PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/46504/FUL
APPLICANT:
Leaway Manchester Limited
LOCATION:
Monks Hall 42 Wellington Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Conversion of existing building into four flats and erection of one
three storey and one four storey block comprising 17 flats and
one pair of semi detached houses together with creation of new
and alteration to existing vehicular accesses
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the existing Monks Hall situated at the corner of Wellington Road and
Monks Hall Grove. Monks Hall, dating back originally to Tudor times when it was a farmhouse, is
a Grade II listed building and has recently been in use as a restaurant and office. Previous uses
have included use by a doctors surgery and as a museum by the City of Salford. The building is
part two storey and part single storey and is double fronted facing Wellington Road where it its
highest ridge line is 8m. To the rear of the building are a number of single storey extensions with
the highest ridge height here being 7.25m. The building is situated in the southwest corner of the
site and has a footprint of 273sq.m. within the total site area of 3,185sq.m. The rest of the site is
covered by a mixture of lawn, planting and car parking. There are two vehicular access points from
Monks Hall Grove and an additional pedestrian access to Wellington Road. The rectangular site is
surrounded by several mature trees whilst some established trees are also found within the site.
Planning permission is sought for the conversion of the existing building into four self contained
flats. The conversion would involve the taking down of some extensions together with external
and internal alterations. Permission is also sought for the erection of three blocks containing a total
of 19 flats, one 4 storey, one 3 storey and one 2 storey block within the grounds of Monks Hall. On
the submitted plans the developer has labelled Monks Hall as block A, the 4 storey block as block
C, 3 storey block B and 2 storey as block D. Each block would sit in one corner of the rectangular
shape site. A total of 23 units are proposed on the site.
Monks Hall itself would be converted into four flats each with rooms on ground and first floors.
Three single storey extensions are to be demolished, including the conservatory, whilst one single
storey part is proposed to be rebuilt. The ridge height of the existing single storey extension at the
southwest of the building is to be raised and two rooflights are proposed. Internal partitions are to
be added and some existing walls are to be removed with two void roof spaces being created as
well. Some windows are proposed to be blocked up with replacement windows proposed to all first
floor windows.
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
Block C (4 storeys) would be in the north east corner of the site and would rise to a height of 13m
with a footprint of 184sq.m. This block would be 23m at its nearest point from the rear of houses
on Albert Road, although no habitable room windows face properties on Albert Road. This block
would be about 1.5m from an 11m high Silver Birch tree along the eastern boundary and 6m from
trees to the northern boundary and 1m from the rear gardens of properties on Albert Road. An
existing Ash tree sits where the building would be constructed. Block C would be 16m from
Monks Hall and would be 15m from block B.
Block B (3 storeys), 11.5m in height and footprint of 233sq.m. would be in the north west corner of
the site and would front onto Monks Hall Grove, positioned between Monks Hall and 2 Monks
Hall Grove. Block B would be 8m from the gable end and 11.8m from the outrigger with habitable
room at first floor of 2 Monks Hall Grove. It would be 26m from the properties across Monks Hall
Grove and would protrude 3m beyond the established building line of Monks Hall Grove. This
block would be 13.4m from Monks Hall and would be 1m from a line of trees along the northern
boundary of the site including two Ash trees at 14m and 15m in height.
Block D (2 storeys), 8.5m in height and footprint of 106sq.m., is a pair of semi-detached dwellings
fronting onto Wellington Road and in line with the forward building line of Monks Hall. The block
is set behind the building line of the adjacent dwelling at 40 Wellington Road by 6m and would be
10m from the same dwelling which has habitable windows on three floors facing this block. This
block would be 12m from Monks Hall. The block would be less than 1m from a line of poplar trees
to the western boundary which stand around 17m in height.
A new vehicular entrance is proposed from Monks Hall Grove and the existing vehicular entrances
would be closed. The proposal involves 18 identified on site car parking spaces, including
provision of three disabled bays. A cobbled courtyard area is also proposed, between Monks Hall
and Monks Hall Grove where additional parking could be provided. Cycle parking is proposed
within the site.
The application has been submitted with a planning statement, a tree report, development appraisal
and an enabling development statement. The planning statement asserts that Monks Hall is the
oldest non-ecclesiastical building in Eccles with part of the building dating from the late 16th
Century. The statement also declares that re-use of the existing building will have a positive
impact upon the historic building and that the three proposed blocks will also have a beneficial
impact on the listed building and surrounding streetscape. The tree report explains that some trees
on the site are proposed to be removed for development and some are shown as being retained.
The enabling development statement asserts that the applicant believes the proposal is acceptable
in it’s own right but submits an enabling argument to add weight in justifying the necessity of the
proposal. The applicant suggests that the only way to convert Monks Hall so that it is saved as a
heritage asset is by raising money from new residential units in the grounds to pay for the
conversion and that this is the minimum amount of development required to pay for the conversion
of Monks Hall into a viable use. The applicant explains that a number of other uses have been tried
for Monks Hall and have failed. The enabling statement also explains that English Heritage state
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
that enabling development should not be allowed if a listed building could be repaired and given a
viable use.
An associated application for Listed Building Consent 03/46505/LBC also appears on this agenda
for a decision.
PLANNING HISTORY
In June 2003, a planning application and a Listed building application for the conversion of Monks
Hall to four flats and the erection of one two storey, one three storey and one four storey block in
the grounds, were withdrawn by applicant after they were placed on the Panel agenda with a
recommendation for refusal (03/46049/FUL & 03/46050/LBC).
In 2002, planning permission was granted for the change of use from from restaurant to
educational facility (02/44852/COU).
In 2002, listed building consent was granted for change of use from restaurant to educational
facility requiring minor remedial works/alterations (02/44853/LBC).
In 1997, Listed Building Consent was granted for amendments to the existing permitted external
and internal alterations (97/36620/LBC).
In 1997, planning permission was granted for continued use as a restaurant without complying
with Condition No. 8 (no tables for consumption of meals outside building)of planning permission
95/34284/COU (97/36294/FUL).
In 1996, planning permission was granted for Change of use from museum (class D1) to public
house (class A3) at ground floor with ancillary residential
accommodation at first floor (96/34938/DEEM4).
In 1995, consent was granted for alterations to form public restaurant (95/34399/LBC).
In, 1995 planning permission was granted for the conversion to form public restaurant together
with associated car parking (95/34284/COU).
CONSULTEES
English Heritage – Consider that the application represents over-development of a restricted site.
Also express concern over the architectural style, and materials, that have been adopted for the
proposed new built elements. Concern also over the mis-quotation of Victorian detailing and
replication on out of scale and misshapen blocks which does not represent appropriate
architectural language for the setting of the listed building. To date no comments have been
received regarding the enabling development statement.
Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to a condition requiring a PPG24
noise assessment.
British Coal – No objections
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – Explains that there is archaeological interest at the site.
Explain require information on the fabric of the historic timber and that land around Monks Hall
may contain significant buried remains relating to the early medieval origins of the site and the
scale of development proposed would result in a requirement for archaeological excavations
which may determine where development could be situated. GMAU consider that the massing and
large scale of enabling development around the Hall is inappropriate to the setting and proportions
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
of the listed hall building. GMAU recommends that should planning permission be granted a
condition requiring a programme of archaeological work should be imposed.
Environment Agency – No objections
Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Explains concerns about the openness of the scheme and
possibilities for crime to occur.
United Utilities – No objections and provides the applicant advice.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was displayed on 17th July 2003.
Site notices were posted on the 10th July 2003.
The following neighbours have been consulted:
2 –16 even Abbey Grove
5 – 7 &11 Abbey Grove
Priory Court and Abbey Court, Abbey Grove
3 – 27 odd Albert Road
4 – 12 even Albert Road
2 –8 even Monks Hall Grove
5 – 19 odd Monks Hall Grove
38 – 40 even Wellington Road
44 – 48 even Wellington Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 29 letters in response to the application publicity. I have also received 20
questionnaires that were designed by the applicant, completed by individuals and then submitted
by the applicant.
I have received 14 letters of support and 15 letters of objection. Of the 14 letters of support 8 are
from outside the immediate area (i.e. not on a surrounding road/connecting roads) and 6 are from
within the immediate area. Of the 15 letters of objection 13 are from occupiers of dwellings in the
immediate area whilst two are from outside the immediate area.
The comments of letters of support and objection are as follows:
Support
The area needs upgrading
Have to pay for restoration somehow
Proposal would bring in owner occupiers
Noise problems exist from the current restaurant use
The proposal would improve the view of the area
Don’t want Monks Hall to fall into disrepair
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
Objection
Not enough car parking given the site is close to a motorway junction as well as public
transport facilities
Increase of on street parking
Entrance should be on Wellington Road
The building heights are excessive
The number of dwellings proposed should be reduced
The proposed blocks are too close to existing dwellings with regards to privacy and
sunlight/daylight
Trees should be retained
Trees should be protected by a tree preservation order
Harm to the character of the area
Block B breaches the forward building line of Monks Hall Grove
Blocks B & C dominate the site and are too tall
The proposal does not preserve the appearance and character of the listed building
A Covenant means that the gardens are supposed to be open for use by local people
A covenant restricts the renting out of dwellings or use as public houses in the area
I have also received a letter from the Advanced Life Support Group, the applicant of permissions
02/44852/COU & 02/44853/LBC listed above, explaining that their proposals involved no
construction in the grounds of Monks Hall. They also explain their offer for the site was initially
accepted and surveys carried but was then turned down by the vendor due to another party
submitting a higher tender.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES
EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodland, EN12 Protection and Enhancement of Listed
Buildings, EN13 Works to Listed Buildings, H1 Meeting Housing Needs, H6 & H11 Open Space
Provision, DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime.
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN
DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES8 Alterations and
Extensions, DES11 Design and Crime, H1 Provision of new housing development, H5 provision
of residential accommodation within existing buildings, H8 Open Space Provision Associated
with new Housing Development, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments, CH2 Works to Listed Buildings, CH4 Development Affecting the Setting of a
Listed Building.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policies EN12 and EN13 require that permission should not be granted if a proposal detracts from
the architectural or historic interest in the listed building or detracts from the setting of the listed
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
building. Policy EN7 encourages the conservation of trees and woodlands. Policies DEV1, DEV2
and DEV4 require good quality development that respects its surroundings, respects existing and
future amenity, respects existing building patterns, provides adequate parking and protects
existing trees whilst ensuring appropriate safety from crime. Policy H1 requires improvements to
the housing stock whilst H6 & H11 require the provision of open space for developments. The
above policies are contained within the Adopted UDP whilst the policies within the First Deposit
Draft Replacement Plan, which are described in the next paragraph, although similar in many
respects should be given less weight than those of the adopted plan.
DES1 requires consideration of issues including scale, character impact on views and vistas,
respecting existing building lines, vertical and horizontal rhythms and impact upon local identity.
DES7 requires that developments respect sunlight, daylight, aspect and privacy and general
amenity of future occupiers and surrounding occupiers. H1 requires development to contribute to a
balanced mix of dwelling types and to provide accommodation at an appropriate density for the
site. H5 allows conversion of non-residential uses into residential where a number of criteria are
satisfied. H8 requires adequate provision for formal and informal open space. A10 requires
appropriate parking on site. CH2 requires alterations to respect the special architectural merit or
historic interest and requires new uses to secure the long term future of the building. CH4 explains
permission will not be granted if a proposal causes harm to the setting of the listed building in
terms of siting, scale and quantity.
There are two main aspects to this proposal; the alterations and change of use of the existing
Monks Hall building and the erection of three blocks within the grounds of Monks Hall. I shall
address each aspect in turn however a decision has to be made on both aspects together.
The change of use of the existing listed building into four flats would allow the building to be
converted to its original residential use and would provide a stabilised use which would be in line
with policies EN12, EN13 and CH2 of the UDPs and also national guidance within PPG15, in this
respect I agree with the letters of support. Although this would be acceptable in principle the actual
internal and external alterations to convert the property into four self contained flats need to be
considered. The applicant has stated new partitions would be reversible and existing windows
would be reused which I consider to be appropriate. I consider the internal and external work
would not harm the integrity of the listed building. Indeed the application has been amended to
show that the very old single storey extension to the northwest of the building will be retained and
underpinned as existing. The proposed changes to the listed building including the taking down of
the modern conservatory and making good the original wall and the reuse as flats and the
submitted layout can be considered to be acceptable and would be welcomed alterations for the
future safeguarding of the building. I consider that the proposed alterations to Monks Hall to be in
accordance with policies EN12, EN13 and CH2.
The three proposed blocks and the conversion of Monks Hall would provide a mix of dwelling
types which is in accordance with policies. The site density at 72 units per hectare would perhaps
at some sites close to major public transport nodes and Eccles town centre be acceptable however
the density proposed here has a direct impact upon the character and setting of the listed building
and the character of the surrounding area including residential amenity. I consider Monks Hall to
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
have an open feel given existing gaps around the building and established trees at the boundary of
the site. Block D is of a similar height to Monks Hall whilst blocks B and C are one and two storeys
higher respectively than Monks Hall and would appear taller and bulkier than Monks Hall. Block
C would also sit 3m forward of the existing building line.
I consider the proposals to have a detrimental effect upon the setting of the listed building and a
harmful effect on the street scene. Blocks B, C and D together take up slightly under 20% of the
total land surrounding the listed building and when considered together with additional
hardstanding areas and bin stores would have an impact on the setting of Monks Hall. English
Heritage advise that the proposed blocks are poorly designed with regard to the architectural style,
proposed materials and misquotation of Victorian detailing. I agree that the blocks are not
appropriate within the setting of the Listed building. Given the close proximity of all the blocks to
the historic Monks Hall, the height of the blocks and breach of the building line I agree with the
objections received and consider that a significant detrimental impact would result upon the setting
of this listed building and consider the proposal to be contrary to policies EN12, EN13, DEV1,
DES1 and CH4. I consequently consider that the density of this proposal to be too great for this
particular site. An additional issue raised by GMAU relates to concern about the effect of the
siting of the proposed buildings on archaeological remains within the site. Whether there are any
features of interest and their location have not been surveyed.
Objection has also been raised to the proposal on the grounds of privacy and impact upon sunlight
and daylight. The distance to the rear of properties on Albert Road, 40 Wellington Road and 2
Monks Hall Grove all with habitable room windows overlooking this site is quite tight however
privacy would not be compromised as habitable room windows do not overlook these properties.
Number 40 Wellington Road is however 10m from block D which is under Council standards on
aspects by 3m. I have concerns over the distance of the three storey block (B) to Monks Hall as
13m is considerably lower than the normal standard of 21m where habitable rooms face each
other. I am also concerned about the four storey block being 1m from neighbouring residential
gardens, I consider this would result in a sense of being enclosed and that this would have an
overbearing effect being contrary to policies DEV1 and DES1. Little amenity space is proposed on
site and although policies within the UDPs allow for a commuted sum payment in lieu of some
open space I consider there to be inadequate outside amenity space around the blocks and Monks
Hall and consequently this element is contrary to policies DEV1 and DES1.
The Councils Senior Arborist has assessed the applications impact upon existing trees on the site in
light of the tree report submitted. An Ash in the centre of the site has died and has been removed in
conjunction with advice from the Councils arborist. The very large poplar trees may also be
considered unsuitable in such close proximity to a proposed housing site although they provide a
good level of amenity from a wide area. I am of the opinion that the majority of the trees on the site
are worthy of retention given the individual visual impact and site amenity value provided and also
objections received. These trees also contribute to the setting of Monks Hall and to the amenity of
the surrounding townscape. As such I consider appropriate distances in accordance with British
Standards and the Councils SPG on Trees should be adhered to in order to retain these trees. As the
scheme stands the impact upon the trees, which form the backdrop to the Listed building would be
unacceptable, therefore I consider the proposal to be contrary to policies DEV1 and EN7.
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
Members should also be aware that a provisional Tree Preservation Order has been placed on trees
on the site.
Objection has been raised to the impact of the proposal upon on street parking along Monks Hall
Grove. I consider that the proximity to Eccles town centre with its many services and shops and the
railway, bus interchange and Metrolink along with bus services along Wellington Road that the
proposed 100% parking to be in accordance with policies and standards in the replacement plan
and with national guidance. I also raise no highway objection to the proposed revised vehicular
access.
The Police suggest the lack of internal barriers within the site to separate different areas to restrict
movement of visiting strangers could increase the potential for crime. I consider the addition of
barriers within the site could result in a more detrimental effect upon the setting of the Listed
Building. Should members be minded to grant approval I suggest that secure by design should be
ensured.
Given the above appraisal of the application I am of the opinion that the proposal is contrary to
planning policies. As such the appraisal must now turn to the enabling argument put forward by
the applicant. English Heritage have provided clear guidance on this matter in their document
‘Enabling development and the conservation of heritage assets’. This policy statement explains
that: “English Heritage has become increasingly concerned by the damage caused by
developments contrary to established planning policy, put forward primarily as a way of benefiting
heritage assets, but which destroy more than they save. Our experience [English Heritage’s] has
led us to conclude that there should be a clearly stated presumption against such ‘enabling
development’. Permission should only be granted if the asset is not materially harmed, and the
applicant convincingly demonstrates that on balance, the benefits clearly outweigh any
disbenefits, not only to the historic asset or its setting, but to any other relevant planning interests”.
The document further explains that each one of seven criteria have to be satisfied for permission to
be granted. The criteria relate to issues of setting of the listed building, fragmentation of the asset,
securing the long term viability of the asset, circumstances of the owner/purchase price paid for the
property, lack of other financial assistance, amount of enabling development is minimum
necessary and the value of the enabling development outweighs long-term cost to the community.
As stated above I consider that the proposal harms the setting of the listed building, and may harm
archaeological interest, is detrimental to residential amenity and results in the loss of trees. The
letter received from the Advanced Life Support Group indicates that an alternative use would have
commenced as their offer to purchase Monks Hall was agreed and surveys were undertaken and
Planning Permission and Listed building consent had been granted. However, a higher offer was
made and accepted by the vendor for the site by another party. Although grant assistance may not
be available for the property from this Council I am not satisfied that all avenues have been
exhausted and I am not convinced this level of development is the minimum needed. I have
assessed the enabling argument and conclude that several of the criteria have not been satisfied. As
such I consider the enabling argument put forward by the applicant to carry limited weight in the
assessment of this application. Members will also be aware that under the Planning (Listed
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
Building and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990 the Council do have powers to ensure that the owner
of the site safeguards Monks Hall.
In summary I consider the reuse of Monks Hall as four self contained flats to be a positive proposal
for the long term stability of the historic building. I consider that the siting, scale, mass, density
and design of the proposed blocks to be inappropriate to the setting of the listed building and to the
amenity of surrounding and proposed residences. In concluding I have taken account of the letters
of support. I also consider that the impact upon and loss of existing trees to be of detrimental
impact to the amenity of the area and character of the site. I have no highway objections to the
proposal. I recommend that planning permission be refused for the following reasons.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents by
reason of its height, scale, siting and overbearing effect on the living conditions of the
occupiers of neighbouring properties and gardens which would be contrary to policies DEV1
of the Adopted City of Salford UDP and to DES1 of the Revised First Deposit Draft
Replacement Unitary Development Plan.
2. The proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of future occupiers of the
development by reason of its height and siting producing aspects that are sub-standard which
would be contrary to policies DEV1 of the Adopted City of Salford UDP and to DES1 of the
Revised First Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan.
3. Standard Reason RR29C Amenity/Loss of Trees
4. The proposed development by reason of its scale, mass, siting and design would seriously
injure the setting of the listed building and as such the proposal is contrary to policies EN12,
EN13 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 1995 and policy CH4 of the
Revised First Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan 2003.
5. It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development can be carried out without
harming features of archaeological interest on the site that should be recorded or preserved in
accordance with policy EN14 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and Policy
CH7 of the Revised First Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan 2003.
6. The proposed development would not provide adequate on site open space to the detriment of
the living conditions of future occupiers of the development by reason of the siting and
footprint of the blocks and the areas taken up by hardstanding which would be contrary to
policies DEV1 of the Adopted City of Salford UDP and to DES1 of the proposed alterations to
the UDP.
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/46505/LBC
APPLICANT:
Leaway Manchester Limited
LOCATION:
Monks Hall 42 Wellington Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Listed Building Consent for conversion of existing building to
four flats, erection of one three storey, one four storey block
comprising 17 flats, one pair of semi detached houses and
creation of new and alteration to existing accesses
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the existing Monks Hall situated at the corner of Wellington Road and
Monks Hall Grove. Monks Hall, dating back originally to Tudor times when it was a farmhouse, is
a Grade II listed building and has recently been in use as a restaurant and office. Previous uses
have included use by a doctors surgery and as a museum by the City of Salford. The building is
part two storey and part single storey and is double fronted facing Wellington Road where it its
highest ridge line is 8m. To the rear of the building are a number of single storey extensions with
the highest ridge height here being 7.25m. The building is situated in the southwest corner of the
site and has a footprint of 273sq.m. within the total site area of 3,185sq.m. The rest of the site is
covered by a mixture of lawn, planting and car parking. There are two vehicular access points from
Monks Hall Grove and an additional pedestrian access to Wellington Road. The rectangular site is
surrounded by several mature trees whilst some established trees are also found within the site.
Listed Building Consent is sought for the conversion of the existing building into four self
contained flats. The conversion would involve the taking down of some extensions together with
external and internal alterations. Permission is also sought for the erection of three blocks
containing a total of 19 flats, one 4 storey, one 3 storey and one 2 storey block within the grounds
of Monks Hall. On the submitted plans the developer has labelled Monks Hall as block A, the 4
storey block as block C, 3 storey block B and 2 storey as block D. Each block would sit in one
corner of the rectangular shape site. A total of 23 units are proposed on the site.
Monks Hall itself would be converted into four flats each with rooms on ground and first floors.
Three single storey extensions are to be demolished, including the conservatory, whilst one single
storey part is proposed to be rebuilt. The ridge height of the existing single storey extension at the
southwest of the building is to be raised and two rooflights are proposed. Internal partitions are to
be added and some existing walls are to be removed with two void roof spaces being created as
well. Some windows are proposed to be blocked up with replacement windows proposed to all first
floor windows.
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
Block C (4 storeys) would be in the north east corner of the site and would rise to a height of 13m
with a footprint of 184sq.m. This block would be 23m at its nearest point from the rear of houses
on Albert Road, although no habitable room windows face properties on Albert Road. This block
would be about 1.5m from an 11m high Silver Birch tree along the eastern boundary and 6m from
trees to the northern boundary and 1m from the rear gardens of properties on Albert Road. An
existing Ash tree sits where the building would be constructed. Block C would be 16m from
Monks Hall and would be 15m from block B.
Block B (3 storeys), 11.5m in height and footprint of 233sq.m. would be in the north west corner of
the site and would front onto Monks Hall Grove, positioned between Monks Hall and 2 Monks
Hall Grove. Block B would be 8m from the gable end and 11.8m from the outrigger with habitable
room at first floor of 2 Monks Hall Grove. It would be 26m from the properties across Monks Hall
Grove and would protrude 3m beyond the established building line of Monks Hall Grove. This
block would be 13.4m from Monks Hall and would be 1m from a line of trees along the northern
boundary of the site including two Ash trees at 14m and 15m in height.
Block D (2 storeys), 8.5m in height and footprint of 106sq.m., is a pair of semi-detached dwellings
fronting onto Wellington Road and in line with the forward building line of Monks Hall. The block
is set behind the building line of the adjacent dwelling at 40 Wellington Road by 6m and would be
10m from the same dwelling which has habitable windows on three floors facing this block. This
block would be 12m from Monks Hall. The block would be less than 1m from a line of poplar trees
to the western boundary which stand around 17m in height.
A new vehicular entrance is proposed from Monks Hall Grove and the existing vehicular entrances
would be closed. The proposal involves18 identified on site car parking spaces, including
provision of three disabled bays. A cobbled courtyard area is also proposed, between Monks Hall
and Monks Hall Grove where additional parking could be provided. Cycle parking is proposed
within the site.
The application has been submitted with a planning statement, a tree report, development appraisal
and an enabling development statement. The planning statement asserts that Monks Hall is the
oldest non-ecclesiastical building in Eccles with part of the building dating from the late 16th
Century. The statement also declares that re-use of the existing building will have a positive
impact upon the historic building and that the three proposed blocks will also have a beneficial
impact on the listed building and surrounding streetscape. The tree report explains that some trees
on the site are proposed to be removed for development and some are shown as being retained.
The enabling development statement asserts that the applicant believes the proposal is acceptable
in it’s own right but submits an enabling argument to add weight in justifying the necessity of the
proposal. The applicant suggests that the only way to convert Monks Hall so that it is saved as a
heritage asset is by raising money from new residential units in the grounds to pay for the
conversion and that this is the minimum amount of development required to pay for the conversion
of Monks Hall into a viable use. The applicant explains that a number of other uses have been tried
for Monks Hall and have failed. The enabling statement also explains that English Heritage state
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
that enabling development should not be allowed if a listed building could be repaired and given a
viable use.
An associated application for Planning Permission 03/46504/FUL also appears on this agenda for
a decision.
PLANNING HISTORY
In June 2003, a planning application and a Listed building application for the conversion of Monks
Hall to four flats and the erection of one two storey, one three storey and one four storey block in
the grounds, were withdrawn by applicant after they were placed on the Panel agenda with a
recommendation for refusal (03/46049/FUL & 03/46050/LBC).
In 2002, planning permission was granted for the change of use from from restaurant to
educational facility (02/44852/COU).
In 2002, listed building consent was granted for change of use from restaurant to educational
facility requiring minor remedial works/alterations (02/44853/LBC).
In 1997, Listed Building Consent was granted for amendments to the existing permitted external
and internal alterations (97/36620/LBC).
In 1997, planning permission was granted for continued use as a restaurant without complying
with Condition No. 8 (no tables for consumption of meals outside building)of planning permission
95/34284/COU (97/36294/FUL).
In 1996, planning permission was granted for Change of use from museum (class D1) to public
house (class A3) at ground floor with ancillary residential
accommodation at first floor (96/34938/DEEM4).
In 1995, consent was granted for alterations to form public restaurant (95/34399/LBC).
In, 1995 planning permission was granted for the conversion to form public restaurant together
with associated car parking (95/34284/COU).
CONSULTEES
English Heritage – Consider that the application represents over-development of a restricted site.
Also express concern over the architectural style, and materials, that have been adopted for the
proposed new built elements. Concern also over the mis-quotation of Victorian detailing and
replication on out of scale and misshapen blocks which does not represent appropriate
architectural language for the setting of the listed building. To date no comments have been
received regarding the enabling development statement.
Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to a condition requiring a PPG24
noise assessment.
British Coal – No objections
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – Explains that there is archaeological interest at the site.
Explain require information on the fabric of the historic timber and that land around Monks Hall
may contain significant buried remains relating to the early medieval origins of the site and the
scale of development proposed would result in a requirement for archaeological excavations
which may determine where development could be situated. GMAU consider that the massing and
large scale of enabling development around the Hall is inappropriate to the setting and proportions
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
of the listed hall building. GMAU recommends that should planning permission be granted a
condition requiring a programme of archaeological work should be imposed.
Environment Agency – No objections
Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Explains concerns about the openness of the scheme and
possibilities for crime to occur.
United Utilities – No objections and provides the applicant advice.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was displayed on 17th July 2003.
Site notices were posted on the 10th July 2003.
The following neighbours have been consulted:
2 –16 even Abbey Grove
5 – 7 &11 Abbey Grove
Priory Court and Abbey Court, Abbey Grove
3 – 27 odd Albert Road
4 – 12 even Albert Road
2 –8 even Monks Hall Grove
5 – 19 odd Monks Hall Grove
38 – 40 even Wellington Road
44 – 48 even Wellington Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 29 letters in response to the application publicity. I have also received 20
questionnaires that were designed by the applicant, completed by individuals and then submitted
by the applicant.
I have received 14 letters of support and 15 letters of objection. Of the 14 letters of support 8 are
from outside the immediate area (i.e. not on a surrounding road/connecting roads) and 6 are from
within the immediate area. Of the 15 letters of objection 13 are from occupiers of dwellings in the
immediate area whilst two are from outside the immediate area.
The comments of letters of support and objection are as follows:
Support
The area needs upgrading
Have to pay for restoration somehow
Proposal would bring in owner occupiers
Noise problems exist from the current restaurant use
The proposal would improve the view of the area
Don’t want Monks Hall to fall into disrepair
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
Objection
Not enough car parking given the site is close to a motorway junction as well as public
transport facilities
Increase of on street parking
Entrance should be on Wellington Road
The building heights are excessive
The number of dwellings proposed should be reduced
The proposed blocks are too close to existing dwellings with regards to privacy and
sunlight/daylight
Trees should be retained
Trees should be protected by a tree preservation order
Harm to the character of the area
Block B breaches the forward building line of Monks Hall Grove
Blocks B & C dominate the site and are too tall
The proposal does not preserve the appearance and character of the listed building
A Covenant means that the gardens are supposed to be open for use by local people
A covenant restricts the renting out of dwellings or use as public houses in the area
I have also received a letter from the Advanced Life Support Group, the applicant of permissions
02/44852/COU & 02/44853/LBC listed above, explaining that their proposals involved no
construction in the grounds of Monks Hall. They also explain their offer for the site was initially
accepted and surveys carried but was then turned down by the vendor due to another party
submitting a higher tender.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES
EN12 Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings, EN13 Works to Listed Buildings
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICIES
CH2 Works to Listed Buildings, CH4 Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policies EN12 and EN13 require that permission should not be granted if a proposal detracts from
the architectural or historic interest in the listed building or detracts from the setting of the listed
building. The above policies are contained within the Adopted UDP whilst the policies within the
First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan, although similar in many respects should be given less
weight than those of the adopted plan. CH2 requires alterations to respect the special architectural
merit or historic interest and requires new uses to secure the long term future of the building. CH4
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
explains permission will not be granted if a proposal causes harm to the setting of the listed
building in terms of siting, scale and quantity.
There are two main aspects to this proposal; the alterations and change of use of the existing
Monks Hall building and the erection of three blocks within the grounds of Monks Hall. I shall
address each aspect in turn however a decision has to be made on both aspects together.
The change of use of the existing listed building into four flats would allow the building to be
converted to its original residential use and would provide a stabilised use which would be in line
with policies EN12, EN13 and CH2 of the UDPs and also national guidance within PPG15, in this
respect I agree with the letters of support. Although this would be acceptable in principle the actual
internal and external alterations to convert the property into four self contained flats need to be
considered. The applicant has stated new partitions would be reversible and existing windows
would be reused which I consider to be appropriate. I consider the internal and external work
would not harm the integrity of the listed building. Indeed the application has been amended to
show that the very old single storey extension to the northwest of the building will be retained and
underpinned as existing. The proposed changes to the listed building including the taking down of
the modern conservatory and making good the original wall and the reuse as flats and the
submitted layout can be considered to be acceptable and would be welcomed alterations for the
future safeguarding of the building. I consider that the proposed alterations to Monks Hall to be in
accordance with policies EN12, EN13 and CH2.
The three proposed blocks and the conversion of Monks Hall would provide a mix of dwelling
types which is in accordance with policies. The site density at 72 units per hectare would perhaps
at some sites close to major public transport nodes and Eccles town centre be acceptable however
the density proposed here has a direct impact upon the character and setting of the listed building
and the character of the surrounding area including residential amenity. I consider Monks Hall to
have an open feel given existing gaps around the building and established trees at the boundary of
the site. Block D is of a similar height to Monks Hall whilst blocks B and C are one and two storeys
higher respectively than Monks Hall and would appear taller and bulkier than Monks Hall. Block
C would also sit 3m forward of the existing building line.
I consider the proposals to have a detrimental effect upon the setting of the listed building and a
harmful effect on the street scene. Blocks B, C and D together take up slightly under 20% of the
total land surrounding the listed building and when considered together with additional
hardstanding areas and bin stores would have an impact on the setting of Monks Hall. English
Heritage advise that the proposed blocks are poorly designed with regard to the architectural style,
proposed materials and misquotation of Victorian detailing. I agree that the blocks are not
appropriate within the setting of the Listed building. Given the close proximity of all the blocks to
the historic Monks Hall, the height of the blocks and breach of the building line I agree with the
objections received and consider that a significant detrimental impact would result upon the setting
of this listed building and consider the proposal to be contrary to policies EN12, EN13, and CH4. I
consequently consider that the density of this proposal to be too great for this particular site. An
additional issue raised by GMAU relates to concern about the effect of the siting of the proposed
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
buildings on archaeological remains with the site. Whether there are any features of interest and
their location have not been surveyed.
Given the above appraisal of the application I am of the opinion that the proposal is contrary to
planning policies. As such the appraisal must now turn to the enabling argument put forward by
the applicant. English Heritage have provided clear guidance on this matter in their document
‘Enabling development and the conservation of heritage assets’. This policy statement explains
that: “English Heritage has become increasingly concerned by the damage caused by
developments contrary to established planning policy, put forward primarily as a way of benefiting
heritage assets, but which destroy more than they save. Our experience [English Heritage’s] has
led us to conclude that there should be a clearly stated presumption against such ‘enabling
development’. Permission should only be granted if the asset is not materially harmed, and the
applicant convincingly demonstrates that on balance, the benefits clearly outweigh any
disbenefits, not only to the historic asset or its setting, but to any other relevant planning interests”.
The document further explains that each one of seven criteria have to be satisfied for permission to
be granted. The criteria relate to issues of setting of the listed building, fragmentation of the asset,
securing the long term viability of the asset, circumstances of the owner/purchase price paid for the
property, lack of other financial assistance, amount of enabling development is minimum
necessary and the value of the enabling development outweighs long-term cost to the community.
As stated above I consider that the proposal harms the setting of the listed building and may harm
archaeological interest, is detrimental to residential amenity and results in the loss of trees. The
letter received from the Advanced Life Support Group indicates that an alternative use would have
commenced as their offer to purchase Monks Hall was agreed and surveys were undertaken and
Planning Permission and Listed building consent had been granted. However a higher offer was
made and accepted by the vendor for the site by another party. Although grant assistance may not
be available for the property from this Council I am not satisfied that all avenues have been
exhausted and I am not convinced this level of development is the minimum needed. I have
assessed the enabling argument and conclude that several of the criteria have not been satisfied. As
such I consider the enabling argument put forward by the applicant to carry limited weight in the
assessment of this application. Members will also be aware that under the Planning (Listed
Building and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990 the Council do have powers to ensure that the owner
of the site safeguards Monks Hall.
In summary I consider the reuse of Monks Hall as four self contained flats to be a positive proposal
for the long term stability of the historic building. I consider that the siting, scale, mass, density
and design of the proposed blocks to be inappropriate to the setting of the listed building and to the
amenity of surrounding and proposed residences. In concluding I have taken account of the letters
of support. I also consider that the impact upon and loss of existing trees to be of detrimental
impact to the amenity of the area and character of the site. I have no highway objections to the
proposal. I recommend that planning permission be refused for the following reasons.
RECOMMENDATION:
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development by reason of its scale, mass, siting and design would seriously
injure the setting of the listed building and as such the proposal is contrary to policies EN12,
EN13 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 1995 and policy CH4 of the
First Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan 2003.
APPLICATION No:
03/46783/FUL
APPLICANT:
The Manchester United FC Ltd
LOCATION:
The Cliff Training Ground Lower Broughton Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Installation of floodlighting to existing football pitch
WARD:
Kersal
At a meeting of the Panel held on 20th November 2003 this application was withdrawn from
consideration to allow for further investigation of the history of lighting and planning refusals at
the Cliff and the intensification of the use.
Council minutes dating back to 1970 and 1971 show that two planning applications were refused
for replacement lighting (reference numbers 11823 and 11910). Unfortunately the City Council
no longer keeps the original application files for pre 1974 applications. However, with the
reference numbers provided, I have been able to inspect the ledger records. The applications
refused sought planning permission to erect 8 X 60 ft lighting columns to replace existing 20 X 30
ft poles. The reason for refusal on both occasions stated: “In the interests of visual amenity since
the proposed floodlighting towers would be an objectionable intrusive feature affecting a wide
area and would be detrimental to the appearance and character of the attractive area in which the
site is located.”
The applicant’s agent has also provided documentation as to the history of lighting at the Cliff with
particular reference to the lighting. A story about the first flood lit game at the Cliff is reported in
a news article in The Daily Mail, Friday January 26, 1951. In the article it states that the pitch was
lit by 32 1,500 watt lamps mounted in pairs on 35ft high poles. It is unclear from the photograph as
to whether the lighting was provided on both sides of the pitch, but it is clear that the lighting did
not point solely downward. No information have been provided as to why the lighting columns
were removed prior to the two applications in 1970/1.
I believe that the scheme proposed in this instance is significantly different, not only to the
refusals, but the previous lighting scheme. In this instance the technological advances in lighting
are such that the spillage is minimised. Further to the improvements in lighting technology, the
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
physical constraints of a grass pitch is such that the lighting could only be used approximately two
nights a week at most as grass is unable to rejuvenate and grow through the winter months when
the lighting is needed.
The applicant’s agent has provided a schedule of activities currently undertaken at the Cliff. The
activities include community work, development, academy, girls and women’s teams. The indoor
facilities allow the site to be operated until 9pm most days of the week with some activities until
10pm. The floodlighting would allow some of those activities to be provided outside as they can
be throughout the summer months. I do not consider that the floodlights would result in an
intensification of the site significantly beyond the current activities.
I am still of the opinion that the scheme should be approved.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Manchester United’s training facilities on Lower Broughton Road. This
proposal seeks to install 8no columns 16m in height located along each side of the existing outdoor
pitch.
The facilities at the Cliff Training Ground include both outdoor and indoor football pitches,
canteen and car park. The site is located within the Cliff Conservation Area. The pitch is located
to the north of the site, to the rear of the existing indoor facilities. The pitch is approximately 2m
lower the main level of the site. The residential properties on Lower Broughton Road are located
to the east of the pitch and are further raised above the height of the site.
The lighting is intended to be used primarily for the Academy (teenage football players) once or
twice a week until 10pm. The lighting may also be used on occasion for coaching ‘Football in the
Community’ children.
SITE HISTORY
In 1986, planning permission was refused for the use of the existing training building by General
Public for the viewing of spectator sporting events. (E/20576)
In 1995, planning permission was granted for the erection of extension to training centre to include
reception and changing, conference and viewing facilities. (95/34270/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
PUBLICITY
Two site notices were displayed on 9th September 2003
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
399 – 411, 417 – 431 (odd) Lower Broughton Road
2 – 46 (even) Hugh Oldham Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received nine letters and a twenty three named petition of objection in response to the
planning application publicity. The following issues have been raised:Parking problems
Noise
Litter
Crime
Fans
Impact of lighting on neighbouring bedrooms
Impact on Wildlife
Light pollution / spillage
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EN23 Croal Irwell Valley
Other policies:
DEV1 Development Criteria, EN12 Works to
Listed Buildings and Buildings Within Conservation
Areas
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CH5/5 Works within Conservation Areas, EN6 Irwell Valley
Other policies:
DES7 Amenity of users and neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 seeks to ensure good quality developments that respect surrounding uses/buildings
and that developments will have regard to a number of issues including environmental pollution.
Policy EN23 identifies the valley as an environmental and recreational resource. Policy EN12
seeks to safeguard listed building and conservation areas particularly applications for demolition.
The replacement plan policies are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
I have received several letters of objection and a twenty three named petition in response to the
application publicity. The main thrust of the objection from local residents relates to the impact of
the lighting on the conservation area and residential properties and the noise and general
disturbance of visitors aiming to watch the players training and undertaking matches. Some of the
letters received refer to a similar application to this application being refused previously, however,
I can find no record of any previous planning application for the installation of floodlight similar to
this application on this site
The applicant has made it clear that the floodlights would only be used when circumstances dictate
and it is not the case that the floodlights would be used for every single evening during the winter
months. The applicant’s agent has provided some supplementary information with regard the
likely use of the pitch requiring the use of the lights. The main point is that the matches
themselves, between the academy of Manchester United and other football clubs would be
finished by 9.30pm. The grass pitch is unable to sustain an intensive use through the winter
months when the floodlighting is needed. As such the applicant is proposing to use the lighting
until 10pm which would allow for the finishing of each game and tidying up, once or twice each
week. During the summer months the lighting would not be required. Further to the use of the
pitch by the academy, the lighting may also be used on occasion for coaching ‘Football in the
Community’ children.
With regard the issue of the light pollution and spillage. The design of the scheme is such that the
height of each column, 16m, will allow for the direction of the lighting itself to point directly
downward at the pitch. Thus ensuring that the lighting will not shine directly out of the site toward
the neighbouring residents.
The site is currently used by Manchester United for the training of the academy since the opening
of the facilities at Carrington. Since the opening of the Carrington training facilities the amount of
visiting fans and associated on street parking problems, noise and general disturbance to the
facility here at the Cliff has reduced. I am of the opinion that the use of the site for the academy
players, mainly teenagers, will not result in a similar situation and the number of visiting fans.
Moreover, the academy are current using the indoor and outdoor facilities at present . The current
car parking provision will remain unchanged and I do not consider that the use of the floodlighting
is likely to intensify the use of the site.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that the main planning issue in this instance it the likely effect of the
lighting on the neighbouring residential properties and the character of the conservation area.
The existing pitch is approximately 2.5m lower that the level of the car parking and buildings on
the site. The existing indoor facility and tree line boundary provides screening to the properties on
Hugh Oldham Road. The existing brick built changing and kitchen is located to the east of the
pitch which also screens the pitch to some of the resintial properties on Lower Broughton Road.
The properties on Lower Broughton Road are elevated above the height of the site, which again is
higher than the pitch level. The common boundary is defined a belt of mature trees.
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
The Council’s lighting engineer has assessed the technical details of the proposed lighting scheme.
He is of the opinion that the neighbouring residents would perceive that the lighting would result in
light spillage as there has been no lighting in this location previously. However, he is of the
opinion that the design of the scheme is such that it reduces light spillage to the adjoining
properties and that there is no upward light. Furthermore, the amount of light which could impact
upon the neighbouring properties would be minimal, less than one lux. The position of the TPO’d
trees to the rear of the those properties on Hugh Oldham Road and the position and height of the
existing indoor training facility would provide sufficient screening to the proposed lighting. The
height of the columns would ensure that the lighting can be directed downwards and not toward the
neighbouring properties.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the proposed lighting scheme coupled with the height of
columns and change in levels of the site and neighbouring properties would ensure that the lighting
does not impact upon the rear aspects of the neighbouring properties. I also consider that the
limited seasonal use of the floodlights would not be unreasonable in terms of the impact of the
neighbouring residential properties or the upon the character of the conservation area.
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that the lighting will not intensify the use of the site to the
detriment of the amenity of the wider residential area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The floodlights shall not be used between the hours of 10.00 pm and 10.00 am.
3. The lighting scheme hereby approved shall be installed in accordance with the supporting
letter and supplementary technical specification provided by Philips on behalf of the
applicant's agent, 3rd September 2003
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
3. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
APPLICATION No:
03/46879/FUL
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
APPLICANT:
Urban Splash/City Of Salford
LOCATION:
Residential Properties Within Field Street, Fir Street, Laburnum
Street, Ash Street, Reservoir Street And Alder Street Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing outriggers, erection of two storey
balconies, one wind turbine per dwelling and 48 garages at end of
blocks with creation of rear communal garden area providing
397 dwellings
WARD:
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an area of terraced housing situated between Langworthy Road and
Highfield Road, an area of housing which is within the Seedley and Langworthy regeneration area.
The site includes six roads along which the majority of the properties are currently vacant and
boarded up.
The proposal comprises several parts but in the main would result in the regeneration and retention
of the existing properties. The existing street frontages would be retained to all properties but at
the rear the existing outriggers would be demolished and a new 2 storey, steel balcony structure
would be erected. This would project out 1.5m and provide a timber terrace to both ground and
first floor level. A communal courtyard garden area would then be created between the backs of
all properties, enclosed at the one end by a new garage structure and at the other with secure gates.
New planting would be undertaken within this area which would also provide an additional
privacy screen to the properties facing each other.
Internally the accommodation would be completely remodelled with living areas raised to the open
volume at first floor and bedrooms and bathrooms located at the lower level. The result of this
remodelling would be that the total number of dwellings in the area would be reduced from 437 to
397.
In an effort to provide a more sustainable development each dwelling would have its own wind
turbine which would be erected at the rear of the unit.
The proposal would also see the creation of a “home zone” area delineated by electronic telescopic
bollards at the ends of the existing streets which would provide dedicated parking for residents
whilst maintaining pedestrian routes.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – no objections in principle.
Environment Agency – no objections.
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Officer – has no objection to the principle of the
proposal but does have concerns about elements of the current scheme but in particular it is
recommended that there should be a robust access control system at each end of the communal
garden area with a secure gate.
The Seedley and Langworthy Partnership – no comments received.
Director of Environmental Services – has requested details about the wind turbines following
concern about noise disturbance residents may experience.
The Ramblers Association – no objections.
Open Spaces Society – no comments received
Peaks and Northern Footpath Society – no comments received
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – no comments received
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 25th September 2003.
A number of site notices were displayed around the site on 23 September 2003.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
70 – 114, 128 – 134 (E) Highfield Road
1, 4 – 22 Jubilee Street
100 – 176 Langworthy Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the planning application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H7 Housing Area Improvement and Renewal
Other policies: H3 Maintaining and Improving Private Sector Housing,
DEV4 Crime and Design, DEV3 Alterations/Extensions, DEV2 Good Design
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 Provision of new housing development, H3 Housing Improvement, DES11
Design and Crime, DES8 Alterations/Extensions, DES7 Amenity of users and Neighbours, DES1
Respecting context
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy H7 outlines the Council’s support for the improvement of the Langworthy/Seedley area, in
accordance with Policy H3.
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
Policy H3 states that the Council will seek to maintain and improve older private sector housing by
promoting a number of measures, including improving housing stock and the improvement of the
residential environment.
Policy DEV2 states that planning permission will not normally be
granted unless the Council is satisfied with the quality of the design
and the appearance of the development.
Policy DEV3 requires all applications for alterations and extensions
to respect the general scale, style, proportion and materials of the
existing structure and to complement the general character of the
surrounding area. The amenities of neighbouring residents should
also be respected.
Policy DEV4 encourages greater consideration 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 provision
of security features.
Policy H1 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP states that new housing development
should contribute to the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area.
Policy H3 supports a range of housing improvement schemes, including refurbishing and adapting
the housing stock to meet local and special needs.
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the
character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this
policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings
and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.
Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of
amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers
or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
Policies DES8 and DES11 update policy DEV3 and DEV4 respectively of the Adopted UDP.
As the proposal involves the refurbishment, adaptation and improvement of existing housing, I
consider that the proposal accords with Policy H3 of the Adopted UDP and draft policies H1 and
H3.
The courtyard garden areas, to the rears of the dwellings created as a result of the demolition of
outriggers and rear yards, would be secured by gates at one end and garages at the other. As a result
of comments from the Police Architectural Liaison Officer (ALO), I have attached a condition
requiring CCTV cameras to be provided within the site, which would also help to improve
security. The proposed electronic telescopic bollards at the ends of the existing streets would be
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
operated by individual remote control provided to residents, which would provide an additional
measure of security. In light of the ALO’s comments, I have attached a condition requiring full
details of the proposed gates to be submitted and approved in order to ensure that they are
appropriate. I am therefore satisfied that, subject to appropriate CCTV and gates, the proposal
accords with Adopted Policy DEV4 and draft Policy DES11.
Although the proposal would not accord with the Council’s separation distances due to the
proposed balcony structures to the rear of the dwellings, which would be in the region of 8.5m
apart, I consider there to be a number of reasons which justify the approval of this application. The
existing dwellings already fall short of the separation distance ordinarily required and I therefore
consider that the principle has been established. The proposed balcony/terrace to the rear of the
properties would go some way to alleviating any overlooking and loss of privacy to the main
lounge/living areas. The utilisation of adjustable external privacy blinds to the rear balconies and
planting within the courtyard areas would also assist in reducing any loss of privacy. Subject to the
submission and approval of materials to be used for the external elevations, I consider the works
proposed to be of an appropriate scale, proportion and design and that they complement the
existing buildings. I therefore consider that the proposal accords with Adopted policies DEV2 and
DEV3 and draft policies DES1 and DES8.
The application also proposes the installation of a wind turbine to each of the properties, which the
applicants have confirmed would generate power for parts of the scheme. I am still awaiting
further additional information on this issue from the applicant, and confirmation from the Director
of Environmental Services that the turbines would not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on
residents. This will be reported verbally at the Panel meeting.
In conclusion, I consider that the proposal would have significant regenerative benefits in an area
which currently comprises a significant number of vacant premises. It would result in the re-use
of a large number of dwellings, many of which are currently vacant and boarded up and as a result
would improve the appearance of the area. I am satisfied that the application accords with the
relevant provisions of national and local planning policy and therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the
external elevations and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Director of Development Services.
3. The development hereby approved shall not be commenced until the appropriate order for the
closure or diversion of the public right of way affected by the development has been made.
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, full details of the CCTV
cameras, including locations and colour treatment, shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Director of Development Services. The installation of the cameras shall be
undertaken in accordance with the approved details and the cameras shall be installed and
operational prior to firt occupation of any of the dwellings.
5. Notwithstanding the information submitted as part of the application, full details of the garages
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The
construction of the garages shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details and
shall be available for use prior to first occupation of any of the dwellings.
6. 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.
7. Notwithstanding the information submitted as part of the application, full details of the
adjustable external privacy blinds shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director
of Development Services. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to first occupation
of any of the dwellings.
8. Notwithstanding the information submitted as part of the application, full details of the gates to
the rear courtyard areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the first
occupation of any of the dwellings
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
7. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/47014/FUL
APPLICANT:
Bnos Yisroel School
LOCATION:
Bnos Yisroel Schools Leicester Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a three storey classroom building with link corridor
to existing school at first and second floor levels
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the Bnos Yisroel Schools, Leicester Road, Salford 7. It is proposed to
erect a three storey classroom block with a link corridor to the existing school at first and second
floor levels.
The site, to the south of the existing school building, is currently occupied by a portacabin and a
single storey building, which would be demolished in order to accommodate the proposal. To the
east of the site is a nursing home and to the west is Leicester Road. Between the application site
and Leicester Road are a number of trees and a car parking area, with 17 spaces currently provided
in marked bays. The car park is separated from the application site by a 2m high palisade fence.
The proposed extension would be 15.2m by 27m. It would be sited 3m from the southern boundary
and would be a minimum of 13.8m from the eastern boundary. The proposed link between the
existing building and the proposed extension would be 2m wide and 3.6m long. The link would be
3.4m from the ground and would be an additional 5.2m in height. The ground floor of the proposed
extension would provide nursery and reception accommodation. Classrooms would be located on
the first floor with a gymnasium and changing facilities on the second floor. The proposed
extension would be 9m in height to the eaves and 13m to the ridge. A play area for nursery pupils
would be provided to the rear of the site, between the proposed extension and the nursing home
with a playground for primary school pupils to the front of the site, between the existing car park
and the proposed extension.
SITE HISTORY
In 2002, planning permission was granted for the retention of two portable buildings on the site for
a temporary period of five years (ref: 02/43915/FUL)
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
CONSULTATIONS
The Director of Environmental Services – no objections to the principle of the development, but
recommends a number of conditions relating to hours of use, site investigations and acoustic
glazing
Early Years Team – no objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 21st November 2003
A press notice was published on 27th November 2003
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2, 63-65 (O), The Old Library, Leicester Road
Cherry Trees Nursing Home, Mandley Park Avenue
1 Broom Lane
43, 45, 38-44 (E) Tetlow Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:
Increase in noise
Loss of privacy
Loss of light
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV3 – Alterations/Extensions
SC4 – Improvement/Replacement of Schools
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 – Alterations and Extensions
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
EHC0A – Provision and Improvement of Schools and Colleges
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria to which regard should be had in the determination of
planning applications. Of most relevance to this application are the location and nature of the
proposed development, the visual appearance of the development and the impact on sunlight,
daylight and privacy for neighbouring properties.
Policy DEV2 states that planning permission will not normally be granted unless the Council is
satisfied with the quality of the design and appearance of the development.
Policy DEV3 requires all applications for extensions to existing buildings to respect the general
scale, style, proportion and materials of the original structure. The amenity of neighbouring
residents should also be respected.
Policy SC4 outlines the Council’s support for the improvement of schools to ensure that they are
sufficient to meet local needs.
Policy DES1 of the Revised Deposit Draft UDP requires development to respond to its physical
context and respect the character of the local area. In assessing the extent to which proposals
comply with this policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the scale of the
proposed development in relation to its surroundings and the appropriateness of the proposed
materials.
Policy DES7 states that developments which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity
of the occupiers or users of other developments.
Policy DES8 updates Policy DEV3 of the Adopted UDP.
Policy EHC0A states that planning permission will be granted for the improvement of schools
subject to a number of criteria, including where the development would not have an unacceptable
impact on the amenity of neighbouring users.
I will deal with each of the objections received in turn. I have attached conditions relating to the
hours of use of the outdoor play area and gymnasium and the provision of acoustic glazing to those
windows facing the nursing home. I am therefore satisfied that these conditions will address the
concerns relating to potential increases in noise as a result of this proposal and that there would be
no detrimental impact on the amenity of adjoining occupiers as a result.
The proposed extension would be a minimum of 13.8m from the southern boundary, and in the
region of 17.6m from the rear of the nursing home. Given this distance, the number of trees on the
boundary and the fact that the application site is in the region of 2-3m lower. I do not consider that
there would be any detrimental impact on the residents of the nursing home in terms of loss of light
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
or privacy and am satisfied that the application complies with policies DEV1 and DEV3 of the
Adopted UDP and policies DES7 and ECH0A of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP.
In terms of the design of the proposed extension, I have attached a condition requiring samples of
the materials to be submitted prior to the commencement of the development. The applicant has
indicated that the walls would be brick, with a mid-grey metal deck roof. Between the windows of
the second floor, it is proposed to install white glasal panels. I am satisfied that the materials
proposed are acceptable, particularly in view of the fact that the extension would be located a
significant distance from the main road and would not be highly visible from the surrounding area
due to the number of trees which surround the site. I am of the opinion that the proposed extension
is of a suitable size and scale in relation to the existing building. I therefore consider the
application to be in accordance with policies DEV1, DEV2 and DEV3 of the Adopted UDP and
policies DES1 and DES8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP.
The School considers some of the existing accommodation to be unsatisfactory to serve the
purposes for which it is required. The School is also keen to provide additional accommodation for
an early years facility and pupils with special needs. The existing PE facilities are also considered
to be inadequate. The Early Years Team has been consulted on this application and has no
objection to the principle of teaching facilities for the under 8s in this location. On the above basis,
I consider that the proposal accords with Policy SC4 of the Adopted UDP.
Car parking is currently provided to the front of the site for the proposed extension. There are
currently 17 spaces in marked bays. The applicant has confirmed that no new members of staff
would be employed as a result of this proposal. I am therefore of the opinion that the existing car
parking provision is sufficient and I have no objections to the application on highway grounds.
There are a number of trees to the rear of the site. These are located on top of a retaining wall and
are predominantly self seeded sycamores. The Council’s arboricultural officer has confirmed that
these trees would not be affected by the proposed development.
In conclusion, I do not consider that there would be a detrimental impact on neighbouring residents
as a result of this application by virtue of noise or loss of light or privacy. I consider the proposed
siting, design and materials to be acceptable. The application accords with the relevant policies of
both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs. 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
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
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.
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 first occupation all windows and openings to rooms at the east elevation of the
application site, those facing the care home, shall be acoustically dual glazed to the standards
of the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (as amended). An alternative would be to install
sealed double glazed units comprising glass of 10mm laminated 6.4mm with a 12mm air gap.
The unit shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations to avoid air
gaps when fitting the frames and should be kept closed at all hours of school activity.
Alternative means of ventilation, which must be sound attenuated, should also be provided.
5. The outdoor play area and gymnasium shall only be used between the hours of 7.30am and
6.30pm Monday to Friday.
(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 R005A Amenity-neighbours
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
Note(s) for Applicant
1. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the
applicant is advised to contact the Pollution Control Section of the Directorate of
Environmental Services (0161 793 2139)
2. Connections to the sewer require approval from United Utilities
APPLICATION No:
03/47016/FUL
APPLICANT:
Recomac Surfacing Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By Hilton Lane/ Parsonage Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two - two/three storey buildings comprising 30
apartments together with associated landscaping, car parking
and construction of new vehicular access
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the existing Recomac site at the junction of Parsonage Road and Hilton
Lane and to a small adjoining piece of land that fronts Hilton Lane that is currently occupied by a
dilapidated single storey garage building.
The proposal would provide two, two/three storey buildings comprising of 30 apartments. The
three storey element would utilise the relief of the site with the three storey element located to the
south of the site, 11.6m from Hilton Lane. The gable of the two storey element would maintain
16.2m to the closet property on Parsonage Road.
The proposed main building would be 62m along the eastern boundary before returning along the
Hilton Lane Frontage for a distance of 25m. The smaller block would be located in the north
western corner, the footprint of which would measure 12.4m X 10m. Both elements would
measure 10m to the eaves and 16.6m to the ridge. The three storey element, parallel to Hilton
Lane, would measure 15.4m to the eave and 21m at the ridge. However, when viewed from
Parsonage Road the ridge and eave height would appear consistent. The entrance features would
have pitched canopies. This detailing is also incorporated into the front and rear roof detail.
Access to the site would be provided off Parsonage Road. Parking provision would be one per
apartment.
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
The site is bounded to the east by open land and a footpath beyond which is residential property
some 30m away. There is residential property on Parsonage Road and a car dealership opposite on
Hilton Lane.
SITE HISTORY
Outline planning permission was granted in 1993 for the use of the site for residential purposes
(93/31264/OUT)
Planning permission was approved in 1997 for the refurbishment of existing vehicle repair
workshop and offices to include installation of roller shutters, re-roofing and alterations to
elevations and erection of new perimeter fencing (97/36946/FUL)
In August 2002, planning permission was approved for the erection of two storey office building
(02/44522/FUL)
The siting of a temporary office building for five year was refused earlier this year
(03/45871/FUL)
The siting of a temporary single storey office building for one year (resubmission of application
03/45871/FUL) was approved earlier this year (03/46393/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – The previous use of the site is unknown and the potential
contaminating use of the adjacent site require a condition to be imposed regarding a contaminated
land survey. – Noise issue
The Coal Authority – no objections
Police Architectural Liaison – No objection, advice provided
Environment Agency – No objection
United Utilities – No objection
Network Rail – Provides advice
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 13th October 2003
A notice was displayed in the Advertiser 16th October 2003
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
98 – 128 (e) Bridgewater Road
440, 444, 489 – 509 (o) 521 and 523 Hilton Lane
1 – 17 (o), 14 – 20 (e) Parsonage Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:-
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
Access
Loss of privacy
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good
Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, T13 Car Parking, EN5
Nature Conservation, EN7 Conservation of Trees and
Woodlands
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES7
Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES11 Design and Crime, EN7 Wildlife
Corridors, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments, A15 Safeguarded Potential Transport Routes
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining
applications, including the visual appearance of the development, its relationship to its
surroundings and the amount, design and layout of car parking provision. Policy DEV2 seeks
quality through good design. T13 seeks to ensure adequate and appropriate car parking and
servicing. Policies EN5 and EN7 protect the walkway to the east of the site and the trees upon it.
The replacement plan policies are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
National planning policy guidance is also relevant. PPG3: Housing highlights the need to develop
previously developed brownfield sites and where appropriate higher densities should be
considered. Therefore the principle of a residential flatted infill development in this location is
acceptable and conforms to the general emphasis of PPG3. Furthermore, the principle of a
residential use on this site has already been established in 1993 when an outline consent for
residential purposes was approved.
The representation received in response to the application publicity raised two concerns. Firstly,
turning to the issue of privacy, the main bulk of the proposal along the eastern boundary would
maintain a minimum of 35m to the existing properties on Parsonage Road. Where the building
returns at the southern end of the site, the gable would front the gable of the closest property on
Hilton Lane. There are no habitable windows within this gable. The detached element, located to
the north west of the site, would be two storey and would maintain the sufficient separation of
16.2m at its closest to the front of the end terrace on Parsonage Road, as such I do not agree that the
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
proposal would result in a loss of privacy or constitute a dominant feature upon this resident.
Internal separation between proposed elements also maintains sufficient separation.
As the principle of residential has been established on this site, the main planning issues are the
design and relationship of the scheme to the neighbouring uses, the car parking and access and
trees.
The design of the scheme uses local vernacular features such as pitched roofs, facing brickwork
and window detailing. The massing of the scheme also reflects the terrace properties on Parsonage
Road and Hilton Lane. I am of the opinion that the siting of the bin stores would not impact upon
the neighbouring residents as they are contained within the site and resemble garages constructed
in materials to match that of the main proposal.
The letter of objection is concerned that the proposal will reduce the amount of on street parking
availability for the existing residents. The current use has a forecourt and two separate access
points which restricts car parking on the eastern side of Parsonage Road. This proposal would
provide a new single access into the site and 100% off street car parking provision. PPG13 seeks
to encourage more sustainable development through lower levels of car parking provision where
the site can be easily accessed by alternative means of transport. I am of the opinion that a 100%
car parking provision is supported by the guidance contained within PPG13. I have no highway
objection. I have attached a condition requiring details of the materials for the car park prior to the
commencement of development.
Finally, the City’s arboricultural officer has inspected the trees contained within the site and those
adjoining. The majority of the trees on the neighbouring sites are self seeded. However, those on
the linear walkway, when viewed collectively, have a high degree of amenity. The City’s
arboricultural officer is happy that the these trees would not be affected by this proposal.
Furthermore, sufficient separation is provided to ensure that they will not suffer from people
pressure in the future. One mature tree would have to be felled to accommodate the scheme.
However this tree is a less than average specimen and not worthy of retention.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that a residential use on this site is appropriate and subject to the
following conditions should be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls
and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
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, 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 contamination and underground 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 local planning authority prior to
the start of the survey, and recommendations and remedial works contained within the
approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of site.
6. Prior to the commencement of development a site investigation report should be submitted for
approval of the Director of Development Services. The investigation shall address the position
and any remedial works required in relation to drainage on the site.
7. Two trees shall be planted during the next available planting season to replace the sycamore
tree. The type and position of replacement trees shall be first approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
8. In order to establish clearly the noise environment at the proposed development the developer
shall submit an acoustics report detailing the ambient noise levels in the area about the
application site making reference to Planning Policy Guidance Note 24: Planning and Noise.
Where appropriate, the report shall identify any sound attenuation measures necessary to
protect the proposed dwelling, and which will ensure a reduction of indoor noise levels to
below 35dB(A) LAeq as set out in the WHO Guidelines for Community Noise 1999. The
report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority PRIOR to the commencement of the
development and all identified sound proofing measures shall be implemented and retained for
the duration of approval.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R033A Vehicular access to building
5. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
6. In the interests of the local water environment.
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
8. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
APPLICATION No:
03/47037/FUL
APPLICANT:
Mr Steinmez
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To 5 Hope Street Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of four - three storey town houses together with
associated car parking and creation of new vehicular access
WARD:
Kersal
At a meeting of the Panel held on 20th November 2003 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Since writing my report I have received an additional six letters of objection to the proposal, one of
which has been signed by sixteen residents. The issues raised are as follows:
There is a covenant which limits the use of part of the site to domestic garden purposes
only
A right of way runs through the site
Insufficient car parking
Increase in traffic
The properties should be set further back into the site
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
The dwellings are not in keeping with the character of the Conservation Area
Loss of privacy for residents on Hope Street
The first two issues regarding the covenant and the right of way have already been discussed in my
report. I will therefore deal with the remainder of the issues raised in turn.
In light of the Council’s maximum car parking standards, I consider the number of car parking
spaces currently proposed to be acceptable. I do not consider that an additional four houses on this
site, a location formerly occupied by four dwellings, would lead to an unacceptable increase in
traffic in the area. I therefore have no objections to the application on highway grounds.
The properties would be sited 6m from the back of the footpath. A number of residents have
requested that the dwellings be set further back into the site than is currently proposed, as the
properties which previously occupied the site were sited in the region of 10m from the back of the
footpath. As these properties were demolished approximately 20 years ago, I do not consider that
this has should have weight in the determination of this application. I do not consider that the
proposed siting of the dwellings would detract from the character of the Conservation Area. There
is no well-defined building line on this side of Hope Street and I am therefore satisfied with the
siting of the proposed dwellings.
The proposed dwellings would be in the region of 28m from the properties on the opposite side of
Hope Street. Although the proposed dwellings would be slightly higher than those dwellings, I
consider the distance between them to be sufficient to ensure that there would be no loss of privacy
as a result.
I have also received comments from the Director of Environmental Services recommending that a
conditions be attached to the permission requiring acoustic dual glazing and mechanical
ventilation.
I remain of the opinion that the proposal is in keeping with the character of the Conservation Area
and would not have a detrimental on neighbouring residents.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land adjacent to 5 Hope Street, Salford 7. The site is located within the
Cliff Conservation Area. The dwellings which formerly occupied the site (nos. 1-7 Hope Street)
were demolished in the region of twenty years ago and the site has been vacant since that time. It is
now occupied by grass and shrubs. Surrounding properties are predominantly residential, although
there is a public house to the rear of the site.
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
It is proposed to erect a block of four terraced dwellings on the site. They would be sited 6m from
the back of the footpath and each would have a bay window at the front which would project 1.5m
from the main front elevation of the dwellings. They would be 6.8m wide, 9.2m in length, 6.4m to
the eaves and 9.7m to the ridge. Each of the properties would have a dormer window at the front.
Gardens would be provided to the rear of each property, with off-street parking to the front of the
proposed dwellings.
SITE HISTORY
In August 2003, an application for the erection of 4 five-bedroomed houses, 3 two bedroomed
apartments and 1 three bedroomed apartment, together with the creation of a new access and
closure of a public right of way was withdrawn as result of my concerns and the concerns of local
residents.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no comments received to date
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – no comments received to date
Open Spaces Society – no comments received to date
Ramblers’ Association – no objections
Peak and Northern Footpath Society – no comments received 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:
2, 2A Back Hope Street
4-28 (E), 2A, 2B, 2C Hope Street
444, 446, 452 – 462 Lower Broughton Road
1-24 Sarnia Court, 329, 378-382 Great Clowes Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of representation from one of the Ward Councillors in response to the
application publicity. The following issues have been raised:
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
That the right of way which runs between Hope Street and Back Hope Street is not closed
completely to maintain access to the rear of 452 Lower Broughton Road
That the land to the rear of the dwellings be used only for domestic garden purposes
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
EN11 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CH5/5 – Works Within Conservation Areas (The Cliff)
Other policies: H2 – The Location of New Housing Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 sets out 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 layout and
relationship of existing and proposed buildings and the visual appearance of the development.
Policy DEV2 states that planning permission for new development will not normally be granted
unless the Council is satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance of the development.
Regard should be paid to existing buildings, townscape and the character of the surrounding area.
Policy EN11 states that in considering applications for development in conservation areas, the
Council will assess the extent to which the development is consistent with the desirability of
preserving or enhancing the area. High standards of design, which are in keeping with the
character of the conservation area, will be encouraged.
Policy CH5 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP updates Policy EN11 of the Adopted
UDP.
Policy H2 outlines the presumption in favour of residential development on brownfield sites.
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context. In assessing the extent to
which this has been achieved, regard will be paid to a number of factors, including the relationship
to existing buildings and the scale of the proposed development in relation to its surroundings.
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
I will deal with the Councillor’s concerns in turn. A right of way currently runs through the
application site, between Back Hope Street and Hope Street. This development would necessitate
the partial closure of this footpath, namely that section running through the application site within
the ownership of the applicant and not that section which links the rear of 452 Lower Broughton
Road with Back Hope Street. Indeed, this section of the right of way has in large been inaccessible
to members of the public since the dwellings were demolished twenty years ago and the site fenced
off. The relevant bodies have been consulted with comments received from the Ramblers’
Association only, which does not object to the application. I have therefore attached a condition
requiring the relevant closure or diversion order to be obtained prior to the commencement of the
development.
The application site was purchased from the Council in 1996, at which time a covenant was
imposed. This stated that none of the land which was within the curtilage of the former dwelling at
7 Hope Street (to the east of the site) was to be used for any purpose other than domestic garden
purposes. For this development to proceed, the applicant, who is aware of this covenant, would
have to apply to have the covenant lifted. As this matter is the subject of separate legislation,
planning permission can be granted for the redevelopment of the site, but could not proceed until
the covenant has been lifted. I have attached an informative advising the applicant of this situation.
I do not however consider it reasonable or necessary to attach a condition restricting the use of the
land to the rear of the properties to domestic garden purposes only.
I consider the main issues in the determination of this application to be whether the principle of
residential development on this site is acceptable and whether the proposal would be in keeping
with the character of the conservation area. I will deal with each in turn below.
The site was occupied by houses until they were demolished approximately twenty years ago. The
site is a brownfield site within an urban area surrounded by residential properties. In light of the
above, I am of the opinion that the proposal accords with Policy H2 of the First Deposit UDP and
that residential development is acceptable.
The application has been discussed with the Council’s Conservation Officer, who is of the opinion
that it is in keeping with the character of the conservation area. The proposed design is similar to
that of surrounding residential properties, particularly in terms of the bay and dormer windows.
The detailing above and below the windows would also add interest to the proposed dwellings and
would again be similar to nearby houses. I have attached a condition requiring samples of
materials for the walls on roof of the proposed dwellings to be submitted prior to the
commencement of the development. This will ensure that the materials used are of a high quality
and in keeping with the area. Some of the surrounding properties have front driveways, as is
proposed by this application. The proposed development would enhance the character and
appearance of the conservation area and would greatly improve what is currently a vacant,
overgrown and unsightly piece of land. I consider that the proposal accords with the relevant
policies of the development plan in with regard to design and the conservation area.
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
In conclusion, I consider the proposed development to be acceptable. It would result in the re-use
of a previously developed site and would enhance the character and appearance of the
conservation area. I therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the
external elevations and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Director of Development Services.
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
and approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such
scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and
surface treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of
development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning
Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
4. The development hereby approved shall not be commenced until the appropriate order for the
closure or diversion of the public right of way affected by the development has been made.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R006A Character - conservation area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Connection to the sewer requires approval from United Utilities
2. The applicant is advised to contact the Council's Highways Maintenance Section regarding the
footway crossings
3. The applicant is advised to contact the Council's Property and Development Section on 0161
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
793 3794 regarding the covenant on part of the site
APPLICATION No:
03/47041/HH
APPLICANT:
C Lavelle
LOCATION:
1 Herevale Grange Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey rear extension and first floor extension
to front of dwelling
WARD:
Walkden South
At a meeting of the Panel held on 20th November 2003 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached house within an open plan residential estate. To the north the
applicant’s gable faces the rear of 102 and 104 Ellenbrook Road. To the south are other houses on
Herevale Grange and to the east is open land.
The proposal is for the erection of a single storey rear extension and a first floor extension to the
front of the house. The rear element of the proposal would project 4.5m along the common
boundary shared with 102 Ellenbrook Road. It would be ‘L-shaped’ and would extend across the
rear 9.9m. Away from the common boundary the projection from the rear of the house would be
only 2.9m.
The front element of the proposal would extend over the existing garage and study. It would
project 3.2m from the front wall of the house and would extend across 5.5m. It would be set in
2.5m from the common boundary shared with 104 Ellenbrook Road. The ridge of the proposal
would be at the same height as the ridge of the main roof of the house. This ridge would be 5.4m
from the common boundary and the roof would be pitched.
SITE HISTORY
In March 1994 planning permission was approved for the erection of a two-storey side extension
(94/32272/HH)
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal: No comments received.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2-4 Herevale Grange
102 and 104 Ellenbrook Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 4 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity, 3 of which
are from the resident of 104 Ellenbrook Road and one from the resident of 102 Ellenbrook Road.
The concerns of the resident of 104 Ellenbrook road relate primarily to the front element of the
proposal. He is of the view that the proposal would be too dominant and would lead to a loss of
light and overshadowing. He believes the resultant property would be out of scale with the
surrounding residential area and also feels the proposal would de-value his own property. He
makes specific reference to the height of the ridge of the proposed roof and believes that approval
of this proposal would result in the creation of a precedent allowing similar extensions elsewhere
on the estate. He makes reference to a previous two storey extension (94/32272/HH) on the
applicant’s house which is 12m away from the rear of his house which he feels already contravenes
the existing guidance of the City of Salford which asks for a minimum distance of 13m.
Photographs and a diagram have been submitted with his objection to support his arguments.
The occupier of 102 Ellenbrook Road is concerned that the proposal would shade her garden.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV8 – House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that development must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the
amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of
privacy or light. This is reiterated in Policy DES7.
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
The previous two storey extension was approved by this Panel in 1994. Although it does fall short
of today’s guidance which asks for a minimum of 13m, it was considered before this guidance
existed and was judged on its merits at that time. This report is to consider the application now
submitted and its impact upon neighbouring residents.
The rear element of the proposal would be approximately 8m from the rear of the conservatory of
102 Ellenbrook Road. There is a 1.8m fence and 3m laylandi trees which protect the common
boundary. I am of the opinion that, as there are other elevations of the conservatory through which
light can enter, this element of the proposal would not have a serious detrimental impact on the
amenity of this neighbour. The proposal is also in accordance with ‘Supplementary Planning
Guidance - House Extensions’ in that it would not project beyond a 45 degree line drawn from the
centre of the adjacent neighbour’s habitable room window. Therefore, I hold the view that the rear
extension would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbours living at 3 Herevale
Grange.
The front element of the proposal would be 14.5m from rear of 104 Ellenbrook Road.
Supplementary Planning Guidance asks for a minimum distance of 13m. The highest point of the
ridge of the proposal would be 17.4m from the rear of this neighbour’s house. Although, the
proposal would have some impact on the light of this neighbour’s property, I am of the opinion that
it would not be significant given the separation distance. With regard to the impact of the proposal
on the occupier of 102 Ellenbrook Road, only a small proportion of the front element of the
proposal would be visible from her property and so I hold the view that it would not have a
significant impact upon this neighbour in terms of loss of light/overshadowing.
The design and scale of the resultant dwelling, in my view, would not be out of character with the
surrounding residential properties. The design of the proposal is in keeping with the existing
dwelling and there are several other large properties on Herevale Grange. With regard to the
creation of a precedent for similar such developments to take place, any new proposal would be
considered on its own individual merits and no precedent would be set. Finally, the occupier of
104 Ellenbrook Road is concerned that the proposal would de-value his property. This is not a
material planning consideration.
In conclusion, I hold the view that the proposed front and rear extensions would not have an
unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents or the character of the street
scene. The proposal is I accordance with ‘Supplementary Planning Guidance – House
Extensions’. Therefore, I recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by
the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Coal Authority.
APPLICATION No:
03/47046/FUL
APPLICANT:
PSL Construction
LOCATION:
Land At Prescott Street Little Hulton Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two-three storey buildings comprising 20 apartments
together with a refuse store, associated car parking and
construction of new vehicular access
WARD:
Little Hulton
At a meeting of the Panel held on 20th November 2003 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant and overgrown piece of land on Prescott Street, Little Hulton.
The application seeks to erect two-three storey buildings comprising twenty apartments together
with bin store, boundary fencing/gate associated car parking and construction of a new vehicular
access.
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
The site is bounded by Prescott House to the north, a single storey structure providing health care.
The eastern side of the site provides access to the rear of the terrace properties on Hilton Lane. The
southern boundary comprises of a 1.8m waneylap fence, beyond which are the rear gardens of the
bungalows on Ellis Crescent. St Andrews Methodist Primary School, a single storey building
bounds to the west.
This proposal would provide two symmetrical three storey buildings located to the east and
western sides. Car parking for twenty three cars would be provided between the buildings.
Amenity space would be provided immediately adjacent to the buildings with the majority
provided to the west.
Each building would provide ten, two bedroom flats. Both buildings would measure 9.7m in
height at the ridge. The third storey would utilise space within the roof. The new buildings would
measure 11.8m wide by 18.2m in length across the main elements with a rear element of block A
extending to within 9.6m of the boundary with houses on Ellis Crescent, block B would be 6.4m
from the same common boundary and 22.6m from the gable of the No.6 Ellis Crescent. Block B
would maintain approximately 7m to the eastern boundary, some 29m to the rear of the properties
on Hilton Lane.
The windows and balconies of both rear elevations are angled to reduce the impact upon the
neighbouring properties.
SITE HISTORY
In 1989, outline planning permission was granted for residential purposes (E/25224)
In 1992, outline planning permission was granted for the erection of a single/two storey nursing
home (E/30028)
In 1993, planning permission was granted for the erection of a single/two storey nursing home
including external appearance (E/30613)
In 1996, planning permission was granted for the erection of a 37 bed nursing home together with
associated car parking and landscaping
A similar scheme for 28 apartments was withdrawn from consideration earlier this year
(02/46422/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – Provide advice
Environmental Agency – No objections
Greater Manchester Police – Recommends a number of security measures be added including
gating and secure access controls. The advice has been forwarded to the applicant.
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
Director of Environmental Services – No objection
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published in the Advertiser 16th October 2003
A site notice was displayed on 15th October 2003
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 7 (con) Ellis Crescent
20 – 54 (even) Hilton Lane
Prescott House & St Andrews Methodist Primary School, Prescott Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received four letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Overbearing
Too high
Increase in traffic / congestion
Highway safety concerns for neighbouring school children
Overlooking
Loss of light
Out of character
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV1 – Development Criteria, DEV2 – Good
Design, T13 Car Parking
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES4
Relationship of Development to Public Space, DES5 Tall Buildings, DES7
Amenity of Users and Neighbours, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and
Motorcycle in new Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining
applications, including the visual appearance of the development, its relationship to its
surroundings and the amount, design and layout of car parking provision. Policy DEV2 seeks
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
quality through good design. T13 seeks to ensure adequate and appropriate car parking and
servicing.
The replacement plan policies are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
National planning policy guidance is also relevant. PPG3: Housing highlights the need to develop
previously developed brownfield sites and where appropriate higher densities should be
considered. Therefore the principle of a residential flatted infill development in this location is
acceptable and conforms to the general emphasis of PPG3. However, the principle of PPG3 must
be balanced against the merits of the application and relationship to existing neighbouring uses.
The letters received are from the adjoining neighbouring residents to the south of the site, and raise
issues of overbearing, character and highway safety issues.
The proposed siting of block A (the closest to the properties at the rear) would maintain 25m to the
neighbouring gable. The design and position of the windows closest to this boundary have been
designed so that the future occupiers could not look directly over the neighbouring properties and
as such I do not believe that the proposal would result in a loss of privacy.
With regard to issues of character, loss of light and overbearing. The applicant’s agent has
amended the scheme from that previously withdrawn. The proposal is now two storey with the
third (penthouse) located within the roof space. The height of the ridge has been reduced from
12.4m to 9.7m (the elevations were previously 7.6m which has been reduced to 5.3m) and is
therefore similar in height to a traditional two storey dwelling, as such I do not consider that the
scheme would be out of character or overly dominant upon the single storey buildings on Prescott
Street and the bungalows to the rear.
With regard car parking the applicant’s agent has provided a scheme for twenty three spaces.
PPG13 seeks to encourage more sustainable development through lower levels of car parking
provision where the site can be easily accessed by alternative means of transport. Little Hulton is
serviced by a local bus service, I am of the opinion that 100% car parking provision with three
spaces for visitors is acceptable in this instance and would be supported by the guidance contained
within PPG13.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the principle of a residential use on this site is appropriate
and that the site, siting and design of both blocks would not result in any detrimental impact upon
existing neighbouring properties. I have not highway objection. Therefore, I am of the opinion
that this proposal should be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls,
roof, balconies and balustrading 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 implementation of the balconies on the southern elevation, full details of the
screening walls shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services. The screening shall be retained and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the
Director of Development Services
6. Prior to first occupation full details of the obscured glazing for the 'look a-like glazed panel' of
the development shall be approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The
glazing shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved details to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
7. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 4th November 2003 which shows
a revised car parking layout and balcony detailing.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R013A Use of parking areas
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
6. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
7. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the advice provided by United Utilities
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)
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
Additional Comments
Since this report was written one additional letter of objection has
been received from the Worsley Civic Trust. They are concerned that
no measurements are shown for the extension and they fear that it
is too close to the boundary with the properties on Waterbridge. They
also feel the modern design which incorporates a flat roof is not
in keeping with the Worsley Village Conservation Area.
With regard to the first objection raised, the plans do contain some measurements, and as the plans
are to scale, it is completely clear as to the dimensions of the proposed extensions and the distances
to the properties on Waterbridge. At the meeting of the Panel held on 4th December 2003 the
accuracy of the plans was raised as an issue by the occupier of 4 Waterbridge. Therefore, a
meeting was arranged with the objector and their architect to discuss this issue. After careful
discussion it was agreed that the applicant’s plans are slightly misleading in that they do not show
the correct orientation of the applicants property in relation to 4 Waterbridge, and in fact, they are
directly facing. However, it was also agreed that the separation distance between the two
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
properties was sufficient and was in accordance with ‘Supplementary Planning Guidance – House
Extensions’.
A second issue was also raised at this meeting relating to the windows of the proposed bathroom.
The objector was concerned that their property would be overlooked and requested the use of
obscure glazing to prevent this happening. This matter was taken up with the applicants and their
architect who explained that there would be a distance of 1.85m from floor level to the bottom of
the windows which are being fitted at a high level. Although the applicants explained it is their
intention to use obscure glazing in these windows, given their high level nature, it would be
unreasonable to attach a condition to ensure this taking place as I do not feel any overlooking
would result.
With regard to the second objection raised by the Worsley Civic Trust relating to design I refer to
the report below which takes account of it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At a meeting of the Panel held on 4th December 2003 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
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
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
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.
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 flat roof design and the impact on the Worsley Village Conservation Area.
The objectors have raised the following issues:
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION






18th December 2003
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
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.
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
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
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.
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
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:
03/47132/FUL
APPLICANT:
ExcellCare Ltd
LOCATION:
Site Adjacent To St Sebastians Parish Hall Between Concorde
Place And Douglas Green Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a new primary health and scoial care facility with
pharmacy together with associated car parking and alteration to
existing vehicular access
WARD:
Pendleton
BACKGROUND
In July 2000 the government published the NHS plan, a ten year plan for the modernising and
reforming the NHS. It identified the urgent need to improve primary care premises in England as
a key constraint to the development of the services. The plan states that the priority for investment
will be those parts of the country where primary care facilities are most in need of improvement.
The government has provided the NHS a vehicle for improving and developing primary and
community care facilities – NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT). The local LIFT will
be a joint venture between the Department of Health, the local healthcare community and the
private sector; to develop and encourage a significant increase in investment in primary care and
community based facilities.
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
There are 6 primary care trusts (PCT) in the area including Salford, which is co-terminus with the
City Council. Each of the PCT areas have growing communities which will need more and better
health and social care facilities for the foreseeable future.
The initial focus of the NHS LIFT will be on investment in those parts of the country, such as inner
cities, where primary care services are in most need of expansion. The Manchester, Salford and
Trafford area has been identified as the first wave LIFT and this application has been submitted in
this respect.
In March 2003 outline planning permission was granted for a new primary health and social care
facility (03/45523/OUT refers).
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application site amounts to some 0.28 hectares and unlike the outline planning permission
now includes St Sebastian’s Parish Hall and its thirty-space car park. In addition the site also takes
in all of the service road and the rear yards of the shops on Concord Place. Above the shops are
maisonettes. Access to the terrace that serves the maisonettes is gained via two stairwells at either
end of the block. There are residential dwellings on the opposite side of Douglas Green and St
George’s Primary School lies to the west. There are level differences of about 1.5m between the
site and Concord Place. The site is within the New Deal for Communities Area.
The proposed new building would provide accommodation for a range of health and social care
activities and a pharmacy. The main part of the proposal is for a two storey building connected to
St Sebastian’s hall. This connection will serve as a common entrance to both buildings.
The new building would occupy the land between the hall and Concord Place. This includes the
service road at the rear of Concord Place. A closure order will have to be sought. The building at
ground floor level would stand 6.5m from the reconfigured rear elevation of Concord Place. Here
the stairwells serving the terrace to the maisonettes would be turned 90 degrees allowing access
from either end of the block rather than within the now narrower service yard. At first floor level
the building would be indented along most of its length allowing a separation distance of 15.5m to
the maisonettes. However at the Douglas Green end part of the first floor would not be indented
resulting in a separation distance of 11.4m for an 11m stretch. Obscured glazing would be used to
a limited number of windows along this rear elevation.
The building would be designed with a shallow standing seam metal mono pitched roof the lower
end closest to Concord Place. The ground floor elevation would be mainly finished in brickwork
with the upper storey clad in metal composite panels. Full height glazed windows on the elevation
facing the hall would light the main waiting area and upper landing.
The applicant has submitted a travel plan a transport assessment in support of his application. In
detail pedestrian access for the public would be from Douglas Green into the shared entrance.
Three secure staff parking spaces would be provided in the rear yard Visitor parking would be
provided in the car park serving the hall. This car park would be improved and surveillance
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
provided via CCTV. In addition 3 disabled bays would be provided in a lay by on Douglas Green
along with a bus lay by. Servicing would take place in the rear yard and would normally consists of
a twice weekly delivery of supplies by a 20 tonne rigid vehicle; transit van deliveries serving the
pharmacy; a weekly collection of clinical waste and a weekly refuse collection.
The centre would operate 7 days a week between 07:00 to 23:00. It is anticipated that between
16-20 staff would be based at the centre.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No comments received.
The Coal Authority – no objections.
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Officer – No comments received to date.
GMPTENew Deal for the Communities- Support the scheme as it will deliver consistent and improved
health and social care facilities.
Ramblers- No objections
Peak and Northern Footpath Society- No comments received
Open Spaces Society- No comments received
GM Pedestrian Association- No comments received
PUBLICITY
A site notice has been displayed.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1 – 13 (inclusive) Concord Place
2 – 22 Douglas Green
St Sebastian’s Parish Hall
The Lowry Public House
St George’s, Concord Place
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection. The following issues are raised:
Proposed hours are too long
Concern that double yellow lines would be placed on Douglas Green restricting parking
and leading to theft of and from cars
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none.
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
Other policies:
SC9 Health Care Facilities, SC1 Provision of
Social and Community Facilities, SC2 Provision of Social and
Community Facilities by Private and Voluntary Agencies
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site Specific: None
Other policies: DES7 Amenity of users and neighbours; DES11 Design and Crime; A1 Transport
Assessments and Travel Plans; A2 Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled; A10 Provision of
Parking in New Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The principle of using this site (now in modified form) for the delivery of a comprehensive health
and social care activity has been firmly established with the grant of outline planning permission.
The proposal would provide new primary health and social care facilities and is therefore in broad
accordance with policies SC1, SC2 and SC9, which are all, seeking to improve, maintain and
support provision of social and community facilities within the city. SC9 also recognises the
importance of maintaining and improving comprehensive health care provision for its residents in
areas where social deprivation is concentrated. PPG13 also states that new intermediate health
facilities should, where possible, be located in town, district or local centres where they will be
highly accessible by non car modes of transport and where the facilities can reinforce the range of
services provided by these centres.
What remains to be considered is whether the siting, design and appearance of the new building is
acceptable having regard to its context and in particular its relationship to Concord Place. In
addition consideration needs to be given to the accessibility of the site both in terms of pedestrian
and vehicular movement and provision. Lastly the concerns of one neighbouring resident need to
assessed
The scale and massing of the building has been subject to negotiation to reduce its impact on
Concord Place. Even taking into account the difference in levels I find the separation distance
between the elevated maisonettes (i.e. at first floor) and the rear elevation of the new building
acceptable and in accordance with Council guidelines. The design of the building utilising
traditional and contemporary materials would enhance this site and its surroundings and maintain a
‘domestic’ scale. A simple but effective link is created between the existing hall and the new build.
I recognise that this site is fairly limited in terms of on site parking and servicing although the site
is on bus route with a bus lay by directly outside the main entrance. The drop off spaces will
provide good access to the main entrance. The use of the car park to the hall with its improved
surveillance would provide safe and secure parking for all visitors. The transport assessment
suggests that only 9 spaces would be required at the busiest times. The rear yard would provide
secure staff parking although it is limited to a hand-full of spaces due its narrowness and need to
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
enter and leave in a forward gear. It is clear that the travel plan will be important in reducing the
number of staff cars using the facility although it is recognised that some staff will be using the
centre as a base with home visits occurring away from the site.
There are no proposals to install double yellow lines on Douglas Green as part of this proposal.
The proposed hours of use are extensive but are designed to make the centre accessible to all its
likely customers. The site already adjoins a bus lay-by and St Sebastian’s Hall and its car park and
Concord Place all of which are more mixed in nature. Whilst the centre may make the immediate
area more vibrant and busy it is clearly linked to providing a comprehensive local health and social
care facility in an accessible location.
In conclusion the scheme has been subject to amendment to reduce the impact on the residents of
Concord Place both in terms of the physical relationship and securing access to their terrace. I
consider that the proposal would be of considerable benefit to the residents of Salford. I therefore
recommend that this application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls
and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
3. Within six months or a longer period as may be agreed in writing of the development first
becoming occupied a Green Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services. The Green Travel Plan shall include as a minimum those
elements included within the applicant's Transport Statement. The applicant shall on receiving
written approval for the Green Travel Plan from the Director of Development Services
implement its recommendations which shall be subject to review and adjustment on an agreed
basis.
4. Prior to the first occupation of the building hereby approved the associated highway
improvements and parking provision identified in the applicant's Transport Statement shall be
implemented in accordance with statement and submitted drawings.
5. The windows serving the interview rooms and landing at first floor level on the north east
elevation shall be obscure glazed prior to first occupation as shown on drawing no.
DG-TR-0100-DRA-2007/Rev P1 and maintained in such a condition thereafter.
6. Standard Condition C01X Landscaping
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
3. To accord with the stated intentions of the applicant and to encourage a reduction in reliance
on car use in accordance with policy A1 of the City of Salford Revised Deposit Draft
Replacement Unitary Development Plan 2003.
4. To ensure the building and site is accessible and secure for visitors and staff in accordance
with Policy A10 of the City of Salford Revised Draft Deposit Replacement Plan 2003.
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
6. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This permission shall relate to the amended plans referenced DG-TR-0100DRA-2005/RevP1; 2006/P1 and 2007/P1and 34068/Doug green/004 Rev A received on 25th
and 27th November 2003.
APPLICATION No:
03/47158/OUT
APPLICANT:
City Spirit Regeneration (Salf) Ltd/Salford In Partnership
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By Tully Street Bradshaw Street North Vincent
Street And Devonshire Street Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Outline application for the creation of community hub, outline
application for means of access of residential development and
full application for the construction of natural turf pitches and
artificial mini pitches
WARD:
Broughton
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a 7 hectare site in Higher Broughton, Salford 7. The application is in
three parts. The first is a full application for the creation of sports pitches on land bounded by Tully
Street to the east, Devonshire Street to the south, Bradshaw Street North to the east and Vincent
Street to the north. The site is currently occupied by terraced properties, some of which are vacant,
which are proposed to be demolished. The site would cover in the region of 1.7 hectares. It is
proposed to provide one adult turf pitch (which would accommodate two junior pitches), one
junior pitch and two artificial mini pitches. The pitches would be bounded by mesh fencing, which
would be 4m in height to the eastern, southern and part of the western boundaries and 3m in height
to the northern and remainder of the western boundaries. Differing heights are required due to the
changes in levels. Pedestrian access to the pitches would be provided to the north of the site, off
Vincent Street, where gates of 2m in height and 2m wide would be provided. Internal rebound
fencing up to 3m high would surround the proposed mini pitches. It is also proposed to provide tree
planting along the southern and eastern boundaries. Eight 8m high lighting columns would be
provided for the mini pitches.
The second part is an outline application for residential development on a 5.3 hectare site bounded
by Northumberland Street to the north, Tully Street to the west, Wellington Street East to the south
and Rigby Street to the east. Approval is sought for means of access, with all other matters
reserved for determination at a later date. Approval was originally sought for siting, but this has
since been reserved for determination at a later stage and all drawings showing the locations of
residential blocks and areas of open space are therefore only indicative. This site is currently
occupied by playing fields, which are to be re-located as described above. There are a number of
trees around the perimeter of the site, the majority of which would be retained as part of this
proposal. Access into the site would, in the most part, be achieved where those trees which are in a
poor condition or considered to be of least amenity value are currently located. A total of eleven
new access points into the site would be created – three from Northumberland Street, four from
Tully Street, one from Wellington Street East and three from Rigby Street.
The third part is an outline application with all matters reserved for the creation of a community
hub. Although no details have been submitted as part of this application, it is envisaged that this
area will include changing rooms associated with the proposed sports pitches and a car park,
amongst other community facilities. The proposed pitches and community hub would be the
subject of a management plan, the strategy for which is currently being prepared.
The application site is included in the area covered by Supplementary Planning Guidance for the
Higher Broughton Regeneration Area (SPG5), which was adopted in September 2003. This
supports the redevelopment of the existing playing fields for residential accommodation and their
relocation on land at Tully Street/Vincent Street/Devonshire Street/Bradshaw Street North.
CONSULTATIONS
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
Director of Environmental Services – recommends conditions requiring site investigations and
hours of use restrictions on the sports pitches
Sport England – no comments received to date
Ramblers’ Association – no objections
Peak and Northern Footpath Society – no comments received to date
Open Spaces Society – no comments received to date
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – comments received relating to pedestrian access
between the different sections of the site.
Environment Agency – no objections to the principle of the proposal but requests an informative
advising that only clean and surface water from roofs and paved areas should be discharged to any
surface water soakaway
United Utilities – no objections to the principle of the proposal but highlights a number of issues
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – no objections, but advises that safe and
convenient pedestrian access is incorporated into the development
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no objection to the principle of the
development but emphasises the importance of designing out crime and advises that appropriate
measures be included to control the entrances to pedestrian links and the car parks. Also requests
to be involved in the preparation of the reserved matters applications in order for any concerns to
be satisfactorily addressed prior to the submission of such applications. In terms of the proposed
sports pitches, the ALO recommends that the facility be secured at night, that the fence be let into
a ‘ring-trench’ constructed in, for example, weak-mix concrete or gravel and that a changing
facility be constructed.
The Coal Authority – comments received
PUBLICITY
Site notices were displayed on 28th October 2003
Press notices were displayed on 30th October 2003 and 20th November 2003
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1-11 (O), 2-12 (E) Cardiff Street
1, 27-47 Vincent Street
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
1, 7, 33, 37, 41, 47, 42-56 (E), 51-65 (O) Wiltshire Street
2-14 (E), 1-11 (O) Turner Street
1-11 (O) King Street
393-431 (O), Greek Orthodox Church, The House that Jack Built, 1-24, Newbury Place,
Bury New Road
13, 17, 23, 37, 47, 72-80 (E) Bradshaw Street
53-79 (O), Day Nursery, Rigby Street
2-22 (E) Devonshire Street
2-8 (E) Dixon Avenue
2-12 (E), 1-11 (O) Bond Square
5-7, 2-12 (E) Welbeck Grove
1, 3, 2-8 (E) Betula Grove
1, 3, 2-8 (E) Buddleia Grove
1, 3 Clivia Grove
50-64 (E) Tully Street
11, 13, 19, 21, 27-39 (O), 2-46 (E), 12A, 12B, 12C, 12D, Wellington Street East
1-5 (inc) Bramley Meade
1-9 (O), 6, 8 Ashbourne Grove
6-31 (inc) Stoney Knoll
Telephone Exchange, Rigby Street
Mandley Park School, 11, The Beenstock Home, Mackzikel Hadass Synagogue, 60-68 (E)
Northumberland Street
17, 35, Hampshire Street
1-11 (O), 15-25 (O) Legh Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received four letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:
The proposal infringes the Human Rights Act, in particular Article 1 of the First Protocol
There would be an increase in traffic
The proposal is illogical as it involves building on existing pitches and providing
replacement pitches elsewhere
There would be a detrimental impact on existing residents
The proposal is contrary to National Planning Policy and Regional Planning Guidance
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
H3 – Maintaining and Improving Private Sector Housing
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
H6 – Open Space Provision within New Housing Developments
H11 – Open Space Provision within New Housing Developments
R1 – Protection for Recreation Land and Facilities
R2 – Provision of Formal Recreation Facilities
SC1 – Provision of Social and Community Facilities
EN15 – Environmental Improvement Corridors
EN16 – Improving the Urban Environment
T10 – Pedestrians
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H9/7 – Sites for New Housing (Northumberland Street Playing Fields
(2.5ha)
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
ST11 – Location of New Development
DES2 – Circulation and Movement
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES11 – Design and Crime
DES13 – Design Statements
H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
H3 – Housing Improvement
H8 – Open Space Provision associated with New Housing Development
A1 – Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
A2 – Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
EHC1 – Provision and Improvement of Health and Community Facilities
EN18 – Environmental Improvement Corridors
R1 – Protection of Recreation Land and Facilities
R2 – Provision of Recreation Land and Facilities
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria to which regard should be
had in the determination of planning applications. Of most relevance
to this application are the location of the proposed development,
including its relationship to existing and proposed land uses, the
size and density of the proposed development, the relationship to
existing services and community facilities, the relationship to the
road and public transport networks, the likely scale of traffic
generation, the visual appearance of the development and landscaping
and open space provision.
Policy DEV2 states that planning permission will not normally be
granted unless the Council is satisfied with the quality of the design
and the appearance of the development.
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
Policy DEV4 encourages greater consideration 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 provision
of security features.
Policy H1 states that the Council will endeavour to ensure that the
city’s housing stock is able to meet the housing requirements of all
groups within Salford by promoting a number of measures, including
the release of land to accommodate new house building.
Policy H3 seeks to maintain and improve older private sector housing,
although H3ii recognises the importance of selective clearance of
housing not capable of improvement, and the provision of new
dwellings and open space.
Policy H6 requires adequate provision of informal open space and
children’s play within new housing developments. This policy is
linked to Policy H11 which sets out a sliding scale for such
provision.
Policy R1 states that development on existing recreation land will
not normally be permitted unless an equivalent replacement site is
provided and laid out within the local area.
Policy R2 outlines the targets for the provision of formal sports
facilities and children’s play areas.
Policy SC1 states that the Council will maintain and improve the
quality and distribution of social and community facilities, with
priority given to the development of new and improved facilities in
the Investment Priority Area.
Policy EN15 identifies Bury New Road as an environmental improvement
corridor, where emphasis will be placed on the removal of dereliction
and high standards of design and maintenance.
Policy EN16 states that the Council will seek to improve the urban environment, particularly
through the promotion of area based improvement initiatives. Priority will be given to improving
housing with the Investment Priority Area.
Policy T10 seeks to ensure that the needs of pedestrians throughout the city are given greater
attention by improving and developing pedestrian links between residential areas and recreational
areas and bus facilities.
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
Policy H9/7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP identifies Northumberland Street
Playing Fields as a site for new housing, stating that development of this greenfield site for
housing is an integral part of the major redevelopment proposals for the wider Higher Broughton
area, which will make a major contribution to the regeneration of Central Salford. Planning
permission will only be granted subject to the provision of replacement sports pitches and
changing facilities on land to the west of Tully Street, where the existing terraced housing is
proposed to be demolished. The site is considered to be most suitable for family housing and
development will need to achieve an average net density of at least 30 dwellings per hectare.
Policy ST11 outlines the sequential approach to the bringing forward of land for development. It
states that greenfield sites in accessible locations which are well related to housing, employment,
services and infrastructure may be brought forward, subject to a number of criteria, including
where there is a demonstrable need for the development, where the development would not result
in failure to meet the targets for development on brownfield land and where the land is not
protected from built development by other policies in the UDP. In addition, one or more of four
criteria must also apply, including where the development of the site is considered to be an
essential component of the regeneration of the local area, as identified in an approved plan or
strategy and where replacement greenfield land would be provided elsewhere in the local area of at
least equal quality and quantity.
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the
character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this
policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings
and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.
Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of
amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers
or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
Policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the Adopted UDP.
Policy DES13 requires applicants for major developments to demonstrate that the proposal takes
account of the need for good design. A written statement should be submitted which explains the
design concepts and how these are reflected in the development’s layout, scale and visual
appearance, the relationship to the site and its wider context and how the proposal meets the
Council’s design objectives and policies.
Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a balanced
mix of dwellings within the local area.
Policy H3 supports a range of housing improvement schemes, including clearing housing that is
unfit, or for which there is little or no demand, or that is required for site assembly for regeneration
purposes.
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal open
space within housing developments.
Policy A1 requires applications for developments likely to give rise to significant traffic
implications to be accompanied by a transport assessment.
Policy A2 requires development proposals to make adequate provision for safe and convenient
access by the disabled, pedestrians and cyclists through the protection and improvement of key
routes.
Policy EHC1 states that permission for new health and community facilities will be granted
provided that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity, be
accessible by a choice of transport modes, have the potential to act as a community focus and be
consistent with other UDP policies.
Policy EN18 updates Adopted Policy EN15.
Policy R1 updates Policy R1 of the Adopted UDP.
Policy R2 states that permission for recreation development will normally be permitted unless
there would be an unacceptable impact on residential amenity or highway safety, or there would be
inadequate provision for cyclists, pedestrians and disable people.
I will deal with each of the objections received in turn. Article 1 of the First Protocol of the
European Convention on Human Rights relates to an entitlement to the peaceful enjoyment of
possessions. I am of the opinion that this proposal would not have an unacceptable detrimental
impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents, a matter which will be discussed in more detail
below. I consider that the wider regenerative benefits of this proposal would outweigh the
concerns of the objector with regard to the Human Rights Act.
In terms of the traffic generation, this proposal involves the demolition of existing dwellings and
their replacement with new residential accommodation. I am of the opinion that, in traffic terms,
the impact of this application would not be sognificant and that a transport assessment is not
therefore required at this stage.
The redevelopment of the existing playing fields at Northumberland Street for residential
accommodation and the creation of replacement pitches on an area currently occupied by housing
have been the subject of extensive public consultation and are supported by SPG5 and policies
within the both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs. As highlighted in
SPG5, the demand for older terraced housing in this area has fallen to the point where substantial
proportions of the housing stock are no longer sustainable. Attempts to improve the existing stock
have been unsuccessful and there are increasing numbers of vacant, vandalised and boarded up
properties in the area. It is also unlikely that the vacant shops at Newbury Place will be reoccupied
due to their design, condition and low market demand. The existing playing fields were originally
developed to provide school sports facilities but they are not currently used by any of the nearby
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
schools and are only available for community use by formal block hire. Although the pitches are of
good quality, there are no on-site changing facilities, with the closest being 300m away, and there
is no on-site management. The pitches are therefore substantially underused.
Following public consultation and careful consideration of all the issues, comprehensive clearance
is considered necessary to remove the impact of empty and vandalised properties on the image of
the area, assist regeneration and help attract new development by creating an attractive and
sustainable environment. The redevelopment of this part of Higher Broughton forms an important
part of the regeneration of Central Salford which aims to tackle low demand for housing and poor
physical conditions. This application and the subsequent reserved matters applications present the
opportunity to provide new, modern residential accommodation capable of meeting the needs of
potential future occupiers in an attractive environment, as well as providing better quality playing
pitches with associated changing facilities and on-site management. This would clearly be an
improvement on the current situation and I am therefore of the opinion that the principle of
residential development on the existing playing fields and the replacement provision of sports
pitches is not illogical.
The objector does not state how the proposal would be detrimental to existing residents. As the
approval is sought only for means of access for the residential part of this application, privacy and
overlooking would be assessed at the reserved matters stage. I am however satisfied that the site is
capable of being redeveloped for housing without any unacceptable adverse impact on either
existing or future occupiers. I am also satisfied that, subject to conditions restricting the hours of
use of the pitches and associated floodlighting, residents would not be detrimentally affected by
this aspect of the proposal.
The final objection relates to the application’s conformity with national and regional planning
policy. Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing, states that in order to promote more
sustainable patterns of development, the focus for additional housing should be existing towns and
cities. It advises local planning authorities to, where appropriate, acquire properties under
compulsory purchase orders, to encourage more efficient use of land (between 30 and 50 dwellings
per hectare) and to seek greater intensity of development at places with good public transport links.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 17: Open Space, Sport and Recreation, emphasises the importance
of high quality and well maintained and managed open space, sport and recreational facilities. It
states that existing open space should not be built upon unless an assessment shows it to be surplus
to requirements. Paragraph 15 states that planning permission involving development of playing
fields should not be granted unless one of four criteria is met, including where they are replaced by
a field of equivalent or better quantity and quality in a suitable location.
RPG13 core development principle DP1: Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings, emphasises
the use of the sequential approach to meet development needs, including housing needs, which is
as follows: the re-use of existing buildings and infrastructure within urban areas, particularly
accessible locations; the use of previously developed land, particularly in accessible locations; and
finally the development of previously undeveloped land where this avoids areas of important open
space, is well located in relation to houses, jobs and other services and infrastructure, and is or can
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
be made accessible by public transport, walking or cycling. It states that in applying the sequential
approach, account should be taken of local circumstances. The provisions of DP1 are reflected in
Policy ST11of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP. Policy UR1 promotes urban
renaissance measures including reviving communities and tackling low demand for housing and
poor physical conditions. Policy UR6 encourages a comprehensive approach to housing renewal,
clearance and regeneration. It suggests the designation of substantial local areas for
comprehensive regeneration, possibly including demolition and clearance, as part of a broader
course of action to regenerate local communities.
In light of the above policy framework, I consider the main issue to be whether the principle of
residential development on the existing playing fields is acceptable. The site is allocated for
housing in the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP and is identified in SPG5 for residential
development. Whilst SPG does not have the same status as the Adopted UDP, it is still a material
consideration in the determination of planning applications and substantial weight may be attached
to SPG if it derives out of, and is consistent with, the development plan, has been prepared in the
proper manner with appropriate consultation and is consistent with national and regional policy.
SPG5 is broadly consistent with national, regional and local planning policy and significant public
consultation was undertaken. As a result, a reasonable amount of weight can be attached to the
SPG in the determination of this application.
Although the proposed replacement pitches would occupy a smaller area than the existing playing
fields, I am of the opinion that this would be compensated by the significant increase in quality and
capacity of the facilities, particularly in light of the changing facilities to be located within the
proposed community hub. The applicant has confirmed that the development of the replacement
pitches would be phased in parallel with the redevelopment of the existing playing fields. It is the
intention to construct the adult pitch during the first phase of the development to enable the initial
phase of residential development to commence on the existing playing fields. The junior and mini
pitches would be provided following the completion of the first phase of housing.
As yet, a response from Sport England has not been received. In light of their comments to both the
SPG and the replacement UDP and informal discussions prior to the submission of this planning
application, I do not anticipate an objection to this proposal due to the quality of the proposed
replacement facilities. Until their response is received, I cannot recommend a condition relating to
the phasing of the proposed development, to ensure that the required number of pitches are
available for use at all times. Their response will be reported verbally at the Panel meeting.
The development of the playing fields accords with the criteria of Policy ST11, as it is an integral
part of a major redevelopment proposal for the wider Higher Broughton area and will contribute to
the regeneration of Central Salford. The Council considers this proposal to be essential to securing
the long-term success of the Higher Broughton area. The site is also within the Housing Market
Renewal Area Fund (HMRF) area and is therefore part of a comprehensive approach to renewing
the local housing market. In addition, a significant area of greenfield would be created in the form
of the replacement sports pitches. An assessment of playing pitch provision and demand
undertaken in 2000 by independent consultants and using a methodology endorsed by Sport
England concluded that there was no shortage of senior football pitches in the inner city. A
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
shortage of mini grass pitches was identified as the main deficiency in provision in the area, and
this proposal would contribute to redressing that deficit. The proposed pitches would be available
for community use and could be used for a wide variety of sports. On balance, I consider this
element of the application to be broadly consistent with the relevant provisions of national,
regional and local planning policy and that significant benefits would be accrued from such
remodelling of this area.
PPG3 requires new residential developments to make efficient use of land, and achieve densities of
between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare, and higher in accessible locations. Based on the
requirements of Policy H9/7 and taking the indicative information supplied with the application
into account, I have attached a condition requiring an average minimum density of 35 units per
hectare to be achieved across the whole of the site to be redevelopment for residential
accommodation. This has been agreed with the applicant and I am satisfied that this can be
achieved.
As approval is sought only for means of access for the residential element of this application, the
level of open space provision within the site to accord with policies H6 and H11 of the Adopted
UDP and draft Policy H8 is not a matter for consideration at this stage. I have however attached a
condition to this permission to ensure that adequate open space provision is included as part of the
development and this will be assessed as part of the reserved matters applications.
In accordance with DES13, the applicants have submitted a design statement providing details of
the design principles of the proposed development. Although the application for residential
development is in outline, the statement explains that the proposal aims to establish a clear and
structured hierarchical network of roads, streets, home zones and mews which will produce places
for people to live which are designed with the pedestrian and community in mind. The scheme also
aims to reduce the reliance and impact of the car. The scheme will include pedestrian
thoroughfares, open space and a playground to replace the existing play area. As approval is
sought for means of access, it is important to note that it is anticipated that the final design will rely
heavily on an innovative home zone approach. Shared surfaces, rather than conventional
footpaths/carriageways, will therefore be an integral part of the development. In view of this fact, I
have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds, subject to a condition requiring the final
layout plan to include shared surfaces designed to home zone standards.
The proposed fencing to the pitches has been selected as it is considered to be both practical and
attractive. I consider the height and design to be acceptable and in accordance with policies DEV1,
DEV2 and DEV4 of the Adopted UDP and DES1 and DES11 of the Adopted UDP. This fencing,
together with the boundary treatment to the community hub, will assist in this area being
satisfactorily secure. I have however, drawn the applicants’ attention to the comments of the ALO
with regards to designing out crime and fencing. The fence would be set back along Tully Street
and Devonshire Street to provide the necessary sight lines and to allow tree planting, which would
also enhance the area. The pedestrian gates allowing access to the pitches would be provided in
close proximity to the proposed community hub, to allow for easy and convenient access to the
proposed changing facilities. The mini pitches would be located at the part of the site furthest from
residential properties and the proposed lighting has been selected and would be located so as to
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
minimise light pollution. The applicant has confirmed that light pollution levels would satisfy the
requirements of the Institution of Lighting Engineers and the Chartered Institution of Building
Services Engineers. I have attached a condition requiring details of the colour treatment of both the
fencing and the lighting columns to be agreed prior to the commencement of the development, as
well as a condition restricting the hours of use of the floodlights and the pitches themselves.
I consider this element of the application to be in accordance with draft Policy R2, as it would not
have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity or highway safety. It would also be accessible
through the inclusion of pedestrian gates close to the community hub. Parking for the pitches
would be provided within the community hub, and as this element of the application is in outline
with all matters reserved, provision for cyclists and the disabled has not been indicated. Such
provision will however be a requirement and will be assessed at the reserved matters stage.
The proposed pitches would be constructed using the cut and fill method, with only that material
which is considered to be inappropriate to be removed from the site. The applicants have
confirmed that they wish to minimise the importation of sub soil, but state that the precise methods
of construction will not be finalised until the results of the site investigations are known. I have
attached a condition requiring such site investigations, as well as details of the method of
construction and details of the surfacing for the pitches to be submitted and approved prior to
commencement of development.
The application will necessitate the closure of a number of roads and I have attached a condition
requiring the relevant closure orders to be obtained prior to the commencement of the
development. The comments of the Pedestrian Association in relation to pedestrian routes though
the site have been discussed with the applicant. Indicative information supplied indicates that there
would be a pedestrian route linking Northumberland Street in the north and Wellington Street East
in the south. It is also anticipated that there would be a pedestrian route through the community
hub linking Wellington Street East and Bury New Road. This is considered to be a crucial part of
the proposal, particularly given the importance of Bury New Road as a main bus route and in light
of the scheme’s aim to reduce reliance on the car and promote the use of other transport modes.
Such provision would accord with policies T10 and A2 of the Adopted and Revised Deposit
UDPs.
A total of eleven trees would need to be felled in order to accommodate the proposed development.
The Council’s arboricultural officer does not consider any of the trees to be worthy of protection,
but they are worthy of replacement on a two for one basis, in accordance with the Council’s policy.
Given the size of the site, I am satisfied that sufficient replacement planting could be
accommodated and I have attached a condition requiring a minimum of twenty two trees to be
provided within the site.
In conclusion, I consider the proposal to accord with the relevant provisions of national, regional
and local planning policy and guidance. It would have significant regenerative benefits for Higher
Broughton and Central Salford through the replacement of existing older terraced housing with
modern residential accommodation and the provision of high quality recreation and community
facilities. I therefore recommend approval.
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The development of the sports pitches must be begun not later than the expiration of five years
beginning with the date of this permission.
2. Standard Condition A02 Outline
3. The development of the community hub shall not be started until full details of the following
reserved matters have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
- the layout of the site, including the disposition of buildings and roads and provision for
parking and servicing;
- plans and elevations showing the design of all buildings and other structures;
- the colour and type of facing materials to be used for all external walls and roofs;
- the means of access to the site and the buildings;
- a landscape scheme for the site which shall include details of trees and shrubs to be planted,
any existing trees to be retained, or felled indicating the spread of the branches and trunk
positions, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment.
4. The residential development shall not be started until full details of the following reserved
matters have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
- the layout of the site, including the disposition of buildings and roads and provision for
parking and servicing;
- plans and elevations showing the design of all buildings and other structures;
- the colour and type of facing materials to be used for all external walls and roofs;
- a landscape scheme for the site which shall include details of trees and shrubs to be planted,
any existing trees to be retained, or felled indicating the spread of the branches and trunk
positions, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment.
5. 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
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
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.
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.
6. An average density of no less than 35 dwellings per hectare shall be achieved across the whole
site to be developed for residential accommodation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Director of Development Services
7. The applicant shall prepare a layout plan showing the inclusion of shared surfaces designed to
home zone standards within the site to be developed for residential accommodation, which
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to
the commencement of the residential development. The approved scheme shall form the basis
for the submission of all subsequent reserved matters applications for residential development,
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services.
8. The sports pitches hereby approved shall only be used between the hours of 7.30am and
9.30pm.
9. In addition to the trees proposed to be planted as part of the landscaping schemes required to be
submitted in accordance with Conditions 3 and 4 of this permission, a minimum of 22 trees
shall be provided within the site, the species, locations, ages and phasing of which shall be
submitted to and agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services.
10. The floodlights hereby approved shall not be used between the hours of 10.00pm and 10.00am.
11. The fencing and floodlighting columns hereby approved shall be painted in a colour to be
agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to their siting.
12. The development shall comply with the policies H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan in the provision of adequate open space.
13. The development hereby approved shall not be commenced until the appropriate order for the
closure or diversion of the public right of way affected by the development has been made.
74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
14. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, full details of the proposed
pitches, including methods of construction and surface treatment, shall be submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the Director of Development Services. The works shall thereafter be
carried out in accordance with the approved details.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
3. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
4. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
6. Reason: In order to make efficient use of land, in accordance with Planning Policy Guidance
Note 3: Housing and Policy H9/7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary
Development Plan
7. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
8. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
9. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
10. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
11. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
12. Reason: In order to ensure adequate open space standard in accordance with Policies H6 and
H11 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
13. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
14. Reason: To ensure that the pitches are designed to a high standard, in accordance with Policy
DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
Note(s) for Applicant
1. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the
75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
applicant is advised to contact the Pollution Control Section of the Directorate of
Environmental Services (0161 793 2139)
2. The applicants' attention is drawn to the fact that this permission does not relate to the details
shown on the indicative layout plan, nor does it imply that permission is likely to be
forthcoming for such details.
3. The applicants' attention is drawn to the attached letter from United Utilities
4. The applicants' attention is drawn to the attached letters from Greater Manchester Police
5. The applicants are advised that only clean surface water from roofs and paved areas should be
discharged to and surface water soakaway
APPLICATION No:
03/47180/FUL
APPLICANT:
D Barlow
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To 21 Briarfield Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a single storey dwelling and garage
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
At a meeting of the Panel held on 20th November 2003 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Since writing my report, I have received an additional thirteen letters of objection. The following
issues have been raised:
76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
The proposed dwelling is not in keeping with the area
Insufficient car parking
Increase in traffic
There will be a large number of contractors vehicles during construction
Neighbouring properties would be devalued
A large number of trees were felled prior to the submission of the application
Loss of privacy
The first issue, relating to whether the proposed dwelling would be in keeping with the character of
the surrounding area, has already been discussed in my report. I remain of the opinion that the
design is acceptable and would not be detrimental to the character or appearance of the area.
The proposed dwelling would have a dedicated garage and driveway which could be used for
parking. The existing property at 21 Briarfield Road would also have a driveway.
In light of the Council’s maximum car parking standards, I consider the proposed car parking
provision to be sufficient and do not consider it to constitute a reason for refusal of the application.
I do not consider that a single dwelling on this site would generate a significant increase in traffic
in the area. Any increase in traffic during the construction of the proposed dwelling would be for a
temporary period only and I do not therefore consider this to be an issue in this instance.
The value of land and property is not a material planning consideration and is not therefore a
matter on which any weight can be placed in the determination of this application.
Whilst it has been alleged that a number of trees on the application site were felled prior to the
submission of this application, none of these were the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. As
there are now no trees on the site, I do not consider this to be a matter of concern in the
determination of this application.
I am satisfied that the amendments made to the scheme following the withdrawal of the previous
application have addressed my concerns in relation to privacy. Given the distance of the proposed
dwelling to neighbouring properties and the fact that it is predominantly single storey, I am of the
opinion that neither existing or future residents would be detrimentally affected by the proposal.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land adjacent to 21 Briarfield Road, Worsley. The application site
currently forms part of the garden area to No. 21. There is currently a garage on the site which
would be demolished as a result of this proposal. Surrounding properties are residential.
It is proposed to erect a single storey dwelling and garage on the site. The dwelling would be
roughly L-shaped and at its largest points, it would be in the region of 22.8m wide and 19.6m long.
Access into the site would be achieved from Briarfield Road, a cul-de-sac, through a shared
77
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
driveway with No. 21. The driveway would extend along the boundary with 19 Briarfield Road,
with the garage located at the end.
A 2.2m high fence would be erected on the boundary of the application site and the garden of 21
Briarfield Road. The corner of the proposed dwelling would be sited 2m from the propose fence
line adjoining No. 21.
Although the proposed dwelling is predominantly single storey, there is a small first floor element
proposed to accommodate an office. This would be located towards the front of the proposed
dwelling and, at its highest, would be 2.3m higher that the single storey roof. It would be a
maximum of 5.1m long by 3.8m wide.
SITE HISTORY
In October 2003, a planning application for the erection of a single storey dwelling and garage on
land adjacent to 21 Briarfield Road was withdrawn as a result of my concerns (ref:
03/46863/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
The Director of Environmental Services – no comments received to date
Coal Authority – no comments received to date
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2, 4, 5 Brereton Drive
420 – 430 (E) Walkden Road
1, 13 – 19 (O), 23, 14 – 24 (E) Briarfield Road
4 Roe Green
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity from one of
the Ward Councillors. The following issues have been raised:
The proposal represents overdevelopment of the site
Drainage
The proposed development is unsympathetic to the area
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
78
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 sets out 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 layout and
relationship of existing and proposed buildings, the effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for
neighbouring properties and the visual appearance of the development.
Policy DEV2 states that planning permission for new development will not normally be granted
unless the Council is satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance of the development.
Regard should be paid to existing buildings, townscape and the character of the surrounding area.
Policy DES1 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP requires developments to respond to
their physical context. In assessing the extent to which this has been achieved, regard will be paid
to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings and the scale of the
proposed development in relation to its surroundings.
Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of
amenity. Developments which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of occupiers of
other developments will not be permitted.
I will deal with each of the objections received in turn. The application site is of a sufficient size to
accommodate the proposed dwelling without having an adverse impact on the amenity of the area
or the amenity of existing and future residents. The site is considerably larger than surrounding
plots and is therefore able to accommodate a dwelling with a larger footprint than surrounding
houses. The applicant’s architects have however confirmed that the proposed dwelling would only
occupy in the region of 27% of the site, with the remainder being used as a garden. The proposal
makes use of vacant piece of land, which was formerly a garden, within the urban area, surrounded
by residential properties. I consider such development to be acceptable and I do not consider the
proposal to constitute overdevelopment of the site.
79
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
Issues relating to drainage have been discussed with the applicant’s architect, who has confirmed
that both the existing site levels and existing manhole invert levels have been examined and that
the drainage to the proposal, as submitted, can be achieved. I am satisfied with this confirmation.
Concerns have also been raised regarding the design of the proposed building and its relationship
to the surrounding area. The existing dwellings on Briarfield Road are largely identical in terms of
their design. They are all 1930s semi-detached brick-built dwellings with front gardens, driveways
to the side and garages and gardens to the rear. The proposed dwelling would have a modern
appearance by virtue of the materials proposed, its height and layout. I do however consider the
construction of such a dwelling to be preferable to one which attempts to mimic the characteristics
of surrounding properties, which I consider would be likely to have an unacceptable impact on the
amenity of neighbouring residents by virtue of overlooking and loss of privacy. As the site is
located at the head of the cul-de-sac, views of the proposed dwelling would only be achieved from
a small section of Briarfield Road and a small number of surrounding residential properties. I am
therefore satisfied that it would not appear out of place in the street scene or out of context with the
surrounding area. Whilst the materials to be used have been indicated on the plans, I have attached
a condition requiring samples to be submitted. In light of the above, I consider that the proposal
accords with Policies DEV1, DEV2 and DES1.
The siting of the proposed dwelling has been amended from that proposed by the previous
application which was withdrawn. This has resulted in a greater distance between the proposed
dwelling and boundary with No. 21. There would be 2.0m between the corner of the proposed
dwelling and the proposed fence, whereas previously, a distance of only 0.8m was proposed. The
rooflight and parapet wall to the master bedroom have now been omitted and the internal ceiling
heights in this section of the proposed dwelling have been reduced from 3.2 to 2.7m. In addition, it
is proposed to erect a 2.2m high fence between the application site and 21 Briarfield Road. In light
of the above amendments, I am satisfied that there would be no detrimental impact on the residents
of No. 21. A driveway, garage and store are proposed along the boundary with No. 19. There is
already a garage within the application site along this boundary and I do not consider that there
would be an adverse impact on the amenity of the residents of this property as a result of this
proposal. Given the distance between the proposed dwelling and the existing dwellings at 424
Walkden Road and 4 Brereton Drive, and in light of the fact that the proposed dwelling is largely
single storey, I do not consider that the amenity of these residents would be harmed. I therefore
consider that the proposal accords with the relevant provisions of Policy DEV1 and Policy DES7.
I have however attached a condition requiring details of the boundary fencing to be submitted and
approved prior to the commencement of the development.
In conclusion, I am satisfied that there would be no detrimental impact on existing or future
residents as a result of the proposal. I consider the proposed design to be acceptable and therefore
recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
80
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the
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 hereby approved, full details of the boundary
fence between the application site and 21 Briarfield Road 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 dwelling.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Coal Authority.
APPLICATION No:
03/47214/COU
APPLICANT:
Richard Cottrell
LOCATION:
179 Manchester Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from dwelling house to offices on the first floor and
family support/toy library on the ground floor
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a residential property on the corner of Temple Drive and Manchester
Road (A6). The area comprises mainly of detached and semi detached residential properties.
Approximately 35m from the site is Victoria Park.
81
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
The proposed use would work in partnership with Salford Social Services to support and
encourage parents/carers and the wider community in the development of skills that will enhance
their experience of family life. It also promotes positive life changes for young people and
children through constructive use of play and leisure time.
It is intended that the first floor would be used on a daily basis, as office space, where an average of
seven or eight staff would be based. The ground floor is where the support work would be
facilitated.
The proposed hours of operation would 8.30am till 6.00pm Monday to Friday with some evening
work until 7.30pm on Tuesday. The applicant is also envisaging some Saturday working although
no hours are provided.
CONSULTATIONS
The Director of Environmental Services – No objection
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
130 – 138 (e), 175, 177, 181 and 183 Manchester Road
1 – 4 (con) Temple Drive
1 – 3 (o) and 1A West Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received seven letters objection in response to the planning application. The following
issues have been raised:On street car parking
Pedestrian safety
Predominately residential in nature
Over looking, privacy
This application may set a precedent
Security outside office hours
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV1 Development Criteria, T2 Network of
Major Roads of More Than Local Importance T13 Car Parking Standards
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
82
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of
Users and Neighbours, EHC1 Provision and Improvement
of Health and Community Facilities
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining
applications, including the visual appearance of the development, its relationship to its
surroundings and the amount, design and layout of car parking provision. T13 seeks to ensure
adequate and appropriate car parking and servicing.
The replacement plan policies are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development. Policy EHC1 states that planning permission for health and community uses will
only be approved where they would not have a detrimental impact upon residential amenity and
character.
The majority of the representations received refer to current on street car parking which is
intensified during the summer months when the users of the local park, park within this area. With
regard over looking and loss of privacy, I do not agree that the change of use of the property,
operating between the hours highlighted above, would impact upon privacy any more than the
current situation.
Should this application be approved, I do not believe that it would become a precedent, as any
subsequent applications would have to be determined on their individual merits. With regard
security concerns outside office hours, I consider that, should this application be approved,
security measures could be incorporated into the design of the building without resulting in a
significant alteration to the character of the building.
Therefore, the main planning issue, in this instance is the level of car parking provision and use
within a predominantly residential area. Turning to the issues of use, the surrounding area is
residential. Although this proposal would not alter the external appearance of the building, it
would result in a number of comings and goings throughout the day which would, by reason of
noise and disturbance, impact upon the residential amenity and character of the area. Furthermore,
I am also of the opinion that the provision of two car parking spaces would not be sufficient for the
proposed use. It is likely that the additional provision would park on Temple Drive and
Manchester Road. Manchester Road is a major road of local importance which policy T2 seeks to
safeguard.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that is proposal would be out of character with the residential area
and would not provided sufficient off-street car parking which would have a detrimental impact
upon the safety of pedestrians and highway users in the area, and subsequently should be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
83
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The site is situated close to a junction in a congested area with insufficient off street car
parking and the proposed development would interfere with the free flow of traffic on
Manchester Road to the detriment of highway safety, contrary to policy T2 and T13 of the City
of Salford Unitary Development Plan
2. The proposed development would be detrimental to the living conditions of neighbouring
residents by reason of increased on street parking and its associated comings and goings. As
such the proposal conflicts with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/47231/COU
APPLICANT:
John Savvides
LOCATION:
Kendal House 11 Frederick Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from office to sauna/massage facility
WARD:
Pendleton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Kendal House, 11 Frederick Road. The building and car parking area is
bounded by residential properties to the west, an area of open space and office and light industrial
units to the east. The site lies within the Charlestown and Lower Kersal New Deal for
Communities (NDC) regeneration area and close to the A6.
The premises were previously used as a warehouse/offices. Planning permission is now sought for
the change of use of the premises from warehouse/office to sauna/massage facility. Information
has been provided suggesting that the property is currently trading as ‘Reflections’ a
sauna/massage facility. There is currently an unmade car parking area to the north of the building.
The hours of operation would be 11.00am till 10.00pm seven days a week.
SITE HISTORY
Planning permission was refused in 1994 for the erection of first floor extension to provide
additional offices and storage and construction of car park (94/32668/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
84
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
The Director of Environmental Services – No objection
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 11th November 2003
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Irwell House, Frederick Road
2 – 10 (even) Gerrard Street
1 – 15 (odd) 2 – 20 (even) Nichols Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received eleven letters of objection and a thirty five name petition in response to the
application publicity and a request by Cllr Warmisham that the application be determined by
Panel. I have also received an objection to the proposal from the NDC. The following issues have
been raised:Increased traffic
Proximity to residential
Late night
Noise and disturbance
New Deal Area for regeneration
Proximity to young children
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV1 Development Criteria
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users
and Neighbours,
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining
applications, including the visual appearance of the development, its relationship to its
surroundings and the amount, design and layout of car parking provision. T13 seeks to ensure
adequate and appropriate car parking and servicing.
85
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
The replacement plan policies are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development. I have received a high level of public opposition from local residents and
Councillors in response to the application publicity.
I consider that the main issues relate to the impact on the living conditions of nearby residents.
Another concern raised throughout the representations received relate to car parking in the area
and the noise associated with car doors opening and engines running. The applicant has stated that
the existing provision is suitable to accommodate twenty spaces. As the current car park is
unmade and not marked out I have requested that the applicant demonstrate this provision. I am
confident that the car park would be capable of accommodating sufficient numbers for the
proposed use. However, I am of the opinion that the proposal would result in an intensification of
the site beyond the hours previously operated by the former use which would have an unacceptable
impact upon local amenity.
The proposed use would operate between the hours of 11.00am and 10.00pm seven days a week.
The car park is located approximately 2.9m from the rear boundaries of those properties on
Nichols Street and Gerrard Street. I am of the opinion that the likely visits of customers into the
late evening and at weekends would result in an unacceptable loss of amenity due to noise and
disturbance at times when local residents would anticipate a degree of peace and quite.
Therefore, I consider that the change of use would significantly harm the living conditions of local
residents.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would have a detrimental effect on the living conditions of
neighbouring residents by reason of traffic and staff/customer movements and as such would
be contrary to policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/47252/TEL56
APPLICANT:
Orange PCS Limited
LOCATION:
Civic Centre Site Chorley Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Prior Notification for the rooftop installation of three dual polar
antennae, upto four dishes, six cabinets and ancilliary
development
86
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
18th December 2003
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to The Civic Centre, Chorley Road, Swinton. It is proposed to install three
dual polar antennae, four dishes, six cabinets and ancillary development on the rooftop of the
Phase II section of the building.
The three antennae would be mounted on poles which would be fixed onto the existing plant rooms
on the rooftop of the building. The poles and antennae would be a total of 7m in height. The
transmission dishes would also be face mounted on poles fixed to the plant rooms and would be in
the region of 4m in height. The antennae and dishes would be sited to the rear of the rooftop. The
six equipment cabinets would be located on a 150mm deep concrete plinth in the centre of the roof.
They would vary slightly in size, with the largest being approximately 2m long, 0.8m wide and
0.7m high.
Two of the proposed transmission dishes and two of the antennae would be painted white to match
the colour of the existing building. The applicants have confirmed that the remainder of the
equipment would be coloured to best blend in with their locations and that this can be agreed.
The applicants have confirmed that this proposal is required to replace the existing equipment
currently installed on Lancastrian Hall, on the opposite side of Chorley Road.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 24th November 2003
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
The Poplars Health Centre, Elmstead House, The Clinic, 162/172, 174-182 (E), 186-194
(E), Partington Lane
St Peters Vicarage, St Peters Primary School, The Deans Primary School, Vicarage Road
Ambrose Barlow RC High School, Shaftesbury Road
Police Station, Ambulance Station, Stanwell Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any objections in response to the application publicity
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: SC14 – Telecommunications
87
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 - Telecommunications
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy SC14 of the Adopted UDP states that permission for telecommunications development will
normally be granted where there would not be an unacceptable impact on visual or residential
amenity. In determining such applications, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the
significance of the proposed development as part of a national telecommunications network,
whether there are any suitable alternative sites and whether there would be an unacceptable visual
impact in terms of siting and design.
Policy DEV1 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP states that proposal for
telecommunications development will only be permitted where a number of criteria are met,
including where there would not be an unacceptable impact on visual or residential amenity, where
the operator has demonstrated compliance with all relevant ICNIRP standards, there is a need for
the development, the rationale for site selection has been outlined and where pre-application
discussions have taken place.
In accordance with Policy DEV1, the applicants have submitted a declaration which shows that the
proposed equipment complies with ICNIRP public exposure guidelines. I am therefore satisfied
that sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that there should be no adverse health
implications as a result of this proposal.
The applicants have demonstrated that a number of other potential sites have been investigated in
the surrounding area, but were either not feasible or not available The applicants have confirmed
that this proposal is required to replace the existing telecommunications equipment at Lancastrian
Hall. This replacement site is required to be fully operational prior to the removal from service of
the existing equipment from in order to provide adequate coverage and to ensure that there is no
loss of service. I consider that this justification satisfies the relevant provisions of policies SC14
and DEV1.
The proposed equipment would be sited on the rear of the rooftop of the existing building, facing
the existing car park. The antenna would either be painted white to match the colour of the existing
building, or in a colour to be agreed. I therefore have attached a condition requiring the antennae
and dishes to be painted within two months of installation in a colour to be agreed. Such colour
treatment would ensure that the proposed equipment would blend in with the building and be less
visible from the surrounding area. The applicants assert that the proposed design has been selected
as it is considered to meet both the technical requirement to provide the necessary service in terms
of height and type of antenna and utilises an existing building, as recommended by PPG8. In view
of the height of the existing building, the siting of the equipment on the rooftop and its size and
88
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
colour treatment, I am of the opinion that it would not be highly visible from the surrounding area.
I do not consider that it would have a detrimental impact on residential or visual amenity.
On the above basis, I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with policies SC14 and DEV1
and I therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The antennae and dishes hereby approved shall be painted within two months from the date of
installation in a colour to be approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
89
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/46997/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Education And Leisure Directorate
LOCATION:
Deans Youth Centre Deans Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Siting of two container units for storage use
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to the Deans Youth Centre, Deans Road. This application is for two
additional containers to store equipment and the re-siting of an existing container. The
dimensions of the existing containers would be approximately 2m X 4.5m. The existing
container measures 2m X 7m. The existing container is located to the rear of the western most
building on the site. The existing container would be rotated through 90 degrees, end on to the
building. The two proposed containers would be located alongside also end on to the building.
All three containers would be screened from the residential properties on Godlee Drive by the
Youth Centre.
SITE HISTORY
In 1999 permission was granted for the erection of a steel security storage unit
(99/39054/DEEM3)
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 28th November 2003.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following
issues have been raised:Problems with previous containers
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV1 Development Criteria
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DES1 Respecting Context
90
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th December 2003
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that consideration shall be given to a number of factors including the visual
appearance of development and its relationship to its surroundings.
At present there is an existing steel storage container on the site. The proposed containers
would be located along side the relocated container to the rear of the existing structure. None
of the containers would be visible from Godlee Drive. There are a number of bushes and trees
around the periphery of the site, none of which would be affected by this proposal.
Therefore subject to the following colour treatment condition, I am of the opinion that it would
not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area and is in accordance with Policy
DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The storage containers hereby approved shall be painted in a colour to be agreed in writing
by the Director of Development Services prior to their siting.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
91
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
92
18th December 2003