as normally required by English Heritage) and I do not consider it to be particularly
worthy of retention.
A further amendment includes the retaining of five trees at the south-west boundary of the site. These trees,
include four large ‘Tilia & European’ of around 18.5m (65ft) are considered to be a good specimen worthy
of protection, with particular regard to their positive visual impact on the immediate environment.
In conclusion this new proposal would result in the redevelopment of a long-since partly neglected site that
had a long established employment use within a location central to Peel Green key local centre. Its siting
adjacent to dwellings on Liverpool Road, New Lane, and Hardy Street would not have an undue effect on
the amenity of those residents (some of whom live above existing shops) and it would provide a good
sustainable location on the edge of an existing key local centre with no other stores of a similar type and
size, as well as incorporating a range of transport modes to the new store thus reducing the need to travel by
car. I consider that the amendments made, received from the applicant on the 22nd April and 8th May 2003
are acceptable.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
2. Prior to the development hereby approved coming into use, the applicant shall provide three litter bins.
The applicant shall first submit details of the design and position of the litter bins (in liaison with the
Director of Environmental Services), for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
3. Prior to commencement of the development the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the
approval of the LPA. 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 in writing by the LPA prior to the
start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the
approved report shall be implemented by the developer and a verification report shall be submitted for
written approval prior to occupation of the site.
4. The Applicant shall submit for approval, in writing, an assessment of the impact of the proposed
development on neighbouring sensitive premises. The assessment shall address the potential for any
noise nuisance to occur which may impact upon the amenity of neighbouring sensitive premises during
the operational phase of the proposal. The assessment shall identify fully all control measures which are
required to control the impact of the nuisance. All approved measures identified shall be implemented
and retained throughout the duration of any works during the construction phase. All approved
measures for the operational stage shall be retained and maintained thereafter. No works shall be
permitted on site until the control measures have been agreed in writing with the Local Planning
Authority. A verification report shall be submitted for written approval to the Local Planning Authority
confirming that all measures recommended by the noise report have been implemented in full prior to
the final occupation of the site.
5. Servicing and deliveries by HGVs to and from the site shall be limited to between the hours of 0700 to
2100 Mondays to Saturdays and 1000 to 1800 on Sundays.
6. No development shall be started until samples of the 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.
7. 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 months 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.
8. Standard Condition F03X Surfacing
9. This permission shall relate to the amended plans; drawing no. 3895 D SP03 Rev A, 3895 D SP02 Rev
B, 3895 D EL01 Rev A, and 3895 D PL01 Rev A received on 9th April 2003, and 2626-02 Rev C
received on 22nd April 2003.
10. Prior to the use commencing a recycling area shall be provided within the site. Full details of its siting,
77
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
shall be first submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The
approved recycling area shall be retained thereafter.
11. Standard Condition D05B Colour treatment
12. During construction there shall be no means of vehicular access to the site from New Lane.
13. All access/egress, internal circulation arrangements, together with associated highway improvements
shall be laid out and constructed in accordance with drawing no.2626-02 C (Sanderson Associates)
dated April 2003. These arrangements including those physical measures to ensure the New Lane
access is Entrance Only shall be implemented in full prior to first occupation and retained thereafter.
14. The proposal must include three car-parking spaces designed to meet the needs of disabled persons
prior to the occupation of this development.
15. Standard Condition C03X Fencing of Trees/no work within spread
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. To ensure a safe form of development that poses no unacceptable risk of pollution or compromise to
human health & safety.
4. Standard Reason R027A Amenity and quietude
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
8. Standard Reason R013A Use of parking areas
9. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
10. To encourage the recycling of waste materials in accordance with Policy MW11 of City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
11. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
12. Reason: To protect the interests and safety of traffic on New Lane and Liverpool Road in accordance
with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
13. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
14. To ensure equality of access for persons with limited or impaired mobility, in accordance with Policy
78
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
T9.
15. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Any 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). The
lighting should be designed to provide a standard maintained illumination (LUX) of between 5 and 20
LUX with the lower level being the preferable one.
2. It is recommended that the developer should contact Environmental Health prior to the commencement
of trading so that any legislative requirements relating to Food Safety and/or Health & Safety matters
are addressed properly. The relevant Environmental Health Officer (Peter Burns) can be contacted on
0161 793 2096 for any such advice.
3. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Coal Authority.
4. The Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding details
of drainage.
5. The developer should follow all good practice and advice when dealing with dusts and other fine
materials such as smoke arising from the demolition and subsequent erection of the development.
Where dusts are likely to be generated, appropriate measures to minimise the emission of dusts should
be employed at all times. Further advice on these and other related matters can be sought from the Local
Environmental Health Office which can be contacted on 0161 793 2083.
6. The Director of Development Services (Engineering) should be consulted on the associated highway
improvement works.
7. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Greater Manchester
Passenger Transport Executive.
8. All new footways are to be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the Director of Development
Services and at the developers expense.
APPLICATION No:
03/45979/HH
APPLICANT:
I Greenwood
LOCATION:
5 Turfnell Way Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of first floor side extension
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
79
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to the erection of a first floor side extension. The extension would be located on the
west side of the property, above the existing garage and would be built in line with both the existing front
and rear main walls of the dwelling. There are dwellings on all sides of the property.
CONSULTATIONS
National Grid – no objections received.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified.
1,3,7,8-12 (e) Turfnell Way
22, 24 Riding Fold Lane.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified are
as follows:



Overlooking into the rear garden, which will adversely affect privacy.
Distance between the properties will mean it is difficult to maintain.
Loss of light to landing room window.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 of the Unitary Development Plan-House Extensions.
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7-Amenity of users and neighbours.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 states that permission would be granted if the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse
impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance,
loss of privacy or light.
DES7 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan Policy supports DEV8 of the Unitary Development Plan
and states that all new development, alterations and extensions to existing buildings, will be required to
provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity, in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy,
aspect and layout.
80
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
The main objection relates to overlooking. The objector states that due to the rear bedroom window of the
extension and the position of the objector’s garden, which angles across the rear of the dwelling, the garden
would be significantly overlooked and privacy would be lost.
I agree with the objector that there would be a significant amount of overlooking in the rear garden of the
neighbouring property and so would be contrary to Guidance Note HH2 of the Supplementary Planning
Guidance for House Extensions. This clearly states that permission will not normally be granted for
extensions that introduce windows close to and directly overlooking the gardens of neighbouring dwellings.
I also consider that the extension would be too large and overbearing to the neighbouring property due to its
size and siting which is contrary to Dev8 of the Unitary development Plan.
The objector also states that he is concerned regarding the loss of light to a landing window. However I do
not consider that the landing window is a main habitable room and therefore do not consider this is a
significant reason to recommend the application for refusal.
The objection relating to the maintenance of the property is not a planning consideration.
I consider, as the extension would be overlooking that it is contrary to the Council’s Guidance I therefore
recommend it for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of
overlooking and its overbearing nature due to its size and siting, contrary to the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan Policy DEV8 and the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance for House
Extensions.
APPLICATION No:
03/45981/REM
APPLICANT:
C Thompson
LOCATION:
3 Folly Lane Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Details of the design and external appearance of one four storey
building comprising four apartments together with associated
landscaping
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
81
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
Members will recall that outline consent was recently approved for the siting and means of access for four
flats on this site including six car parking spaces. This application seeks approval for the reserved matters
including design, external appearance and landscaping for part three, part four storey building.
The area is residential in nature comprising semi detached and terraced properties. Planning permission has
recently been approved for a two storey detached dwelling on land adjoining this site. There is a significant
change in levels within the site, the rear drops down towards Deans Brook. The footprint of this proposal
would measure 16m along Folly Lane and 7m in depth. At its closest, it would maintain 12m to Folly Lane
and 32m to the properties opposite on Folly Lane. It would also maintain 7m to the gable of the
neighbouring property.
The design of the scheme utilises the roof space with the inclusion of front and rear dormers. The ridge
height of the proposal is 0.9m higher than the ridge on the neighbouring semi detached property. There are
four dormers within the front elevation and three velux windows, the rear has four dormers. They have
pitched roofs and are set in from all sides of the main roof. The front elevation consists of two main blocks
joined with a sloping roof above a recessed single storey porch entrance feature which is set back 0.85m
from the front elevation and is 2.1m wide. The two component parts reflect the general scale of the
neighbouring semi-detached properties.
The rear of the development is four storey due to the general fall of the site. The design includes patio doors
on three of the four floor levels. The ground and first floor patios have guard rails 1.2m in height.
SITE HISTORY
In April of this year, outline planning consent was granted for the siting of one four storey block of four flats
and means of access. (03/45554/OUT)
In December of last year, planning permission was granted for the erection of a part two / part three storey
detached dwelling on adjacent to this site. (02/44954/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections
The Environment Agency – no comments to date
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
5 – 11 (odd) Folly Lane
78 – 102 (even) Folly Lane
18 – 24 (even) Holly Road
32 and 34 Warren Drive
48 Wellington Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified
are as follows:
82
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
Over development of the site
Increase in traffic
Loss of Green Area
Loss of view
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV 1 Development Criteria,
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors in determining
applications for planning permission, including the location and nature of the proposed development; the
amount, design and layout of car parking provision; the arrangements for servicing and access and the
visual appearance of the development.
The replacement plan policies are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
The main thrust of concern from the letters of objection are concentrated around the size, scale and type of
development. Some concerns have also been raised with regard traffic generation. The siting and means of
access have already been approved as part of the outline approval. This scheme has been designed to
maximise the potential of the site. The reduced ceiling heights and the use of the roof space has enabled the
overall height of the proposal to be similar to the neighbouring traditional semi detached, in fact, this
scheme would be only 0.9m higher than that of the neighbouring property and still provide three storeys
fronting Folly Lane.
With regard to loss of green area. Consent has already been granted for the siting of a four storey building
on this site to replace a vacant bungalow. The bungalow still currently occupies the site and as such is
considered a brown field site, therefore I do not agree that this proposal would result in the loss of a green
space. The applicant’s agent has supplied details of landscaping which is appropriate for this site.
I do not agree that this proposal would generate an increase in traffic, this particular point and the provision
for six vehicles has already been considered by members. No highway objections were received.
The planning issue with regard to this application is the design and external appearance of the development
in relation to the surrounding area. As stated earlier, the overall height of the scheme is only 0.9m higher
than the neighbouring property. The recess above the porch feature provides the appearance of two
separate component parts which reflect the scale of the neighbouring properties. The semi detached
properties opposite are set back from Folly Lane and raised above the height of the road. This proposal
would maintain 32m to the those properties opposite.
83
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the design is acceptable in this location and that the scale of the
proposal reflects the scale of the neighbouring properties and provides an appropriate addition to this part of
Folly Lane.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. No development shall be started until samples of the 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 R004A Amenity-area
84
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/45971/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Peel Hall County Primary School (FAO Gaynor Dunkerley)
LOCATION:
Peel Hall C.P School Greencourt Drive Little Hulton Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Re-siting of existing storage container
WARD:
Little Hulton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Peel Hall County Primary School, Greencourt Drive, Little Hulton. It is proposed
to re-site an existing storage container. The school grounds have recently been enclosed by fencing, and as
a result the storage container in question, located to the north west of the school building, is currently
located beyond the fencing and therefore outside the school grounds. The school wishes to re-locate the
container within its grounds. It is proposed to site the container to the north east of the school building,
alongside another existing container. The container is 6.1m long, 2.4m wide and 2.5m wide.
The immediate surroundings are school playing fields. The surrounding area is predominantly residential.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no comment to date
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
2, 7, 9 Greencourt Drive
20B Kenyon Way
4 Sewell Way
126 Peel Lane
6 – 48, 14A, 16A Wildbrook Road
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
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
85
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 of the adopted UDP outlines a number of criteria against which proposals should be assessed.
Of most relevance to this application are the location of the proposed development and its visual
appearance.
Policy DES1 of the First Deposit Plan requires development to respect the character of the surrounding area
and to respond to its physical context.
The application proposes the re-siting of an existing container from outside the school’s fencing to within
the school grounds. I consider the proposed site for the container to be appropriate, particularly given that
there is an existing container located adjacent to the proposed site. The container would be in the region of
60m from the nearest residential property. I do not consider that the re-siting of the container would have an
adverse impact on residential or visual amenity. I consider the application to accord with all relevant
policies of both the Adopted and First Deposit UDPs and I therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
03/45997/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Mesne Lea C P School (FAO T Barnes)
LOCATION:
Mesne Lea Primary School Henniker Street (Walkden Road) Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a 2.4m high palisade fence and 2.4m high crusader railings
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site is Mesne Lea School, it is bounded by the rear of properties on Walkden Road, the rear
of properties on Parkside Avenue, a loopline and the Boys and Girls Welfare Society.
86
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
The proposal is to erect 2.4m high palisade fencing and 2.4m high crusader railings. The palisade fencing
would be situated on the boundary adjacent to the loopline and the Welfare Society. The crusader fencing
would be situated along the boundary close to the residential properties on Walkden Road.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
206 – 272 (evens) Walkden Road
1 Cecil Street
2 – 8 (evens) Parkside Avenue
Boys and Girls welfare Society Cecil Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations or letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The
application site is owned by the Local Authority.
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 palisade fencing would be situated on the East and South boundary. There are several mature trees on
the east boundary that would conceal the proposed fencing, the proposal would not affect the trees. The
south boundary has a pathway adjacent to it with the Boys and Girls Welfare Society building beyond it.
The crusader railings would be situated along the west boundary, which bounds a passageway with the rear
of properties on Walkden Road beyond it. There are existing railings surrounding the side which are
approximately 1.8m high, The proposed railings would be higher but crusader railings are considered to be
acceptable in residential locations and I do not consider the additional height would have a detrimental
impact on the area. All of the fencing will be powder coated blue.
I have no objections on highway grounds.
87
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
22nd May 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The fencing hereby approved shall be powder coated blue (RAL 5010) prior to its installation and shall
be maintained thereafter.
3. The gates hereby approved shall open inwards to the satisfaction of the Director of Development
Services.
Reason(s):
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
2. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Please note there is a public sewer close to the site adjacent to the public footpath at the South / East
corner of the site.
88
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
89
22nd May 2003