PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
APPLICATION No:
05/50891/FUL
APPLICANT:
City Spirit Regeneration (Salford) Ltd _ Salford In Partners
LOCATION:
Site At 19 - 47 Vincent Street
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 19 two/three storey dwellings together with associated car
parking and alteration to existing and construction of new vehicular
access.
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site is currently vacant and surrounded by a knee rail. The dwellings which previously occupied the site
were demolished approximately nine months ago. To the north of the site is an alley, beyond which are
properties fronting Wellington Street East. Numbers 14 to 26 are used for residential purposes. 28 and 30
Wellington Street East are currently in commercial use. 41 and 43 Tully Street, both of which are
residential, are also located to the north. To the south, on the opposite side of Vincent Street is another
vacant site which was previously occupied by houses. The application site is located within the Higher
Broughton Regeneration Area. The first phase of the redevelopment of the area, on the former playing
fields at Northumberland Street, is currently underway. The site to the south of the application site will
accommodate the replacement sports pitches. The site to the west will accommodate the proposed
community hub.
The proposal includes seven three bedroomed and twelve two bedroomed properties. The three bedroomed
houses would be three storeys, whereas the two bedroomed houses would be two storeys. Vehicular access
to the properties would be from the alley between the proposed dwellings and the properties fronting
Wellington Street East. Each of the properties would have one car parking space within the rear garden
areas. The proposed dwellings would be a similar size to the dwellings which previously occupied the site.
They would however be taller in order to achieve accommodation at second floor level for those dwellings
with three bedrooms. The proposed dwellings would be of a modern design, with a mixture of roof heights.
The applicant has indicated that the properties would be either red brick or rendered.
SITE HISTORY
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
There is no relevant planning history relating to the application site. The recent planning history of adjacent
sites is however of relevance to this application. Permission has been granted for the creation of sports
pitches on land to the south of the application site, bounded by Tully Street, Vincent Street, Wiltshire Street
and Bradshaw Street North (ref: 03/47158/OUT and 05/50310/OUT).
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – no objections
United Utilities – no objections
Director of Environmental Services – no objections but recommends a condition requiring the submission
of a site investigation report
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – no objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – comments received. The parking areas to the
rear of the properties should be surrounded by 2.1m high fencing and gates, the alleyway to the rear should
be sealed off and the gable end of the property at the corner of Vincent Street and Tully Street should be
protected with defensible space.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by site and press notices
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Flats 1-8, 14 Wellington Street East
18 – 30 (E), 34 Wellington Street East
41, 43, Aged Persons Day Centre, Tully Street
1 – 4 Cardiff Street
72 – 76 Bradshaw Street North
Salem Court, 12A, B, C Wellington Street East
Flat 8a, 8b, Wellington Street East
1 - 3 King Street
Flats 1 – 8, 16 Wellington Street East
Salem Court, 12A, 12B, 12C Wellington Street East
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: none
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
T13 – Car Parking
H6 – Open Space Provision within New Housing Developments
H11 – Open Space Provision within New Housing Developments
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
H8 – Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES11 – Design and Crime
DEV13 – Design Statements
A10 – Provision of car, cycle and motorcycle parking in new developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main issues in the determination of this application are: whether the principle of the proposal is
acceptable; whether there would be any impact on the amenity of residents; whether the design is
acceptable; whether there would be sufficient car parking; whether there would be an appropriate
contribution towards the provision of open space in the vicinity of the site; and whether the proposed
development accords with the provisions of the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary
Development Plans. I shall deal with each in turn below.
Principle of the Proposal
Adopted 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.
Draft Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a balanced mix
of dwellings within the local area.
The application proposes residential properties on a site which was previously occupied by terraced houses.
I am therefore satisfied that the principle of residential development is acceptable. A mixture of two and
three bedroomed properties are proposed. The applicant has confirmed that the proposed dwellings are
required to allow residents, who have to vacate their properties in order to facilitate the regeneration of the
area, to remain in Higher Broughton. The proposal, which has been formulated following community
consultation, will therefore enable ‘homeswaps’ to take place. I am satisfied that the proposal would
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
contribute to the provision of a mixture of dwelling types and sizes in the area and would facilitate the
regeneration of the wider area. The application therefore accords with the above policies.
Impact on Residential Amenity
Draft 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.
The rear of the proposed dwellings would be in excess 21m from the main rear elevations of the properties
fronting Wellington Street East. There would be a minimum of 17m between the rear of the proposed
dwellings and the gable of 41 Tully Street. There is a first floor window within the main side elevation, with
a ground floor window within the side of the outrigger. Although both appear to be to habitable rooms, a
distance of 17m is sufficient to ensure that the proposed dwellings would not have an overbearing impact
and would not result in an unacceptable loss of amenity to existing residents. In addition, the proposed
dwellings would be sited further from the existing properties on Wellington Street East and Tully Street
than the original houses, thereby improving the previous situation.
In light of the distances between the proposed dwellings and the existing neighbouring properties, I am
satisfied that the application would not result in an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of
residents due to overlooking or loss of privacy. The application therefore accords with Draft Policy DES7.
Design
Adopted 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.
Adopted 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.
Draft 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.
Draft Policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the Adopted UDP.
Draft 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.
In accordance with Draft Policy DES13, the applicant has submitted a design statement which outlines
design concepts. Within the statement, the applicant has confirmed that the design of the dwellings has been
influenced by the community consultation. The proposed dwellings would be approximately 1m narrower
than the previous dwellings on the site, although it should be noted that the application site covers a slightly
larger area. The dwellings would vary in height and the differing roof line and inclusion of dormer windows
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
at first floor level would add interest and variety to the scheme. They would be of a modern design and
would be either red brick or rendered. The property at the corner of Vincent Street and Tully Street would
include a door onto Tully Street, so it would not present a blank and unattractive gable and to ensure it
would make a positive contribution to the street scene. I am satisfied that the design of the properties is
acceptable and that they would be in keeping with the proposals for the regeneration of the remainder of the
area.
As mentioned above, the applicant has indicated that the dwellings would be rendered or red brick. I have
no objections to either option. I have attached a condition requiring the submission and approval of samples
of the materials to be used for the houses prior to the commencement of the development. I am satisfied that
this will ensure that the materials are of a sufficiently high quality. I therefore have no objections to the
application in this regard.
The Police Architectural Liaison Officer (ALO) has provided comments on the scheme which are detailed
above. I have attached a condition requiring the submission of a landscaping scheme which will include
details of the boundary treatment. This will ensure that the treatment to the rear parking areas is acceptable,
both in visual terms and in relation to safety and security. The applicant has confirmed that the alley to the
rear of the proposed dwellings would not be gated and that the residents of the proposed dwellings and the
existing dwellings fronting Wellington Street East would be able to access the rears of their properties. I am
however satisfied that the landscaping condition will ensure that the properties remain secure and I do not
consider it necessary to require the rear alley to be gated. The proposed dwelling on the corner of Vincent
Street and Tully Street fronts Tully Street, and does not therefore present its gable end to Tully Street. I
consider the presence of an entrance to the property from Tully Street is appropriate and do not consider it
necessary to require this house to be set back from Tully Street. I am satisfied that the application accords
with policies DEV4 and DES11.
Car Parking
Adopted Policy T13 states that the Council will ensure that adequate parking and servicing is provided to
meet the needs of new development, in accordance with the Council’s standards and that car parks are
designed to a high standard, with particular regard to access arrangements, surface materials, boundary
treatments and security measures.
Draft Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards. It also states that the maximum car
parking standards should not be exceeded.
One car parking space would be provided within the rear garden area of each of the dwellings, accessed
from the rear alley. In light of the need to reduce the reliance on the private car and encourage the use of
more sustainable modes of transport and in view of the maximum car parking standards advocated by
national government, I consider the proposed level of provision to be appropriate and in accordance with
Draft Policy A10.
Open Space
Adopted 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.
Draft Policy H8 updates the above policies.
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
In accordance with the above policies, the applicant has agreed to make a contribution of £52,289 towards
public open space in the vicinity of the site. I am therefore satisfied that the residents of the proposed
development would have access to adequate open space and I have no objections to the application in this
regard.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the proposed development would make efficient use of a previously developed site within
the urban area. Given the previous use of the site, the principle of residential development is acceptable.
The scheme is in line with the proposals for the wider Higher Broughton area and would not have an
unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. The design is such that the
proposed dwellings would make a positive contribution to the surrounding area. The application accords
with the relevant policies of both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs. I therefore
recommend that the application be approved.
It is recommended that authority be given for the Strategic Director of Customer and Support Services to
enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the materials for the
external elevations and roof of the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved materials, unless agreed
otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a site investigation report
for the approval of the LPA. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of
ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the
risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily
on risks to human health and controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of
ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on
services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems
and property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA 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 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
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.
4. 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, 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 Local Planning Authority
5. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be started by the undertaking of a
material operation as defined in Section 56(4) (a-d) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 until
a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 has been made
and lodged with the Local Planning Authority, and the Local Planning Authority has given its approval
in writing. The planning obligation will provide that a commuted sum as required by policies H6 and
H11 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP, Policy H8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP
and SPG7 Provision of Open Space and Recreation Space Associated with New Residential
Development will be paid to the Local Planning Authority for open space and recreation space
purposes.
Reason(s)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Reason: To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space
for future occupiers in accordance with policies H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP,
Policy H8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP and SPG7 Provision of Open Space and
Recreation Space Associated with New Residential Development
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 (Tel:
(0161) 737 0551).
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.
3. The applicant is advised to contact United Utilities regarding connections to the sewers
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
APPLICATION No:
05/51036/FUL
APPLICANT:
Salford Methodist Church/St Ambrose Church And
LOCATION:
132 Langworthy Road Salford M6 5PN
PROPOSAL:
Erection of multi-level development (part single, part two and part four
storey buildings) comprising new Church, community centre wih
associated offices and cafe, 21 residential units together with associated
landscaping, car parking, alteration to existing vehicular access and
closure of alleyway between 132 - 174 Langworthy Road and 2 - 50 Fir
Street.
WARD:
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The Site
This application relates to 132 – 174 Langworthy Road and 2 – 50 Fir Street. The properties on Langworthy
Road are two storey terrace properties with retail units at ground floor with living accommodation at first
floor level, whilst on Fir Street the properties were two storey houses opening straight onto the street. The
properties on Fir Street have been demolished under approval 04/49711/DEMCON. Langworthy Road and
Fir Street are parallel to each other and are separated by an alleyway that provides rear access to all
properties.
The Surrounding Area
To the north of the site across Jubilee Street lies the Langworthy Hotel. To the east across Fir Street and to
the south across Field Street lie two storey residential properties subject of redevelopment proposals by
Urban Splash whilst to the west across Langworthy Road are two storey properties comprising retail units.
The area is characterised by brick built (early twentieth century) two storey terrace properties, built on a
tight grid with streets running parallel to Langworthy Road. Close to the application site on Langworthy
Road the area is also characterised by larger public buildings such as the Langworthy Hotel and the
Langworthy School which have been constructed with their steeply pitched roofs being perpendicular to
Langworthy Road.
The Proposal
Planning permission is sought for the redevelopment of the site to form a new Church (217sq.m.),
community centre (500sq.m.), offices (143sq.m.), café (143sq.m.), creche (120sq.m.), 20 off street car
parking spaces and 21 apartments across multi-level buildings ranging from one to four storeys in height.
The office space is split into seven units and covers 143sq.m. in total. Alterations to highway access would
involve the loss of two trees. Three landscaped areas are proposed within the site.
To enable the development all remaining buildings on the site would be demolished and the alleyway
between Fir Street and Langworthy Road would be closed. The proposed Church would be shared by
Salford Methodist Community Church and St Ambrose Church. Both existing church sites would be
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
vacated and be available for redevelopment. The apartments would be developed by Manchester Methodist
Housing Group, who are a joint applicant alongside the two Churches.
The buildings proposed would cover the block to the back of pavement on Fir Street, Langworthy Road,
Jubilee Street and Field Street just as the existing buildings do. The rear alleyway would be closed as a
result of the development. An application has been made to formally close the alleyway however this
application is undetermined. The site measures 103 metres north to south by 33 metres wide. As with the
existing situation there would be a distance of 11m to houses across Fir Street, and a distance of 21m to the
retail units across Langworthy Road.
Members will note from the ground floor plan that the uses are set out around a main entrance, courtyard
and café on the Langworthy Road frontage. The café has windows onto Langworthy Road and the entrance
courtyard. The Church and community space are also on the Langworthy Road frontage. A Church garden,
set behind a 3 metre high wall, is on the corner of Langworthy Road and Field Street. The car park entrance
is from Field Street with the car park itself returning along Fir Street for 41m. The offices front onto Fir
Street whilst the creche is on the corner of Fir Street and Jubilee Street. The creche has an outside space
which is enclosed by a 3m high wall. The apartments are situated at first, second and third floor levels and
have an entrance/exit to Fir Street and onto Langworthy Road.
The tallest part of the development at 4 storeys with pitched valley roofs is positioned on the Fir Street side
of the site. The proposed four storey element has a footprint of 24 metres running north south by 18 metres
east west. The ridge level of the four storey part rises to 15.8 metres above ground level. The ridge height of
the existing two storey buildings on the site is the same as those across Fir Street at 8.5m from ground level.
The proposed materials are mainly brick and clay tile roofs with a stone plinth around active uses on
Langworthy Road. The building form has steeply angled roof planes which are perpendicular to
Langworthy Road.
Supporting Document Prepared by the Architect
The applicant has submitted a design statement, which provides a background to the joint applicants’
requirements, character of the surrounding area, urban design concepts, integration of uses within the
development, impact of the proposed building on the wider area, proposed materials, parking and transport
issues and also coloured images of the proposal. The design statement also explains that the architects for
the proposal were selected following a design competition. The Panel for the design competition included
local people, the applicants of the planning application, the Seedley and Langworthy Partnership Board and
also Peter Hunter.
Seedley and Langworthy Partnership Board
The application site is within the Seedley and Langworthy Regeneration Area. The application has also
been submitted with a statement prepared by the Seedley and Langworthy Partnership Board. This
statement explains that the Partnership Board approved a Masterplan for the area in 2001, following public
consultation, that promotes the revival of the neighborhood centre on Langworthy Road with a new
community centre which would be at the hub of the areas regeneration. The statement also explains that:
In 2001 50% of retail units within the Langworthy Road neighbourhood centre were vacant,
The Masterplan proposed consolidation of the shopping facilities within the centre to improve
vitality and viability,
The two Churches wished to share a new building given running costs and declining
congregations,
Both existing Church sites have been identified for future redevelopment and are considered as
being of strategic importance in the regeneration of the wider area,
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
This proposal would complement other regeneration activity in the area including the Urban
Splash scheme,
The proposal is of high design quality,
The proposal is a vital cog in the regeneration of the area.
The Vision for Seedley and Langworthy, published earlier this year, is not a statutory planning document
but has been produced by the Seedley and Langworthy Partnership Board following public consultation.
The vision shows this proposal at the geographical centre of proposed redevelopments to the area.
SITE HISTORY
In April 2005, consent was granted for the demolition of existing of dwellings at 142-174 Langworthy Road
(05/50301/DEMCON)
In January 2005, consent was granted for the demolition of existing of dwellings at 21 Jubilee Street, 22
Field Street And 2 To 48 Fir Street (04/49711/DEMCON).
In 2003, planning permission was granted for the 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 at properties within Field Street, Fir Street, Laburnum Street, Ash
Street and Alder Street (03/46879/FUL). Members should also be aware that there is a revised scheme for
this site which also appears on this agenda (05/51208/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – Responded to consultation with ‘no comment’.
Environment Agency – No objection.
United Utilities – No objection.
Director of Environmental Services – No objection subject to conditions relating to ground conditions and
noise impacts.
Pendleton Area Masterplan Team – No objections
GM Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No comments received
Open Spaces Society – No comments received
GM Pedestrians Association – No comments received
Peak and Northern Footpath Association – no comments received
Ramblers Association – No objection.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by way of site notices and press notice.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
157 to 201 odd Langworthy Road
118 – 130 Langworthy Road
157a, 157 ground foor flat, 157 first floor flat, Ground and first floor flats 169 all Langworthy Road
Langworthy Court, Langworthy Road
1 to 49 odd Fir Street
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
19 Jubilee Street
75 – 79 odd Duchy Street
Urban Splash, Timber Wharf, 16/22 Worsley Street, Castelfield, Manchester
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The following
issues have been raised:One letter, from a resident within the application site whose house would be demolished
for this development, objects to having to sell their property and land as they state their
house is well built and can accommodate seven people. The letter also states they have not
received a CPO and the submission of a planning application is premature. The letter also
states an objection to the Church and community uses on this site as the Church on
Liverpool Road is seen as sufficient together with the Cornerstone offering café and
community uses. The letter also states this development would be against their human
rights as it would dispossess them of a family home.
The other objector states they were of the understanding the development would be a
maximum height of three storeys and objects to four storeys as this is too prohibitive in a
small built up area such as Langworthy Road. The objector offers the opinion that new
buildings should reflect and complement the historical aspect of the area.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP3 Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H7/2 Langworthy/Seedley Housing Area Improvement and Renewal – Private Sector
Other policies: S3 Key Local Centres, H3 Maintaining and Improving Private
Sector Housing, DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design
and Crime, T10 Pedestrians, T13 Car Parking, SC2 Provision of Social and
Community Facilities by Private and Voluntary Agencies
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: S2/7 Retail and Leisure Development Within Town and Neighbourhood Centres
Other policies: S3 Loss of Shops, H3 Housing Improvement, EHC1 Provision and Improvement of Health
and Community Facilities, DES1 Respecting Context, DES11 Design and Crime, A10 Provision of Car,
Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the demolition of the houses and shops and loss of
those uses, the suitability of the proposed uses at the site, the amenity impacts upon neighbouring sites of
the proposal, the suitability of the design in its scale, mass and materials and the level of parking.
Principle of Development.
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
Loss of Shops
Adopted policy S3 seeks to retain, consolidate and improve Salford’s Key Local Centres. Policy S2/7
identifies the site as being within the Langworthy neighbourhood centre. S3 of the Deposit Draft UDP
restricts the loss of retail units unless there would be no impact on the vitality or viability of the centre.
Policy S3 supports positive regeneration for the area and for development that provides a wide range of
attractions and amenities. The existing shop units are vacant and the loss of the use would not particularly
harm the vitality and viability of the centre. The proposed development provides attractions and amenities
such as the church, café, offices and community uses which would help to consolidate the rest of the
neighbourhood centre. The introduction of a café and other active uses at ground floor level will increase
natural surveillance of the street. The proposed community uses, offices and the two Churches will increase
activity along Langworthy Road. The apartments will also offer greater footfall at all times of the day. I
consider the development would help to improve the vitality and viability of the neighbourhood centre and
would be in conformity to the retail policies of both UDPs.
Demolition and Replacement of Housing
Policies H7/2 and H3 seek improvement to housing with H7/2 explaining there is scope to improve housing
stock and the environment. H3 permits selective clearance of housing and redevelopment with uses
compatible with a residential area. Policy H3 also seeks community involvement and community
development initiatives. Deposit Draft policy H3 allows for replacement housing in a form appropriate to
the needs of the local area and consistent with the strategy for regeneration of the area. This policy also
allows for replacement housing where existing units are of poor quality, demand is low for them or if they
are required for site assembly for regeneration purposes. The policy also explains that some occupied
dwellings may also have to be demolished to facilitate long-term improvement and regeneration of an area.
There are of course existing approvals to demolish the housing on the site.
The inclusion of apartments within this site is, according to the applicant, a result of a lack of similar
accommodation within the area. Most residential units around the site are terraced houses. There has been
low demand for housing within the Langworthy area. This site is identified for redevelopment to include
residential flats and the community uses in accordance with the Seedley and Langworthy Partnership
Board’s 2005 Vision for the area which has been developed through consultation. The objection to the loss
of a family home is being considered under CPO legislation and I understand replacement housing has been
offered to the objector. I consider the demolition of the housing and replacement with apartments and
community uses as a part of a regeneration scheme to be acceptable and to be in accordance with Council
planning policies.
Community Uses
The proposed community uses include meeting rooms, multi functional space that could be used as hall or
for indoor sports, small office units, a creche and the Church. The proposed café is at the centre of all these
uses. Policy SC2 supports the provision of community facilities by voluntary and private agencies. Policy
EHC1 states permission will be granted for community uses, as these contribute to the quality of life of the
City’s residents. The policy does include six variables including residential amenity, whether access by a
range of travel modes is possible and if the development has the potential to act as a community focus and
encourage linked trips. The justification for policy EHC1 explains the preferred location for community
uses is within or adjacent to the City’s neighbourhood centres.
I will discuss amenity and access below. However I am satisfied that the combination of uses proposed at
this site will provide an increased range of community facilities and will encourage linked trips, especially
given the site’s position within the neighbourhood centre. I note the regeneration benefits that the
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
development will provide for the community. I consider the proposed demolition and the intended
replacement uses to be in accordance with adopted and emerging UDP policies
Amenity
Policy DEV1 gives a list of criteria including sunlight and privacy that should be considered when assessing
applications. Policy DES7 also requires that residential amenity is considered for users and neighbours.
The distance of 11m to houses across Fir Street is consistent in the area, where two storey houses face one
another. The proposed four storeys will increase shadowing upon houses across Fir Street from the existing
situation. A greater number of windows from the additional storeys, compared to the existing situation, will
increase possibilities for overlooking. The applicant has submitted a shadow study which shows that the
increased shadowing will only occur in the afternoon/evening given Fir Street is east of the application site.
As the houses across Fir Street will all be rebuilt as part of the Urban Splash scheme the separation distance
of 11m is essentially for two brand new developments. The Urban Splash scheme involves living space on
the first floor with the main emphasis on the living space being at the back of the house away from this
development.
If this planning application did not offer the undoubted regeneration benefits that it does, as described by
the Seedley and Langworthy Partnership, if the community facilities were not proposed, and if the adjacent
site across Fir Street were not to be completely redeveloped I may not find such a juxtaposition acceptable.
Coupled with the regeneration benefits offered by the scheme and also community facilities proposed I
consider that in this particular instance the increased shadowing in the afternoon and increase in intensity of
overlooking over and above the existing situation is on balance acceptable. The four-storey element is 35m
away from buildings across Langworthy Road. All other separation distances are within the City Council’s
normal standards. As the intended uses include a café and commercial uses I have recommended a noise
condition be added to ensure amenity of future occupiers of the apartments would not be unacceptably
affected. I have also recommended a contaminated land condition.
As the net increase in the number of bedspaces is less than 50 there is no requirement for a commuted sum
under policies H6, H11, H8 or SPG7. Although there are is no outdoor space for future occupiers, the
applicant advises that for on site amenity space to be provided for residents the viability of the scheme
would be questioned and the residential units may not become affordable. This site is within a Local Centre
where high density development should be encouraged. There is no automatic expectation that areas of
private amenity space should be provided in such areas. I therefore consider the absence of such space to be
acceptable in this instance. The residential properties have an entrance/exit onto Fir Street and Langworthy
Road which will be beneficial to future residents. I am satisfied with the level of amenity proposed for
future occupiers of these properties.
Design
Policy DEV1 provides design criteria to assess against a development proposal. Policy DEV2 explains
permission will only be granted where the Council is satisfied with the quality of design. DES1 requires that
developments should respond to the positive character of the area. DES1 also requires in assessing the
quality of the design consideration should be given views and vistas, vertical and horizontal rhythms and to
the proposed materials. Policies DEV4 and DES11 also require design to respond to crime prevention and
promote natural surveillance.
The submitted design statement explains the rationale for the disposition of uses within the site, the scale
and mass and also for the proposed materials. I consider that the position of active uses and retail style
windows onto Langworthy Road will enhance visibility, security and the appearance of this part of
neighbourhood centre. The landscaped areas are enclosed by walls to aid security. I have no objection to the
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
highway trees being removed but recommend a landscaping condition be attached. The use of railings to
enclose the entrance courtyard coupled with the café will also foster improved surveillance. The proposed
materials are sympathetic to the area however I recommend a condition for samples of materials to be
submitted and approved to ensure quality. The use of the ridge line perpendicular to the road and use of
variation of height responds to the other public buildings in the locality. In my view the design corresponds
positively to local distinctiveness and offers an innovative and inventive built form to the local context.
Access and Parking
T10 requires that the needs of pedestrians and the presence of public rights of way are taken account of in
the planning of new development. Policy A2 explains that development that results in the closure of a
public right of way will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that adequate levels of access to,
around and where appropriate through the site will be maintained. Policy A2 also explains the closure of
some rights of way may be appropriate for the redevelopment of brownfield sites. The rear alleyway was
intended to provide access to the rear of houses and shops. As the houses and shops are proposed to be
demolished the primary function of this route would be removed. The closure of this route would not result
in a more commodious journey, would provide improved security within the site in line with other nearby
alleygating schemes, and results in a cleared site suitable for redevelopment.
Policy T13 requires adequate and appropriate car parking to be provided whilst policy A10 requires that
developments do not exceed maximum parking standards and provide parking for disabled drivers and
cyclists. The application includes two off street disabled parking and cycle parking as well as eighteen other
off street car parking spaces. There is also provision for thirteen on street parking spaces on the application
side of Fir Street. The site is on a bus route and is a short distance to the Metrolink stop on the corner of
Langworthy Road and Eccles New Road. Given the good public transport links and the main customers of
the uses proposed would come from the local area, the fact that I am satisfied with the level of disabled car
parking, car parking and cycle parking. The entrance and exit to the car park conform to City Council
standards. I recommend a condition to require the developer to clearly indicate the entrance and exit for
road users and to provide signage to clearly indicate the one way system. A S278 may be required for off
site highway works.
Letters of Objection
With regard to the height the planning application has been publicised at four storeys. I have checked this
matter with the Seedley and Langworthy Partnership board who advise me that no commitment was given
to residents regarding building height. As I have explained above I believe the height, scale and mass of the
development are appropriate.
Turning now to the issue of CPO. The Seedley and Langworthy Partnership have advised that the process of
CPO is underway. As I have discussed above I consider that the regeneration benefits of this proposed
development and the potential for regeneration on the Church sites is important for the area and is in
accordance with Council planning policies.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Pre-application discussions resulted in more active uses and shop style windows fronting onto
Langworthy Road.
Pre-application discussions also resulted in the addition of the stone plinth around the ground floor
uses.
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
Extensive pre-application discussions took place to address issues of overshadowing, compliance
with building regulations and detailed design issues.
At pre-application stage considered various design options for the site including options for moving
the four storey element within the site and for reducing the height to three storeys however the
submitted scheme was on balance the best option.
CONCLUSION
I consider that the demolition of the houses and shops is supported by Council Policies given the positive
regeneration implications of the development. I also consider the introduction of the balance of community
uses and residential accommodation will enhance the vitality and viability of the neighbourhood centre. I
find the disposition of those uses and innovative design of the development to be acceptable and consider
the proposal will result in positive regeneration benefits for the area. I recommend planning permission be
granted subject to the attached conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. 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 site and shall include an identification and
assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA,
focusing primarily on risks to human health and controlled waters. The investigation shall also address
the implications of ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied
building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors
including ecological systems and property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Director of Environmental Services prior
to the start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the
approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to 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.
3. Prior to the commencement of the development,the Applicant shall submit for approval, in writing, an
assessment of the impact of the proposed commercial development (cafe, church, community uses and
offices) on neighbouring premises. The assessment shall address the potential for any noise nuisance to
occur which may impact upon the amenity of neighbouring premises. The assessment shall identify
fully all measures which are required to control the impact of the nuisance. No works shall be permitted
on site until the control measures have been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
A verification report shall be submitted for written approval to the Local Planning Authority
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
confirming that all measures recommended by the noise report have been implemented in full prior to
the final occupation of the site. All approved measures shall be retained and maintained thereafter.
4. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be used
for the walls and roofs; of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out using the approved materials.
5. 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, boundary and surface treatment and shall be
carried out within twelve months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority
6. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use not less than twenty car parking spaces
shall be provided within the curtilage of the site to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and
such spaces shall be made available at all times the premises are in use.
7. Prior to the occupation of any of the buildings hereby permitted, the developer shall submit for the
written approval of the Local Planning Authortity, a scheme to detail signage to the entrance and exit of
the car park. Once approved the scheme shall be installed, and therefater retained, prior to the
occupation of any of the buildings hereby permitted.
8. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme, detailing the fume extraction system serving the
cooking and / or food preparation areas at the cafe shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be installed, and thereafter maintained, prior to
first use of the cafe.
9. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations,
including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other material planning considerations that
outweigh this finding:
ADOPTED UDP
Site specific policies: H7/2 Langworthy/Seedley Housing Area Improvement and Renewal - Private
Sector
Other policies: S3 Key Local Centres, H3 Maintaining and Improving Private Sector Housing, DEV1
Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, T10 Pedestrians, T13 Car
Parking, SC2 Provision of Social and Community Facilities by Private and Voluntary Agencies
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: S2/7 Retail and Leisure Development Within Town and Neighbourhood Centres
Other policies: S3 Loss of Shops, H3 Housing Improvement, EHC1 Provision and Improvement of
Health and Community Facilities, DES1 Respecting Context, DES11 Design and Crime, A10
Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
9. No development shall commence until the necessary closure or diversion orders have been obtained.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
9. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This grant of planning permission does not authorise the closure or diversion of the public right of way
as indicated on the approved plan, until the appropriate order has been made.
2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from North West Water.
3. 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.
4. This permission does not grant consent under the Town and Country Planning (Control of
Advertisements) Regulations 1992 for the advertisement(s) shown on the submitted plan, nor does it
imply that such consent would be forthcoming.
APPLICATION No:
05/51208/FUL
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
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
PROPOSAL:
Substantial demolition and re-build of 349 terraced houses to include
the retention of the existing street elevations and the creation of
courtyard gardens and covered parking to the rear together with the
creation of 'homezone' streets.
WARD:
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a 3.04 hectare site which presently
accommodates 349 terraced houses, all of which are vacant and boarded up.
The site includes properties on Field Street, Fir Street, Laburnum Street,
Ash Street, Reservoir Street and Alder Street.
To the north of the site beyond Jubilee Street and immediately to the east and west are further terraced
properties, many of which are also vacant and boarded up. A planning application is under consideration on
part of this land to the west, which is currently taken up by vacant properties, for the erection of a
multi-level development (part single, part two and part four storey) comprising new Church, community
centre with associated offices and cafe, 21 residential units and associated landscaping and car parking
(05/51036/FUL). This application is also being considered by the Panel today. To the south is Chimney
Pot Park which is on elevated land.
This application is similar to a previous application which was considered at this site, and which was
approved (03/46879/FUL). However, the application site in this instance is smaller with the exclusion of
two rows of terraced properties, one on Alder Street and one on Fir Street.
Apart from the exclusion of these properties, the differences with the previous application are:
1. The whole of the building, except for the front elevation, would be demolished and re-built (the
previous application proposed only the demolition of the outriggers with the majority of the
building being refurbished).
2. The wind turbines proposed to the rear of each of the properties have been removed.
3. Modern ‘chimney’ roof-lights have been incorporated into the design of each of the units as icons
to signify the development.
4. To the rear, at first floor level, steel balcony structures are proposed which open onto courtyard
gardens. Beneath the raised garden deck would be secured covered parking which would provide
over half of the parking provision for each of the blocks. Staircases would offer covered access
between the parking and the raised gardens.
SITE HISTORY
In December 2003, planning permission was granted for the demolition of the existing outriggers, the
erection of two storey balconies, one wind turbine per dwelling and 48 garages at the end of the blocks with
the creation of rear communal garden areas providing 397 dwellings (03/46879/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
Environmental Services – no objections, recommendations made with regard to noise, air quality, and
contaminated land.
Seedley and Langworthy Partnership – no objection, letter of support received
Environment Agency – No objection
GMP Architectural Liaison Officer – No objections subject to the properties being appropriately secured.
Robust ‘target hardening’ methods are requested to minimise the risk of crime. A number of suggestions
are made as to how the development can be secured and it is requested that the development should be
designed to the minimum standards of the Secured By Design Award, which is an accreditation scheme.
Peak and Northern Footpaths Society – no comments received
Ramblers Association – No objection.
The Open Spaces Society – no comments received
The Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – no comments received
Hazel Blears (M.P.) - no comments received
Cllr R Garrido - no comments received
Cllr J D Warmisham - no comments received
Cllr A Salmon - no comments received
Cllr Loveday - no comments received
PUBLICITY
100-176 (even), Hall Langwothy Road
40-66 (even), 70-114 (even), 128-134 Highfield Road
1 Jubilee Street
1-19 (odd) Co-operative Street
Sarah Hare Maccreanor Lavington Ltd
Salford Methodist Church/ St Ambrose Church and Manchester Methodist Housing Group.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of representation / objection in response to
the planning application publicity.
The following issues have been
raised:Objection is raised to any bollard system being introduced as it is
thought that this would be ‘selective’ and would restrict the parking
space available for people who do not live on the proposed
development. Reference is also made to the parking restrictions that
are in force on Langworthy Road which is seen as adding pressure to
the parking space available in the area. The objector questions
whether any ‘legal closure consultation exercise’ is needed to
restrict access to the highways within the application site.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
DP3 – Quality in New Development
SD1 – The North West Metropolitan Area – Regional Poles and Surrounding Area
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
UR4 – Setting targets for the Recycling of Land and Buildings
UR6 – Existing Housing Stock and Housing Renewal
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H7 Housing Area Improvement and Renewal
Other policies: H1 Housing Supply
H3 Maintaining and Improving Private Sector Housing
H6/H11 Open Space Provision
DEV1 Development Criteria
DEV2 Good Design
DEV4 Crime and Design
T13 Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 Provision of new housing development
H3 Housing Improvement
H8 Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing
Development
DES1 Respecting context
DES7 Amenity of users and Neighbours
DES11 Design and Crime
A10 Provision of Car, Cycle, and Motorcycle Parking in
New Developments
EN17 Renewable Energy
PLANNING APPRAISAL
This main issues in relation to this application is whether the proposed amendments to the previous
approval are acceptable; whether the decision is acceptable, whether the proposed level of car parking is
acceptable, whether there would be an impact on amenity, whether the development would be safe and
secure and whether the proposal complies with the relevant provisions of the Adopted and Revised Deposit
Draft Replacement UDPs.
Policy DP3 requires that new development must demonstrate good design and respect for its setting.
Policies DEV1 and DES1 require that the proposed development respects the context of the site and
surroundings and does not unduly impinge upon local residential amenity. They require developments to
be of a good design that have their own identity. The demolition of the majority of the building envelopes
will have little impact on the overall design of the proposal. I support the retention of the facades as they
represent an important characteristic of this area and are part of the local heritage. A condition has been
attached for a scheme to be submitted which will show how the demolition will take place to ensure that
these facades are retained as part of the development.
Policy DES7 states that all development will be required to provide potential users with a satisfactory level
of amenity. With regard to the rear courtyard gardens, bespoke design solutions have been incorporated into
the scheme to prevent overlooking and to define private spaces to the rear of each individual property.
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
These solutions include lateral planting beds that form green ‘hedges’ and long bench seats that define each
units defensible space, privacy louvres and lightwells that provide light to the bedrooms which are below
the raised courtyards. I am satisfied that the design of the rear courtyards will provide sufficient amenities
for future residents whilst encouraging the development of a vibrant community.
I am satisfied with the addition of the modern ‘chimney’ roof-lights and feel they will be iconic for the
development, especially given the location of ‘Chimney Pot Park’ which is an important public viewpoint
across the application site.
Policies T13 and A10 requires developments to include appropriate and
sufficient car parking and current government and council policy is to
restrict the amount of parking provision within new developments and to
encourage greener modes of travel. I consider that the increased level
of parking, which equates to around 100%, is acceptable.
I have no
objections on highway grounds.
With regard to the objections that have been raised by neighbours, it should
be noted that this proposal would increase the level of parking available
in the area by introducing the use of the ground floor parking below the
rear courtyards. As such, this proposal would help relieve the pressures
of parking in the area. Parking restrictions in force within the local
area are dealt with under separate legislation. A closure order would be
required with regard to the public rights of way that would be affected
by the development. This has been conditioned.
Policies DEV4 and DES11 encourage greater consideration of crime prevention
and personal and property security in the design of new development. The
ground level parking which provides access to the first floor courtyards
would be secured by gates at either end. Given the comments of the GMP
Architectural Liaison Officer, agreement has been reached with the
developer to secure the development to the minimum standards of the Secured
By Design Award. To achieve such an award, the developer will be required
to consider, in a holistic manner, the security of the development taking
account of factors such as glass type, the operation of the gating systems,
fence heights and locking systems for each property. This requirement has
been conditioned.
Policy EN17 states that planning permission will be granted for renewable energy development provided
that the impact on environmental quality and amenity does not outweigh the benefits of the development’s
potential contribution to reducing carbon dioxide emissions, diversifying the country’s energy supply, and
meeting the national targets for the production of renewable energy. The wind turbines have been removed
from this re-submission due to uncertainties over the noise and disturbance associated with them and the
impact on future residents. I recognise the problems associated with the turbines and consider that they may
not be appropriate. However, insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the removal of
the turbines is necessary and the applicant has confirmed that they may still be acceptable. Therefore, a
condition has been attached for an energy conservation scheme to be provided which may include the
re-introduction of some or all of the turbines subject to further investigation.
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
With regards to the exclusion of the row of properties now to the east of the application site, these properties
are currently vacant and boarded up. Therefore, the proposed development would not have a negative
impact on any neighbouring occupiers. There would be a distance of 11m to the development proposed at
the adjacent application site to the west (05/51036/FUL). Under normal circumstances a separation
distance of 27m would be required. However, it should be noted that the separation distances are informed
by the existing street patterns and that the majority of the living space is situated to the rear of the properties,
away from the adjacent development. As such I am satisfied that the relationship between the two
developments is acceptable.
CONCLUSION
The proposed amendments would be in accordance with the provisions of the
development plan and would not detract from the architectural qualities
offered by the approved proposal. The proposal would provide sufficient
amenities for the future occupants of the development and would not have
a negative impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. I am therefore
satisfied with the amendments proposed and recommend the application for
approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of the development, samples of the materials for the external elevations of
the buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
development shall ne undertaken using the approved materials.
3. Prior to the commencement of the development, samples of the materials for the external elevations of
the buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
development shall ne undertaken using the approved materials.
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.
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.
4. Standard Condition C01X Landscaping
5. Notwithstanding the details of the application hereby approved, full details of the external privacy
blinds to the rear elevation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The approved blinds shall be implemented
prior to first occupation of any of the dwellings.
6. Notwithstanding the details of the application hereby approved, full details of the gates to the rear
courtyard areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to
the commencement of the development. The approved gates shall be installed prior to the first
occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved and shall be retained thereafter.
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
7. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme detailing how the street/front elevations are to be
retained and preserved during the demolition process shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The demolition shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
scheme.
8. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme which satisfies the minimum standards of the
Secured By Design Award, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Loacal Planning
Authority. The approved scheme shall form part of the development and shall be implemented prior to
the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
9. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a site investigation report
for the approval of the LPA. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of
ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the
risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily
on risks to human health and controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of
ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on
services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems
and property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA 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 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 LPA.
10. Prior to the commencement of any building works on site, the applicant shall submit for written
approval an assessment of noise likely to affect the application site. This assessment shall identify noise
generated from traffic use within the development due to the covered secure car parking which forms
part of the development. The assessment shall identify all noise attenuation measures which may be
determined appropriate to reduce the impact of noise on the residential properties on site and achieve
the requirements of BS8233 for internal noise levels. Consideration shall also be given to achieving
adequate Summer Cooling and Rapid Ventilation. If deemed necessary, alternative ventilation
measures shall be identified and incorporated into the noise assessment report. Once agreed, all
identified noise control measures shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of any of the
dwellings and and shall be retained thereafter.
11. The applicant shall submit for approval an assessment reviewing the Air Quality, Ventilation and
Potential for Odour Nuisance for the covered parking areas within the development due to vehicular
activities. The assessment shall identify all mitigation measures which are deemed necessary to
counteract the potential problems and to prevent a reduction in amenity to the future occupiers of the
site. Once agreed, all measures shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of any of the
dwellings and shall be retained thereafter.
12. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme which investigates the potential of renewable
energy shall shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings and shall
remain effective thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
13. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme which investigates the potential for energy
efficiency shall shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings and shall
remain effective thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason(s)
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 R005A Amenity-neighbours
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
8. Standard Reason R040A Secured from crime
9. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
10. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
11. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
12. To maximise resource conservation in accordance with Policy EN17A of the Revised City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
13. To maximise resource conservation in accordance with Policy EN17A of the Revised City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This grant of planning permission does not authorise the closure or diversion of the public right of way
as indicated on the approved plan, until the appropriate order has been made.
2. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied prior to
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
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.
3. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the
applicant/developer is advised to contact the Environmental Protection Team in the Environment
Directorate (Tel: 0161 737 0551).
4. The Environmental Services Directorate can be contacted on 0161 737 0551 for further discussions
concerning the assessment of noise and subsequent mitigation measures at this site.
5. The air quality assessment shall identify the likelihood of the build up of fumes and odours from the
operation of vehicles within the covered area and further assess the impact on the residential properties,
reviewing odour nuisance and occupational exposure limits and indoor air quality levels as necessary.
The assessment shall also identify ventilation sources for the ground floor rear rooms including how
background ventilation will be achieved without compromising indoor air quality standards or
nuisance. Please contact Environmental Services for further advice on this matter (0161 737 0551)
APPLICATION No:
05/50807/FUL
APPLICANT:
Lanos (Salford Quays) Ltd
LOCATION:
Land On East Side Of Trafford Road Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Erection of one eight storey and one nine storey buildings comprising of
two hotels with a total of 345 bedrooms together with associated
restaurant facilities and car parking
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to part of the site of the former Quays Campus of Salford College. I will explain the
background to the wider Quays Campus site and then explain the site subject of this current application.
Background to Quays Campus Site
The Quays Campus site is bounded by Craven Drive to the north and east, Trafford Road to the west and
Ordsall Lane to the south. The education buildings were demolished in 1999. Planning permission was
approved in outline in 2002 (01/42541/OUT) for a mixed use development comprising offices, hotel, retail
units, retail/food/drink units, new vehicle access and car parking. The outline permission also divided the
quays campus site into plots. The plot which is the subject of this application was shown as an office in the
outline consent.
Planning permission has been approved for apartments on the Craven Drive/east side of the former school
site. On the Trafford Road side of the site retail units have been completed and are occupied by Tesco and
Carphone Warehouse. Planning permission has also been approved this year for offices (05/50001/OUT)
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
fronting onto Trafford Road. Ordsall Fit City, commercial uses and consents cover approximately half of
the Quays Campus site on the Trafford Road side whilst rest is made up of residential approvals.
Current Application Site
This application site is bounded by Metrolink to the south beyond which is the Shell Petrol Filing Station,
Trafford Road to the west, residential development under construction to the east and vacant land to the
north within the Quays Campus Site. Vehicular access would be from the left in left out spur which links the
site to Trafford Road. The site currently has no active use or buildings on it. An orange brick wall with
railings forms the site boundary with Trafford Road.
Proposal
Planning permission is sought for the erection of one L-shaped part nine part eight storey building
containing two hotels. The proposed hotels would have 345 bedrooms in total with 96 car parking spaces
including 4 disabled spaces. The eight storey part of the building (shown as an Etap Hotel – 203 rooms) is
positioned on an east west axis fronting onto the Metrolink track. The nine storey part of the building
(shown as an Encore Hotel – 142 rooms) is on a north south axis and fronts onto Trafford Road. Car and
motorcycle parking is to the rear of the hotels. The hotels both have entrances into the building and their
reception areas from the car park side and also from Trafford Road. Both hotels have active uses fronting
onto Trafford Road. The Encore hotel has a bar at its northern end with room for tables outside and has a
restaurant facing Trafford Road with tables outside adjacent to the footpath.
The application has been submitted with a transport assessment and a design statement. The transport
assessment was prepared in order to assess whether any additional traffic would result from the siting of
two hotels on this site as opposed to the office development that was shown on this plot in the outline
application. Trip generation is assessed and includes trips from recently approved developments around the
Quays. Traffic flows and conditions with and without the hotel development are assessed. The transport
assessment concludes that this proposed hotel development would generate less traffic than the proposed
office.
The design statement explains the hotels and their target markets. Etap is a budget hotel with limited no
frills service and Encore offers more services. The disposition of the building of two hotels on the site is
discussed as is the position of active uses. The design statement explains the intention is to provide a
striking building design. The statement explains the Encore (nine storeys) is designed with a vertical
emphasis whilst the Etap (eight storeys) is designed with a horizontal emphasis. Signage, access and
security are considered within the statement. Computer generated images of the building are also produced.
SITE HISTORY
In March this year a planning application was withdrawn for one ten storey and one eight storey building
containing two hotels with a total of 340 bedrooms (05/50108/FUL) as a result of my concerns relating to
the design of the building.
The site history below relates to the whole Quays Campus site.
In September 2005, planning permission was granted for three residential blocks containing 176 one and
two bedroom units (05/50929/FUL).
In 2005, planning permission was granted for offices (05/50001/OUT).
In 2004, planning permission was granted for offices (04/47654/OUT).
In 2004, planning permission was granted for the erection of six blocks containing 287 residential units
(04/48147/FUL).
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
In 2003, planning permission was granted for four blocks containing 320 apartments (03/46190/FUL).
In April 2002, planning permission was granted in outline for mixed use development- offices (19,081sq.m
- max.7 storey), hotel (3548sq.m - max 4 storey), retail units (779 and 407sq.m.), retail/food/drink units
(687 and 389sq.m.) new vehicle access and car parking (01/42541/OUT).
In 2001, outline planning permission for office development was renewed for the site to the south of Archie
Street (01/42550/OUT).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objection subject to conditions concerning noise from fixed plant,
a noise investigation and contamination.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – no objection to the development, recommends
supporting measures to be implemented by the developer to encourage travel by modes other than by
private car.
United Utilities – no objections, suggested conditions which I have passed onto the applicant.
Environment Agency – Recommends conditions regarding ground conditions and limit noise outbreak to
residential development.
Trafford MBC – No comments received to date.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No comments received however on the previous
application the unit recommended 2.4 metre high railings around the car park with CCTV for surveillance
and that four entrances into the buildings would be too many to control.
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – No comment raised.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both press and site notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Arbuckles Café, Trafford Road
Frankie and Bennys, Trafford Road
Chiquito Restaurant, Trafford Road
Hanrahan’s, Trafford Road
Vanguard House, Trafford Road
2 to 4 Paris Avenue
1 to 3 Gledhill Avenue
Renown House, Trafford Road
Shell Petrol Filling Station, Trafford Road
David Mclean Homes, David McLean House, Preston Brook, Warrington
Stephen Hughes, Powis Hughes, (for 211 Trafford Road)
Leach Rhodes Walker (for Tender Pedic)
REPRESENTATIONS
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
I have received no letters of representation in response to the planning application publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 Economy in the use of Land and Buildings
DP3 Quality in New Development
EC9 Tourism and Recreation
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: SC16/1 Sites for the Provision of Education Facilities
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime.
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICIES
Site Specific: MX1/3 Development in Mixed Use Areas – Salford Quays
Other policies: ST4 Key Tourism Site, E6 Tourism, DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and
Movement, DES5 Tall Buildings, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES11 Design and Crime.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the suitability of the land use at the site, the mixed
use designation within emerging UDP, the level of parking and accessibility the impact of the buildings
upon the streetscene, the quality of the materials and design and crime.
Principle of Development.
I am satisfied the proposed development does not conflict with education or recreation provision within the
City; given the removal of the education buildings in 1999 and also subsequent approvals providing
funding for improved recreation facilities locally.
The site is allocated within the emerging plan as a mixed use area under MX1/3. Acceptable uses within
MX1/3 include residential, offices and tourism. The principle of the development of the whole Quays
Campus site for a mixture of residential, offices, retail and hotel uses has been established by previous
approvals and these uses are acceptable with regard to MX1/3. The policy does not specify what proportion
of uses should be included in a particular site but does require that the location be developed with a vibrant
mix of uses including housing, offices, tourism, hotels, retail and leisure. The policy also states that regard
should be had to the positive impact the development would have on the regeneration of the wider area,
whether the proposal would maintain a balanced mix of uses, contribute toward activity during the day. The
policy further requires consideration of the prominence of the location including pedestrian routes and the
size of the site and existing and previous uses.
Tourism policies within the emerging and adopted UDPs and RSS are supportive of hotels in their
contributory supporting role to general tourism. Policy ST4, which identifies Salford Quays as an area for
tourism, encourages support services such as hotels. Hotels are seen as being positive to foster and
concentrate growth in the tourism sector. Given previous approvals I am satisfied this mix of uses on the
whole Quays Campus site would conform with MX1/3. I am also satisfied that the active uses proposed at
ground and first floor level will enhance the feeling of vibrancy along Trafford Road in accordance with
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
MX1/3. I consider the principle of this hotel development to be acceptable with regard to polices ST4 and
MX1/3.
In turning to the detail of the scheme regard should be had to policy E6 which allows for permission to be
granted for tourism development subject to six criteria. Policy E6 states planning permission will be granted
for tourism development where it is accessible to a range of public transport options, would not be
unacceptable in its highway implications, not have an adverse impact on residential amenity and is built to
a high standard of design. These matters will be addressed below.
Transport and Access
Access to the hotels would be from the dedicated spur off Trafford Road. I consider the proposed parking
spaces appropriate for this site which is well served by two Metrolink stations and a busy bus route. The
proposal also has motorcycle and bicycle parking. I am satisfied with the content and findings of the
transport assessment and consider there would not be an unacceptable impact upon the highway network as
a result of this proposal. In order to ensure sustainable travel I recommend a condition requiring the hotel
operators to develop a travel plan.
Residential Amenity
The closest residential development to this site is the David Maclean homes site which is currently under
construction. The two sites are separated by a feeder road. The proposed hotel development would be 27m
from the nearest apartment building. The nearest part of the hotel does not have windows overlooking the
residential development. At this mixed use site I do not consider this relationship to be inappropriate. The
Director of Environmental Services has requested that conditions be attached to ensure background noise
levels are not exceeded once either hotel is operational to ensure amenity in neighbouring residential units
and a PPG24 noise assessment is also required. A contaminated land condition is also recommended. I
recommend these conditions be attached.
Design
Policies DEV2 and DES1 require developments to be to a good design that has its own identity and respects
local areas. I consider that the scale and mass of the proposed buildings are appropriate for this site within
the mixed use area. The articulation provided by contrasting materials and fenestration pattern could result
in a development that has a positive impact upon the site and the surrounding area but this is subject to the
detailed finish and materials of the building being to the highest standard. Whilst I find the scale and general
ethos of the submitted plans acceptable I would like to be satisfied further by more detailed elevations
showing details such as reveals, how different materials fit together and accurate information on the
intended materials. For this reason I recommend a condition to ensure further detailed plans be submitted
and approved prior to construction and a condition to require submission of materials.
The proposal shows active uses at ground and first floor which will improve natural surveillance along
Trafford Road. The Architectural Liaison unit of the police is concerned about crime within the car park as
the car park is not surrounded by a high fence. Aside from erecting high fences all around the site, the
architect has designed in natural surveillance and installed planting and low walls to improve security
whilst seeking to maintain a positive visual impact. I am satisfied the proposal complies with policies
DEV4 and DES11.
The siting of the bar, restaurant and reception areas at ground level will provide added interest at ground
level. The tables and chairs next to Trafford Road are segregated from the footpath by movable low level
barriers and planters. The applicant proposes to remove the existing orange brick which have no objections
to given that the existing wall does not complement the architectural style of the parent building. The
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
outside space of the bar adjacent to the left in left out would be behind a wall and railing. I recommend a
condition for a scheme to be submitted to ensure this wall complements the parent building. I am satisfied
with the circulation around the building in accordance with policy DES2. I consider that the buildings and
spaces around the buildings will add value and quality to the built environment subject to further details.
The applicant has shown various images showing signage within the submission. I have advised the
applicant he requires separate consent for this signage and that the signage shown is not, in my opinion,
appropriate for the setting or the proposed building given the size and clutter these signs would create.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Extensive discussions have taken place with the applicant over this proposal since the previous submission.
Discussions have resulted in the following improvements:
There has been a re-emphasis on arriving by modes other than private car.
The existing wall and railings around the front of the hotels have been removed. The railings and
wall around the front of the hotel were incongruous to the main building and the wider pavement
would improve outlook onto the street.
Building form and mass has been improved.
o A transport assessment has been provided which allows assessment of the impact of vehicle
movements.
o Natural surveillance has been improved with regard to Trafford Road and the car park.
CONCLUSION
No objections have been received by any resident, although TV reception is known to be a problem locally.
I am satisfied that the development of the site would be in conformity with the provisions of policies within
both the adopted and draft replacement UDPs and that there would be no detrimental effect on any
neighbouring property as a result of this development. I am satisfied that the development conforms to both
local and national policy and that it makes a significant contribution to the continued regeneration through
tourism of this part of the City. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of any building works on site, the applicant shall submit for written
approval an assessment of noise likely to affect the application site. This assessment should follow
PPG24 guidelines towards assessing the noise from the surrounding road network, and any other local
noise sources which are deemed significant on the site. The assessment shall identify all noise
attenuation measures which may be determined appropriate to reduce the impact of noise on the
residential properties on site and achieve the requirements of BS8233 for internal noise levels.
Consideration shall also be given to achieving adequate Summer Cooling. If deemed necessary,
alternative ventilation measures shall be identified and incorporated into the noise assessment report.
Once agreed, all identified noise control measures shall be implemented and thereafter retained.
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
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 site and shall include an identification and
assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA,
focusing primarily on risks to human health and controlled waters. The investigation shall also address
the implications of ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied
building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors
including ecological systems and property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Director of Environmental Services prior
to the start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the
approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to 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. Notwithstanding that the submitted drawings are acceptable in terms of the design ethos, height, scale
and massing of the building, no development shall commence on site until such time as scheme to
include the detailed design of the elevations has been submitted to and has been approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. Once approved by the Local Planning Authority the development shall
be built in strict accordance with the approved scheme.
5. Prior to the commencement of the development, samples of the materials for the external elevations of
the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
developement shall be carried out using the approved materials.
6. Within a period of one month of the occupation of either hotel, the hotel operators shall undertake a
travel survey and this data will form part of a Travel Plan. Within a period of 6 months from the first
date of occupation of either hotel, a Travel Plan shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local
Planning Authority. The Travel Plan shall as a minimum include the broad areas of actions, objectives
and timescales for review and monitoring. Within a period of twelve months of the commencement of
occupation, the operator shall undertake a monitoring survey. Within twelve months of occupation of
either hotel, a Travel Plan shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority,
which shall include a review of targets, measures and staff survey data. Annually from the
commencement of occupation of the building, a Travel Plan shall be submitted for the written approval
of the Local Planning Authority for a period of 5 years and then at a time agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
7. Noise from any fixed plant or equipment (LAeq,t) shall not exceed the background level (LA90,t) as
measured at the boundary of the nearest residential properties at any time.
8. Standard Condition F02X Parking Spaces
9. 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, boundary and surface treatment and shall be
carried out within twelve months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
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 Local Planning Authority
10. This permission does not include any roof plant or other structures on the roof other than those clearly
shown on the submitted drawings.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
4. To exercise an additional measure of control to safeguard the design quality of the building and
amenity of the area in accordance with policies DEV 1 and DEV2 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan and DES1 of the Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Reason: To ensure sustainable modes of travel are used in accordance with policies DEV1 of the
Adopted UDP and A10 of the Revised Deposit Draft Salford City Council UDP.
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
9. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
10. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This permission does not grant consent under the Town and Country Planning (Control of
Advertisements) Regulations 1992 for the advertisement(s) shown on the submitted plan, nor does it
imply that such consent would be forthcoming.
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.
3. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from North West Water.
4. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from GMPTE.
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
APPLICATION No:
05/50638/FUL
APPLICANT:
B Jackson
LOCATION:
High Meadow Grosvenor Road Swinton MANCHESTER M27 5EG
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing building and erection of one-four storey (with
top storey in roof space) comprising 13 apartments and one-pair
semi-detached dwellings together with associated landscaping, car
parking and alteration to existing and construction of new vehicular
access
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site is currently occupied by a detached bungalow. The site is bounded by a primary school to the rear
and both side boundaries and to the north of the site is a large detached Victorian dwelling and a two storey
modern dwelling. Along the front boundary of the site are five silver birch trees and one ash tree that are
protected by the City of Salford Tree Preservation Order No. 41. The existing highway to the front of the
site is unadopted road in need of repair.
The four storey building would be 8.7m in height to the eaves and 12m to the ridge, at its highest point. It
would consist of nine two bedroom apartments, three one bedroom apartments and one three bedroom
apartment. There would be a total of seventeen car parking spaces within the site including two disabled
spaces.
The pair of semi-detached properties would be 5m in height to the eaves and 7.6m in height to the ridge.
The properties would have three bedrooms and detached garages. One garage would be situated in the rear
garden and the other would be to the side of the property. The proposed dwellings would be situated south
of the proposed apartment block.
SITE HISTORY
An application was submitted for the demolition of existing building and erection of one three storey and
one four storey buildings comprising 19 apartments together with associated landscaping, car parking and
alteration to existing and construction of new vehicular access (05/50296/FUL). The application was
withdrawn as a result of my concerns and was subsequently amended with a view to being resubmitted.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objection
United Utilities – – No further comments following the response to the previous application. These
comments included that there were no objections to the principle of the development but advises that the
applicant discusses the proposal in full with United Utilities
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
Environment Agency – No objections providing a condition is attached regarding surface water run off
City’s Arboricultural Consultant – No objections provided a condition is attached regarding undertaking
work in accordance with the submitted tree report.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by a press notice and a site notice.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
The Gables, Flats 1-12 The Woodlands, 6, 14, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28, 43, 45 and 47 Grosvenor Road
Grosvenor Road primary School, Parkgate Drive
1A, 5, 8 and 11 Portland Road
1 Bowden Road
106, 118 – 124 (evens) Manchester Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received nineteen letters of objection from thirteen individual properties in response to the planning
application publicity. The following issues have been raised:Increase volume of traffic
Impact on highway safety and children attending the school
Impact of road construction on existing properties
Increase in noise
Lack of car parking within the site
Construction phase and impact of construction vehicles
Can Portland Road be closed off from Grosvenor Road
Size of development
Impact on character of the area
Impact on existing services (sewers and drains)
Tree removal
Overlooking of school
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: - None
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
DEV2 – Good Design
T13 – Car Parking
DEV4 – Design and Crime
EN7 - Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
EN10 – Protected Trees
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether the design of the proposed building is acceptable; whether there would
be a detrimental impact on residential amenity; whether the proposed level of parking is acceptable;
whether the proposed access is acceptable; whether there would be an impact on trees and whether the
proposal complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement
Unitary Development Plans. I shall deal with each of these issues in turn.
Principle of the Development
Adopted 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.
Draft Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a balanced mix
of dwellings within the local area.
The site constitutes previously-developed land, as it was previously occupied by a bungalow. The principle
of its redevelopment is therefore acceptable. Whilst there are a few apartment schemes in the area, the
surrounding area comprises predominantly single dwellings, and I am therefore of the opinion that, as this
application proposes various sized apartments and family housing, it would contribute to the provision of a
mix of dwelling types in the area, in accordance with policies H1. On the above basis, I consider the
principle of the proposed development to be acceptable.
Amenity
Draft 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.
The proposed four storey building would be 23m from the front elevation of 14 Grosvenor Road, which is
the only property in situ that directly faces the proposed buildings. The windows within the front elevation
of the proposed building would not directly face 14 Grosvenor Road. I therefore consider the proposed
distance to be acceptable. The north and east elevation overlook the school grounds and the south elevation
would overlook the proposed semi-detached dwellings and the west elevation would face the Grosvenor
Road frontage. At the end of the proposed car park would be situated an area of amenity space for future
residents measuring approximately 15m X 15m.
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
The proposed pair of semi-detached properties would have habitable room windows on the front and rear
elevations. There are no properties currently facing this element of the proposal. However full planning
permission has recently been approved for the erection of one three storey detached dwelling. The proposal
would be in excess of 22m from the proposed dwelling facing. The proposed semi-detached properties
would have front and rear gardens.
On the above basis, I am satisfied that there would be no unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of
existing or future residents of the neighbouring dwellings and the proposed apartments. I am therefore of
the opinion that the application accords with Policy DES7.
Design
Adopted 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.
Draft 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.
The proposed block of apartments would be set back 5m from the proposed carriageway. The building
would be 12m at its highest but due to a difference in levels on either side of Grosvenor Road the proposal
would be approximately 2.5m lower than the height of the existing large detached Victorian dwelling
facing the application site. The design of the proposal incorporates some of the features of the victorian
dwelling including two pike hip roof features constructed partly in timber. The proposed semi-detached
properties would also incorporate the same details.
In light of the above, I am satisfied that the design, height and massing of the proposed building is
acceptable. I consider the height of the building to be appropriate to its surroundings and am of the opinion
that the use of high quality materials would ensure that the building would be a positive addition to the area.
I have attached a condition requiring samples of the materials of the proposed building to be submitted and
approved prior to the commencement of the development. I therefore consider that the proposal complies
with the provisions of the above policies.
Car Parking and Access
Adopted Policy T13 states that the Council will ensure that adequate parking and servicing is provided to
meet the needs of new development, in accordance with the Council’s standards and that car parks are
designed to a high standard, with particular regard to access arrangements, surface materials, boundary
treatments and security measures.
Draft Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards. It also states that the maximum car
parking standards should not be exceeded.
A total of seventeen car parking spaces, including two disabled spaces, would be provided within the site
for the proposed apartments. I am satisfied that this number of spaces complies with the Council’s
maximum car parking standards and reflects the site’s location in close proximity to Manchester Road,
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
which is a main route through the city and which has a number of bus services available. Cycle parking
would also be provided within the application site. The proposed pair of dwellings would each have a
detached garage within the site and an additional car parking space. On this basis, I am satisfied that the
proposed level of car parking accords with Policy A10.
Due to the small size of the development the level of traffic generated by the site at the peak times would be
minimal. It is not therefore envisaged that this will have a detrimental effect on the area. It is not envisaged
that highway safety particularly around the times children are going to and from school would be
compromised. I would therefore not consider there to be an unacceptable detrimental impact on highway
safety as a result of the proposal.
Vehicular access into the site would be achieved from Grosvenor Road. There is an existing access to the
existing bungalow along this frontage. It is the intention of the developer to make up the road including the
access to the block of apartments to a standard to be approved by the Council. It is not the intention to adopt
this section of road at a later stage but to substantially improve the existing carriageway, which does not
have a pedestrian path at present, to cater for the proposed development. As part of the proposed
improvements, a pedestrian pathway would be constructed adjacent to the front boundary of the application
site. The width of the existing road cannot accommodate two pedestrian pathways on either side of the
carriageway. The proposed carriageway improvement would not extend to the proposed semi-detached
dwellings in order to ensure that the protected trees would not be affected.
In relation to the impact on the existing property fronting the proposed road without a pavement. There will
be a change of circumstances as following the proposed improvements the properties would benefit from a
road constructed to a good standard. Although vehicles may pass closer to the existing boundaries than
previously experienced I would not consider that this would have an unacceptable impact on highway
safety or the amenity of those residents.
On the above basis, I am satisfied that there would be no unacceptable detrimental impact on highway
safety and I am therefore of the opinion that the application accords with Policy T13 and Draft Policy A10.
Trees
Adopted Policy EN7 states that the City Council will encourage the conservation of trees and woodland by
supporting the retention of trees and making tree preservation order.
Draft Policy EN10 states that development that would result loss of, or damage to, protected trees will not
be permitted.
The application site has five silver birch trees and one ash tree along the front boundary that are protected
by the City of Salford Tree Preservation Order No.41. The applicant does not intend to fell any of the
protected trees and has submitted an arboricultural report to demonstrate how the trees will be protected
throughout the development period. The City’s Arborilculturalist has inspected the trees and the report and
agrees that the trees can be maintained. He has requested that a condition be attached to ensure the
development is carried out in accordance with the method statement submitted by the applicant.
I have received an objection relating to the removal of trees prior to the application being submitted. A
number of trees along the front boundary were removed. I investigated this issue at the time and found that
the Tree Preservation Order referred to six silver birch trees and one ash tree along the front boundary. Five
of the silver birch trees remain and there is a stump from a silver birch that was felled some time ago. It
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
would be difficult to prove that any felled silver birches were part of the original order due to the trees being
protected as part of a group therefore individual trees are not plotted on a plan. No further action was taken.
Other Issues
Objectors are also concerned about increasing noise levels, the level of construction traffic and dirt. Whilst
there would be an increase in noise during construction, this would be for a temporary period only and I do
not envisage that this would be of a level which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of
neighbouring residents. In addition, hours of construction are controlled by separate legislation and the
planning process should not seek to duplicate such controls. Given that the proposal is for residential
properties, I do not consider that there would be a significant increase in noise as a direct result of this
scheme and that any increase in noise would not unacceptably effect the amenity of neighbouring residents.
The construction of the buildings may result in an increase in dirt/dust, but I do not consider that such
concerns warrant the refusal of the application.
An objection has been raised in relation to the impact of the proposal on existing services such as sewers
and drains. United Utilities were consulted as part of the application and have no objection in principle to
the proposal but advises that the applicant should contact them directly prior to the commencement of
development.
With regards to the closing off of Portland Road, it should be noted that both roads are unadopted and in
private ownership this is not therefore something that the Highways Authority could approve. This would
need to be an agreement between the landowners. If the roads were closed an appropriate turning head
facility would be needed and due to the length of Grosvenor Road the closure may need an emergency
access point for the fire service. This is a separate issue to the determination of this planning application
and residents would need to discuss this matter with the Highways Authority to obtain further advice.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The application has been amended from that originally submitted, the location of driveways has been
amended to ensure that the protected trees are retained and visibility is acceptable. The applicant has
amended the internal layout of the apartment proposal to ensure adequate access and highway safety.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential purpose is
acceptable. I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of both the Adopted
and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs and there are no material considerations which outweigh
this finding. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
2. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the finished floor levels of the
properties hereby approved shall be a minimum of 300mm above the adjacent road level.
3. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the provision of surface water drainage works
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme
shall then be implemented prior to the first occupation of any of the units hereby approved.
4. Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the car parking provision for the
shall be laid out and completed in accordance with Drawing No 1 Revision E received on the 18th July
2005 prior to first occupation and retained thereafter.
5. During the period of construction all construction vehicles shall access and egress the application site
from Grosvenor Road.
6. Standard Condition C09T British Standard - tree work
7. Arboricultural work, tree protection measures and installation of surfacing within tree protection zones
are to be carried out in accordance with "British Standard :Trees in Relation to Construction" using the
Method Statement produced by Cheshire Woodlands submitted on 18th August 2005.
8. 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, 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 Local Planning Authority
9. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, full details of the location and design
of cycle storage, bin storage and recycling facilities within the site shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such approved cycle and bin stores and recycling facilities
shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and shall be made available for use prior to
the first occupation of any unit and retained thereafter.
10. No development shall commence until an external lighting scheme has been submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to
the occupation of any dwelling.
11. No development shall commence until full details of the improvements to Grosvenor Road, including
details of materials, position of footway and construction method have been submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to
the commencement of development, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.
12. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the materials for the
external elevations and roof of the buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved materials, unless agreed
otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason(s)
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. In order to reduce the risk of flooding
3. To reduce the risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of satisfactory means of surface water disposal.
4. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
6. Standard Reason R036A Good aboricultural practice
7. Standard Reason R036A Good aboricultural practice
8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
9. In order to encourage the use of more sustainable transport modes and in order to encourage waste
recycling, in accordance with Policy A10 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary
Development Plan and Policy MW11 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
10. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
11. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
12. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Please see attached letter from United Utilities.
2. All sewer connections to UU approval
3. Please see attached letter from the Environment Agency
4. 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.
5. This permission shall relate to the amended plans below:
Drawing No. Rev
02sheet#1
02sheet#2
03
C
C
B
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
04
01
C
E
APPLICATION No:
05/50272/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Mrs C Ward
LOCATION:
James Brindley Infant & Junior School Parrfold Avenue Worsley M28
7HE
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4m high boundary railings adjacent to Parr Fold Avenue
including rear section of 36 Parr Fold Avenue, rear school playing field
and rear of 6, 8 and 10 Carlton Close. Erection of 2m high boundary
railings adjacent to , Rochester Avenue and front section of 36 Parr
Fold Avenue and 4 Rochester Avenue
WARD:
Walkden South
Background Information
Members will recall that following a site visit to the school alternative siting of the fence line was discussed
as was the height of different sections of the fence. These issues were raised with the applicant and an
amended scheme prepared. The details of the amendments will be discussed in detail below.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application is for the erection of railings to the boundary of James Brindley Primary School in Worsley.
The school is located in a residential area. The front of the school faces on to Parr Fold Avenue. The school
is surrounded by residential properties. There is a large grass playing field to the rear of the school building.
The railings will replace the existing school perimeter fence and gates. The railings opposite number 2
Rochester Avenue and 26 Parr Fold Avenue and adjacent to the side boundary of 36 Parr Fold Avenue will
be 2m in height. The railings on the boundary with 4 Rochester Avenue would be 2m in height. The
remainder of the railings would also be 2.4m in height. The railings will be the Crusader type and will be
powder coated green prior to first erection.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 29.03.2005
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
8 & 10 Stafford Road
2 & 4 Rochester Avenue
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
26 & 36 Parr Fold Avenue (E)
27 – 37 Parr Fold Avenue (O)
37 – 53 Normanby Avenue (O)
19 – 21 Mellor Avenue (O)
22 Mellor Avenue (E)
6 & 16 Carlton Close
2 Bedford Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received five letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity and a further
objection as a result of consultation on amended plans. The following issues have been raised:Future maintenance problems
Unattractive to look at
Property de-valuation
Railings would affect outlook from windows
Railings would be located approximately 3.5m from living room window
Railings will enclose a section of garden.
Over bearing and dominant on residents living in Rochester Avenue
Visual intrusive
The fence being visible above the hedge from a kitchen window resulting in an eyesore.
Fence to be raised in height back to the 2.4m originally opposed
A second objection has been received following the re-consultation of the amended plan. This
objector relates to the amendments made to the fence height adjacent to 36 Parr Fold Avenue.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies DEV1 – Development Criteria
Other policies: SC4 – Improvement/Replacement of Schools.
DEV2 – Good Design.
DEV4 – Design and Crime
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours.
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context.
DES11 – Design and Crime.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the design and location of the fence and whether
the location and design of the fence would have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of neighbouring
residents living at Rochester Avenue and Parr Fold Avenue balanced against the need to improve security.
Adopted policy DEV2 seeks to ensure that all developments adhere to good design principles.
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
Adopted UDP 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.
Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP Policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the Adopted UDP.
Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP 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.
The fencing would be powder coated green to ensure it is in keeping with the character of the area and does
not stand out against its surroundings.
The height of the fence adjacent to 4 Rochester Avenue and opposite 2 Rochester Avenue and 26 Parr Fold
Avenue has been lowered to 2m. I consider this would still provide the school with sufficient levels of
security and would not result in an over-bearing or dominant feature to the residents of 2 and 4 Rochester
Avenue and 26 Parr Fold Avenue. The proposed fence would be 2.4m in height to the rear of properties on
Carlton Close. The rear gardens of Carlton Close all have substantial boundary treatments that include trees
and large hedgerows that act as a screen to the proposed fence. As such I am of the opinion that the residents
would not be affected by the fence and will not suffer any detrimental impact on their outlook.
Members will recall that a different location for the fence line adjacent to the side boundary 36 Parr Fold
Avenue and adjacent to 4 Rochester Avenue and opposite 2 Rochester Avenue and 26 Parr Fold Avenue
was discussed. The applicant has agreed to lower the height of the fence in these location from 2.4m to 2m
but has not relocated the fence away from the boundaries with the above mentioned properties as previously
requested. The applicant has provided written information relating to the requirements of the school to
maintain its boundary line and has confirmed that relocating the fence would cause maintenance and legal
issues that the school is not able to accommodate. Whilst I acknowledge the request of members and local
residents to relocate the fence within the existing boundaries of the school I consider that on balance the
need of the school to maintain high levels of safety and security outweighs the request for relocation in this
instance.
I consider that the 2m high section of fence next to the front boundary of 36 Parr Fold Avenue is acceptable
in this instance and would not significantly impact on the amenity of the residents of No.36 is terms of loss
of outlook. I consider on balance this reduced height would provide sufficient levels of security to the
school. I consider this is in accordance with Revised Policy DES7.
In relation to the points of objection I consider that there is sufficient room in which to be able to gain access
to the sides of buildings where the fence is located in order to perform maintenance. Devaluation of
property is not a material planning consideration.
I consider that the proposal will not have am detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbouring
residents. As such I consider the proposal in accordance with Revised Policy DES7. I am of the opinion that
the proposed fence is in keeping with Policy DEV4.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
I have received amended plans from the applicant following concerns relating to the height of the fence next
to residential properties on Parr Fold Avenue, Rochester Avenue and Carlton Close. The proposal has been
lowered in certain sections to 2m from an all round height of 2.4m. This has ameliorated the concerns of
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
residents at Rochester Avenue. I have also changed the colour of the fence from blue to green. This I
consider will make the fence more acceptable and less strident in the street scene.
CONCLUSION
The proposal has been amended to make it acceptable and not have any adverse impact on the amenity of
neighbouring residents. I consider the proposal in accordance with Adopted Policy DEV1 and DEV4 and
Revised Policies DES7 and DES11. I am of the opinion that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact
on the street scene or the character of the area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The fencing hereby approved shall be powder coated green (RAL 6005) prior to its installation and
shall be maintained thereafter.
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The permission hereby granted shall relate to the amended plans received which show the height of
sections of the fence lowered and the colour changed to green (RAL 6005).
APPLICATION No:
05/50794/FUL
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mr A Owen
LOCATION:
Rear Garden Area Of 3 Shaving Lane Worsley M28 7QL
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a detached dwelling
WARD:
Walkden South
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the rear garden of a detached property and seeks consent to erect a new detached
dwelling.
The garden of the existing house is set at two levels. The proposal would be placed at right angles to the
existing house. The ground floor footprint, although larger than the first floor is designed in such a way as
to conceal it within the natural slope of the land.
The design of the proposal would comprise of two distinct elements. A two storey element would be
orientated east west with a bisecting single storey element. The two storey element would be ‘off set’ to the
angle of the ground floor to utilise the shape of the site and introduce a contemporary design. Furthermore,
it would include floor to ceiling height windows and doors and palette of materials including zinc,
brickwork and render.
The main two storey element would measure 7.5m at the ridge and 5m at the eaves. The footprint measures
19.3m (l) X 15.2m (w) at it largest points.
Vehicular access would be provided in part by the existing driveway of 3 Shaving Lane and a section of
landscaping between 2 and 3 Shaving Lane.
CONSULTATIONS
The Director of Environmental Services – No objection
The Environment Agency – No objection
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
175, 177A, 177-183 (o) Walkden Road
1, 2 and 4 Shaving Lane
26 – 32 (e) Maple Grove
6 – 16 (e) Edge Fold Crescent
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received ten letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The following
issues have been raised:Overbearing
Loss of privacy
Architectural style not in keeping
Impact on surrounding neighbouring properties
Loss of aspect
Impact of vehicular access
Additional cars – impact on Walkden Road / impact on Shaving Lane
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
Loss of trees already
Would set a precedent
Damage to wildlife
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies:
Other policies: None
None
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
DEV1 – Development Criteria, DEV2 – Good Design, H1 Meeting Housing
Needs, T13 Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES7 Amenity of
Users and Neighbours, H1 Provision of New Housing Development, A10
Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Development.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of the development, whether the
design, scale and massing of the proposal accords with the relevant provisions of the development plan and
whether the car parking, access and privacy distances are acceptable.
The Principle of Residential Development
Adopted 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.
Draft Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a balanced mix
of dwellings within the local area.
National planning policy guidance is also relevant. PPG3: Housing states that infilling in existing
residential areas can make a useful contribution to housing provision, but acknowledges the need to ensure
that the character and amenity of such areas is not damaged.
Given that the PPG3 identifies infill in existing residential areas as a way of contribution to the provision of
housing, I consider that the general principle of a new dwelling in this location to be acceptable.
Design, Layout and Siting
Adopted 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.
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
Adopted 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.
Adopted 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.
Draft 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 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP 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.
Draft Policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the Adopted UDP.
With regard to the design I consider this to be of high quality. I consider that this is a well thought out and
well executed scheme that will satisfy the policy requirements of PPG3 and maintain the Council’s normal
privacy requirements.
Turning to issues raised in relation to crime. I do not consider that this proposal would result in the rear
gardens of Edge Fold Crescent vulnerable to instances of crime. The scheme does not include any form of
access other than from Shaving Lane. Moreover, I consider that a new dwelling would represent additional
natural surveillance.
The siting of the scheme is such that the main aspects are to the south and west, which over look the larger
areas of proposed garden. The proposal would maintain 25m to the rear of those properties on Maple Grove
and a minimum 9m to the rear garden. It would also maintain 29m to the rear elevations of the closest
properties on Edge Fold Crescent. There are no main habitable windows within this element of the
proposal. The entrance would be oriented to the north. This elevation would, at its closest, maintain 10m to
the common boundary with 2 Shaving Lane. A distance of 16.5m would be maintained to the main element
of the existing property.
I am satisfied that these distances are in excess of those privacy distances ordinarily required. Moreover,
the proposal would maintain sufficient distance to the common boundaries to provide adequate aspect to the
future occupiers of the proposal. As such I do not consider that the proposal would result in a loss of
privacy to either the existing neighbouring residents or the future occupiers of the scheme.
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposal accords with the policies highlighted above regarding siting,
layout and design.
Trees
Policy EN7 encourages the conservation of trees and woodland through supporting the retention of trees
and aims to ensure that new tree planting is designed to contribute to landscape quality.
Policy EN10 of the Revised Replacement Plan states that development that would result in the unacceptable
loss of trees will not be permitted.
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
A number of trees have been removed prior to the submission of this application. None of these trees had
been afforded the protection of preservation order. There are a number of trees within the surrounding
gardens.
The City's arboricultural consultant has inspected the site and advises that using the guidance contained
within Table 1 of BS5837 a distance of 6.0m should be left undisturbed from the centre of both trees within
the garden of 2 Shaving Lane. For the tree closest to the drive this impinges on the new drive. However both
these trees are in good condition, have normal vigour and ample room for root development in other
directions. Therefore it is appropriate to reduce this distance by one-third on one side only in accordance
with para 7.5.5 of BS5837, this takes it down to 4.0m and allows for the drive as proposed. Neither tree is
within the 3.6m separation distance specified in the Council adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance for
trees.
It is not considered that the trees would be affected by this proposal. The arboricultural consultant
recommends that protective fencing should be installed prior to any work commencing on site. I have
attached a condition accordingly.
Whilst I acknowledge that trees have been removed from the site prior to the submission of the first
application, they were not protected by a preservation order and no consent was required to fell them.
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposal accords with the policies highlighted above regarding trees.
Car Parking and Access
Adopted Policy T13 states that the Council will ensure that adequate parking and servicing is provided to
meet the needs of new development, in accordance with the Council’s standards and that car parks are
designed to a high standard, with particular regard to access arrangements, surface materials, boundary
treatments and security measures.
Draft Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards. It also states that the maximum car
parking standards should not be exceeded.
The access to the proposal would utilise a section of the existing driveway and a section landscaping
between 2 and 3 Shaving Lane. There are no habitable windows contained within the gable closest to the
proposed access point. The closest element of the neighbouring property to the proposed access is the
attached garage. As such I do not consider that the position of the access would result in a loss of amenity to
this neighbour.
I do not consider that the addition of one detached property would generate a significant level of vehicular
movements. Moreover, I have no highway objection in relation to additional traffic onto Walkden Road or
Shaving Lane.
As such, I am satisfied that the proposal would accord with the adopted and replacement plan policies in
this instance.
Remaining Issues
One of the objectors is concerned that this application would set a precedent for future similar schemes. All
planning applications are however determined with regard to the development plan policies and other
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
material considerations. Should this application be approved it would not represent a precedent allowing
surrounding properties to do likewise, but it would constitute a material consideration when determining
any other similar applications in the future.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The applicant’s agent entered into pre-application discussion, which have resulted in a high quality
scheme.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the design of the proposal is of a high standard and acceptable within this
residential context. I am also satisfied that the siting of the proposal would maintain a sufficient level of
privacy to the surrounding residential properties and future occupiers. As such I recommend that the
proposal 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 Local Planning Authority.
The development shall be carried out using the approved materials.
3. No development shall be started until all the trees overhanging the site have been surrounded by
substantial fences which shall extend to the extreme circumference of the spread of the branches of the
trees within the development site (or such positions as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority). Such fences shall be erected in accordance with a specification to be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall remain until all development is
completed and no work, including any form of drainage or storage of materials, earth or topsoil shall
take place within the perimeter of such fencing.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
1. The application site lies within 250 metres of a former reservoir. According to our records the
reservoirs are no longer present, suggesting they have been in filled. However, we have no information
on the types of materials that may have been used as fill. Any infill has the potential to produce a gas
risk. As such, the development may be at risk from migrating gas and new pathways may be created
during the construction of the development. I would therefore recommend the following advisor.
The responsibility to properly address contaminated land issues, including safe development,
irrespective of any action taken by this authority, lies with the owner/developer of the site. The
applicant/developer is requested to contact the Council's Public Protection Unit (Tel: 0161 737 0551) as
soon as is practicable should contamination be encountered during development of the site.
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:
05/50940/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr & Mrs R Bottomley
LOCATION:
28 Hopefold Drive Worsley M28 3PN
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension including construction of canopy
in front elevation.
WARD:
Walkden South
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Following deferral at Panel Members requested that the location and precise details of the drainpipes at 30
Hopefold Drive be investigated. Two downspouts were identified on the side elevation of this property
facing towards number 28. The owner of number 30 has previously relied on access onto the property at
number 28 Hopefold Drive in order to be able to maintain these downspouts.
The downspouts identified could be easily relocated to the front and rear of the property at number 30
Hopefold Drive and I do not consider that maintenance of a neighbours downspouts should prohibit the
owner of number 28 from extending his own property given that Planning seeks to protect the public rather
than the private interest.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
The application site is a detached modern house. The property is one of six properties
located in a cul-de-sac, and has an existing garage and conservatory to the rear of the
property. The proposal is for the erection of a two storey side extension including
the construction of a front canopy. The existing rear garage would also be converted to a
study, and the proposed extension would be built in front of this room. The proposed
extension would be approximately 5.4m in length and 2.2m wide at ground floor
level and 3.7m in length and 2.2m wide at first floor level. The height of the proposal is
6.5m.The proposal is approximately 200mm from 30 Hopefold Drive’s blank gable wall.
The proposal is for a bedroom at first floor level and a bathroom at ground floor level.
The main windows would be located to the front of the property.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
20-26 Hopefold Drive
30-38 Hopefold Drive
17 Hopefold Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
Councillor I Lindley has requested that this application be determined by Panel as he feels that the proposed
works would have a significant negative impact on the adjacent property and the loss of access to their wall.
I have received five letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The following
issues have been raised: Contravenes policy DEV8 - The proposal adversely impacts on the character of the street.
Contravenes policy HH16 - the extension does not maintain a hard standing of critical dimensions.
Contravenes policy HH10 - Planning permission would not be granted for two-storey extensions
along the common boundary and creating a terracing effect.
Dominates neighbouring property
Future maintenance of 30 Hopeford Drive’s gable wall.
Overbearing
Red line plan is incorrect and the room on ground floor plan has no label. (The red boundary line
and the name of the room on the plans have now been corrected)
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8-House extensions
DEV1-Development Criteria
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7-Amenity of users and Neighbours
DES8-Alterations/Extensions
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; 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 the development.
Adopted Policy DEV8 states that extensions will only be granted when it can be demonstrated that it would
not have an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of neighbouring residents by reasons of overlooking,
overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light. It also states that the extension would not have an
unacceptably adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene.
Policy DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan states that development will not be permitted
where it would have an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of the occupiers or users of other
developments.
Draft Policy DES8 states that planning permission will only be granted for alterations and extensions to
existing buildings that respect the general scale, character, proportions, details and materials of the original
structure.
The proposal would infill between No.30’s gable wall and the applicant’s property to the side and rear
garage. The proposal is located approximately 200mm away from No.30’s blank gable wall and would be
flush in front of the applicant’s property. The applicant’s property is set 1.6m back from No.30’s front
elevation. As such it is not considered that the proposal will result in an overbearing or dominant structure
by reason of height or projection. I would therefore consider the proposal to be in accordance with policy
DEV8.
With regard to the issue raised, contravening guidance note HH10 of the SPG, this relates to extensions to
the rear and not to the side as this application proposes. The proposed first floor extension would be set back
2m from the front of the house and is in accordance with the SPG. Therefore I am satisfied the extension
would not create a serious terracing effect.
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
The proposal would not introduce any habitable room windows to the rear elevation. Therefore I do not
consider that the proposal will result in any loss of privacy to the neighbouring residents.
The proposed habitable room window to the front elevation would not directly face any neighbouring
properties. Therefore I am satisfied there would be no impact on the amenity of overlooking or loss of
privacy as a result of this proposal.
The proposal has a lower ridge height than the existing house and the applicant has confirmed that the
materials for the roof and proposed canopy would match those of the existing dwelling. I consider the
proposal is in accordance with DEV8 and DES8. The proposal is also in accordance with the SPG.
With regard to the issue raised, contravening guidance note HH16, a hard standing of at least 4.8m in length
and 2.4m in width would be maintained to accommodate at least one car clear of the highway. This is in
accordance with policy HH16.
I am therefore satisfied that the proposal would not have a detrimental adverse impact upon highway safety.
CONCLUSION
The proposed two storey side extension is not considered overbearing, dominant or to be out of character
with the area or street scene. The proposal accords with the SPG on House Extensions. I consider the design
of the proposed extension to be acceptable and I am also satisfied that the proposal would not result in an
unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by virtue of overlooking or loss of
privacy. Therefore I recommend that the application be approved
Approve subject to the following conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type,
colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A- Development-existing building
Reason for Granting Planning Permission
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
This application was determined having regard to Policy DEV8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan and the City Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions and planning
permission has been granted because the proposals accord with that Policy in that they respect or contribute
to the character and amenity of the area and are of a satisfactory quality of design. There are no other
material planning considerations that outweigh this finding.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
Note(s) for Applicant
APPLICATION No:
05/51222/HH
APPLICANT:
Miss J Renshaw
LOCATION:
15 Harbourne Close Worsley M28 7UA
PROPOSAL:
Erection of part single, part two storey side extension, a first floor rear
extension, a rear conservatory together with front dormers and a first
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
floor front extension
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached bungalow on Harbourne Close in Walkden, Worsley.
The proposal is for the erection of a part single/part two storey side extension, a first floor rear extension, a
rear conservatory together with front dormers and a first floor front extension.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
48 to 56 (E) Ladybridge Avenue
13, 14 and 16 Harbourne Close
42 and 44 Carlton Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received twelve letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The following
issues have been raised:
3.
4.
5.
6.
The design and size of the proposal is out of keeping with the street scene/character of the area
Overlooking of neighbouring properties
Loss of privacy
Impact on value of neighbouring properties
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
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the proposal would seriously injure the
amenity of existing residential properties, whether there would be an unacceptable impact on the street
scene/character of the area and whether the proposal complies with the relevant policies of both the
Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs.
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 or an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the
street scene.
The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 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 planning permission will not normally be
granted for extensions that do not maintain a minimum distance of 21m
between facing habitable room windows. There are 21m between 15 and 16
Harbourne Close and approximately 22.4m from the rear of 15 Harbourne to
the rear of 44 Carlton Road. The proposed side extension, first floor rear
extension, front extension and dormers therefore comply with HH1. Policy
HH3 states planning permission will not normally be granted for two
storey/first floor extensions that does not maintain a minimum distance
if 13m between its blank gable end wall and facing ground floor habitable
room windows of neighbouring dwellings.
There are approximately 24m
between the side elevation of the proposed side extension and the rear of
52 Ladybridge Avenue which complies with HH3. There would therefore not
be any overlooking or any loss of privacy to the neighbouring residents
on Harbourne Close, Ladybridge Avenue and Carlton Road.
The objections are mainly concerned with the design and size of the proposed extensions. The objectors
consider that these alterations would result in the application property being out of character with the
immediate area and this would have an unacceptable impact on the street scene. The issue of devaluing
nearby properties was also raised, however this is not a material planning consideration.
There are dormer windows present in the front and rear roof spaces of properties on Harbourne Close and
the neighbouring roads, and so when put in the context of the surrounding area the proposed dormers would
not be out of character. The proposed dormers in the front roof space of 15 Harbourne would have pitched
roofs whereas the existing dormers on Harbourne Close have flat roofs.
The proposed front extension would accommodate a landing/gallery which would be a feature that does not
appear on any other properties on the street. However, it is considered that the design is of a good standard
and due to the window of the front extension being obscure glazed there would be no issue of overlooking
the bedroom windows of 16 Harbourne Close and therefore no loss of privacy to the occupiers of number
16. The application property is at the end of the close and so it is not in a prominent location or would
dominate the street scene.
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
The proposed side extension would project approximately 5m from the side of the property and be 10 in
length. It would accommodate a lounge and kitchen on the ground floor and a master bedroom and en-suite
on the first floor. Amended plans were received on 26th September to show the dormer window in the
proposed side extension slightly reduced in size so that the windows in the extension would mirror the
existing property so that the house looks symmetrical and this contributes to the good design of the
proposed development.
The first floor rear extension would allow a further bedroom and bathroom to be accommodated. The
amended plans also show there would be a slight pitch of the roof rather than having a flat roof and as
previously discussed the extension complies with HH1 by exceeding the required minimum 21m distance
to the rear of 44 Carlton Road.
The proposed conservatory would project 2.74m from the rear of the neighbouring property number 13
which therefore complies with HH9 of the householder SPG.
The proposed extensions at 15 Harbourne Close therefore meets the policies of the adopted and revised
Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance for house extensions. There would
be no overlooking or loss of privacy to any neighbouring residents and there would not be an unacceptable
detrimental impact on the street scene and therefore the character of the area.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion I believe the proposed extensions should be granted planning permission as they comply with
the policies in the adopted and revised Unitary Development Plan, and the Supplementary Planning
Guidance for house extensions and there would not be an unacceptable impact on the residents of
neighbouring properties.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant should
take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal. Developers must also
seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any operation that involves entry into any
coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and adits and the implementation of site investigations
or other works. Property specific summary information on any past, current or proposed surface and
underground mining activity to affect the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The
Coal Authority Mining Reports Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th October 2005
61