PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/45923/FUL
APPLICANT:
Orbit Investments (Salford) Limited
LOCATION:
Lowry Galleria Pier 8 Quays Road Salford Quays Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a 17 storey block consisting office unit, retail unit and 88
residential flats together with associated car parking (Amendment to
previous application 01/42796/FUL)
WARD:
Ordsall
This application relates to a site at the western end of Pier 8, Salford Quays. It is situated adjacent to the
Lowry Designer Outlet shopping centre and multiplex cinema and the Quays Road to the east, across which
are the residential properties of the Grain Wharf housing development. To the north lies the existing car
park of the Lowry and Designer Outlet whilst to the south lies the Manchester Ship Canal.
In addition to surrounding uses already mentioned the is considered to form part of the Regional Centre
within an overall mixed use area comprising the Lowry Centre, The Watersports Centre, The proposed
Digital World Centre, residential properties and office accommodation. Pier 9 to the north of this site,
across Erie Basin, is the subject of permission for a mix of uses including offices, residential, retail, hotel
leisure and car parking.
Planning permission is sought for the erection of a tower consisting of 88 one and two bed self contained
flats each with a small balcony area above a ground floor food retail unit (274sq.m.) and an office space
(90sq.m.). The tower has a height of 48m at the nearest point to the existing three storey flats at grain wharf
and is 67m high at its tallest point. Permission is also sought for the erection of a car park consisting of 560
spaces with access through the existing car park on site. The tower is proposed at the south of this site and
would be entirely forward of the forward building line of the existing residential flats across the Quays
Road on Winnipeg Quay.
The main elevation of the tower is the south facing elevation, this fronts the Manchester Ship Canal. The
east facing elevation faces existing three storey residential of Grain Wharf and also commercial
development along the Quays Road.
Members will recall that in 2002 planning permission was granted for the same size residential block, mix
of uses at ground floor and multi-storey (six floors) car park. The only changes between that application and
this current application are that the number of units has increased from 75 to 88 and the level of car parking
has increased from 412 to 560 spaces. The design of the building is the same as the earlier approval except
that the building is now proposed to be lower in height by 5m along the elevation facing the Grain Wharf
flats.
SITE HISTORY
In 2002, planning permission was granted for the erection of a 17 storey block consisting office unit, retail
unit and 75 residential flats and the erection of a car park containing 412 spaces (01/42796/FUL).
In 1999, planning permission was granted for the erection of a 740 space multi-storey car park and access
(99/39189/FUL).
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
In 1998, planning permission was granted for the erection of a 13 screen cinema, commercial/leisure,
Digital World Centre, hotel, offices, residential, restaurants, wine bars, retailing, car parking, road, open
space and landscaping (98/38429/FUL). This application included a 68 metre high office block on the
current application site.
In 1996, planning permission was granted for the re-alignment of the existing loop road and construction of
the Lowry Plaza (96/35771/FUL).
In 1996, planning permission was granted for the erection of the Lowry Centre for the performing and
visual arts (96/35728/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Highways Agency – No objections
Environment Agency – No objections
GMPTE – No objections subject to parking spaces being justified
United Utilities – No objections
Trafford MBC – No comments received
GM Police – No comments received
Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to the imposition of conditions relating to a
noise assessment, ground contamination, delivery times and lighting levels.
PUBLICITY
Site notices were displayed on 11th April 2003
A press notice has been published
The following neighbours were notified :
14, 15, 30, 40, 41, 42, 48, 54, 55, 57, 60, 64, 66, 76, 77 & 78 St Lawrence Quay
1 – 130 Vancouver Quay
1 to 74, 79, 80, 81 Winnipeg Quay
23, 25, 34, 37, 51, 59, 65, 75, 77, 79, 99, 105, 109, 113, 117, 135, 147 & 153 Labrador Quay
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no objections/representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: TR7/2 – Pier 8, Salford Quays
Other policies: EC3 – Re-use of Sites and Premises; EN9 – Derelict and Vacant Land; H1 – Meeting
Housing Needs; H6 & H11 Open Space Provision, DEV1 – Development Criteria; DEV2 – Good Design;
DEV4 – Design and Crime; T13 - Car Parking; T9 - Equality of Access; S4 – Local Shopping.
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1/3 Development in Mixed Use Areas
Other policies: H1 Provision of New Housing Development, H8 Open Space Provision Associated with
New Housing Development, DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES4
Relationship of Development to Public Space, DES5 Tall Buildings, DES6 Waterside Development
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The proposal forms part of a larger mixed use commercial development. The site occupies a prominent
location within the mixed use area of Salford Quays which is considered part of the Regional Centre. The
vision of a broad mix of uses at Salford Quays has been identified and refined since the mid 1980’s. The
appropriate mix of uses will only be achieved in this unique district of Greater Manchester when the
redevelopment is fully complete. The earlier phases of development of Salford Quays has comprised
offices, residential, commercial, retail (non food), leisure and visitor attractions. The major attractions of
the Lowry Centre, Imperial War Museum, Designer Outlet and the Digital World Centre ensure the area is
well utilised by visitors arriving by tram and by car. As this site, subject of this application, is the last piece
of the Pier 8 jigsaw remaining it is useful to assess the application against not just the above policies of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan but also regional planning policy (RPG13) and national planning
policy (PPG1, PPG3, PPG6 and PPG13).
RPG13 provides the strategic planning framework for the North West and contains advice and guidance to
the location and promotion of development within the region. The guidance places a particular emphasis on
the need for urban regeneration within the region and the beneficial role that development proposals can
play in achieving this. The guidance also calls for a mix of uses with the Regional Centres including
residential accommodation.
National planning policy guidance further strengthens a requirement for mixed use developments and calls
for the use of previously developed land for high density housing as a tool for regeneration and to limit
urban sprawl, where such sites are well served by public transport. There is already a mix of uses and
development styles at this site and the introduction of additional residential property would introduce more
users of Pier 8 in the evening and would increase the vitality and viability of the Quays.
The mix of uses and size and scale of buildings has been accepted and is in accordance with policies in the
Adopted UDP and regional and national planning policies. The increase in the number of units from 75 to
88 is considered to comply with both adopted policy H1 and H1 of the replacement plan especially as a mix
of dwelling types is now being provided. In accordance with policy H8 of the replacement plan and
supported by H6 and H11 of the adopted plan the applicant is required to provide an off site contribution to
the local environment. As this site is within the regional centre a contribution of £1000 per additional flat is
sought through a Section 106 obligation.
Policy MX1/3 in the proposed replacement draft UDP requires a mix of uses at this site, which is provided
by this application. Design policies DES1, DES2, DES4, DES5 and DES6 all relate to the requirement of
good quality design, tall buildings and at waterfront locations. The principle of the appearance and scale has
already been established and I am satisfied that the proposal complies with policies of the proposed
alterations to the UDP, subject to an additional design condition from the previous consent requiring
additional detailed design of the elevations.
The introduction of a food retail outlet and a small office would help to serve the proposed and existing
developments and would reduce the need to travel for goods and services. Consequently I consider the re
use of this previously developed site for housing and a food retail shop and office to be in accordance with
regional and national planning policy and also with the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan policies
TR7/2; EC3; EN9; H1 and S4.
Vehicular access and egress to the car park would be made through the existing Designer Outlet Shopping
Centre car park. The Highways Agency has not objected to the layout or size of the car park. In addition to
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
cycle parking the site is served by the Metrolink tram stop at Harbour City. Although a multi-storey car park
is proposed for the 88 residential flats, a small food retail unit and small office the applicant has advised that
parking in this car park would serve the whole site including the uses proposed by this application. Other
uses on the site are the Lowry Centre; Designer Outlet Shopping Centre; Warner Brothers Multiplex
cinema and the Digital World Centre. Parking for all these attractions is provided at the one existing car
park and therefore the parking standards contained within PPG13 and the UDP need to be assessed in
respect of all these uses. I consider that the increase in the number of parking spaces from 412 to 560 is
within the guidelines of PPG13 and parking standards of the UDP’s.
In conclusion I consider the development as proposed uses would comply with the City of Salford Policies,
regional guidance and national guidance certainly with respect to the use and density of residential
development. The food retail shop would also add to the suitable mix of uses and would further reduce the
need to travel by car for services. The parking provision on site would be in line with Governments
maximum parking standards and along with nearby access to the Metrolink system and the provision of
cycle parking. I consider the addition of 13 flats and an increase in parking spaces in conjunction with the
mix of uses in the area would form a sustainable development in accordance with planning policy. I
therefore, recommend approval subject to the following conditions and legal agreement.
RECOMMENDATION
1.
that the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under Section
106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the payment £13,000 for off site
contributions to environmental improvements in the local area.
2.
that the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded to grant planning permission, subject
to the conditions stated below, on completion of such legal agreement;
3.
that authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application be issued, (subject to the
conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned legal agreement,
4.
that authority be given to refuse the application if the applicant fails to complete the S106
agreement within a reasonable period.
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall commence on site until such time as the detailed design of the elevations has
been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.
3. The rating level of the noise emitted from the fixed plant and equipment associated with the
developmnet hereby permitted shall not exceed the exiting background noise level (determined to be
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
39dB(A) Leq (5mins)) by more than minus 5dB between 19:00 and 07:00 and plus 5dB at any other
time. The noise level shall be measured/calculated at the boundary of the existing properties on
Winnipeg Quay and the Galleria Complex. The measurement and assessment shall be made according
to BS4142 1997: rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas.
4. Prior to the commencement of the development the developer shall submit a site investigation report
the approval of the Director of Development Services. 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 Director of Development Services prior
to the start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the
approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.
5. Access by heavy goods vehicles into the northern and southern service yards of the development hereby
permitted shall not be allowed except between the hours of 08:00 and 22:00 on Mondays to Saturdays,
and 10:00 and 18:00 on Sundays, Bank Holidays and Public Holidays.
6. A lighting scheme for the development shall be submitted for the approval of the Director of
Development. The lighting provided in the scheme should be erected and directed so as to avoid
nuisance to residential accommodation in close proximity. The lighting shall be designed to provide a
standard maintained illumination (LUX) of less than 20 LUX measured from the windows of the
surrounding residential accommodation. Once approved the scheme shall be implemented prior to the
occupation of any residential property hereby approved.
7. The developer shall undertake an assessment to determine the external noise levels that the residents
will be subject to (day and night). The assessment shall take into consideration the expected noise from
surrounding development and expected noise from the proposed development and associated traffic
movements. The developer shall detail what steps are to be taken to mitigate any disturbances. The
assessment shall have due regard to PPG24 Planning and Noise and BS4142 1997 rating industrial
noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas. The assessment and mitigation measures shall be
submitted for the approval of the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of the
development. Any mitigation measures are to be implemented prior to first occupation of the
apartments hereby approved.
8. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved the developer shall submit detailed
plans of the cycle parking scheme for the approval of the Director of Development Services. The
approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the development and shall thereafter
be maintained to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
9. 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
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
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.
10. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls, roofs,
windows, balconies and doors of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Director of Development Services.
11. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of
foul and surface waters has been approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such a
scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans.
12. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakway system, all surface
water drainage from impermeable parking areas, roadways and, hardstandings for vehicles shall be
passed through an oil interceptor designed and constructed to have a capacity and details compatible
with the site being drained. Roof water shall not pass through the interceptor.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of the visual amenity of Pier 8 in accordance with policy
DEV 1 of the City Of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
8. To provide adequate provision for cycle parking in accordance with PPG13 and policy T11 of the
UDP.
9. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
10. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
11. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
12. To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with policies EN20 and DEV1 of the
UDP.
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Detergents entering oil interceptors may render them ineffective.
2. The Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding details
of drainage.
3. Please note that a separate system of drainage is required for this development.
4. The developer shall contact Mr Tuersley (0161 907 7346) of United Utilities with regard to water
pressures and the provision of water storage and pumps to guarantee an adequate and constant supply of
water.
5. The developer shall contact Network Connections, United Utilities, PO Box 453, Dawson house,
Liverpool Road, Great Sankey, Warrington, WA5 3LW (08457 462200) regarding connection to the
water mains.
6. The applicant shall discuss full details of the site drainage proposals with Mr Kerasby, Sewer
Adoptions Section, United Utilities (0161 609 7513).
7. The developer should contact United Utilities with regard to separate metered water supply to each unit
and internal pipework should comply with current water supply (water fittings) regulations 1999.
8. This permission shall relate to the amended plans as received on the 2nd June 2003.
9. Prior to commencement of the development the developer shall contact United Utilities with regard to
the need for a diversion of the sewers/water mains.
10. The applicant shall contact United Utilities prior to the commencement of the development with regard
to diversion of the sewers/water mains.
APPLICATION No:
03/45987/FUL
APPLICANT:
George Wimpey Manchester Limited
LOCATION:
628 Eccles New Road Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing training centre and erection of three four-storey
buildings comprising 80 apartments together with associated car
parking
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
This application relates to the site of the former Craft Training Centre and the adjacent vacant site. The site
measures approximately 0.44 hectares and is bounded by a railway to the north, beyond which is the M602
motorway; the New Prospect Housing depot to the east; Turnpike House to the south and a railway cutting
to the west.
The proposal is to erect four blocks of two-bedroom apartments at the site, comprising 80 apartments in
total. The buildings would be faced in two tones of brick and would have tiled pitched roofs. 80 car parking
spaces including four disabled parking spaces would be provided, in addition to secure cycle parking
facilities. Areas of amenity space and landscaping have been identified. A Design Statement has been
submitted for consideration in conjunction with the planning application.
SITE HISTORY
02/44041/FUL - Demolition of existing training centre and erection of 2-four storey buildings comprising
48 apartments and 2-two storey buildings comprising apartments and six garages together with associated
car parking. Approved 4th July 2002.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Initial comments regarding noise assessment and contaminated land.
Comments regarding amended scheme in relation to noise are being prepared.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Detailed recommendations made regarding
security measures. Comments awaited on amended plans.
GMPTE – It is considered that the proposed layout still gives priority to the car, rather than the pedestrian
coming before traffic, in line with PPG13. A “homezone” type approach using different surface materials
and raised levels to indicate pedestrian priority may therefore help to create a safer and more appealing
pedestrian environment within the site, thereby increasing the likelihood of residents accessing the site on
foot/ by public transport. Comments awaited on amended plans.
Metrolink – All construction works must have regard to the adjacent Metrolink system. Comments awaited
on amended plans.
Environment Agency – No objection in principle, recommend condition and an informative regarding
drainage. Comments awaited on amended plans.
Network Rail – Liasing directly with developer. Comments awaited on amended plans.
Coal Authority - Report on coal mining circumstances provided. Comments awaited on amended plans.
PUBLICITY
Press Notice published: 8th May 2003
Site Notice posted: 30th April 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
Spectrim, Astor Road
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
Total Petrol Station, Eccles New Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity to date.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
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
DES11 – Design and Crime
DES13 – Design Statements
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and \motorcycle Parking in New Developments.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The principal of residential development on part of this site has already been established by an earlier
planning permission (02/44041/FUL) and residential development is considered to be in overall accordance
with the Council’s Unitary Development Plan Policies. Unitary Development Plan policy DEV2 seeks to
ensure a high standard of design in new developments and policy DEV1 states that regard should be had to
a number of issues when determining applications for planning permission, including the relationship to
existing and proposed land uses; the size and density of the proposed development and the amount, design
and layout of car parking provision. In addition, UDP policy DEV4 states that the City Council will have
regard to the detailing of the building, the relationship of car parking to buildings, pedestrian circulation
within the site, the provision of security features and the layout of landscaped areas in the design of new
development. The policies of the First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP are generally similar to those of the
adopted plan in respect to this development, with an even stronger emphasis placed on the need for good
design principles.
With regards to UDP policy T13 and car parking provision at the site, current standards would require 1.25
spaces per unit. Whilst 100% car parking has been identified at the site, I consider that the shortfall in
provision is acceptable, taking into consideration the location of the site adjacent to the Metrolink and main
bus routes, Government guidance contained within PPG13 and the policies of the First Deposit Draft
Replacement UDP. I am satisfied that adequate disabled car parking and secure cycle parking has been
identified at the site.
There are a number of constraints at the site including two sewer crossings with 6 metre easements and a
fixed vehicular access point. Following initial concerns regarding the proposed layout of the site, the
disposition of buildings and the relationship of the buildings to car parking, the applicant has made a
number of amendments to the proposal. Blocks 1, 3 and 4 have been staggered across the site to provide an
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
improved building frontage to Eccles New Road and the car parking areas now relate better to each of the
apartment blocks. Different surfacing materials are proposed within the parking area in addition to tree and
shrub planting. Areas of formal planting and amenity space have been identified. In terms of scale and
massing, I do not consider that the development would be out of proportion to other development in the
locality and I consider that its scale, massing and design will make a positive contribution to the area. I have
received no objections to the proposed development.
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 roof
of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
3. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be used
for the cycle stores and bin stores of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing
by the Director of Development Services.
4. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 18th June 2003 which shows the amended
site layout.
5. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of
foul and surface waters has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme
shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans.
6. 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.
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 6 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
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 F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. To ensure a satisfactory means of drainage.
6. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
8. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Sewer connections/easements must be agreed with United Utilities. Oil interceptors should be provided
on parking drainage. Please contact United Utilities for further information.
2. No rainwater contaminated with silt/soil from disturbed ground during construction must drain to the
surface water sewer or watercourse without sufficient settlement.
3. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from GMPTE dated 23rd May
2003.
4. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from Metrolink dated 20th May
2003.
5. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from Network Rail dated 15th
May 2003.
6. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Coal Authority dated
30th April 2003.
7. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from Greater Manchester Police
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
dated 30th April 2003.
APPLICATION No:
03/46003/OUT
APPLICANT:
Mike Keelty And Michael Fields
LOCATION:
6-8 Trinity Court St Stephen Street Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for the erection of a five storey building
comprising of thirty three apartments and basement carparking
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Trinity Court, St Stephen Street, Salford 3. The application site is currently
occupied by a two storey office building and associated car parking. It is bounded by Trinity Way to the east
and St Stephen Street to the west. To the north is a park and to the south is a site on which permission was
recently granted for the construction of a residential apartment block, beyond which is the Grade II Listed
Victory Chapel. Vehicular access into the site is currently achieved from St Stephen Street.
It is proposed to demolish the existing office building and construct a five storey building comprising thirty
three apartments and basement car parking. The existing vehicular access would be utilised. The proposed
building would measure approximately 23m by 24m and would be sited 1.5m from the boundary with the
adjacent site to the south. The main pedestrian entrance to the proposed building would be from Trinity
Way. The application is in outline with determination for siting and means of access sought as this stage.
SITE HISTORY
In 1990, planning permission was granted for the erection of a two storey office block with associated car
parking (ref: E/26152)
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
In 1992, planning permission was granted for the erection of a two storey office block with associated car
parking and the construction of new vehicular and pedestrian access (ref: E/29655)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections subject to the submission and approval of a noise
assessment
Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections to the principle of the development but emphasises the need to
ensure that the proposed car park has secure access to prevent unauthorised entry
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 1st May 2003
A site notice was posted on 28th April 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
Turret House, St Stephen Street
New Harvest Christian Fellowship, 194 Chapel Street
Space, Hatton Garden, Liverpool
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues raised are as
follows:
The proposed building would be sited in close proximity to the building currently under
construction on the site to the south. The application would therefore have a detrimental impact on
the amenity of future residents of that development
The application would constitute over development of the site
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CS1 – Trinity
EC14/1 – Improvement Proposals (Chapel Street, Blackfriars)
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1/2 – Development in Mixed-Use Areas (Chapel Street West)
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
H2 – Location of New Housing Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy CS1 of the adopted UDP states that within the Trinity area, emphasis will be placed on providing
enhanced standards of residential accommodation and improving the local environment.
Policy EC14 identifies Chapel Street as a commercial/industrial area where the Council will seek
improvements by the enabling the assembly of development sites and improving the environment.
Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria to which regard will be had in the determination of applications.
Of most relevance to this application are the location and nature of the proposed development and the
layout and relationship of existing and proposed buildings.
Policy MX1 of the First Deposit Draft UDP identifies Chapel Street West as an area to be developed as a
vibrant mixed use area with a broad range of uses and activities. Housing is identified as an appropriate use
within this area. In determining applications within such areas, regard will be had to the positive impact that
the proposed development could have on the regeneration of the wider area, the uses on adjoining sites and
the prominence of the location.
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context, to respect the character of the area
and to contribute to local identity. In assessing the extent to which applications comply 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 in relation to its surroundings.
Policy DES7 states that new developments are required to provide potential users with a satisfactory level
of amenity in terms of space, sunlight, daylight and privacy. Development which would have an
unacceptable impact on the amenity of occupiers or users of other developments will not be permitted.
Policy H2 states that development on unallocated land will be permitted where it involves the re-use of
previously developed land, it is accessible by public transport, walking and cycling and to jobs, shops and
services and where it would be consistent with other UDP policies.
The objections received relate to the proximity of the proposed development to the apartment block
currently under construction on the site to the south and that the proposal would constitute over
development of the site. I will deal with each in turn.
In terms of the siting of the proposed building, the original scheme has been amended and it is now
proposed to site the building 1.5m from the southern boundary. This would result in a minimum of 3m
between the building proposed by this application and the building currently under construction on land to
the south. Although habitable room windows are approved on the northern elevation of the building on the
adjacent site, they are lounge windows (secondary) and the remaining are bedroom windows. I do not
consider that the amenity of future residents of either development would be adversely affected by the close
proximity of the two buildings. The location of windows on the building proposed by this application would
be the subject of consideration at the reserved matters stage.
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
I do not consider the proposal to constitute over development of the site. The proposed apartment block
would constitute an efficient use of a previously developed site in a City Centre location, in accordance with
PPG3. The objector is concerned that the number of apartments proposed by the application on the adjacent
site to the south was reduced from 33 to 28 following the case officer’s advice, and that 33 apartments is
therefore excessive on this site. It is important to note that the number of apartments was reduced on that
site due to the need to achieve a reduction in height of the building and the need to enhance the setting of the
adjacent Listed Building, and not because the number of apartments proposed was considered to be too
great.
Turning to other issues, the applicants have submitted a statement detailing why the existing employment
premises are to be demolished and the site redeveloped for residential accommodation. This statement
explains that the applicants consider the existing building to be poorly integrated with its surroundings,
given the heights of both existing and proposed buildings in the vicinity. They feel that the redevelopment
of the site would provide an opportunity to improve the environment of the area through the construction of
a high quality residential building, improve personal safety in and around the adjacent park and integrate
better with the adjacent Trinity Estate residential area. In terms of job losses, the applicants have confirmed
that they are likely to relocate elsewhere within the City. This along with the creation of additional jobs as
part of the Deva Centre development, in close proximity to the application site, would, the applicants
contend, mean that the loss of employment from the area would be negligible. I consider the principle of the
proposed use to be acceptable. The site is previously developed and located in close proximity to public
transport links and to Manchester City Centre and the facilities therein. I therefore consider the application
to accord with Policy H2 of the First Deposit UDP. The surrounding area comprises a mixture of uses and I
consider that the development of this site for residential accommodation would compliment the existing
uses in the area. I consider that the application would accord with CS1 of the Adopted UDP and Policy
MX1 of the First Deposit UDP.
Whilst the application is in outline, and design and external appearance are reserved for determination at a
later stage, the applicant has provided indicative elevations to show the proposed building in the context of
the adjacent properties from both Trinity Way and St Stephen Street. I am satisfied that the scale and
massing of the proposed building would be appropriate to the location and in keeping with surrounding
buildings, both existing and proposed. The comments received from the ALO can be addressed at the
reserved matters stage when such details would be submitted.
In conclusion, I consider the application to be acceptable. It would result in the redevelopment of a
brownfield site in a highly accessible location. I therefore recommend that, subject to the following
conditions, permission be granted.
RECOMMENDATION
1.
that the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under Section
106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the payment of a commuted sum for, and
implementation of, environmental improvements in the local area to the value of £33,000;
2.
that the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded to grant planning permission, subject
to the conditions stated below, on completion of such legal agreement;
3.
that authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application be issued, (subject to the
conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned legal agreement,
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4.
3rd July 2003
that authority be given to refuse the application if the applicant fails to complete the S106
agreement within a reasonable period on the grounds that the proposals do not support the aim and
objectives of the Chapel Street Regeneration Project.
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been submitted
to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
- plans and elevations showing the design of all buildings and other structures;
- the colour and type of facing materials to be used for all external walls and roofs;
- a landscape scheme for the site which shall include details of trees and shrubs to be planted, any
existing trees to be retained, or felled indicating the spread of the branches and trunk positions, walls,
fences, boundary and surface treatment.
3. Prior to the commencement of development a noise assessment addressing noise from the surrounding
roads, which shall be approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. Any approved
mitigation measure shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the development.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Reason: The application is for outline permission only and these matters were reserved by the
applicant for subsequent approval.
3. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
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.
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/46057/FUL
APPLICANT:
Harlor Homes Ltd
LOCATION:
Grays Colour Labs 555 Manchester Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a residential development comprising 27 two bedroomed
apartments together with associated landscaping
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Grays Colour Labs, Manchester Road, Swinton. The application site is bounded
by Manchester Road to the north and Holloway Drive to the west. On the opposite side of Holloway Drive
on Glynrene Avenue are two storey residential properties. To the south is an electricity sub station, beyond
which is the railway line. The Wardley Industrial Estate is located beyond the railway line. The land to the
east is currently vacant. The application site is currently occupied by a photographic laboratory, a
residential property, car parking and a number of trees.
It is proposed to demolish the existing buildings and erect a three storey building comprising 27 apartments.
Both pedestrian and vehicular access into the site would be achieved from Holloway Drive. A safeguarded
pedestrian route from Holloway Drive to the building’s main entrance would be provided. The applicants
propose to provide 27 car parking spaces plus three disabled spaces. A secure cycle parking area would be
provided to the east of the site to accommodate five bicycles. It is proposed to fell sixteen trees and two
hedges in order to accommodate the proposed development. Seven trees located to the rear of the site would
be retained. None are covered by a tree preservation order. An amenity area is proposed for the residents of
the development which would be located on the southern section of the site. The north and west of the site
would be bounded by 1.1m high railings.
Members will be aware of the recent application for the redevelopment of the former Caledonian Motors
site on the opposite side of Manchester Road for housing (ref: 02/45315/FUL). That application was
refused in March 2003 on the grounds that, as the proposed building was four storeys, it would be
overbearing and have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents, contrary to Policy
DEV1 of the UDP.
CONSULTATIONS
Coal Authority – comments received
Director of Environmental Services – no comments received
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – comments received
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 15th May 2003
A site notice was posted on 7th May 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
Eckersley Joinery Ltd, Bagot Street
520, 569 – 579 (O) Manchester Road
2 – 24 (E), 1 – 23 (O) Glynrene Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified
are as follows:
The proposed access onto the site from Holloway Drive would be dangerous
The existing drains and sewers would be insufficient
The proposed car parking is insufficient
The proposal would result in an increase in dirt, noise and traffic
The application would result in a reduction in property values
A number of trees will be felled
The application would result in overlooking and loss of privacy of properties on Glynrene Drive
The proposed building would be out of context with the surrounding area
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
EN7 – Conservation of Trees and Woodland
T13 – Car Parking
EC3 – Re-Use of Sites and Premises
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
DES11 – Design and Crime
DES13 – Design Statements
H2 – Location of New Housing Development
E5 – Development within Established Employment Areas
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria against which applications for planning permission are assessed.
Of most relevance to this application are the location and nature of the proposed development, including its
relationship to existing land uses, the size and density of the proposed development, car parking provision,
the likely scale of traffic generation, the effect on privacy for neighbouring properties, the visual
appearance, open space provision and impact on trees.
Policy DEV2 requires developments to be of a high quality of design and to have regard to existing
buildings, townscape and the character of the surrounding area.
Policy DEV4 requires greater consideration of crime prevention and security in applications for planning
permission.
Policy EN7 outlines the Council’s support for the retention of trees and the need to increase the area of trees
within the City.
Policy T13 states that appropriate and adequate car parking provision should be made to meet the needs of
new development.
Policy EC3 relates to the re-use of vacant industrial and commercial sites and premises. It states that the
Council will seek to re-use of develop them for similar or related uses, except in certain circumstance,
including where they could be used for other purposes without resulting in a shortfall in the supply of
industrial land or premises, where alternative employment generating activity would be more appropriate or
where there is a strong case for rationalising land uses.
Policy DES1 of the First Deposit UDP requires development to respond to its physical context, respect the
character of the area and contribute to local distinctiveness. In assessing whether an application accords
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 in relation to its surroundings.
Policy DES7 requires new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity. It
states that developments which would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of occupiers
of other developments will not be permitted.
Policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the Adopted UDP.
Policy DES13 requires applicants for major developments to demonstrate how their proposal takes account
of the need for good design. The principles of the proposed design, along with an explanation of the
proposal’s layout, density, scale, visual appearance and its relationship to the wider context.
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
Policy H2 relates to the granting of permission for residential development on sites not for housing in the
UDP. In order for permission to be granted, a number of criteria must be met, including development on
brownfield land, accessibility by walking, cycling and public transport and accessibility to shops and
services and consistent with other policies in the UDP.
Policy E5 relates to development within established employment areas. Where non-employment uses are
proposed, a number of criteria must be met. The developer must demonstrate that there is no current or
likely future demand for the site for industrial uses or that there is a strong environmental case for
rationalising land uses.
Policy A10 updates Policy T13 of the Adopted UDP.
I will deal with each of the objections received in turn. Firstly, I do not consider that the creation of a
vehicular access into the site from Holloway Drive would be dangerous. The applicant has demonstrated
that the required visibility splays at the entrance to the site could be achieved. I do not consider that
highway safety would be compromised as a result of the proposed access. I therefore have no objections to
the application on highway grounds.
In terms of the existing sewers and drains, United Utilities would need to be contacted regarding connection
to the existing sewer and I have attached an informative to that effect. However, I have no objections to the
application on drainage grounds.
Turning to the issue of car parking, it is proposed to provide 27 spaces plus three disabled spaces within the
site. The Council’s existing car parking standards are 1.25 spaces per apartment,(34).The replacement UDP
standards are a maximum of 1.5 per dwelling which is in accordance with national Government guidance
contained within PPG13. The application site is located in relatively close proximity to public transport
links and I do not therefore consider the car parking to be insufficient. It is also proposed to provide five
cycle parking spaces in a dedicated covered cycle storage area, in accordance with the Council’s standards.
I therefore consider that the application accords with both national and local policies relating to car parking.
An increase in noise and, to some extent, dirt, during construction is an inevitable consequence of any
development and would be only a temporary issue. I do not consider this to be an issue on which I can place
much weight in the determination of this application. Turning to traffic generation, I consider that any
increase in traffic on the surrounding road network would be minimal and not sufficient to warrant refusal
of the application. As stated above, I have no objections to the application on highway grounds.
The potential impact of a development on property values is not a material consideration in the
determination of planning applications and it is therefore an objection on which I can place no weight.
A total of sixteen trees are to be felled. The Council’s arboricultural officer is of the opinion that the trees
are not worthy of protection as none have a particularly high amenity value or visual impact, and that with
appropriate replacement planting and a comprehensive landscaping scheme, their loss would be acceptable.
The applicant has submitted a tree survey which states that eight of the trees to be felled are in a poor
condition, having been topped or suffering from decay, and are not therefore worthy of retention. Seven
trees, including one sycamore and six poplars, are to be retained by the applicant. On the basis that a total of
eight trees are to be lost to development, I have attached a condition requiring details of the landscaping
scheme, which will include the provision of 23 trees (16 trees to replace those to be lost to development at a
ratio of 2 for 1, in addition to the 7 to be retained) to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
of the development. The applicant has confirmed in writing that it is agreeable to the provision of this
number of trees within the site.
The proposed building would be sited approximately 25m from the gable wall of the closest residential
property, 2 Glynrene Drive. Whilst there would be habitable room widows in the west elevation of the
proposed building, this distance greatly exceeds the Council’s interface standard and I do not therefore
consider that the proposal would result in overlooking or loss of privacy for the residents of Glynrene Drive,
or the future residents of the proposed building. I therefore consider that the proposal accords with Policy
DEV1 of the Adopted UDP and Policy DES7 of the First Deposit UDP.
Finally, I turn to the issue of the design of the building. The applicant has provided a brief statement
providing details of the proposed design, in accordance with Policy DES13 of the First Deposit UDP. It
states that the design proposed is similar to that of the applicant’s recent Moorside Court development on
Moorside Road, which it considers to be a successful and well-designed scheme. It emphasises that the
surrounding area is not uniform in character and is not within a Conservation Area or adjacent to a listed
building. There is a mixture of building types, styles and heights in the locality and the applicant asserts that
the development would add interest and diversity to the area. I agree with this assertion. Whilst the majority
of the surrounding residential properties are two storey, I do not consider that a three storey building would
be out of context. Rather, I consider that differing building heights can add interest and variety to the street
scene. I therefore consider that the application accords with Policy DEV2 of the adopted UDP and DES1 of
the First Deposit UDP.
The applicant has taken the comments of the Police Architectural Liaison Officer into account. In terms of
security, the applicant is reluctant to install security gates which could lead to traffic queuing on Holloway
Drive. Further, it considers that such gates would present the wrong impression of the development and in
turn cause anxiety about security in the area. However, in order to address security, it is proposed to equip
each car parking space with a galvanised steel, declinable and lockable post, which it considers will address
the Police ALO’s security concerns. The main entrances to the building are from the car park. In his advice,
the Police ALO highlighted that the residents’ parking spaces and amenity space would be accessible from
public areas. I do not however consider this to be a matter of concern, as this is a factor of most residential
development, including traditional housing.
The applicant has submitted a letter from the proprietor of Grays Colour Labs in order to address the issue
of the loss of an existing employment site for residential development. This states that the site has been in
decline for a number of years, particularly since the advent of digital photography. It is a small family
enterprise, employing only one none-family member of staff, who wishes to devote more time to his own
business in a different part of the country. No member of the family wishes to take over the business and the
owner intends to retire in the near future, at which point the business would no longer exist. On the above
basis, the closure of the business appears inevitable and the level of job loss as a result would be negligible.
Furthermore, the appropriateness of the site for alternative employment uses must be questioned,
particularly given the residential properties nearby. I therefore consider that, in this case, loss of
employment land is not a matter to be afforded significant weight. The application would result in the re-use
of a previously developed site in an accessible location and is appropriate and consistent with the relevant
policies of the UDP.
In conclusion, I consider the proposal to constitute an appropriate re-use for a site which is to become
vacant in the near future. The application would accord with the relevant policies of the Adopted and First
Deposit UDPs. I have no objections to the application on highway grounds and I therefore recommend
approval.
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be used
for the walls and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Director of Development Services before development is started. The
scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences and boundary and
surface treatment. As part of the scheme, a total of 23 trees shall be provided within the site, the species
of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior
to the commencement of development. The approved scheme 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.
5. Standard Condition F03X Surfacing
6. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface
water drainage from car parking shall be passed through trapped gullies with an overall capacity
compatible with the site being drained.
7. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme for the amenity area,
including details of surfacing, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to occupation of the first
apartment.
8. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall undertake and assessment to
determine the external noise levels from surrounding roads, trains and industrial uses that the proposed
residential elements will be subjected to (daytime and night). The developer shall detail what steps are
to be taken to mitigate the disturbance from the above. The assessment shall have due regard to the
Department of the Environment Guidance PPG 24 - Planning and Noise and also BS 4142 1997 Rating industrial nose affecting mixed residential and industrial areas. The building envelope shall be
capable of attenuating the external noise to BS8233 (Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings
- Code of practice) and World Health Organisation recommendations for a reasonable standard for
living rooms / sleeping accommodation. The assessment and mitigation measures shall be submitted
for the approval of Development Services prior to the commencement of development. Any approved
mitigation measures are to be implemented prior to occupation.
Prior to discharge of this condition, a Completion Report shall be submitted to the LPA for approval.
The Completion Report shall validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
with those agreed by the LPA.
9. Prior to the 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, focusing primarily
on risks to human health and 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.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to
the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works
undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.
(Reasons)
1. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R013A Use of parking areas
6. To prevent pollution of water environment
7. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
8. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
9. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is advised to contact United Utilities regarding connection to the sewer
2. Any facilities for the storage of chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by
impervious bund walls, details of which shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for
approval. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank
plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound should be at least equivalent to 110% of the
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
capacity of the largest tank, or 25% of the total combined capacity of the interconnected tanks,
whichever is the greatest. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the
bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or
underground strata. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from
accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge
downwards into the bund.
APPLICATION No:
03/46063/FUL
APPLICANT:
Makro Self Service Wholesalers Ltd
LOCATION:
Makro Store Liverpool Road Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Erection of roof canopy, motorised curtains and erection of perimeter
fence for garden centre
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 south-west and the existing main
building to the North.
Makro is a wholesaler offering a food and non-food product mix to it's registered card-holding customers in
a national network of cash and carries. It is a unique out of town food and non-food concept, offering a
wholesale solution to professional business needs, and therefore does not involve visiting members of the
‘public’.
This proposal is for the erection of a roof canopy, motorised curtains and erection of perimeter fence for an
existing garden centre. The existing garden centre (to the south of the main building) gained planning
permission in 1986 and the ‘land-use’ therefore does not form part of this application.
The proposal comprises the following detail:
 A concrete base
 Galvanised steel ‘pylon’ posts, up to 3.606m high
 Galvanised steel mesh panels from post to post, up to a height of 3.075m from the concrete base
 Green knitted polyester windbreak around the mesh panels
 Razor security wire running on top of the fencing around the whole perimeter, up to 3.505m in
height, and 160.1m in length
 Canopy to cover an area of 1,360sq.m and coloured white
 Motorised curtains 3.2m in height, fire-retardant, and coloured green
 Pedestrian entrance to rear service area (see plan C1320B/02)
Total floorspace (covered by the roof canopy) is 1,360sq.m within a garden centre area (application site) of
approx. 1,990sq.m. The main building (single-storey) is 12,707sq.m and the site is 70,225sq.m.
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
SITE HISTORY
In May 2003, the Panel were minded to approve an application for the 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, (00/45766/FUL), subject to the applicant entering into a
legal agreement.
In 2001, planning permission was granted for the erection of a three-storey office building together with
landscaping, 141 car parking spaces, alteration to existing vehicular access and associated works
(00/41358/FUL).
In 1986, planning permission was granted for the provision of a garden centre enclosure and additional
car-parking facilities (E/20315).
There have been a number of other minor applications on this site, which I do not consider to be principally
relevant to this proposal.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 29th May 2003.
A site notice was erected on 14th May 2003.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
Park Hall Farm
The Cottage, Park Hall Farm
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/Barton
Other policies:
EC4 – Improvements to Employment Areas
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV3 – Alterations/Extensions
DEV4 – Design & Crime
DEV5 – Equality of Access
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
Other policies:
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES8 – Alterations and Extensions
DES11 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The Panel is informed that the main policies relating to this application are DEV1 (development criteria),
DEV2 (good design), and DEV3 (extensions). These policies identify a range of criteria including, location,
size and scale, relationship to surrounding area, likely scale of traffic generation, parking provision,
servicing access, visual appearance, landscaping, materials, and relationship to the original building.
With regard to siting and design, I am satisfied that the extension has been designed to a good standard
appropriate to this prominent position. The locality is within a non-residential area, close to the greenbelt,
and also does not overlook any adjacent buildings or property, as well as being very well screened with
shrubbery with regards views from outside the site, such as from the adjacent golf course to the South. The
use of a curved roof (four bays) and the use of green knitted polyester windbreak panels would contribute
positively to the appearance and help the development fit in alongside the large shrubs to the south of the
application site (also within the Makro site).
Other important policies include DEV4 (design & crime), and DEV5 (equality of access). I consider that
this development incorporates sufficient security provision with a fence 3.606m high, and fully enclosing
the garden centre site with three fire exits and one goods entrance to the south. This proposal would also
help prevent vandalism or burglary of goods potentially attractive for crime.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The development hereby approved shall relate to plan C1320B/02 and the six illustrations submitted
with the application.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/46084/FUL
APPLICANT:
Eccles College
LOCATION:
Eccles College Chatsworth Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a two storey extension to existing teaching block
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land at Eccles College, a further education establishment situated at the end of
Chatsworth Road to the north of Ellesmere Park. The College is set within large grounds comprising sports
pitches, parking areas and areas of unused land and is bounded by the former Swinton sewage works to the
north and west, a golf course to the north and east, Wentworth High School to the south east and residential
development to the south. The College currently has approximately 1,200 students and has a catchment
area that extends throughout the City of Salford and beyond into Wigan, Bolton and Manchester.
An earlier application was approved for the redevelopment and erection of a two storey extension to the
college. Planning permission is now sought for the erection of an additional two storey extension to the
already approved new teaching block. The applicant states that this proposal will replace the existing
temporary teaching accommodation at the site. The extension has the same design and proportions as the
existing approved teaching block and would be sited between the existing college buildings and the sports
hall & car park. The applicant states that the design encourages energy conservation and that building
materials would be sourced from sustainable environments. There are some160 on site parking spaces for
the college.
A Travel Plan has been submitted by the applicants in support of the application. The travel plan (Green
Travel Plan) explains its aims and objectives being in accordance with national and local planning policies
with the thrust designed to reduce travel to the college by private car and increase travel by walking,
cycling, car sharing and public transport.
SITE HISTORY
Members will recall that in March 1996 an outline application for the provision of a sports centre and all
weather pitch was submitted by the College (96/35079/OUT). It was resolved to approve this application
subject to a Section 106 legal agreement relating to traffic calming measures. This agreement was never
entered into and the application was subsequently withdrawn.
More recently planning permission was granted in May 2001 for the erection of six temporary classrooms
(01/42256/FUL). This permission was granted for a period of two years only.
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
Also in 2001, planning permission was granted for the erection of a two storey teaching block, sports hall
with changing facilities, replacement of existing shale pitch with an all weather pitch and erection of six
floodlights (00/41482/FUL).
In 2002, planning permission was granted for the relocation of temporary classroom accommodation
(02/44298/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Ellesmere Park Residents Association – No objections subject to the temporary construction access being
temporary
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
1A, 1B, 1 –11 odd Bradford Road
59 & 84 Cavendish Road
2 – 40 even Chatsworth Road
1 – 45 odd Chatsworth Road
A press notice was published on the 15th May 2003.
Site notice was displayed on 9th May 2003.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received four representations in response to the application publicity. I have received three letters of
objection, the main issues identified are as follows:
Object to the increase in student numbers and subsequent pressure on parking and access in the
area.
Object to the proposed temporary access and impact on trees.
I have also received one letter of support for the extension to the teaching facilities.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, SC7 Adult, Higher and Further
Education
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, DES8 Alterations and Extensions, EHC1 Provision and
Improvement of Education, Health and Community Facilities, ECH2 Retention of Existing Education,
Health and Community Facilities, A1 Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policies SC7, EHC1 and EHC2 supports the improvement of further education establishments. Policies
DEV1, DEV2, DES1 and DES8 require that development proposals are appropriate to the site in terms of
scale, size, mass, design and do not impinge on surrounding amenity. Policies A1 and DEV5 require the
submission of a travel plan where a development may give rise to transport implications and require the
improvement of accessibility by public transport, cycling and walking.
I am satisfied that the proposed size and siting of the extension is appropriate to the size of the site and to the
existing and already approved planning permissions on the site. I am also satisfied that the design will
match recent developments on the site and will be to a good design standard with the use of red cedar
timber, metal cladding and coloured render. I consider the proposal to be in accordance with policies
DEV1, DEV2, DES1 and DES8. I am also satisfied that the extension will benefit the educational facilities
on the site and will be in accordance with policies SC7, EHC1 and EHC2.
With regard to the objection over the increase in traffic, at present as Members will be aware there is a
demand from students and teachers of the College amongst others for on street parking in the area,
especially around the top end of Chatsworth Road. This proposed extension would replace temporary
teaching accommodation so student numbers would remain constant although the good standard of
accommodation proposed may in the future be a reason for an increase in student numbers. The travel plan
submitted promotes measures for staff, students and visitors to utilise other means of travel to and from the
site other than the private car. I am satisfied with the measures and ongoing monitoring and review
proposed to reduce travel to the site by private car. I suggest that the travel plan is controlled through a
condition attached to a planning approval and that as a result the demand for on street parking at the top of
Chatsworth Road will be reduced.
Regarding the objections and concerns over the time period and actual undertaking of a temporary site
access to undertake construction of previously approved planning permissions at Cavendish Road I can
confirm that a temporary access here to implement existing planning permissions is permitted development
under the General Permitted Development Order, 1995. The applicant advises that construction will take
approximately twelve months.
The extension would be situated centrally within the site and I am satisfied that the proposed extension is to
a good design standard and would not have a negative impact upon any surrounding residential amenity. I
consider the extension will improve educational facilities at the College. I also consider that the monitoring
and implementation of the green travel plan will decrease the amount of people travelling to and from the
College by private car. I recommend planning permission is granted subject to the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The Travel Plan dated May 2003 submitted in support of this application shall be implemented and
monitored and targets met in accordance with the details within the plan.
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
3. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. To ensure that the site is accessed in a sustainable manner in accordance with policy A1 of the
proposed alterations to the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and PPG13.
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding details
of drainage.
APPLICATION No:
03/46140/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr Shahed Hussain
LOCATION:
25 Chapel Road Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Retention of 2.2m high and 1.2m high boundary fencing and replace
existing single garage with the erection of detached double garage at the
rear (re-submission of planning application 02/45111/HH)
WARD:
Irlam
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a corner semi-detached property in a residential area. To the side and rear of the
property is an unadopted track that leads from Chapel Road to Liverpool Road, Irlam.
The proposal is for the retention of a 2.2m high fence to the side and rear boundary and a 1.2m fence on the
side and front boundary and the erection of a double garage. The fencing along the side boundary is 2.2m
high up to the front elevation of the property, forward of the building line it would be reduced in height to
1.2m. The 2.2m high fencing is waynelap and the 1.2m high fencing is a picket fence.
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
The garage would measure 5.6m X 5.6m with a height of 2.3m, it would be positioned in the rear corner of
the rear garden with a pebble dash finish. The garage doors would face the unadopted passageway with
entrance gates directly facing on the side boundary.
SITE HISTORY
In February 2003 a planning application for a similar proposal was withdrawn due to concern about the
height of the fencing to the front of the property. It was 2.2m high and has now been reduced to 1.2m.
(02/45111/HH)
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
16, 13-21 (odds), 27 and 29 Chapel Road
234 and 236 Liverpool Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified
are as follows:
The alleyway to the side of the property has been reduced from 12ft to 9ft
The proposed garage should not be used for commercial purposes
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 Alterations and Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 states that planning permission will not be granted for extensions that have an unacceptable adverse
impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance loss
of light or privacy nor would it have an unacceptably adverse impact on the character of the street scene,
this is re-iterated in policy DES7.
Adjacent to the side boundary of the application site is an unadopted highway. The applicant has provided
land registry details stating that the passageway should be 9ft wide. The applicant has erected the fence on
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
land in his ownership and has left a passageway of 9ft. Land ownership is not a planning consideration
however I am satisfied that the proposal has been erected in accordance with the land registry details.
The application is a householder application for the erection of a garage. If the garage is used for business
purposes in future appropriate action would be taken at this time.
The fencing to the front of the property has been reduced in line with previous highway comments,
therefore I have no objection on highway grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The gates hereby permitted shall open inwards ONLY.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Please note this permission only relates to the garage being used for domestic purposes.
2. Please note that this permisison relates to the amended plan received on the 2nd June 2003 that shows
the position of the garage entrance gates on the side boundary.
APPLICATION No:
03/46149/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr P Lynch
LOCATION:
9 The Pingot Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
3rd July 2003
Irlam
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a semi-detached property on The Pingot, Irlam. The proposal is for a two-storey
side extension. The extension would be 3m wide and would be built flush with the front and rear walls of
the existing dwelling at ground floor level. The first floor element would be set back 0.5m from the front
wall and be flush with the rear main wall. There would be a large window at first floor level on the gable of
the extension towards the rear of the property, and habitable rooms in the front elevation of the extension.
There would be a pitched roof.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
11, 5, 7 The Pingot
11 and 13 Fiddlers Lane.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 2 letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified are
as follows:
Loss of privacy to garden.
Loss of sunlight in garden.
Negative impact on outlook.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV8 - House Extensions
DEV3 – Alterations/Extensions.
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DES7- Amenity of Users and Neighbours.
DES8- Alterations and Extensions.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 of the Unitary Development Plan states that permission would be granted if the extension would not
have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking,
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light. DES7 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan
Policy supports this.
DEV3 of the Unitary Development Plan states that alterations or extension should respect the general scale,
style, proportion and materials of the original structure and to complement the general character of the
surrounding area. They should also respect the amenities of neighbouring residents with regard to privacy,
daylight, sunlight and outlook. DES8 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan supports DEV3 of the
Unitary Development Plan.
The first objection is that the extension would cause loss of privacy to a neighbouring garden at the side of
the property, due to the window in the gable of the extension. The Supplementary Planning Guidance for
House extensions states that windows will not be permitted close to or directly overlooking a neighbour’s
garden. I do not consider that the window would be directly overlooking the neighbour’s garden as the
house is set at a 90-degree and the main area of the neighbour’s garden is at the rear of their property
approximately 15m from the proposed window and not at the side. Therefore I consider there would not be
a significantly detrimental impact on the privacy in this garden.
A further objection is that the extension would cause loss of light to the garden of the property to the rear.
The extension would be built 8.6m from the boundary between these two properties and as a result, I do not
consider that the extension would cause a significantly detrimental loss of light to this garden area.
The final objection is that the neighbour would be looking out on more bricks and as a result, their view
would be negatively affected. I do not consider that the extension would have a significant detrimental
impact on the view from the property at the rear, as the extension is not proposed directly opposite the
dwelling or any windows therein. Therefore I consider the extension would not have a significantly
detrimental impact on the amenity of these neighbours.
I therefore recommend the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the brickwork and roofing of the development shall be the same
type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/46150/FUL
APPLICANT:
North West Domestics
LOCATION:
355/363 Liverpool Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey rear extension (re-submission of planning
application 03/45399/FUL)
WARD:
Barton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land at the rear of 355-363 Liverpool Road, Eccles (total site area is approx.
918sq.m), which presently comprises four terrace shops combined into one store, for sale of
furniture/domestic goods. There are four flats upstairs and parking for up to 3 cars/ small vans as existing.
The proposal is for a single-storey rear extension of approx. 146sq.m to connect to the existing shop.
Materials proposed include profile roof sheets and brick. Access to the rear of the site is via Eldon Place,
which is largely residential with flats and semi’s.
The site is located in between Peel Green and Patricroft (not within a specified district centre), along
Liverpool Road, which is predominantly retail but with many adjoining residential streets, and two
churches opposite.
The Panel is informed that the main differences between this application and that previously refused in
March 2003, is that the applicant has increased the size of the loading/service bay.A passageway would
remain at the rear. There is no turning area provided, thus any vehicles would be unable to enter and leave
the site in forward gear.
SITE HISTORY
In 2003, planning permission was refused for the erection of a single-storey rear extension at in March 2003
(03/45399/FUL), for the following reasons:
1)
The proposed development without the provision of off street parking would result in on street parking to
the serious detriment of residential amenity and highway safety contrary to Policy T13 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
2)
The proposed positioning and layout of the servicing provision is substandard and would lead to conditions
prejudicial to highway safety contrary to Policy T13 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan.
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
In 2001, planning permission was granted for the erection of a single-storey extension at rear of existing
shop (01/42093/FUL).
In 2000, planning permission was recommended for the retention of a 2.4m high fence at the rear of
355-361 Liverpool Road. This was approved at committee in 2000 (00/40362/FUL).
In 1998, planning permission was granted for the erection of a single-storey rear extension to provide sales
and storage area (98/38038/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections but recommends condition to restrict any external plant
noise.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 20th May 2003.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:
333 & 365-367(o) Liverpool Road
9-23(o) Eldon Place
4-12(e) Eldon Place
1 Woodfield Grove
Church of the Holy Cross
The Church of Jesus Christ of Laterday Saints
Flats above: 356-363(o), 358-362(e) Liverpool Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:
-
Loss of residential amenity
Materials do not match existing building
No shutters should be allowed
One HGV visits the site every day
Land at rear is part of an adopted public right of way
Parking is insufficient – parking required for customers, residents of flats, employees, owners
of NW Domestics
Servicing is inadequate
Yellow lines should stay during business hours
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
EC7 – industry & commerce in residential areas
T3 - highways
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
T9 - equality of access
T13 – car parking
DEV1 – development criteria
DEV2 – good design
DEV3 - alterations/extensions
DEV4 – design & crime
DEV5 – equality of access
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
ST3 – Employment Supply
ST9 – Retail, Leisure, Social and Community Provision
ST16 – Sustainable Waste Management
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 – Alterations and Extensions
DES11 – Design & Crime
S1 – Provision of New Retail and Leisure Development
A8 – Impact of Development on Highway Network
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy T13 specifies that adequate parking provision must be made within the curtilage of the site, such as
for the provision of company vehicles, staff parking, visitors, and for residents in upper floor flats. Plans
submitted show a larger service bay, reducing the need for lorries to park on the highway.
The proposed car park layout would not allow access to all the spaces. The proposed servicing
arrangements are limited to an area measuring 11.65m by 4m off Eldon Place but with poor sight lines and
inadequate radii. I consider the applicant has failed to show provision of a visibility splay following the
previous application, and feel concerned as to the safety issue of cars/vans reversing onto a residential street
at Eldon Place.
Objectors have pointed out the negative impact of the development within a residential area. However,
Liverpool Road has a long established retail emphasis and is itself a major highway between Eccles Town
Centre and the M60. While there is no policy specifically relating to retail in ‘residential areas’, I consider
this to be a material consideration with regard to policy DEV1 (Development Criteria) and policy EC7
(Industry and Commerce in Residential Areas) which identifies that proposals are unacceptable if they have
an unacceptable affect on the character, environment, or amenity of these areas. Here I consider that more
can be done to ensure the proposal is acceptable to this locality, with particular regard to parking problems
and servicing arrangements.
Objections include reference to materials and roller shutters, however the plans submitted do not show any
roller shutters and the applicant has specified that the profile sheets and brickwork will match the existing
building.
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
With regards policy DEV3 (extensions), I consider the proposal to be of an acceptable scale and height
(single storey). The applicant has also specified the materials will match the existing structure.
I have also investigated the availability of former highway land to the rear of 355-363 Liverpool Road (in
between no.s 2 and 4 Eldon Place. There is an existing palisade fence, which cuts off a section of the
adopted highway (although the applicant has specified intention to remove this as part of the application).
When the application for retention of this fence was approved in March 2000 (00/40362/FUL), an
informative was included that advised the applicant to apply for the closure of the said highway; there is no
evidence that closure has been obtained. On the issue of the closure of the highway this could only be
supported providing there is adequate provision for parking and turning capacity within the site. I have
concluded that this is not the case
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development without the provision of adequate off-street parking would result in on
street parking to the serious detriment of residential amenity and highway safety contrary to Policy T13
of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
2. The proposed positioning and layout of the servicing provision is sub-standard and would lead to
conditions prejudicial to highway safety contrary to Policy T13 of the adopted City Of Salford Unitary
Development Plan
APPLICATION No:
03/46175/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Jones
LOCATION:
48 Clifton Drive Wardley Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Construction of dormer extension in roofspace at rear of dwelling
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
The application relates to a semi-detached property on Clifton Drive in Wardley. The proposal is to
construct a dormer extension in the roof space at the rear of the dwelling. The dormer would be set down
from the ridge, up from the eaves and would be built flush with each side of the dwelling.
SITE HISTORY
In October 2002, planning permission was refused for a rear dormer extension as it was considered the
dormer would be overlooking to the properties at the rear due to the distance between the habitable room
windows being less than the recommended distance in the City’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for
House Extensions. It was therefore found to be contrary to DEV8 of the City’s Unitary Development Plan.
(02/44738/HH).
In March 2002, planning permission was granted for a rear dormer extension. The dormer was set further
back from the eaves than in the previous application giving the minimum separation between properties as
recommended in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions. The dormer was
set in from each side of the roof, down from the ridge and up from the eaves as also recommended in the
guidelines. (03/45545/HH)..
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
46 and 50 Clifton Drive
23, 25 and 27 Worcester Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified are
as follows:


Reduction in privacy.
Devalue sale potential of the dwelling.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions.
DEV3 – Alterations / Extensions.
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours.
DES8 – Alterations and Extensions.
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 of the Unitary Development Plan states that permission would be granted if the extension would not
have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking,
overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light. DES7 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan
Policy supports this.
DEV3 of the Unitary Development Plan states that alterations or extensions should respect the general
scale, proportion and materials of the original structure and to complement the general character of the
surrounding area. They should also respect the amenities or the neighbouring residents with regard to
privacy, daylight, sunlight and outlook. DES8 of the First Deposit Replacement Plan supports this.
The first objection is that the extension at the rear of the dwelling would have a negative impact on the
privacy of the neighbours to the rear. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance states that there
should be a minimum distance of 21m maintained between habitable room windows. In this case there
would be 21m between the properties. Therefore I do not consider there would be a loss of privacy caused to
the dwellings to the rear, as the proposal would meet with the Council’s guidelines.
The dormer would be in keeping with the surrounding area as many houses along this street have similar
extensions and the impact of the dormer is reduced as it is sighted at the rear of the property. This should be
considered a material consideration to the application.
The final objection is that there would be a reduction in the value of the property. This is not a planning
consideration.
As the extension would maintain the recommended distance to the habitable room windows in the
properties to the rear, I recommend the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the brickwork and roofing of the development shall be the same
type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/46187/FUL
APPLICANT:
United Utilities Plc
LOCATION:
Land To The Rear Of Pendlebury Health Centre Queensway Clifton
Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Construction of access road and control building for pumps to UID
detention tank
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of the former residential accommodation on Clifton Green. United
Utilities are seeking to improve the existing Unsatisfactory Intermittent Discharge (UID) sewage system in
the area. The purpose of which is to prevent pollution ‘spillage events’ to open watercourses. The scheme
in this locality is to construct a detention tank and new below ground screening chamber. These works are
to be implemented under permitted development rights as a Statutory Undertaker (Schedule 2, Part 16 of
the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995.
A necessity of the scheme is the construction of an access road, gate and control building for which
planning permission is sought. The access road would be provided off Queensway to the east of the
existing bus lay-by. A control building measuring 3.1m X 5.9m with a pitched roof at a height of 3.9m to be
located 20m from the back of the footpath.
United Utilities have advised that there will be no noise output associated with this process.
The site has already been cleared of the self seeded trees.
CONSULTATIONS
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed 27th May 2003
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
EN17 Croal Irwell Valley, R11 Provision of Country Parks, EN5 Nature
Conservation
DEV1 Development Criteria
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
R4 Key Recreation Areas, EN6 Irwell Valley, EN7 Nature Conservation
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 determining
applications. These factors include the relationship to existing and proposed land uses, the effect on
neighbours and the visual appearance of the development and its relationship to its surroundings.
The site specific policies seek the retention of trees, woodlands and the protection of wildlife. The
replacement plan policies are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this development.
Therefore, the main planning issues to consider is the reinstatement of the site, furthermore, control
buildings are often the target of vandalism.
The applicant’s agent has proposed a brick built structure as the most suitable in areas likely to be targeted
by vandals. I have attached a condition requiring the materials to be approved in writing prior to the
commencement of development to ensure that the materials used are suitable for cleaning, should it be
subject to graffiti.
None of the trees which have already been removed were the subject of a Preservation Order. However, the
site is on the fringe of the Croal Irwell Valley and Nature Conservation Area and although none of the trees
were worthy of preservation, they did offer a ‘green wedge’. The majority of the works proposed are
underground and do not require planning consent.
Therefore, once the works have taken place and a suitable reinstating landscaping scheme implemented, I
am of the opinion that site will continue to offer the benefits that the policies contained within both UDP’s
seek to protect.
RECOMMENDATION:
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be used
for the walls and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
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 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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R042A Character- (DEV2)
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/46194/FUL
APPLICANT:
New Prospect Housing
LOCATION:
Six Streets To North Of Manchester Road East To Include Oakfield
Drive, Highgate Lane, Highgate Drive, Belcroft Drive, Belcroft Grove
And Brookhurst Lane Little Hulton Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Environmental improvements to provide in-curtilage parking and
gates, off street parking bays with out gates, short lengths of kneerail
and 1.1m high timber fencing
WARD:
Little Hulton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
This application relates to proposed environmental and security improvements in the vicinity of Oakfield
Drive, Highgate Lane, Belcroft Drive and Brookhurst Lane, a large residential area..
This proposal would provide new driveways, drop crossing and gates to the following properties; 3, 5, 50,
51, 53, 57, 59 and 67 Highgate Lane; 1,3,4 and 5 Highgate Drive; 1 – 5, 12 – 15, 17, 21, 28 and 36 Oakfield
Drive; 1, 6, 9,11, 14, 16, 17 – 20, 22, 24 and 30 Belcroft Drive and 4 Brookhurst Lane. The drives would
vary in length from 5.5m to 6.8m and would be enclosed by modern steel gates 0.975m in height. Numbers
7 and 38 Oakfield Drive would have new gates and drop crossings only. The design of the gates are
identical for all properties, however, the length of the driveway determines the type of gate used.
Further to the provision of individual driveways, this proposal would also provide;
two separate blocks of six communal spaces, including knee rails and landscaping on Highgate Lane and
Brockhurst Lane. Four similar communal spaces and knee rail would also be provided on Belcroft Grove.
SITE HISTORY
In 1999, planning permission was granted for the creation of communal parking areas and replacement of
timber fencing and gates (02/43613/DEEM3)
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
5 – 47 (odd), 2 – 32 (eve) Belcroft Drive
1 – 6 Belcroft Grove
1 – 31 (odd), 2 – 28 (eve) Brookhurst Lane
60 – 108 (eve), 51 – 75 (odd) Captain Fold Road
1 – 8 (con) Green Avenue
53 & 55, 86 – 108 (eve) Greenheys Road
1 – 7 (odd), 2 – 4 (eve) Highgate Drive
1 – 21, 35 - 69 (odd), 2 – 50, 62 & 64, Manse, Wharton United Reformed Church, Highgate Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV1 – Development Criteria
H2 – Maintaining and Improving Public Sector Housing
DEV4 Design and Crime
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DES1 Respecting Context, DES11 Design and Crime, H3 Housing Improvement
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan Policy DEV1 states that in determining planning applications the City Council
should pay due regard to a number of issues, including the visual appearance of a development; the amount,
design and layout of car parking provision, landscaping and open space provision and the impact on trees
within or adjacent to the development site. In addition, Policy H2 states that the City Council will seek to
maintain and improve public sector housing stock through improving security, improving the general
housing environment and through the provision of adequate car parking facilities. Policy DEV4 states that
the City Council will encourage greater consideration of crime prevention and personal and property
security.
The replacement plan policies update and are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
This proposal, along with 03/46256/FUL and 03/46257/FUL, remodels parts of the estate in line with
Policy DEV4 and both Government and Police advice regarding security issues. The development will lead
to a improvement in the housing environment in the area. The proposed improvements will improve
security for residents, and will also improve car parking facilities through the introduction of additional off
street communal parking. No trees would be affected by this proposal and two new trees would be
incorporated into the landscaping around the blocks of six communal parking spaces.
I have no highway objections.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
03/46198/FUL
APPLICANT:
E Burke
LOCATION:
488 Worsley Road Winton Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Retention of use as sunbed/beauty salon, erection of single storey
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
extensions to front/side/rear of premises, installation of new shop front,
alterations to first floor front elevation (Resubmission of
03/45484/FUL)
WARD:
Winton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to an end terraced property at the junction of Worsley Road with Forest Street.
Planning permission is sought for single-storey extensions to the rear and side. The rear extension would
project 5.0 metres and would be 5.4 metres in width, the side element of the extension, adjacent to Forest
Street, would be 1.7 metres in width by 5.6 metres. A double entrance door and fire exit would be provided
on the Forest Street elevation. The extension is to be used as an ancillary hair salon.
A new shop front projecting 0.8m from the front of the property is also proposed. Roller shutters would be
installed to the shopfront, side entrance and fire exit. The windows at first floor level to the front of the
building would be bricked up and painted to match the existing elevation. Three car parking spaces have
been identified to the rear of the proposed extension. Planning permission is also sought for the retention of
the use of the property at ground and first floor as a sunbed/beauty salon. The proposed hours of operation
are 10am to 9pm. Two to three new staff would be employed as a result of the proposal, in addition there are
four existing staff employed at the premises.
The property is located within a predominantly residential area. The adjoining semi-detached property (490
Worsley Road) is at a lower level of approximately 0.2 metres. Forest Street forms the boundary of the
Westwood Park key local centre.
SITE HISTORY
97/37298/COU - Change of use from retail to Chinese traditional health centre. Approved December 1997.
03/45484/FUL - Erection of extensions to front and rear of shop premises and canopy to side elevation.
Application Withdrawn.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – If the car parking area is fitted with spotlight/security lights, then care
and attention should be made to the positioning and angling of these devices so that they do not cause a
disamenity to surrounding residents.
The Coal Authority – No comments to date.
PUBLICITY
Site Notice displayed 2nd June 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
486, 490, 459, 461 Worsley Road
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
37, 39 Cambrai Crescent
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application. The main issues identified are as
follows:
extension to rear will dwarf and be dominant over rear garden at 490 Worsley Road
front extension will detract from appearance of property and dwarf front entrance to 490 Worsley
Road
the increase in traffic in and out of Forest Street will create hazards to pedestriansand cause
problems on emerging onto Worsley Road
the guttering will overlap onto garden side of 490 Worsley Road
it is unclear whether front extension will fall on 488 side of boundary wall or if it is intended to
remove part of that boundary wall
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV3 – Alterations and Extensions
T13 – Car Parking
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 – Alterations and Extensions
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV2 seeks to ensure a high standard of design in new developments and
policy DEV1 states that regard will be had to a number of factors in determining applications for planning
permission including the visual appearance of the development and the effect on sunlight, daylight and
privacy for neighbouring properties. Policy DEV3 requires all applications for extensions to respect the
general scale, style, proportion and materials of the original structure and to complement the general
character of the surrounding area. Policy T13 states that the City Council will ensure that adequate and
appropriate car parking is provided. The policies of the First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP are generally
similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this development.
Members should be aware that a previous application for planning permission (03/45484/FUL) proposing a
larger extension which would have projected onto Forest Street, in addition to providing car parking spaces
on Forest Street, was considered by this Panel in April 2003. Concern was raised in relation to the impeding
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
of vehicular access and the effect on highway safety - the planning application was subsequently
withdrawn. This planning application presently under consideration represents an amended scheme and the
elements which raised highway safety concerns have been deleted.
With regards to the objections raised, I consider that the main areas of concern relate to the appearance and
siting of the extension and its effect on the residents living in the adjoining property and highway safety
issues. The proposed rear extension would extend 5 metres along the boundary with the dwelling at 490
Worsley Road. The garden area of 490 Worsley Road extends 12.8 metres from the outrigger. There is a
timber fence of 1.8 to 1.9 metres in height on the common boundary. The ridge height of the proposed
extension would be 3.8 metres, but the roof would slope down towards the adjoining property and as such it
would be approximately 0.7 metres above the height of the boundary fence. There are no windows to the
outrigger of 490 Worsley Road at ground floor level. Given the height and position of the proposed
extension, I do not consider that there would be any significant loss of light or sunshine to the rear of the
adjoining dwelling and garden. With regards to land ownership issues, it has already been confirmed that all
of the land within the application site is within the ownership of the Applicant. I do not consider that the
front extension and roller shutter would have any significant detrimental impact on the adjoining property.
I consider that the design of the proposed development and the proposed materials to match the existing
would be appropriate.
The objector is also concerned about an increase in traffic using Forest Street. I do not, however, consider
that the proposal would result in any significant increase in traffic above the existing levels. With regards to
the use of the property as a sunbed/beauty salon, I do not consider that this use would have any detrimental
impact on neighbouring residents, furthermore, the Director of Environmental Services has no objection to
the proposal. The applicant has identified three car parking spaces within the curtilage of the site. I consider
this level of parking provision to be satisfactory in this location adjacent to the key local centre and adjacent
to the Worsley Road bus route.
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. The roller shutters 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.
4. No development shall be started until full details of the materials to be used for the bricking up and
colour treatment of the first floor front windows have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Possible 'building over' of section 24 public sewer may be required - please contact United Utilities. A
culvert runs parallel with the gable wall, therefore deeper foundations may be required to avoid loading
onto the culvert.
2. Any proposed lighting should be erected and directed so as to avoid nuisance to residential
accommodation in close proximity, I would recommend the lighting be designed to provide a standard
maintained illumination (LUX) of between 5 and 20 LUX with the lower level being the preferable one.
Please contact the Director of Environmental Services for further information.
3. The Director of Development Services (Highways Maintenance Section) should be consulted regarding
details of any proposed footway crossings for parking area.
APPLICATION No:
03/46199/FUL
APPLICANT:
United Utilities Ltd
LOCATION:
Former Clifton Green Flats The Green Clifton
PROPOSAL:
Construction of an access road and control buildings for pumps to UID
detention tanks
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of the former residential accommodation on Clifton Green. United
Utilities are seeking to improve the existing Unsatisfactory Intermittent Discharge (UID) sewage system in
the area. The purpose of which is to prevent pollution ‘spillage events’ to open watercourses. The scheme
in this locality is to construct a detention tank and new below ground screening chamber. These works are
to be implemented under permitted development rights as a Statutory Undertaker (Schedule 2, Part 16 of
the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995.
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
A necessity of the scheme is the construction of an access road and control building for which planning
permission is sought. The highway infrastructure and hard standing of the previous three storey residential
blocks is still in existence although the buildings have previously been demolished. This scheme would
provide an additional hard standing leading from the existing access between Rake Lane. A control
building measuring 2.8m X 6.9m with a pitched roof at a height of 4.1m to be located alongside the rear
garden of No.214 Rake Lane. United Utilities have advised that there will be no noise output associated
with this process.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed 27th May 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified :
The Vicarage, St Thomas's Church, Delamere Avenue
1 – 10 Dewes Avenue
1 – 16 (even) Clifton House, The Green
214 – 218 (eve), 227 & 229 Rake Lane
1 – 24 Sumbland House, Rake Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified
are as follows:
Height and proximity
Loss of view
Loss of value
Potential for vandalism
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV1 Development Criteria
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
H9/16 Sites for New Housing
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 determining
applications. These factors include the relationship to existing and proposed land uses, the effect on
neighbours and the visual appearance of the development and its relationship to its surroundings.
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
The replacement plan policies are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development. However, policy H9/16 of the first deposit draft replacement plan identifies this area of The
Green as a site for future housing provision. This housing allocation only covers the area previously
developed.
With regard to the objections that have been received, two have come from occupiers of adjoining
neighbouring properties. The neighbours do not object to the principle of the scheme and I am of the
opinion that the control building is similar in size to a large domestic garage. With regard to the objections
listed I agree that the submitted scheme did represent an a potential opportunity for vandalism which could
impact upon the adjoining residential properties. However, as a result of the amendment that have been
received, which have moved the control building south, approximately 36m from Rake Lane, I consider that
the scheme would not have a detrimental impact upon any of the adjoining properties, would not represent
a loss of view and would not enable potential vandals the opportunity to gain access to the adjoining
neighbouring properties. Loss of commercial value is not a material planning consideration.
Therefore, the main planning issues to consider is the potential for vandalism, the siting of the structure
within a housing allocation and the impact upon The Green.
The applicant’s agent has proposed a brick built structure as the most suitable in areas likely to be targeted
by vandals. I have attached a condition requiring the materials to be approved in writing prior to the
commencement of development to ensure that the materials used are suitable for cleaning, should it be
subject to graffiti. A pitched roof has also been included to reduce the possibility of climbing.
With regard the housing allocation in the draft plan, the control building has been sited alongside the eastern
boundary of The Green. I am of the opinion that this proposal would not be prejudicial to any future
development as the design of control building is similar to that of a detached residential garage and could be
incorporated in to any future scheme. The applicant has also agreed to construct the new access using
‘grasscrete’ and the three trees already felled to facilitate the underground permitted development work
along Rake Lane would be replaced with a two for one replacement.
Once the underground works have been completed and the measures outlined above have been
implemented, I am of the opinion that this proposal would not have any detrimental impact upon The Green
or those residents who surround it.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
2. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be used
for the walls and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
3. For each of the three trees already felled, two replacements shall be planted within 12 months of the
date of completion. The species and location of the replacement trees shall be agreed in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
4. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 19th June 2003 which shows the re-siting
of the control building.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R042A Character- (DEV2)
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
APPLICATION No:
03/46220/HH
APPLICANT:
M Snee
LOCATION:
52 Houghton Lane Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Alteration of existing extension to erect a gable roof
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a semi-detached house. An extension, which has already been approved, is
already under construction and the applicants have erected the single storey rear extension with a gable end
to the roof, rather than the hipped roof that has been approved. Therefore the application is to retain the
gabled roof to the single storey rear extension, as it has been built.
SITE HISTORY
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
In September 2002, planning permission was granted for a two storey side extension with a single storey
rear extension (ref. 02/44515/HH). This was approved under the scheme of delegation as there were no
objections received to the proposal.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
50 & 54 Houghton Lane
21 & 23 Knowsley Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a letter of objection from the occupier of the adjoining property. The grounds of objection
are
the alteration has already been built with total disregard to the existing plans
it has caused a loss of light to their kitchen and looks imposing when viewed from their back
door
the materials used are not suitable match
the standard of workmanship is abysmal, with the wall not being pointed
the pitch of the roof is incorrect
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: 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 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.
In considering this planning application, I am mindful that the two storey side and single storey rear
extension has been granted permission. It is only the alteration to the single storey roof from a hipped end to
a straight gable that is being considered. I do not consider that this small additional amount of brickwork
would have a significant additional impact on the amenity on the neighbouring property, compared to the
size of the extension already approved.
The objector has raised concerns about the quality of the work that has already been done. In response I
would say that the building work is being inspected by the Council’s Building Inspector to ensure that it
complies with the Building Regulations.
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve - unconditional
APPLICATION No:
03/46222/FUL
APPLICANT:
M Rasul
LOCATION:
Tootal Drive Post Office 2 Tootal Road Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey extension to front/side of shop and balcony at
first floor level
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the post office located at the junction of Tootal Road, Weaste Road, Weaste Lane
and Liverpool Street. The proposal is to erect a single-storey extension to the front and side of the property,
the front element would project 2.5 metres and would be 9.0 metres in width and the side extension would
be 3.6 metres by 10.7 metres. The development would extend to the back of the pavement, would be tapered
at the corner and would be single-storey with a flat roof. The first and second floors of the property are in
residential use and it is proposed that the flat roof to the extension is used as balcony. A 0.9 metre high rail
would be erected around the edge of the balcony. The two existing roller shutters would be removed and
repositioned on the front and side elevations of the extension. The existing post box would be removed and
replaced with a wall-mounted box.
The post office is an end-terraced property, the remainder of the terrace is residential. Opposite the site is
the Weaste United Reformed Church and All Souls RC Church. The surrounding area is predominantly
residential.
SITE HISTORY
None.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections.
The Coal Authority – Report on coal mining circumstances provided.
PUBLICITY
Site Notice displayed 2nd June 2003
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
1, 4 Tootal Road
246 Weaste Lane
Weaste United Reform Church, Weaste Lane
The Presbytery, All Souls R C Church, Liverpool Street
10 Park Bank, Liverpool Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified
are as follows:




extension would not look right in the area, the houses and shops in the area cosmetically look the
same
loss of light
car parking at the property already makes it awkward for pedestrians, an extension would make this
situation worse
increase in traffic at busy junction which would increase the risk in crime
I have also received an e-mail of objection from the Housing Services Division stating that the property is
located within the recently declared Weaste Renewal Area and that the proposal would not be appropriate.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV3 – Alterations/Extensions
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES8 – Alterations and Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that regard shall be had to a number of factors in
determining applications for planning permission including the visual appearance of the development and
the effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for neighbouring properties. 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. Policy DEV3 requires all applications for extensions to respect the general
scale, style, proportion and materials of the original structure and to complement the general character of
the surrounding area. The policies of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan are generally similar to
those of the adopted plan, in respect of this development.
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
The objections raised concern loss of light, the appearance of proposed extension in the streetscene, the
effect of the development on car parking and increases in traffic and crime. With regards to car parking
provision, there is no existing customer car parking and no new parking is proposed. There is sufficient
space for one car to park on the forecourt area located at the back of the pavement on Tootal Road. The post
office provides a local facility for surrounding residents and with regard to government guidance contained
within PPG13 - Transport and the First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan, I consider that the
parking/servicing arrangements are satisfactory. Furthermore, I do not consider that the proposal would
result in any significant additional traffic generation or associated increase in crime.
I consider that the main issues for consideration relate to the size, siting and appearance of the proposed
extension. The property is located in prominent position at the junction of several main roads - Tootal Road,
Weaste Road, Weaste Lane and Liverpool Street. The proposed extension would be sited well forward of
the existing building line on Weaste Lane and would be positioned adjacent to the back of the footpath on
both Tootal Road and Weaste Lane. I consider that this siting in such a prominent location, combined with
the poor flat roofed design of the extensions, would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area. The
existing shopfront projects approximately 0.8 metres further than the adjacent dwelling, the proposed
extension would therefore project a total of 3.3 metres from the front wall of 246 Weaste Lane. I consider
that the position of this extension would result in some loss of light to the ground floor bay window of this
dwelling. I am also concerned that the use of the flat roof of the proposed balcony area would result in a loss
of privacy to 246 Weaste Lane, as users of the balcony area would be able to look back into the first floor
bedroom windows of this dwelling.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would be detrimental to the visual amenity of neighbouring residents and
the streetscene generally by reason of its size, design and siting, contrary to policy DEV2 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
2. The size and siting of the proposed development would be overbearing and would result in a loss of
light for the residents of 246 Weaste Lane, contrary to Policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
3. The use of the flat roof of the proposed extension as a balcony area would result in a loss of privacy for
the residents of 246 Weaste Lane, contrary to Policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/46224/HH
APPLICANT:
Mrs D Collins
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
LOCATION:
4 Vicarage Road Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of part first floor and part two storey side and rear extension
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a semi-detached house with an existing attached garage at the end of a row of
semi-detached houses. The side of the applicant’s house faces the rear of houses on Algernon Road
separated by a 3m access road.
The proposal is for the erection of a part first-floor/part two-storey side and rear extension that would result
in a two-storey side and rear extension. The extension would be set back 1.2m from the front of the house
and would extend back 10.6m (3m past the rear main wall). It would project 3.2m from the side of the
house and would extend along the property boundary.
SITE HISTORY
In 1997, planning permission was granted for the erection of an attached garage on the side of the house
(97/36627/HH).
CONSULTATIONS
The Coal Authority – No objections.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
3 Vicarage Road
1-9 (odd) Algernon Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 3 letters of objection from the occupiers of properties on Algernon Road in response to the
application publicity. The main issues identified are as follows:
Loss of light
The proposal represents overbearing development
Trees would have to be removed
Loss of view
The proposal would have a detrimental impact on local property values
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
3rd July 2003
None
DEV8 – House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that development must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of
neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light. This
is reiterated in Policy DES7.
There would be a distance of 14.5m to the habitable room windows (main rear walls) of houses on Algernon
Road. ‘Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions’ requires a separation distance of 13m.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that the proposal would not lead to a significant loss of light or be
over-bearing on these neighbours.
The proposal would result in the removal of several Leylandi trees which form a hedge that is
approximately 4-5m in height. These are not trees that the City of Salford would seek to protect by means
of a Tree Preservation Order. I hold the view that their contribution to the amenity of the area is minimal
and would not, therefore, object to their removal.
With regard to the latter two objections, they are not planning considerations and cannot be taken into
account.
The proposal is in accordance with Council Policy and so I 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)
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Coal Authority.
APPLICATION No:
03/46229/FUL
APPLICANT:
S Roscoe
LOCATION:
22 Shearwater Drive Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a two storey detached dwelling with integral garage and
erection of a detached garage
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land adjacent to 22 Shearwater Drive, Walkden. The application site, to the south
of 22 Shearwater Drive, is currently used as a garden area by the residents of that property. It is currently
grassed and there are two trees on the site which would be felled in order to accommodate the proposal. In
addition, the existing single storey lean-to extension on the south elevation of 22 Shearwater Drive would
be demolished.
It is proposed to erect a detached garage and a two storey detached dwelling with an integral garage. The
proposed detached garage would serve the existing dwelling at 22 Shearwater Drive. It would be 3m wide,
6m in length and 3.4m high with a pitched roof. It would be 1.5m from the rear of 22 Shearwater Drive and
4.8m from the rear boundary. The proposed drive would be 15.5m long.
The proposed dwelling would be sited 3m from the southern elevation of 22 Shearwater Drive, 10.8m from
the boundary with 8 Mere Bank Close and a minimum of 1.4m from the southern boundary. The proposed
dwelling would be 11.7m long and 7m wide. Vehicular access to the proposed dwelling would be achieved
through the creation of a driveway from the existing turning head at the end of Shearwater Drive.
SITE HISTORY
In July 2002, planning permission was granted for the erection of a two storey side extension and a detached
double garage at the side of 22 Shearwater Drive.
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
10,11 Mere Bank Close
20 Shearwater Drive
31, 33 Ellesmere Avenue
30,32 West Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received seven letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues
identified are as follows:
The application would constitute over development of the site
The turning circle would be lost
Increase in the number of vehicles
There would be overlooking and loss of privacy as a result of the application
An additional driveway will be constructed over the Thirlmere Aqueduct
The existing drains are insufficient
The applicant is running a business from 22 Shearwater Drive
The proposed detached garage would be used for commercial purposes
The application would result in a decrease in property values
The proposed dwelling would have a different appearance to the other dwellings in the area
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV3 – Good Design
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria to which regard will be had in the determination of application.
Of relevance to this application are the location and nature of the proposed development including its
relationship to existing and proposed land uses and the effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for
neighbouring properties.
Policy DEV2 states that planning permission will not normally be granted unless the Council is satisfied
with the quality of the design and appearance of the development.
Policy DES1 of the First Deposit UDP requires development to respond to its physical context. In assessing
whether an application accords 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 in relation to its surroundings.
Policy DES7 requires new development to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity, in
terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout. Development which would have an
unacceptable impact on the amenity of occupiers or users of other developments will not be permitted.
I will deal with each of the objections received in turn. Firstly I do not consider that the proposal would
constitute over development of the site. I consider the site to be of a sufficient size to accommodate a single
dwelling such as that proposed. I also consider the principle of the development of the site for residential
purposes to be acceptable. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character and the
application would make use of what is currently an under-used site within the urban area.
There are also concerns regarding the turning circle and the impact of the proposed development on parking
in this area. I have attached a condition requiring a Traffic Regulation Order to be approved and
implemented to restrict parking within the turning head prior to the commencement of the development. A
similar condition was attached to the previous permission for a side extension and detached garage at 22
Shearwater Drive following a request from Members to address concerns relating to car parking on
Shearwater Drive. In terms of traffic generation, the proposal would result in only a slight increase in the
amount of traffic using Shearwater Drive and I do not consider this sufficient to warrant refusal of the
application. I have no objections to the application on highway grounds.
I do not consider that there would be any detrimental impact on residential amenity as a result of this
application. The proposed dwelling would be in the region of 34.8m from 8 Mere Bank Close, which
greatly exceeds the Council’s interface standards relating to facing habitable room windows. There are no
habitable room windows on either gable elevation of the proposed dwelling, or on the gable of 22
Shearwater Drive. 3m would therefore be sufficient separation between the two properties. The proposed
dwelling would be a minimum of 13.1m from the rear of 33 Ellesmere Avenue which also exceeds the
Council’s interface standards. I do not therefore consider that there would be any overlooking or loss of
privacy as a result of the proposal. On the above basis, I consider that the application accords with Policy
DEV1 of the Adopted UDP and Policy DES7 of the First Deposit UDP.
Turning to the issue of the Thirlmere Aqueduct, United Utilities have no objections to the principle of the
development in this location. The applicant is advised to contact United Utilities regarding the location and
conditions of the easement and connection to the water mains. I have no objections to the application on
drainage grounds.
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
The allegations regarding commercial activity at 22 Shearwater Drive have been investigated. Following a
site visit and full assessment of the situation and, I am satisfied there has not been a material change of use
from residential to a mixed residential/commercial use. I do not therefore consider this to be a matter on
which any weight can be attached in the determination of this application. In terms of objections to the
application on the grounds that it will be used by the applicant for commercial purposes, I have attached a
condition which states that the garages and associated driveways shall not be used for commercial purposes.
I therefore consider this to be sufficient to address these concerns.
The potential impact of a development on property values is not a material consideration in the
determination of planning applications and it is therefore an objection on which I can place no weight.
Finally, in terms of the appearance of the proposed dwelling, I have attached a condition requiring samples
of materials for the walls and roof of the proposal to be submitted prior to the commencement of
development. It will therefore be possible to ensure that the materials used will be similar and
complimentary to those of surrounding properties.
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the application complies with the relevant policies of Adopted and First
Deposit UDPs. I have no objections to the proposed development on highway grounds and I therefore
recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the 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.
3. The garages and associated driveways hereby permitted shall be used for private domestic purposes
only and no trade or business shall be carried out therefrom.
4. The development hereby approved shall not commence until a Traffic Regulation Order has been
approved and implemented to restrict parking within the turning head of Shearwater Drive
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
4. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is advised to contact the Council's drainage section regarding the floor levels of the
building in order to prevent flooding
2. The applicant is advised to contact Highways Maintenance regarding the footway crossings.
3. The applicant's attention is drawn to contents of the attached letter from United Utilities
APPLICATION No:
03/46256/FUL
APPLICANT:
New Prospect Housing
LOCATION:
Properties On Gorse Drive Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Environmental improvements to provide in-curtilage parking and
gates, off street parking bays without gates, short lengths of kneerail
and 1.1m high timber fencing
WARD:
Little Hulton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to proposed environmental and security improvements in the vicinity of Gorse
Drive, a large residential area. The proposed improvements will involve the addition of new driveways,
fencing and drop crossings.
.
This proposal is specific to numbers one, three, six and twenty Gorse Avenue and would create new
driveways, drop crossing and gates. The drives would vary in length from 5.5m to 6.8m and would
enclosed by modern steel gates 0.975m in height.
SITE HISTORY
In 1995, planning permission was granted for external improvements to the existing housing estate (505
units) including provision of driveways, new boundary fences
environmental improvements and associated changes to highway layout (95/34332/DEEM3)
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
In 2000, planning permission was granted for the creation of communal parking areas and replacement of
timber fencing and gates in the vicinity of Captains Fold Road (02/43613/DEEM3)
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
136 – 156 (even) Captain Fold Road
1 – 20 (con) Gorse Drive
13 – 41 (odd) Upland Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV1 – Development Criteria
H2 – Maintaining and Improving Public Sector Housing
DEV4 Design and Crime
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DES1 Respecting Context, DES11 Design and Crime, H3 Housing Improvement
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan Policy DEV1 states that in determining planning applications the City Council
should pay due regard to a number of issues, including the visual appearance of a development; the amount,
design and layout of car parking provision, landscaping and open space provision and the impact on trees
within or adjacent to the development site. In addition, Policy H2 states that the City Council will seek to
maintain and improve public sector housing stock through improving security, improving the general
housing environment and through the provision of adequate car parking facilities. Policy DEV4 states that
the City Council will encourage greater consideration of crime prevention and personal and property
security.
The replacement plan policies update and are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
This proposal, along with 03/46257/FUL and 03/46194/FUL, remodels parts of the estate in line with
Policy DEV4 and both Government and Police advice regarding security issues. The development will lead
to an improvement in the housing environment in the area. The proposed improvements will improve
security for residents, and will also improve car parking facilities.
I have no highway objections..
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
03/46257/FUL
APPLICANT:
New Prospect Housing
LOCATION:
Four Streets To North Of Manchester Road West, Namely Baron Fold
Grove, Stocksfield Drive, Croft Street And Croft Grove Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Environmental improvements to provide in-curtilage parking and
gates, off street parking bays without gates, short lengths of kneerail
and 1.1m high fencing
WARD:
Little Hulton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to proposed environmental and security improvements in the vicinity of Stocksfield
Drive, Croft Street, Croft Grove and Barton Fold Grove, a large residential area. The proposed
improvements will involve the addition of new driveways, fencing and drop crossings.
.
This proposal would provide new driveways, drop crossing and gates to the following properties; 1, 7, 11,
13, 13A and 8 Stockfield; 36 and 38 Croft Street; 7 and 11 Croft Grove; 3 – 7 Barton Fold Grove; and 25
Barton Fold Cresent. The drives would vary in length from 5.5m to 6.8m and would be enclosed by modern
steel gates 0.975m in height. The design of the gates are identical for all properties, however, the length of
the driveway determines the type of gate used.
The proposal would also provide pavement improvements between the proposed drives of 13 and 13A
Stockfield Drive. Seven off street spaces and pavement improvements would be provided on Croft Street
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
alongside the existing open space and one off street car parking space would be provided at the end of Croft
Grove.
SITE HISTORY
In 1999, planning permission was granted for environmental improvement works (99/39355/DEEM3)
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
2 & 4 Baron Fold
St Pauls C Of E Junior School, Baron Fold Crescent
29 – 65 (odd) and 40 – 48 (even) Baron Fold Crescent
1 – 9 (con) Baron Fold Grove
1 – 14 Croft Grove
34 – 48 (even) and 41 – 75 (odd) Croft Street
70 – 84 and 90 & 94 Manchester Road West
2 – 32 (even) and 1 – 15 (odd) Stocksfield Drive
1 – 16 Streetgate
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
DEV1 – Development Criteria
H2 – Maintaining and Improving Public Sector Housing
DEV4 Design and Crime
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
none
DES1 Respecting Context, DES11 Design and Crime, H3 Housing Improvement
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan Policy DEV1 states that in determining planning applications the City Council
should pay due regard to a number of issues, including the visual appearance of a development; the amount,
design and layout of car parking provision, landscaping and open space provision and the impact on trees
within or adjacent to the development site. In addition, Policy H2 states that the City Council will seek to
maintain and improve public sector housing stock through improving security, improving the general
housing environment and through the provision of adequate car parking facilities. Policy DEV4 states that
the City Council will encourage greater consideration of crime prevention and personal and property
security.
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
The replacement plan policies update and are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
This proposal, along with 03/46256/FUL and 03/46194/FUL, remodels parts of the estate in line with
Policy DEV4 and both Government and Police advice regarding security issues. The development will lead
to a improvement in the housing environment in the area. The proposed improvements will improve
security for residents, and will also improve car parking facilities through the introduction of additional off
street communal parking.
I have no highway objections.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
03/46295/HH
APPLICANT:
Ms A Heavey & Mr B Lancaster
LOCATION:
54 Delamere Avenue Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a two storey rear extension, conservatory to rear,
construction of dormer extension in roof space to rear and alterations
to existing boundary wall
WARD:
Claremont
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
The application site is an end terrace property, the side elevation overlooks other properties on Delamere
Road, to the rear of the property is Oakwood Park.
The ground floor element of the two-storey extension would project 3.9m and be the full width of the rear
elevation (6.2m), the first floor element would project 2.74m along the boundary with the adjoining terrace,
it would then dog leg in and project a total distance of 3.9m, it would have a total height of 6.8m with a
hipped roof.
The proposed dormer would measure 4.9m X 1.4m, it would be situated 0.3m down from the ridge, 0.9m
up from the existing eaves and more than 0.5m from each side elevation.
The proposed conservatory would project a further 2.5m at a distance of 2.4m from the boundary with the
adjoining semi with a total height of 3m.
The proposed fencing would be situated on top of an existing side retaining wall that currently stands 0.8m
in height. The proposed fencing would be situated between new pillars and would stand in total 2.45m
above ground level. The fencing would be situated along the rear element of the side boundary, it would
start in line with the existing rear elevation and stretch 11m to meet the rear boundary.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
48-52 (evens), 56 & 47 Delamere Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one verbal objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified are
as follows:
The proposed fencing due to its height and length would be an eyesore
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance
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
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
of light or privacy nor would it have an unacceptably adverse impact on the character of the street scene,
this is re-iterated in policy DES7.
Policy HH11 states that where the adjoining dwelling has an existing single storey extension along the
common boundary planning permission will normally be granted for a two-storey extension provided that it
does not exceed 2.74m.
In terms of the two-storey rear extension and conservatory, it complies with the policies as set out in the
House Extensions Supplementary Planning Guidance.
With regards to the fence the applicant has reduced the fence from 2.75m in height to 2.45m. The rear
garden of the application site is above ground floor level, the height of the proposed fencing is required to
ensure privacy to both the proposed conservatory and rear garden. The fence / wall would consist of an
existing retaining wall 0.8m in height with brick pillars build at 1.75m intervals and waney lap panels with
trellis above standing a total of 2.45m above ground level. The proposed fencing would be 17m from the
houses facing, I would not consider this style of fencing to be an eyesore
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. Prior to the occupation of the conservatory hereby approved, the wall/fence also approved, shall be
constructed and maintained thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Please note this permission relates to the amended plans received on the 18th June 2003 which shows a
reduction in the fencing height by 300mm.
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/46279/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr Halberstadt
LOCATION:
46 Broom Lane Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension and erection of rear extension at
first floor level
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a semi-detached house within the Broughton Park area. The applicants
have a daughter with special medical needs that is currently in hospital, and they wish to provide
room within their house to accommodate their child and a full-time carer. The proposal is to
construct an extension in order to provide a lift and en-suite to the side of the house in order to
locate their daughter within an existing bedroom. This part of the extension would be two storey
and be 1.4m out from the side of the house, being set in 0.914m from the side boundary. The front
of this side extension would be set back 0.914m from the front main wall of the house.
It is then proposed to erect a first floor extension above their existing ground floor granny annexe
in order to provide bedroom spaces for their other children that currently use the bedroom which
would be adapted for their dependant daughter. This would extend most of the length of the garden
at 14.3m out from the rear of the house, and it would be 4.6m in width. This rear extension would
have a flat roof and would provide 4 bedrooms and a bathroom.
SITE HISTORY
In 1983, planning permission was granted to construct a single storey rear extension for the full length of the garden in
order to provide a granny annexe, in order to accommodate the applicant’s dependant parent. (ref. E/15414).
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
44, 48, 47, 49 & 51 Broom Lane
Broughton Jewish Cassel Fox School, Legh Road
REPRESENTATIONS
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
I have received no letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The Ward
Councillor has requested that the application be determined by Panel, in order that full
consideration can be given to the applicants’ circumstances.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV3 – alterations/ extensions
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 3 says that all applications for alterations or extensions of existing buildings should
respect the general scale, style, proportion and materials of the original structure and to
complement the general character of the surrounding area. They should also respect the amenities
of neighbouring residents with regard to privacy, daylight, sunlight and outlook.
Policy Dev 8 says that house extensions would only be granted where it would not have an
unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents by reason of
overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or loss of light. These policies are
re-iterated in policies DES7 and DES8.
In considering this application I have seriously considered the special circumstances of this family.
Their daughter requires 24 hour medical care. At present she has to live in hospital and until
sufficient room is made available for suitable access into the house together with space to
accommodate her and carer, it is not possible for her to live with her family. Although house
extensions need to comply with the Council’s SPG, exceptions can be made in special
circumstances, providing it does not have an unacceptably detrimental impact on neighbouring
residents.
The front part of the side extension does not comply with the Council’s policy as shown, because it
would not be set back 2m at first floor, or totally set in 1m in order to prevent a possible terracing
effect. However, it would have 0.9m set back from the front of the house and 0.9m set in from the
side boundary. This has been so designed in order to accommodate the lift that would be needed in
order to access the bedroom. Although the design of this part of the extension would not provide
the amount normally required to prevent a possible terraced effect, it would not square off the front
of the house totally and it may be possible to consider this as an exception to the normal policy
because of the need to provide the lift in this particular location, given the layout of the house.
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
I am concerned about the overall size of the proposed rear extension, and in particular the large flat
roof rear extension which would be situated over the large existing granny flat. The wall of the
extension runs along the boundary with number 48 Broom Lane, and I am concerned that they
would view a blank two storey wall for the whole of their garden. Even though there is no pitched
roof proposed, the height would still be 5.6m. I am of the opinion that this would have an
unacceptable effect on the occupiers of this property, both in terms of loss of light to their house
and garden , as well as having an overbearing impact on their property. I am also concerned that
because of the size of the extension, it would have a detrimental impact on 44 Broom Lane, even
though there would be approximately 6.5m from the extension to their boundary. I believe that the
size and height of the extension would still result in a loss of light to no. 44 Broom Lane. I am also
concerned that as all the windows would face in this direction, the whole of the neighbours garden
would suffer from a loss of privacy. This would increase the overbearing impact on this property,
even though there is over 6m separation.
Prior to the submission of this application, discussion have been had with the applicant in order to
see if a more modest scheme could suffice, in order to reduce the serious impact on the occupiers
of the adjoining houses. Particularly, I have concern that the existing bedroom would be used to
provide for the dependant child and carer, but the rear extension proposes an additional 4
bedrooms. The applicant has explained that 4 children share the existing bedroom at present, and
he would want to give these children each more room, as they are still young and growing. I
appreciate the applicant’s intentions to give his large family a decent amount of room in their
house. However, I do not consider that this aspect of the applicant’s need for space would
constitute a special need that could necessarily allow an exception to the amount of extension that
could be built, particularly given the unacceptable impact on the neighbouring properties.
Although I have taken careful consideration of the applicants need to provide room for his
daughter to get out of hospital and into the family home, I am still of the opinion that the size of the
rear extension is excessive. It would have a seriously detrimental effect on the neighbours in terms
of loss of light, loss of privacy and having an overbearing effect for the neighbours houses and
gardens. I believe that this first floor extension would constitute a serious over development of this
semi-detached property, especially combined with the effect of the already large granny flat that
has been built to accommodate the dependant parent. Therefore I would consider that the special
need of the applicant’s family does not outweigh the detrimental impact that this very large
extension would have.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
(Reasons)
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
1. The proposed extension would have a seriously detrimental impact on the neighbouring residents, in
terms of loss of light, a loss of privacy and an overbearing impact. It would therefore be contrary to
policies DEV3 and DEV8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and would be contrary to
the Council's SPG for house extensions.
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/46195/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Seedley And Langworthy Regeneration Partnership
LOCATION:
161-193 Langworthy Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
New shopfronts, alterations to elevations &change of use of 177-179
from
A1(Retail)
To
A2(Bookmaker),
191from
A1To
A2(Professional Services) 175 from A1To A3(hot food) &1st floor of
173 from residential to storage ancillary to ground floor
WARD:
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a row of shops located within the Langworthy Road Key Local Centre. The
proposal is to install new standardised shopfronts at all of the properties, complete with internally fitted
roller shutters. To the rear of the properties, a number of windows that have been bricked up are to be
opened up and a number of other existing windows and doors are to be bricked up. Four new windows
are proposed to the side of the outrigger extension at the ground and first floor of 173 Langworthy Road.
All remaining windows, doors, roof tiles and rendering to elevations are to be renewed.
Planning permission is also sought for the change of use of 177/179 Langworthy Road from A1 (retail)
to A2 (bookmaker), 191 Langworthy Road from A1 (retail) to A2 (professional services), 175 from A1
(retail) to A3 (shop for the sale of hot food) and the first floor of 173 from residential to storage ancillary
to ground floor A1 use.
The site is located within the Seedley and Langworthy SRB regeneration area. To the rear of the site are
the predominantly vacant dwellings on Nansen Street. Members should be aware that planning
application 03/46214/DEEM3 is also under consideration on this Panel Agenda – this application
proposes the demolition of 1 Greenland Street and 78 – 142 Nansen Street to form rear service yards for
the shops on Langworthy Road, in addition to parking laybys and environmental improvements to the
shop forecourts.
SITE HISTORY
None.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Comments have been provided on the three change of use
proposals. 173 Langworthy Road: First floor not to be used as living accommodation as it would be
adjacent to a hot food take away; hours of opening should be restricted to 6am to Midnight (Monday to
Sunday). 175 Langworthy Road: First floor not to be used as living accommodation as it would be
above a hot food take away; hours of opening should be restricted to 6am to Midnight (Monday to
Sunday). 177/179 Langworthy Road: First floor not to be used as living accommodation as it is adjacent
to a hot food take away; no noise from amplified equipment e.g. TV or radio speakers relaying race
information to be audible at any adjacent premise.
74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
PUBLICITY
Site Notice Displayed 28th May 2003.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
132 – 176 (e), 195, 157 Langworthy Road
76 - 126 (e) Nansen Street
1 Greenland Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity to date.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H7/2 - Housing Area Improvement and Renewal
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
S3 – Key Local Centres
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: S2/7 – Location of New Retail and Leisure Development
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that regard shall be had to a number of factors in
determining applications for planning permission including the visual appearance of the development
and the layout and relationship of existing and proposed buildings. Policy DEV2 states that the City
Council will not normally grant planning permission for new development, alterations or extensions,
unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance of the development. Policy S2 states
that within key local centres, the City Council will normally permit development of an appropriate scale
to the local area involving changes of use to A2 or A3, unless this would have an unacceptable effect on
the amenity, environment, vitality or viability of the key local centre, either individually or by the
cumulative effect of such development. The policies of the First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP are
generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this development.
The proposals have been prepared as part of the Seedley and Langworthy regeneration scheme. I
consider that the proposed new shopfronts and alterations to elevations would improve the appearance
of this row of shops and the area generally. The key local centre as a whole has a high vacancy rate – I
consider that the improvements will encourage the occupation of premises.
The Director of Environmental Services has raised some concern regarding the proposed change of use
of 175 Langworthy Road to a hot food take away and the effect on residential amenity. The first floor of
this property is to be used as a staff room and store. The proposed use of the first floor of 173
Langworthy Road will be storage, ancillary to the ground floor A1 use and the proposed use of the first
floor of 177/9 is as a ‘ void’ area with hatch access only (due to existing fire damage). Implementation
of the proposals would therefore result in there being no adjacent residential uses and as such, I do not
consider that the proposed change of use to A3 would be detrimental to residential amenity.
75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
I do not consider that the proposed alterations or changes of use would be detrimental to the amenity of
adjoining occupiers or the surrounding area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be
used for the walls, roofs and shopfronts of the development have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Director of Development Services.
3. Fumes, vapours and odours shall be extracted and ducted from 175 Langworthy Road in such a
manner as to prevent nuisance to the occupiers of neighbouring properties, in accordance with a
scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services before
the use hereby permitted commences. Such a scheme, when approved, shall be implemented prior
to the use being commenced.
4. The use hereby permitted at 175 Langworthy Road shall ONLY be operated between the hours of
11am to Midnight, Monday to Sunday.
5. No noise from amplified equipment at 177-179 Langworthy Road shall be audible at any adjacent
premises.
(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. To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring occupants in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Connections to public sewers, including rainwater pipes (section 24 sewers) require United Utilities
approval.
APPLICATION No:
03/46214/DEEM3
76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
APPLICANT:
Seedley And Langworthy Regeneration Partnership
LOCATION:
1 Greenland Street, 78-142 Nansen Street And 195-219 Langworthy
Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of 1 Greenland St and 78-142 Nansen St to form rear
service yards, pedestrianisation of Amos St, provision of parking
laybys and environmental improvements to shop forecourts.
WARD:
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to two rows of terraced shop premises on Langworthy Road and two rows of
terraced dwellings on Nansen Street, to the rear of the shops. The proposal is to demolish the dwellings
at 78 – 142 Nansen Street and 1 Greenland Street to create service yards to the rear of the shops on
Langworthy Road. The service yards would be tarmac surfaced, with 1.8 metre timber fencing erected
between each yard and 1.8 metre brick walls to the rear boundaries. 1.8 metre high gates would be
installed on the rear boundary to allow access to the yard areas. The existing rear alley located between
the properties on Nansen Street and Langworthy Road would be closed and would be incorporated into
the service yards. The section of Amos Street between Langworthy Road and Nansen Street would be
pedestrianised as part of the proposal. The closure of the rear alley and pedestrianisation of Amos Street
would require formal highway closures.
Two vehicle lay-bys are proposed on Langworthy Road and 1.0 metre high bollards would be
positioned to the edge of pavement. 23 extra heavy standard trees would be planted to the rear of the
service yards and on Amos Street. A dropped crossing with tactile paving would be provided to the
front of 185 Langworthy Road.
Members should be aware that planning application 03/46195/DEEM3 is also under consideration on
this Panel Agenda – this application proposes the refurbishment of 161-193 Langworthy Road to
include new shopfronts, alterations to elevations and the change of use of 177-179 from A1 (Retail) To
A2 (Bookmaker), 191 from A1(Retail) To A2 (Professional Services) 175- A1 (Retail) To A3 (Shop for
sale of hot food).
SITE HISTORY
None.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections.
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Society – No comments to date.
Open Spaces Society – No comments to date.
Ramblers Association – No comments to date.
Peak and Northern Footpaths Society – No comments to date.
77
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
PUBLICITY
Press Notice published 11th June 2003.
Site Notice displayed 2nd June 2003.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
114 – 202 (e) Langworthy Road
157, Royal British Legion, Langworthy Road
1, 2 – 10 (e) Amos Street
76, 59 –107 (o) Nansen Street
94, 81 Harmsworth Street
71, 72 Norway Street
29 – 32 Fairbrook Drive
Edward Onyon Court, Western Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues
identified are as follows:
there are no good reasons why the houses should be pulled down to make way for a small car
park and service area for the shops with a large fence around them, the shops have been
serviced since the houses were built.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H7/2 – Housing Area Improvement and Renewal
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV4 – Design and Crime
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: S2/7 – Location of New Retail and Leisure Development
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that regard shall be had to a number of factors in
determining applications for planning permission including the visual appearance of the development
and the arrangements for servicing and access. Policy DEV4 states that the City Council will encourage
greater consideration of crime prevention in the improvement of existing buildings and land and will
have regard 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.
With regards to the objection raised, I confirm that the proposals have been prepared as part of the
Seedley and Langworthy regeneration scheme and I consider that the development would enhance the
78
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
appearance of the key local centre and would improve facilities for local businesses, in particular
through the provision of servicing yards and car parking lay-bys. The planting of trees and
improvements to surfacing will enhance the environment for pedestrians. The proposed walls and
fencing will improve the security of the business premises and I am satisfied that their design and siting
would not be detrimental to the amenity of the area. I have received no objections to the proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall commence until the required consents for the closing of the public right of
way have been obtained.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
Note(s) for Applicant
1. 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. Please contact the
Director of Development Services (Highways Maintenance Section - Jeff Derbyshire 0161 793
3877).
2. United Utilities should be consulted regarding details of drainage.
APPLICATION No:
03/46303/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Education And Leisure Directorate
LOCATION:
Ordsall Leisure Centre Craven Drive Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Construction of disabled access ramp and alterations to front
elevation
WARD:
Ordsall
79
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd July 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site is Ordsall Recreation Centre, the side is surrounded by the former Salford Quays
College Campus and facing is Ordsall Park.
The proposal is to put a new entrance door and ramp in the front elevation and remove the existing
turnstile and replace it with two windows on the same elevation. The proposed door would replace
existing large steel doors with a ramp to the front of it measuring 2m wide with a gradient of 1:39. The
proposed windows would be situated next to the proposed doors. The site is in council ownership.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 11th June 2003
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received not received any objections or representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES2 – Circulation and Movement
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DES2 states that all development should be fully accessible to all people, including the disabled and
others with limited or impaired.
The elevation where the proposals are to take place face the public car park. I would not consider the
proposal to have a detrimental impact on the street scene.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
80
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
81
3rd July 2003
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
82
3rd July 2003