PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
APPLICATION No:
02/43914/FUL
APPLICANT:
Kenny Skip Hire Limited
LOCATION:
Land On West Side Of Lester Road Little Hulton
PROPOSAL:
Continued use of land as waste transfer and management station
including erection of office, maintenance, processing and storage
sheds, alteration to existing vehicular access and removal of
materials from site
WARD:
Little Hulton
At a meeting of the Panel held on 2nd October 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 rectangular site towards the end of Lester Road, a cul-de-sac that
serves the Worsley Trading Estate. This Council owned site measures 0.2 hectare and is bounded
to the south by the Mantank premises, to the north by a stretch of open land beyond which is the
City Council Civic Amenity Site. To the west, on the opposite side of Lester Road is the original
Kenny’s site, which in turn is bounded by industrial development. To the rear is a footpath and
open grazing land. The nearest residential property is located on Wharton Lane to the north of the
site and is 128m away. Houses on Cloudstock Grove to the east of the site are 132m away. The
closest house on Manchester Road West is 200m away.
The site currently is raised above surrounding ground levels by between 0.5m and 1.6 m on the
front half of the site and 1.7m and 3.1m on the rear half of the site. The applicant’s proposals
include the removal of much of this material so that the site would rise above surrounding ground
levels by between 0.2m and 1.2m on the front half of the site and between 2.1m and 2.2m on the
back half of the site. It is proposed to locate the waste transfer building to the rear of the site with
material storage areas in the centre portion and the workshop, offices, parking and skip and
equipment storage areas on the front half of the site.
The office building would be of brick construction with a pitched tiled roof. It would be two
storeys and would measure approximately 8m by 14m. The maintenance shed would be 9.4m high
and would have a pitched roof. It would measure 16m by 11.7m and would have profiled metal
cladding above a brick base.
The waste transfer building would house a trommel. This is an earth-screening unit that is
currently in use on the site but is not housed within a building. Unsorted materials are placed into
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
a hopper at one end of the unit and are then passed through a large perforated metal drum. The
drum rotates slowly, allowing soil and finer materials to pass through the perforations for
separation from the large matter. As the drum rotates, the material inside is agitated and tumbled
across the perforations. There are different sizes of perforations within the drum that allow
different sized materials to be separated. At the end of the rotating drum only the largest materials,
typically rocks and larger stones, remains, along with any other materials that have not passed
through the perforations, such as pieces of wood and metal. This particular trommel unit then
relies on a manual sorting shed at the end of the unit with a conveyor supplying the remaining
unsorted waste in which workers will pull any unwanted items out of the waste stream by hand
allowing the remaining waste material to fall to the ground outside.
In a supporting statement the applicant states his wishes to increase the opportunities for
recovering recyclable materials from its customers waste streams through the provision of a
delivery and transfer area. It is estimated that recycling rates for waste handled by the applicant
will be doubled from 40% to 80%. Under the existing operation rubble and hardcore segregated at
the applicant’s depot would have to be exported off site for processing. The application allows this
processing to take place on site.
SITE HISTORY
In 1988 planning permission was granted for the use of the land for the storage of motor vehicles
(Frank Sinclair) (E/23686)
In 1992 planning permission was granted for the use of the site for vehicle dismantling and scrap
processing and a waste transfer station. (Frank Sinclair) (E/28929). This operation resulted in
substantial amounts of material being imported onto the site and land levels being raised. The site
was taken over in 1993 by Terry Corless who operated a similar business to Frank Sinclair.
In 1994 planning permission was granted for the continued use for the dismantling of vehicles and
car storage and storage and sale of motor parts. (Shaun Corless - Metro Motors) (94/32442/FUL).
It was at this time that the use as a waste transfer station ceased although the dismantling of cars
did take place on the site. This use continued until March 2000 when the lease was assigned to a
Javid Iqbal.
More recent non-application site history
Kenny’s signed a lease with the previous occupiers in October 2000 regarding moving on to the
site. At approximately the same time Kenney’s applied to the City Council as landowner to buy
the land. A report was given to Lead Member at that time seeking approval for the disposal of the
Council’s freehold interest in the land. This report from the Estates Division stated that the site
had always operated as a waste transfer station/vehicle dismantlers. The report also made it clear
that the previous occupiers had built up ground levels and that the site was now severely
contaminated. The report stated that the Director of Corporate Services had advised that there was
a possibility that the City Council could inherit liability for the remediation of the land. Kenny’s
estimated that the cost of excavating, removing and disposing of the contaminated materials from
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
the site was approximately £156,000. City Council engineers considered that the costs might be
higher. The Lead Member at the time approved the sale of the land. This sale is currently awaiting
the outcome of this planning application.
From February 2002 the Director of Environmental Services had been dealing with a number of
complaints regarding noise from machinery on site and dust. The main source of noise has been
the trommel.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No objections
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – No objections in principle but requests that a condition be
attached with regard to contaminated land.
Environment Agency – No objection in principle to the development. An application for a Waste
Management Licence has been received by the Agency for the site. The Licence will deal with
issues such as waste control and surface water treatment.
Director of Environmental Health - This application has been subject to some extensive review
due to an existing noise complaint, which this Directorate has been dealing with. Noise has been a
topical complaint by a significant number of local residents surrounding this site over a number of
months. Other complaints have also been received from this and the sister site on the opposite side
of the road. These complaints have been about noise from general operations as well as
specifically the trommel unit and also from dust, odours and vibration.
The noise complaint resulted in an Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 80 Abatement
Notice being served upon Kenny Skip Hire Ltd some months since. The Notice specified in
particular noise from the trommel screening plant should be controlled to prevent the existence of
a statutory nuisance to neighbouring residential properties along Manchester Road West, Hazel
Drive and other surrounding residential roads.
The company has subsequently obtained the assistance of an Acoustic Consultant to collect noise
data relating to the trommel and its use and has provided some engineering methods to try and
limit the noise levels created from the use of the trommel. Environmental Services has been trying
to visit the site on several occasions to witness the level of noise from this plant when operating
with attenuation measures fitted, but has found on many occasions that the plant has not been
operating. When the plant has been seen operating, the noise has not been determined as excessive,
although it has been noted at these times that the load going through the unit appears to be
relatively lightweight comprising of soils and small fragments of rubble, which are inherently
quieter than the rocks and larger rubble indicated when the noise complaints began.
Noise from this aspect appears to be controlled at the present time, however, the notice still stands
and should noise from the trommel unit cause problems, it may constitute a breach of the notice.
Other noise from the site also exists. The general operations which are likely to occur on site are
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
noisy and cannot be easily controlled. This would include noise from the operation and unloading
of skip hire activities, skips being a naturally resonant container that will resonate loudly when
placed on the ground when empty. Noise also from the movement of tracked vehicles and
diggers/JCB units on site will occur. It has been noted from when monitoring has occurred for the
trommel that often the loudest noises are from existing operations at the Skip Hire site opposite the
application site. Noise from these aspects of the site has not been considered as part of the original
noise assessment – which was specifically geared towards noise from the identified trommel unit.
Such noises include the banging of JCB buckets and the movement of noisy tracked vehicles on
site that cannot be easily silenced.
The application details the proposed layout for the site and indicates the maintenance areas, office
buildings and weighbridges etc as the main part of the proposal with the Waste Storage Shed
labelled as Phase II. No indication is given as to when Phase II is likely to be built, but from an
Environmental Health perspective, it is the Phase II aspects that are most crucial when it comes to
controlling nuisance from dust and noise.
The application details that an increased amount of waste will be recycled at the site resulting in a
reduced number of vehicles visiting the site daily. The report further indicates that processing will
take place within the application area that will lead to an increased density of crushed hardcore.
The report does not indicated that a crusher is likely to be housed on site, nor does it indicated
where such a unit could be housed on site. Crushers are inherently dusty apparatus that require a
permit for use. The inclusion of one of these units on site may change the nature of the site to one
that creates a different significant noise and a dust nuisance.
The buildings indicated are to be constructed of a Steel Portal Framed building which is enclosed
to 3 sides with the side facing the entrance to the site to remain open across it’s width. This may
serve to shield noise in certain directions, but possibly to amplify it in other directions. As the
building is relatively lightweight, the level of shielding provided by it will be low, and may in fact
operate as an amplifier depending upon the rigidity of the building. During previous discussions
with the applicant and agents, it was indicated that the buildings would be shielded differently with
more shielding provided to direct noise away from noise sensitive premises. Obviously this is all
determined by the level of noise that is created by the processes operated within.
The submission also indicates that all plant and machinery operated on site would be maintained in
accordance with the manufacturers instructions to prevent the creation of noise. This is reasonable
to an extent, but a great deal of the noise generated from this use would be from the manner in
which the machines operate – most machines have no manufacturer supplied silencing provided,
except for vehicle exhausts. The trommel has been modified to silence it to a degree although not
by the manufacturer. These machines are inherently noisy, so this intention will not necessarily be
able to provide significant noise reduction in itself.
Dust is another issue addressed in the submission. It details all waste to be deposited in a reception
building open to the southeastern side of the site. It further details that this building will be
connected via a covered conveyor to a second hall that is a three sided building open to the south
western side. The covered conveyor will reduce dust emissions due to wind whipping, although it
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
may also be necessary to dampen materials with a water spray to prevent generation of dust when
they are deposited waiting further processing. This second building also houses manual picking
stations and the trommel unit itself.
The submission indicates that inert wastes are to be stockpiled on the hard standing to the rear of
the site. It does not detail if this is housed within a building or not. Materials detailed for
stockpiling include builders rubble, concrete, bricks and soils. Stockpiles frequently require
dampening down to prevent the likelihood of wind whipping of materials held within, even bricks
and concrete often are covered with a fine layer of dust which will transport off site with a
favourable gust of wind.
The submission as previously mentioned, includes a paragraph indicating that hardcore and rubble
would be crushed on the application site as opposed to being exported off site for processing.
There is no indication on the plans of a crusher being included on site for this purpose. Crushing
waste materials to reduce size is very noisy. The use of a mechanical crusher is in itself noisy,
crushing the waste manually without a mechanical crusher may be even louder.
Dust suppression is indicated as ‘would be provided for’ in relation to site operations and
mechanical sweeping of roads. No further detail is provided for this.
Another significant issue detailed briefly in the submitted report relates to previous contamination
of the land on site. A site investigation survey has been carried out in the past for this site. It
detailed significant levels of contaminants found in the ground as a result of past activities on site.
The report indicates that the applicant will ‘carry out remediation of the site as part of the
re-development’. The report also details that the site is presently vacant land formerly used as a
waste transfer station and scrap processing yard. It further indicates that the present of scrap can be
detected in some residual wastes on site and also contamination of the ground surface. Bearing in
mind the past uses of this site, it is unlikely that contamination of the ground will be limited to
surface contamination. Certainly the preliminary report carried out some years ago indicated that
hydrocarbons and other serious contaminants were detected below the surface of the ground. The
proposal to remediate the land is necessary, but a full description of the current situation of the
ground will probably be required in conjunction with an accurate and up-to-date proposal for how
the land will be remediated to a level that is satisfactory for the end use of the site. These site works
for remediation will be required prior to the redevelopment of the site, but over the past few
months, the site has been operating as a waste transfer or waste storage area and consequently there
will be a significant amount of earth moving required before an accurate assessment can be made
into the level of contamination below the site surface. The re-use of some materials to level the site
thereafter is acceptable providing that the materials are not contaminated - assessment of this may
also be necessary, the remainder of material to be disposed accordingly with a licensed facility for
waste disposal. The site is not within 250 metres of any known landfill sites, but is within 500
metres of a 2 known sites. No gas monitoring is required as a result of these distances.
The proposed hours of use are Monday to Friday 7am to 7pm in the original application, however,
the amended proposals indicate 2 separate times within this span of: For receipt of waste and its
processing - 07.30 - 17.30 hrs Monday to Friday, 07.30-13.00 hrs on Saturdays. For the access and
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
egress of vehicles: 07.15 - 18.00 hrs Monday to Friday and 07.15 - 13.30 hrs on Saturdays. The
report further identifies the site be allowed to carry out maintenance of vehicles and on-site plant
only on Sundays from 08.00 to 13.30hrs.
The range of times applied for starts reasonably early on all days. 07.30 hours would be quite early
for the trommel to be used and is likely to be significantly louder than the ambient background
noise at such a time. This could potentially create a noise nuisance to noise sensitive properties
should the processing and trommel operations occur at such times, although this would depend
upon how loud the actual operation is.
The plans also indicate the inclusion of floodlighting to allow use in winter hours when it is dark
earlier. The use of floodlighting is not a problem in itself, however, careful positioning is required
and the selection of suitable aim and power lights will be necessary to prevent light overspill from
affecting neighbouring properties and causing a loss of amenity. Nuisance action is not possible as
light is not defined as a Statutory Nuisance.
Certain aspects of this application can be controlled by specific areas of legislation with regards to
nuisance should planning permission be granted. Dust will be controlled from this site from the
trommel unit and a Crusher should one be installed by IPPC Act 1999. This requires that the
Council issue a Permit for such operations to occur. Dust generated from a crusher or trommel is
currently controlled by this and includes measures relating to dust suppression and control as well
as storage of products. Noise has traditionally been outside this, although newer permits relating to
some larger processes will have noise included as part of the permit. In this case, the operations
and air pollution control aspects are relatively basic, as a result, noise will not be controlled via the
Permit/Authorisation route. The Environment Agency can also control dust and storage as well as
materials allowed via the Waste Management Licences that this site would require. The
Environment Agency’s controls extend to the entire site, not just specified operations therein.
Through tight application of these requirements, dust could be kept to a minimum, although it is
likely that occasional lapses will occur where dust will become problematic for short periods of
time.
Noise issues may also be controlled to an extent, although the applicant may be able to claim best
practicable means for some aspects of the development that would then prevent Environmental
Services from being able to take further action to secure abatement of any nuisance that arises as a
result. This may be the case for items such as noisy JCB buckets and tracked vehicles as well as
movement of empty skips.
The other means of controlling noise nuisance is by shielding the site, which is what some of the
earlier discussions with the applicant and their planning advisors has indicated. This is not likely to
prevent nuisance from occurring at all, but will partially minimise the impact of any nuisance that
occurs. Some noise related nuisance may be capable of being minimised by use of upgraded
building materials e.g. rubber floor for skips, cladding steel profiled sheeting with absorbent
dampening materials etc, but this will not account for all noise arising from the use of the site.
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
Controls on the hours of use are the remaining issues. By limiting the start and finish times, noise
from the site could occur only when the ambient noise levels are high in the area, preventing use of
noisy equipment before certain times or after other times will limit the noise levels causing as
significant impact as they would do when ambient noise levels are quieter.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified of both the original application and the
amended plans:
73 to 141 Carrfield Avenue
1 to 16 Cloudstock Grove
3 to 30 Hazel Avenue
WAM (GB) Ltd, Roy Braidwood, Fencelands, Smith Kline Beecham, GM Waste Disposal
Depot Lester Road
231A, 119 to 123, 208 to 305, 340 to 396 and 408 to 442 Manchester Road West
16 Rothwell Crescent
Wharton House, 6, 10 and 11 Wharton Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a total of 33 letters objection and a petition against the development signed by 230
people in response to the planning application publicity. The following issues have been raised:Noise
Dust
Work commenced without planning permission
Unsightly boundary
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EC13 Sites for Industry and Warehousing
Other policies: EC3 Re-Use of Sites and Premises, MW11 Waste Recycling and Bulk Reduction,
MW15 Development Control Criteria - Waste
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: W1 Waste Management
PLANNING APPRAISAL
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
Part of the site is allocated for industrial purposes under policy EC13. Policy EC3 states that
where existing industrial sites become vacant the City Council will seek to re-use or redevelop
them for similar or related uses except where a number of criteria apply. Policy MW11 states that
encouragement will be given to proposals for new waste disposal sites or facilities that result in the
recycling and reclamation of waste materials and reduce the volume of waste materials to be
disposed of. Policy MW15 states that planning permission will not normally be granted for any
proposal where any of a number of criteria applies. These criteria include where the proposal has
an unacceptable impact upon significant numbers of properties (usually 10 or more) in terms of
visual amenity, ground or water contamination, noise, smell, dust, vermin vibration or other
nuisance and where the proposal does not include satisfactory provision for screening and
landscaping of the site.
The replacement plan policy is similar to policy MW15 of the adopted plan in respect to this
proposal.
I agree with residents that noise has been a problem. The applicant has taken steps in response to
the Noise Abatement Notice to ameliorate noise and this has been successful to a certain extent.
The building that would house the trommel and associated equipment cannot be constructed until
the contaminated material to the rear of the site has been removed.
A similar situation arises with regard to the problem of dust.
The history of this site is complicated and it is clear that the applicant was firmly of the opinion
that planning permission was not required for his operation on the site. Once the requirement for
an application was brought to the attention of the applicant an application was submitted and
although the Director of Environmental Services has required a significant time to assess the
application the fact that development has commenced without planning permission is not in itself a
reason to refuse permission.
I agree that the boundary treatment is not only unsightly but extends beyond the boundaries of the
site. I consider though that this matter can be dealt with by condition.
I am particularly mindful of the comments of the Director of Environmental Services. His
conclusion after many months of assessment is that operations on the site can adequately be
controlled by conditions. Given his conclusions I consider that it is difficult to warrant refusal of
the application. The site will be controlled by the Environment Agency and by the City Council
through its current ownership of the site, Environmental Health legislation and through planning
conditions. I accept that in the past local residents have had to put up with excessive noise as a
result of the applicant’s operations. I consider however, that the applicant does provide a valuable
source of local jobs and the principles of waste recycling are ones that are fully supported by the
City Council’s UDP. I consider that this application offers the City council an opportunity, albeit
a difficult one, to ensure that residents do not have to continue to suffer as a result of the
applicant’s operations that could of course continue to a large extent uncontrolled on his existing
site. I therefore recommend that permission be granted subject to the following conditions.
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Prior to the erection of any building, the developer shall submit a site investigation report for
the approval of the Director of Development Services. The investigation shall address the
nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination on site and shall include an
identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental
Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and controlled
waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions on the
health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and
landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and
property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Director of Development
Services prior to the start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial
works contained within the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to
bringing any building into use.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be
submitted to the Director of Environmental Services for approval. The Site Completion
Report shall validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with
those agreed by the Director of Development Services.
2. Within two months of the date of this permission, the developer shall submit a Dust
Management Plan for the written approval of the Director of Development Services. The Dust
Management Plan shall identify all areas of the site and site operations where dust may be
generated and further identify control methods to ensure that dust does not travel beyond the
site boundary. Once in place, all identified measures shall be implemented and maintained at
all times. Should any equipment used to control dust fail, the site shall cease all material
handling operations immediately until the dust control equipment has been repaired or
replaced.
3. Noise from the site shall not be audible at any residential properties along Wharton Lane,
Manchester Road West, Hazel Avenue, Cloudstock Grove or Carrfield Avenue at any time
between the hours of 18.00 hours and 07.15 hours Monday to Friday, 13.30 hours to 07.15
hours on Saturdays and at no times on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
4. Noise from the operation of the Trommel unit shall not exceed the background noise level by
more than 5dB(A) at any noise sensitive residential properties located along Wharton Lane,
Manchester Road West, Hazel Avenue, Cloudstock Grove or Carrfield Avenue at any time
during its operation. Noise from the Trommel shall be assessed in accordance with
BS4142:1997 'Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
areas' or any other appropriate method if agreed in writing with the Local Planning authority
prior to assessment.
Note: - Background noise levels will need to be measured and agreed with the Local Planning
Authority at appropriate times when assessment is required in order to establish representative
noise levels. Background noise levels set at the time of planning permission may not reflect the
actual situation in the future.
5. All equipment on site shall be maintained and serviced as indicated by the equipment
manufacturers recommendations. All equipment shall be given special attention to reducing
extraneous noise from squeaks or rattles. A log of all service, repair and maintenance records
shall be kept available for inspection by any representative of the City Council's Development
Control Section or Environmental Services Directorate at any reasonable time.
6. Noise from any other equipment located on the site shall not exceed the background level by
more than 5dB(A) at noise sensitive residential properties located along Wharton Lane,
Manchester Road West, Hazel Avenue, Cloudstock Grove or Carrfield Avenue between the
hours of 07.15 hours and 18.00 hours Monday to Friday and 07.15 hours to 13.30 hours on
Saturdays. Noise from equipment shall be assessed in accordance with BS4142:1997 'Method
for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas' or any other
appropriate method if agreed in writing with the Director of Development Services prior to
assessment.
Note: - Background noise levels will need to be measured and agreed with the Director of
Development Services at appropriate times when assessment is required in order to establish
representative noise levels. Background noise levels set at the time of planning permission
may not reflect the actual situation in the future.
7. The site shall be permitted to operate the following operations between the following hours
only:For the receipt of waste:
07.30 to 17.30 hours Monday to Friday
07.30 to 13.00 hours Saturdays
For the processing of waste
08.00 to 17.30 hours Monday to Friday
08.00 to 13.00 hours Saturdays
For the access and egress of vehicles
07.15 to 18.00 hours Mondays to Fridays
07.15 to 13.30 hours Saturdays
8. The applicant shall contact Environmental Services Directorate providing at least 10 working
days notice before allowing any other Screening or Crushing Plant to be installed on site either of a temporary or permanent fixture. Any such equipment brought in on a temporary
basis shall be shall be accompanied by a copy of the relevant Authorisation or Permit issued by
the Local Authority from which the equipment normally resides. No such equipment shall be
permitted to be operated without written consent being provided from the Environmental
Services Directorate.
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
9. Within two months of the date of this permission the applicant shall submit details of the site
screening bund for the written approval of the LPA. The details shall include the siting, height
and maintenance proposals to ensure the bund does not deteriorate over time and shall be
implemented in full in accordance with the approved details within twelve months of the date
of this permission.
10. The use and all operations shall cease within twelve months of the date of this permission
unless buildings for housing the screening unit, sorted and unsorted materials and picking
areas have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans.
11. Within a period of nine months from the date of this permission the ground levels shall be
reduced in accordance with the approved plans, failing which the use and operation of the site
as a waste transfer station shall cease.
12. Construction of the site buildings, excavation and preparation of hard-standing areas and
installation of associated services shall only be permitted to occur between the following
hours:Monday to Friday
08.00 - 18.00 hours
Saturday
08.00 - 13.30 hours
Sundays and Bank Holidays
Construction shall not be permitted at any time.
13. Noise from the construction activities (Laeq,15 minute) shall not exceed the background noise
levels (La90, 15 minute) by more than 5 dB(A) at any time during permitted construction hours
at nearby noise sensitive properties along Wharton Lane, Manchester Road West, Hazel
Avenue, Cloudstock Grove or Carrfield Avenue.
Note: - Background noise levels will need to be measured and agreed with the Director of
Development Services at appropriate times when assessment is required in order to establish
representative noise levels. Background noise levels set at the time of planning permission
may not reflect the actual situation in the future.
14. Prior to the commencement of any excavation works or general construction activities, the
developer shall submit a Construction Phase Dust Management Plan for the written approval
of the Director of Development Services. The Construction Phase Dust Management Plan shall
identify all areas of the site excavation and construction operations where dust may be
generated and further identify control methods to ensure that dust does not travel beyond the
site boundary. Once in place, all identified measures shall be implemented and maintained at
all times. Should any equipment used to control dust fail, the site shall cease all excavation or
construction operations immediately until the dust control equipment has been repaired or
replaced.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
6. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
7. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
8. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
9. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
10. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
11. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
12. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
13. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
14. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The lighting provided in the scheme should be erected and directed so as to avoid nuisance to
residential accommodation in close proximity, I would recommend the lighting be designed to
provide a standard maintained illumination (LUX) of between 5 and 20 LUX with the lower
level being the preferable one.
APPLICATION No:
03/46176/FUL
APPLICANT:
Blacktorn Homes Limited
LOCATION:
151 Bury Old Road Salford 8
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a part three, part
four, part five-storey block of 12 apartments with undercroft
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
parking area together with external car park and alterations to
existing vehicular access
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application refers to 151 Bury Old Road that is currently in partial use as bedsits. The
application seeks approval for the demolition of the existing building and erection of a five storey
block of twelve apartments. The applicant amended the scheme from sixteen apartments. The
building would be part three, part four and part five storey building and would have basement car
parking for twelve cars. Three further spaces would be provided within the site.
The surrounding building types and form are varied with a number of apartment developments
being built over the past forty years. On one side of the site is a 1960’s three storey apartment
building. On the other side is a large detached bungalow and to the rear is a recently constructed
college building.
The characteristic of Victorian properties is large floor to ceiling heights which increases the
overall height of the structure, this building is no different. The existing ridge height is 11.8m,
3.1m higher than the neighbouring three storey Bristol Court. The existing building is set back
24m from Bury Old Road, Victorian in style and two storey in height with dormers within the roof
space. Three large mature trees are located within the frontage and are subject of a Tree
Preservation Order. Several smaller trees are located on the western boundary, and there are ten
mature trees the rear of the site.
The levels of the site rise approximately 1.5m from Bury Old Road to the building with a 1m
retaining wall along the frontage. The main element of the site is then generally flat, although the
southern most element raises again from the rear of the building by approximately 3m.
The footprint of the building would have three distinct elements, the left hand element would be
forward of the existing building although 2m set back from that of the neighbouring bungalow and
21m from the road frontage. This element would be 9.7m in height. The building would then set
back a further 5m X 5.5m in width before stepping back a further 1.4m. This element, adjacent to
Bristol Court would be set back 6m from the front elevation of Bristol Court. The building has
been stepped in this way to provide a distance of 3.6m from the canopy of the closet TPO’d tree.
Both gables would maintain 2m to the common boundaries.
The rear elevation would also be stepped and comprises of two elements. The element closest to
149a (a bungalow) would project 2.2m X 5.6m. The existing building is currently 3m further
forward of this proposal. The remaining element would project a further 6.2m X 11m, a distance
of 1.6m than the furthest most of the existing building. The proposal would provide 18m to the
raised boundary to the rear.
A new separate pedestrian access would be provided alongside the vehicular access.
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
It is proposed to fell those mature trees within the rear of the site. None of these trees are the
subject of a Tree Preservation Order.
SITE HISTORY
In May of this year, planning permission was approved to prune the three trees within the frontage
of the site which are covered by a Tree Preservation Area. The pruning included 20% crown thin
and crown reduce by 5m one ash (T441), 10% crown thin and deadwood one horse chestnut
(T442), reduce back branches extending over property, 20% crown thin and prune to balance one
beech (T443),.03/45945/TPO. This pruning work has not yet been undertaken.
CONSULTATIONS
Coal Authority – No objections but provide advice
Police Architectural Liaison Team – no response
Environment Agency – no response
Director of Environment Services – no response to date
PUBLICITY
A press notice was displayed on 29th May 2003
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Bristol Court and Levi House, Bury Old Road
145 – 149 & 149a, 157 – 159, 164 – 174 (even), Bury Old Road
1 – 4 Pearl Avenue
38 – 40 Upper Park Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received fourteen letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Height
Loss of height
Impact on TPO’d trees
Character
Density
Increase in traffic
Noise
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
Site specific policies: DEV10, Broughton Park
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
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. Policy DEV10 of the extant UDP states that development within the Broughton Park
where it can be demonstrated that the existing property cannot be retained and converted
economically.
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. Therefore the principle of a residential flatted infill development in this location is
acceptable and conforms to the general emphasis of PPG3. However, the principle of PPG3 must
be balanced against the merits of the application and relationship to existing neighbouring uses and
site constraints.
The applicant’s agent has amended the scheme from that of the original submission and this has
reduced the height and projection of the scheme adjacent to the neighbouring bungalow.
Furthermore, with regard to policy DEV10, the applicant’s agent has provided information with
regard the physical problems with the building indicating that it not financial viable to retain the
building.
A total of fourteen letters of objection have been received in response to the application publicity.
The majority of the letters received are from the adjoining neighbouring residents.
The main thrust of the objections are concentrated around the scale and massing of the building
and the perceived impact that this will have on light. The applicant’s agent has amended the
scheme from that of the original submission so that the not only is the footprint stepped, but also
the roofline. The left hand element of the scheme has been reduced in height to 9.7m, the existing
building is 11.2m at the ridge, and as such I am of the opinion that this particular element reflects
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
the scale of the neighbouring buildings and the overall height similar to that of the existing
building. The height of the building would be raised, however, this raised element would be set
further away from the neighbouring bungalow. Adjacent to Bristol Court the height of the
proposal would be 3m higher. As such I do not agree that the proposal would be overbearing or
dominant.
Although the proposal would occupy a larger footprint than that of the existing, the element
adjacent to the bungalow is set back more than the existing outrigger element. Overall, the
proposal would only project 1.2m beyond the furthest most point of the western outrigger.
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that the roof height and recesses details contained with the front
elevation would link, harmonise and provide a natural rhythm between the existing roof heights of
both neighbouring properties.
The main habitable windows of the new build would look front and back, no windows are
proposed within either gable elevation. The main habitable windows and aspects of Bristol Court
are also front and back although there are not habitable windows within the gable. There are also
windows within the gable of the neighbouring bungalow, none of which are habitable windows. I
am also of the opinion that there is sufficient privacy separation, mostly within the site, between
this proposal and the building to the rear.
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. I am of the
opinion that a 125% car parking provision is supported by the guidance contained within PPG13.
Furthermore, Bury New Road is a bus route into the surrounding areas of Prestwich, Bury,
Cheetham Hill and Manchester centres with a bus stop located outside the site.
Turning to the issue of trees the layout of the building is such that the three trees covered by a
preservation would be retained and accord with the principals of the Council’s own Supplementary
Planning Guidance for trees in that a distance of 3.6m would be maintained to the furthest extant of
the canopy to main habitable windows. These trees screen the existing building from Bury Old
Road and would continue to provide substantial screening to this proposal.
The trees to the rear of the site are not subject to a preservation order. They include a row of five
mature trees close to the existing rear elevation. The arboricultural report provided by the
applicant shows that these are suffering from a combination of damage and wounds. The City’s
arboricultural officer does not disagree with the findings of the report. Furthermore, I am of the
opinion that due to the location at the rear of the property, coupled with the findings of the report
these trees would not be afforded the protection of a preservation order and their removal does not
warrant a refusal in this instance.
With regard to character, as stated earlier this particular part of Broughton Park has a number of
building types and form, as such I do not believe that there is a specific design or theme to which
this building would detract. The building is modern utilising modern materials. I am of the
opinion that the building would be distinctive and provide a balance to the street scene.
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
Construction noise is not material planning consideration, further more I do not consider that the
use of the site for twelve flats would not have a significant increase in noise levels to the detriment
of the surrounding properties.
I have no objections on highway grounds and therefore I do share the concerns of local residents
with regard to access, volume of traffic, and parking provision.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the principle of a residential use on this site is appropriate. I
am also of the opinion that the design and scale of the building is of a modern contemporary
building acceptable to this location. Furthermore, the design is such that subject to the following
conditions, the trees afforded the protection of a preservation order will be retained and continue to
provide a substantial backdrop and a high level of amenity to this part of Bury Old Road.
Therefore, I recommend that this proposal be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
and approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such
scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and
surface treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of
development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning
Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
3. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
4. 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.
5. During the first available planting season following the felling of the trees hereby granted
consent, it shall be replaced by standard twelve trees in accordance with British Standard
3936:Part 1:1965 (Specification for Nursery Stock Part 1: Trees and Shrubs) and which shall
have a clear stem height from the ground of 1.8m, a minimum overall height from the ground
of 2.75m, a minimum circumference of stem at 1m from the ground of 8 cm. The species and
location of the replacement trees shall be agreed in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
6. No development shall be started until full details of the Geoweb and Geotextile materials to be
used for the construction of the access road, adjacent to the trees covered by a Tree
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
Preservation Order, 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 R036A Good aboricultural practice
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Standard Reason R036A Good aboricultural practice
APPLICATION No:
03/46311/OUT
APPLICANT:
North West Development Agency
LOCATION:
Former Ashton's Field Colliery Site, Off Cleggs Lane Little
Hulton Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Outline p.a. for 15,000sq.m of industrial (Class B2/B8) floorspace
with associated parking and access together with re-modelling
and remediation works to provide an area of public open space &
associated foot and cycle paths and landscaping
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a 15 hectare site off Clegg’s Lane that was formerly the Ashton Field’s
Colliery. The site was last used for the recovery of coal and has remained derelict for some time
although all buildings have been removed. The site is used for informal recreation and is crossed
by three public footpaths. The northern part of the site is bounded by the M61 and Clegg’s Lane
and the southern section by residential development. To the east is the Oakhill Trading Estate and
to the west residential development including the showman’s site the Brookdale Park Caravan
Site.
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
This is a hybrid application in that outline consent is sought for industrial and warehouse
development on 6 hectares on the southern part of the overall site and full consent is sought for the
laying out and provision of public open space on the remaining 9 hectares to the north as well as
for the improved highway access to the industrial development. Access to the site would be from
Clegg’s Lane/Ravenscraig Road and the submitted proposals show a 7.3m wide carriageway, a 3m
wide combined footpath and cycleway on the Alpine Drinks side of the carriageway and a 2.7m
wide combined footpath and cycleway to the showman’s side with a 2.4m high perforated steel
fence to the showman’s boundary. Both sides would be landscaped.
With regard to the industrial development no approval is sought for siting but a total of 15,000sq.m
of floorspace is proposed. An illustrative plan has been submitted showing how this can be
provided on site. The layout shows the retention of an approximately 3.5m high bund that runs
around the perimeter of the proposed industrial site that screens it from neighbouring residential
property.
The proposed open space for which full consent is sought is to be designated public open space
that will act as a community green space, incorporating landscape elements such as woodland,
wildflower grassland and wetland habitats. A drainage ditch that runs to the north of the site will
be widened and its banks restored to provide a shallower, safer and more natural profile. It is
intended that the North West Development Agency will continue to own the site, but it is intended
that Forest Enterprise and their assigned Community Woodland Officer will manage the
landscape. The existing footpath links across the site will be enhanced by resurfacing existing
footpaths. In order to maintain a safe and attractive environment new boundaries will be
constructed to exclude motorcycles and cars from the site. Informal mountain biking will be
encouraged to utilise the northern part of the site away from housing and the existing cycle route
that enters the site from the south east will be extended to run through the open space eventually
forming part of a strategic cycle network in the City. With regard to the removal of contaminated
material from the site, the ground worst affected would be removed and the whole area contoured
to appropriate levels commensurate with its use as an informal area of public open space and
wildlife corridor. The whole area will be excavated to a depth of one metre below either the
proposed finished ground level or the current ground level (whichever is the lowest level). Any
foundations encountered will be removed. The top one metre will be re-compacted to an
appropriate specification for a wildlife corridor. A layer of subsoil will be placed in wildflower
grass areas, a layer 0.5m thick will be placed in the tree and shrub areas and a layer 300mm thick
placed in the amenity grassed areas. Any excess material that is excavated and appears to be
suitable for reuse as an engineered fill will be utilised in the development area. Any material that
is unsuitable will either be rendered suitable or disposed of to a suitably licensed waste
management facility.
With specific regard to the footpaths across the site the proposals would require the diversion of
one footpath and the opening up of a blocked footpath.
At present the northern part of the site is allocated for industrial development under policy EC13 of
the UDP and the southern part is allocated for recreation provision under policy R12. In a
supporting statement the applicant has explained that mine shafts and the underground
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
Bridgewater canal system make development of the sites in accordance with the UDP extremely
costly and therefore unlikely to ever happen. By allowing the overall site to be developed in the
manner now proposed, the site will be brought back into use in a way that will be of benefit to the
local community.
SITE HISTORY
There is no site history that is relevant to this application.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No objections
Environment Agency – Has objected to the application on the grounds that the proposed
development could unacceptably increase the risk of flooding elsewhere due to the potential
significant increase in surface water run-off.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections in principle but provide
advice.
Director of Environmental Services – No objections in principle but is concerned that there is a
significant potential for the proposed industrial uses to have a detrimental effect on neighbours and
therefore considers that conditions are required in order to protect residential amenity that relate to
noise, vibration and contaminated land.
Peak and Northern Footpath Society – No response to date
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – No response to date
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – Have made detailed comments about the planting scheme.
Ramblers Association – No response to date
Open Spaces Society – No response to date.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2 to 8 Albany Close
1 to 27 Arthur Avenue
260 to 300, 269 to 287 and Duke’s Gate Public House, Cleggs Lane
57 to 99, 14 to 32 and 21 to 39 Crescent Drive
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
Units 1 to 3 and 31 to 42 Oakhill Trading Estate
106 to 132 Eastham Way
25 to 39 and 26 to 52 Grosvenor Drive
Web Lighting and Units 1 to 5 Brookdale Caravan Park Ravenscraig Road
22 to 40 and 1 to 67 Trafford Drive
2 to 26 and 1 to 21 Westmeade Road
1 to 4 Windmill Close
Ashton Fields Farm and 53 to 63 and 52 and 54 Windmill Road
In addition the North West Development Agency carried out their own public consultation
exercise with local residents.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation or objection in response to the planning application
publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EC13/22 Industry and Warehousing, R12/10 Recreation Provision
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX3/1 Sites for a Mix of Open Space and Built Development
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The site currently falls under two specific allocations within the adopted UDP. Policy EC13/22
identifies the northern part of the site for industry and policy R12/10 identifies the southern part of
the site for public open space. The adopted UDP does state however that dependent on site
investigations and the method of reclamation, some degree of flexibility may be required between
R12/10 and EC13/22 to achieve the appropriate overall development for recreation and industry.
This stance is also supported by policy MX3/1 of the draft replacement UDP that identifies the site
for a mix of open space and employment, without indicating where on the site these two uses
should be located.
It is considered that the principle of the proposed development is therefore broadly acceptable in
planning terms. Notwithstanding this however it is also considered that what is in effect a land
swap goes beyond the flexibility that is allowed under adopted UDP policy EC13/22 and I
therefore consider that the application should be referred to the Secretary of State as a departure
from the adopted UDP.
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
Reversing the allocations does also raise issues regarding the proximity of the industrial units to
residential development but I consider that the development can be laid out so as to keep service
yards well away from houses and that the development would be well screened by the existing
bund and significant level of tree planting that exist and could remain.
With regard to the objection of the Environment Agency I consider that this can be adequately
addressed at this time by means of condition. The concerns of the Ecology Unit can also be
addressed by condition.
I note that there have been no objections from the local community and I have no objections on
highway grounds. I consider that the existing footpath provision would be considerably enhanced
as a result of the development. I am satisfied that the development of the site as proposed will
bring back into use for employment purposes a significant part of this former colliery and will
provide a formal area of open space that will both be of considerable benefit to the local
community and the City in general.
I recommend that this application be approved subject to referral to the Secretary of State owing to
the swapping of the allocations in the adopted UDP.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. that the Panel are minded to approve the application subject to the conditions and legal
agreement stated below and that the application is referred to the Secretary of State.
2. that the City Secretary be authorised to enter into a legal agreement to secure the following:
a.
the future maintenance and management of the public open space.
3. that the applicant be informed that the Council is minded to grant planning permission subject
to the conditions stated below on completion of such a legal agreement,
4. that authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application to be issued (subject to
the conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned agreement,
5. that authority be delegated to the Director of Development Services to refuse the application
should the legal agreement not be entered into by the applicant within a reasonable time scale.
Conditions
1. In the interests of the water environment in accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
2. Application for approval of reserved matters on the industrial site must be made not later than
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission and the development
must be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates:(a) the expiration of five years from the date of this permission; or
(b) the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters, or, in the case of
approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.
3. No development of the industrial site shall be started until full details of the following reserved
matters have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
- the layout of the site, including the disposition of buildings and roads and provision for
parking and servicing;
- plans and elevations showing the design of all buildings and other structures;
- the colour and type of facing materials to be used for all external walls and roofs;
- the means of access to the buildings;
- a landscape scheme for the site which shall include details of trees and shrubs to be planted,
any existing trees to be retained, or felled indicating the spread of the branches and trunk
positions, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment.
4. The public open space site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall
be submitted to and approved by the Director of Development Services before development is
started. Such scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences,
boundary and surface treatment and shall be carried out within 18 months of the
commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the
Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be
replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
5. Prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall submit a site investigation
report for the approval of the Director of Development Services. The investigation shall
address the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination on site and shall include an
identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental
Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and controlled
waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions on the
health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and
landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and
property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Director of Development
Services prior to the start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial
works contained within the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
occupation of the site.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be
submitted to the Director of Development Services for approval. The Site Completion Report
shall validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those
agreed by the Director of Development Services.
6. Prior to the commencement of development of the industrial site the applicant shall submit for
written approval an assessment of noise and vibration likely to affect neighbouring residential
properties. This assessment should be directed at assessing noise from both within buildings
and from service yards. This assessment shall identify clearly noise measurement positions,
sources of noise, recorded noise levels at identified locations, any calculations to determine
noise levels at unmeasured locations and shall then assess the impact of the noise on the nearest
noise sensitive properties bearing in mind the current World Health Organisation
recommendations for noise levels in bedrooms. The assessment shall then identify any noise
attenuation measures which may be deemed necessary to reduce the impact of noise on the
residential properties around the site. Once agreed, all identified noise mitigation measures
shall be implemented and thereafter retained and a verification report shall be submitted for the
written approval of the Director of Development Services prior to the occupation of any unit.
7. Prior to the commencement of development of the industrial site a full assessment of surface
water run-off shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Director of Development
Services. Such scheme shall attenuate run-off such that flooding does not occur and shall be
implemented in full prior in accordance with such details as are approved.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
3. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
6. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
7. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
Note(s) for Applicant
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
1. The lighting provided in the scheme shall be erected and directed so as to avoid nuisance to
residential accommodation in close proximity. Guidance can be obtained from the Institute of
Lighting Engineers that relates to these matters (Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light
Pollution)
2. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, prior to the granting of planning
permission.
3. 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.
4. The Environmental Services Directorate can be contacted for further advice or clarification on
any of the matters relating to noise, vibration, odour or ground and gas contamination. Contact
can be made on 0161 793 2083 for advice on these matters.
APPLICATION No:
03/46570/FUL
APPLICANT:
Mr J Kamali
LOCATION:
8 Vine Street Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing building and construction of a four storey
block of 21 apartments including alterations to existing vehicular
access
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to existing offices premises on Nevile Road. The site is surrounded by
residential property and vehicular access is from Vine Street that runs to the rear of the property.
The site is split level with the Vine Street level being 3m lower than the Nevile Street ground level.
The existing building is two storey to the Nevile Road elevation and three storey to the Vine Street
elevation. It would be set back from the Nevile Road frontage by 5.5m and would be further away
from the houses on Nevile Road than the existing building which is just 2.5m from the road. The
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
building would be 23m away from the houses and also approximately 2m lower than the houses
that are elevated from the road. The building would have three storeys on the Nevile Road
frontage and four on Vine Street.
It is proposed to provide a total of 21 apartments. The building would be a flat roofed and of
contemporary design and would have a total height comparable with the adjacent dwelling at 123
Nevile Road. This adjacent house has a single storey side extension close to the common
boundary with this development that is surrounded on two sides by a 2.4m high leylandii hedge. A
total of 31 car parking spaces would be provided with access taken from Vine Street.
The neighbouring apartment building is three storeys in height and is situated at the Nevile Road
ground level making it of a similar height to the proposed building.
There are a total of eight trees on the site that are protected by Tree Preservation Order, these are
on the Nevile Road frontage and on the eastern boundary to the Nevile Road part of the site. In
addition there are another twelve trees within or very close to the boundaries of the site. Those
within the boundary of the adjacent apartments are covered by TPO and are approximately 3m
higher than the adjacent ground level within the site to the rear of the plot.
SITE HISTORY
There is no site history relevant to this current proposal.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections in principle but provides
detailed advice about security matters.
Environment Agency – No objections in principle
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
123 and 118 to 136 Nevile Road
5 and 6 The Drive
1 to 22 The Mount, Vine Street
13 to 19 Vine Street
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a total of 20 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity.
The following issues have been raised:Loss of light
Drainage problems
Increase in traffic and loss of highway safety
Loss of privacy
Out of character with neighbouring properties
Noise and disturbance during construction
Effect on trees
Overdevelopment of the site
Not enough car parking
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: DEV10 Broughton Park Development Control Policy
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, EN7 Conservation of Trees and
Woodlands.
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, EN10 Protected Trees
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV10 states that the City Council will only grant planning permission for development in
Broughton Park where a number of criteria have been satisfied. These criteria include that the
development would maintain the predominantly residential character of the area, that in the case of
the redevelopment of existing properties, it can be demonstrated that the existing property cannot
be retained and converted economically for an acceptable alternative use appropriate to the
residential character of the area and that in the case of residential development due regard has been
had to matters of siting, design and height of buildings, facing materials, provision of car parking,
the protection of trees, the provision of landscaping and access requirements.
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. Such factors include the size and density of the proposed development, the likely
scale and type of traffic generation, the amount of car parking provision, the effect on
neighbouring properties, the visual appearance of the development and its relationship to its
surroundings and the impact on existing trees.
Policy EN7 states that the City Council will encourage the retention of trees and woodlands.
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
The policies of the replacement plan are similar to those of the adopted UDP with respect to this
proposal although there is no proposed replacement for policy DEV10 in the replacement plan.
With regard to policy DEV10 the purpose of the policy as stated in the reasoned justification is to
ensure that the residential character of the area is retained and that older properties are retained
where possible. This proposal would enhance the residential character of the area by introducing a
residential use in place of an office use. It does not relate to the replacement of an older property
but to the replacement of a comparatively modern property that exhibits none of the features that
the policy seeks to retain in requiring existing properties to be retained and converted rather than
replaced.
With regard to the objections that have been received I do not consider that the proposed
development would result in any significant loss of light to any neighbouring property. I am
satisfied that in this regard the high screen hedge that closely surrounds the single storey extension
on the adjacent property means that there is no significant loss of light or an overbearing effect on
this property.
With regard to drainage the development would be required to provide adequate drainage. I do not
consider that this development should be required to make up for existing deficiencies in the
drainage system and I do not consider that the application should be refused on drainage grounds.
I have no objections on highway grounds to the proposal. The existing building is used as offices
and this use is likely to generate increased traffic movements than the proposed use as apartments.
The building is of a contemporary design and although it would be different from neighbouring
buildings I consider that the design is a good one and that the building would be a positive addition
to the local area. I do not consider that the building would be out of character with the area.
Noise and disturbance during construction is an inevitable consequence of any building works and
I do not therefore consider that the application can be refused on these grounds.
With regard to the trees on the site the existing building is already sited closer to trees than the
proposed building.
No major trees would be lost as a result of this development. The
arboricultural report submitted with the application does suggest however, that several trees that
are either poor specimens, diseased or are suppressing other trees should be removed and replaced.
Of the eight protected trees within the site three are small hawthorns that are not good specimens
and although they would not be affected by the development it is recommended that they be
replaced with more appropriate trees. The City Council’s arboricultural officer agrees with this.
Five trees that are not protected would also be removed, the City arboriculturalist also agrees that
these trees are small insignificant trees or poor specimens that are not worthy of protection. It is
likely that some crown raising and balancing may be required to protected trees located between
the adjacent flats and the proposed building. I consider that this is acceptable given that the trees
are already elevated, their root systems will not be affected, the level of work required is not likely
to be significant and the trees are at least 27m from the nearest road frontage and so have limited
public amenity value.
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
I do not consider that the development that is proposed represents an overdevelopment and I
consider that the parking that is proposed is appropriate.
Although I have not received any objection from the adjoining house I do consider that a condition
is necessary to ensure that balconies proposed do not have a view over the neighbours private
garden area.
I consider that the main planning issues relate to the tree loss, to the design of the building and to
compliance with policy DEV10 of the UDP. I am satisfied that the development has been well
designed and that the building will be an asset to the local area. With regard to the issue of the
trees I am satisfied that on balance the tree loss is justified provided that replacement trees are
planted. With regard to policy DEV10 the development would bring a residential use to site that
currently has a commercial use. I therefore consider that the proposed use is more appropriate than
the existing use. In addition I consider that the design and appearance of the proposed building is
significantly better than that of the existing property. I therefore consider that the development
should be granted subject to the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
and approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such
scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and
surface treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of
development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning
Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
3. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
4. No development shall be started until samples of the 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.
5. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
6. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the screening of balconies to prevent
overlooking of neighbouring properties shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services. Such scheme as is approved shall be implemented in full
prior to the occupation of any residential unit.
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
4. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
5. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
6. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
APPLICATION No:
03/46638/OUT
APPLICANT:
Clariant UK Ltd
LOCATION:
Clariant Works Site Hayes Road Cadishead
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for a residential development
comprising of 288 dwellings
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This 7.28 hectare site, which was until recently the site for Clariant Works, is bounded by
Cadishead Park to the north, Hayes Road to the west, the Manchester Ship Canal Company to the
south and the disused railway embankment to the east. The site has been used for chemical
manufacturing and processing with only a handful of tanks and buildings remaining on the site.
Within the site there are small pockets of self-seeded trees as well as a line of conifers along the
boundary with Hayes Road. Existing vehicular access to the site is from Hayes Road.
Cadishead Park consists mainly of open recreation fields with some children’s play facilities and
has a line of mature trees close to the boundary with the Clariant site. Hayes Road consists of both
residential properties and commercial uses. The Ship Canal is to the south and the route of the
previously approved Cadishead Way by-pass phase II runs between the Clariant site and the ship
canal, a landscaping strip is to be provided between the proposed carriageway and the Clariant site.
The site and the area are generally flat however the former railway is elevated above the Clariant
site.
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
Outline planning permission is sought for 288 residential units. All matters are reserved although
the applicant has submitted an illustrative layout plan which shows a mix of dwelling types
including apartments, two storey houses and some three storey houses. Open space could be
positioned adjacent to Cadishead Park and the applicant considers there could be access between
the two areas. The applicant proposes that vehicular access to one third of the units can be taken
from Hayes Road and vehicular access to two thirds of the units be taken from Cadishead Way.
The applicant proposes that vehicular access from Cadishead Way onto Hayes Road would not be
possible except for emergency vehicles. The applicant expects that remediation work for the site
would be undertaken at the same time as remediation with Cadishead Way Phase II and the
construction of the by-pass and the houses would be at the same time.
The applicant has submitted supporting information of a planning statement, a transport
assessment, a noise assessment and an air quality assessment. The planning statement explains the
submission, access, links to the by-pass, site remediation, noise and air quality. The transport
assessment explains the existing vehicular movements along Hayes Road have been
approximately 100 tanker movements per day and 6 – 10 HGV each way per day. Approximately
150 staff visited the site for work during normal office hours as well which resulted in 44 vehicles,
mostly HGV’s, per hour at peak times. The transport assessment explains that for the proposed
residential scheme with one third of the units having vehicle access from Hayes Road the number
of vehicle movements per hour at peak times would be between 42 – 47. There would be 127 – 141
peak vehicles per hour from the housing site to the by-pass. The noise assessment explains that
some mitigation would be required to resolve noise disturbance from the proposed by-pass. The air
quality assessment explains that with the by-pass and this residential scheme the Clariant site
would result in a slightly worse air quality however it is explained this is unlikely to exceed Air
Quality Objectives.
SITE HISTORY
No relevant planning history
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – No objections subject to a condition regarding drainage
Director of Environmental Services – No comments received
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections but recommend that the
applicant consult with the Architectural Liaison Unit prior to the reserved matters stage
Manchester Ship Canal Company – No comments
United Utilities – No objections
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – No objections but recommend that
surfacing, lighting and landscaping be designed to encourage residents to walk to Liverpool Road.
The six Councillors of Cadishead and Irlam were also consulted over the application.
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
The Irlam and Cadishead Community Committee have advised that Members of the Community
Committee agreed in principle to the provision of housing on Hayes Road, however, there were
serious concerns with regard to traffic management in the area with specific reference to vehicles
turning into Hayes Road.
PUBLICITY
Site notices were displayed on the 6th August 2003
A press notice was published on the 21st August 2003
The plans have been displayed at the Cadishead Library
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 19 odd Green Lane
2 – 10 even and 8A & 10A Green Lane
1 – 3 Harriet Street
1 – 39 odd Hayes Road
4 – 12 even Hayes Road
26a, 26 – 42 even Hayes Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Object if Hayes Road would be used for access to the by-pass, access along Green Lane is
tight already
Building should not take place before the by-pass is finished so that construction traffic
does not have to use Hayes Road/Green Lane
Concern over whether the contaminated land is suitable for residential development
Too many cars for the local road network, which would result in a worse situation than
when the site was in operation
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EC3 re-use of sites and premises
H1 Housing Needs, H6 and H11 Open space Provision, EN7 Conservation of Trees and
Woodlands
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H9/8 Sites for New Housing/Land at Hayes Road, Cadishead
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
Other policies: H1 Provision of New Housing Development, H8 Open Space Provision, A2
Cyclists, Pedestrian and the Disabled
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The site is not allocated within the Adopted UDP and as such is subject to Policy EC3 Re-Use of
Sites and Premises. Policy EC3 allows redevelopment for non-industrial uses where there would
be no resulting material shortfall in the range of sites or premises available for economic
development or where there is a strong case for rationalising land uses. The applicant has
submitted a supporting statement with the application, and it is considered that the site lies within
an area where there are alternative commercial sites available, and that as it is contaminated it
would not be commercially viable for commercial reuse. Policy H1 encourages the development
of new housing. Central government, within PPG3, are encouraging flexibility when identifying
suitable sites for housing, and emerging government policy encourages the reuse of industrial and
commercial land for housing unless a convincing case for retention can be made. It is therefore
considered that the proposed development is consistent with national planning guidance and the
Adopted UDP.
Policy H9/8 of the replacement plan allocates the site for housing development and states that
Cadishead Way will provide very good road access and that some smaller units should be provided
as well as a minimum density of 35 dwellings per hectare. Objections have been received to this
policy however as these objections relate to family housing and impact on Little Hulton, Worsley
and Boothstown I consider that a reasonable amount of weight can be attached to this policy. The
Community Committee supports the principle of housing at the site. Policy H1 of the first deposit
draft UDP requires that new housing should contribute to a mix of dwelling types, not less than 30
units per hectare and appropriate open space. Given the mix of units and the proposed density of
39.5 dwellings per hectare I consider the proposal to be in accordance with policies H9/8 and H1.
I am satisfied that the 288 units can be accommodated on the site to the required density, and the
layout configured to take account of the site constraints. There are trees within the site, which
would have to be cut down to allow site remediation. The applicant is willing to provide and
implement a landscaping for the proposed development.
Objection has been raised if vehicle access can be gained between Hayes Road/Green Lane and
Cadishead Way and the Community Committee have expressed concerns over traffic management
and vehicles turning onto Hayes Road. The applicant has included illustrative details to show how
a no through access would be proposed except for emergency vehicles. The applicant has shown
that one third of dwellings can have vehicle access to Hayes Road and Green Lane whilst two
thirds can have vehicle access to the by-pass. The transport information submitted shows that
although a similar number of vehicle movements will result along Hayes Road/Green Lane most
of the vehicle movements have previously been from HGV’s. As the two thirds of traffic can use
the by-pass and vehicles using existing roads will be cars I do not consider that the proposal will
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
have a detrimental impact upon the local road network, I propose a condition to ensure that this
balance is maintained in any future more detailed application. I also consider that the number of
cars leaving and entering the site along Hayes Road/Green Lane would not cause congestion
problems at peak times. I have no other highway objections. I propose a condition to ensure that
details of phasing are submitted which should include details so that the developer shall not
complete more than one third of the dwellings until the by-pass is constructed and open for public
use.
As stated above operations at this site have revolved around the chemical industry and the site is
contaminated. An objector wonders whether the site is safe to build houses on. I am satisfied that
the site can be reclaimed for residential development. I propose a condition to ensure that the site is
properly cleaned and subject to this condition I have no objections over site contamination.
I consider there are other alternative employment sites within the area and that this site can be
appropriately reclaimed to enable an appropriate use for the locality. I consider the density to be
appropriate. I am satisfied that conditions will ensure that only vehicular access for one third of the
site will be along Hayes Road/Green Lane and that this situation is preferable to the previous
operation with HGV movements. I have no highway objections and recommend approval subject
to the conditions listed below.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
- the layout of the site, including the disposition of buildings and roads and provision for
parking and servicing;
- plans and elevations showing the design of all buildings and other structures;
- the colour and type of facing materials to be used for all external walls and roofs;
- the means of access to the site and the buildings;
- a landscape scheme for the site which shall include details of trees and shrubs to be planted,
any existing trees to be retained, or felled indicating the spread of the branches and trunk
positions, lighting, directional signage, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment.
3. No residential development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme
for the disposal of foul and surface waters has been submitted for approval to the Director of
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
Development Services. Such scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with
the approved scheme.
4. No development shall commence until a scheme detailing measures to prohibit vehicles, other
than emergency vehicles, from gaining access between Hayes Road and Cadishead Way has
been submitted for the written approval of the Director of Development Services. The
approved measures shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the first dwelling hereby
approved and shall thereafter be maintained.
5. The reserved matters shall be so designed to ensure that no more than one third of the
dwellings hereby approved shall gain vehicle access from Hayes Road. No dwelling shall be
first occupied unless and until the approved access details have been implemented.
6. An area of land within the site shall be laid out as public open space in accordance with policies
H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan. No development shall be started
until details including the location, specification, design and phasing provision of any such
areas have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services. Such areas as may be approved shall thereafter be laid out and made available for use
in accordance with the approved phasing provision, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
7. The reserved matters shall be designed to the miniumum standards of the Secured by Design
Award.
8. Standard Condition M05 Site investigation
9. All vehicles movements to and from the site during the remediation phase shall be via
Cadishead Way only.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Reason: To ensure satisfactory means of drainage in accordance with Policy DEV1 of the
Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
5. To provide for the safety and users of the highway and to safeguard residential amenity in
accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
6. To provide for the provision of open space in accordance with policies H6 and H11 of the
Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan in the interests of future occupiers of the
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
dwellings and residents of the local area in general.
7. Standard Reason R040A Secured from crime
8. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
9. To safeguard the living conditions of residents on Hayes Road and Green Lane in accordance
with policy EN20 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment
Agency.
2. Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, an Abstraction Licence may be required
from the Environmnet Agency for the abstraction of water for dust suppression during the
construction phase from any inland or underground strata.
3. If the developer is proposing to use specially constructed works to dewater the site, he must
inform the Environment Agency under section 30 of the Water Resources Act 1991.
4. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from Norweb.
5. The Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding
details of drainage.
6. Please note that a separate system of drainage is required for this development.
7. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Greater
Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit.
8. The reserved matters should be supported by a full arboricultural survey; a PPG24 Noise
Assessment; details of existing and proposed levels and if necessary details of bin stores,
bicycle and motorcycle stores.
APPLICATION No:
03/46658/OUT
APPLICANT:
Mrs B Humphries
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
LOCATION:
Site At Former Builders Yard Fountain Street Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for the erection of one - three storey
building comprising six flats together with associated car parking
and landscaping
WARD:
Barton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the yard area of an existing builders yard off Fountain Street. The
application site currently forms the eastern part of the yard area measuring approximately 30m by
110m. The single storey unit to the existing builders yard bounds the site to the west and the
residential properties of Grand Union Way and Havenscroft Close lie to the east and south
respectively. There are further residential dwellings on Barton Lane to the north west separated by
a piece of tarmaced land which is currently used for car parking. The site is currently bounded by
2.4m high palisade fencing.
Permission is sought in outline with only landscaping to be dealt with at the reserved matters stage,
for the erection of a three storey block of six apartments which would stand parallel to the northern
boundary of the site. There would be a central entrance hall with one apartment to either side with
the entrance on the southern elevation and the building would be positioned at an angle towards the
properties of Havenscroft Close. Seven car parking spaces would be provided including one
disabled space and there would also be a small amount of amenity space. The site would be
accessed off Grand Union Way.
SITE HISTORY
In May this year an application for the erection of 12 flats on the whole builders yard site was
refused following concerns about overdevelopment of the site with an overbearing effect on
neighbouring residents, loss of privacy and an insufficient amenity space, ref 03/45773/OUT.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – recommends that conditions are attached to any permission
requiring a site investigation and a noise assessment to be undertaken.
Environment Agency – no objections in principle but requests that a condition be attached to any
permission for an assessment of on-site contamination.
Health and Safety Executive – the proposal does not meet the consultation criteria and therefore
they have no comments.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 13 August 2003.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
509 – 519 (O), 525 Barton Lane
51 and 53 Grand Union Way
2 – 20 Havenscroft Avenue
24 – 28 Castlerea Close
Barton Metals, Fountain Street
Manchester Methodist Housing Group
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 3 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity 2 of which
requested that their previous letter and the petition (34 signatures) from application
03/45773/OUT be considered. The following issues have therefore been raised:The three storey building would be out of character with surrounding 2 storey properties
Loss of privacy
Loss of sunlight
Separation to properties at the rear
Concerns of security with walkway to rear of site
Noise and disturbance during construction
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H9/23 – Sites for New Housing
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
T13 – Car Parking
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES11 – Design and Crime
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The site is allocated in the Unitary Development Plan as a site for new housing (Policy H9/23).
The majority of this allocation, in particular to the north, east and south of the application site, has
now been developed for residential use. UDP policy DEV1 states that regard should be had to a
number of issues when determining applications for planning permission, including the
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
relationship to existing and proposed land uses; the amount, design and layout of car parking
provision and the provision of open space.
Policy DES7 requires all new development to provide users with a satisfactory level of amenity in
terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy aspect and layout. Development will not be permitted
where it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other
developments.
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.
The proposal has raised concerns from neighbouring residents on Havenscroft Avenue, not least
because it is considered that the proposal is similar to that previously refused in May. In response
to this the application only relates to half of the previous application site and the block that was
sited on this part of the site has been re-positioned to stand parallel to the northern boundary and
set at an angle to the properties on Havenscroft Avenue.
A second concern related to a loss of light. The building has been designed to provide the third
floor accommodation within the majority of the roof area with the eaves of the building at 7m and
the roof ridge at 9.4m. It is also sited to the north of the properties on Havenscroft Avenue and
therefore the apartments should not impact upon the sunlight these existing properties already
receive.
Neighbouring residents have also raised concerns in relation to security if the existing palisade
fencing around the boundary of the site is removed. Whilst this fencing may provide additional
security, I consider that it is unsightly and inappropriate in this residential area. The position,
height and design of any new boundary treatment would be dealt with at the detailed planning
stage.
One of the main concerns of residents however was the resulting loss of privacy on Havenscroft
Avenue. By positioning the block in this way on the site the applicant has increased the separation
to the properties to the south but has still only achieved a separation of 16m at its closest point.
Normally a separation of 24m would be required between the existing two storey dwellings and the
proposed three storey block where there are facing main habitable room windows. The applicant
has designed and amended the plan to ensure that the lounge and bedroom windows on the third
storey are secondary windows to each room and would also be obscure glazed to allow light into
the rooms but to safeguard privacy of residents opposite. Not withstanding this, I remain
concerned that the proposal would be too close, even for a two storey development which would
require a 21m separation, and would thus result in a loss of privacy and appear overbearing to the
residents on Havenscroft Avenue.
I am also concerned about the outlook from the northern elevation of the apartments. This
elevation would stand approximately 1m from the boundary to the tarmaced car park and there
would be main habitable room windows overlooking this area, thus relying entirely on the
neighbouring land for amenity. This is not acceptable and I therefore consider this proposal would
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
result in an overdevelopment of the land with a proposal which would have a detrimental impact
upon the amenity of neighbouring residents and recommend that this application be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. Owing to it's size and siting the proposal would result in an overdevelopment of the site which
would have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of neighbouring residents and is therefore
contrary to policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
2. The proposed development would not provide an acceptable level of amenity in terms of aspect
and layout for future occupiers of the development and as such is therefore contrary to policy
DES7 of the First Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.
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
At a meeting of the Panel held on 18th 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 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
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
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
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 and two petitions
containing forty nine names. 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)
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
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
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.
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
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.
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:
03/46704/FUL
APPLICANT:
Mr R Hope
LOCATION:
341 Walkden Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing garage and erection of detached triple
garage with storeroom in roof space at rear of the dwelling
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
At a meeting of the Panel held on 2nd October 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 site comprises of a single garage with hard standing adjacent which can accommodate two
vehicles. To the rear of the garage and hard standing is an area of loose stone and an apple tree.
Access is provided off Worsley Road between No. 335 and No.337. The access road services the
rear of properties on Walkden Road, Woodlands Close and Old Hall Road.
The proposed garage would accommodate three cars and would measure 8.5m (l) X 6.45m (w).
Three separate garage doors would be provided in the elevation which would front the rear of those
properties on Worsley Road. The height of the proposal would measure 5.7m at the ridge. A
window would be provided within the front gable at first floor level. A separate external staircase
would be provided at the rear to provide access to the first floor storeroom.
CONSULTATIONS
Coal Authority – No objection but provide advice
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 11 (odd) Old Hall Lane
333 – 339, 343, 436 – 440 (even) Walkden Road
1 Woodlands Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Impact of access
Loss of privacy
Overlooking
Loss of light
Impact on view
Disruption during construction
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
Other policies:
16th October 2003
DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, 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 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. Policy A10 and the standards contained within appendix 3 sets out maximum car
parking standards.
The existing access to the garage would be used for this proposal, I do not agree that the provision
of this garage to replace the existing provision would result in a significant increase in vehicular
traffic or have a detrimental impact upon the access.
The gable of the proposed garage would be directly behind No.1 Old Hall Road and would
maintain a distance of 14m. The front of the garage would be positioned in a similar to that of the
existing garage which maintains a distance of 13.5m to the main rear elevation containing
habitable windows. I am of the opinion that the proposal maintains sufficient separation distance
to the surrounding residential uses. Therefore I do not consider that the siting of the garage in this
location would have a detrimental impact upon light or habitable windows.
Loss of view is not a material planning consideration. The use of the roof space for storage would
not result in a loss of privacy to the surrounding residential properties.
I consider that the use of the site for garage purposes is appropriate in this location and would be
provided in a manner as to meet the Council’s normal separation distances. I have no objections to
the proposal on highway grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
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
APPLICATION No:
03/46755/FUL
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs S Sanders
LOCATION:
Oddfellows Arms 4 Manchester Road Clifton M27 2NX
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from ground floor flat to form extension to existing
pub lounge
WARD:
Swinton North
At a meeting of the Panel held on 2nd October 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 pub currently occupies numbers 2, 4 and 6. Number 8 is a vacant flat that is in the same
ownership as the public house. The first floor of 2 – 8 is the landlords flat. The adjoining property
consists of a showroom at ground floor and self contained flat at first floor.
This proposal seeks to change the use of the vacant ground floor flat to extend the existing public
house lounge. The external appearance of the pub would remain unchanged.
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
There is no formal car park for the pub although there is a yard and informal car parking area to the
rear.
SITE HISTORY
In 1997, planning permission was granted for the conversion of adjoining (No.10) shop and living
accommodation to display showroom and self-contained flat, together with new display windows
on side elevation at ground floor level (97/37407/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – recommends refusal due to loss of amenity to the
neighbouring flat.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
750 Bolton Road
2 – 16 (even) Centaur Close
1 – 16 Durham Close (Billy Lane)
10 and 10A Manchester Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issue has been raised:Noise
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
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 City of Salford will only permit proposals for consumption of drink on the
premises where the use would not have an unacceptably adverse impact of the amenities of
neighbouring residential occupiers by reason of noise, disturbance, smells, fumes litter, vehicular
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
traffic movements, parking or pedestrian traffic and where the use would not be significantly
prejudicial to the safety of pedestrians and road users with respect to car parking, servicing, or the
effect on the free flow of traffic.
The replacement plan policy is generally similar to that of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
The objection received identifies general nuisance issues and the proposed hours of opening. The
wider area is generally residential in nature. However, I consider that the main planning issues to
consider are whether the proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of amenity to the adjoining
neighbouring resident. The vacant flat at present, which is associated to the public house, provides
a distinct separation to the self contained flat of the neighbouring property.
I am of the opinion that the extension of the pub would not necessarily intensify the use nor result
in an increase in activity associated at closing time, but would result in the use directly adjoining a
residential use. In doing so, I consider that the proposal would have an adverse impact on
residential amenity by creating additional noise and general disturbance in the late evening.
Having considered all the issues raised by this proposal, I consider that the proposed conversion of
ground floor flat to form extension to existing public house would have an unacceptable effect on
the residential amenity of neighbouring properties by reason of noise and general disturbance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed change of use would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents by
reason of noise and disturbance and would therefore be contrary to the City Council's policy
for the control of food and drink premises as contained in policy S5 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/46769/FUL
APPLICANT:
Allied Filter Systems Ltd
LOCATION:
Allied Filter Systems Ltd Huntsman Drive, Northbank Industrial
Estate Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Erection of extension to existing industrial building with
associated offices
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
16th October 2003
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a mounded, grassed area of land adjacent to an existing industrial
building on Huntsman Drive. The proposal is to erect an ‘L’ shaped extension to the building,
measuring 37.4 metres by 24.4 metres, with a small plant room at the rear. The ground floor of the
extension would be used as a warehouse and production area and staff facilities including a
canteen would also be provided. A 280m2 mezzanine floor is also proposed and would be used for
offices and a production area. A new reception area would be constructed at the entrance to the
existing building, measuring 4.5 metres by 3.5 metres. The extension would be constructed from
brickwork and profiled steel sheets.
20 new car parking spaces would be provided at the site, to supplement the existing 12 spaces. A
new vehicular access with sliding gates would be created to Huntsman Drive. The hours of
operation are Monday to Friday 0800 to 1700. Over a three-year period, it is expected that the
number of staff would increase from 28 to 45.
The site is bounded by 2.4 metre high palisade fencing. There is substantial existing landscaping
outside the site boundaries, adjacent to the highway. The site is located within the Northbank
Industrial Estate. Surrounding uses comprise B1, B2 and B8.
SITE HISTORY
95/34115/TPDC - Erection of a 2 storey unit to provide production area and warehousing together
with associated offices, with new vehicular access and associated carparking. Approved
17.08.1995.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections.
Northbank Management Company – No objections.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 18th September 2003.
A site notice was displayed on 29th August 2003.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
P & A Logistics, Huntsman Drive
Premier Edible Oils, Huntsman Drive
Multisol Ltd., Huntsman Drive
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
Hyva Ltd, Huntsman Drive
Plot 6, Huntsman Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EC13/31 – Sites for Industry and Warehousing
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV3 – Alterations/Extensions
T13 – Car Parking
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: DES8 – Alterations and Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number
of factors in determining applications for planning permission, including the location and nature of
the proposed development and its relationship to existing land uses; the amount, design and layout
of car parking provision and the visual appearance of the development. DEV3 states that the City
Council will require all applications for alterations or extensions of existing buildings to respect
the general scale, style, proportion and materials of the existing structure and to complement the
general character of the surrounding area. Policy T13 states that the City Council will ensure that
adequate parking and servicing is provided to meet the needs of new development, in accordance
with the City Council’s adopted standards. The policies of the First Deposit Draft Replacement
UDP are generally similar in respect of this development.
With regards the design of the extension, I consider that the design and proposed materials to be
used for the external elevations respect the existing building and are acceptable in this location
within the centre of the Northbank Industrial Estate. No landscaping details have been submitted
as part of the application, however, I consider that the site layout will provide for some areas of
landscaping and the attached condition will allow a landscaping scheme to be implemented. 32 car
parking spaces would be provided at the site, I consider that this level of provision is in accordance
with the City Council’s car parking standards.
The proposal will result in the creation of an additional 18 jobs. The Director of Environmental
Services has no objections to the proposed development and I have no objections on highway
grounds. Sufficient car parking has been identified and I do not consider that the extension would
detract from the amenity of the area.
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls
and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
and approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such
scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted and shall accommodate
replacement planting to compensate for that lost at the proposed vehicular access; walls,
fences, boundary and surface treatment and shall be carried out within 6 months of the
commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the
Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be
replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
4. The sliding gates and roller shutter 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.
5. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme for the protection of trees roots at the
proposed vehicular crossover shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services. The protection measures identified shall be implemented and
maintained thereafter by the developer, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development
Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. To safeguard the existing trees adjacent to the proposed vehicular access to the site and to
ensure that adequate provision is made for their protection whilst the development is carried
out.
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Details of drainage proposals are required. Separate foul and surface system required,
maximum discharge to sewer 15 l/s to United Utilities approval. Areas subject to
washing/spillages will require oil interceptor draining into foul system.
2. The Director of Development Services (Highways Maintenance Section) should be consulted
regarding construction details of new access.
APPLICATION No:
03/46783/FUL
APPLICANT:
The Manchester United FC Ltd
LOCATION:
The Cliff Training Ground Lower Broughton Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Installation of floodlighting to existing football pitch
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Manchester United’s training facilities on Lower Broughton Road. This
proposal seeks to install 8no columns 19m in height located along each side of the existing outdoor
pitch.
The facilities at the Cliff Training Ground include both outdoor and indoor football pitches,
canteen and car park. The site is located within the Cliff Conservation Area. The pitch is located
to the north of the site, to the rear of the existing indoor facilities. The pitch is approximately 2m
lower the main level of the site. The residential properties on Lower Broughton Road are located
to the east of the pitch and are further raised above the height of the site.
The lighting is intended to be used primarily for the Academy (teenage football players) once or
twice a week until 10pm. The lighting may also be used on occasion for coaching ‘Football in the
Community’ children.
SITE HISTORY
In 1986, planning permission was refused for the use of the existing training building by General
Public for the viewing of spectator sporting events. (E/20576)
In 1995, planning permission was granted for the erection of extension to training centre to include
reception and changing, conference and viewing facilities. (95/34270/FUL)
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services PUBLICITY
Two site notices were displayed on 9th September 2003
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
399 – 411, 417 – 431 (odd) Lower Broughton Road
2 – 46 (even) Hugh Oldham Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received nine letters and a twenty three named petition of objection in response to the
planning application publicity. The following issues have been raised:Parking problems
Noise
Litter
Crime
Fans
Impact of lighting on neighbouring bedrooms
Impact on Wildlife
Light pollution / spillage
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EN23 Croal Irwell Valley
Other policies:
DEV1 Development Criteria, EN12 Works to Listed Buildings and
Buildings Within Conservation Areas
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CH5/5 Works within Conservation Areas, EN6 Irwell Valley
Other policies:
DES7 Amenity of users and neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 seeks to ensure good quality developments that respect surrounding uses/buildings
and that developments will have regard to a number of issues including environmental pollution.
Policy EN23 identifies the valley as an environmental and recreational resource. Policy EN12
seeks to safeguard listed building and conservation areas particularly applications for demolition.
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
The replacement plan policies are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
I have received several letters of objection and a twenty three named petition in response to the
application publicity. The main thrust of the objection from local residents relates to the impact of
the lighting on the conservation area and residential properties and the noise and general
disturbance of visitors aiming to watch the players training and undertaking matches. Some of the
letters received refer to a similar application to this application being refused previously, however,
I can find no record of any previous planning application for the installation of floodlight similar to
this application on this site
The applicant has made it clear that the floodlights would only be used when circumstances dictate
and it is not the case that the floodlights would be used for every single evening during the winter
months. The applicant’s agent has provided some supplementary information with regard the
likely use of the pitch requiring the use of the lights. The main point is that the matches
themselves, between the academy of Manchester United and other football clubs would be
finished by 9.30pm. The grass pitch is unable to sustain an intensive use through the winter
months when the floodlighting is needed. As such the applicant is proposing to use the lighting
until 10pm which would allow for the finishing of each game and tidying up, once or twice each
week. During the summer months the lighting would not be required. Further to the use of the
pitch by the academy, the lighting may also be used on occasion for coaching ‘Football in the
Community’ children.
With regard the issue of the light pollution and spillage. The design of the scheme is such that the
height of each column, 16m, will allow for the direction of the lighting itself to point directly
downward at the pitch. Thus ensuring that the lighting will not shine directly out of the site toward
the neighbouring residents.
The site is currently used by Manchester United for the training of the academy since the opening
of the facilities at Carrington. Since the opening of the Carrington training facilities the amount of
visiting fans and associated on street parking problems, noise and general disturbance to the
facility here at the Cliff has reduced. I am of the opinion that the use of the site for the academy
players, mainly teenagers, will not result in a similar situation and the number of visiting fans.
Moreover, the academy are current using the indoor and outdoor facilities at present . The current
car parking provision will remain unchanged and I do not consider that the use of the floodlighting
is likely to intensify the use of the site.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that the main planning issue in this instance it the likely effect of the
lighting on the neighbouring residential properties and the character of the conservation area.
The existing pitch is approximately 2.5m lower that the level of the car parking and buildings on
the site. The existing indoor facility and tree line boundary provides screening to the properties on
Hugh Oldham Road. The existing brick built changing and kitchen is located to the east of the
pitch which also screens the pitch to some of the resintial properties on Lower Broughton Road.
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
The properties on Lower Broughton Road are elevated above the height of the site, which again is
higher than the pitch level. The common boundary is defined a belt of mature trees.
The Council’s lighting engineer has assessed the technical details of the proposed lighting scheme.
He is of the opinion that the neighbouring residents would perceive that the lighting would result in
light spillage as there has been no lighting in this location previously. However, he is of the
opinion that the design of the scheme is such that it reduces light spillage to the adjoining
properties and that there is no upward light. Furthermore, the amount of light which could impact
upon the neighbouring properties would be minimal, less than one lux. The position of the TPO’d
trees to the rear of the those properties on Hugh Oldham Road and the position and height of the
existing indoor training facility would provide sufficient screening to the proposed lighting. The
height of the columns would ensure that the lighting can be directed downwards and not toward the
neighbouring properties.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the proposed lighting scheme coupled with the height of
columns and change in levels of the site and neighbouring properties would ensure that the lighting
does not impact upon the rear aspects of the neighbouring properties. I also consider that the
limited seasonal use of the floodlights would not be unreasonable in terms of the impact of the
neighbouring residential properties or the upon the character of the conservation area.
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that the lighting will not intensify the use of the site to the
detriment of the amenity of the wider residential area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The floodlights shall not be used between the hours of 10.00 pm and 10.00 am.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/46790/FUL
APPLICANT:
Medmas Properties Ltd
LOCATION:
55 Chorley Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two- part two storey/part three storey/part four
storey buildings comprising 10 apartments with associated car
parking and alterations to existing vehicular access (Amendment
to planning application 03/46411/FUL)
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
It is proposed to demolish the existing buildings on the site and erect two buildings comprising a
total of ten apartments. The existing building was formerly a florists with residential
accommodation above. The ground floor has been vacant since early 2003. The two garages to the
rear of the site would also be demolished. The surrounding area comprises a mix of uses, including
residential and commercial.
It is proposed to site Block A, comprising a total of eight apartments, at the front of the site. That
block would be L-shaped with a four storey front section and a two storey rear section. It would
have a 13m frontage to Chorley Road. Block B, comprising one 2 bed apartment and one 3 bed
apartment, would be sited to the rear of the site and would be three storeys high. One tree would be
felled as a result of this proposal.
Access into the site would remain as existing. A total of ten car parking spaces, including one
disabled space, would be provided between the two blocks. A protected pedestrian route would be
provided linking the car parking area to the entrances of both blocks. A cycle storage area would
be sited to the rear of Block A. The refuse storage area would be sited adjacent to Block B.
SITE HISTORY
In June 2003 an application for the erection of two - part three storey/part four storey buildings
comprising 12 apartments together with associated car parking and alterations to existing
vehicular access was submitted. That application was withdrawn in August 2003, as a result of my
concerns.
CONSULTATIONS
The Coal Authority – no objections
Director of Environmental Services – no comments received
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 5th September 2003
A press notice was published on 4th September 2003
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
16 – 46 (E) Bingham Street
63, 56, 36-70 (E), Critchley House Chorley Road
1 – 9 (O), 2 – 16 (E) Stoneacre Court
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:
Insufficient car parking
Boundary treatment
Devaluation of neighbouring properties
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
T13 – Car Parking
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
H2 – Location of New Housing Development
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 outlines a number of factors to which regard should be had in the determination of
planning applications of most relevance to this application are the location of the proposed
development, including its relationship to existing and proposed land uses, the size and density of
the proposal, car parking provision, the effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for neighbouring
properties, the visual appearance of the development and landscaping.
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
Policy DEV2 states that planning permission will not normally be granted unless the Council is
satisfied with the quality of the design and appearance of the development.
Policy H1 states that the Council maintain an adequate supply of private sector housing through
the release of land to accommodate new house building.
Policy T13 states that adequate parking should be provided to meet the needs of new development.
Policy DES1 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP requires developments to respond to
their physical context. In locations where there is no discernable character, developments will be
required to adopt high standards of design.
Policy DES7 requires new development to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of
amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of occupiers of
other developments will not be permitted.
Policy H2 relates to proposals for residential development on sites not allocated for such uses. It
states that permission will be granted, subject to a number of criteria, including where the
development comprises the re-use of previously developed land, where the site is accessible by
public transport and to jobs, shops and services.
Policy A10 states that new developments will be required to make an adequate provision for
disabled drivers and cyclists and to not exceed the Council’s maximum car parking standards.
I will deal with each of the objections received in turn. A total of ten car parking spaces are
proposed as part of the application, including one disabled space. A cycle storage area is also
proposed. In light of the Council’s maximum car parking standards, the need to reduce reliance on
the car, the site’s proximity to public transport links and its close proximity to Swinton Town
Centre and the facilities and services therein, I consider the proposed number of spaces to be
acceptable and in compliance with UDP policies T13 and A10.
I have attached a condition requiring details of the boundary treatment to be submitted and
approved prior to the commencement of the development. I am satisfied that this is sufficient to
address the concerns of objectors.
Finally, the value of land and property is not a material consideration and is not therefore an issue
on which I can place any weight in the determination of this application.
One tree would have to be felled as a result of this proposal. The tree, a sycamore, is located on the
boundary of the site with Stoneacre Court. The site has been visited by the Council’s
arboriculturist, who does not consider this tree to be worthy of protection or retention due to its
location, size and limited visual amenity value. I therefore consider the felling of the tree to be
acceptable, subject to its replacement with two trees within the site. There are also a number of
trees adjacent to the application site, which, although to be retained, would be in close proximity to
the proposed building. The Council’s arboricultural officer has however confirmed that the
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
distance between the proposed building and the trees is sufficient. I am therefore satisfied that the
trees would not be detrimentally affected by this proposal.
I consider the design and height of the proposal to be acceptable. Surrounding buildings vary in
style and height and I consider this application to be appropriate to the location. The applicant has
provided a plan showing the proposed building in the context of the existing buildings on Chorley
Road. Whilst the ridge of the four storey section of Block A would be in the region of 0.8m higher
than No. 63, adjacent to the application site, I consider such a difference in height to be acceptable,
particularly given the range of heights of surrounding properties. I do not consider that the
proposal would have a detrimental impact on the street scene.
Although a garden area to the rear of Block B would be provided as part of this application, there
would be no dedicated garden area for the residents of Block A. However, given the site’s location
on the edge of Swinton Town Centre, I do not consider it necessary to require the provision of
dedicated garden areas for each of the flats. I am therefore satisfied with the amount provided.
I do not consider that either existing or future residents would experience a loss of privacy as a
result of this proposal, as the development complies with the Council’s adopted standards. There
would be 24m between the rear of the four storey section of Block A and the front of Block B.
There is a minimum of 21m between the rear of Block B and the single storey outriggers of the
properties on Bingham Street, which is acceptable given that those properties are in the region of
2m than the application site.
In conclusion, I consider the proposed development to be acceptable. It makes efficient use of a
previously developed site in an urban area close to Swinton Town Centre. I am satisfied with the
proposed design and height of the development. It complies with the relevant policies of both the
Adopted and First Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs and I therefore 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
external elevations and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Director of Development Services.
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
and approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such
scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and
surface treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of
development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning
Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
4. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
5. Prior for the commencement of the development hereby approved, full details of the design
and construction of the bin and cycle stores shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Director of Development Services. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the
occupation of the first apartment.
6. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 25th September 2003 which
shows the protected pedestrian route.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The ground floor of the development would be vulnerable to flooding and measures will
therefore be required the prevent backflow. Connection to the sewer will require approval from
United Utilities.
APPLICATION No:
03/46811/HH
APPLICANT:
Miss K Potter
LOCATION:
133 Wyre Drive Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a two storey side extension
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi detached property situated within a row of similar semi-detached
properties. Each of the pairs of semi-detached houses within this row are set at an angle to Wyre
Drive.
The proposal is for the erection of a two-storey side extension. The proposal would be 2.6m wide
extending up to the side boundary and the full depth of the house. The neighbouring property is
staggered 4.5m backwards.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No objections but recommendations are given.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
88, 90, 131 and 135 Wyre Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:



The proposed extension would encroach onto the land of 131 Wyre Drive.
The dimensions on the plans submitted differ in their measurements and are thus
inaccurate.
The proposed extension falls within 9m of the adjacent neighbour’s ‘sunshine
room’ (loss of light)
The proposed fascia and guttering and overall extension are not in keeping with the
design of other properties in the street. The proposed extension would lead to a
‘terracing’ effect
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV8 – House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 – Alterations and Extensions
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
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. In addition it states that the extension must not have a adverse impact on the
character and appearance of the street scene. These issues are reiterated in Policy DES7 and
DES8.
There is no compelling evidence to suggest that the proposal would encroach onto the adjacent
neighbour’s land. I am satisfied that the proposal would be contained entirely within the
applicants land (certificate A has been signed and the architect’s plans clearly show the boundary
location).
The dimensions on the plans submitted have been found to be accurate.
The proposed extension would be within 9m of the adjacent neighbour’s ‘sun room’ located at the
rear of their property. This is a rear extension to the adjacent neighbour’s original house (E23062).
However, this is a secondary window to the room and as a result, I am of the opinion that the
proposal would not lead to a significant loss of light into this room. There is a kitchen window
located in the gable elevation of the adjacent neighbour’s house. This is not, however, a room that
the City Council would seek to protect the light of as it is not classed as a habitable room.
Guidance Note HH13 of ‘Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions’ states that :
“Planning permission for the erection of a two-storey side extension that lies within 1m of the
boundary of the dwelling will not normally be granted unless the first floor element is set back 2m
from the front of the dwelling”
Although the applicant’s property is set back from the adjacent neighbour’s property, it is my
opinion that the proposal would contribute to the possibility of ‘terracing’ taking place in the
future. This would be detrimental to the character of the dwelling and the street scene. The
applicant has been contacted and asked to set the first floor element back 2m but she has indicated
in writing that she would prefer not to amend the plans.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed two storey side extension would, by reason of its size and siting seriously injure
the amenity of the area because it would result in the creation of a 'terraced' effect which
would be out of character with the general street scene. This would be contrary to the Policy
DEV8 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan, Policy DES8 of the First
Deposit Draft Replacement City of Salford Unitary Development Plan, and the Council's
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions.
APPLICATION No:
03/46835/HH
APPLICANT:
Andrew Marsland
LOCATION:
119 Chaddock Lane Boothstown Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of first floor extension above existing house and a two
storey side extension
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a bungalow situated within a row of similar bungalows in a residential
estate. To the rear are more bungalows which back onto the applicant’s rear garden.
The proposal is to erect a first floor extension across the whole of the bungalow which would
include three dormers in the front of the roofspace, and also to erect a two-storey side extension
which would marry up with the existing ground and proposed first floor of the bungalow. The first
floor element of the proposal would increase the overall ridge height of the dwelling by 1.6m. The
two-storey side extension would project 2.3m from the side of the house to within 0.7m of the
adjacent boundary (with 121 Chaddock Lane) and would extend back 7.2m – the full depth of the
house.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No objections, but recommendations have been made.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
117, 119, 142-154 (even) Chaddock Lane
21 and 23 Hutton Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 3 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:-
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION




16th October 2003
The proposed alterations would result in a house in the middle of a row of
bungalows and would “not be very nice”.
Loss of light
Loss of View
Negative impact on local property values.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV8 – House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
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 first floor element of the proposal would introduce a two-storey gable wall only 8.4m from the
dining room window of 117 Chaddock Lane which is situated in their gable elevation.
‘Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions’ stipulates that a minimum distance of
13m must be maintained in such a situation. Therefore, I am of the view that the proposal would
lead to a significant loss of light for this neighbour.
Loss of View is not a material planning consideration.
The negative impact of development on local property vales is not a material planning
consideration.
Given the size and nature of the proposed extensions, I feel that they would have a significant
detrimental impact on the amenity of surrounding residents and the street scene and therefore
recommend refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The two-storey side extension would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents by
reason of size and siting and are contrary to Policy DEV8 of the adopted City of Salford
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
Unitary Development Plan, Policy DES7 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan, and Supplementary Planning Guidance - House
Extensions.
APPLICATION No:
03/46900/HH
APPLICANT:
G Barton
LOCATION:
8 Etherley Close Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey rear extension
WARD:
Irlam
`DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a mid terrace property.
The proposal is for a two storey rear extension. The proposal would be situated directly on the
boundary with No.10 and would project 2.7m X 4.4m with a height of 5.5m with a pitched roof.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
6 and 10 Etherley Close
78, 80 and 86 Eldon Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any letters in response to the publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 states that planning permission will not be granted for extensions that have an unacceptable
adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking,
overshadowing, dominance, loss of light or privacy nor would it have an unacceptably adverse
impact on the character of the street scene, this is re-iterated in policy DES7.
HH12 of the Supplementary Planning Guidance states in the absence of an extension along the
common boundary to the adjoining dwelling planning permission will normally be granted for a
two storey / first floor extension provided its’ projection is equal to its distance from the nearest
common boundary.
Policy HH9 states that planning permission will not normally be granted for single storey rear
extensions located along the boundary that exceed 2.74m measured from the rear elevation of the
adjoining property. (this policy would also apply to first floor extensions)
As mentioned the proposal would be closest to the boundary with No.10, which has a kitchen
window close to the boundary and then a door, on the first floor there is a bedroom window close
to the boundary.
The proposal is approximately 1m from the boundary with No.6, which has a kitchen door close to
the boundary and a bathroom window on the first floor.
The proposal is contrary to Policy HH12 in that the first floor extension projects 2.7m and is on the
boundary with No.10 and approximately 1m from the boundary with No.6. This policy is intended
to protect habitable room windows from two-storey extensions with regards to light and
overbearing. In this case there are no habitable room windows on the ground floor, only kitchen
windows. The first floor of No.10 has a bedroom close to the boundary, as the proposal projects
2.7m I would consider the proposal acceptable with regards to the bedroom window.
I would therefore not consider the proposal to have a detrimental impact on the amenity of
neighbouring occupiers.
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.
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
03/46905/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Eddon
LOCATION:
2 Trevor Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of conservatory to the rear of the property including a
porch-link (re-submission of 03/46241/HH)
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
This application relates to a semi- detached house. The house has been extended at the side with a
single storey extension that projects beyond the rear building line. The side boundary is the
common boundary with houses that front onto Worsley Road (i.e. it forms their rear garden
boundary).
The proposed conservatory would project beyond the existing kitchen extension by some 6m. This
would include a narrow glazed link from the kitchen door. The main body of the conservatory
would stand 2.9m to 3.5 high to the ridge (given the sloping rear garden). It would occupy a similar
footprint to a green house,( which has only been recently removed) being some 0.7m from the
common boundary. The dimensions of the conservatory would be very similar to the greenhouse.
The conservatory would stand 5m from the rear elevation of 275 Worsley Road. This elevation
contains habitable room windows.
SITE HISTORY
Planning permission was refused for a larger conservatory in August 2003 ref 03/46241/HH.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
275 to 279 Worsley Road
4 Trevor Road
REPRESENTATIONS
No representations have been received.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: Dev 8 House Extensions; SPG House Extensions
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 and DES8
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning consideration in this case relates to the relationship of the proposed
conservatory to the house at 275 Worsley Road. The Council’s adopted SPG -House Extensions-
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
normally requires a distance of 9m between a single storey extension and neighbouring habitable
room windows. In this case the distance is 5m.However the following mitigating factors need to be
taken into account. Firstly, the common boundary is formed by a 1.8m high fence. The eaves of the
conservatory would project 0.3m above the solid fence and would be seen through a trellis.
Secondly the proposed conservatory would replace a greenhouse of similar dimensions, which has
been in a similar position for some 18 years. Taking these two factors into consideration I consider
that the living conditions of the neighbouring property would not be unduly harmed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The glazing for that part of the conservatory facing the common boundary with 275 Worsley
Road shall be obscured prior to the use of the conservatory first commencing and shall
thereafter be maintained in such a condition.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
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
At a meeting of the Panel held on 18th 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:
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
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.
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
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
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
& 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 residents and to the street scene in general,
contrary to policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/46696/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Mrs G Merrett (Headteacher)
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
LOCATION:
Buile Hill High School Eccles Old Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Formation of additional hard surface play areas and erection of
2.4m high palisade fencing to enclose new areas
WARD:
Claremont
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The Buille Hill High School site is located to the east of Chasley Road, to the south of Dronfield
Road and Pendleton College, and to the west of Manor Road. The school site also has a large
frontage to Eccles Old Road. There are existing vehicular entrances and exits from the Chasely
Road and Manor Road although the Chasely entrance is the principle vehicular access. The school
buildings are to the southern part of the site with the playing fields covering the northern part of the
site. Pendleton College also forms part of the larger site and the two establishments share sports
pitches.
The proposal is to form two additional hard play surface areas for netball, basketball and football
and to erect 2.4m high palisade fencing around the new surfaces. One of the surfaces would be
situated close to the entrance on Chaseley Road approximately 12m away and would measure 36m
X 15m. The second area would be situated approximately 70m from Manor Road on part of the
existing soft play area and would measure an area of 50m X 20m
SITE HISTORY
In 2000, planning permission was approved for the siting of two portable buildings
(00/40817/DEEM3)
In 2001, planning permission was approved for the siting of seven portable classroom units
(01/42417/DEEM3)
In 2002, planning permission was granted for the siting of two portable classroom units
(02/44467/DEEM3)
In October 2003 outline planning permission was approved for the erection of a replacement
school
(03/46706/DEEM3)
CONSULTATIONS
Sport England – no comments to date
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 12th August 2003
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1-5 (odds) 9-21 (odds) Manor Road
29 – 46 Garbo Court, Manor Road
1 and 3 Chaplin Close
1 and 2 – 10 (evens) Keaton Close
Chaseley Fields, Chasesley Road
Pendleton College, Dronfield Road
35 –56 (evens) Lullington Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one representation in response to the planning application publicity. The following
issues have been raised:No objections to the proposal on the understanding there are no additional noise levels
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: SC4 Improvement/Replacement of Schools
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: EHC1 Provision and Improvement of Education, Heath and Community Facilities
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy SC4 explains that the Council will endeavour to make good any deficiencies in school
facilities both through the improvement of old schools and the development of new
Policy EHC1 states that planning permission will be granted for the provision of new and
improvements to existing education, health and community facilities provided that they would not
have an unacceptable adverse impact on residential amenity and character.
The first hardstanding would be situated close to the Chaseley Road entrance, the area is currently
unused hardstanding and would be situated approximately 45m from residential properties on
Chaseley Road. The second area would be partly on the existing soft play area and partly on a hard
surface used as a pathway through the school and would be approximately 90m from residential
properties on Manor Road. The existing soft play area currently extends to the boundary with
manor Road and Chaseley Road, I would therefore not consider the proposed play areas to
generate additional noise. The fencing surrounding the areas would be palisade and powder coated
green to match the existing internal fencing around the site. There are currently no formal hard
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
surface play areas within the school, I would therefore consider the proposal to be in line with our
current policies and would not have a detrimental impact on neighbouring residents.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The fencing hereby approved shall be powder coated green (RAL 6004) prior to its installation
and shall be maintained thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/46810/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Property And Development Division
LOCATION:
263 Great Cheetham Street East Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Change of use of ground floor from shop to dentist surgery and
construction of new access ramp
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to vacant shop within the Higher Broughton Key Local Centre and seeks to
change the use to a dentist surgery.
The use would occupy the ground floor of an end terrace. The upper floor is residential and a
public car park is located to the rear.
The proposed hours of operation are 09:15 – 17:30 Monday, Tuesday and Thursday and 9:15 –
13:00 Wednesday and Friday.
74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
The proposed access ramp would be located on the pavement of Great Cheetham Street and would
utilise the existing access to the unit. It would measure 3.3m in length X 1.4m and would maintain
1.2m clearway. The hand rail would measure 0.8m in height.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 7 (odd) Basten Drive
2 – 12 (even) Bevendon Square
265 – 269 (odd), 340 – 360 (even) Great Cheetham Street East
9 – 12, 13 – 26 Rialto Gardens (Basten Drive)
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any representation in response to the planning application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: S3 Key Local Centres
Other policies:
DEV1 Development Criteria
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: S2/5 Location of New Retail and Leisure Development
Other policies:
S3 Loss of Shops
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 S3 seeks to
consolidate and improve Salford’s key local centres.
The replacement plan policies are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development. Furthermore, S3 of the draft plan states the changes of use from Class A1 will only
be permitted where it would not have an unacceptable impact on the vitality and viability of the
centre.
75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th October 2003
The main issue to consider in this instance is the loss of a retail unit within the key local centre and
the likely impact upon the neighbouring residential properties. Firstly, although this proposal
would result in a loss of one retail unit, I am of the opinion that as the shop unit is currently vacant,
the proposal will benefit the Key Local Centre in terms of its effect on vitality and viability as the
use will result in additional people visiting and using the centre.
The residential units are located above each unit. Access to the residential components is via the
rear from Bevendon Square and separate to the access of the shop unit and away from the proposed
access ramp. The ramp itself would be located on part of the pavement which is unadopted. The
pavement in this particular location is 8m at it narrowest point, therefore the would not require a
closure order. As such I do not consider that the proposed use would impact upon the residential
element.
The centre as a whole benefits from the public car park to the rear off Bevendon Square.
Therefore, in conclusion, I am of the opinion that the proposed use is acceptable within the key
local centre and would not have any detrimental impact upon the neighbouring residential
properties.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
77
16th October 2003