PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION.
4th Dec.2003
APPLICATION No:
03/46445/REM
APPLICANT:
McDermott Developments Ltd
LOCATION:
Former Playing Field Eccles College Bradford Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Details of the siting, design, external appearance of three
three-storey buildings comprising 48 apartments, five 3 storey
dwellings and 22 two-storey dwellings together with associated
landscaping, carparking, construction of new vehicular access
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land bounded by Bradford Road to the south, Eccles College to the north
and east and the former Swinton Sewage Treatment Works to the west. The site constitutes part of
the former playing fields of the college, which has the benefit of outline planning permission for
residential development. Bradford Road to the south has two storey residential properties facing
the site. Bradford Road borders the Ellesmere Park residential area. The south and west boundaries
of the site are enclosed by mature and self seeded trees which screen internal areas of the site.
There are some young trees within the site close to Folly Brook and there are is a group of mature
poplars in the south east corner of the site that are visible from Cavendish Road.
To site covers an area of 2.3 hectares which as mentioned above has been approved for residential
development. The application (00/41483/OUT) was submitted in outline with all matters reserved
for further approval. Members will recall that the means of access to the site from Bradford Road,
opposite number 5 Bradford Road, has previously been approved (02/44837/REM).
This application seeks approval for the reserved matters of siting, design, car parking and external
appearance of 75 dwellings in a mixture of apartments and houses. Four 3 storey blocks of
apartments containing 48 apartments are proposed along with five three storey townhouses and 22
two storey detached houses. One of the apartment blocks is 4.5m away from the proposed sports
hall at Eccles College with non-habitable room windows facing the sports hall. An eight metre
strip is proposed either side of Folly Brook and the area between Bradford Road and the Brook
would be utilised for public open space. The applicant has submitted a supporting statement and
details for the eradication of Japanese Knotweed on the site. Details submitted include information
from the Environment Agency that explains juvenile trees in a 8m strip to the north of the Brook
need to be removed for flood defence reasons. The application has been amended, the amendment
includes the increase in number of units from 68 to 75 and has moved proposed dwellings away
from the group of poplars at the north east of the site.
1
SITE HISTORY
In 2002, reserved matters were approved for access onto the site from Bradford Road
(02/44837/REM).
In 2000, outline planning permission was approved for residential development. The application
was submitted in outline with all matters reserved for further approval (00/41483/OUT). Attached
to this permission was a Section 106 obligation requiring a financial contribution for Childrens
Play Space and for traffic claming measures in the local area. Also required was the creation of an
informal area of open space along the Bradford Road frontage. The Section 106 requires that a
scheme is submitted for approval of the Council which should then be laid out prior to occupation
of the first five dwellings or within 3 months of approval of those details (whichever is the later).
This open land, including the 8m buffer clearance zone, is to be maintained by the developer in
perpetuity. This Section 106 was also linked to permission 00/41482/OUT (development of Eccles
College) and required a financial contribution toward sports pitches or replacement sports pitches.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No objections
Director of Environmental Services – Recommends a noise condition
United Utilities – No objections subject to detailed criteria being met
Ellesmere Park Residents Association – No objection subject to appropriate planting within the
site and the strip along Bradford Road being utilised and maintained for public open space.
GMPTE – Concern over pedestrian access to apartments
Architectural Liaison Unit – Concerns over the height of fencing
Environment Agency – Have verbally withdrawn an earlier objection following the submission of
additional information regarding displaced flood water.
PUBLICITY
Site notices were displayed on the 8th July 2003
A press notice was published on the 10th July 2003
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1a, 1b, 29 & 1 – 11 odd Bradford Road
50 – 84 even Cavendish Road
35a, 51a, 31 – 59 Cavendish Road
24, 35 Chatsworth Road
40 Ellesmere Road
1a, 1b, 1 – 11 odd Wellbeck Road
2 – 14 even Wellbeck Road
37 Westminster Road
REPRESENTATIONS
2
I have received 15 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Loss of privacy from the three storey blocks
Three storey blocks are unsightly and are out of keeping with surrounding two storey
dwellings
The three storey blocks should be positioned further away from Bradford Road
Previous assertion that there would be no flats on the site and that densities would be lower
Proposed density is too high
Too much traffic would be created for the surrounding area
Access to the site should be from where the existing temporary construction access to
Eccles College is located
There are no trees proposed within the development
The strip between Bradford Road and the Brook should be utilised for recreation
The trees within the strip should not be thinned until after all construction has taken place
as it would act as a noise and dust barrier
The trees when thinned should include some evergreen planting to screen the site
throughout the year
The trees should not be cut down
Japanese Knotweed should be disposed of properly
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 Meeting Housing Needs
DEV1 Development Criteria
DEV2 Good Design
EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
H6 & H11 Open Space Provision
Trees: Protection and Planing SPG
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 Provision of New Housing Development
H8 Open Space Provision Associated With New Housing Development
DES1 Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES9 Landscaping
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Both H1 policies seek an increase in the number of dwellings in the City and to ensure a mixture of
dwelling types. The draft replacement H1 also seeks developments of at least 30 units per hectare
and to ensure appropriate contributions to local infrastructure. Policies H6, H11 and H8 require
appropriate associated levels of open space either on site or through a financial contribution.
3
Policy EN7 requires the safeguarding of the treescape whilst policy DES9 requires landscaping to
be appropriate to the site.
Policy DEV1 seeks, inter alia, to ensure the size and density of development are appropriate to the
surrounding properties, to have regard to parking and traffic generation and to consider
landscaping. DEV2 seeks good quality development to high visual standard. DES1 reiterates these
themes. Both DEV1 and DES7 seek to ensure privacy is maintained for existing and future
residents.
Planning permission has been granted in outline for residential dwellings at the site and the
principle of residential development is firmly established.
I am satisfied that the level of traffic calming measures in the surrounding area within occupation
of the first five dwellings, as required by the legal agreement, are acceptable for the scale of
development proposed here. In addition the principle of the access onto the site has already been
approved under the earlier approval 02/44837/REM.
Objection has been raised to the density of development and to the introduction of three storey
buildings which some objectors consider are unsightly. The density of 40 units per hectare (net) is
considered to be appropriate to this site within an established residential area of the City, given that
the Policy H1 requires a minimum of 30 units per hectare. I consider that the development would
result in the proposed buildings being appropriately spaced between themselves and also with
existing residential properties on Bradford Road. Indeed the applicant has submitted a section
showing the relationship between the proposed houses and apartments. There is a distance of 47m
between the proposed three storey flats and existing two storey houses on Bradford Road, the
minimum standard distance would be 24m. In addition to almost double the separation distance
regarding privacy and sunlight/daylight there is a tree canopy between Bradford Road and Folley
Brook. The Director of Environmental Services recommends a condition requiring a noise
assessment for the apartment block (plots 59 to 70) given the proximity to the proposed Sports Hall
of Eccles College.
Comments from the EPRA are for this tree canopy to be thinned to create public open space and a
cycle route. Tree coverage could remain and some residents have suggested a planting scheme that
would include a mixture of evergreens to provide year round greenery. I consider the introduction
of some evergreens in the planting scheme could enhance the amenity of existing and future
residents. Objection has been received in relation to the lack of landscaping details within the site
and that no trees are shown. The applicant has explained that they wish to submit detailed
landscaping proposals for the site as part of a detailed landscaping condition. The amendment to
the scheme has allowed for the retention of the group of poplars in the south east of site which are
visually prominent over a wide area. The Section 106 further requires the laying out and
maintenance of open space. Given that a tree screen will be retained I consider the proposal to be in
accordance with Policy EN7 and that landscaping conditions will be imposed for the site and
landscaping strip to include details of trees to be removed and to be planted would be in
accordance with policy DES9.
4
The layout of the development includes 60 parking spaces including disabled spaces for the 48
flats which provides a ratio of 125% parking deemed acceptable under current parking standards.
Cycle parking is also proposed within the site. Parking ratios of 200% are proposed for the 32
houses however this is considered appropriate given the large size of the houses proposed. The
applicant has agreed to provide landscaping within the car parking area. I consider the level of
parking to be suitable for the site and to accord with City of Salford parking standards.
The design of each dwelling is different from its neighbouring plot, except for the row of
townhouses. The apartments have variation in the ridge level, one apartment is an L-shape, which
adds interest to the buildings exterior. The variation in elevation design, footprint size, roof level
and appearance together with appropriate landscaping ensures that the development would have
interest and would satisfy policies DEV1 and DEV2 with regard to the appearance. I also consider
that 1.8m high property enclosures will maintain the appearance without impinging upon security.
I have no objections to the design, layout or density of the development. I am satisfied that
conditions imposed upon landscaping are appropriate in addition to the legal obligation for the
setting out and continued maintenance of the open space alongside Bradford Road and either side
of the Brook. The developer also has to pay a financial contribution of £119,935 for capital and
maintenance payments for children’s play space in addition to the requirement of traffic claming
works. I have no highway objections and recommend approval subject to the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
2. Standard Condition F05D Provision of Parking
3. The developer shall submit for the approval of the Director of Development Services an
assessment / prediction calculation to determine the external noise levels that the proposed
residential apartments (plots 59 - 70 of approved site plan 020789/01/E) will be subjected to
(daytime and night). The developer shall detail what steps are to be taken to mitigate the
disturbance to future occupiers in order to comply with World Health Organisation
recommendations for reasonable living rooms / sleeping accommodation. The building
envelope shall be capable of attenuating the external noise to BS8233 (Sound Insulation and
Noise Reduction for Buildings - Code of Practice). Where appropriate, the report shall identify
any sound attenuation measures necessary to protect the proposed dwelling(s) and garden
areas. The assessment and mitigation measures shall be submitted for the approval of
Development Services. Any approved mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to
occupation. Where any guideline noise levels can not be met with partially open windows,
alternative means of forced mechanical ventilation, which must be sound attenuating, shall be
provided. Once approved such assessment shall be implemented prior to the occupation of
plots 59 - 70 hereby approved.
5
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding
details of drainage.
2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment
Agency.
3. The applicant is reminded of the Section 106 obligation from the outline permission
00/41483/OUT and of the requirements for a commuted sum, setting out and maintenance of
open space and traffic calming measures.
4. For further discussions regarding the requirements condition 3, the developer/noise consultant
is advised to contact the Pollution Control Section of the Directorate of Environmental
Services (Tel: 0161 793 2113).
5. This permission shall relate to the site layout drawing 020789/01/E as received on the 27th
October 2003.
APPLICATION No:
03/46789/FUL
APPLICANT:
Graham Hill Associates Ltd
LOCATION:
Clifton Grange Nursing Home Little Moss Lane Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing nursing home and construction of one
three storey block comprising 39 apartments and one four storey
block comprising 20 apartments and associated car parking
including alterations to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Swinton North
6
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing nursing home situated at the junction of Little Moss Lane
and Carlisle Street. The existing nursing home complex includes a separate building in use as
apartments and this building is excluded from the application site. The building used to be a mill
and is now surrounded by residential development. To the north east, adjoining the site is a single
storey warehouse building.
It is proposed to demolish the existing part two part three-storey building and replace it with two
buildings, one of three storeys providing a total of 39 apartments and one of 4 storeys providing 20
apartments. The existing building is located at the back of footpath and it is proposed that the
replacement three storey building would be set back from the existing building line by between 3m
and 3.5m on the Carlisle Street frontage, by 3.5m on the Little Moss Lane frontage and by between
5m and 5.5m where it backs on to the rear gardens of new houses on Hinchley Way. These houses
would be over 23m from the proposed building.
The four-storey building would also be set back from the footprint of the existing three storey
building on the site, by 1.5m from the houses on Hinchley Way and by 0.5m from houses on
Torside Way.
A mix of two and one bedroomed apartments are proposed, 21 two bed and 38 one bed. A total of
35 car parking spaces are proposed and access would be from Little Moss Lane utilising the two
existing access points into the site. Apart from the informal open space surrounding the building
there would be a garden area located centrally on the site.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections in principle but requests conditions regarding
noise and contamination
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Have concerns regarding the location of
entrances to the two buildings and with the lack of defensible space.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2 to 14 Vickers Close
2 to 24 Berry Street
1 to 23 Centaur Close
2 to 24 Hinchley Way
2 to 12 and 11 Turside Way
4 to 14 and 31 to 35 Carlisle Street
1 to 13 and 2 to 18 Dryad Close
7
2 to 14 Rosehill Road
1 and 2 Rosehill Mews
1 and 2 Newtown Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received four letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:4 storey building will be too high and overbearing
Overlooking
Overdevelopment of the site
Traffic problems
Noise
Not enough car parking spaces
Out of character with the surrounding area
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H9/17 Sites for New Housing
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, T13 Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The principle of residential development on previously developed land is one that is fully
supported by both local and national planning policy and the site forms part of a housing
allocation.
The existing building is located at the back of footpath on its Carlisle Street elevation and close to
the rear boundary with new houses to the rear of the site and I consider that there is benefit in both
street design terms and in the effect of this site on neighbours in the demolition of the existing
buildings and a replacement, on a better footprint of a new building.
I consider that the main planning issues are whether or not the development that is proposed
amounts to overdevelopment of the site and whether the layout provides adequate amenity and
outlook for future occupiers.
8
I am satisfied that with regard to the proposed three storey building the additional floor that is
proposed is compensated for by the building being pulled away from neighbouring houses by
between 5m and 5.5m. With regard to the proposed four storey building this is on a very similar
footprint to the three storey building that it replaces. The design has been amended so that the
windows on the top floor that overlook private rear gardens would all be velux windows. There
are no habitable room windows that overlook houses on Hinchley Way. The proposed building is
1.6m higher than the building that it replaces. Given that the proposed building is just 5.5m from
the boundary with the closest dwelling and is just 0.5m further away than the existing building I
consider that residents of this closest house and of houses on Hinchley Way would have a feeling
of being overlooked and dominated by this taller building.
With regard to the layout, despite improvements being made to the application, there remain
apartments that have main habitable room windows looking out directly on to roads, parking areas
and in one case just less than 4m from the proposed bin store. I do not consider that this is
acceptable and would be contrary to policies DEV1 and DEV2.
I have no objections on highway ground to the development and consider that given the mix of one
and two bed apartments and the relative proximity of Manchester Road there are sufficient car
parking spaces provided.
I do not consider that the development is out of character as it replaces part of a former mill
building.
Although the development is fully supported in principle I consider that there are a number of
deficiencies with regard to size and siting of the 4 storey building and the site layout and therefore,
on balance, I recommend that the application be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse for the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would by reason of its size and siting have a significant detrimental
effect on the amenity of neighbouring residents as a result of overlooking and loss of privacy
and would also have an overbearing effect on neighbouring residents contrary to policy DEV1
of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
2. The proposed development by reason of its poor design and layout would result in an
unacceptable outlook for future occupiers of the development contrary to policies DEV1 and
DEV2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
9
APPLICATION No:
03/46916/FUL
APPLICANT:
Audbury Projects Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Off Bagot Street Wardley Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a three storey block comprising of 24 two-bedroomed
apartments together with alterations to an existing vehicular
access
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing builders yard. The site is bounded by houses on Manchester
Road to the north, by Bagot Street, an unmade private road to the west, by a vacant site on which
planning permission has recently been granted for residential development to the east and by the
Swinton/Wigan railway line to the south. The railway lies in a cutting and beyond it is the
Wardley Industrial Estate.
It is proposed to demolish the existing buildings on the site, these comprise workshops and stores
and a pair of houses fronting Longview Drive, one of which is used as the builders’s yard offices.
It is proposed to erect a three-storey development comprising twenty-four two-bedroomed
apartments. Vehicular access would be from Bagot Street and the street would be made up to
adoptable standards by the developers. A total of 24 car parking spaces would be provided. The
apartments would take the form of a single terrace running the length of the site. The building has
been designed so that it provides interest with three different sizes of window, breaks in the
brickwork and gables. The building would be located to the rear of the site adjacent to the railway
and would be between 3.5m and 0.5m from the boundary with the railway line. Beyond the
boundary there is a wide area of rough land before the land drops into the cutting with the tracks
themselves over 25m from the boundary. Open space is provided in two areas, one of which
measures in excess of 100sq.m.
Habitable rooms all face away from the railway line.
SITE HISTORY
Two previous outline applications on the same site was withdrawn earlier this year
(02/44961/OUT and 03/45337/OUT)
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No objections in principle.
Environment Agency – No objections in principle but requests that a condition be attached
regarding contamination.
10
Director of Environmental Services – No objections in principle but requests conditions regarding
noise and contamination.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2 and 4 Longview Drive
555, 569 to 579 and 583 to 593 Manchester Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Loss of privacy
Development will be overbearing
Loss of light
Loss of parking space on Bagot Street
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EC3 Re-Use of Sites and Premises, DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good
Design, T13 Car Parking
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: E5 Development Within Established Employment Areas, DES1 Respecting
Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle
Parking in New Developments.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EC3 relates to the re-use of vacant industrial and commercial sites and premises. It states
that the Council will seek to re-use or develop them for similar or related uses except in certain
circumstances that include where they could be used for other purposes without resulting in a
shortfall in the supply of industrial land or premises; where alternative employment generating
activity would be more appropriate or where there is a strong case for rationalising land uses.
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
11
applications. These factors include the relationship of the development to existing and proposed
land uses, the size and density, 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 open space provision. Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant
planning permission unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance of the
development. Policy T13 states that the City Council will ensure that adequate and appropriate car
parking and servicing is made where necessary.
The policies of the replacement plan are similar to those of the adopted UDP with regard to this
proposal.
With regard to the objection that has been received the proposed building would be at least 27m
away from the rear of the houses on Manchester Road and 15m from the rear garden areas. These
distances are in excess of normal Council requirements and I do not therefore consider that the
proposed development would represent a loss of privacy or would be overbearing. Similarly I do
not consider that there would be any loss of light as a result of this development.
The scheme would require Bagot Street to be upgraded to adoptable standards and I consider that
this would be of benefit to neighbours. At present there is no pavement between Longview Drive
and Manchester Road and I consider that any loss of informal car parking is more than
compensated for by the increased pedestrian safety.
I consider that the main planning issue is how far the development accords with planning policy. I
am satisfied that given the residential surroundings this site is not appropriate for alternative
employment generating uses and that the loss of this employment site would not result in a
significant loss of employment land. I am satisfied for the reasons outlines above that the
development would not have any significant detrimental impact on any neighbouring property and
I therefore consider that the size and density of the development are acceptable. I have no
objections on highway grounds to the development and I consider that the provision of one parking
space per apartment is adequate and appropriate given that the development is located close to
Manchester Road, a main public transport corridor. The visual appearance of the development has
been improved and subject to a careful use of materials I am confident that the quality of the design
and the visual appearance of the development are acceptable. I consider that adequate meaningful
amenity space has been provided.
The application would result in the re-use of a previously developed site in an accessible location
and is appropriate and consistent with the relevant policies of both the adopted and replacement
UDPs.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
12
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, 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.
4. Standard Condition F03X Surfacing
5. Prior to the commencement of development full details of the layout of the junction of Bagot
Street and Manchester Road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services. No dwelling shall be occupied until the junction and the rest of Bagot
Street has been constructed in accordance with such details as are approved and the approved
application.
6. Prior to the commencement of development an assessment shall be undertaken to determine
the external noise levels from surrounding roads, trains and industrial uses that the proposed
development will be subjected to (daytime and night). The assessment shall detail what steps
are to be taken to mitigate the disturbance from the above and shall have due regard to the
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Planning Policy Guidance Note 24
- Planning and Noise and also to BS4142 1997 - Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed
Residential and Industrial Areas. The building envelope shall be capable of attenuating the
external noise to BS8233 - Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction for Buildings - Code of
Practice) and World Health Organisation recommendations for a reasonable standard for living
rooms / sleeping accommodation. The assessment and mitigation measures shall be submitted
for the approval of the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of
development. Any approved mitigation measures are to be implemented in full prior to the
occupation of any dwelling. Prior to the discharge of this condition a Completion Report shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The
Completion Report shall validate that all works undertaken on the site have been completed in
accordance with those agreed by the Director of Development Services.
7. 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 contamination and ground gases on the site and
its implications on the risk to human health and controlled water receptors as defined under the
Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA. The investigation shall also address the health
and safety of the site workers, also nearby persons, building structures and services,
landscaping schemes, final users on the site and the environmental pollution in ground water.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Director of Development
Services prior to the start of the survey, and recommendations and remedial works contained
13
within the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the
site. A site completion report including details of post remediation ground conditions for the
site shall be completed and submitted to the Director of Development Services prior to
occupation of the site. 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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
5. Standard Reason R025A Intervisibility of users of highway
6. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
7. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The Environmental Services Directorate can be contacted on 0161 793 2139 for further
discussions concerning the assessment of noise and subsequent mitigation measures.
APPLICATION No:
03/47021/FUL
APPLICANT:
Radford Educational Trust
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By Bury New Road And Broom Lane Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a new school, creation of play areas, together with
associated landscaping, car parking and alteration to existing
vehicular access
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This proposal relates to the site of the former Brentnall Primary School at the junction of Bury
New Road and Broom Lane. It is proposed to demolish the existing school, which has been vacant
14
for a number of years, and construct a new school on the site. The Beis Yaakov High School for
Girls would replace the current Hubert Jewish High School for Girls on Radford Street. The
existing school, a large detached converted house, is in a poor state of repair. There are a number
of temporary buildings in the grounds and limited external play areas. The school wishes to
improve its facilities and therefore wishes to relocate to this site.
The site is bounded by Broom Lane to the north, Bury New Road to the west, residential properties
to the east and Hanover Court, which is due to be demolished in the near future, to the south. The
site has a 130m frontage to Bury New Road, a 84m frontage to Broom Lane and covers
approximately 1.5 hectares. At its longest point, the proposed school would be 76m and 50m at its
widest. The proposed building would be part single, part two storey, due to the existing change in
levels. The single storey element would be in the region of 4m in height, with the two storey
section 8.2m
Vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed school would be achieved from Broom Lane,
close to the boundary of the site with Ozanam Court. The existing vehicular entrance closest to the
junction of Bury New Road and Broom Lane, would be used only by pedestrians. A service road
would lead to the southern part of the site, enabling access for emergency and delivery vehicles
and allowing access to the playground.
Seven full time and thirty three part time staff would be employed at the school. There are
currently 173 pupils at the existing school. The proposed school would be able to accommodate
275 pupils, with a possible increase to 295 should the school expand to include a sixth form.
Eleven staff and visitor car parking spaces, plus two disabled spaces, would be provided in a
dedicated parking area to the north of the site close to the vehicular entrance. Hard play areas
would be provided at both the upper and lower site levels, which could also be used for overflow
parking areas for an additional 108 cars, for example during parents’ evenings, functions and
community use. The hard surfaced games courts comprise two areas for tennis and netball. These
would both be surfaced in tarmac.
There are a number of trees on the site, some of which are covered by a Tree Preservation Order. A
total of 57 trees would be felled, including some which are the subject of the TPO, although
replacement planting would be included as part of the proposal to compensate for those lost as a
result of the development. These would be planted along the boundary of the site with Bury New
Road and along the boundary with the proposed boys’ school on Legh Street.
CONSULTATIONS
The Director of Environmental Services – advises that conditions be attached requiring a noise
survey and site investigations
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections to the principle of the proposal. Advises that
the school be designed to meet the minimum criteria of the Secured By Design Award.
Environment Agency – no objections
15
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 20th October 2003
A press notice was published on 16th October 2003
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1-44 Broomedge, Broom Lane
63-67 (O) Broom Lane
1-10 Ozanam Court, Broom Lane
1-25 (O), 35-41 Legh Street
2-7 Cliffe Grange, Bury New Road
Mandley Park School, Northumberland Street
414, 416 Great Clowes Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:
Increase in traffic
Increase in noise
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
T13 – Car Parking
EN7 – Conservation of Trees and Woodland
SC3 – Education Land and Buildings
SC4 – Improvement/Replacement of Schools
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES11 – Design and Crime
DES13 – Design Statements
EHC0A – Provision and Improvement of Schools and Colleges
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
16
Policy DEV1 outlines a number of factors to which regard should be had in the determination of
applications for planning permission. 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, the likely scale and type of traffic generation, the amount of car parking
provision, the layout and relationship to existing and proposed buildings, the visual appearance of
the proposed development and the impact on existing trees on or adjacent to the development site.
Policy DEV2 states that planning permission for new developments will not normally be granted
unless the Council is satisfied with the quality of the design and appearance of the development.
Regard should be paid to the character of the surrounding area.
Policy DEV4 outlines the importance of crime prevention and personal and property security in
the design of new development. Regard will be had to a number of factors, including the detailing
of the building, the relationship of car parking to the building, the provision of security features,
the layout of hard and soft landscaped areas and the position and height of fencing and gates.
Policy T13 states that the Council will ensure that adequate parking and servicing is provided to
meet the needs of new development.
Policy EN7 states that the Council will support the retention of trees, increase the area of trees
within the city and ensure that new tree planting is designed to contribute to wildlife conservation,
recreation and education opportunities as well as landscape quality.
Policy SC3 states that the Council will safeguard land and buildings in educational use.
Policy SC4 states that the Council will endeavour to make good deficiencies in school facilities
through the development of new or replacement facilities.
Policy DES1 requires development to respond to its physical context, respect the character of the
area and contribute to local identity and distinctiveness.
Policy DES11 updates Adopted Policy DEV4.
Policy DES13 requires applicants for major developments to demonstrate how the proposal takes
account of the need for good design. The statement should explain the design principles and how
these are reflected in the development’s layout and visual appearance, the relationship of the
development to the site and the wider context and how the design accords with the Council’s
design policies and objectives.
Policy EHC0A states that planning permission for the replacement of schools on existing sites will
be granted provided that the development would not have an adverse impact on the amenity of
neighbouring uses, secure adequate playing field and other recreation provision in accessible and
convenient locations, be accessible to the community by a range of means of transport, not give
rise to unacceptable level of traffic congestion or have an adverse impact on highway safety in
terms of traffic generation and make provision for community use of the building and grounds.
17
Policy A10 states that development should not exceed the Council’s maximum car parking
standards and provide safe and secure parking facilities.
I will deal with each of the objections received in turn. Whilst it is likely that the proposal would
result in a small increase in traffic in the area, I do not consider that this would be so great so as to
be detrimental to highway safety. The site is adjacent to the Bury New Road Quality Bus Corridor
and is therefore accessible by public transport. In addition, many of the future pupils of the school
live within walking distance and would therefore travel to the site on foot. I am therefore satisfied
that the proposal would be accessible by a choice of transport modes and I therefore have no
objections to the proposal in this regard.
The Director of Environmental Services has no objections to the proposal and has taken potential
noise generation into account. I am therefore satisfied that neighbouring residents would not be
unacceptably detrimentally affected by this proposal.
Although the application is unallocated in both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft
Replacement UDPs, it is identified in SPG5, Higher Broughton Regeneration Area, for use as
school accommodation. In view of this, and in light of the fact that the site had been in use as a
school for a number of years, I have no objection to the principle of a new school in this location.
The application would address the deficiencies in school provision for the Orthodox Jewish
community, in accordance with Adopted UDP Policy SC4. The applicant has also secured
Government funds for the construction of a school on this site.
It is important to assess the application against each of the criteria of Policy EHC0A of the Revised
Deposit UDP. I do not consider that that proposal would have an unacceptable detrimental impact
on the amenity of neighbouring uses. Rather, I consider that the proposal would form an integral
part of the improvements to the wider area. The application proposes a total hard play area of
3680sqm, within the site, compared to the recommended range for a school of this size of between
3365sqm and 3947sqm from BB85, the DfEE guide to good practice for school grounds. I
therefore consider this provision to be sufficient. In addition, the future pupils of the school would
use the existing playing fields at the Broughton Jewish Primary School, which they would travel to
and from on foot. I therefore consider that the second criterion of this policy is satisfied. As
discussed above, the site is in location accessible by a choice of transport modes and as many of
the pupils live in close proximity to the site, it is anticipated that the majority would travel to and
from the school on foot. I do not consider that the proposal would give rise to unacceptable levels
of congestion or have an adverse impact on highway safety. The applicant has also confirmed that
the school could be used by the local community on a regular basis. In light of the above, I consider
the proposal to be in accordance with Policy EHC0A of the Revised Deposit UDP.
The applicant has confirmed that, for religious reasons, Jewish girls do not cycle to school and
therefore requests that any requirement to provide cycle parking facilities within the site be
considered in light of this fact. In view of this, I do not consider it essential to require the school to
provide cycle parking facilities, particularly given that the majority of pupils are expected to travel
to and from the school on foot, which would itself reduce reliance on the car. Thirteen car parking
spaces are proposed in a dedicated parking area, with the option of utilising the hard play areas for
18
overflow parking at particularly busy times. Given the number of staff to be employed on the
premises and in light of the Council’s maximum car parking standards, I consider the proposed
number of spaces to be sufficient. I therefore consider that the proposal accords with Policy T13 of
the Adopted UDP and Policy A10 of the Revised Deposit UDP.
In accordance with Policy DES13, the applicant has submitted a design statement. This addresses
the design principles and the siting and layout of the proposal. SPG5 mentions the inclusion of a
‘landmark feature’ at the junction of Bury New Road and Broom Lane. However, as the building
would be an orthodox girls’ school with an ethos of personal modesty, any show of exuberance has
been avoided and the applicant has therefore decided not to include any kind of ‘beacon’ at the
entrance to the school. The applicant considers that the proposed school would make a statement
about community regeneration, rather than individual aspects of it and that the proposed building
would achieve an appropriate balance, being both suitably dynamic in character whilst avoiding
ostentation. As it is also proposed to retain a large number of trees along the Bury New Road and
Broom Lane boundaries of the site, as well as providing additional planting where required, views
of the proposed school would be relatively limited. The wish for pupil modesty has also informed
the siting of the proposed school, with the entrance to the school at the northern part of the site,
forming a ‘public zone’, with a more ‘private zone’ to the centre and southern parts of the site. The
curved wall of the building has been included to demonstrate the protective nature of the school. I
have attached a condition requiring samples of the materials for the external elevations and roof to
be attached prior to the commencement of the development. However, the applicant has indicated
that the materials would include timber and brick, which I consider to be acceptable in principle. In
light of the above, I also consider that the proposal accords with Policy DEV2 of the Adopted UDP
and Policy DEV1 of the Revised Deposit UDP
The application has been amended to take the comments of the Police ALO into account. The
applicant has confirmed that a number of measures would be incorporated into the ground floor of
the building to make it more secure. These include limited perimeter recesses, slot-type openings
rather than large pane windows, flush detailing to prevent climbing and toughened and laminated
glass rather than shutters. It is proposed to enclose the site using fencing or railings. I have attached
a condition requiring full details of this to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement
of the development. However, it is anticipated that, in accordance with advice from the ALO, it
would be in the region of 2.4m in height. The applicant no longer proposes to retain the entrance on
Bury New Road following the ALO’s comments. Given the above measures, I am satisfied that the
proposal accords with Policy DEV4 of the Adopted UDP and Policy DEV11 of the Revised
Deposit Draft UDP.
A total of 57 trees would be felled. The site has been visited by the Council’s arboricultural officer,
who agrees that of those to be felled, 27 are in a poor condition and are not worthy of retention.
However, the remaining 30 would be felled to allow the development to go ahead and not because
they are in a poor condition. The majority of these trees are located both at the heart of the site, and
need to be felled to allow the school itself to be built, and along the boundary of the site with
Broom Lane and need to be felled in order to achieve the necessary sight lines at the proposed new
vehicular entrance. Following detailed investigation of all of the alternatives, this has been
identified as the only possible access point into the site and it is therefore crucial to the scheme and
to highway safety that the trees identified be felled. On balance, I therefore have no objections to
19
the felling of these trees, subject to satisfactory replacement. Given the nature of the proposal, its
design and the regenerative benefits it would bring to the area, I am of the opinion that the felling
of those trees within the centre of the site is acceptable, again subject to replacements, particularly
given that some of the replacement trees would be planted on the boundary with Bury New Road
and would therefore make a greater contribution to the amenity of the area, as they would be highly
visible. Given that some of the trees to be felled are in a poor condition and that the Council’s
arboriculturist does not consider them to be worthy of retention, I do not consider it reasonable to
require the applicant to replace these on a two for one basis. However, I do consider that the
remaining 30 should be replaced by a minimum of 60 trees and I have attached a condition to that
effect. Given the size of the site and the number of replacement trees shown on the plans, I am
satisfied that a minimum of 60 trees could be accommodated within the site. The applicant has
confirmed that a large number of replacement trees would be planted along the boundary of the site
with the proposed boys’ school on Legh Street. The reasons for such planting are twofold: firstly, it
is consistent with the Orthodox wish for modesty, as it would screen the site from the boys’ play
areas; and secondly, it would provide a curriculum habitat study area. I have also attached a
condition requiring a landscaping scheme to be submitted and approved prior to the
commencement of the development.
In conclusion, I consider that the proposal would make efficient use of a previously developed site
and would make an important contribution to the regeneration of the wider area. I am satisfied that
there would be no detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents or on highway
safety. Although a number of trees would be felled, I consider that, on balance, their loss is
acceptable in order to allow the site to be redeveloped and improved and given that a large number
of replacement trees would be planted. I am satisfied that the application accords with the relevant
provisions of the Adopted and Revised Deposit UDP 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. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a site investigation
report for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation shall address the
nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on the 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
contamination 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.
20
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior
to the start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained
within the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to the occupation of the
site.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall
validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by
the Local Planning Authority.
4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme for the ventilation
of the internal kitchens and bathrooms shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to
occupation of the building.
5. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services before development is
started. The scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences
and boundary and surface treatment. As part of the scheme, a minimum of 60 trees shall be
provided within the site, the species and location of which shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of
development. The approved scheme shall be carried out within 12 months of the
commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the
Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be
replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
6. Standard Condition C03X Fencing of Trees/no work within spread
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
Note(s) for Applicant
1. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the
21
applicant is advised to contact the Pollution Control Section of the Directorate of
Environmental Services (0161 793 2139)
2. The applicant is advised that connection to the sewer will require approval from United
Utilities
3. The applicant is advised that the sewer connection should be to the south of the school to
prevent flooding due to backflow.
APPLICATION No:
03/47033/COU
APPLICANT:
The University Of Salford
LOCATION:
The Old Fire Station Crescent Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from art gallery and offices to conference room
and offices including rear part single/part two storey extension to
include staff rest room/coffee lounge, new lift shaft and plant
ventilation room
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former fire station on the Crescent that used to be owned by the City
Council but which has recently been sold to the University of Salford. The University proposed to
convert the building to offices to provide new accommodation for the Vice-Chancellor and other
chief officers. The University would also use Joule House, that adjoins the former Fire Station but
as this has established use as offices it does not form part of this application. A new Council
Chamber would be provided on the ground floor and the University has stated that the new facility
would also be used for conferences.
The proposed lift shaft and 2 storey extension housing the plant ventilation room would be located
to the rear of the property behind the existing hose-drying tower, hidden from Fire Station Square.
The single storey rear extension would measure 10m by 7m and would extend to 12m from the
closest house, 30 Fire Station Square. This room would have a largely brick elevation to the
Square and a glazed elevation to 30 Fire Station Square. It would have a partly pitched roof and
would be finished in slates and bricks to match the existing building. The roof to the lift and plant
ventilation room would be flat-roofed.
The proposed conversion retains two of the three fireman’s poles and also retains the internal stairs
in the hose-drying tower.
22
SITE HISTORY
Planning permission was refused for the erection of a 3m extension to the tower and the
installation of telecommunications equipment. (02/43176/TEL)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections in principle.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 to 30 Fire Station Square
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 10 letters of representation and objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised:Lack of car parking
Loss of light
Noise and disturbance especially during conferences and other special events
Extension is too big and is of poor design
Loss of privacy
Front of houses in the Square cannot be changed and neither should this side
Loss of value
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EC3 Re-Use of Sites and Premises, EC5 Conversion of Existing Buildings to
Employment Generating Uses, EN11 Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas, EN13
Works to Listed Buildings and Buildings Within Conservation Areas, DEV1 Development
Criteria,
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CH5 Works Within Conservation Areas
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, ECH3
University of Salford
23
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EC3 states that the City Council will seek to re-use existing vacant premises for similar or
related uses. Policy EC5 states that in considering applications for the change of use of an existing
building regard will be had to a number of factors that include the likely impact on residential
amenity and the ability of land associated with the building to accommodate parking and surfacing
requirements. Policy EN11 states that the City Council will seek to preserve or enhance the
special character of areas of architectural and historic interest. It goes on to state that regard will
be had to encouraging the retention and improvement of existing buildings and encouraging high
standards of development that are in keeping with the character of the area. Policy EN13 states
that in considering applications to alter buildings within a conservation area the City Council will
have regard to a number of factors that include the importance and condition of the building.
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the size of the proposed development, the likely scale and type
of traffic generation, the amount of car parking provision, noise, the effect on neighbouring
properties and the visual appearance of the development.
The policies of the replacement plan are similar to those of the adopted UDP with respect to this
proposal. Policy ECH3 states that planning permission will be granted for development that
supports the University of Salford’s role as a higher education establishment of national and
international importance where this is consistent with the other policies and proposals of the UDP.
It goes on to state that development proposals will be permitted provided that they meet a number
of criteria that include securing access improvements and are of a high quality of design.
With regard to the objections that have been received the majority relate to the problems that
already exist with regard to parking issues. Although there is no car parking associated with the
former fire station the University has confirmed that the new accommodation would be used by
existing employees all of whom currently park on the University car park at Irwell Place and that
there would be no reason why any employee would try to park in Fire Station Square. With regard
to visitors they would all be directed to use the Irwell Place car park.
The single storey extension is bounded on two sides by the existing building and would be
approximately 12m from the front main elevation of the closest dwelling and therefore I do not
consider that the development would result in any significant loss of light to any neighbouring
properties. The two storey elements would be largely hidden from view by being located behind
the higher hose-drying tower.
The application is clearly primarily for office accommodation for the most senior officers of the
University. It is reasonable to expect that occasionally the requirement to entertain visitors and to
host meetings and conferences will arise. I do not consider that there is any reason why noise and
disturbance arising from such occasions would be to the significant detriment of neighbours.
The proposed extension measures approximately 70sq.m and it provides seating for only those
same number of seats in the Council Chamber. I do not consider that it is too big. With regard to
the design the architect has taken care to use the same materials as on the existing building and has
24
minimised the amount of glazing that faces Fire Station Square at the same time as avoiding a
completely blank brick elevation. I consider that the design is perfectly adequate.
The architect has proposed to glaze the elevation that faces the closest dwelling and while the
extension would only be in occasional use I do consider that a scheme for the obscure glazing of
this elevation should be attached in order to protect privacy to the neighbouring dwelling.
Many objectors have stated that they are not allowed to alter the appearance of the front of their
properties and that therefore the University should not be allowed to alter the fourth side of the
Square. I do not agree with this argument as it is the back of the Fire station that faces the Square.
The back of the building has no symmetry and it would be unreasonable to refuse to allow any
extension at all to the building on the basis that it faces the Square and the residents are constrained
from making alterations.
Loss of value is not a material planning consideration that can be taken into account.
I consider that the main planning issue is how far the development accords with planning policy. I
am satisfied that the proposal is fully supported by policies in the UDP that relate to the re-use of
vacant buildings, the bringing back into use and the maintenance of buildings within a
conservation area. I am satisfied for the reasons outlines above that the development would not
have any significant detrimental impact on any neighbouring property. I have no objections on
highway grounds to the development. The visual appearance of the development is of a high
standard has been improved and subject to a careful use of materials I am confident that the quality
of the design and the visual appearance of the development are acceptable and that the
development would result in an enhancement of the Conservation Area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
3. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme showing how the glazed gable elevation
of the proposed extension shall be obscure glazed so minimise loss of privacy to the
neighbouring residential property shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director
of Development Services. The extension shall be constructed and maintained in accordance
with the approved scheme.
4. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
and approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such
scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and
surface treatment and shall be carried out within twelve months of the commencement of
development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning
25
Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/47024/FUL
APPLICANT:
University Of Salford (Fao T A Stevens)
LOCATION:
Former Site Of Farmer Norton Co. Adelphi Street Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Construction of temporary car park including alterations to
existing vehicular access
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former site of Farmer Norton Co., Adelphi Street, Salford 3. The site
is bounded by Peru Street to the north, beyond which is the University’s Adelphi Building,
Adelphi Street to the west, Cleminson Street to the south and residential properties to the east. The
site has been vacant for a number of years.
The University proposes to use the land for car parking for a period of two years. This site is
required whilst a new health and social sciences faculty building is constructed on land at Broad
Street/Statham Street, adjacent to Salford Crescent Station. Permission for that building was
granted in November 2003. Part of that site is currently used as a car park for in the region of 400
vehicles, which would be unavailable whilst construction of the new building is underway. At the
end of the two year period, and on completion of the faculty building and associated car park, the
former Farmer Norton site would be vacated and parking would revert back to the Statham Street
site, where in the region of 260 car parking spaces would be provided. The University also
proposes to provide car parking at other locations within the Campus in order to redress the
shortfall in parking spaces. Such proposals are the subject of separate planning applications.
26
Vehicular access onto the site would be from the existing access on Peru Street, where card
controlled barriers would be installed. That section of the car park would be surfaced with tarmac.
Pedestrian access would be provided from Peru Street and Cleminson Street and there would be a
3m wide pedestrian route through the site linking the two access points. The existing brick walls
which currently surround the site would be tidied up and made the same height and the existing
openings on Cleminson Street and Adelphi Street would be filled with brickwork to match the
existing. The car park surface would comprise the existing concrete slabs with 100mm/150mm
stone infill where required. The existing concrete slabs would be cleared of vegetation and cleaned
down as necessary. A section of the site at the junction of Adelphi Street and Cleminson Street
would not be used for car parking as the University considers it unsuitable at the present time due
to the differences in levels. It considers that it would be too expensive to make this area suitable for
parking, particularly considering the temporary nature of the proposal and that a sufficient number
of spaces can be accommodated within the site without utilising this area.
In the region of 380 cars would be accommodated within the site. The parking bays would not be
marked. Instead, timber parking rails would be provided which would be 1.2m in height and would
have vertical posts at 2.4m intervals denoting the parking spaces. The applicant has confirmed that
the car park would only be used between the hours of 8am and 6pm.
The University has confirmed that the trees and bushes which form the boundary between the site
and the rear of the properties on Devine Close would be retained. Only small areas of shrubs and
bushes within the centre of the site would be cleared, which are shown on the amended plans
submitted by the applicant.
CONSULTATIONS
The Director of Environmental Services – no objections
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections to the principle of the proposal, but queries
whether lighting on the Adelphi Building would be adequate. The ALO also suggests reducing the
height and density of existing shrubbery within the site and the installation of automatic barriers at
the entrance of the site.
Chapel Street Residents’ Forum – no comments to date
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 17th October 2003
A press notice was published on 23rd October 2003
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1-18 Devine Close
1, 6-12 (E) Encombe Place
25 Bank Place
27
3-35 The Old Court House, Encombe Place
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:
The trees and bushes along the eastern boundary of the site would be removed
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CS1 - Trinity
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
T13 – Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1/2 – Development in Mixed Use Areas (Chapel Street West)
Other policies: A1 – Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy CS1 relates to the refurbishment and renewal of the Trinity Housing Estate and the adjacent
commercial areas. Emphasis will be placed on improving the local environment and providing
off-street parking.
Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria against which applications for planning permission are
assessed. Of most relevance to this application are the location and nature of the proposed
development, including its relationship to existing and proposed land uses, the relationship to the
road network, the likely scale of traffic generation and the relationship to existing buildings.
Policy T13 states that the Council will ensure that adequate and appropriate car parking is provided
where necessary. It also requires car parks to be of a high standard in terms of access
arrangements, surfacing, boundary treatment and security.
Policy MX1/2 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP outlines the uses which are
considered appropriate in Chapel Street West, which include essential infrastructure and support
facilities.
Policy A1 states that planning applications for developments likely to give rise to significant
transport implications will not be permitted unless they are accompanied by a transport
assessment.
Although Policy A10 specifically relates to the provision of parking within new developments, it
has some relevance to this application, requiring parking facilities to be safe and secure.
28
I will deal with the objection received. The plans have been amended from those originally
submitted and the University now proposes to retain the shrubs, trees and bushes on the eastern
boundary of the site. However, and as suggested by the ALO, the vegetation within the remainder
of the site would be cleared.
The University has confirmed that there would not be any on-site security. However, there are
security staff at the entrance to the Adelphi Building on the opposite side of Peru Street, who
would also be responsible for the security of this car park.
It is not proposed to light the car park, as there is no electricity supply currently within the site. The
University therefore considers that providing lighting on the site itself would prove too costly,
particularly given the temporary nature of the car park. In addition, the University only proposes to
use the car park between the hours of 8am and 6pm. Should lighting be required, the University
may provide this on the Peru Street elevation of the Adelphi Building, opposite the application site.
In light of the above, I am satisfied that the proposed car park would be satisfactorily secure, in
accordance with policies T13 and A10.
The University has submitted a Transport Assessment in accordance with Policy A1 of the
Revised Deposit Draft UDP, which looks at the impact of the proposed car park on the surrounding
road network. In particular, it assesses the impact on the junction of Adelphi Street and Chapel
Street. The information provided demonstrates that there would be no adverse impact on the
surrounding road network as a result of this proposal and I therefore have no objections to the
application in this regard.
In conclusion, I consider the use of the site for car parking for a period of two years to be
appropriate. The proposal accords with the relevant provisions of both the Adopted and Revised
Deposit UDPs. I therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The use hereby permitted shall cease on or before the expiration of two years from the date of
decision unless a further permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority.
2. The trees and shrubs indicated on the approved plan located along the eastern boundary of the
application site shall be maintained for the duration of the use of the car park hereby approved.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R043 Application for temporary consent
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
29
APPLICATION No:
03/47066/OUT
APPLICANT:
E Boydell
LOCATION:
25, 27, 29 Moss Lane Cadishead
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for use of land for residential
purposes
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing vehicle repair garage at 25, 27, 29 Moss Lane, Cadishead.
The site is set back 6 metres from Moss Lane and would not encroach past the existing building
line fronting the highway, which is marked by an existing palisade fence. The site is located in a
residential area and is enclosed by a perimeter fence to the front and sides and a 2 ½ metre high
wall to the rear. Next to the eastern edge of the site is an existing established manufacturing use,
which is a source of noise in the immediate locality. To the rear garden of number 31 are two
mature trees and trees are also located outside the south-east corner of the site. An average distance
of 14 metres exists between the rear of the properties on Hawthorn Drive and the existing
boundary wall located at the south of the site. The windows on the eastern elevation of 31 Moss
Lane are approximately 5 metres from the western boundary of the site, which measures 30 metres
long by 30 metres wide.
Outline consent is sought for the use the land for residential purposes. All matters are reserved. In
order to accommodate the proposed dwellings on the site, the development would involve
demolition of the existing Fitting and MOT Testing Centre.
SITE HISTORY
An outline planning permission (96/35746/OUT) was granted in 1996 for the redevelopment of the
site for residential purposes.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no comments to date
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 5th November 2003
30
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
7 to 13 (odds) Hawthorn Drive
19, 21 to 23 and 30 to 46 Moss Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 10 objections in response to the planning application publicity. The following
issues have been raised by local residents: Loss of privacy
Overlooking
Distances between existing and proposed buildings and from Moss Lane
Height of proposed buildings
Loss of light
Size and density of proposed buildings
Density of occupation
Increase in noise levels
Disturbance, nuisance and litter associated with the period of construction
Parking provision
Type of unit / Use of the buildings / Type of tenure
Proposed boundary treatments
Ownership of garden wall to rear of site
Developer for the site is unknown
Loss of value
Insufficient information for neighbours to determine if the proposal is beneficial or
detrimental to the area
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
EC3 Re-use of Sites and Premises
EN20 Pollution Control
T13 Car Parking
DEV1 Development Criteria
DEV2 Good Design
DEV7 Development of Contaminated Land
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
H2 Location of New Housing Development
31
DES1 Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
ST3 Employment Supply
A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
E5 Development Within Established Employment Areas
EN13 Contaminated Land
EN14 Air Pollution, Noise, Odour and Vibration
PLANNING APPRAISAL
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
DEV1 states that regard should be had to a number of issues when determining applications for
planning permission, including the effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for neighbouring
properties and the visual appearance of the development. Policy DEV2 states that the City Council
will not normally grant planning permission, unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and the
appearance of the development. Policy T13 states that the City Council will ensure that adequate
parking provision is made where necessary and that the car parking standard for a new dwelling
should be 2 spaces. The First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan stipulates that there should be a
minimum average of 1.5 spaces per dwelling, in line with national planning guidance contained
within PPG13. Other policies of the First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP are generally similar to
those of the adopted plan in respect to this development.
The principle of residential use on this brownfield site is acceptable in terms of the character and
appearance of the area and is in accordance with the sequential approach to development
encouraged in draft Revised UDP policy H2 and policy DP1 of Regional Planning Guidance.
However, I have concerns about the amenity of future occupiers of the development in relation to
the noise produced from the existing neighbouring business and the risk of contaminated land on
the site. I consider that the operations of the adjacent manufacturing unit will be compromised if
permission is granted for residential use on the neighbouring land without the implementation of
remedial measures, which would conflict with Revised Deposit UDP policy E5. The loss of the
existing employment use on the site due to residential development would not result in a material
shortfall in available sites because the existing premises is small and is relatively isolated as an
employment use. Therefore, policies EC3 and ST3 do not prevent the re-use or redevelopment of
the existing commercial premises for residential development.
Policy EN20 prevents the development of housing where existing pollution (including air, noise,
land contamination, dust, vibration and odour) is unacceptable unless it can be demonstrated to the
Council that the development includes sufficient improvement measures to reduce the nuisance to
an acceptable level. It also controls development, particularly around sensitive uses such as
housing, which would cause an unacceptable increase in existing pollution levels. However, I am
of the opinion that the proposed dwellings and the associated external amenity space would be
subject to noise produced from the existing adjacent business, which would cause an unacceptable
nuisance to future occupiers without appropriate protective measures. Thus, the proposal requires
a condition regarding noise to make the development consistent with the requirements of policy
EN20 of the adopted UDP or policy EN14 of the First Deposit Draft UDP.
32
With regards to the objections raised in relation to noise and disruption during the construction
period. I have attached a note to the applicant regarding construction site noise and hours in which
works can be undertaken, as recommended by the Director of Environmental Services. In relation
to noise and traffic generated by the site post construction, I am of the opinion that given the area
of the site is 900 metres squared the residential use of the site and limited number of housing units
would not have a significantly greater adverse impact on the locality than the existing commercial
use of the site.
I am of the opinion that there is sufficient space on the 900m sq site and between the existing
properties to accommodate residential development that would not result in loss of privacy, loss of
light, overlooking or over development of the site.
Furthermore, I consider that the siting of the proposed dwellings, assessed at the reserved matters
stage, can be controlled to maintain sufficient separation distance between the proposed buildings
and the existing trees situated within the rear gardens of neighbouring properties because the tree
canopies do not appear to overhang the site. Issues such as density of occupation, the size, density
and height of the proposed buildings and proposed boundary treatments, which were raised in the
objections will be controlled at the reserved matters stage.
Some objectors believe insufficient information had been provided in the application to determine
if the proposal would be detrimental to the area. This is an outline application and all matters are
reserved. The site is considered to be of adequate size to accommodate residential development.
The precise layout and numbers of dwellings will be the subject of a future application.
The ownership of the wall to the rear of the site may be a private issue and is not a material
planning consideration in the determination of this application. Loss of value and type of tenure is
not a material planning consideration and the type of dwelling unit is not under consideration at
this stage.
I am satisfied that the issues raised in the objections and my concerns regarding noise and
contaminated land can be controlled by the conditions as listed below and at such a time as the
application for reserved matters is considered. Hence, I recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
2. Standard Condition B01X Reserved Matters
3. Standard Condition M03 Contaminated land
4. No development shall be started until full details of a scheme for the acoustic double glazing of
33
the windows of all living rooms and bedrooms have been submitted to and approved in writing
by the Director of Development Services. Such a scheme shall thereafter be implemented
concurrently with the building works to ensure that no dwelling is occupied until such time as
the associated acoustic double glazing has been installed to the satisfaction of the Director of
Development Services.
5. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the
disposal of foul and surface waters has been approved by the Director of Development
Services. Such a scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved
plans.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
4. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance
with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Please contact United Utilities regarding the requirement for approval for sewer connections
and drainage arrangements.
2. Please see attached guidance on construction site noise. Please note that work shall only be
carried out between 0800 and 1800 hours Monday to Friday (excluding bank holidays) and
0800 and 1300 hours on Saturday.
APPLICATION No:
03/47069/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr Ian Foulkes
LOCATION:
19 Mill Brow Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a single storey front extension, two storey rear
extension and alterations to the existing windows (resubmission
of planning application 02/43633/HH)
34
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached house located within the Worsley Village Conservation
Area. The site is located at the top of Mill Brow and is flanked by 21 Mill Brow at a slightly higher
level to the north east; and 3 and 4 Waterbridge at a lower level (approximately 1.3 M) to the south.
The proposal is for the erection of a single storey extension to the front of the house which
incorporates a sunken garage below ground level. It also includes the demolition of the existing
single storey WC, utility and conservatory to the rear of the property, and the erection of a part
single/part two storey rear extension in its place. The final element of the proposal is for the
construction of a box window on the south elevation which would project 1.1m from the wall and
would be 2.4m in height and 4.2m in width. It would provide access to the garden area.
The front element of the proposal would have a dog-leg shape and would cover a maximum floor
area of 8.5m X10.5m. The sunken garage aspect would be at a depth of 2.7m below ground level.
The rear element of the proposal is two fold. The two-storey element would project from the
corner of the property. It would extend 1.9m from the north elevation and 1m from the east
elevation. It would incorporate high-level windows in the east elevation which would provide
light to a bathroom. The single storey element would replace the existing conservatory and would
adjoin the two-storey element of the proposal. It would measure 5.9m X 3.5m and would infill the
area between the existing dining room and the existing north facing main wall of the house.
The box window would be cantilevered and would project 1.1m from the south elevation of the
house. It would measure 4.1m (width) X 2.3m (height).
The three elements of the proposal would have flat roofs and a contemporary/modern design.
SITE HISTORY
In 1995, planning permission was granted for a single storey conservatory although when work
commenced the extension that was constructed fell within permitted development rights. The
existing attached garage was converted into living accommodation at about the same time, this
again was permitted development.
In June 2003 planning permission was refused for a single storey side extension and a two storey
rear extension.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No objections
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 30th October 2003.
35
A site notice was displayed on 20th October 2003.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
21, 112 and 113 Mill Brow
3 and 4 Waterbridge
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity from the
occupiers of 4 Waterbridge. Councillor Karen Garrido has requested that the Panel consider this
application due to the scheme’s contemporary design and location within the Worsley Village
Conservation Area. The objectors have raised the following issues:






The proposal would introduce a TV/day area window less than 21m from their lounge and
bedroom window contrary to HH1 and the screening is not adequate to prevent
overlooking. In addition, this window would directly overlook their garden contrary to
HH2.
The proposed two-storey element would be in breach of the distance between their lounge
and bedroom window contrary to HH3.
The proposed two storey element has a flat roof which would be visible from at least five
neighbouring properties contrary to HH5.
The proposal is completely different in design from the existing building and from the
surrounding area.
The building materials proposed are completely different from the existing building style.
The two storey element of the proposal may damage trees which are the subject of a Tree
Preservation Order.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
EN 11: Protection and enhancement of conservation areas
EN 13: Works to Listed Buildings and Buildings in Conservation Areas
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CH1: Proposed World Heritage Site
Other policies:
CH 5:Works Within Conservation Areas
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EN11 states that the City Council will seek to preserve and enhance the special character of
areas of architectural and historic interest and shall have regard to the retention and improvement
36
of existing buildings and mature trees. This is reiterated in CH5. Policy EN13 states that, when
considering proposals to alter buildings within conservation areas, regard should be given to the
importance of the building and the condition of the building. Policy CH1 states that planning
permission will not normally be granted for development that would detract from the character,
appearance, or setting of the proposed World Heritage Site.
1. The TV/day area would not come any closer to the objector’s property than the existing
conservatory. Therefore, I hold the view that the proposal would not lead to a significant
loss of privacy for the objector and maintain the proposal is in accordance with HH1 of
‘Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions’. This same window would be at
least 7m from the common boundary shared with the objector and would not overlook their
garden. In my view the proposal is not contrary to HH2.
2. Guidance Note HH3 of ‘Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions’ asks for a
minimum distance of 13m from a two storey gable to a ground floor habitable room
window which is directly facing. Given that the objector’s property is approximately 1.3m
lower in level than the applicant’s property the seperation distance should be at least
14.3m. The proposal would introduce a gable at least 15m from the objectors habitable
room window and the window would not be directly facing. I am of the opinion that the
proposal is in accordance with HH3.
3. The three issues raised relating to the design of the proposal can be dealt with together. I
acknowledge that the proposal is contemporary in design and incorporates the use of flat
roofs which are not normally acceptable under the guidance of HH5. However, in this case
it is my opinion that the flat roofs make a positive contribution to the overall character and
modern design of the proposal. The City’s Conservation Officer has been consulted on the
proposal and supports the design being proposed. He feels the design is in keeping with the
existing dwelling which reflects elements of the facing materials being used for the
adjacent properties (i.e white render, timber boarding). He feels the proposal is an
acceptable modern contrast to the neighbouring properties. There should not be a
presumption in a conservation area that all new development must match the materials and
design of the existing building.
4. The City’s Arboricultural Officer has inspected the plans and site and does not support the
view that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the health of the protected trees
on site.
The front element of the proposal would be hidden behind an existing hedge which is 3m in height
and 2m in depth. Therefore I feel this element would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity
of neighbouring residents or the character of Mill Brow. The plans indicate that this hedge would
be retained.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
37
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 timber
panelling of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director
of Development Services.
3. The render shall be the same type, colour and texture as that of the existing building, unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services.
4. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
5. Standard Condition C05C No topping etc to Trees protected by TPO
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/47086/FUL
APPLICANT:
Westbury Homes Holdings
LOCATION:
Agecroft Hall Residential Site Agecroft Road Pendlebury
Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a four storey building comprising 49 apartments
together with associated car parking (Amendment to planning
permission 03/46300/FUL)
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the Westbury Homes site on Agecroft Road, formerly the Thermalite
site, opposite the Agecroft Commerce Park. The original permission for the site was granted
38
following a public inquiry at the end of 1998 and the reserved matters application was approved in
July 2002, planning reference 02/43597/REM. This granted permission for 287 dwellings
comprising a mix of houses and apartments erected around a central village green area surrounded
by a green open swathe.
In August this year permission was granted for an amendment to the layout approved under the
reserved matters application in the north western corner of the site, reference 03/46300/FUL. This
amended the apartments to be provided within two “U” shaped blocks positioned at an angle away
from each other but retained the 20m landscaping buffer that was required as part of the outline
approval following the public inquiry.
This application is now seeking an amendment to permission 03/46300/FUL to re-site the
apartments within two angular “U” shaped buildings which would be positioned 27m apart to
mirror each other about a central point. Within this central area there would be a courtyard area
with 22 car parking spaces. The remainder of the spaces – 26 spaces – would be provided along
the frontage 3m back from the site boundary. Again, the landscaping buffer would be retained on
the frontage.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – no objections.
Director of Environmental Services – recommends that a noise assessment and a site investigation
are undertaken.
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – the gas protection measures appear to be sufficient but their
installation should be Quality Assured on site.
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Officer – would prefer that footpaths around the site
were moved off the face of the building by 1.5m – 2m so that strangers were not taken to the
ground floor windows.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was displayed on 23 October2003.
A site notice was displayed on 27 October 2003.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
40 – 82 Agecroft Road
Manor Lodge, 1 – 15 Agecroft Road
1, 2 Dauntesy Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EN17 Croal Irwell Valley
39
Other policies: DEV2 Good Design, DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV4 Crime and Design, H6
and H11 Open Space Provision within New Housing Development
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none.
Other policies:DES1 Respecting context, DES11 Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The application relates to the north western corner of the site which has been granted permission
earlier this year and therefore the main issues to be addressed relate to the impact of the proposed
amendments, particularly in relation to DEV1, DEV2, DEV4 and DES11.
The design of the apartments would be very similar to the design approved under 03/46300/FUL
and I am satisfied that by making the blocks more angular that this would not be detrimental to the
overall design. The two proposed blocks would also be sufficiently separated to ensure that the
future residents enjoy an acceptable level of amenity, and particularly in relation to privacy.
The Architectural Liaison Officer is concerned about the proximity of the footpaths to the
frontages of the apartments and for this reason I have attached a condition to secure that all
footpaths are a minimum of 2m from any elevation. I am satisfied that there is sufficient space to
address this.
I consider that this proposed layout respects the character of the remainder of the site and therefore
would contribute towards local identity in accordance with policy DES1. I have no objections on
highway grounds and therefore recommend that this application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No footpath around the site shall run directly adjacent to the facing elevation of the apartments
but shall be a minimum of 2m away from the elevation full details of which shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the
commencement of development.
3. Standard Condition C01X Landscaping
4. Prior to the commencement of any building works on site, the applicant shall submit for
written approval an assessment of the noise likely to affect the application site. This
assessment should follow PPG24 guidelines towards assessing the noise from the surrounding
road and railway network, and any other noise sources which are deemed significant to the site.
The measurements and assessment shall be made according to BS4142: 1990. The assessment
40
shall identify all noise attenuation measures which may be determined appropriate to reduce
the impact of noise on the site. Once agreed, all identified noise control measures shall be
implemented and thereafter retained.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance
with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/47111/FUL
APPLICANT:
New Prospect Housing
LOCATION:
1-23 & 2-30 Myrtle Place 1-31 & 2-30 Cedar Place 1-15 & 2-14
Capella Walk And 151-195 Lower Broughton Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Environmental and security improvements to gardens including
drives, paving, timber boundary treatments, metal driveway
gates, tree planting and new and re-aligned roads
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to proposed environmental and security improvements to the north of
Heath Avenue, a large residential area and part of the Spike Island area. The proposed
improvements will involve the addition of new driveways, fencing and tree planting, with new and
realigned roads. The proposal includes the closure of highway and footpath, principally to provide
secure car parking in line with Police and Government advice regarding security. It also includes
the provision of new footpaths and the improvement of existing footpaths.
The existing estate suffers from significant levels of crime and generally has a poor physical
environment. Existing car parking provision is to the rear of houses, situated within exposed
courtyards. Car crime is significant in the area, and the existing arrangements do not provide
secure parking for residents.
41
Eleven trees, of various maturity and species will be removed as a result of the scheme, with forty
one retained, eight new trees proposed within pavement areas and sixty six within the gardens.
Consultations between the applicant’s agent and the police architectural liaison team took place
prior to the submission of the scheme. The footpath societies were also consulted by the agent
earlier this year.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objection
Peak and Northern Footpath Society – No response to date
Open Spaces Society – No response to date
Ramblers Association – No objection
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association - No response to date
Greater Manchester Police Authority - No objection
PUBLICITY
Three site notices were displayed on the 28th October 2003
The following neighbours were notified :
2 Altair Place
1 – 10 Baroness Grove
33 – 67, 93 – 115 (odd) Cedar Place
36 – 74, 139 – 145 Heath Avenue
1 – 9 (odd) Lord Street
186 – 196 (even) Lower Broughton Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following
issues have been raised:Loss of land
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV1 – Development Criteria, H2 – Maintaining and Improving Public
Sector Housing, DEV4 Design and Crime
42
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DES1 Respecting Context, DES11 Design and Crime, H3 Housing
Improvement
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan Policy DEV1 states that in determining planning applications the City
Council should pay due regard to a number of issues, including the visual appearance of a
development; the amount, design and layout of car parking provision, landscaping and open space
provision and the impact on trees within or adjacent to the development site. In addition, Policy
H2 states that the City Council will seek to maintain and improve public sector housing stock
through improving security, improving the general housing environment and through the
provision of adequate car parking facilities. Policy DEV4 states that the City Council will
encourage greater consideration of crime prevention and personal and property security.
The replacement plan policies update and are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in
respect to this development.
The proposal remodels the estate in line with Policy DEV4 and both Government and Police
advice regarding security issues. The number of ginnels that run alongside the rear garden of
houses would be reduced in number. At the same time access to the riverside walkway is
improved by the provision of more appropriately sited footpaths. I am satisfied that this
development will lead to a significant improvement in the housing environment in the area. The
proposed improvements will improve security for residents, and will also improve car parking
facilities. The development involves the removal of a number of semi-mature trees, however, their
removal is required in order to facilitate the environmental and security improvements. The trees
to be removed will be replaced with eight new trees within pavement areas and sixty six within the
gardens, the sixty six will be subject to tenant consultation. I am satisfied that these replacements
will mitigate any negative impacts.
Turning to the objections received, part of the scheme would extend the existing cul-de-sac to the
rear of 12 – 16 Cedar Place, resulting in a reduced garden area. The applicant is currently liasing
with both objectors to resolve this issue. I will report the outcome to panel.
I am satisfied that the proposed works will improve visual and residential amenity in the area, and
serve to combat crime and vandalism in the housing environment. I therefore recommend
approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
43
2. For each of the eleven trees to be felled, two replacements shall be planted during the next
available planting season. The type and position of replacement trees shall be first approved in
writing by the Director of Development Services.
3. No development shall commence until road closures have been secured.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. The areas are currently public highway.
APPLICATION No:
03/47143/FUL
APPLICANT:
Nuttall Construction Limited
LOCATION:
Land At Junction Of Broad Oak Park And Brackley Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of two three-storey
blocks comprising eight apartments together with associated car
parking and creation of new vehicular access
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of an existing bungalow at the junction of Brackley Road and
Broad Oak Park. The proposal is to demolish the bungalow and replace it with a development of
two three-storey blocks, comprising eight two-bedroom apartments. Block ‘A’ fronts Brackley
Road and the footprint of the building is 10.9 metres by 11.4 metres. Block ‘B’ occupies a larger
footprint and is positioned at the junction of Brackley Road and Broad Oak Park, therefore having
a frontage to both roads. Both buildings would be set back approximately 7.5 metres from the back
of the pavement and would be linked by a roof over the vehicular and pedestrian access to the rear
parking area. 12 car parking spaces and two refuse storage areas would be positioned adjacent to
the southern and eastern site boundaries. A new access to the site would be formed from Brackley
Road. The majority of the amenity space is located to the front of the buildings.
There are numerous mature trees at the site and overhanging the site from the adjacent gardens.
The majority of the trees at the application site and the tree overhanging from 27 Brackley Road
are protected by Tree Preservation Order (TPO) No. 100. The trees overhanging from 2a Broadoak
44
Park Road are protected by TPO 248. The applicant has submitted an arboricultural survey which
relates to trees at the site.
The application site is located within a predominantly residential area. The properties on adjacent
sites are all two-storey dwellings. There is a bowling green to the opposite side of Broad Oak Park.
Whilst the site is not within the Monton Green conservation area, the south and west boundaries to
the site adjoin the conservation area.
SITE HISTORY
97/37172/TPO - Crown thin by 10% and crown lift to clear the highway one lime, one silver birch
and one horse chestnut tree. Approved 15.12.1997.
03/45522/TPO - Crown raise to 6m above the highway, 1/3 crown thin and prune back from the
building by 1m one Horse Chestnut (T1). Crown thin 1/6, and crown raise to 6m above highway
one Birch tree (T2)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No comments received to date.
The Coal Authority – Report on coal mining circumstances provided.
Environment Agency – No objection in principle.
Monton Village Traders Association – No comments received.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 6th November 2003
A site notice was displayed on 31st October and 5th November 2003
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
10, 12, 23 – 27 (o) Brackley Road
2, 2a Boddon Lodge, Broadoak Park
6 – 14 (e) Monton Green
1 – 6 Churchill Place, Golf View Drive
Worsley golf Club, Stableford Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 15 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised:-
45





















concerns over access – Broadoak Park Road is unadopted and in a poor state of repair, any
increase in traffic will advance deterioration. This road is also too narrow for more than
one vehicle to pass
increase in traffic and associated dangers to elderly and children
poor visibility/ blind bend at road junction
quiet residential area will become dominated by flat conversions
erection of flats will be out of scale and out of character with area
development is totally out of character with the conservation area
concerns regarding replacement of bungalow with three storey building
too many flats are proposed
loss of trees
effect on wildlife
loss of property value
chaos during construction period
overdevelopment
loss of privacy and light to dwellings on Monton Green and Broadoak Park
development will impose on current views from surrounding dwellings
will overshadow garden and overlook 2a Broadoak Park Road
will result in a loss of privacy to lounge (side elevation window) of 27 Brackley Road and
overlooking of garden area
loss of privacy and light to 12 Brackley Road
concerns regarding position of refuse storage and car parking adjacent to boundaries with
adjacent dwellings
strain on existing sewers and services
increased activity will lead to increase in crime
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
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
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
EN10 – Protected Trees
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that regard must be had to a number of factors
when determining applications for planning permission including the layout and relationship of
existing and proposed buildings and the effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for neighbouring
46
properties; the amount, design and layout of car parking provision and the likely scale ant type of
traffic generation. Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant planning
permission, unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance of the development.
Policy EN7 states that the City Council will encourage the conservation of trees and woodland. In
addition the City Council has adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance with regard to trees.
Importantly this states that considerations for layout design should ensure that no building should
be located within the maximum spread of any tree and that in the case of residential buildings, a
development in which a principal window is overshadowed by a tree, or where any part of a tree is
sited within 3.6m of a window, will be resisted. The Guidance also states that private gardens
should not be planned to include an excessive proportion overshadowed by trees. I consider that
the policies of the First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP are generally similar in respect of this
development proposal.
With regards to the proposed use of the site, I consider that the principle of residential
development is acceptable, given the existing use and the residential nature of the area.
With reference to vehicular access and traffic, I consider that the position of the access is
acceptable in highway safety terms, providing that the proposed gate posts are either reduced or
relocated and I do not consider that a development of this size, i.e. eight apartments, would result
in any significant increase in traffic generation. The main issues for consideration are therefore the
impact on trees, the design, scale and appearance of the development and its impact on the
character of the area and the impact of the proposal on existing residents in terms of privacy,
overlooking and loss of light.
With reference to amenity distances, there would be a minimum of 26.5 metres between the
development and 10 and 12 Brackley Road, I do not therefore consider that there would be any loss
of light or privacy to these dwellings. There would be a distance of 6.5 metres between the side of
Block A and the side windows to the ground floor of 27 Brackley Road, one of these windows is
obscure glazed and the other appears to be a secondary window to the lounge (there is a bay
window to the front). The floor plans for the proposed development indicate that there would be
secondary windows to the dining area on this elevation – I therefore have some concerns regarding
privacy. There is, however, no elevation drawing to indicate whether the ground floor window
would be high level or obscure glazed. Given the similar siting and height of this dwelling and the
proposed Building A, I do not consider that there would result be any overlooking of the garden
areas or loss of light. There is a minimum distance of 15 metres between the proposed buildings
and the boundary with the rear gardens of 6 and 8 Monton Green and in excess of 30 metres
between facing windows, I do not therefore consider that there would be any overlooking of
garden areas or loss of privacy or light to these dwellings. There is a distance of 10.5 metres
between the side of Block B and 2a Broad Oak Park and approximately 17 metres to the first floor
window that appears to be a secondary window to the bedroom.
I have a number of concerns with regards to trees at the site. Firstly, the applicant was asked to
submit a tree survey for trees at and surrounding the site, the survey submitted does not, however,
consider trees in adjacent gardens that overhang the site. Furthermore, the tree survey states that
there are no Tree Preservation Orders, when there are in fact two Orders that protect these and
surrounding trees. Whilst the position of the existing property should be considered in relation to
the surrounding trees, the height difference between the existing bungalow and proposed
47
development, must be considered in relation to the tree canopies. The plans submitted indicate that
a number of the tree canopies would overhang the proposed buildings. This is not in accordance
with the City Council’s SPG on trees. The SPG recommends that a minimum distance of 3.6
metres should be maintained between the tips of branches and habitable windows. It is therefore
inevitable that the damage would be caused to the trees and that the branches could cause damage
to the buildings. Furthermore, the overwhelming dominance of the trees and concerns about their
safety, loss of light and problems such as leaves blocking drains would create pressure from future
residents for the removal of the trees. In order to accommodate this development, significant
pruning is required. I consider that this would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area and
also views into and out of the conservation area.
With regards to the appearance of the development, whilst the site lies outside the conservation
area, it is in fact immediately adjacent to it and I consider that the development would affect the
character and appearance of the conservation area. Unfortunately, the applicant has not submitted
an elevation drawing for the side of Building B, which would face the conservation area. The
proposed ridge height of the development is 10.1 metres, which is a similar height to dwellings on
Brackley Road (27 Brackley Road has a ridge height of 10.5 metres). The properties on Broad Oak
Park are however lower in height – 2a Broad Oak Park has a ridge height of 8.2 metres. Because
the proposed development, in particular Block B, is taller than the adjacent properties on Broad
Oak Park, I consider that it would dominate this corner plot. Whilst I believe that the applicant has
made some consideration of design, this site is in a prominent position adjacent to the conservation
area and the height and design must be given more careful consideration.
The proposed car parking provision is in accordance with the City Council’s current standards and
the existing and proposed trees would provide some screening between adjacent gardens. I am
concerned that the areas of hard surfacing may affect trees roots and I do not consider that this
issue has been adequately addressed in the tree survey. With regards to amenity space, given the
amount of hardstanding for car parking and access and the siting of the buildings, the amenity
space is mostly situated to the front of the development. Amenity space in this position is not
private nor is it particularly useable, especially as the majority of it would be shaded by the
surrounding trees.
In respect of concerns raised regarding noise and disturbance from construction, I consider that as
this would be for a limited period only, existing residents should not suffer any long-term effects.
Other objections relate to loss of property value, which I do not consider to be a material planning
consideration and the strain on drains/sewers, which would be a consideration for United Utilities
should permission be approved. I do not consider that the increased activity associated with the
development would result in an increase in crime.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would result in buildings and areas of hardstanding being located
too close to trees that are subject to Tree Preservation Orders, contrary to both the City
48
Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance on Trees and EN7 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan, and as a consequence would result in their loss to the significant detriment
of the character and appearance of the local area and would fail to enhance or preserve the
character or appearance of the adjacent Monton Green Conservation Area.
2. The proposed development would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area and would
fail to enhance or preserve the character and appearance of the adjacent conservation area by
reason of its height, design and siting, contrary to policy DEV2 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/47226/HH
APPLICANT:
G A Herbert
LOCATION:
4 Wyville Drive Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Retention of conservatory at rear of dwelling (amendment to
previous application 03/45549/HH)
WARD:
Pendleton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site is a semi-detached property in a residential area close to Langworthy Road.
The proposal is for the retention of a conservatory.
The conservatory projects 3m X 4.5m with a height to the eaves of 2.2m and the height to the ridge
of 3.1m with a hipped roof, the conservatory has obscure glazing on the elevation facing No.2
Wyville Drive.
SITE HISTORY
An application for a rear conservatory was approved in March 2003. This proposal project 2.1m X
3m with a total height of 3m. The proposal was approximately 2.5m from the boundary with No.2
Wyville Drive.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2 and 6 Wyville Drive
252, 256 and 258 Langworthy Road
49
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of support from the residents of No.2 Wyville Drive in response to the
planning application publicity.
Councillor Holt has requested the planning application be dealt with by the Planning and
Transportation regulatory Panel as the recommendation is for refusal and the conservatory has
been built
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 Alterations and Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 states that planning permission will not be granted for extensions that have an unacceptable
adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking,
overshadowing, dominance loss of light or privacy nor would it have an unacceptably adverse
impact on the character of the street scene, this is re-iterated in policy DES7.
HH4 of the House Extension Supplementary Planning Guidance states that permission will not
normally be given for single-storey extension that do not maintain a minimum distance of 9m
between its blank gable end and facing habitable room windows.
The conservatory does not have a blank gable end but has an obscure glazed elevation. The
conservatory is approximately 5.8m from the dining room window of No.2 Wyville Drive. There
is a 2m fence on the boundary between the two properties, however the proposal can be seen
above the fence, the eaves are approximately 2.2m in height with the ridge reaching to 3.1m in
height. Due to the proximity of the conservatory to the dining room window I would consider it
have an overbearing impact.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
50
1. The conservatory seriously injures the amenity and has an overbearing impact on
neighbouring residents living at 2 Wyville Drive by reason of its size and siting and is contrary
to Policy DEV8 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan, Policy DES7 of the
Draft Planning Policy, and HH4 Supplementary Planning Guidance - House Extensions.
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
52
4th December 2003
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
53
4th December 2003
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
54
4th December 2003