PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st July 2005
APPLICATION No:
05/50292/HH
APPLICANT:
A Rooryk/C Aubert
LOCATION:
16 Barton Road Worsley M28 2PB
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension and attached double
garage with balcony and spiral staircase and new Vehicular
access.
WARD:
Worsley
At the meeting of the Panel held on 7th July 2005 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a grade II listed end terrace property. Number 10,12 and 14
Barton Road has a right of access to the rear of the site. The right of access is
immediately adjacent to the existing gable end of the applicant’s property. This right of
access leads to two garages and an open area used as parking space for numbers 10,12
and 14. Further to the east is the disused public toilets and Worsley Canal.
It is proposed to erect a two storey side extension and an attached double
garage with a balcony and staircase and a new vehicular access.
An application for Listed Building Consent also appears on the agenda.
CONSULTATIONS
Worsley Civic Trust and Amenity Society-does not object to the architectural aspects of the plans
providing that the facade is in keeping with surrounding properties in the Conservation Area but
has draw to our attention over the legal right of access to land adjacent to the existing gable end of
Number 16. They strongly object to any proposals to re-locate the entrance in closer proximity to
the pedestrian crossing.
PUBLICITY
A site notice has been displayed and a press notice issued.
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st July 2005
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
10, 12, 14 Barton Road
7, 7B, 9 and11A Barton Road
Queen Victoria Boathouse, The Green
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received five letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity.
The following issues have been raised: Out of character to the village,
New access,
Overlooking to public toilets,
The spiral staircase detracts from the scale and appearance of this listed building
Legal right of way used by neighbouring residents No10, 12 and 14 Barton Road.
Felling of a tree in a Conservation area.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8-House extensions
DEV1-Development Criteria
EN11-Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7-Amenity of users and Neighbours
DES8-Alterations/Extensions
CH5-Works Within Conservation Areas
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether: the size, height and siting of the
proposal would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbouring
residents; the impact of the proposed extension may have on the character or appearance of
Worsley Village Conservation Area and whether the proposed vehicular access would be
acceptable and whether the proposal would comply with the provisions of relevant policies of the
Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan Unitary Development Plan and the
Supplementary Planning Guidance on House Extensions.
Policy DEV1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan states that the City Council
will have regard to a number of factors when dealing with applications for planning
permission. These factors include the location of the proposed development, the
relationship to the road, and the visual appearance of the development and the size of
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st July 2005
the development, this is re-iterated in policy DES8.
The proposed double garage would project 5.7m from the proposed two-storey side
extension and would be 5.9m in length. A new dwarf wall approximately 0.5m high
and railing gates is proposed to close the current opening. A hard standing of 5.6m in
length and 2.4m in width is maintained between the garage and highway. The new
access is close to the beginning of the pedestrian crossing. In Highway safety terms I
have no objections and conclude that the new access would be an improvement to the
position of the existing access. The new proposed dwarf wall and railing gates would
comply with highway standards of the 2m x 60m visibility splay, to give a clear
visual opening for the applicant to manoeuvre safely out of their driveway and to be
able to see any pedestrians approaching the driveway. As such it is not considered
that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on highway safety.
DEV8 states that planning permission will not be granted for extensions that have an unacceptable
adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking,
overshadowing, dominance loss of light or privacy nor would it have an unacceptably adverse
impact on the character of the street scene, this is re-iterated in policy DES7.
The proposed two-storey side extension would project 3.8m from the existing property and would
be 7.6m in length. There would be a bedroom window to the front of the proposed extension at first
floor level: Facing opposite is No.7 Barton Road, an estate agent. I am satisfied there would be no
impact on the amenity of overlooking or loss of privacy as a result of this proposal. There are no
proposed habitable room windows facing the rear elevation. The proposed roof top garden would
overlook Worsley Canal, and southeast facing onto existing public toilets, which are
approximately 11m from the proposal. The public toilets are no longer in use. As such it is not
considered that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring
residents by reasons of overlooking or loss of privacy and that the proposal will result in an
overbearing or dominant structure by reason of height or projection, therefore I would consider the
proposal is in keeping with policy DEV8 and DES7.
Policy CH5 states that the Council will seek to preserve or enhance the character and appearance
of the conservation area. The proposed two-storey side and double garage has been designed to be
sympathetic to the existing grade II listed building. The walls are to be rendered to match with the
existing. I have attached a condition for materials such as windows, roof covering to be submitted
to Local Planning Authority for inspection. The extension would appear as an extension to the
existing building by setting it back from the main elevation. This maintains an honest history of the
development of the building. As such the extension would not detract from the character or
appearance of the Conservation area.
With the objections raised concerning over the joint access via the applicant’s property. The
applicant’s agent and the applicant are aware of the issue of right of way. He informs me that the
applicant has spoken to neighbours about providing an alternative right of way. This is a matter for
parties concerned to take separate legal advice to determine the right of way.
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st July 2005
With the objections raised concerning the felling of a tree. The proposed garage would not affect
the tree. I have spoken to the Agent that a separate application would have to be made for works to
trees in a conservation area.
CONCLUSION
Overall, the proposed development complies with all the relevant policies of the adopted Unitary
Development Plan and the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan. I therefore recommend that
the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Not withstanding the details of materials shown on the approved plans, no work shall be started
until samples of the external materials for the roof, details or specification for the walls,
windows, doors, railings to first floor balcony, front dwarf wall and spiral staircase approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The work shall only be carried out in accordance with
sample details as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
3. Not withstanding the details of materials shown on the approved plans, no work shall be started
until samples of the external materials for the roof, details or specification for the walls,
windows, doors, railings to first floor balcony, front dwarf wall and spiral staircase approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The work shall only be carried out in accordance with
sample details as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The Applicant to be made aware that the proposed extensions would be built over a joint legal
access.
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st July 2005
2. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
APPLICATION No:
05/50513/HH
APPLICANT:
Ms S Kirkham
LOCATION:
15 Carisbrook Drive Swinton MANCHESTER M27 5LS
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a part single/part two storey rear extension,
conservatory at rear of dwelling and external decking
WARD:
Swinton South
At the meeting of the Panel held on 7th July 2005 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property on Carisbrook Drive in Swinton.
The proposal is for the erection of a part single/part two storey rear extension, conservatory at the
rear of dwelling and external decking. The proposed part single/part two storey rear extension
would project 2.74m from the rear of the property. The proposed conservatory and external
decking would then project 2.74m from the rear extension. There would be a kitchen and dining
room on the ground floor of the proposed rear extension and a bedroom above the kitchen. The
conservatory would be 2.941m wide and be attached to the dining room. The external decking
would be adjacent to the conservatory.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
14, 16, 18 Sevenoaks Drive
13, 17 Carisbrook Drive
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st July 2005
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity.
Councillor Valerie Burgoyne has asked for the application to be determined by the Planning and
Transportation Regulatory Panel.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 and DEV8
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 and DES7
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the proposal would seriously
injure the amenity of existing residential properties and whether the proposal complies with the
relevant policies of both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs.
The City of Salford Unitary Development Plan (UDP) was adopted in November 1995. The Plan
is in review and a Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan was published in November 2003.
Policy DEV1 of the adopted UDP and Policy DES1 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement
Plan outline the factors that will be considered when determining planning applications. These
include the location, nature, size, density and appearance of the proposed development and its
relationship to its surroundings.
Policy DEV8 of the adopted UDP and Policy DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement
Plan state that development will not be permitted where it would have an adverse impact upon the
occupiers or users of other developments in the vicinity.
The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance was adopted in December 2002 after public
consultation. It provides additional guidance on the factors to be considered and standards
maintained when determining householder applications. Policy HH1 of the SPG states that
“planning permission will not normally be granted for extensions that do not maintain a minimum
distance of 21m between facing habitable windows”.
The relationship of 15 Carisbrook Drive to the rear of 16 Sevenoaks Drive is such that the
proposed first floor element of the two storey part of the rear extension would be opposite a
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st July 2005
bedroom window at 16 Sevenoaks Drive. There is a difference in ground level making 15
Carisbrook Drive higher than 16 Sevenoaks Drive and so the applicant does not consider there
would be any overlooking as the bedroom window in the proposed extension would be facing the
roof of 16 Sevenoaks Drive. Due to the application property being on a higher level of ground it is
considered there would be overlooking and a loss of privacy for the occupiers of 16 Sevenoaks
Drive as the bedroom window in the proposed extension directly faces the bedroom window of 16
Sevenoaks Drive. A minimum distance of 21m is required between the two properties and there is
only a distance of approximately 19.6m. The proposal therefore does not comply with HH1 of the
Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on House Extensions and is therefore unacceptable.
The Councillor states that other residents in the area have had plans approved and have built
similar extensions to that currently proposed. It is correct that neighbouring residents have had
planning approval for similar extensions; for example, 19 Carisbrook Drive had a first floor rear
extension to provide an enlarged bedroom over the existing kitchen which was granted permission
on 18th November 1997. Number 13 Carisbrook Drive had a part single/ part two storey rear
extension to provide an enlarged lounge and kitchen on the ground floor and an enlarged bedroom
on the first floor. This was granted permission 12th May 1993. Another example is 27 Ashdown
Drive where a first floor bedroom extension has been constructed and permission was granted 31st
July 2002. All of these examples pre-date the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on
House Extensions which was adopted in December 2002. This application would be determined
following the current planning policies. The proposal at 15 Carisbrook is contrary to the Council’s
policies and is therefore considered to be unacceptable.
The conservatory and external decking are acceptable as there is a part single/part two storey
extension at the rear of 13 Carisbrook Drive and so the conservatory complies with HH9. It would
not be possible to have a split decision, as there would be a gap of 2.74m between the existing rear
of the property and the conservatory/decking. The applicant was given the opportunity to make
amendments to the proposal in order for it to be more acceptable by only having a single storey
extension across the rear, however they would like it to be determined without any changes to the
plans.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion I believe the proposed development should not be granted permission as it is
contrary to planning policy and would harm the residential amenity of the occupiers of 16
Sevenoaks Drive. I therefore recommend the application to be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would result in loss of privacy for the neighbouring residents of 16
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st July 2005
Sevenoaks Drive contrary to Policy DEV 8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
and the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance on House Extensions.
APPLICATION No:
05/50721/LBC
APPLICANT:
A Rooryck
LOCATION:
16 Barton Road Worsley M28 2PB
PROPOSAL:
Listed Building Consent for the erection of a two storey side
extension and garage with roof balcony and spiral staircase
WARD:
Worsley
At the meeting of the Panel held on 7th July 2005 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a grade II listed end terrace property in Worsley Village
Conservation Area. Number 10,12 and 14Barton Road has a right of access to the rear of the site.
The right of access is immediately adjacent to the existing gable end of the applicant’s property.
This right of access leads to two garages and an open area used as parking space for numbers 10,12
and 14. Further to the east is the disused public toilets and Worsley Canal.
It is proposed to erect a two storey side extension and an attached double
garage with a balcony and staircase and a new vehicular access.
CONSULTATIONS
Worsley Civic Trust and Amenity Society-does not object to the architectural aspects of the plans
providing that the faēade is in keeping with surrounding properties in the Conservation Area but
has draw to our attention over the legal right of access to land adjacent to the existing gable end of
Number 16. They strongly object to any proposals to re-locate the entrance in closer proximity to
the pedestrian crossing.
PUBLICITY
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st July 2005
A site notice has been displayed and a press notice issued.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
10, 12, 14 Barton Road
7, 7B, 9 and11A Barton Road
Queen Victoria Boathouse, The Green
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received five letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity.
The following issues have been raised: Out of character to the village,
New access,
Overlooking to public toilets,
The spiral staircase detracts from the scale and appearance of this listed building
Legal right of way used by neighbouring residents No10, 12 and 14 Barton Road.
Felling of a tree in a Conservation area.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: EN12-Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: CH2-Works to Listed Buildings
CH4-Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application is the impact of the proposed extension may
have on the architectural and historic character and setting of the listed building and whether the
proposal would comply with the provisions of relevant policies of the Adopted and Revised
Deposit Draft Replacement Plan Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning
Guidance on House Extensions.
Policy EN11 and CH5 states that the Council will seek to preserve or enhance the character and
appearance of the conservation area and Policy EN12 and CH4 states that planning permission will
only be granted for development that would not have an unacceptable impact on the setting of any
listed building or would detract from the architectural and historic character of a listed building.
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st July 2005
The proposed two-storey side and double garage has been designed to be sympathetic to the
existing grade II listed building. The walls are to be rendered to match with the existing. I have
attached a condition for materials such as windows, roof covering to be submitted to Local
Planning Authority for approval. The extension would appear as an extension to the existing
building by setting it back from the main elevation. This maintains an honest history of the
development of the building. As such the extension would not detract from the character or
appearance of this grade II listed building in a Conservation area.
The remaining objections are considered in the planning application report.
CONCLUSION
Overall, the proposed development complies with all the relevant policies of the adopted Unitary
Development Plan and the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan. I therefore recommend that
the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Not withstanding the details of materials submitted shown on the approved plans, no work
shall be started until samples of the external materials for the roof, details or specification for
the walls, windows, doors, railings to first floor balcony, front dwarf wall and spiral staircase
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The work shall only be carried out in
accordance with sample details as approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R038 Section 18
2. To safeguard the visual integrity of the listed building in accordance with policy CH2 of the
Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan.
APPLICATION No:
05/50724/COU
APPLICANT:
D Nafisa Kaduji
LOCATION:
64 Victoria Road Salford M6 8EF
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st July 2005
PROPOSAL:
Change of use of ground floor from residential to dental surgery
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
At the meeting of the Panel held on 7th July 2005 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Since writing my report I have received 5 letters in support of the application. I have also received
two further letters of objection to the proposal outlining the following issues:
Parking is not being given sufficient consideration
That parking next to the boundary with number 32 Orlanda Avenue will result in noise, fumes and
a loss of visual amenity to the owners of this property when using their rear garden.
The issue of the parking layout and root protection measures have been discussed with the
applicant and their agent and I am satisfied that an acceptable level of parking and manoeuvrability
space can be achieved within the site whilst still protecting the trees. As an acceptable layout has
not yet been submitted the issue will be the subject of a condition.
I have received the following comments from Councillor Ainsworth with regard to the conditions:
Condition 2: amend to ‘There shall not be more than one practitioner , ie dentist hygienist or
similar, providing services at the premises at any one time.’
The suggested justification is to reflect the advice of the applicant and the consequent basis of
planning appraisal of the proposal - and in particular the adequacy of the proposed car parking
arrangements in the context of the respective situations that the proposal contains two consulting
rooms capable of simultaneous delivery of patient services (ie a dentist surgery and a hygienist
room) , the property is located a significant distance away from any public transport route (ie a
distance of greater than the 400 m generally acknowledged to be a determinant of choice of mode
of transport) ,the locality is already subject to long stay hospital generated on street parking and
there is no evidence ( eg by reference to the existing dental practise operating on Victoria Road) to
suggest that the patients will be residents of the immediate locality.
Condition 3 : amend to include reference to the required parking layout demonstrating the
capability of vehicles to exit from the car park in a forward gear. The suggested justification is to
ensure the adequacy of on site space enabling vehicles to manoeuvre and on the highway safety
grounds of avoiding the undue risk of vehicles having to reverse ( with restricted visibility) into the
carriageway .
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st July 2005
Conditions 4 and 6 replace the references to the provision of medical care ( which definition could
include a multiplicity of medical related services including drug rehab/treatment) to primary
use/purpose of the building as a dental surgery. The application is specific in requesting approval
for use as a dental surgery and no other medical use and has apparently been publicised and
appraised as such. It is conceivable that other services falling within the definition of ‘medical
care’ may be considered inappropriate.
Condition 5 :Specify in the second sentence that Such scheme shall include the retention of a
frontage boundary (privet) hedge and protected trees, detail of additional trees and shrubs to be
planted …….etc. The reason is that the text of the report identifies the existence of the screening
provided by the existing trees and privet to have been a material consideration in determining the
acceptability of the proposed car park arrangement and the maintenance of area amenity.
Additional Condition: Signage: A condition is requested to the effect that no external or window
signage , other than the property number, shall be erected or displayed without the prior written
approval of the Planning Authority, .The reason is to ensure that the building will retain its
residential character and appearance.
Generally I agree with suggested amendments and conditions 2 and 4 have been changed with the
applicants agreement to just a dentist or dental practitioner. Condition 3 has been amended to
require that vehicles entering and leaving the site should be able to do so in forward gear. I do not
consider the amendment to number 5 to be required as the privet hedge is not protected and it is
likely that a small section will be required to be removed in order to achieve the required visibility
splays. The additional condition is not necessary as advertisements are controlled by the Town and
Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 and consent is likely to be
required to display illuminated signage. It is likely that the business will require some form of
signage, for example the name of the practitioner and I do not consider that non-illuminated
signage for this purpose would be inappropriate in this location.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached property on Victoria Road, situated between its junctions
with Orlanda Avenue and Oakland Avenue. The immediate area is predominantly residential in
nature. Hope Hospital is situated only a short distance away.
The application submitted is to change the ground floor of the property to a dental surgery for one
practitioner. Internally this would equate to one surgery room, a reception area, room for a
hygienist and WC/kitchen facilities. The proposed surgery would employ three new staff and
would operate between the hours of 9am to 5pm Monday to Thursday and 9am to 12 noon Fridays.
The proposal would make provision for car parking spaces to the front of the property using the
existing vehicular access. A number of protected trees exist within the curtilage of the property
along the boundary with Victoria Road.
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st July 2005
SITE HISTORY
There have been no previous applications on the site.
CONSULTATIONS
Directorate of Environmental Services – no objections received.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 1st June 2005.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
73 – 89 & 89A (odd numbers) Victoria Road
28, 30, 32, 33 Orlanda Avenue
25, 27, 28 Oakland Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 17 letters of objection and an identical letter signed by 12 people in response to the
planning application publicity. The following issues have been raised: The proposal will impact on existing car parking problems in the area
Lower house values
Impact on highway safety
Out of character with the residential nature of the area
Already a dentist on this road and is already well covered for these services
Will attract groups of youths outside in the evening
Reduce the visual impact of the area if the front of the property is used for parking
This part of the road is likely to soon be part of the residents parking scheme
The number of proposed parking spaces does not meet Council guidelines
No indication of how the first floor flat will be accessed
Internal layout only allows access to the kitchen is through the WC or Hygienists room
The property has only been on the market for a few months
No scale plan showing how the parking is to be achieved
Precedent that this may lead to further commercial properties on the road
Potential for the dentist to change to an alternative business use
I have also received a letter of objection from Councillor Ainsworth requesting that the application
go to Panel and outlining the following issues:
That the proposal will have a wider sphere of influence than just the effect on Victoria Road
Potential for future business growth in the surrounding area
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st July 2005
That insufficient information has been submitted to determine the application
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
SC9 – Health Care Facilities
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
EHC1 – Provision and improvement of Health Care Facilities
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the principle of the use of the
property as a dentist is acceptable and whether car-parking provision proposed for this use is
acceptable.
Policies DEV1 and DES1 call for consideration to be given to the relationship of the proposed
development to its surrounding uses and the context in which it will be set. The proposed dental
surgery would be operational only during daytime hours, between 9am and 5pm Monday to
Thursday and 9am and 12 noon on Friday. The property is detached from its nearest neighbours
that face onto the adjacent side streets. Externally the building will retain its residential character
and appearance. As a matter of principle I would maintain that such a use within an appropriate
context can co exist with neighbouring residential properties provided matters of traffic generation
and car parking and its associated visual impact can be satisfied. I do not feel that the approval of
this scheme would set a precedent for future commercial development given that a change of use
application would be required for changes to any other properties. House values, the time the
property has been on the market and the movement between rooms are not material planning
considerations.
Policy EHC1 states that planning permission will be granted for the provision of new, and
improvements to health and community facilities by public, private and voluntary agencies,
provided the development would:
“Not give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic congestion, or have an adverse impact on Highway
Safety in terms of traffic generation, parking or servicing.”
The Adopted Unitary Development Plan (1995) would normally require a minimum of five car
parking spaces for this type of use. However these are minimum standards and the Revised Draft
Deposit Plan now operates on a maximum standard basis to encourage more sustainable modes of
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st July 2005
transport. In this location a reduced level of parking would be acceptable given that a number of
patients would be from the local area. Furthermore one consulting room is proposed and the
practising consultant would reside in the first floor flat. The practice will operate on an
appointment system that staggers visits and therefore vehicle movements and car parking would be
controlled.
I do not consider that the use of the front of the property for car parking associated with the use will
have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area. The property is currently vacant and
the garden overgrown and a significant degree of screening is provided by the existing trees and
privet hedge to the front of the property.
An initial scheme showing 6 car parking spaces has been submitted, however it is not acceptable
given that there is insufficient manoeuvrability space. I am satisfied that there is adequate space
within the site to provide a satisfactory level of parking. A condition is recommended to ensure
that the parking layout is approved prior to the commencement of the change of use and to ensure
that the layout makes provision for the protection of the roots of the protected trees on the site. A
condition is also recommended to ensure that only one practitioner can operate from the premises.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion I consider that the principle of a change of use of this property to a dentist is
acceptable provided that the applicant can provide evidence that the required number of car
parking spaces can be achieved within the curtilage of the property without having a detrimental
impact on the protected trees.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. There shall not be more than one dentist or dental practitioner working from the premises at
any one time.
3. No development shall be commenced until full details (including surface treatment) of a
parking layout showing provision for five spaces, including one disabled space and details of
the root protection measures for the protected trees on the site shall be submitted to, and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any plans submitted should
demonstrate sufficient manouverability spaces for cars to enter and leave the property in
forward gear. The use of the building shall not commence until the approved parking scheme
and the approved spaces are available for use.
4. Any residential occupancy of the building shall be limited to a dentist or dental practitioner
employed as part of the primary use of the building.
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st July 2005
5. In conjunction with the parking layout, required under condition 3, the site shall be treated in
accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local
Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme shall include full details of
trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences and boundary treatments and shall be carried out
within 6 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained
thereafter. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced.
6. Not withstanding the provisions of class D1 of the Town and Country Planning Use Classes
(Amendment) Order 2005, the premises shall only be used for the primary purpose of dental
care.
7. The use hereby permitted shall NOT be operated on weekends or Bank Holidays and shall
ONLY be operated between the hours of :
9am and 5pm Mondays to Thursdays
9am and 12 noon Fridays.
Reason(s)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Reason: Inadequate provision has been made for the parking of vehicles to allow the
unrestricted use of the building in accordance with policy T13 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
3. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
4. Standard Reason R022A Inadequate provision for parking
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Standard Reason R022A Inadequate provision for parking
7. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This permission does not relate to any signage, nor does it imply that permission would be
forthcoming. Any signage is likely to require a subsequent application to display
advertisements.
APPLICATION No:
05/50772/HH
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st July 2005
APPLICANT:
Mr D Smus
LOCATION:
61 Ashbourne Grove Salford M7 4DB
PROPOSAL:
Construction of rear dormer extension and alterations to roof to
create a gable end roof. (Amendment to previously Approved
04/48163/HH)
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property at the end of Ashbourne Grove near to the
Junction with Leicester Road. The property has a small rear garden that is 4.9m in length and 7.7m
in width. The property has an existing part single part two storey rear extension.
The application is for the erection of a box dormer in the rear roof space of the property. The
dormer will project out approximately 6m from the roof plane. It would be sited approximately
0.1m below the ridge of the roof. It is set in from the gable end of the property approximately 0.3m
and from the adjoining semi-detached property approximately 0.6m. The property has an existing
two storey rear extension. The proposed dormer extension would project out the same distance as
this extension.
This application is an amendment to 04/48163/HH which was approved in July 2004. This
application differs from the previous in that the dormer extension will now project at total of 6m
from the roof line of the property. The previous permission approved a dormer extension that
would project 4m from the ridge and would not extend past the rear wall of the dwelling.
SITE HISTORY
04/48163/HH- Construction of rear dormer extension and alterations to roof to create a gable end
roof. Approved under delegated powers on 09.07.2004 but has not been built to date.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
57A – 59 Leicester Road
100-104 Northumberland Street
59 Ashbourne Grove
REPRESENTATIONS
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st July 2005
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity.
Councillor B P Murphy has requested the application be determined at panel due to the large
family requirements of the applicant.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
None
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 House Extensions
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES8 Alterations and Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issue relating to this application is the impact that the proposed dormer would
have upon the street scene and the over looking and subsequent loss of privacy to the residents of
102 Northumberland Street.
Policy DEV8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan states that development must not
have an unacceptably adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene. Policies
DES8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan reiterate the sentiments of DEV8. Policy
HH15 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on House Extensions states that
dormers are not normally acceptable where they face an adopted highway used by vehicular traffic
and are not an original feature of the street scene unless they are designed in such a way that their
impact can be significantly reduced. It goes on to provide specific guidance on how dormers can be
designed in order to minimise their impact upon the street scene advocating dormers which have
pitched or hipped roofs and are sited below the ridge line and set well back and in from the eaves.
61 Ashbourne Grove is located at the end of a row of semi-detached properties, just 17 metres from
Leicester Road. The roofspace where the proposed dormer would be constructed is highly visible
to those travelling up or down Leicester Road and Ashbourne Grove. According to policy the
proposed dormer should be designed in such a way that its impact upon the street scene is
significantly reduced. This is not the case. The proposed dormer has a boxy design, it is very large
extending across most of the roof and projecting out from the roof by approximately 6m. The size
of the dormer together with its boxy design accentuates the bulkiness of the structure. The
proposed dormer would therefore form a very obvious and incongruous feature within the
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st July 2005
roofspace. The long range, visibility and poor design means that the proposed dormer would have
an adverse impact upon the street scene. The development is contrary to policy DEV8 of the City
of Salford Unitary Development Plan, policies DES7 and DES8 of the Revised Deposit Draft
Replacement Plan and policy HH15 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on House
Extensions.
The previously approved planning application 04/48163/HH showed that the rear dormer would
be sited entirely on the existing rear roof plane of the house and as such did not significantly
further contribute to over looking or a loss of privacy to 102 Northumberland Street. There is 15m
separation distance between the main original dwelling house of 102 Northumberland Street and
61 Ashbourne Grove, however, following rear extensions at both properties the separation
distance between the rear extensions of 61 Ashbourne Grove and the rear elevation of 102
Northumberland Street is 12.5m. As the current scheme seeks to extend the dormer to project 6m
from the roof plane this will bring the dormers’ habitable room window closer to 102
Northumberland Street than the previously approved dormer by 2m ie it will be 12.5m away. The
previously approved dormer would be 14.5m away. I consider that this increase in projection,
which seeks to reduce an existing sub-standard separation distance between the previously
approved dormer and the dwelling opposite, will result in a significant increase in the loss of
amenity to the neighbouring residents in terms of over looking and loss of privacy having regard to
its location in the roofspace. I consider that the proposed dormer extension would be detrimental to
the amenity of the residents of 102 Northumberland Street and as such I consider the proposal
unacceptable.
CONCLUSION
Overall, the siting of the house is such that the proposed development would be highly visible to
those travelling along Leicester Road and Ashbourne Grove. The boxy design of the dormer in
combination with the 6m rear projection and end of row location means that the proposed dormer
forms an incongruous feature within the roofscape which would have a negative effect on the street
scene. It is therefore contrary to policy DEV8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan,
policies DES8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan and policy HH15 of the Council’s
Supplementary Planning Guidance on House Extensions. I consider that the further reduction in
separation distance to 102 Northumberland Street at the rear would result in serious over looking
and a loss of privacy to the residents. I am of the opinion that this application clearly increases the
over looking element on the rear garden and rear aspect of 102 Northumberland Street due to the
projection of the dormer over the existing rear extension instead of being sited entirely on the
originals roof plane of the house. It is therefore contrary to policy DEV8 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan, policies DES8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan and
policy HH3 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on House Extensions. I therefore
recommend that the application be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st July 2005
1. The proposed dormer extension would, by reason of its size and design, be an incongruous
addition to the roofscape detrimental to the visual amenity of the area contrary to Policy
HH15 of the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance for house extensions and policy
DEV8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and Policy DES8 of the First Deposit
Draft Replacement City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
2. The proposed rear dormer would, by reason of its proximity to the property at the rear 102
Northumberland Street, result in overlooking and a subsequent loss of privacy contrary to
Policy DEV8 of the Unitary Development Plan and HH1 of the Supplementary Planning
Guidance - House Extensions.
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st July 2005
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st July 2005
22