PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/46380/FUL
APPLICANT:
Alderbrook Management
LOCATION:
Land Between River Irwell Gerald Road And Seaford Road
Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 5 part 3/part 4 storey student halls comprising 535
units,2 retail units,2 hot food takeaways(A3) together with assoc.
landscaping,carparking and construction of new and alts. to
existing vehicular and pedestrian accesses.
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a site bounded by Seaford Road and Gerald Road which is currently in
the ownership of the City Council. It has a frontage along Seaford Road of 200m from the junction
with Gerald Road and including Holford Street and extends back along Gerald Road by 130m.
The site was previously occupied by the residential terraced properties of Seaford Road, Tennyson
Street, Wordsworth Street and Longfellow Street but these have been demolished very recently
together with the dwellings on Scott Street to the immediate east of the site. To the south of
Holford Street is the student accommodation off Gemini Road and also the former Frederick Road
bus station which is now also student accommodation. To the north and also directly opposite the
site on Seaford Road to the west are more residential dwellings whilst to the south west are
industrial units.
It is proposed to erect accommodation for 535 students within four main blocks which would each
stand parallel to the site boundary, thereby creating a central courtyard effect. Access would be
taken off Seaford Road to inside the central area through a canopied entrance, where there would
be 104 parking spaces and amenity area for the students. In the south west corner of the site at the
junction of Seaford Road and Gerald Road there would be a small retail area comprising two
shops, with student accommodation over to give a high building mass and two Hot Food Take
Away single storey units. These would have 27 separate parking spaces on the frontage and
accessed off Seaford Road with a loading area, adjacent to block 3 at the rear of the units on Gerald
Road.
Finally, it is proposed to landscape the site and incorporate a footpath along the southern boundary
replacing Holford Street, which provided a pedestrian link to the Gerald Road footbridge.
A traffic assessment has been submitted as part of the application together with a design statement
and a report assessing the demand for more student accommodation within the City.
I have highlighted below extracts from their design statement in support of their proposal.
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
The aim of the scheme has been an attractive alternative to the previously derelict properties with
the hope of contributing to regeneration, and by the incorporation of facilities which can be used
by the existing residents, making a difference to the wider locality and contributing to integrating
of the new residents in the locality.
….The layout has been developed to encourage a welcoming, yet secure centre for
accommodation,…. The buildings are designed to be lower in scale along the elevations facing
away from the site on Seaford Road and Gerald Road than those facing towards the central
courtyard. Similarly the development consists of a number of independent blocks to provide sight
lines through the development and therefore presents a redevelopment which is friendly and
inclusive rather than appearing as a defensive barrier to the surrounding area whilst at the same
time maintaining security. The position of the proposed shops on the site is also a key feature
reinforcing focus and identity to the prominent junction of Seaford Road and Gerald Road.
…The elevations are of a high quality design using a combination of contemporary materials and
those found more commonly in the surrounding built environment. All this is done with the
intention of emphasising the concept of a new beginning for the site, whilst working alongside and
enhancing the older surroundings.
The car parking requirements for student accommodation are limited and this enables large areas
of the central courtyard to be allocated to landscaping rather than parking. The limited parking
requirements have been located in a secure central courtyard away from public view which
prevents the surrounding roads from becoming congested with the students cars. The parking
areas themselves are also landscaped and their location in relation to the residential blocks
enables there to be provision of large areas of private open space for the residents. The sites
perimeter railings are softened by the introduction of hedging and trees and provide a quality
boundary treatment which is both secure and in keeping with the domestic scale of the
surroundings
The site is located within an existing residential area, close to other student residence and within
walking distance of the university campus. There are existing public transport linkes to major
shopping and social facilities locally. Four specifically designed retail units have been
incorporated into the design with the aim of being a springboard for encouraging successful
integration and rejuvenation, not just for the students, but also for the larger community. Off road
parking will be provided adjacent to the retail units, again with the intention of preventing
surrounding roads being used as a stopping off point. The primary reason for the incorporation of
the small retail area is to serve the needs of this new student community. This student proposal is
one of a number of student residential facilities ;within the area. It is felt that the provision of
convenience retailing on the site will provide a facility which can be accessed on foot from all of
these areas making a positive contribution towards the council’s sustainability aspirations and
enabling a reduction in travel by car for both new and existing residents.
The applicant has also stated the following in partial justification for the retail element of the
scheme.
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
“The shops are part of the commercial plan for the proposal ….. and hence what makes the scheme
more attractive to students and more viable and sustainable. This proposal, together with the
recently completed student accommodation building on the former Frederick Road bus depot site
and the adjoining housing site which is now fully occupied by students, giving an additional
population for the area of in excess of 1000 students. Current businesses in the area have been
established over many years serving the existing community. Our provision of shopping is
therefore intended to address the additional facilities necessary to serve this growing community.
… The shops that are proposed will re-provide the Chinese takeaway which is to be lost from the
site into the new shopping area. We propose an additional takeaway provider and the demand can
be seen in the location of 1000 students in close proximity who can generally be considered large
users of such premises. We propose a video rental store and once again the type of
accommodation proposed and the type of accommodation proposed and the proximity to the shop
provides the demand for this facility, which does not compete with any similar provision within the
area.
Finally it is proposed to have a convenience store, targeted at the students to be accommodated
within the proposal and intended to provide them with the widest range of goods close to the site.
This provision allows the proposal to meet the needs of the occupiers in a sustainable way that can
be achieved on foot and which responds to secured by design issues by being in close proximity to
the accommodation.”
In relation to the parking provision for the retail element the following is stated:
“Commercial demands of the retailers require that a certain level of parking is provided. This is in
accordance with current parking guidance standards. It is essential that this is provided off street
to ensure safety and security of vehicles and visitors to the site, which would be compromised were
the parking to be sited to the rear of the shops as suggested where it can not be viewed from the
shops or the street.”
SITE HISTORY
Permission was granted in October 2002 for the temporary landscaping of the whole site and
including the housing on Scott Street to the east, planning reference 02/44754/DEEM3.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No comments received
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Officer – Has expressed some concerns about the
residential element and has asked that certain issues be addressed. There were also objections to
the design of the retail units. The applicant has now submitted amended plans to address these
issues and any further observations fron the Liaison officer will be reported verbally
The Environment Agency – no comments received.
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
Director of Environmental Services – recommends that conditions are attached to any
permission requiring the submission of an acoustic report, the restriction of noise levels generated
from the site and that deliveries to the service area are restricted to between 8am and 10pm
Monday and Sunday.
GMPTE – are surprised at the high level of parking provision bearing in mind that this is a student
residence and they are of the opinion that the site could operate with lower levels of car parking.
They would question the requirement for such a high provision relative to the number of students.
The University of Salford’s travel plan is well advanced and there may be the opportunity to
require the developer to “buy in” to this travel plan to ensure that the benefits of this location of
this site with regard to the surrounding facilities are maximised.
In order to maximise the benefits of the site location in relation to public transport and other nearby
facilities it should be ensured that the pedestrian environment is designed to be as safe and
convenient as possible so as not to discourage residents from accessing the site on foot/by public
transport. This can be achieved through measures such as the appropriate use of lighting,
landscaping, road crossing points and surfacing materials. This should be applied throughout the
site and as far as possible on walking routes between the site and other nearby facilities,
particularly University sites.
Charlestown and Lower Kersal New Deal for Communities – consider that this development
would contribute towards the regeneration of the NDC area and will provide modern, safe
accommodation for a significant element of the area’s student population. Together with the
existing student accommodation in the area, it will compliment the proposed Salford Innovation
Park which will provide a “learning quarter” within the NDC area and also provide for some retail
units which would be accessible to residents and students alike. It is urged that permission is
granted for this proposal.
Ramblers Association – No comments received
Peak and Northern Footpath Association – No comments received
Open Spaces Society – No comments received
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – No comments received
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 3 July 2003.
A site notice was displayed on 2 July 2003.
The following neighbour addresses were notified on the original and amended plans:
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
175 – 195, 308 Gerald Road
61 – 103 Seaford Road
1 – 12 Capricorn Way
1- 12 Aquarius Lane
1 – 5 Gemini Road
1 – 12, 14 – 19 Pluto Close
2 – 14 Collie Avenue
1 – 15 Cairn Drive
1 – 4 St Bernards Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received five individual letters of objection and a petition signed by 226 local residents in
response to the planning application publicity. I have also received two letters from local shop
owners in objection to the retail element of the scheme. The following issues have been raised:Increased noise and disturbance from additional students
Increase in traffic – Seaford Road is already a race track and resulting increased danger to
local children and residents
Design - Four storeys is too high
Overlooking and loss of privacy
Loss of light
Insufficient car parking
No need for more student accommodation in the area
Area was previously to be landscaped
Why can’t the area at the rear of the site be incorporated into the site?
Already more than enough retail in the area.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none.
Other policies: DEV2 Good Design, S2 Location of new retail development, S4 local shopping,
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none.
Other policies: H7 Provision of student accommodation, DES1 Respecting Context, DES2
Circulation and Movement, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES 11 Design and Crime,
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The first issue to be addressed is the suitable of the site location for the purpose of providing
student accommodation. In this regard the site is well located, being both close to the University
campus and adjacent to other student housing at the former Tramworks on Frederick Road.
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
The applicant has a current application submitted in June, 2002 (02/44299/FUL) for student
accommodation at Douglas Green, also within the NDC area. This proposal, if granted planning
permission and implemented, would have a major impact on the development of perhaps the
largest potential site in the NDC area. Student accommodation in this location would also be less
suitable locationally. For this reason the applicant has pursued, as an alternative, the development
of the Gerald Road/Seaford Road site. Negotiations with the Council are taking place for the
Council to acquire the applicants interest at Douglas Green and for him to acquire the Councils
interest in the Seaford Road/Gerald Road site contingent upon planning permission being granted
for student accommodation for the current scheme.
The second issue examines whether a development, of the type and scale proposed, can be readily
accommodated on the site. The size and shape of the land available is sufficient to take a large
scale independent residential project and the layout plans indicate generous facilities in terms of
open space and general layout. The site is bounded by clearly defined limits (highways) and is
therefore capable of being developed without adversely affecting neighbouring properties.
The scheme is limited to a maximum of 3 storeys from an external perspective and the four storey
elements are internal to the scheme and well removed from neighbouring properties. The
Council’s normal space and aspect standards towards neighbouring properties have been met.
There is a parking ration of 1 space per 4 bed spaces, which is higher than may be expected for this
form of development, and will ensure that the site is self sufficient in parking facilities.
The retail “complex is of limited size, designed to serve both new residents and also the immediate
locality. The 2 Hot food uses have been designed as single storey and hence not adjoining
residential uses, in order to comply with the Council’s policy towards Hot Food uses. The other
retail use has been designed to have residential uses above and hence create a more impressive
design feature at this corner of the site. The commercial access and servicing facilities have been
amended to meet engineering requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition G05F Hours of Use - Hot Food
3. Standard Condition C02X Implementation of Landscape Scheme
4. The proposed public footpath and associated landscaping shall be completed and available for
use by pedestrians prior to the first occupation of any residential areas on the site.
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
5. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls
and roofs of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director
of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. To ensure proper and adequate public access is provided to replace existing facilities.
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/46474/HH
APPLICANT:
Dr T Garg
LOCATION:
16 Thornway Ellenbrook Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a single storey side extension and a first floor
extension to front
WARD:
Walkden South
At the meeting of the panel held on 21st August 2003 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a detached property in a residential area.
The proposal is for the erection of a first floor front extension over the existing utility room and a
single storey side extension.
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
The front extension would be situated over part of the garage and would project 1.9m from the
main front elevation towards the existing garage forward of the main house. It would have a
hipped roof to match a similar feature on the opposite side of the property.
The single storey side extension would be located on the boundary with No.14. The proposal
would be set back 7m from the front garage wall and 2m from the main front elevation with a
height of 3.6m.
SITE HISTORY
96/34894/HH - Erection of two storey rear extension to provide dining was approved and is now
built.
00/40680/HH - Erection of conservatory at rear of dwelling house was approved and is now built
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
5. 7, 9, 14 and 18 Thornway
24 and 26 Arkholme
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection from the neighbouring occupier in response to the planning
application publicity. The following issues have been raised:Loss of privacy
Creation of wind tunnel
Terracing effect
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
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
Other policies: DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 Alterations and Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 states that planning permission will not be granted for extensions that have an unacceptable
adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking,
overshadowing, dominance loss of light or privacy nor would it have an unacceptably adverse
impact on the character of the street scene, this is re-iterated in policy DES7.
The objection is in relation to the single storey side extension only. With regards to the first floor
front extension. I would consider it to be in keeping with the characteristics of the existing house
and street scene.
The side extension would not have any windows on the side elevation and No.14 has no windows
on the side elevation. No.14 has a conservatory close to the boundary at the rear. The proposal
would not project beyond the rear elevation of the conservatory and would have a patio door on the
rear elevation, I would not consider the proposal to have an impact on the privacy of the
neighbouring occupiers.
I would not consider the introduction of a single-storey side extension in an area of two-storey
properties to have the potential to create a terracing effect. There is no evidence to suggest that the
proposal would create a wind tunnel nor would I consider it to be a significant material
consideration. Therefore I would not consider the proposal to have a detrimental impact on the
street scene or the occupiers of neighbouring properties.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same
type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by
the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/46491/FUL
APPLICANT:
Akzo Nobel (UK) Limited
LOCATION:
Akzo Nobel (UK) Limited Dean Road Cadishead
PROPOSAL:
Works for the remediation of contaminated land
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site is the former Akzo Nobel ink works which is bounded by Magenta Avenue, Dean Road,
Allotment Road, Rivington Road, railway line and the Irlam Industrial Estate. The site has been
levelled following the demolition of the former factory buildings. Vehicular access to the site from
Liverpool Road is obtained along Magenta Avenue and Allotment Road.
Planning permission is sought for the remediation of the existing contaminated site.
Contamination exists on the site as a result of the former inks work itself. Contaminated soil, less
than 50m3, is proposed to be taken off the site to a landfill site. Also concrete hardstanding
(1050m3) and a tarmac road (320m3) is to be dug up and removed from the site. Clean soil is
proposed to be imported to the site to replace the removed contaminated soil. The applicant
suggests there would be 500 traffic movements as a result of this work and all movements would
be via Magenta Avenue and along Liverpool Road toward the M60. The applicant states the work
would take about two months and the site would be levelled after completion of the remediation
works.
The applicant has submitted a supporting statement which explains methodologies, health and
safety, environmental impacts and relevance to national and local policies. The applicant explains
it is his intention to reclaim the land and it bring it back into use.
SITE HISTORY
In 2000, planning permission was granted in outline for the development of land for residential
purposes (00/41510/OUT).
In February 2000, planning permission was granted in outline for development of land for
residential purposes (99/39868/OUT).
CONSULTATIONS
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Environment Agency – No objections
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – Requested further information regarding methodologies
although not objecting to the principles.
PUBLICITY
Site notices were displayed on 22nd July 2003
A press notice was published on the 17th July 2003
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 17 odd Albert Street
4 – 8 even Albert Street
2 – 8 even Alfred Street (Albert Street)
1 – 27 odd & 19A Allotment Road
32 – 80 even Allotment Road
1 – 15 odd Charles Street (Dean Road)
2 – 12 even Charles Street (Dean Road)
1 – 57 odd Dean Road
2 – 58 even Dean Road
2 – 8 even Drake Avenue
1 – 17 odd Drake Avenue
1 – 3 Jellicoe Avenue
36 – 54 even Moss Side Road
39 – 53 odd Moss Side Road
Cadishead Junior School, Moss Side Road
1 – 31 odd Nelson Drive
2 – 70 even Nelson Drive
1 – 34 odd Prospect Road
2 – 44 even Prospect Road
1 – 15 odd Rivington Road
2 – 14 even Rivington Road
48 – 50 even Liverpool Road
4 – 8 even Liverpool Road
Richard Reynolds Court, Liverpool Road
658, Council Offices, Liverpool Road
2 – 20 even Magenta Avenue
1 – 28 Sienna Close
1 – 17 odd Scribe Place
2 –12 even Scribe Place
1 – 11 Quill Court
The ward Councillors were also notified of the application.
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation in response to the planning application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EN9 Derelict and Vacant Land
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EN11 Derelict, Underused and Neglected Land
EN13 Contaminated Land
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EN9 explains the City Council will promote and encourage the reclamation of derelict and
vacant land for appropriate uses. Issues for consideration of this policy are the contribution
reclamation would make to achieving urban regeneration, degree of danger posed by the site,
ecological and recreational value of the existing site and potential for future contamination. Policy
EN11 has similar themes to Policy EN9 and seeks to ensure site conditions appropriate to the
proposed use of the land. Policy EN13 requires that a site assessment is submitted with the
application.
The application has been submitted with a supporting statement that includes methodologies for
reclaiming the site. Given that the Environment Agency and the Director of Environmental Health
have no objections, and the Greater Manchester Geological Unit have no objections in principle, to
the proposal I consider that the proposed methods of cleaning the site are acceptable and in
accordance with the above policies.
The site is at present enclosed by two metre high fencing and is surrounded to the south and west
by residential properties. The site appears vacant and derelict from these residential areas. The site,
given it is previously developed land in the urban area, is considered as being brownfield. The
redevelopment of this site in accordance with the previous outline residential applications would
comply with local, regional and national guidance on releasing previously developed land for
housing in the urban area with good links to public transport.
I consider that surrounding residential amenity should be ensured by attaching conditions to
require wheel washing facilities and hours of work. I also propose a condition to ensure that grass
planting is put in place following site reclamation. The site looks untidy and the reclamation of the
site for a more appropriate use would I consider be most appropriate and be in accordance with
UDP policies.
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. During the course of site remediation the methodologies and proposals within the submitted
supporting information report shall be adhered to in full.
3. The site shall be levelled and grassed within three months of the completion of operations.
4. Prior to commencement of the development the developer shall submit a scheme, for the
approval of the Director of Development Services, indicating the type and position of wheel
wash facilities for wagons to pass through when leaving the site. Such scheme once approved
shall be installed and shall be maintained operational throughout the course of the operations
hereby approved.
5. The operations hereby permitted shall NOT be operated on Sundays and Bank Holidays and
shall ONLY be operated between the hours of 08:00 and 18:00 but shall not be operated after
dusk.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/46510/FUL
APPLICANT:
MDA Partnership
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By Liverpool Road, Legh Street And Henry Street
Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a two storey block of ten flats together with creation
of new access and associated car parking (re-submission of
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
planning application 02/44602/FUL)
WARD:
Eccles
At the meeting of the panel held on 4th September 2003 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant site situated within a mixed character area with a frontage of
22m on Liverpool Road and extending back along Legh Street by 43m. The area is mixed in
character with the Kwik Fit garage on the adjacent site directly to the east. The Bridgewater Mill
lies to the north west and there is a commercial shop fitting business to the north. Planning
permission was recently granted for the use of the Kwik Fit premises for the sale and fitting of
tyres, exhausts, brakes and other repairs and MOT testing. The premises are ‘L’ shaped, the
minimum distance to the application site is 10 metres. The Kwik Fit service bays are located 18
metres from the application site.
The proposal is for the erection of two buildings to provide a total of 10 apartments. The larger
building would front onto Liverpool Road and provide 6 apartments. The second, smaller block
would front onto Legh Street and back onto the Kwik Fit premises and provide the remaining 4
apartments. A total of nine car parking spaces would be provided with access taken off Legh
Street. Within the site and there would be some garden area for the ground floor apartments with
balconies provided for first floor residents. As part of the application submission a noise report
addressing noise from surrounding commercial uses and also Liverpool Road itself has been
submitted.
SITE HISTORY
Application reference 02/44602/FUL for the erection of 10 apartments was withdrawn in
November last year following concern about noise, traffic and compatibility to surrounding uses.
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – no objection in principle subject to the imposition of a condition to ensure
that all surface water drainage is passed through trapped gullies to prevent pollution of the water
environment.
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections in principle but recommends
that any fencing is fitted to the outside of the boundary wall to ensure that the wall does not act as
a step up.
Director of Environmental Services – no objections subject to the erection of an imperforate screen
wall along the boundary to Kwik Fit and for noise mitigation measures outlined in the submitted
noise survey be implemented.
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
PUBLICITY
A press notice was advertised 17 July 2003.
A site notice was displayed on this same date.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
314 – 316 (E) Liverpool Road
Kwik Fit garage, Liverpool Road
PBH Shop Fitters Ltd, Henry Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no response to the planning application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EC14/4 – Improvement Proposals – Patricroft, Barton/Eccles
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
T13 – Car Parking
EN15 – Environmental Improvement Corridors
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none.
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES11
Design and Crime, EN14 Air Pollution, Noise, Odour and Vibration
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy EC14/4 states that in addition to the general improvements to
industrial and commercial estates as set out in Policy EC4, the City Council will specifically seek
improvements in specified industrial and commercial areas. In order to complement and extend
existing improvements, the City Council will seek to maintain ICIA status in the Patricroft area for
as long as this action is effective. This policy is not site specific and relates to general
improvements in industrial /commercial areas. It refers back to policy EC4, which is a strategic
policy concerning the improvement of employment areas. Neither policy EC14/4 or policy EC4
specifically relate to residential development.
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
UDP policy DEV1 states that regard should be had to a number of issues when determining
applications for planning permission, including the relationship to existing and proposed land
uses; the amount, design and layout of car parking provision; the visual appearance of the
development and the provision of open space. Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not
normally grant planning permission, unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and the
appearance of the development. Furthermore, UDP policy DEV4 states that the City Council will
have regard to the detailing of the building, the relationship of car parking to buildings and the
layout of landscaped areas in the design of new development. UDP policy T13 states that the City
Council will ensure that adequate parking provision is made where necessary. The City Council’s
car parking standards for flats with communal parking (1.25 spaces per dwelling) would require a
minimum of 12.5 car parking spaces to be provided at the site. UDP policy EN15 states that the
City Council will promote environmental improvements along its main road, rail and waterway
corridors. The A57, Liverpool Road, has been identified as an Environmental Improvement
Corridor. Within the corridors, there is an emphasis on the encouragement of high standards of
design.
I consider one of the main issue to be considered for this proposal is the suitability of the living
environment that would result for future residents in relation to the site itself and the neighbouring
uses. Policy DES 7 of the deposit draft UDP requires an acceptable level of amenity to be
provided in terms of daylight, privacy, aspect and layout. Policy DEV1 of the adopted UDP
requires consideration of a number of issues for any new development including which DES7 has
taken on board but also“the layout and relationship of existing and proposed buildings “.
The proposal would provide small garden areas for residents of the ground floor flats and also 9 car
parking spaces. Government guidance within PPG13 seeks to reduce reliance on the car and in
this respect encourages a maximum average number of spaces within a development of 1.5.
However, less can be provided in accessible locations and I consider this site fronting onto
Liverpool Road which is a bus corridor, to be one such site. I therefore have no objections to the
proposal on highway grounds.
Liverpool Road has been identified as an environmental improvement corridor with an emphasis
on high standards of design for new development. The previous application on the site had the
gable end of the block fronting onto Liverpool Road. The applicant has now redesigned the layout
so that block one has its frontage onto Liverpool Road which provides interest onto the road. I am
satisfied that this is acceptable in terms of its design. I am also satisfied that the relationship of this
block is acceptable to the Kwik Fit garage with it’s gable adjacent to the Kwik Fit garage and over
18m away. This block would therefore benefit from aspects overlooking the rear of the site and
Liverpool Road itself.
I am concerned however about Block 2 which is positioned at the rear of the site, is positioned at
right angles to the block 1 and therefore backs onto the Kwik Fit garage. There would be a
separation of 13 – 15m from the rear main wall of block 1 to the gable of block 2 and 12m between
the rear of block 2 and the gable wall of the garage with first and second bedroom windows along
this rear elevation. In these circumstances a separation of 13m is normally required. The applicant
has amended the plans and reduced the width of the block to achieve a 12m separation but is not
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
able to increase this any further. In support of his proposal the applicant has indicated that the
gable of the Kwik Fit building is only single storey to a height of 4.8m to the eaves and 8.2m to the
ridge of the roof.
I am mindful of current government guidance to encourage mixed use development and also to
achieve increased densities on development sites, and I am also aware that it would be beneficial to
have this vacant site occupied. However, any development should not be at the expense of the
amenity of future occupiers or the amenity of the site and an area generally. I am concerned that
this development would result in an overdevelopment of the site and would not provide an
acceptable living environment for its residents, particularly with the relationship to the adjacent
Kwik Fit garage and the immediately adjacent commercial uses surrounding the site. I further
appreciate that the Director of Environmental Services is satisfied that the proposal is acceptable
through the imposition of conditions but one such condition is for a 2.1m high boundary fence
along the boundary to the Kwik Fit garage. This would stand 4.5m from the rear wall of block 2
and this together with the proximity of the Kwik Fit garage would detrimentally affect the amenity
of any residents. Residents of the upper floor flats would also only have a small balcony area but
there would be no other usable amenity space provided within the site. I therefore recommend that
this application be refused on the grounds that the proposal would result in an overdevelopment of
the site and be incompatible with the surrounding industrial/commercial uses.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would result in an overdevelopment of the site with sub-standard
separation distances between block 2 and the adjacent Kwik Fit garage and inadequate usable
amenity space provided within the whole site to the detriment of the amenity of future residents
and is therefore contrary to policy DEV1 of the UDP and DES7 of the First Deposit Draft
UDP.
2. The proposed development would be incompatible with the predominantly
industrial/commercial nature of the surrounding area to the detriment of the amenity of future
residential occupiers of the development and policies EN20 and DEV1 of the UDP and DES1
and DES7 of the First Deposit Draft UDP.
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/46521/HH
APPLICANT:
Miss J Bracken
LOCATION:
163 Greenleach Lane Roe Green Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing garage and erection of new detached
garage
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a residential property at the end of a terrace of 5 houses located within
the Roe green/Beesley Green Conservation Area.
The proposal is to demolish the existing wooden garage and to erect a new detached garage
immediately adjacent to the existing. The new garage would be constructed of brick with a tiled
roof. The proposed garage would measure 4.3m X2.4m, and would be located 5.4m from the rear
of the main house (beyond a passage that provides access to the rear of 163-171 Greenleach Lane).
SITE HISTORY
02/45298/HH -
Erection of single storey rear extension and first floor rear
extension and door on side elevation and erection of detached garage
(WITHDRAWN – January 2003)
03/45479/HH
Erection of first floor rear extension, single storey rear extension
and detached garage (APPROVED – April 2003)
03/46127/HH
Erection of first floor side extension (REFUSED –June 2003)
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 4th August 2003.
A press notice was published on 21st August 2003.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
161 and 165 Greenleach Lane
1 and 2 Summerfield Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 2 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:



A telegraph pole would have to be re-sited to accommodate the new garage.
The garage would extend beyond the applicant’s boundary
Access to the new garage would impinge on the access to the drive of 1 Summerfield Road.
Objection has been raised towards the disruption during the development phase and a
suggestion has been made for a sectional garage to be erected which would take less time.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
EN11 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
CH5 – Works within Conservation Areas
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EN11 states that, with regard to development within conservation areas, consideration must
be given to preserving or enhancing the character of that conservation area and reference is made
to good design. This is reiterated in Policy CH5.
The location of the proposed garage would be directly behind an existing telegraph pole.
However, if approved, planning permission can still be granted for the erection of the garage and
the responsibility to have the Telegraph pole relocated would lie with the applicant. This issue has
been raised with the applicant’s agent who is aware of the situation.
With regard to the second issue raised, my calculations show that the garage would be located
entirely within the applicant’s own curtilage. Furthermore, the applicant has signed certificate A,
which is a declaration on her part that stipulates no encroachment would take place.
With regard to the third objection raised, access to the garage would be directly from the adopted
highway and no privately owned land would need to be crossed. The City’s highway department
have been consulted on this proposal and have raised no objection with regard this issue.
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
Disruption during the development phase is not a material planning consideration. The planning
department has a duty to consider all applications as submitted.
The City’s Conservation Officer has been consulted on this application and has no objections
towards it. The proposal is in accordance with Council Policy and hence 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 walls
and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Please contact Talat Zeria with regard to the alterations to the existing footway. He can be
contacted on 0161 6034000.
APPLICATION No:
03/46522/COU
APPLICANT:
Burtonwood Brewery Plc
LOCATION:
Unit 10 Hulton District Centre Manchester Road East Little
Hulton Worsley
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
PROPOSAL:
Change of use of vacant unit to extend floor area of adjoining
Public House
WARD:
Little Hulton
At the meeting of the panel held on 21st August 2003 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a single storey unit within the Hulton District Centre and seeks to
change the use of a vacant shop to extend the floor area of the adjoining two storey public house.
The existing shop front would be altered to provide a single window within the elevation with
access from the existing public house.
The extension of the pub into this unit would provide an enlarged bar and pool room.
The adjoining properties to the south are three storey with residential dwellings occupying the first
and second floors. Unit 12a, a residential property above the adjoining shop, has an enclosed
access directly adjacent to this unit.
The proposed hours of operation would be the same as those for the existing pub; 11.00am until
11.00pm Mondays to Saturdays and closing at 10.30pm on Sundays.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Units 2 – 6 (e), 12, 12a, 14, 14a, 16, 16a and ;
1 – 17 (o) Hulton District Centre, Manchester Road East
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Noise
Proximity of entrance
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
Increase in vandalism, criminal damage
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: S2 Location of New Retail And Leisure Development,
Other policies:
S3 Loss of Shops
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy S3 seeks to retain, consolidate and improve Salford’s key local centres. Policy S2 of the
first deposit draft replacement plan identifies the centre as a neighbourhood centre and is similar to
policy S3 of the existing plan. Policy S3 of the draft plan states that changes of use from Class A1
retail will only be permitted where it would not have an unacceptable impact on the vitality or
viability of the centre.
Policy S5 states that the Council will normally only permit proposals for A3 uses where they
would not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenities of surrounding residential
properties or significantly prejudice highway safety. Where an A3 use would directly adjoin a
residential unit, it is normally considered unacceptable as noise, disturbance, fumes and odours
adversely affect the occupiers.
The objection received refers to the noise, disturbance currently experienced by the residential
accommodation above the existing retail units. Concerns have also been raised as to the shared
veranda. I can confirm that the scheme incorporates a new shop front which would remove the
existing entrance provision and would provide only a window within the frontage. The access to
the unit would be from within the public house utilising the existing entrance facilities to the north,
as such I am confident that there would not be any conflict between the users of the public house
and neighbouring residential property around the existing residential entrance.
Therefore, the main planning issue with regard this application is the potential for noise and the
loss of an A1 use. Firstly, with regard noise I am of the opinion that the extension of an existing
use with activities wholly within the property would not result in any additional noise.
Furthermore, I have not received any objections from the Director of Environmental Services
subject to the submission and approval of a noise report containing appropriate noise attenuation
measures and the restriction of amplified equipment.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that this change of use would not have an unacceptable impact upon
the adjoining neighbouring residential properties or on the vitality and viability of the centre.
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to
be used for the walls of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
3. An assessment shall be submitted for written approval to the Local Planning Authority which
details the levels of internal noise likely to be generated from the proposed use of the site. This
assessment shall be used to identify and determine appropriate noise mitigation measures
(such as soundproofing) required to protect the amenity of adjacent noise sensitive properties.
Any noise mitigation measures identified by the assessment shall be implemented prior to the
commencement of the proposed use and retained thereafter.
4. No amplified equipment shall be used within the premises on any occasion
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
3. To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring occupants of the development in accordance
with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. To ensure that the amenities of nearby residents are not adversely affected by noise and
nuisance in accordance with policy S5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/46537/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr A.D. Morris
LOCATION:
23 Osborne Drive Pendlebury Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey side/rear extension
WARD:
Swinton South
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
At the meeting of the panel held on 4th September 2003 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The proposed extension would project 1.4m from the gable of the property and would be set back
2m from the front of the house. It would extend back 7.15m (3.1m past the existing rear wall of the
property). The rear of the extension would be 4.5m wide.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – comments received
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
24-28 Ranelagh Road
21, 24, 26 Osborne Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:
The proposed extension would be too close to the property at 26 Ranelagh Road
The value of neighbouring properties would decrease
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 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 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP.
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
In terms of the objections received, property values are not a material planning consideration and
this is not therefore a matter on which any weight can be placed when assessing this application.
Turning to the impact of the proposed extension on neighbouring properties, I am of the opinion
that there would be sufficient distance between the proposed extension and neighbouring
properties. I do not consider that the proposed extension would be too close to 26 Ranelagh Road.
There are no windows in the section of the extension facing the garden area of no. 26 and the
proposed extension is a minimum of 13m from the rear of that property, increasing to 19m, which
is adequate separation. There is currently a bay window to the dining room on the side elevation of
23 Osborne Drive. The proposed extension would only project an additional 0.6m from the gable
than the existing bay window and patio doors would be installed to the dining room instead of the
bay. There is a garage in the rear garden area of 28 Ranelagh Road, between the property and 23
Osborne Drive. Whilst there would be a minimum of 4m between the proposed extension and the
garage, I am of the opinion that, given that there is an existing dining room window and that the
proposed extension would be only 0.6m closer to the garage, the amenity of the residents of 23
Osborne Drive would not be detrimentally affected.
Although there is a habitable room window on the first floor of the outrigger of 28 Ranelagh Road,
I do not consider that overlooking and loss of privacy are matters of concern. The existing garage
would provide some screening between the two properties, which are not directly facing. I am
therefore of the opinion that the amenity of the residents would not be harmed as a result of this
proposal.
As the proposed extension would be set back 2m from the front of the property and would project
only 1.4m from the gable, I do not consider that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on
the street scene.
On the above basis, I do not consider that the proposal would be detrimental to the amenity of
neighbouring residents or the residents of the application property. It accords with the relevant
policies of both the Adopted and the First Deposit Draft UDPs. I therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D01B Materials to Match
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
03/46557/FUL
APPLICANT:
Manchester Methodist Housing Association
LOCATION:
Fiddick Court, Newport Street And St Johns Court Milford
Street Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.1m high security gates and railings
WARD:
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a block of land in collective, largely residential ownership. The
applicant states that notice has been served on eight separate occupants. The proposal is for the
erection of 2.1m high security gates and railings at land (already developed) between, Milford
Street, Newport Street and Langworthy Road, including St.Johns Court and Fiddick Court.
The site is within a predominantly residential area mainly consisting of terraces, some of which
form part of plans for regeneration improvements. Surrounding land includes the Langworthy
Cornerstone office/ Community Centre, and Langworthy Park. The proposal would improve the
security and appearance of the existing uneven and largely overgrown back-lane. The scheme will
also create a secure internal play space and a communal area for residents, thus enhancing the
social fabric of the local community.
SITE HISTORY
In 1996 an application was approved at Committee for the erection of boundary fencing and
vehicular/pedestrian gates at St Johns Court, Milford Street, Salford 6 (96/35414/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Ramblers Association
Open Spaces Society
The Greater Manchester Pedestrian Assoc.
Peak and Northern Footpaths Society
– no objections
– No comments received
- No comments received
– No comments received
PUBLICITY
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
A site notice was displayed on 30th July 2003.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
44-68(e) Langworthy Road
103, 105 Langworthy Road
Community Centre, Liverpool Street
412, 454, Liverpool Street
29-57(o) Milford Street
23, 24 Newport Street
28, 30 Newport Street
11, 12 Newport Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received nil (0) letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
H7/2 – Housing Area Improvement and Renewal – Private Sector
Other policies:
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV3 – Alterations/ Extensions
DEV4 – Design and Crime
H3 – Maintaining and Improving Private Sector Housing
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
ST1 – Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES2 – Circulation and Movement
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES9 – Landscaping
DES11 – Design and Crime
H3 – Housing Improvement
A2 – Cyclists, Pedestrians, and the Disabled
EN11 – Derelict, Underused, and Neglected Land
PLANNING APPRAISAL
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
Policy DEV2 (good design) and DEV4 (design and crime) present in effect the key issues in this
application; a need for balance between achieving high security and maintaining a good design
appropriate to the surrounding (residential) neighbourhood. I am satisfied of the need to protect
residents, their property and vehicles, and prevent unauthorised access, while also enhancing a
safe area for the benefit of those residents concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The fencing and gates hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in
writing prior to the commencement of the development by the Director of Development
Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is advised to make a section 257 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Order in
due course.
APPLICATION No:
03/46560/FUL
APPLICANT:
Tavern Developments Ltd
LOCATION:
Rear Of 10-12 Stamford Street Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Retention of 2.2m high security gates
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
This application relates to the rear of 10-12 Stamford Street, Swinton and seeks the retention of
2.2m high security gates. The gates have been erected to the rear of the property opposite the end
of Fair Street. The neighbouring property (No.14 ) is residential. The alleyway to the rear of the
properties provides access for the applicant and No.14 only. The alleyway does not provide access
to Coronation Street.
The northern boundary of the alleyway consists on a 2.2m concrete panel fencing, beyond which is
Netto. The gates are situated 12m from the eastern most corner of the premises and 20m from the
closest residential property.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 5th August 2003
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
14 Stamford Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Access for HGV’s
Locking and unlocking at various times
Impact on Fair Street
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV1 Development Criteria
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining
applications, including the visual appearance of the development, its relationship to its
surroundings and the amount, design and layout of car parking provision.
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
The replacement plan policies are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
I have received two letters of objection in response the application publicity. The main issue raised
by neighbouring residents is the perceived HGV’s and additional vehicles that may use Fair Street.
Reference is also made to a potential access to the neighbouring Netto. I can confirm that the
erection of the gates does not provide an access for Netto nor does it provide a new access for the
applicant. The existing access to the premises off Stamford Street would remain unchanged.
Therefore, I do not agree that this proposal would have a detrimental impact upon Fair Street or
increase the level of vehicles which would use it.
The applicant has informed me that the gates have been erected to address issues of crime. The
adjoining residential property (No.14) has a key to the gate. The position of the gate across the rear
alley is such that it does not obstruct the neighbouring through fare, I such I am of the opinion that
the erection of the gate does not affect any right of way.
I am also of the opinion that the gates, 20m away from the closest residential property would not
result in a noise nuisance when opening and closing.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the retention of the gates would not have any impact upon
the surrounding residential properties.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve - unconditional
APPLICATION No:
03/46584/OUT
APPLICANT:
Mr K Jones
LOCATION:
205 And Land To Rear Of 207 And 209 Liverpool Road
Cadishead
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for the erection of 28 dwellings
comprising of 12 two-bedroomed houses and 16 two-bedroomed
apartments together with associated creation of a new access and
alterations to an existing highway
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
This application relates to an ‘L’ shaped site on Liverpool Road that measures 110 metres by 74
metres. There is a single storey building set back approximately 5 metres from the Liverpool Road
frontage, which was last used as a dental surgery and would be demolished. The remainder of the
site consists of the garden areas to the side and rear of the dwelling at 207 Liverpool Road and to
the rear of the dwelling at 209 Liverpool Road. Outline planning permission is sought for the siting
of 28 dwellings, comprising 12 two-bed dwellings and 16 two-bed apartments and access to the
site from Liverpool Road. 100% car parking is proposed for the development, which includes 8
disabled car parking spaces.
There are a number of trees at the site, these are predominantly fruit and garden type trees, there
are however a number of larger mature trees at the site, including sycamores and poplars. The
applicant has submitted a tree survey in respect of these trees and has indicated that the majority of
trees at the site would be removed, with the exception of 4 sycamores, a silver birch, a leyland
cypress and a group of trees on the south-western boundary.
Uses in the surrounding area are mixed. This front part of site is within the Lower Cadishead key
local centre and there are a mix of key local centre uses on the opposite side of Liverpool Road.
The north-eastern boundary of the application site adjoins Lytherton Avenue, which comprises an
area of land used for car sales at the junction with Liverpool Road, terraced dwellings and a pair of
semi-detached properties. To the rear of the site is a timber yard.
SITE HISTORY
98/38720/OUT - Outline planning application for the erection of fourteen dwellings. Refused
6.1.2000, for the following reasons: 1) The proposed development would seriously injure the
amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of its siting. 2) The proposed development would be
detrimental to the safety and free flow of traffic on the adjacent highway as a result of vehicles,
slowing and turning in the vicinity of the site.
E/9300/OUT – Erection of new church building. Refused 30.8.1979, for the following reasons: 1)
The proposed development on this backland site, without a proper road frontage would interfere
with the privacy and amenity of the neighbouring properties and would constitute piecemeal
development which would be out of character with the locality. 2) The proposal would be
conducive to further similar applications which would be difficult to resist, thereby prejudicing the
policy of the LPA in securing well planned development. 3) The means of access to the proposed
development is unsatisfactory and would result in the manoeuvring of vehicles on the highway
which could lead to traffic difficulties.
CONSULTATIONS
United Utilities - No objection, providing a number of conditions are met. Water mains will need
extending. Recommend that applicant contacts United Utilities for further discussion.
Director of Environmental Services – It is recommended that at the full planning application stage
the applicant submits an acoustic report for the site. Prior to the commencement of the
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
development, the developer shall undertake an assessment to determine the external noise levels
from surrounding roads, and industrial uses that the proposed residential elements will be
subjected to (daytime and night). The developer shall detail what steps are to be taken to mitigate
the disturbance from the above.
Environment Agency – No objection in principle.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections – recommendations made
for boundary treatments and surveillance for any subsequent full planning application.
Arboricultural Officer – Objects on the grounds of loss of trees
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 21st August 2003
A site notice was displayed on 31st July 2003-08-26
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2 – 26 (e) Lytherton Avenue
203, 207 – 211 (o), 211a, 213 Liverpool Road
192a – f, 194 – 216 (e) Liverpool Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a 100 name petition objecting to the proposed dwellings and in particular the
vehicular access onto Liverpool Road. I have also received 7 letters of representation / objection in
response to the planning application publicity and a verbal objection from Councillor Hudson. The
following issues have been raised:








new entrance would be yards from the entrance onto Lytherton Avenue and would
therefore present a new danger to a dangerous stretch of road with three junctions and a
car park entrance already close together
increase in traffic and accidents
the existing properties on Lytherton Avenue would become an island, with roadways to
both the front and rear
will add to noise nuisance for residents on Lytherton Avenue
loss of privacy, loss of light and overlooking for Lytherton Avenue residents
loss of security for Lytherton Avenue residents
proposed houses are too small
Lytherton Avenue is in urgent need of some drainage maintenance – to add more
houses would add to these problems
positioning street lights to rear of Lytherton Avenue would cause disturbance
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION






18th September 2003
no improvements have been made since previous refusal for dwellings
loss of greenery
local services – doctors, dentists, schools etc. will be subjected to even more strain
loss of property value
traffic and noise during construction and completion of development will interfere with
sleep patterns
loss of wildlife
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV4 – Design and Crime
EN7 – Conservation of Trees and Woodland
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES11 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that regard must be had to a number of factors
when determining applications for planning permission including the layout and relationship of
existing and proposed buildings and the effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for neighbouring
properties; the amount, design and layout of car parking provision and the likely scale ant type of
traffic generation. Policy DEV4 states that the City Council will encourage greater consideration
of crime prevention and personal and property security in the design of new development and will
have regard to a number of factors, including the relationship of car parking to buildings. Policy
EN7 states that the City Council will encourage the conservation of trees and woodland. I consider
that the policies of the First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP are generally similar in respect of this
development proposal.
With regards to the proposed use of the site, I consider that the principle of residential
development on this site is acceptable, given that it is considered to be brownfield land and also
given the predominantly residential nature of the surrounding uses. The objections received are
primarily associated with vehicular access to the site and increased traffic, loss of amenity for
existing residents, noise and disturbance and loss of greenery. With regards to vehicular access and
traffic, I consider that the position of the access is acceptable in highway safety terms and I do not
consider that a development of this size would result in any significant increase in traffic
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
generation. In respect of concerns raised regarding noise and disturbance from construction at the
site, I consider that as this would be for a limited period only, existing residents should not suffer
any long-term effects. Other objections relate to loss of property value, which I do not consider to
be a material planning consideration and the strain on local services, which I consider to be an
issue to be addressed at a strategic level through the UDP.
With reference to residential amenity, objections have been raised regarding loss of privacy, loss
of light and the overlooking of existing dwellings on Lytherton Avenue. The applicant has
submitted an amended plan which indicates that the proposed development would be a distance of
19.2 from the first floor habitable windows at 2 Lytherton Avenue and 20 metres from the first
floor habitable windows of 12 Lytherton Avenue. This falls below the minimum distance of 21
metres required by the City Council. I therefore consider that the siting of the proposed dwellings
would result in an overbearing effect and a loss of privacy for the existing residents on Lytherton
Avenue.
A further objection relates to loss of greenery and wildlife at the site. There are a number of mature
trees at the site, some of the sycamore and poplar trees are relatively tall and are visible from
Liverpool Road, enhancing the visual amenity of the area. It is proposed that one of the more
prominent sycamore trees located to the rear of 2 Lytherton Avenue is felled due to poor condition.
If this tree were to be removed then two for one heavy standard replacements would be required.
The applicant has, however, stated that there is insufficient space in this part of the site for
replacements. It is also proposed that the row of poplar trees to the rear of 209 Liverpool Road is
felled. These trees are very tall and visible over a wide area and whilst their retention would be
desirable, I consider that their replacement with two for one heavy standard trees of a species more
suitable to residential garden areas may be appropriate. The applicant has again confirmed that
there is insufficient space within the site for two for one replacements. I am therefore concerned
that the development would lead to the loss of the existing treescape which would not be able to be
replaced with an appropriate number and standard of trees. It is also evident that amenity space at
the site is limited and I consider that the proposal would represent an over development of the site.
With regards to the proposed car parking provision, 100% car parking would be provided at the
site. UDP standards would, however, require the provision of 200% for the houses and 125% for
the flats. The First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP requires a maximum provision of 1.5 spaces
per dwelling. Whilst the proposed development is situated on Liverpool Road and comprises only
two-bed dwellings and flats, I consider that 100% car parking can be justified, given that the site is
located in a reasonably accessible location for public transport. The application has been amended
to provide cycle parking, bin stores and disabled parking and car parking areas which relate to each
plot. I am, however, concerned that large areas of the site would be used as hardstanding for access
and car parking proposed, to the detriment of amenity space and landscaping provision.
On balance it is considered that whilst the principle of residential development is broadly
acceptable, the siting of the proposed dwellings and apartments would be detrimental to the
amenity of the residents on Lytherton Avenue. Furthermore, the large areas of hardstanding and
lack of space for tree replacements will result in the proposal being an overdevelopment of the site.
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would result in a loss of privacy for neighbouring residents, in
particular those on Lytherton Avenue and as such would be contrary to Unitary Development
Plan policy DEV1.
2. The proposed development will result in the loss of the existing treescape and the disposition of
buildings and areas of hard surfacing are such that there is inadequate space for the provision
of replacement tree planting, contrary to policy EN7 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/46614/FUL
APPLICANT:
P Clare Building Services Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To Victoria Park Swinton Hall Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 5 terraced dwellings together with associated
alteration of an existing vehicular access and landscaping
WARD:
Pendlebury
At the meeting of the panel held on 4th September 2003 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant site on Swinton Hall Road formerly owned by the City Council
and that was last used for storage purposes. The site is located at the junction of Swinton Hall
Road and Temple Drive and is bounded by The Fountains Nursing Home to the east and south, the
FEB premises to the north, Victoria Park to the south west and entrances to the nursing home and
park to the west.
The site measures approximately 50m deep and has a road frontage of approximately 12m. The
site is bounded by a 3m high brick wall.
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
This proposal is to erect 5 terrace dwellings together with alterations to existing vehicular access.
The properties would be two storey in height utilising the roof space for a master bedroom. The
access road would be provide parallel to the western boundary. One car parking space would be
provided in front of each dwelling with an additional five spaces and two single storey garages also
provided within the site. The garages would be provided for plots one and five. The first floor
lounge of each dwelling would oversail the proposed car parking spaces. Balconies would be
provided on the western elevation for all of the dwellings at first and second floors off the lounges
and master bedrooms.
The terrace would be sited 6m from the western boundary. The rear gardens would measure
between 3 and 4m to the eastern boundary wall.
The trees on the neighbouring site which over hang the western boundary are covered by a Tree
Preservation Order. None of these trees are to be removed as part of the proposal.
SITE HISTORY
In 1992, planning permission, was granted for the erection of single storey office building, siting
of two storage containers together with associated parking area (02/44600/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Coal Authority – Provide advice
Director of Education – No response to date
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 5th August 2003
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Fountains Nursing Home, Albany House, Albany House, Swinton Hall Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised:Proximity of development
Access
Over looking
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
Other policies:
18th September 2003
DEV1 Development Criteria, T13 Car Parking
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES7
Amenity of Users and Neighbours, A10 Provision of car, cycle and
motorcycle in new developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining
applications, including the visual appearance of the development, its relationship to its
surroundings and the amount, design and layout of car parking provision. Policy DEV2 seeks
quality through good design. T13 seeks to ensure adequate and appropriate car parking and
servicing.
The replacement plan policies are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development. Furthermore, policy DES7 states that all new development will be required to
provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity, in terms of space, sunlight, daylight,
privacy, aspect and layout. PPG13: Transport seeks to reduce the reliance on cars and promote
sustainable modes of transport.
I have received one letter in response the application publicity. I do not agree that the proposal
would result in overlooking to the adjoining offices associated to ABT Feb, an industrial use.
There are air conditioning units and a compressor on the corner of Albany House, approximately
25m to the closest two storey element of the proposal…
The design of the scheme and the proposed materials is appropriate for the area and single family
accommodation. However, the main planning consideration in this instance is the relationship of
the proposal to the adjoining TPO’d trees, car parking provision and the likely level of amenity due
to the size of rear garden and existing rear wall. The rear private garden areas of each property
would range between 3 and 4m in length. I am of the opinion that this would be insufficient to
allow for sufficient usable amenity space. Furthermore, with regards to privacy, although the
proposal would maintain sufficient separation to the nursing home building at the rear, this
distance is only achieved because of the majority of this intervening distance is within the nursing
home and outside the applicant’s control. The development therefore relies heavily on the
neighbour’s land for amenity purposes.
The trees subject to a preservation order are located on the neighbouring Fountains Nursing Home.
The canopy of the trees overhangs the site by approximately 5m. This would result in main
habitable windows less than 3.6m from the canopy. The Council’s own Supplementary Planning
Guidance for trees states that “In the case of residential buildings, a development in which a
principle window (main window to a lounge, dining room or main bedroom) is overshadowed by a
tree, or where any part of a tree is sited within 3.6m of a window will be resisted”. The City’s
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
arboricultural officer is of the opinion that the construction of the proposal would not necessarily
have a detrimental impact upon these trees, but due the proximity of habitable windows to the
trees, themselves would therefore be subject to increased future pressure for pruning due to light
loss. As such I am of the opinion that the siting of the terrace would be contrary to the guidance
contained within SPG.
Turning the issue of access, the existing use and extant planning permission for office
accommodation use the same access as this proposal and as such I am of the opinion that the access
in this location is established and acceptable. With regards to car parking, PPG13 seeks to
encourage more sustainable development through lower levels of car parking provision where the
site can be easily accessed by alternative means of transport. However, I am of the opinion that in
excess of 200% car parking provision is not supported by the guidance contained within PPG13. I
am also of the opinion that the three spaces adjacent to the access and the lack of a safe pedestrian
route would result in highway safety issues.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that this proposal would result in an over development of the site
which would result in a detrimental impact upon future occupiers. I would also consider that the
proposed development would have a negative impact upon the mature trees at the boundary of the
site, which are subject to a tree preservation order. On this basis, I recommend refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed car parking provision as shown of the submitted plan is in excess of the standard
normally required by National Planning Policy Guidance and contrary to policy A10 of the
First Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan
2. The proposed development would, by virtue of its size and siting, constitute over development
of the site and would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of future residents of the
proposed dwellings. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy DEV1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. The proposed development by reason of its siting and design would be detrimental to the
amenity of the area by affecting, to an undesirable degree, trees which are the subject of a Tree
Preservation Order, and as such is contrary to Policy EN7 of the adopted Unitary
Development Plan.
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/46632/FUL
APPLICANT:
Broughton Charitable Trust
LOCATION:
Former Site Of Ivy Court Off George Street South And St
Martins Drive Salford 8
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 7 three-storey five-bedroomed houses together with
associated carparking and alterations to existing vehicular access
and landscaping (re-submission of 03/46374/FUL)
WARD:
Kersal
At the meeting of the panel held on 4th September 2003 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former Ivy Court. The building is currently vacant and comprises a
mixture of two and single storey buildings and previously provide residential accommodation.
The site is surrounded by residential accommodation consisting of bungalows on two elevations.
The site to the east has been cleared and planning permission was recently approved for a two
storey detached dwelling.
This proposal seeks to erect two, three storey blocks and two detached which would provide seven
residential family dwellings. The individual buildings would be 7.5m in height to the eaves and
10m to the ridge. They would have a footprint which would measure 10.5m in length X 7.2m
wide. Each property would have a rear private garden area and a succah on the rear elevation
which would measure 2.1m X 2.4m, although they would only be erected at the request of future
occupiers.
Two of the blocks, one consisting of three and one of two dwellings, would be sited on a similar
footprint to the existing building albeit further away from the properties on Scholes Close. They
would maintain a minimum of 20.2m to the closest properties on the western boundary increasing
further south. The main elevation of the southern most dwelling would be 4.5m from the gable of
10 Scholes Close.
Two detached properties would be located to the north of the site, set back from the main proposal.
The gable of the northern most element would be 9m from the kitchen window of the existing
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
property on St Martins Drive. The adjoining proposed dwelling would maintain 18.3m from the
habitable window on St Martins Drive.
The applicant has indicated that several trees along the northern boundary would be removed. The
willow to the north of the site is proposed to be retained. There are a further three trees which are
outside the site which have canopies that extend over this site.
Twelve car parking spaces would be provided within the site.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No comments to date
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2 – 20 (e) & 1 – 35 (o) St Martins Drive
1 – 10 Scholes Close (path) (George Street)
Newlands, Tetlow Lane
Bethel Apostholic Ark Church, Hamilton Hall, Tetlow Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received five letters objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Loss of light
Visual impact
Proximity of proposal
Outlook
Proximity of car parking to existing windows
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, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES4
Relationship of Development to Public Space, DES7 Amenity of Users and
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
Neighbours, A10 Provision of car, cycle and motorcycle in new
developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining
applications, including the visual appearance of the development, its relationship to its
surroundings and the amount, design and layout of car parking provision. Policy DEV2 seeks
quality through good design. T13 seeks to ensure adequate and appropriate car parking and
servicing.
The replacement plan policies are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
National planning policy guidance is also relevant. PPG3: Housing highlights the need to develop
previously developed brownfield sites and where appropriate higher densities should be
considered. PPG13: Transport seeks to reduce the reliance on cars and promote sustainable modes
of transport.
The main thrust of the objections received refer to the relationship of a three storey building to the
surrounding bungalows, the proximity of car parking to existing habitable windows.
I have also been informed that a convenant restricts the use of part of the site to which the northern
most block would be sited for garden purposes.
The overall general design of the scheme and the proposed materials is appropriate for the area and
single family accommodation. However, the main planning consideration in this instance is the
height relationship of the proposal to the existing residential properties.
The northern most part of the main block would maintain 20.2m to the rear elevations of 1 and 3
Scholes Close. I am of the opinion that this relationship would not result in a significant loss of
privacy or over dominate those neighbouring properties as the previous two storey building was
closer than this proposal. The southern most element of the scheme would be 4.5m from the gable
of 10 Scholes Close, which would in my opinion also have a dominating and over bearing impact
upon this and neighbouring properties.
The most northerly element of the proposal consisting of two properties is also of concern. This
element would only maintain 9m from the proposed gable to the kitchen window and the second
proposed dwelling would maintain 18.3m to the bedroom window of 8 St Martin Drive. The
applicant has amended the scheme to this confirguration which does improve the impact upon the
neighbouring bungalow. However, in moving the northerly most dwelling forward 5.4m, this
property would now have an unacceptable and detrimental impact on the adjacent proposed
property.
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
The trees on site are not subject to a preservation order nor are the trees on the neighbouring site.
The proposed dwelling would only maintain 5.4m to the Willow tree which is intended to be
retained. The City’s arborcultural officer is of the opinion that this proposal should maintain a
minimum of 7m from the Willow tree, furthermore, The Council’s own Supplementary Planning
Guidance for trees states that “In the case of residential buildings, a development in which a
principle window (main window to a lounge, dining room or main bedroom) is overshadowed by a
tree, or where any part of a tree is sited within 3.6m of a window will be resisted”.
There is an Ash tree on the western boundary which is proposed to be felled. The tree would be
approximately 5m from the proposal. I am of the opinion that this tree is worthy of retained as it
clearly visible and provides a high impact from the surrounding area, in particular Tetlow Lane.
Two additional trees outside the site have canopies which would overhang the proposed
development which would require an unacceptable amount of pruning to accommodate this
scheme. As such I am of the opinion that the siting of the proposal would be contrary to the
guidance contained within SPG.
With regard car parking, PPG13 seeks to encourage more sustainable development through lower
levels of car parking provision where the site can be easily accessed by alternative means of
transport. The applicant has amended the scheme and reduced the provision of car parking on the
site from eighteen to twelve. However, I am still of the opinion that in excess of 175% car parking
provision is not supported by the guidance contained within PPG13.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the principle of a residential use on this site is appropriate.
However, the proximity of this proposal to the common boundaries and surrounding residential
properties, would in my opinion, be over bearing and have a detrimental impact that upon the
privacy of neighbouring properties and the ability of residents to enjoy their private garden area. I
therefore consider that this application be refused on the following grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. Standard Reason RR34C Neighbouring Residents - Size/Siting
2. The proposed car parking provision as shown of the submitted plan is in excess of the standard
normally required by national Planning Policy Guidance and contrary to policy A10 of the
First Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan
APPLICATION No:
03/46633/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs J McNulty
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
LOCATION:
10 Shawbrook Avenue Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing carport and erection of a two storey
side/rear extension
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a semi-detached property located within a row of semi-detached houses.
To the rear of the applicant’s house is a public footpath.
The proposal is to demolish an existing carport and erect a first floor side and rear extension
supported by brick stilts. The extension would measure 3.1m X 5.5m and would be set back 5.5m
from the front main wall. It would extend 1.9m past the rear main wall and would extend out to the
adjacent boundary.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1-5 (odd), 8, 12 Shawbrook Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity from the
adjacent neighbour. The following issues have been raised:Loss of light
Loss of privacy / overlooking into the bedroom window on the gable elevation.
Loss of view
Negative impact on the value of property.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV8 – House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
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 proposed extension would be set in 1.9m from the gable of the adjacent neighbour’s house and
would project this same distance past the rear of the neighbour’s house. The plans have been
amended and the proposal reduced in size so that it complies with ‘Supplementary Planning
Guidance – House Extension’. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there would be no significant
loss of light for the adjacent neighbour. Although there is a ground floor bathroom window in the
gable elevation of the adjacent neighbour’s house, it is not a habitable room and hence not a room
that the City Council would seek to protect in terms of loss of light.
There is a primary bedroom window at first floor level on the gable of the adjacent neighbour’s
house. The proposed extension would be set back so that it would not directly face any part of this
window. Due to the set back, however, the objector is of the opinion that there would be
overlooking between her bedroom and the proposed bedroom window which would be
approximately 2.5m away. I am of the opinion that, due to the bedroom windows being angled at
90 degrees from each other, there would be no direct overlooking and no significant loss of privacy
for the adjacent neighbour.
Loss of view and the negative impact of development on property values are not material planning
considerations.
Due to the set back of the side extension, I do not feel it would have a detrimental impact on the
street scene. The development would be in accordance with ‘Supplementary Planning Guidance –
House Extension’ and hence I recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same
type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by
the Director of Development Services.
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Reason: To ensure the development fits in with the existing building in accordance with policy
DEV3 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This approval relates to the amended plans that were received on 4th September and which
show a reduction in the size of the extension at both the front and rear.
APPLICATION No:
03/46636/FUL
APPLICANT:
Biffa Waste Services Ltd
LOCATION:
Clifton Hall Landfill Site Lumns Lane Clifton Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Installation of a 12m high landfill gas flare as a direct
replacement for a 9m high landfill gas flare approved by planning
permission 02/44816/FUL
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Clifton Hall Landfill Site, Lumns Lane, Clifton. It is proposed to install
a 12m high landfill gas flare as a direct replacement for the existing 9m landfill gas flare approved
in 2002 as part of an application for the construction and installation of a landfill gas utilisation
system comprising flaring equipment, two electricity generating engines and associated equipment
and electricity sub station. The existing flare has a diameter of 2.5m. The proposed flare would
have a diameter of 1m and would be located on the site of the existing flare.
The application site is located on the western side of the landfill site, in close proximity to the
existing site offices. The nearest residential properties are located in the region of 385m to the
south on Kersal and Rivington Avenues. To the west of the site is the former Greater Manchester
Landfill site, beyond which are residential properties, some 500m away across an undulating
landscape.
The applicant has confirmed that the proposed flare is required as a result of the latest Environment
Agency best practice guidance on monitoring flares, which stipulates that all flares must have a
sampling zone to monitor the combusted gas before leaving the flares. The zone should be located
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
above the combustion zone of the flare. To comply with this guidance, the applicant states that the
height of the original flare will have to be increased by 3m in order to allow for the required
sampling zone.
The primary concern at landfill gas sites is to control the lateral migration of landfill gas by
removing the potential health and environmental risks associated with methane and carbon
dioxide. Where landfill gas is produced in sufficient quantities, it is collected and either allowed to
vent or is actively extracted and burned in a gas flare. Apart from the environmental benefits
gained by the conversion of landfill gas by combustion to less harmful greenhouse gases, the
utilisation of gas has the added advantage of offsetting the requirements for power generation from
fossil fuel sources.
The existing facility has the capacity to produce up to 1.5MW of electricity. As with the existing
9m flare, the proposed flare will be used to burn any surplus landfill gas not being used by one of
the existing generators.
SITE HISTORY
In November 2002, planning permission was granted for the construction and installation of a
landfill gas utilisation system comprising flaring equipment, two electricity generating engines
and associated equipment and electricity sub station (ref: 02/44816/FUL)
In 1996, planning permission was granted for the current landfilling operations and subsequent
restoration to a country park (95/33963/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections
Environment Agency – no comments received
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – no comments received
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
313, 343-357 Bolton Road
1-18 Clively Walk
1-11, 2-12 Crescent Avenue
13-23, 1-11 Ethel Avenue
273-313 Rivington Crescent
1-11, 2-12 Rivington Avenue
20-38, 49-53 Pendlecroft Avenue
2-14, 1-19 Kersal Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
I have received one letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:
Additional larger flaring equipment should not be permitted
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EN1 – Green Belt
EN5 – Nature Conservation
EN17 – Croal-Irwell Valley
EN23 – Croal-Irwell Valley
R11/3 – Provision of Country Parks: Slack Brook Valley, Pendlebury
Other policies: EN2 – Development Within Green Belt
EN20 – Pollution Control
MW12 – Methane/Biogas
MW15 – Development Control Criteria - Waste
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EN1 – Development within the Green Belt
EN6 – Irwell Valley
EN7 – Nature Conservation
R4 – Key Recreation Areas
Other policies: W1 – Waste
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy E1 outlines the purposes and objectives of Green Belt and is in line with national
Government policy contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belt.
Policy EN5 sets out the Council’s aim of improving the environment through the identification,
protection, improvement and promotion of an integrated network of wildlife habitats and
corridors. Within such areas, new development will be assessed in terms of its potential impact on
the wildlife corridor. It states that development within such areas should seek to minimise any
detrimental impact by appropriate siting, design and landscaping.
Policy EN17 states that the Council is committed to conserving and improving the Croal-Irwell
Valley as a significant environmental, wildlife and recreational resource. This policy should be
read in conjunction with the detailed policy framework provided by Policy EN23.
Policy R11 states that the Council will develop a number of sites as Country Parks, including Slack
Brook Valley, Pendlebury (95ha). This area is identified as one with considerable potential for
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
development as both an environmental and recreational resource. It is recognised that the
implementation of the Country Park will necessitate the eventual relocation of some industrial uses
along Lumns Lane and possibly the Lumns Lane Civic Amenity Tip.
Policy EN2 provides for limited development within the Green Belt, with an emphasis on
maintaining a general presumption against inappropriate development, maintaining the openness
and protecting the visual amenity of the Green Belt.
Policy EN20 states that the Council will encourage and support measures to reduce pollution and
land contamination.
Policy MW12 outlines the Council’s support for proposals for the collection and beneficial use of
gas generated by landfill, subject to compliance with Policy MW15 and other relevant policies.
Policy MW15 states that planning permission will not normally be granted for proposals which
have an unacceptable impact on a significant number of properties in terms of visual amenity or
proposals which do not include satisfactory provision for screening and landscaping of the site.
Policy EN1 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP updates Policy EN1 of the Adopted UDP.
Policy EN6 replaces policies EN17 and EN23 of the Adopted UDP. It states that within the Irwell
Valley, development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on the
landscape or on important views into, through or within the valley.
Policy EN7 updates Policy EN5 of the Adopted UDP.
Policy R4 states that planning permission will only be granted for development within key
recreational areas where it would be consistent with a number of objectives, including, the
protection of the amenity of the area. As in the Adopted UDP, Slack Brook is allocated under this
policy.
Policy W1 states that planning permission for development involving waste management unless it
would fall within one of a number of criteria, including where there would be an unacceptable
impact on amenity.
In terms of Green Belt policy and policies relating to the Irwell Valley, the principle of the use of
the site for landfill gas purposes is well established, as is the use of the application site for the siting
of landfill gas flares due to the approval of the previous application last year. I therefore consider
the main issue in the determination of this application to be whether the replacement of a 9m high
flare with one of 12m would have a detrimental impact on visual or residential amenity.
The application site is located on a low-lying piece of land and is not therefore highly visible from
the surrounding area. Since the approval of the previous application, the existing landscaping has
matured and the prominence of the site has been further reduced. In addition, surrounding
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
naturalised vegetation is becoming established and will provide a further element of screening in
future years.
The flare would only be visible from a limited number of properties and given the distance
between the flare and the properties in question, I am doubtful that the 3m increase in height would
be discernable. Notwithstanding this, the decrease in diameter from 2.5m to 1m would, in my
opinion, lessen the visual impact of the flare on its surroundings.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that given the need for the flare to meet Environment Agency
guidance and that the flare would not be highly visible or prominent, I consider it to be acceptable.
In light of the above and given the location, I do not consider that the installation of a landfill gas
flare 3m taller than the existing flare would be contrary to Green Belt policy or those policies
relating to the Irwell Valley. I do not consider that the proposed flare would be prominent,
obtrusive, detrimental to visual or residential amenity or detract from the openness of the area. I
therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The landfill gas flare hereby approved shall be removed and the site restored in accordance
with the agreed Restoration Management Plan at such a date when the flare is no longer
required for the purposes of landfill gas management and the generation of electricity.
3. The rating level for noise emitted from the applicaltion site shall not exceed the background
levels at those representative locations identified in table 10 of the ATL Noise Report by more
than 5dB(A). The measurement and assessment shall be made according to BS4142:1997
'Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas'.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
APPLICATION No:
03/46654/FUL
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
APPLICANT:
EMR Limited
LOCATION:
EMR Limited West Egerton Street Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Reconfiguraton of landscape mound to provide additional
hardstanding
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site is bounded by Liverpool Street to the north, by West Egerton Street to the west and by the
Liverpool to Manchester railway line to the south. The site lies within an predominantly industrial
area and is currently operating as a metal processing business.
The majority of the site is set at a lower level than the surrounding roads (approximately 5-6
metres) and contains a variety of buildings which have been the subject of planning applications.
The main site access is located off West Egerton Street and there is a large boundary wall around
the curtilage of the site.
This proposal seeks to reconfigure the existing landscape mound to provide additional
hardstanding. The mound is located to the south of the site adjacent to the Liverpool to
Manchester railway line.
SITE HISTORY
Various planning permissions have been granted in the past for industrial and warehousing uses on
the site. Application No. 97/36269/COU granted in May 1997, was for the change of use of the
site to use for metal processing including the erection of various storage, workshop and ancillary
buildings and the construction of a new vehicular access. This was followed in January 1998 by
Application No. 98/38083/FUL which was granted for amendments to the previous permission for
repositioning the site buildings.
CONSULTATIONS
Network Rail – No response to date
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 13th August 2003
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
Millenium Furniture, Topps Tiles, Sound Control, Floors 2 Go, Red Rose Retail Park,
Regent Road
52 – 54, Texaco Garage, Oldfield Road
Carpet World, Bensons For Beds, North Phoebe Street
1, 19, 51, 103, 105, Whitehouse Hotel, Liverpool Street
Park Lane Conservatory Roof Systems, Creative Logistics, Duncan Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any representation in response to the planning application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EC13/2
Other policies:
DEV1 Development Criteria, MW11 Waste Recycling and Bulk Reduction
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
W1 Waste Management
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining
applications, including the visual appearance of the development, its relationship to its
surroundings. Policy EC13 identifies areas for industrial and warehousing. Policy MW11
encourages proposals for waste disposal sites which result in recycling and reclamation of waste
materials.
The replacement plan policies are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
This proposal would remove some of the existing mound and reposition on top on the mound to the
east. The increase in height would range from 1m to 5m at its heighest point across the site. A new
hard standing would be provided to allow additional space to consolidate existing operations. As
such I am of the opinion that the scheme is supported by policies contained within both UDP’s.
The main planning issue in this instance is the visual impact of the increase in height of part of the
mound to be increased. The site is approximately 5/6m lower than West Egerton Street and
Liverpool Street. The southern boundary comprises of the Manchester to Liverpool railway line.
Immediately south are large warehousing units.
Therefore, due to the levels of the site in relationship to the street scene and neighbouring uses, I
am of the opinion that the increase in height of the mound would not result in a detrimental visual
impact.
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
03/46659/COU
APPLICANT:
P Camilleri And J Bamford
LOCATION:
31 Hazelhurst Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from offices to tanning and beauty salon
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant office and seeks consent to change the use of the existing two
storey element for use as a tanning and beauty salon. The building is an end terrace which has been
extended with a large single storey rear extension which projects to the rear boundary. This
element does not form part of this proposal and would continue as a photocopy repair workshop.
The building is surrounded by residential properties. Willow Street to the west is a private road.
This property has established a right to park vehicles along the gable wall on this road. The
applicant’s agent has provided a plan showing five car parking spaces for this proposed use and
two for the existing use at the rear.
The proposal would provide four sunbeds and three treatments rooms including nail and facial
treatment. It would operate between the hours of 10:00 and 20:00 Monday to Friday and 09:00 till
18:00 on Saturdays.
SITE HISTORY
In 1997, planning permission was refused for a change of use from office to restaurant (E/37251)
as the proposal would have a detrimental impact upon the neighbouring residential properties.
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
33A, 19 – 39 (odd), 4 – 22, 32 – 40 (e) Hazelhurst Road
Brackley Conservative Club, Hazelhurst Road
128 – 134 Ringlow Park Road
3 Willow Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Parking problems
Intensification of use of premises
Unsuitable use for the area
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:
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and
Motorcycle Parking in New Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining
applications, including the visual appearance of the development, its relationship to its
surroundings and the amount, design and layout of car parking provision. T13 seeks to ensure
adequate and appropriate car parking and servicing.
The replacement plan policies are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
I have received three letters of objection in response the application publicity. The main issue
raised by neighbouring residents is the lack of car parking and perceived increase in traffic volume
that this proposal would have. On street parking is a problem along Hazelhurst Road. Traffic
calming measures have been introduced and a scheme for further parking restrictions is also under
consideration.
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
The application form and submitted plans show that four staff will be employed and provide
facilities to accommodate seven customers. The applicant’s agent has provided a car parking
layout which shows that five spaces could be provided for this proposed use and two for the
existing photocopy workshop to the rear. I am of the opinion that the provision of five dedicated
spaces and two for the existing use is suitable in this instance. Furthermore, the two spaces shown
for the use at the rear could also be used by this proposal into the earlier evening.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that the main issue with regard this application is the potential
impact upon residential amenity. The use would employ four staff and have the potential to
provide facilities for seven customers as such I am of the opinion that it would be unlikely to
generate sufficient people to cause noise and disturbance to the surrounding residential properties.
Furthermore, the location of the proposed car parking provision at the side of the premises would
not result in on street car.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that this proposal would provide sufficient off street car parking
for the proposed use and would not have a detrimental impact upon residential amenity.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The use hereby permitted shall NOT be operated on Sundays and shall ONLY be operated
between the hours of 09:00 and 20:00 Monday to Friday and 09:00 to 18:00 on Saturdays
3. Prior to the commencement of the use hereby approved the car park shall be marked out in
accordance with the approved plan received 1st September 2003 and shall be made available
for use by staff and customers at all times the use hereby approved is in operation.
4. Prior to the commencement of development the applicant shall first submit a scheme to the
Director of Development Services which shows the widening of the existing access to 4.5m.
On approval, the scheme shall then be implemented, maintained and retained to the satisfaction
of the Director of Development Service thereafter
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
3. To ensure that satisfactory provision is made for the parking of vehicles in connection with the
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
approved use in accordance with policy T13 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. Standard Reason R011A Parking, turning etc within curtilage
APPLICATION No:
03/46673/FUL
APPLICANT:
Unity Homes Limited
LOCATION:
Land At The Corner Of Wellington Street West/ Great Clowes
Street Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Renewal of permission for the erection of a 60 bed nursing home
together with associated landscaping, car parking and alteration
to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant piece of land at the junction of Wellington Street West and
Great Clowes Street, Salford 7. To the east of the site, at 260 Great Clowes Street, is an existing
residential care home which is also within the ownership of the applicant. The surrounding area is
predominantly residential in character.
The application seeks to renew permission 96/35087/FUL for the erection of a 60 bed nursing
home together with associated car parking and landscaping and alteration to vehicular access.
That application was approved in 1996 and was renewed in August 2001. The proposed home
would be U-shaped, 2 storeys high and would front Arran Street, Great Clowes Street and 260
Great Clowes Street. Access would be from Wellington Street West and car parking would be
provided on the Wellington Street West frontage.
SITE HISTORY
In 1989 outline planning permission was granted for demolition housing and the erection of a
nursing home. It was subject to a legal agreement that the applicants complete the project in 3
years (ref: E/24118).
In 1992 full permission was granted for the erection of a nursing home, subject to the same legal
agreement (ref: E/29201)
In 1992 approval was granted for the erection of a nursing home, subject to a legal agreement that
the development be completed by 18th October 1994 following a variation to the earlier legal
agreement (ref: E/30260).
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
In 1995 outline permission was granted for a 60 bed nursing home. This established the principle
of the erection of a nursing home on the site without the time restriction (ref: 95/33609).
In 1996 permission was granted for the erection of 60 bed nursing home together with associated
car parking and landscaping and alteration to vehicular access (ref: 96/35087/FUL).
In 2001, permission was granted for the renewal of permission 96/35087/FUL for the erection of a
60 bed nursing home together with associated landscaping, car parking and alteration to existing
vehicular access (ref: 01/42642/FUL). A condition was attached requiring the commencement of
development within two years of the date of the permission.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections
Director of Social Services – no comments received
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 13th August 2003
A press notice was published on 28th August 2003
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1-38 St Johns Court, 1-9 (O), 4-10 (E) Wellington Street West
2-8 (E), 1-7 (O) Manley Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any representation in response to the application publicity
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: SC12 – Residential Care Homes
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
T13 – Car Parking
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
This application seeks only to renew the permission granted in August 2001. I consider the main
issue in the determination of this application to be whether there have been any policy changes or
changes to the site since that decision.
Members will be aware that a condition was attached to the previous renewal requiring
development to commence within two years of the date of decision. This was felt necessary due to
the prominence of the site, which has been vacant for a number of years, and the need to secure its
redevelopment. The applicant has confirmed that the development of this proposal has not been
commenced due to the redevelopment work he has recently undertaken at 260 Great Clowes
Street, adjacent to this site. However, he is now in a position, both financially and professionally,
to progress this development. He has confirmed that, subject to agreeing a number of minor
details, he is in a position to commence work in approximately eight weeks, and that the total
construction period would be in the region of eight months. In light of the applicant’s intention to
commence development imminently, I consider a condition requiring development to commence
within two years to be appropriate in this instance.
The scheme approved in 1996 showed that nineteen car parking spaces would be provided within
the site. However, since the approval of that application and the subsequent renewal in August
2001, the First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP has been produced, Policy A10 of which requires
schemes to provide both cycle and disabled parking. The applicant has confirmed that he is
agreeable to providing two cycle spaces and two disabled spaces within the curtilage of the site
which I consider to be acceptable and I have attached a condition to that effect.
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposal still accords with the relevant provisions of the UDP.
Given the applicant’s confirmation that development would commence imminently and that it
would result in the redevelopment of what is currently a prominent but vacant and unattractive site,
I have no objections to the application and recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of two years beginning with the
date of this permission.
2. Before the development is commenced, a landscape scheme shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services..The scheme shall demonstrate the layout
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
and suitability of the open spaceprovision on the site for use by residents of the home and shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences,boundary and surface
treatment and shall be carried out within 12
months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall bemaintained 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
Director of Development Services.
3. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
4. Standard Condition F03X Surfacing
5. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 7th June 1996 which shows front
residents' patio omitted _building set back.
6. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plan, a scheme for car parking layout to
include disabled parking spaces and cycle parking shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Director of Development Services. The approved scheme shall be implemented
prior to the development being brought into use.
(Reasons)
1. In accordance with policies DEV1 and EN9 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan and policies DES1 and EN11 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement
Unitary Development Plan, as the site is prominent, highly visible, has been vacant for a
number of years and is detrimental to the visual amenity of the area.
2. To safeguard the amenity of the area and to ensure that the open
space is readily accessible and appropriate for use by residents
of the nursing home.
3. Reason: To ensure the development fits in with the existing buildings in the vicinity in
accordance with policy DEV 3 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. Standard Reason R033A Vehicular access to building
5. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
6. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the parking of vehicles within the
curtilage of the site in accordance with policy T13 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan and Policy A10 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary
Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
1. The Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding
details of drainage
2. The Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer should be consulted regarding
designing out crime
APPLICATION No:
03/46681/FUL
APPLICANT:
St Ambrose Barlow RC High School Board Of Governors
LOCATION:
St Ambrose Barlow R C High School Playing Field Site, Stanwell
Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of four court badminton hall with ancillary facilities
without complying with condition 4 (Restricted Use) on planning
permission 02/44392/FUL)
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Ambrose Barlow playing fields on Stanwell Road. The fields are
bounded by Swinton Ambulance station to the west, the Civic Centre car parking to the north and
residential properties to the south.
Planning permission was recently approved for the erection of a four court badminton hall
(03/46681/FUL). A condition was attached to that approval stating that “The use of the
development hereby permitted shall be limited solely to the staff and pupils of St Ambrose Barlow
RC High School.” That condition was attached to the consent due to the lack of off street parking
provision.
The proposal now seeks to continue the use of the of the badminton hall without complying with
that condition. The applicant’s agent has supplied additional information as to the future user of
the hall. Further to the staff and pupils using the hall, special needs and partner primary schools
would use the facility during the school day, training sessions until 6pm and one session until 8pm.
The supporting information states that parking is available within the main school complex but the
majority of proposed users would be dropped off and then collected after the session.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objection
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
The Buckley Arms, Partington Lane
Police Station, Stanwell Road
Ambulance Station, Stanwell Road
16 – 84 (e) Stanwell Road
47 & 49 and 38 – 44 (e) Mount Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received nine letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following
comments having been made:
Traffic and car parking
Loss of value
Floodlighting
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
SC4 (Improvement / Replacement of Schools) R1 (Provision of
Recreational Land and Facilities) SC6 (Schools in the Community) DEV1
(Development Criteria) DEV2 (Good Design) R1 (Protection of Recreation
Land and Facilities) R2 (Provision of Formal Recreation Facilities) EN3
(Protected Open Land)
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
ECH1 Provision and Improvement of Education, Health and Community
Facilities, R2 Provision of New Recreation Land and Facilities, A10
Provision of car, cycle and motorcycle in new developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV1 states that due regard must be paid to a number of factors that include size and density,
traffic generation parking provision, visual appearance, landscaping and open space provision,
together with the effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for neighbouring properties. In addition
to which DEV2 relates to the quality of the design and appearance of the development, particularly
in terms of its relationship with surrounding properties. SC4 encourages the making good of any
deficiencies in school facilities through the development of new facilities. SC6 supports and
promotes the community use of schools and other public building wherever possible. R1 seeks to
protect recreational land unless it is for recreational or non-commercial purposes related to the
recreational use of land. R2 seeks adequate provision of formal recreational facilities across the
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
City. EN3 seeks to protect and enhance all existing areas of open land, however limited infilling
which would not adversely affect the character or scale of the open space is acceptable.
The replacement plan policies are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
The proposal has generated a number of objections from local residents, and the main issues to
consider with regards to this application relate to, traffic generation, congestion, floodlighting and
loss of value. There is also the issue that the residents feel the wider community would use the
proposed development, which would have a greater impact.
Car parking and traffic problems in general are currently experienced along both sides of Stanwell
Road. Residents are of the opinion that this proposal would generate more traffic congestion.
Floodlight did not form part of the previous approval. Loss of commercial value is not a material
planning consideration.
Previously, the applicant’s agent confirmed that the school would only use the proposal during
normal school hours, which would not generate any additional traffic. Although policy SC6
supports the community use of such facilities, no provision with regard to car parking has been
made as part of this proposal. As such, it prudent to restrict the use of the facility to the school,
however this would not restrict the potential for community use in the future provided that car
parking and traffic issues are satisfied. I am of the opinion that circumstances have not changed
with regard parking in the area. However, the proposed users are additional schools who would
use the hall throughout the school day. These users would be dropped off at the hall and collected
after the sessions. Furthermore, the applicant is proposing to use the hall until 6pm three times a
week and one session until 8pm. The applicant has stated that these session would be used for
dance and rugby and that parking is available within the main school building.
I am of the opinion that the use of the hall until 8pm would not have any detrimental impact upon
the neighbouring residential properties. I am also of the opinion that the badminton hall with
additional educational users is supported by the polices contained within the adopted plan and first
deposit replacement plan. However, the main planning issue in this instance traffic generation and
increase hours of use. Therefore, because no off street car parking has been provide, it is still
prudent to restrict the use of the hall to Ambrose Barlow and other educational groups.
Therefore I would recommend that this proposal be approved with the attached condition
restricting the use of the hall to Ambrose Barlow and educational groups.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The use of the development hereby permitted shall be limited solely to the staff and pupils of St
Ambrose Barlow RC High School and other staff and pupils from other Salford schools.
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
2. The use hereby permitted shall ONLY be operated between the hours of 8.00 am and 8.00pm
(Reasons)
1. No provision has been made for off street car parking in accordance with policy T13 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and to grant an unrestricted permission would be
detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring residents on Stanwell Road
2. Standard Reason R027A Amenity and quietude
APPLICATION No:
03/46692/HH
APPLICANT:
M Froggatt And J Cooper
LOCATION:
30 Parkstone Lane Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side/rear extension and detached garage at
rear of dwelling
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property at the head of a cul-de-sac. The proposal is to
erect a two storey extension which would wrap around the rear corner of the house. It would be a
maximum length of 7.15m and a maximum width of 5.5m, and it would have a hipped roof to tie in
with the existing house. It is also proposed to erect a detached garage in the rear garden, which
would be a maximum of 5m in width and 6.7m in length.
The application is being reported to Panel as the applicant is a Council employee.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
23 & 28 Parkstone Lane
11, 15, 17 Meadow lane
6 Ryecroft Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
I have received no objections to the proposal.
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 development must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the
amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of
privacy or light. This is reiterated in Policy DES7.
The Council’s SPG for house extensions outlines sizes of extensions and separation distances
which would normally be considered acceptable in order to limit any adverse impact on the
neighbouring properties in terms of loss of light, loss of privacy or overbearing impact. I would
consider that this extension complies with the SPG in terms of the relationship to the two
neighbouring properties on either side and would not have an adverse affect on these properties in
terms of loss of light or overbearing impact. There would also be more that 21m to the houses to
the rear so that I do not consider that this would result in an undue loss of privacy or overlooking.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same
type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by
the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/46712/COU
APPLICANT:
Miss H Jeffries
LOCATION:
592 Bolton Road Pendlebury
PROPOSAL:
Change of use of shop to shop for the sale of hot food (
Resubmission of planning application 03/46345/COU)
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant shop and seeks consent to change the use of the premises from
shop to shop for the sale of hot food. The proposal would operate between the hours of 08:00 –
16:00 Mondays to Fridays and 09:00 – 15:00 on Saturdays.
The site is bounded by a pet shop and hot food take away at ground floor with separate residential
accommodation above. The property is within the Bolton Road North Key Local Centre.
There is a public car park diagonally opposite this row of terrace property with Netto to the rear.
HISTORY
Members will recall that planning permission was refused for an identical application without
fume extraction details at panel on the 17th July of this year. (0346345/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Recommends refusal of the application as submitted, on the
grounds that residents would be subject to possible detriment to their amenity due to the emission
of odours/fumes associated with any cooking activities from the proposed café due to potential
migrating odours through adjoining walls and ceilings.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
594 – 602 & 582 – 590 (even), 613 and 592A Bolton Road
1 Hampson Street (Pendlebury Road)
REPRESENTATIONS
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
I have received one letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Increase in car parking
Litter
Noise and disturbance
Competition
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: S3 Key Local Centres
Other policies:
DEV1 Development Criteria, S5 Control of Food and Drink Premises
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
S4 Amusement Centres and Food and Drink Uses
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy S5 states that the Council will normally only permit proposals for A3 uses where they
would not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenities of surrounding residential
properties or significantly prejudice highway safety. Where an A3 use would directly adjoin a
residential unit, it is normally considered unacceptable as noise, disturbance, fumes and odours
adversely affect the occupiers. Policy S4 of the draft replacement plan is generally similar to
policy S5 of the adopted plan in respect to this development.
Policy S3 seek to retain and improve Salford’s Key Local centres. It also allows for changes of use
or redevelopment to non-A1 uses where this would not have an unacceptable effect on the
amenity, environment, vitality and viability of the key local centre either individually or by virtue
of a cumulative effect. The site is not allocated within the draft replacement as a somewhat more
refined approach towards the protection of local shopping areas is proposed.
With regard cumulative effect, this particular use would operate in the mornings and early
afternoons and not into the late evenings as the majority of the existing A3 uses. Therefore, with
the inclusion of a condition restricting the hours of operation, I do not consider that this proposal
would result in a detrimental cumulative effect. In addition, the letter of objection refers to
increased competition and reduction in day time business, however, competition is not a material
planning consideration.
Therefore, the main issue to consider in this instance the impact of the use upon the residential flat
above the shop unit.
Policy S5 of the existing UDP and policy S4 of the draft policy seek to protect residential amenity
where A3 uses are in close proximity to residential accommodation. There is a residential flat
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
above this shop unit and as such is contrary to policies S5 and S4. However, there is currently an
A3 use operating into the late evening as a hot food take away adjoining this property.
The applicant has provided details of the position and filter details. The proposed fume extraction
would be installed from the single storey rear flat roof element and would rise up the inside gable
of the two storey ‘outrigger’ in close proximity to the habitable window of the flat above.
However, the Director of Environmental Services is the opinion that even with a satisfactory fume
extraction system, residual odours migrating through adjoining walls and ceilings would still result
in odour nuisances to the residential property above.
Therefore, I am still of the opinion that, even with the installation of this fume extraction system,
the proposed use would result in an unacceptable impact upon the first floor flat by reason of smell
and fumes, noise and disturbance, contrary to Policy S5 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan and Policy S4 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary Development
Plan.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that this proposal should be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would be seriously detrimental to neighbouring residents by
reason of smell and fumes, noise and disturbance and general activity and thus would be
contrary to Policy S5 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and Policy S4
of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/46713/FUL
APPLICANT:
Maljee Filling Station
LOCATION:
25A Chorley Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Installation of roller shutters to front elevation, retention of jet
wash machine and erection of 2.2m high clear perspex screen.
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
The application relates to a petrol filling station located on Chorley Road, Swinton. Adjacent to
the filling station on Chorley Road are residential properties and to the rear is the Newbury Car
Sales business. Separating the filling station from the forecourt of Newbury Car Sales are railings.
The proposal is for the installation of roller shutters to the front elevation of the filling station shop,
the retention of a jet wash machine that has not yet been connected, and the erection of a 2.2m high
clear Perspex screen along the common boundary shared with Newbury Car Sales and 37 Chorley
Road 14.4m in length to help reduce problems of spray back from the jet wash. The bay for the jet
wash would be located adjacent to the common boundary shared with Newbury Car Sales and
would be approximately 10m away from the common boundary shared with 37 Chorley Road
(residential).
SITE HISTORY
93/31461/COU
Change of use from car showroom to veterinary surgery (Approved
September 1993 – no evidence of implementation)
99/39749/ADV
Display of one internally illuminated, single sided freestanding
advertisement display unit (Approved September 1999)
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
23,25, 25A (Newbury Car Sales),37,39,26-34 (even) Chorley Road
2 Bloom Street
1-11 (odd),15-19 (odd) Lions Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity from the
occupier of 37 Chorley Road. Although he does not object to the installation of roller shutters, he
is opposed to the location of the jet wash machine as he feels he will be subjected to spray and
detergent from the jet wash which will affect his plants, pond and garden area in general.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV4 – Design and Crime
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DES1
DES11
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that regard should be given to a number of factors including the location and
nature of the proposed development and the potential level of pollution including noise and
vibration. Policy DES1 supports this and asks for regard to be given to the relationship of
surrounding uses. Policy DEV4 states that the City Council supports development that makes a
contribution towards crime prevention and that regard should be given to the choice of security
measures and the relationship to surrounding uses. This is reiterated in Policy DES11.
There has been no objection towards the proposed roller shutters and I am of the opinion that they
would improve security for the filling station shop and would not have a detrimental impact on the
amenity of the area.
As a result of the objection received, the applicant has agreed to erect a 2.2m high clear Perspex
screen along the common boundary to help prevent spray entering the rear garden of this
neighbour’s property. For this reason, and as the jet wash bay is at least 10m away from the
common boundary, I feel that the jet wash machine would not have a significant detrimental
impact on the amenity of the occupier of 37 Chorley Road. Furthermore, the applicant has agreed
to erect a Perspex screen along the common boundary shared with Newbury Car Sales to help
prevent spray entering the forecourt of the adjacent business. A condition has been attached to
restrict the times of use of the jet wash to prevent noise pollution in the early morning and late in
the evening.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The roller shutters shall be powder coated red prior to their installation and shall be maintained
as such at all times.
3. The jet wash machine shall be operated only between the hours of 8am and 6pm Monday to
Sunday.
4. The perspex screen hereby approved shall be erected and maintained as such prior to the first
operation of the jet wash.
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
APPLICATION No:
03/46718/TEL56
APPLICANT:
T-Mobile (UK) Ltd
LOCATION:
Swinton Park Golf Club East Lancashire Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Prior Notification for the installation for the replacement of
headframe to carry three additional antennae
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land at the rear of the new car park for the Golf Club.
The proposal is to install a replacement headframe to carry three additional antennae.
Planning permission was refused by members of the Planning and Transportation Regulatory
panel in May 2000 for the erection of a 15m high monopole mast with three cross polar antennae,
base cabin and 2m high perimeter fencing. (00/40588/TEL42). The reason for refusal was “The
proposed mast and associated equipment would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring
residents and local area because of the proposed appearance and siting”
However, a subsequent appeal was allowed by the Planning Inspector. In allowing the appeal the
inspector stated that “The course itself would offer ample distractions from the sight of the simple
monopole mast.” The inspector also concluded that “the proposed installation would not have a
materially harmful effect upon the outlook from the neighbouring residential properties.”
This proposal would not increase the height of the pole nor the associated cabin and equipment.
PUBLICITY
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:19-43 (odds) Runnymeade
34-36 (evens) and 104 Welwyn Drive
1 – 43 (odd) Hereford Road
REPRESENTATIONS
Two site notices were displayed on 20th August 2003
I have received three objections on the following grounds:
It would look unsightly.
It would reduce the value of their property
It could be located across the golf course away from properties
There are still some concerns about the effect on health because research has not proven
that the masts are safe.
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
Policy SC14 states the City Council would normally grant planning permission for
telecommunications development where such development would not have an unacceptable effect
on visual amenity or residential amenity……
The replacement plan policy is generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
The objectors raise concern about the appearance of the mast and the effect on their properties. The
nearest house is over 35m away whilst the rest are over 50m from the proposed compound.
It would be visible from some of the properties that adjoin the golf course, however, the
Golf Club are due to undertake some landscape planting around the perimeter of their site, as part
of their planning approval for the rear car park extension. Therefore, this should provide some
screening of the mast for the residents.
The mast is sited adjacent to existing poplar trees and close to some young sycamore trees. The
pole has been painted green to comply with a condition attached to the approved from the Planning
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
Inspector. I am of the opinion that the painting of the existing pole reduces the visual impact when
viewed against the existing trees.
The applicant has also provided certification that the whole of the site would be ICNIRP
compliant.
The main planning issue with regard to this proposal is the likely visual impact that the additional
antennae would have on the outlook of neighbouring residents. The height of the pole would not
be increased by this proposal. Further the width of the existing antennae is 0.6m, the proposed
headframe would increase to 1m in width. I am of the opinion that an increase of 0.4m, viewed
against the backdrop of the golf course would have not additional impact than the existing
monopole and equipment. The additional antennae on an existing monopole would facilitate roll
out of the G3 network and would, in my opinion be supported by the guidance contained within
PPG8.
Therefore having considered the issues, I do not consider that the additional antennae on the
existing mast would have a significant impact on the amenity of the local residents and I am of the
opinion that the objections would not justify refusing this particular proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
03/46448/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Development Services Directorate
LOCATION:
Land At The North End Of Bright Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4m high palisade fence with 0.5m wide strip of
grassed landscaping to the south side of the fence
WARD:
Eccles
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to the end of Bright Road, which previously led onto the public right of way
which runs parallel to the railway line. A previous planning permission was granted in February
1999 for a palisade fence across the end of this road in order to provide better security to the area
and in particular for the properties on Bright Road. This fence was erected and is currently on site.
However, following a subsequent complaint about the fence it became clear that the correct road
closure procedure had not been undertaken.
This planning application is intended to ensure that the fence can be provided as well as ensuring
that the correct legal procedures have all been adhered to. The application is for the erection of a
2.4m high palisade fence with 0.5m grassed area in front. If permission is granted then the existing
fence will be removed, permission will be sought for a formal highway closure and if that is
successful then the new fence could be erected.
CONSULTATION
Ramblers Association – no objections
Peak and Northern Footpath Society – no comments received
Open Spaces Society – no comments received
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – no comments received
PUBLICITY
A site notice was posted on 8th July 2003.
A press notice was published on 21 August 2003.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
22-26 (even), 35 Bright Road
Zurich, Bright Road
Apollo Heating, Bright Road
Ellesmere Office Supplies, Bright Road
Inxpression, Bright Road
Simpac, Bright Road
Eccles Royal British Legion, Devonshire Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter from a resident on Bright Road who supports the application. She is of
the opinion that this improves the security of her property by removing an escape route for
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
miscreants and she reminds the Council of the strong support of the local residents that has
previously been expressed to this fence.
I have also received an objection from an occupier of a property on Devonshire Street. He does not
object to the fence on Bright Road as he fully appreciates the security problems that these residents
experience. However, as no fence has been erected on Devonshire Road, the occupiers of these
properties are suffering an increase in vandalism as pedestrians crossing the railway bridge and
now more likely to go along Devonshire Road. The objector asks either the application is amended
to include a fence on Devonshire Road as the previous approval originally showed before being
amended, or this application be deferred so that it can be submitted at the same time as one by the
Devonshire Road Residents Association, or alternatively that this application be refused so that
both roads can share the problem.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H7/1 – Housing Area Improvement and Renewal – Private Sector
Other policies: DEV4 – Design and Crime
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES11 - Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV4 states that the Council will encourage greater consideration of crime prevention and
shall have regard to the position of fences and gates to achieve this. This is re-iterated in policy
DES11.
I appreciate the concerns of the objector, in that people crossing the railway bridge are more likely
to walk along Devonshire Road now, as the route out of Bright Road is not an option. Equally, I do
not disagree that there would be a potential for more problems with crime along Devonshire Road.
However, I have to consider this application as it has been submitted, and that is to regularise the
fence that exists on Bright Road. If the Devonshire Road Residents Association intend to submit
their own planning application, that would be considered on its own merits.
The fence that is currently on site was originally sought in order to improve the security in the area
by removing a route for vandals and thieves to escape along. Therefore I would consider that the
fence would comply with the Council’s policy about improving security. I do not consider that the
fence would be detrimental to the appearance of the area and I am mindful that I have had no
objections to the proposal.
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
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. This grant of planning permission does not authorise the closure or diversion of the public right
of way as indicated on the approved plan, until the appropriate order has been made.
APPLICATION No:
03/46635/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Ms A M Shanley (Headteacher)
LOCATION:
Lower Kersal Primary School Northallerton Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a 2.4m high palisade perimeter fencing
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing school within a predominantly residential area and it within
the New Deal area. The proposal is to provide security fencing for the school, so it is intended to
replace the existing school type railing with 2.4m high palisade fence around the majority of the
perimeter of the site. It is then proposed to erect a 2.4m high fence around the building itself within
the site, leaving the playing fields accessed though gates. It is also proposed to have a short section
of 3m high palisade fencing along an 8m strip of the northern corner in order to prevent access
from the River Irwell side. The fence would all be colour coated.
74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
Where the palisade fence is proposed alongside the side boundary with 2 St. Aidan’s Grove, it is
proposed to remove the existing low waney lap fence and erect a 2.4m high waney lap fence inside
the palisade fence, to screen the palisade fence from the occupiers of this house.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 15 August 2003.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
1 – 45 (odd) Northallerton Road
108 – 128 (even) Littleton Road
1 & 2 St. Aidan’s Grove
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no objections to the proposal. I have received a letter from the Headteacher for the
school, in support of the application. She states the existing perimeter fence is coming to the end of
its serviceable life and needs replacing. The nursery and reception play areas have a low fence
which leaves this area exposed to passers by, which is obviously a security concern.
She also explains that the school has suffered several break ins and incidents of youths on the roof,
because of inadequate security fence. Each time property is damaged or stolen, it means that the
scarce budget has be spent on repair or replacement rather than on the education of the children.
Therefore the school are seeking better security for their school.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV4 – Design and Crime
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES11 - Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV4 seeks to encourage greater crime prevention and property security and shall have
regard to the position and height of fencing and gates. However, the written justification stresses
that the application of this policy will not be at the expense of the City Council’s commitment to
encourage a high quality of design. This is re-iterated in DES11.
I am concerned about the appearance of the proposed fence, particularly where it faces the houses
along its long boundary along Northallerton Road, as well as on the contiguous boundaries with 1
75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
& 2 St Aidan’s Grove. The Head teacher has been asked to consider an alternative style of security
fencing, such as a railing style. However, she is of the opinion that that palisade fencing would
provide the most suitable security whilst still making best use of the school’s financial resources.
The Northallerton Road frontage is a long open boundary, nearly 180m in length, and it faces the
fronts of 22 properties. Therefore I would consider that this frontage is very prominent in the street
scene and because of this I would consider that the palisade fence is inappropriate in design terms.
I am also concerned about the stretch of fencing on St Aidan’s Grove which is also on a road
frontage and forms a contiguous boundary with 2 houses. I am aware that the Head has offered to
provide a 2.4m waney lap fence alongside 2 St Aidan’s Grove to provide screening and no. 1 is
occupied by the school’s site manager. However, I still would not consider that this is enough to
mitigate the detrimental effect that this style of fence would have on neighbouring residents. I
would consider that palisade fence is more appropriate in an industrial area and it would be
visually detrimental to introduce this style of fence into this area, particularly as it would in a
prominent position and New Deal is trying to improve the area. I would consider that there are
other styles of fencing, such as railing, which would be able to secure the school without having
such a detrimental impact and therefore I would recommend that this application be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The design of the proposed fencing would be inappropriate within this residential area and
would be visually detrimental to the neighbouring residnets and to the street scene in general,
contrary to policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/46690/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Broadoak County Primary School
LOCATION:
Broadoak County Primary School Fairmount Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4m high palisade fencing
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to an existing primary school. The proposal is to erect a length of 2.4m high
palisade fence along the boundary with no. 3 Bramley Close. This would be approximately 30m in
length. It would be the single spike top design, and it would coloured green. This would tie into
existing fencing at the end of the cul-de-sac of Bramley Close.
76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
SITE HISTORY
In October 2001, planning permission was granted to school to erect 2.4m high palisade fence
along the end of Bramley Close and along the Broadlands Road boundary. There was also an
approval for railings on the school frontage to Fairmount Road. (ref. 01/42780/DEEM3).
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1, 3, 14 & 16 Bramley Close
25 & 27 Fairmount Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no objection in response to the planning application publicity
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV4 – Design and Crime
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES11 - Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV4 seeks to encourage greater crime prevention and property security and shall have
regard to the position and height of fencing and gates. However, the written justification stresses
that the application of this policy will not be at the expense of the City Council’s commitment to
encourage a high quality of design. This is re-iterated in DES11.
In considering applications for security fencing along a contiguous boundary with housing, I
would normally seek a quality of the design of the fence, such as a railing style. This would be in
order to improve the visual impact on the occupiers of the residential properties. However, in this
instance, the immediately adjoining boundary is already palisade, at a 2.4m height. Therefore I do
not consider that the proposed extra length of palisade fence, in this position would not have an
extra detrimental impact on the occupiers of this property. I am also mindful in reaching this
conclusion given that the neighbour’s garden is full of shrubs that would provide screening, and
also that I have not received an objection to the fence from the adjoining residents.
77
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th September 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The fence 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 R005A Amenity-neighbours
78
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
79
18th September 2003