PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/45920/OUT
APPLICANT:
University Of Salford
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By Broad Street & Statham Street Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Outline application for the siting of a health and social sciences faculty
building including means of access
WARD:
Pendleton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land at Broad Street/Statham Street, Salford 6. To the east of the application site
is Salford Crescent Station and the associated railway line and to the west is the remainder of the University
of Salford Frederick Road campus, comprising a number of faculty buildings. To the north is a nursery
building and to the south is Broad Street.
The majority of the site is currently used by the University as a car parking area and in the region of 500
spaces are currently provided. It is proposed to demolish the Statham Building, located to the west of the
application site, and erect a health and social sciences faculty building with associated car parking. The
application is in outline with approval sought for siting and means of access. All other matters are reserved
for determination at a later date. The application will necessitate the closure of Belvedere Street,
Withington Street and Statham Street.
It is proposed to locate the building to the north west of the site. It will be 27m by 27m and will comprise
teaching areas, a lecture theatre and a grassed court in the centre. The main pedestrian entrance will be from
the north west corner of the building where a student concourse would be provided. 266 car parking spaces
would be provided to the south of the site, between the proposed building and Broad Street. It is proposed to
lengthen Statham Street northwards and create a new road which will run between the proposed building
and the existing nursery, and then extend south towards the station where a new pick up/drop off point is
proposed. Landscaped areas would also be provided within the site. Pedestrian links between the Crescent
Station, the proposed building and the remainder of the Frederick Road Campus would be provided.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections subject to a condition requiring a site investigation
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections
Peak and Northern Footpaths Society – no objections
Ramblers Association – no response to date
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – no response to date
Open Space Society – no response to date
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
Network Rail – no objections
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 8th May 2003
A site notice was posted on 17th April 2003
The following addresses were notified:
29-33 Belvedere Road
1-32 Almond Close
Flats 1-2, 11-18, 21-28, 31-38, 41-48, 51-58, 61-68, 71-78, 81-88, 91-98, 101-108, 111-118,
121-128, 131-138, 141-148, 151-158, 161-168, 171-178, 181-188, 191-198, 201-208, 211-218,
221-228 Spruce Court and Thorn Court Belvedere Close
Community Centre & Flemish Weaver, Broadwalk
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV4 – Design and Crime
SC7 – Adult, Higher and Further Education
T10 - Pedestrians
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
EHC3 – University of Salford
A1 – Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
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, the
relationship to the road and public transport network, the likely scale and type of traffic generation and the
amount, layout and design of car parking provision.
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
Policy DEV4 states that the Council will encourage greater consideration of crime prevention and security.
Policy SC7 outlines the Council’s support for the continued development of further education within the
City. It states that the continued expansion of the University of Salford will be encouraged.
Policy T10 states that the Council will ensure that the needs of pedestrians are given greater attention by, for
example, promoting schemes which improve pedestrian safety and convenience and improving pedestrian
links between educational establishments and rail stations and bus facilities.
Policy T13 requires the provision of adequate and appropriate car parking to meet the needs of new
development.
Policy DES1 of the First Deposit UDP requires development to respond to its physical context. In assessing
whether proposals comply with this policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the
relationship to existing buildings and the scale of the proposed development.
Policy DES2 requires the design and layout of new development to maximise the movement of pedestrians
through and around sites and enable safe, direct and convenient access to public transport facilities.
Policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the adopted UDP.
Policy DES13 requires applicants for all major developments to demonstrate how their development takes
account of the need for good design. A written statement is required explaining the design principles, how
these are reflected in the development’s layout, the relationship of the proposal to the site and the wider
context and how the development would meet the Council’s design objectives and policies.
Policy ECH3 outlines the presumption in favour of development which supports the University of Salford’s
role as a nationally-important higher educational establishment where it would be consistent with other
Plan policies. Within the Frederick Road campus, development will be permitted if it satisfies a number of
criteria, including improving access for public transport users, cyclists and pedestrians as part of a Travel
Plan and retaining a network of open spaces.
Policy A1 states that developments which would give rise to significant transport implications will not be
permitted unless they are accompanied by a Transport Assessment and, where appropriate, a Travel Plan.
Policy A10 requires developments to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, not exceed the Council’s maximum car parking standards and provide safe and secure
parking facilities.
I consider the main issues in the determination of this application to be the appropriateness of the proposed
use and its siting and the associated highway implications of the proposed development. I will deal with
each in turn below.
Given that the site is already in use by the University and forms part of the Frederick Road campus, I
consider the proposed use to be acceptable and complimentary to surrounding land uses. The proposal
accords with Policy SC7 of the Adopted UDP and ECH3 of the First Deposit UDP, which both support the
continued expansion of the University.
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
In terms of the siting of the proposed building, the applicant’s architect has provided a statement detailing
the rationale behind the positioning and design of the building, in accordance with Policy DES13 of the
First Deposit UDP. It states that the building is to be located in the north west corner of the site due to the
need to achieve a close link with the Allerton and Blatchford Buildings within the Frederick Road Campus
to ensure that the building integrates fully with the remainder of the campus. The pedestrian entrance to the
proposed building has been positioned to serve pedestrian access from the existing parking areas, the
existing Allerton Building, Salford Crescent Station and the adjacent campus. The applicant has confirmed
that as the Allerton Building would continue to contain the existing academic infrastructure, including the
main entrance, catering, library, IT and central administration, the two buildings must operate as one. It
contends that this can only be achieved through the siting of the building in the location proposed and that it
would not be practical or economic to site the building adjacent to the A6. The University has indicated
however that this application deliberately creates space between the proposed building and the A6 for the
future expansion of the Faculty of Health and Social Care, student accommodation or commercial
development linked to the University. This would therefore provide the opportunity, at a later date, for the
development of a significant building at the entrance to the Chapel Street area. Pedestrian routes to the
station are to be protected and enhanced in order to encourage a greater number of students to use modes of
transport other than the car to access the site, whilst maintaining a secure environment.
Whilst this application is in outline and design, external appearance and landscaping are reserved for
determination at a later date, the applicant has indicated that landscaping proposals will include the planting
of a number of robust trees and shrubs to the car park and external circulation areas.
In accordance with Policies ECH3 and A1 of the First Deposit UDP, the applicant has submitted a Travel
Plan to accompany this application. The Plan covers the period March 2003 – March 2005 and provides
details of a number of initiatives aimed at reducing reliance on the car and promoting the use of alternative
modes of transport. The Plan has been prepared for the whole of the University and makes reference to this
proposal. The Plan is currently in draft, but is due to be finalised imminently. I have attached a condition
requiring the Plan to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development. The initiatives
contained within the Plan will need to be implemented and funded as necessary prior to occupation. I do not
consider the preparation and submission of a Transport Assessment to be necessary in the determination of
this application, based upon the level of information provided within the draft Travel Plan and on the basis
that the number of car parking spaces on the site is to be reduced.
This site currently accommodates 500 car parking spaces which would be lost during site clearance and
construction. It is therefore anticipated that replacement spaces would be accommodated on a number of
alternative sites around the University campus. Whilst the details have not yet been finalised, it is envisaged
that they will be accommodated on a number of existing car parks where there is spare capacity, or on the
Farmer Norton site on Adlephi Street. Due to the fact that the University has not yet finalised its proposals
for replacement parking provision, I have attached a condition requiring the submission and approval of a
scheme demonstrating where this will be accommodated in order to ensure that an adequate level of parking
is maintained during clearance and construction. This application proposes 266 spaces, which would result
in a deficit of 234 spaces on the site. Such a reduction is considered acceptable based upon the targets
contained within the Travel Plan, which aims to reduce car use and increase the use of other modes of
transport. This is particularly important in this instance given the close proximity of this application site to
the Crescent Station and the opportunity which exists to maximise its use by students and staff. One of the
measures proposed by the University to reduce the demand for car parking spaces is the restriction of car
parking for students and staff travelling less than 2 miles from home and it is anticipated that this would
result in a reduction in demand for car parking spaces by in the region of 19%.
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
Although the application site falls within the Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy Area, the applicant is not
entering into a S106 Agreement to provide a monetary contribution to improvements within the area.
Rather the University has agreed to provide a piece of art within the site adjacent to Broad Street prior to the
occupation of the building. I have attached a condition to that effect. Such a work would contribute to
improvements to the Chapel Street area. In addition, I consider that the application itself would contribute
to the regeneration of the area, by reinforcing the University’s role as one of the country’s leading further
educational establishments and raising the profile of the area generally.
In conclusion I consider the proposed use and its siting to be acceptable and to accord with the relevant
policies of both the Adopted and First Deposit Unitary Development Plans. It would result in improved
facilities for the University. I am satisfied that the highway implications have been assessed to a sufficient
degree, subject to the preparation, submission and approval of a TA with the reserved matters application.
The application would be consistent with the aims of objectives of the Travel Plan in providing
opportunities to encourage the use of non-car modes and reducing reliance on the car. I therefore
recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
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 the development hereby approved, the developer shall submit a site
investigation report for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation shall address
the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include
an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection
Act 1990, Part IIA focusing primarily on risks to human health and to controlled waters. The
investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions on health and safety of site
workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider
environmental receptors including ecological systems and property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the
start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the
approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to the occupation of the site.
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
4. The development hereby approved shall not be commenced until the appropriate order for the closure
or diversion of the public right of way affected by the development has been made.
5. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme for the re-location onto
alternative site(s) of car parking lost as a result of the clearance of this site shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The approved scheme shall be
implemented prior to the commencement of development.
6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme for the provision of a work
of art to be provided within the site, adjacent to the Chapel Street corridor, shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The approved work shall be provided
prior to the occupation of the building.
7. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the draft Travel Plan shall be
finalised, submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The
initiatives contained within the approved Plan shall be implemented and the necessary funding shall be
in place prior to the occupation of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director
of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance with policy
DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
5. To ensure that an adequate level of car parking continues to be provided, in accordance with Policy
T13 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
6. In order to contribute to the improvement of the Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy Area.
7. In order to ensure the initiatives contained within the approved Travel Plan are implemented.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the public sewer running throught the centre of the site which will
need diverting. United Utilities should be contacted.
APPLICATION No:
03/46293/HH
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
APPLICANT:
Miss M Gilbert
LOCATION:
270 Newearth Road Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey rear extension
WARD:
Walkden South
7th August 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a property at the end of a terrace of 4 houses. The proposal is to erect a single
storey rear extension which would project out 3.04m along the party boundary. It would be 3.03m in width
and would have a mono-pitched roof.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
268 & 274 Newearth Road
17 Cherrywood Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a letter of objection from the occupier of the adjoining property who is concerned that it
would take light from their kitchen/dining room and therefore would be oppressive and over bearing.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – house extensions
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 - DES7 – Amenity of users and neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that planning permission would only be granted when it would not have an
unacceptably adverse impact on the neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing,
dominance, loss of privacy or loss of light. This is re-iterated in policy DES7.
In order to ensure that an extension does not have a detrimental effect on an adjoining house, it is normally
considered acceptable for an extension to only project out 2.74m along a party boundary. This proposed
extension exceeds this amount and I am concerned that it would result in an overbearing effect on the
neighbours’ kitchen/dining room and would also result in a loss of light to their room. As the neighbours
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
use the room as a kitchen/dining room I would consider that this is a habitable room and would be
concerned about any loss of light or detrimental effect from the proposed extension.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of
the size and siting along the boundary with the adjoining house, contrary to the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan Policy DEV8 and the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance for House
Extensions.
APPLICATION No:
03/46299/FUL
APPLICANT:
Manchester Property And Development No 2 Ltd
LOCATION:
21-23 New Bailey Street Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a thirteen storey commercial and residential development
comprising retail unit, one office unit and fifty two apartments together
with associated car parking and creation of new vehicular access
(amendment to 00/40883/FUL)
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a site on the corner of New Bailey Street and Brown Cross Street and was
formerly occupied by the three storey Pen and Wig public house. The building is situated opposite Salford
railway station and adjacent to the railway viaduct. This viaduct has Grade II listed arches and columns. To
the rear of the site beyond an existing car park are the new Inland Revenue offices while adjacent to the site
is Baskerville House, a seven storey building.
It is proposed to erect a thirteen storey building providing a retail unit at ground floor, offices at first floor
and 52 apartments on the remaining eleven floors. The apartments would be a mix of one and two
bedrooms (30 one bed and 22 two beds). Three parking spaces for the office user would be provided in the
rear yard accessed from Johnson Street.
The building would be clad in a number of materials including brick, glass block, and coloured render and
the design of the building has been significantly improved as a result of guidance from the City Councils
advisor Peter Hunter.
SITE HISTORY
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
Planning permission was granted in August 2000 for an eight storey development on the site similar in
design to this current proposal (00/40883/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services: No comments to date.
Railtrack: no objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer: provides advice regarding security and crime
reduction.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:Baskerville House and Washington House, New Bailey Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objection as a result of my neighbour notification.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other Policies: CS5 Chapel Wharf, DEV2 Good Design.
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMNT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: MX1 Development in Mixed Use Areas, CH4 Development Affecting the Setting of a
Listed Building, DES5 Tall Buildings
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy CS5 states that the City Council will encourage the refurbishment and redevelopment of the Chapel
Wharf area. 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.
The policies of the replacement plan are generally similar to and support the policies of the adopted plan
with respect to this proposal.
This site on New Bailey Street is prominent on this major route for commuters and local people travelling in
and out of Manchester city centre. The adjacent office complex, Riverside, has recently been refurbished
which has improved the environment of this area. I consider that the proposed development will further
enhance the area. The proposed mix of uses will bring day and evening activity to the area and the modern
design will be a landmark feature in the New Bailey Street area which is being substantially improved by
redevelopment and refurbishment. The issue of the effect of a tall building on the Listed Arches has already
been addressed under the previous permission for an eight storey building on the site. With regard to the
design of this particular building and the materials that are proposed I consider that the proposed
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
development has been further refined and represents an improvement on the previously approved scheme
and that therefore I am satisfied that this proposal enhances the setting of the Listed railway arches. The
effect of a thirteen storey building is little different that of an eight storey building and it does not alter the
aqueduct in any way or diminish its quality. The footprint of the building respects the historic road pattern
and urban form.
The Director of Environmental Services had concerns regarding the earlier application for an eight storey
development. These concerns were addressed by means of an appropriately worded condition requiring
satisfactory acoustic insulation would ensure that future residents of the building are not disturbed by noise
from the railway, roads or neighbouring uses.
I consider that the proposal is in accordance with UDP policies and I have no objections on highway
grounds. I am satisfied that in this central location, close to Salford railway station, major public road
transport routes and the regional centre, the level of car parking provided is appropriate. I therefore
recommend that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and subject to the legal
agreement outlined below.
RECOMMENDATION
1. That the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel resolve to approve the application subject to the
following condition and to the applicant entering a section 106 agreement to secure:a) The payment of commuted sum £52,000 to be spent on highway-street scene/environmental
improvements. Such monies to be spent on accordance with the Chapel Street Planning Obligations
Policy.
2. The Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel resolve to delegate the issuing of the notice on
completion of the s106 agreement to the Director of development Services.
3. The Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel resolve to authorise the Director of Development
Services to formally advise the applicant of these decisions.
4. The Director of Development Services be authorised to refuse permission should the applicant fail to
complete the s106 agreement within a reasonable period.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
APPLICATION No:
03/46304/HH
APPLICANT:
S Priscott
LOCATION:
40 Worsley Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey rear extension
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
7th August 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a corner property on Worsley Road / Greenleach Lane.
The proposal is for the erection of a single storey rear extension, close to the boundary with the adjacent
semi-detached house (No.42). The proposal would project 3.4m X 4.1m with a total height of 3.8m with a
sloping roof.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
42 Worsley Road
164 Greenleach Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection from the occupier of the adjoining semi in response to the planning
application publicity. The following issues have been raised:Loss of light
The outlook would become a brick wall
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
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
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.
Policy HH9 states that planning permission will not normally be granted for single storey rear extensions
located along the boundary that exceed 2.74m measured from the rear elevation of the adjoining property.
HH9 is in place to protect light to habitable room windows from single-storey rear extensions. The
proposal extends a total of 3.4m beyond the adjoining rear elevation however on the rear they have a bay
window that projects 0.65m. The proposal would project 2.74m beyond the bay window. Due to bay
windows having glass on the side elevations, the proposal would have less impact than on a normal window
and I would not consider it to have an unacceptably adverse impact on the residents of the neighbouring
property.
Loss of view is not a planning consideration.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Please note the planning approval relates to the amended plan that shows a reduction in the projection
of the extension.
APPLICATION No:
03/46340/FUL
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
APPLICANT:
W B Tidey (Properties)
LOCATION:
203 Chapel Street Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Renewal of planning permission 98/38303/FUL for the erection of
extension to offices
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the renewal of an extant planning permission for the erection of extensions to
offices on Chapel Street. The offices are located on Chapel Street between New Bailey Street and Trinity
Way. Access is from Gore Street to the rear of the property.
It is proposed to erect a three storey rear extension which would be above four existing car parking spaces
on the ground floor. The extension would provide additional office accommodation on the first and second
floors. The extension would be triangular in shape, measuring 14.5m by 11.5m at its outer limits.
SITE HISTORY
Planning permission was first granted for this extension in August 1998 (98/38303/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 24 June 2003.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
199 to 201 Chapel Street
Euro Car Parks
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter objection in response to the planning application publicity. The following issues
have been raised:Loss of light
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, CS7 Islington
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, MX2 Chapel Street
Frontage
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The policies of the draft replacement plan are similar to and support the policies in the adopted plan. The
proposed development would trigger the requirement to meet the objectives of the Chapel Street Planning
Obligation. I have set out the heads of term below.
I do not consider that loss of light to offices can be considered as justification to refuse this application. I am
satisfied therefore that permission can be renewed.
RECOMMENDATION
1. That the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel resolve to approve the application subject to the
following conditions and to the applicant entering a section 106 agreement to secure:a) The payment of £1980. Such monies to be spent in accordance with the Chapel Street Planning
Obligations Policy.
2. The Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel resolve to delegate the issuing of the notice on
completion of the s106 agreement to the Director of development Services.
3. The Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel resolve to authorise the Director of Development
Services to formally advise the applicant of these decisions.
4. The Director of Development Services be authorised to refuse permission should the applicant fail to
complete the s106 agreement within a reasonable period.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the external 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)
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
03/46350/COU
APPLICANT:
Balti Brasserie
LOCATION:
92-96 Liverpool Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Change of use of 96 from shop to form extension to existing restaurant
at 92/94, erection of single storey rear extension, erection of external
staircase at rear and alterations to front elevation.
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant shop on Liverpool Road, Patricroft. The proposal is to change the
ground floor use of the property to form an extension to the adjacent restaurant, providing a bar, seating area
and toilet facilities. An infill extension 1.4 metres in width is proposed between the outriggers of the
existing extension and the application site. This extension would be used as a store area.
The first floor of the property is currently used as a flat. A new external staircase is proposed to provide
separate access to this flat. The applicant had proposed to use the flat roof of the rear extension as a balcony
– this element has, however, been deleted from the planning application.
The property is located within the Patricroft Key Local Centre. On one side of the application site is the
existing restaurant and on the other side is a hot food takeaway, with a flat above. To the rear of the site are
dwellings on Lynwood Avenue.
SITE HISTORY
00/41160/FUL – Installation of new shopfront. Approved 8.9.00
E/25908 – Outline planning application for the change of use from DIY store to shop for the sale of
takeaway food. Upheld at Appeal 4.9.90.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Recommend conditions relating to use of balcony and external plant
noise.
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 26th June 2003
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 6 George Terrace, Byron Street
84/6, 88, 90, 98 – 104 (e), 105 – 111 (o), 113/117 Liverpool Road
2, 16 Lynwood Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application publicity.
The following issues have been raised:1. concerns regarding existing smells
2. concerns regarding rubbish in the rear yard of the existing restaurant and the rear alley
(photographs provided) and attraction of vermin
3. the bins are in a poor state of repair and there are not enough of them
4. existing noise disturbance from within the premises and from the extractor fan
5. noise currently continues until 3 – 5am
6. construction of balcony would result in the noise being elevated
7. expansion of the restaurant will result in more traffic
8. insufficient car parking
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: S3 – Key Local Centres
S5 – Control of Food and Drink Premises
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
S3 – Loss of Shops
S4 – Amusement Centres and Food and Drink Uses
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy S5 states that the City Council will only permit proposals for the sale of
hot food for consumption off the premises where the use would not have an unacceptably adverse impact on
the amenities of surrounding residential occupiers by reason of noise, disturbance, smells, fumes, litter,
vehicular traffic movements, parking or pedestrian traffic. Policy S3 seeks to retain, consolidate and
improve Salford’s key local centres. The City Council will normally permit development of appropriate
scale to the local area involving changes of use to Classes A1 and A2 of the Town and Country Planning
(Use Classes) Order 1987. Class A3 uses will be granted planning permission subject to there being no
unacceptable effect on the amenity, environment, vitality or viability of the key local centre either
individually or by the cumulative effect of such development. With regards to the policies of the First
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
Deposit Draft Replacement UDP, the property is located some distance outside the Patricroft
Neighbourhood Centre. Policy S4 is generally similar to policy S5 of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
The main issues raised by the objectors relate to the impact on amenity of the existing restaurant from litter,
smells, noise, disturbance and car parking and the intensification of these that would result if the restaurant
is extended. The objections received are from residents living to the rear of the property, whose concerns
predominantly relate to the operation of the existing restaurant. Planning permission for the existing
restaurant was granted following an Appeal. The Planning Inspector did not consider it necessary to attach
any conditions to the approval in relation to the hours of operation or fume extraction details.
Development Control Policy Note No. 2 (Hot Food, Cafes and Snack Bars) states that take away food
shops, cafes and snack-bars will not be allowed where the premises would be immediately adjacent to and
sharing the same floor level as other residential properties. Whilst there are residential uses at the first floor
of the application site and adjacent property, I consider that these properties already experience an existing
level of general activity, noise and smells associated with the restaurant use at 92/94 Liverpool Road and
the hot food take away at 98 Liverpool Road. Furthermore, the property would provide a bar, seating area
and toilet facilities and not for example, an extended kitchen area, for these reasons, I do not consider that
the proposal would result in any reduction in residential amenity. With regards to the objections raised in
relation to the existing use, in particular the noise from extraction fans, rubbish and vermin, I have informed
the Director of Environmental Services who will investigate these matters under the appropriate legislation.
A further objection related to the creation of a balcony level at first floor – the applicant has now deleted
this element from the proposal.
With reference to the objections regarding traffic and car parking, I do consider that the proposed
development would result in any significant increase in traffic over and above that of the existing restaurant
use and given that the site is located within the key local centre, I have no objections on highway grounds.
With regards to policy S3, the Key Local Centre survey of 2001 notes that 96 Liverpool Road has been
vacant since a survey undertaken in 1995/6. Consequently, bringing a vacant property back into use would
improve the environment and would be beneficial to the vitality and viability of the Key Local Centre.
As no conditions were attached to the planning permission for the restaurant use, then it is not appropriate to
impose conditions relating to hours of operation or fume extraction to the proposed extension.
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. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 23rd July 2003 which shows the amended
position of the railing at first floor level.
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
4. The flat roof area above the extension and outriggers to the rear of the property shall not be used as a
balcony associated with the first floor flat nor shall it be used as a dining or service area for customers
of the restaurant.
5. No additional external plant or equipment shall be permitted to the rear of the building, nor shall any
additional openings be formed in the rear elevations or roof of the building which directly ventilate the
building or which discharge from any internal plant or equipment, without the prior written permission
of the local planning authority.
6. The railing hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior to the
commencement of the development by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
6. To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Please see attached information with regards to construction times.
2. Please contact United Utilities regarding approval for sewer connections.
APPLICATION No:
03/46377/FUL
APPLICANT:
Greater Manchester Police Authority
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
LOCATION:
Greater Manchester Police Air Support Unit Liverpool Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a first floor side extension including viewing balcony
WARD:
Winton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
Proposal is for the construction of a first floor side extension (over existing retained single storey office)
including viewing balcony facing north east (towards helicopter pad and Barton Airfield.
Site is at Greater Manchester Police Air Support Unit Liverpool Road, to the south-west of Barton Airfield,
on land adjacent to the Green-Belt. To the west and east of the proposal site is employment and education
uses. The only residential is 90metres to the west and is well screened with trees and large shrubs.
New floorspace will be approx 105sq.m for the upper floor, plus a balcony of 34.85sq.m (measuring 8.5m
by 4.1m). The proposal will incorporate flat cladding profile and brickwork to match existing plus some
blue feature brickwork banding to match existing. The east elevation will include curtain glazing to match
existing, and a small canopy over the new entrance (south-east elevation).
SITE HISTORY
In 1998 a planning application was approved for the siting of portakabin type building to provide office
accommodation and extensions to helipad at Greater Manchester Police Air Support Unit Liverpool Road
Eccles (98/38657/FUL).
In 1994 a planning application was approved for the erection of a hanger and offices together the provision
of a heli-pad and car parking with associated external works including a new vehicular access to form
Police air support unit at Barton Aerodrome Liverpool Road Eccles (94/32937/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
No consultations.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 3rd June 2003
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Lancashire Aero Club, Barton Aerodrome
Manchester University Laboratory, Barton Aerodrome
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
Other policies:
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV3 – Alterations/Extensions
DEV4 – Crime & Design
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES8 – Alterations and Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main consideration of this application is to the design and appearance of the proposal. Development
policies DEV1-4 have regard (among other criteria) to the location, size, access to, visual appearance, and
effect on the surrounding environment, drawing particular attention to the effect of the extension on the
existing building. The extension itself has been designed as such that the roof is curved and thus infitting
with the existing main roof.
Having assessed this application I consider that the proposed materials, largely as existing is acceptable and
will compliment policy DEV2 and DEV3. I also consider the development will assist Greater Manchester
Police in their drive to contribute to the reduction of crime, through enhanced on-site facilities in
association with the existing police helicopter function.
I have received no objections to this proposal: thus consider the development to be acceptable and I
recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the roof cladding,
and facing brickwork of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
03/46385/REM
APPLICANT:
M Anthony Developments
LOCATION:
3 Folly Lane Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Details of the design and external appearance of a four storey building
comprising four apartments.
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
Members will recall that outline consent was recently approved for the siting and means of access for four
flats on this site including six car parking spaces. Details of the design and external appearance and
landscaping for part three, part four storey building have also been recently approved. The different in
applications is specific to the design of the roof, porch canopy and incorporate light wells to the front of the
property.
The area is residential in nature comprising semi detached and terraced properties. Planning permission has
recently been approved for a two storey detached dwelling on land adjoining this site. There is a significant
change in levels within the site, the rear drops down towards Deans Brook. The footprint of this proposal
would measure 16m along Folly Lane and 7m in depth. At its closest, it would maintain 12m to Folly Lane
and 32m to the properties opposite on Folly Lane. It would also maintain 7m to the gable of the
neighbouring property.
The design of the scheme is similar to that previously approved in May of this year. It still utilises the roof
space with the inclusion of front and rear dormers. The ridge height of the proposal is 0.9m higher than the
ridge on the neighbouring semi detached property which is the same as that previously approved. The
proposal would have four dormers on each elevation, two located centrally within each element with no
velux. They have pitched roofs and are set in from all sides of the main roof.
The applicant is proposing to increase the porch / landing area to match the height of the eaves where
previously it was a single storey element. This particular element would have ‘Folly View Apartments’
incorporated into the brick work above the front entrance and would measure 0.77m X 0.29m.
Furthermore, the roof would still comprises of two noticeable elements joined together with a recessed
plane.
The rear of the development is four storey due to the general fall of the site. The design includes patio doors
on three of the four floor levels. The ground and first floor patios have guard rails 1.2m in height.
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
SITE HISTORY
In May of this year, details of the design and external appearance and landscaping for part three, part four
storey building was approved (03/45981/REM)
In April of this year, outline planning consent was granted for the siting of one four storey block of four flats
and means of access. (03/45554/OUT)
In December of last year, planning permission was granted for the erection of a part two / part three storey
detached dwelling on adjacent to this site. (02/44954/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Coal Authority – No objections but provide advice
Director of Environmental Services – no objections
The Environment Agency – no comments to date
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
5 – 11 (odd) Folly Lane
78 – 102 (even) Folly Lane
18 – 24 (even) Holly Road
32 and 34 Warren Drive
48 Wellington Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified
are as follows:
Over development of the site
Increase in traffic
Loss of Green Area
Loss of view
Out of character
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV 1 Development Criteria
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors in determining
applications for planning permission, including the location and nature of the proposed development; the
amount, design and layout of car parking provision; the arrangements for servicing and access and the
visual appearance of the development.
The replacement plan policies are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
The main thrust of concern from the letter of objection is concentrated around the size, scale and type of
development. Some concerns have also been raised with regard traffic generation. The siting and means of
access have already been approved as part of the outline approval. This scheme has been designed to
maximise the potential of the site. The reduced ceiling heights and the use of the roof space has enabled the
overall height of the proposal to be similar to the neighbouring traditional semi detached, in fact, this
scheme would be only 0.9m higher than that of the neighbouring property and still provide three storeys
fronting Folly Lane. Therefore, I do not agree that this proposal would over shadow the neighbouring
property.
With regard to loss of green area. Consent has already been granted for the siting of a four storey building
on this site to replace a vacant bungalow. The bungalow has since been demolished and as such is
considered a brown field site, therefore I do not agree that this proposal would result in the loss of a green
space.
I do not agree that this proposal would generate an increase in traffic, this particular point and the provision
for six vehicles has already been considered by members. No highway objections were received.
The planning issue with regard to this application is the design and external appearance of the development
in relation to the surrounding area as the principle of this development has already been established through
an earlier application for reserved matters. As stated earlier, the overall height of the scheme is only 0.9m
higher than the neighbouring property. The applicant is proposing to increase the porch / landing area to
match the height of the eves where as previously it was a single storey element. Furthermore, the roof
would still comprises of two noticeable elements joined together with a recessed plain. This proposal
would not be as pronounced as that previously approved, as such I am still of the opinion that the design
incorporating two component parts reflects the general scale of the neighbouring semi-detached properties
The semi detached properties opposite are set back from Folly Lane and raised above the height of the road.
This proposal would maintain 32m to the those properties opposite.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the design is acceptable in this location and that the scale of the
proposal reflects the scale of the neighbouring properties and provides an appropriate addition to this part of
Folly Lane.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
1. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls and roof
of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/46386/FUL
APPLICANT:
I Whittle
LOCATION:
1 & 2 The Drive Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Creation of three car parking spaces at front of dwellings
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a small piece of land opposite 1 and 2 The Drive in Salford 7. The proposal is to
create three car parking spaces to the south of the highway between four mature European Limes which are
the subject of a Tree Preservation Order.
The Drive itself, is a narrow, single width access road that provides access to six properties. Mature highly
visible trees define the entrance and southern side of The Drive. The trees on The Drive are located on an
elevated piece of ground, bounded by a retaining wall and bank of soil. The proposal is to excavate some of
the mound within a 22m stretch of land to provide three off street car parking spaces adjacent to the trees.
SITE HISTORY
In June of last year a substantial amount of the mound and retained soil had been dug away to a distance of
less than 30cm from the base of T1 and within 60cm from the base of T2. At this time the City’s
arboricultural officer inspected the work and was of the opinion that the workings had severed the
stabilising and feeder roots of two of the four trees. In his opinion this action destabilised the trees, an
action which is irreversible.
.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
469 and Hazeldene Hotel, Bury New Road
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
3 – 6 (con) The Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The following
issues have been raised:Highway Safety
Damage to TPO’d trees
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
DEV10 Broughton Park
EN7 Conservation of Tree and Woodlands
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
EN10 Protected Trees
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EN7 states that the City Council will encourage the conservation of trees and woodland. Policy
EN10 of the draft replacement plan is quite specific with regard protected trees, “development that would
result in the unacceptable loss of, or damage to, protected trees will not be permitted.”
I have received one letter of objection in response the application publicity. The objector refers to existing
highway problems due to vehicles attempting to park in the areas already excavated at the base of the
protected trees. Because the proposal has been partially implemented there is insufficient space at present
to park a vehicle off the carriageway. Should the trees not be in this location and the scheme be fully
implemented as shown on the submitted plan, I am of the opinion that the parking provision would not
result in highway safety issues.
Therefore, the main planning issue with regard this application is the effect of the proposal on the TPO’d
trees and the existing damage sustained as a result of the excavation at the base.
The City Council’s Arboricultural Officer has inspected the trees in June last year and noted that the
workings undertaken had severed the stabilising and feeder roots of the two protected lime trees. He is still
of the opinion that this action has destabilised the trees which is irreversible, and recommends that the only
solution to ensure that the trees are made safe is that they are removed as soon as possible.
Notwithstanding the existing damage to T1 and T2, I am of the opinion that the Council’s two for one
replacement policy for the loss of trees would not provide sufficient space within this location to provide
three car parking spaces as well as tree replacements.
Therefore I recommend that this proposal be refused.
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The creation of three car parking spaces would require substantial work around the base of four
mature trees, this work would not be good arboricultural practice and therefore would be detrimental
to the trees and consequently to the amenity of the area contrary policy EN7 of the City's Unitary
Development Plan and the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance - Trees Protection and
Planting.
2. The provision of three parking spaces would not allow sufficient compensatory tree planting to take
place and would therefore result in a detrimental effect on local amenity and the environment contrary
to Policy EN7 of the City Of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/46387/HH
APPLICANT:
R O'Neill
LOCATION:
1 Chapel Street Boothstown Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Retention of single detached garage
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a semi-detached house. The applicant has built a garage at the rear of his property
and this application is for its retention. Because of the unusual shape of the applicants land ownership, the
garage is situated to the rear of no. 3 Chapel Street and 50 Chaddock Lane as well as the applicant’s
property. It measures 3.38m wide by 6.38m and has a pitched roof with an overall ridge height of 2.72m It
is accessed from a rear alley which runs behind the terraced houses on Chaddock Lane.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
3 Chapel Street
44 – 52 (even) Chaddock Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified
are as follows:
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
the applicant has demolished an original boundary wall to allow the garage to be built
the garage is across the rear of the neighbours’ kitchen window
the garage as it has been constructed is so close to the neighbour’s garage. This has lead to
damage to the neighbour’s garage and rainwater is able to leak into this other garage
if guttering is attached to the western side of the garage it would overhang the neighbour’s
garage which they would not allow.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House extensions
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 – Amenity of users and neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that planning permission would only be granted when it would not have an
unacceptably adverse impact on the neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing,
dominance, loss of privacy or loss of light.
In order to ensure that there is not a detrimental impact, the Council’s SPG for house extensions identifies
separation distances that would normally be acceptable. This seeks to ensure that main habitable windows
are protected. In this instance, the windows that face the garage from both the house on Chapel Street and
the properties on Chaddock Lane are kitchen windows and therefore are not regarded as habitable windows.
Therefore I would not consider that the relationship between the garage and the facing windows would be
unacceptable.
I am aware that the owner of the adjoining garage is concerned about the proximity between the two and he
believes that the construction of the new garage has damaged his. This is a private matter between the two
parties and is not a planning consideration. This objector has been advised of the applicant’s need to address
the matter under the Party Wall Act. I understand from the applicant that he does not intend to include a
gutter over the neighbour’s garage and therefore there would not be any encroachment. However I am
concerned that roof water would discharge into the neighbouring property. To address this I have appended
a condition which requires a means of dealing with this to be submitted for approval – e.g. a small parapet
and hidden gutter.
I would not have any objections to the proposal on highway grounds, providing the garage door that is yet to
be installed is a roller shutter design that does not overhang the highway in opening.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
1. The garage door shall be a roller shutter type and shall open totally within the garage without any
overhanging over the highway. Once installed the garage door shall be mainained as such thereafter.
2. Within 1 month of the date of this permission a scheme shall be submitted for the disposal of rainwater
from the roof of the garage, such permission to be approved by the Director of Development Services.
The approved scheme shall be implemented in full within 1 month of approval being granted.
(Reasons)
1. Reason: So as not to interfere with the free flow of traffic along the rear access road in accordance
with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
2. To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring residents.
APPLICATION No:
03/46388/FUL
APPLICANT:
A Birkin
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To 24 Gillingham Road Winton Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey detached dwelling together with creation of new
vehicular access
WARD:
Winton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the side garden area of 24 Gillingham Road. The proposal is to erect a detached
two-storey dwelling, the footprint would be 9.2 metres by 4.7 metres. The dwelling would be sited
approximately 0.1 metre from the rear boundary of the site. To the rear (north) of the site is Winton Park.
There are a number of mature trees adjacent to the boundary with the application site, some of which
overhang into the site. The applicant has indicated that some moderate cutting back of a sycamore and silver
birch tree would be necessary. The dwelling would be positioned approximately 0.5 metres in front of the
building line on Gillingham Road. Two car parking spaces would be provided to the side of the property.
Garden areas would be located to the front and side.
To the west of the site is an allotment, beyond which are the grounds to St. Gilberts Primary School. To the
south and east of the site are dwellings. The habitable windows of the dwelling would be located 20.5
metres from 35 and 37 Gillingham Road and 20.3 metres from the side gable of 24 Gillingham Road.
SITE HISTORY
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
None.
CONSULTATIONS
The Coal Authority - Report on coal mining circumstances provided.
Director of Environmental Services (Parks and Countryside) – Objects on grounds that harm to adjacent
trees in Winton Park.
Director of Environmental Services (Pollution Control) – No objections.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 26th June 2003
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
25 – 39, 22, 24 Gillingham Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received five letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application publicity.
The following issues have been raised:












proposed structure would not be in the same style as other houses in the street, which are all
semi-detached brick properties
proposed structure would not be level with the building line on the street
size of plot is such that trees in Winton park would be damaged/ removed
the application from states that no trees would be lopped or topped, it would look impossible to
build a two-storey building without doing so
tree roots may be affected, making them unsafe
loss of privacy to 37 Gillingham Road
loss of amenity /view for 33 Gillingham Road
presence of underground culvert could lead to flooding
the number of vehicles using Gillingham Road is already beyond any safe maximum
parking on both sides of the road makes access difficult and turning almost impossible
property devaluation
proposal would obscure views of the park
noise, dirt and unattractive environment during construction period
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
EN7 – Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that regard should be had to a number of issues when
determining applications for planning permission, including the effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for
neighbouring properties and the visual appearance of the development. 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 EN7 states that the City Council will encourage the conservation of
trees and woodland. Policies of the First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP are generally similar to those of
the adopted plan in respect to this development.
The objections raised concern the design and siting of the property in particular with respect to the impact
on existing trees and amenity distances and increases in traffic and lack of car parking. With regards to the
siting of the dwelling, there would be a distance of 20.5 metres between the habitable windows of the
proposed development and those of 33 and 35 Gillingham Road. Whilst this represents a shortfall of 0.5
metres of the minimum 21 metres normally required, I do not consider that this would result in any loss of
privacy or light to the existing properties. The dwelling would be sited approximately 0.5 metres forward of
the building line, however, I do not consider that this would have a detrimental impact on the appearance of
the streetscene, given the location of the application site towards the end of the cul-de-sac. I am also
satisfied that the design and external appearance of the building would be satisfactory.
I do not consider that the erection of one additional dwelling would result in any significant increase in
traffic generation, furthermore, two car parking spaces are proposed, which is in accordance with current
standards for car parking provision. With regards to the other objections raised, I do not consider that
property devaluation is a material planning consideration and I consider that noise during the construction
period would only be for a limited period and would not be unacceptable in the short-term. With regards to
the concerns over flooding and risk of overland flow from Winton Park, floor levels would have to be built
300mm above the adjacent road level.
My main concern relates to the siting of the proposed dwelling in relation to the trees in Winton Park, to the
rear of the site. There are five mature trees that are close to the boundary and two of them, a sycamore and
a silver birch, overhang the application site. The City Council’s Senior Arboricultural Officer has inspected
the trees and has rated each of the trees highly in terms of site amenity value and visual impact. The
applicant has indicated that there would need to be some moderate cutting back of the sycamore and silver
birch trees to accommodate the proposed development. The trunk of the sycamore is located just 4.5 metres
from the proposed dwelling and the silver birch 6.5 metres. The footprint of the building would need to be
located at a minimum distance of 8.0 metres from the trees in order to protect the root systems, at the
distance proposed, the development would jeopardise the City Council’s trees within Winton Park and
would also affect the amenity of future residents in terms of shade to the side garden areas and side
windows, leaf debris and concern regarding property safety. I consider that the siting of the proposed
development would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the mature trees within Winton Park.
RECOMMENDATION:
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The siting of the proposed development would be detrimental to the amenity of the area by affecting, to
an undesirable degree, trees which are located within Winton Park. Any loss or damage to trees would
be detrimental to the amenity of the area, contrary to Policy EN7 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/46392/FUL
APPLICANT:
R Bradburn
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To 63 Crawford Street Monton Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a two storey detached dwelling including alterations to
existing vehicular and pedestrian access (Resubmission of application
03/45858/FUL)
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the side garden and site of a former detached garage of 63 Crawford Street, an
end-terraced dwelling. Planning permission is sought for the erection of a two-storey detached dwelling.
The dwelling would be set back 4.6 metres from the front building line of Crawford Street. There is a single
storey rear extension at 63 Crawford Street which wraps around the side of the dwelling, the proposed
dwelling would be sited 1.0 metre from this extension and 2.7 metres from the original gable of this
dwelling. The main habitable room windows would be located on the north-west (front) and south-east
(rear) elevations.
One car parking space would be provided to the front of the dwelling. Garden areas are proposed to the
front, side and rear of the dwelling.
The surrounding area is predominantly residential. To the south-west, are terraced dwellings on Stanier
Avenue which are separated from the application site by a public footpath.
SITE HISTORY
03/45858/FUL - Erection of a two storey detached dwelling including alterations to existing vehicular and
pedestrian access. Application withdrawn.
01/42817/FUL - Erection of a detached bungalow and alteration to existing vehicular access. Refused
4.10.01. Reason 1) The proposed development by reason of its size and siting would create an unduly
overbearing and dominating structure which would adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
As such it does not accord with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary development Plan. Reason 2)
The proposed development by reason of its size, siting and design, allied to the configuration of the site,
would create an unduly obtrusive feature which would be out of character with the streetscene, to the
detriment of the visual amenity of the area. As such the proposal conflicts with policies DEV1 and DEV2
of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections. Guidance on construction site noise provided.
The Coal Authority – Report on Coal Mining Circumstances provided.
PUBLICITY
Site Notice displayed 25th June 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
38, 59, 61, 63 Crawford Street
2 – 6 (e), 1 – 9 (o) Stanier Avenue
70 – 84 (e) Lansdowne Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received five letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified
are as follows:





disruption from building work in terms of noise, site traffic and privacy
work materials stored on application site
two storey property will block the sun to back garden of 63 Crawford Street in the afternoons
the living rooms of houses on Stanier Avenue all look out onto the application site, the view is
currently a pleasant one and light will be lost
1 and 5 Stanier Avenue have conservatories, views will be obscured
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 - Development Criteria
DEV2 - Good Design
T13 - Car Parking
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that regard should be had to a number of issues when
determining applications for planning permission, including the effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for
neighbouring properties and the visual appearance of the development. 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 T13 states that the City Council will ensure that adequate parking
provision is made where necessary and that the car parking standard for a new dwelling should be 2 spaces.
The First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan stipulates that there should be a minimum average of 1.5 spaces
per dwelling, in line with national planning guidance contained within PPG13. Other policies of the First
Deposit Draft Replacement UDP are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
I do not consider that there would be any significant loss of privacy to dwellings on the opposite side of
Crawford Street and dwellings to the rear on Lansdowne Road as there would be separation distances in
excess of 21 metres. With regards to 63 Crawford Street, the applicant has confirmed that the internal walls
of the ground floor have been removed to create a single room, with the main windows to the front - the
lounge window to the side of this property is therefore considered to be a secondary window. At the rear of
63 Crawford Street, the window at first floor which would be just inside the 45 degree line is a bathroom
window. I am satisfied that the siting of the proposed dwelling would not result in any significant loss of
privacy or light to 63 Crawford Street. The proposed dwelling would be set forward 1.6 metres beyond the
kitchen extension at 63 Crawford Street, I do not, however, consider that this would result in any significant
loss of sunshine or light to this garden area.
A minimum distance of 13 metres would be maintained between the proposed dwelling and the habitable
room windows of 1 – 5 Stanier Avenue. There are conservatories to the rear of 1 and 5 Stanier Avenue, but
the proposed dwelling is positioned so that it is not directly to the rear of either of these dwellings and as
such, I do not consider that it would be overbearing or lead to any significant loss of light. The only
windows proposed on the elevation facing the dwellings on Stanier Avenue are for the bathroom and
kitchen, so I do not consider that these residents would suffer from any loss of privacy.
I do not consider that the erection of one additional dwelling would result in any significant increase in
traffic generation. With regards to car parking, the boundary to the application site would allow two car
parking spaces to be provided at 63 Crawford Street. The proposal would allow for one space to be provided
within the application site. I consider that this is acceptable for a two-bedroom dwelling and is in
accordance with current standards for car parking provision.
With regards to the objections raised in relation to noise and disruption during the during construction, as
the construction period would only be for a limited period, I consider that this would not be unacceptable in
the short-term. I have attached a note to the applicant regarding construction site noise and hours that works
can be undertaken, as recommended by the Director of Environmental Services.
A two-storey dwelling would be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and I consider that
the proposed design and external appearance are acceptable. I consider that the reasons for the refusal for
the previous application for residential development at this site have been overcome.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
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 existing and proposed finished floor levels of
the ground floor of the proposed dwelling have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services. Such floor levels shall thereafter be constructed and maintained to
the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. To ensure that the ground floor of the property is not flooded with sewage.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Coal Authority.
2. Please contact United Utilities regarding the requirement for approval for sewer connections.
3. Please see attached guidance on construction site noise. Please note that work shall only be carried out
between 0800 and 1800 hours Monday to Friday (excluding bank holidays) and 0800 and 1300 hours
on Saturday.
4. Please note that there is serious foul flooding on Crawford Street and in the adjacent properties. It is
essential that floor levels are at least 300mm above carriageway/ footway level to ensure ground floor is
not flooded with sewage. (Please see condition no. 3)
APPLICATION No:
03/46394/COU
APPLICANT:
A Geddal
LOCATION:
5 Church Street Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from shop to shop for the sale of hot food (Re-submission
of application 03/45963/COU)
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
7th August 2003
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application is for the change of use from retail (A1) to shop for the sale of hot food (A3). Proposed
hours are 1100-2215 on Monday-Thursday, 1100-2315 on Friday & Saturday, and 1215-2200 on Sundays.
It is a mid-terrace property with a lottery office to the north (no.1-3) and a solicitors to the south (no.7-9). It
is opposite a public house and carpet showroom; most properties have offices/storage on upper floors.
There is no customer parking but there is pay parking and a range of public transport in the surrounding
area, while servicing will be via rear access.
Church Street itself is a significant shopping street forming part of Eccles Town Centre, a designated town
centre with regard to Policy S1. The surrounding area is largely retail and employment related, with any
ancillary residential flats connected to local shops.
This application was previously refused at Panel in May 2003 on the grounds of detriment to the character
and amenity of the area. Further to this refusal, the applicant has submitted details to improve the
application, including a ‘duct extraction system’ and has reduced the hours of use to reduce the impact on
any nearby flats. The applicant has also provided a supporting statement to stress the positive potential of
this proposal towards the regeneration of the town centre and local benefit to the community.
SITE HISTORY
In May 2003, planning permission was refused for the change of use from shop to shop for the sale of hot
food (03/45963/COU).
In 1986, planning permission was granted for the installation of a new shop front (E/21205).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No comments received.
Eccles Town Centre Manager – No comments received.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
4-30(e) Church Street
1-3(o) Church Street
7-15(o) Church Street
9-21(o) Church Road
REPRESENTATIONS
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
I have received two (1) representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The
main issues identified are as follows:
Pollution: smells, litter & public hygiene – storage space for waste bins
Drainage & Rodents – problems in recent years
Lack of car-parking/delivery access
Security – lack of shutters on adjacent properties
Character of vicinity – development would detract from recent improvements
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
S1 – Town Centres
Other policies:
S2 – Location of New Retail Development
S5 – Control of Food & Drink Premises
DEV1 – Development Criteria
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
S2/2 – Location of New Retail and Leisure Development – Eccles Town Centre
Other policies:
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES3 – Design of Public Space
DES11 – Design & Crime
S1 – Provision of New Retail and leisure Development
S4 – Amusement Centres and Food & Drink Uses
ST9 – Retail, Leisure, Social, and Community Provision
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The primary concern is the relationship of the proposal site to neighbouring residential dwellings, with
regard to Policy S5 (control of food & drink premises) and Policy DEV1 (development criteria). This states
that such proposals must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on surrounding residential amenity, or be
significantly prejudicial to the safety of pedestrians and road users.
Policy S5 states that proposals for the sale of hot food and drink will only be permitted where the use would
not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenities of surrounding residential properties and would
not be significantly prejudicial to the safety of pedestrians and road users. The property is presently a vacant
retail outlet and although there are no flats at first floor level of adjacent premises, or opposite. However,
while there are few flats I do not consider this to be a residential area and any existing occupiers of these
flats will already suffer some loss of amenity from the associated noise, fumes and general disturbance
normally expected in a Town Centre.
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
Of further importance is the suitability of the proposed development within Eccles Town Centre, which
must be supported by Policy S1 (Town Centres). This states that the City Council will normally permit
changes of use or re-development to Class A1 and A2, unless this would have an unacceptable effect on the
amenity, environment, vitality or viability of a town centre, either individually or by virtue of the
cumulative effect of such developments. Policy S2 requires that all new retail development should be
located in or immediately adjacent to existing shopping centres, with particular reference to regeneration,
local benefits, economic effects, environmental effects, accessibility, alternative sites, suitability, and
suitability/locational requirements.
Objectors have drawn attention to the character of the proposed development as out-of-character with the
locality. However, the ‘Salford Retail Activity Assessment of 2001’ shows the nature of this part (upper
Church Street) of Eccles Town Centre as mainly A3, A1 and B1 uses; other A3 uses include 4
bars/restaurants adjacent to Eccles Railway Station, thus suggesting that the proposed development will be
infitting with nearby uses.
With regard to car-parking I consider this to be a lower priority given the proposed location within a Town
Centre where many shoppers would find the outlet to be conveniently located close to shops, as well as
providing food for persons attending evening entertainment. In order to respond to concerns regarding litter
and pollution I shall recommend a condition to provide a litter bin on-street prior to opening.
Further to my analysis above and the improvements made by the applicant, I consider this application to be
acceptable, with particular reference to appropriate development and residential proximity.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition G09X Extraction of Fumes etc.
3. The use hereby permitted shall ONLY be operated between the hours of 1100 - 2230 on Monday to
Thursday; 1100 - 2330 on Friday and Saturday; and Midday - 2200 on Sundays.
4. Prior to the development hereby approved coming into use, the applicant shall provide a litter bin to the
front of the premises. The applicant shall first submit details of the design and position of the litter bin
(in liaison with the Director of Environment Services), for the written approval of the Local Planning
Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
2. To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is informed that the proposed signage will require a seperate advertisement planning
application to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.
APPLICATION No:
03/46421/COU
APPLICANT:
GMPTE
LOCATION:
Car Park At Corner Of Chapel Street And Victoria Bridge Street
Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Conversion of existing car park into bus station with provision of
temporary mess facilities/office accommodation
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of the former Victoria Bus Station situated on Chapel Street at the
junction with Victoria Bridge Street. The site has been used as a car park since the former bus station closed
in the late 1980s. The site lies within the Cathedral Conservation Area which contains a number of
significant Listed Buildings. In this respect the site forms part of the setting of the nearby Grade I Listed
Manchester Cathedral which is clearly visible both from the site and from beyond and across the site. The
site is also immediately adjacent to the Grade II Listed Victoria Bridge.
The application seeks approval for the temporary use of the site as a bus station for a period of two years.
As well as works to provide seven bus stops it is proposed to site three portable buildings on the site. These
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
would all measure 2.7m high by 3m wide and would vary in length from 6m to 10m and would provide
toilet and canteen facilities for drivers and offices for station inspectors. These portable buildings would be
located to the rear of the site. The proposals include the erection of a 2.4m close boarded fence to the rear of
the site and the bringing back into use of an existing kiosk on the site.
The development is required in order to ensure a bus station facility between the loss of a significant
number of stops and staff facilities with the closure of Cannon Street to facilitate an approved development
at the Arndale Centre and the completion of the Shudehill transport Interchange in some 18 months time.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No response to date
Manchester City Council – Supports the proposal as a means of providing for the bus movements in this
locality during the period between the closure of Cannon Street and the completion of the Shudehill
Transport Interchange. Should a proposal emerge in the future for the longer term use of the land as a bus
facility, the City council would expect the current temporary design to be revisited. The proposed physical
works are of the most basic quality and appearance and are therefore only considered to be appropriate
given the intended temporary nature of the proposed use. Consideration should be given to minimising the
effect of the proposed use on the environment and amenity of the area by seeking to minimise the time that
any buses are standing with their engines idling, for example, and consideration should be given to ensuring
an appropriate level of illumination in and around the site.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
1 to 7 and 7A Chapel Street
12 to 16 and Premier Lodge Greengate
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of objection all from After Adoption residing at 12-14 Chapel Street in
response to the planning application publicity. The following issues have been raised:Work has commenced and continues prior to permission being granted
Noise and disturbance during construction
Noise, disturbance and pollution caused by the operation of the bus station
Loss of highway safety
Loss of value
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: CS4 Exchange, DEV1 Development Criteria, EN11 Protection and Enhancement of
Conservation Areas, T1 A Balanced Transport Network, T4 Public Transport
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: MX1 Development in Mixed Areas, MX2 Chapel Street Frontage, CH5 Works Within
Conservation Areas, A5 Buses
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy CS4 states that the City Council will promote the redevelopment of Exchange for tourism, leisure
and offices, and other related ancillary uses. Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a
number of factors when dealing with applications. These factors include the likely scale and type of traffic
generation, the potential level of environmental pollution including noise, the effect on neighbouring
properties and the visual appearance of the development and its relationship to its surroundings. Policy
EN11 states that the City Council will seek to preserve or enhance the special character of areas of
architectural and historic interest. In considering any planning application for development within a
conservation area the City Council will consider the extent to which that development is consistent with the
desirability of preserving or enhancing the conservation area. Policy T1 states that the City Council will
promote the development of a balanced transport network and policy T4 states that the City Council will
encourage greater use of the public transport network.
The policies of the replacement plan are generally similar to and support those of the adopted plan with
respect to this development.
With regard to noise and disturbance during construction this must to a certain extent be expected on any
construction site wherever it may be. Noise, pollution and disturbance as a result of the operation of the bus
station would not, in my opinion be significant given that the site is located within the heart of the regional
centre and was until comparatively recently used for exactly the same purpose as is proposed now. I do not
consider that there would be any significant loss of highway safety as a result of this development, indeed I
am of the opinion that far greater concerns would be valid were a suitable temporary bus station not be
found. Finally loss of value is not a material planning consideration that can be taken into account in the
assessment of any application.
While the proposed development is fully supported by transport policies in both the adopted and
replacement plans I am concerned that the use of basic temporary buildings, albeit for a temporary period, is
never appropriate in a conservation area and especially so where the site is on such an important gateway
route into the regional centre and so close to an area of significant historic importance where considerable
investment, including of public money, has resulted in high quality improvements to both the public realm
and existing buildings and in new high quality built developments. In this regard I consider the
development to be contrary to conservation area policies in both the adopted and replacement plans.
I consider that, on balance, the need for a temporary bus station does, in this instance, outweigh my
concerns regarding the provision of portable buildings. I have already expressed my concerns to the
applicant and I understand that alternative options for the provision of staff facilities are being investigated.
I therefore consider that planning permission should be granted for the portable buildings for a period of
approximately six months to allow the applicant to properly investigate and make available such alternative
appropriate facilities. I do not consider that a condition regarding engines running is one that could be
properly enforced and with regard to lighting I am satisfied that appropriate lighting would be provided by
the applicant.
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition H03G Limited Period - Use of Land
3. The portable buildings hereby granted permission shall be removed on or before the expiration of a
period ending on 31st January 2004 unless a further permission has been granted by the Local Planning
Authority.
4. Prior to the use first commencing the traffic signals at Victoria Bridge Street/Chapel Street/Greengate
shall be amended to provide a new signal stage from the site onto Chapel Street. In addition a box
junction marking shall be provided at the site entrance. Full details of these works shall have first been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R006A Character - conservation area
3. Standard Reason R006A Character - conservation area
4. In the interets of highway safety and to allow buses to exit the site safely.
APPLICATION No:
03/46429/FUL
APPLICANT:
M/cr Central Board For Hebrew Education And Talmud Torah
LOCATION:
Site Of Former Public Convenience Adj To Northumberland Street
And Leicester Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Removal of condition 05 (Personal condition) on planning permission
02/45290/FUL
WARD:
Broughton
BACKGROUND
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
This application seeks the removal of condition 5, a personal condition, on planning application
02/45290/FUL.
This condition read as follows:This permission shall enure for the benefit of the applicant, the Manchester Board for Hebrew
education only.
The reason for the condition was as follows:Inadequate provision has been made for the parking of vehicles to allow the unrestricted use of the
building in accordance with Policy T13 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to former toilets at the junction of Northumberland Street and Leicester Road. The
site is owned by the City Council and the toilets have been closed for the last few years. The site has a
frontage to Leicester Road of some 14m and extends back by the same distance. To the north is the car park
of a school and to the south are other office buildings. The junction of Northumberland Street and Leicester
Road is to be altered to a roundabout in the near future.
It is proposed to construct a three storey office building on the site. The building would measure 12m by
11m and would fill the plot. It would be set back from the back of pavement by approximately 3m. A total
of 250sq.m of floorspace would be created. No parking spaces would be provided and the creation of the
roundabout would make any vehicular access from Leicester Road impossible.
There are a total of five trees growing immediately around the existing toilet building. These would be lost
as a result of the development of the site.
The building would be faced in brick and would have 2 sections of full height glazing. The building has
been design to have a sloping roof and curved brickwork to the front elevation.
In a supporting statement submitted on behalf of the applicant it is stated that the Manchester Board for
Hebrew Education is committed to the development and has a history of more than 120 years in Manchester
and Salford. Nonetheless, two considerations come into play: one is that despite this commitment,
circumstances might change at some time in the future and there might have to be another occupier who
would take over the building. Secondly, the trustees of the charity have a responsibility to Charity
Commissioners which means that they have to take into account the long-term possibilities for the building.
The supporting statement highlights the change in relation to parking policies in recent years: from being
regarded as minima which developers must seek to achieve, they are now regarded as maxima which must
not be exceeded. Developers shouldn’t provide more space than they wish and local authorities should not
impose minimum standards
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No response to date
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
Broughton Park residents Association – No response to date
Environment Agency – No objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No response to date
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:Bnos Yisroel School, The Old Library House Leicester Road
Cherry Trees Nursing Home Mandley Park Avenue
41 to 45 Northumberland Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, T13 Car Parking
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context,
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. Such factors include the nature of the proposed use, the likely scale and type of traffic
generation, car parking provision, the effect on neighbouring properties, the visual appearance of the
development and its impact on trees. Policy T13 states that the City Council will ensure that adequate and
appropriate car parking and servicing provision is made where necessary.
I have received no objections to the proposed development. The applicant is a charity and only one floor of
the building would be used as offices, the rest being used for the storage of records. The applicant has
attempted to secure off road parking but this has improved impossible beyond an informal agreement. I am
satisfied however, that the particular use by the applicant would not result in any significant parking or
servicing requirements.
The applicant points out that the applicant wants to provide the building and is confident that it will function
efficiently without any car parking and that in granting a personal condition the City Council have agreed
with the applicant. The applicant’s agent argues that no one will take over the building if car parking is
essential to their operation and while the Manchester Board for Hebrew Education is very much a local
institution, there is no reason to think it is unique. It is quite possible that other local office users would
want to take responsibility for the building. It encourages a sustainable use of the site and discourages one
based on private transport.
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
Having carefully considered the applicants argument I consider that a personal condition is not necessary
and therefore recommend that permission be granted subject to the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition C01X Landscaping
3. The trees referred to in condition 2 shall be provided, at a ratio of two new trees for each tree removed,
at the applicant's expense, in a nearby location to be agreed in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
4. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
APPLICATION No:
03/46456/FUL
APPLICANT:
M J Stewart
LOCATION:
Plot Adj To 3 Folly Lane Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Retention of part two/part three storey dwelling with bedroom in roof
space
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
This application relates to land adjacent to 3 Folly Lane. Planning permission has previously been granted
for the erection of a detached dwelling. During construction of the property it became evident that the
building was not being built in accordance with the approved plans, the roof of the dwelling has been
constructed so that the gable fronts Folly Lane and the ridge of the roof runs from front to back.
The area is residential in nature comprising semi detached and terraced properties. There is a significant
change in levels within the site, the rear drops down towards Deans Brook. The footprint of this proposal
measures 9.7m along Folly Lane and 10.6m in depth. At its closest, it would maintain 5m to Folly Lane and
23.5m to the properties opposite on Folly Lane.
The design of the scheme is identical to that approved on two previous occasions other than the reposition
of the roof and one additional window within each of the front and rear gables.
The rear of the development is three storey due to the general fall of the site with the addition of bedroom
space within the roof and window within the gable. The design includes a patio door at first floor level and
balcony which projects 0.9m X 4.4m.
SITE HISTORY
In December of last year, planning permission was granted for the erection of a part two / part three storey
detached dwelling, identical to that approved in 1992. (02/44954/FUL)
In 1992, planning permission was granted for the erection of a part two / part three storey detached
dwelling. (E/29338)
In 1988, planning permission was granted for the erection of a three bedroom split level detached house
(E/23579)
A further application is currently before members for a details of the design and external appearance for
part three, part four storey building on the adjoining site (03/46385/REM)
In May of this year, details of the design and external appearance and landscaping for part three, part four
storey building was approved on the adjoining site (03/45981/REM)
In April of this year, outline planning consent was granted for the siting of one four storey block of four flats
and means of access on the adjoining site. (03/45554/OUT)
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified :
5 – 11 (odd) Folly Lane
3, 78 – 88 and 90 – 102 (even) Folly Lane
18 – 24 (even) Holly Road
32 and 34 Warren Drive
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified
are as follows:
The application is misleading and incorrect
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV 1 Development Criteria,
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors in determining
applications for planning permission, including the location and nature of the proposed development; the
amount, design and layout of car parking provision; the arrangements for servicing and access and the
visual appearance of the development.
The replacement plan policies are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
The letter of objection to the scheme states that the application is invalid due to the wording of the
description. No other objections are referred to in this letter. I have written to the objector and should I
receive any specific objections to the scheme I will report them to Panel.
The planning issue with regard to this application is the design of the revised roof details. The principle of
this development has already been established through three earlier applications.
The majority of properties on Folly Lane comprise roof lines with the ridges running left to right as opposed
to front to back as in this instance. However, there are examples within close proximity to the site where the
buildings at the end of rows and terraces have their gables facing forward. As such I do not consider that the
re-position of the roof is harmful to the character of the area. I am also of the opinion that 23.5m, separation
between properties on Folly Lane and 60m to the nearest property on Holly Road would not result in any
privacy loss.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the design is acceptable in this location and that the provision of the
roof with the gable fronting Folly Lane is not out of character within the area and offers a natural full stop to
the row of properties on Folly Lane.
RECOMMENDATION:
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Within 3 months of the date of this permission a landscape scheme shall be submitted to and approved
by the Director of Development Services. 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 date of this permission and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning
Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of
the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/46460/TEL56
APPLICANT:
Hutchinson 3G UK
LOCATION:
Site To North Side Of Bolton Road And Opposite 323 Bolton Road
Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Prior notification for the installation of a 10m high telecommunications
mast with mock lighting arm, three antennas, an equipment cabin and
development ancillary thereto. (Re-submission of prior notification
03/46089/TEL56)
WARD:
Claremont
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a site opposite 323 Bolton Road. The proposal is to erect a 10 metre high
monopole mast with mock lighting arm at the back of the footpath, adjacent to an area of landscaping. Three
1.7 metre antennas would be mounted on the monopole. An equipment cabinet measuring 1.75 metres by
0.95 metres by 1.5 metres in height would be located adjacent to the monopole.
A certificate has been submitted declaring that the proposed development would be in conformity with the
ICNIRP guidelines.
The site is opposite the Bolton Road key local centre – there are a mix of key local centre uses at ground
floor, above which are two floors of flats (Irlam Square). To the rear of the site is an area of landscaping,
beyond which and at a lower level is the East Lancashire Road.
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
SITE HISTORY
03/46089/TEL56 - Prior notification of the installation of a 10m high telecommunications monopole mast
with three antennas, one 300mm microwave dish and associated equipment cabin and ancillary
development. Refused 10.06.03. (Reason: Insufficient details have been submitted to enable the full
implications of the proposed telecommunications development to be assessed).
PUBLICITY
Site Notice displayed 9th July 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
309 – 335 Bolton Road
23, 24, 54 – 94 Irlam Square
Summerville County Primary School, Summerville Road
Claremont Community Association, Moorfield Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity and letters of objection from
Councillor Perkins and the Claremont Community Association. The main issues identified are as follows:









there is already a phone mast nearby and to have another is detrimental to visual amenity
to approve another so close is contrary to Government guidelines
to approve this application would send the message to commercial companies that clusters of phone
masts are acceptable, this contravenes the spirit of central government guidelines
another large phone mast close to this busy stretch of road might tend to act as a dangerous
distraction to drivers
the health implications of having clusters of these phone masts is still awaiting further guidelines
the mast is large, ugly and too close to local homes
too close proximity to flats opposite (Irlam Square) – concerns regarding health and appearance
Summerville School is only a few hundred yards away
Street furniture could cause problems for pedestrians
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: SC14 - Telecommunications
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: DEV1 - Telecommunications
PLANNING APPRAISAL
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
Unitary Development Plan policy SC14 states that the City Council will normally grant planning
permission for telecommunications development where such a development would not have an
unacceptable effect on visual amenity, residential amenity, areas of high ecological, archaeological or
geological value and conservation areas, listed buildings and ancient monuments. The policy also states that
the City Council will take into account a number of factors in determining such applications including
whether there are any satisfactory alternative sites and whether there is any reasonable possibility of sharing
existing telecommunication facilities. Policy DEV1 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP is broadly
similar to that of the adopted plan. This policy states that such proposals will only be permitted where there
is no unacceptable impact on health and the operator has demonstrated compliance with all relevant
ICNIRP standards, taking into account any cumulative emissions from other nearby telecommunications
development. Greater emphasis is also placed upon the siting and appearance of such development and the
use of screening.
The objections raised concern the health implications of clusters of telecommunications masts, the
appearance of the proposed mast and that it would be a distraction to drivers. The applicant has submitted a
declaration stating that the development would be in accordance with the ICNIRP guidelines. This is in
accordance with the latest government guidance in relation to telecommunications development. I consider
that the only matters for consideration are therefore those of siting and design and the impact on visual
amenity.
A dummy lighting arm would be attached to the installation which would be of a similar design to the
surrounding street lighting posts. The site lies adjacent to a main road, where the proposed monopole would
be viewed in conjunction with existing lamp posts. As such, I do not consider that the monopole would
appear a significantly unsightly feature in the street scene. Similarly, the proposed equipment cabinets
would also be viewed in conjunction with existing street furniture. Consequently, I do not believe that the
development would introduce an incongruous or intrusive feature into the streetscene. With regards to the
objection raised relating to highway safety, I do not consider that the appearance of the proposed
development or its siting at the back of the footpath would cause a distraction to drivers.
Information has been submitted indicating that alternative sites in the area have been considered. The
equipment cabin has been repositioned to ensure that the footpath width is a minimum of 3 metres, to ensure
accessibility is maintained. A smaller secondary equipment cabinet has also been deleted from the proposal.
I do not consider that the development would result in clutter in the streetscene.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 25th July 2003 which shows amended
cabinet position.
3. The mast and equipment cabinet 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.
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Please contact the Director of Development Services (Highways Maintenance Section) regarding the
requirements for strengthening the footway to carry construction/servicing vehicles and any
requirements for dropped crossings.
APPLICATION No:
03/46477/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr C Cheadle
LOCATION:
7 Chessington Rise Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a part two storey/part single storey side extension and single
storey rear extension (Resubmission of Planning Application
03/46061/HH)
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a semi-detached house. The proposal is to construct a two storey side extension
and a single storey rear extension. The two storey side extension would be 3.16m in width and would be the
length of the house, although the first floor element of the extension has been set back 2m from the front
main wall in order to ensure that there would be terracing effect. There would also be a single storey rear
extension across the whole of the house and the proposed side extension which would project out 2.3m from
the back of the property.
SITE HISTORY
In June this year planning permission was refused for a two storey side and single storey rear extension, on
the grounds that it could result in a possible terracing effect.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
2, 4, 5 & 9 Chessington Rise
1 & 3 Ellerby Ave
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The objections are the same
that was raised previously and are as follows:
the occupiers of the house to the rear are concerned that the two storey extension would block
sunlight from their property, especially the patio
the occupier to the side is concerned that a loss of light will be to the kitchen/ dining room and
bedroom
the extension would shadow the patio, where time is spent owing to poor health
the proposal would leave no driveway and add to problems of cars parking on the street and
blocking the drive, which already happens
the extension would affect the sale of the property
the noise and disturbance during construction would cause considerable anguish and
exacerbate poor health.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8
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.
The previous application, which is very similar to this current application, was refused because it did not
meet the Council’s policy regarding a possible terracing effect. The scheme has been amended to resolve
this issue. However, as the neighbours have once again objected to this proposal, I have reconsidered their
grounds of objection and the possible effect on the neighbours. The neighbour to the rear is concerned that
they will suffer a loss of sunlight, particularly to their garden. I understand their concern as the application
property is located to the south east of their house and the two storey extension may have some effect on
sunlight that currently affects their garden. However, the orientation of their house and other surrounding
houses also would have an affect on the direct sun that they can benefit from. I am satisfied that the
proposed extension provides adequate separation from the house to the rear, at over 9m to the nearest part
particularly given the angled relationship between the two houses. Therefore I do not consider that this
would have an adverse impact in terms of loss of light or overbearing impact on the house to the rear.
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
I am mindful that the neighbouring property is concerned, particularly given that the applicants property is
set back in relationship to her house. However, the projection of the 2 storey extension would be equal to
the distance that the neighbours house is from the boundary. Therefore I would consider that this extension
would comply with the Council’s SPG and would not have a seriously detrimental impact on the neighbours
house in terms of loss of light, overlooking or overbearing. As the objector’s patio is set on the far side of
her property I do not consider that the extension would have such an overshadowing or overbearing impact
on her garden.
The proposed extension would still provide a drive of at least 6m in length and therefore the applicant could
still achieve off-road parking for at least one car, which is what I would normally require.
RECOMMENDATION:
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 roofs of the development shall be the same type,
colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director
of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/46337/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Wardley C Of E High School
LOCATION:
Wardley C Of E Primary School Moss Bank Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4m high perimeter fencing and gates
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a school within this residential area. The proposal is to erect a 2.4m high fence
around the whole school. Along the front, and part of the sides where it faces houses it is intended to have
the railing style fence. Around the rest of the site, it is intended to have palisade fencing. It would all be
colour coated.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1, 2, 9, 17 –23 (odd) Peatfield Ave
1 – 5 (odd) Mossbank Road
2 – 22 (even) Mossbank Road
4 12 (even) Sindsley Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one verbal objection to a number of issues regarding the school. The issues relevant to this
application are that the fence would be too high right in front of his house, and it will still not stop the
children from getting into the site.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV4 – Design and crime
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEWS11 – Design and crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy Dev4 seeks to encourage greater considerations of crime prevention and property security. This
intention is reiterated in policy DES11. The school is seeking to replace their existing railings with a higher
fence for increased security. It is intended to have railings around the front boundary, and along a length of
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th August 2003
the side boundaries where is faces or adjoins the residential properties. The rest of the fencing away from
the houses would be palisade. It would all be 2.4m high in order to provide as much security as possible.
I am aware that the occupier of the closest residential property has voiced their objection to the proposal,
because of the proximity and the height. Initially this part of the fence was shown to follow the line of the
existing fence which would have been approximately 4m from the neighbour’s front kitchen window.
However, following the representation from this neighbour the school has sought to amend the line away
from the front of his house. It is now proposed to cut the corner of the site with the new railings so that it
would take it further away from his front window. This new line would result in the felling of a beech tree,
which is one of a group of trees that are at the front of the school. I do consider that the possible loss of this
tree is not ideal. However, several options have been explored in order to secure the school and if this fence
is moved to other positions around the front perimeter then it would not necessarily be as secure and the
front nursery playground could be left outside the fencing. Alternatively the fence could follow the line of
the existing perimeter as originally submitted, but this would be very close to the front of the neighbouring
resident.. I would consider that the impact on the amenity of the area from the loss of one tree would be
relatively limited given that it is within a group of trees which would still remain. Therefore I would
consider that the revised line does offer a compromise position which would reduce the impact on the
neighbour
I am aware that the objector is of the opinion that this fence would be a waste of money as the children
would still be able to get in and I agree that there is no way to ensure that no children get into the site when
the school is closed. However, this height of fencing is generally accepted to give a reasonable degree of
security to properties, and therefore I would recommend that the scheme be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The fencing hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior to the
commencement of the development by the Director of Development Services.
3. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 23 July 2003 which shows revised fence
style and position.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
55
7th August 2003
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
56
7th August 2003