PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
APPLICATION No:
05/50754/REM
APPLICANT:
City Spirit Regeneration (Salf) Ltd _ Salford In Partnership
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By Northumberland Street, Tully Street,
Wellington Street East And Rigby Street. Land Bounded By
Tully Street, Bradshaw Street North, Vincent Street, Devonshire
Street And Bury New Road.
PROPOSAL:
Details of the siting, design and external appearance of 70 houses
and 38 apartments with associated car parking for phase 2 of the
above development on land at Northumberland Street/Tully
Street/Rigby Street/Wellington Street East
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This reserved matters application represents the second phase of the redevelopment of this part of
Higher Broughton. Outline planning permission was granted in 2003 for residential development
and the creation of a community hub and full planning permission was granted for the creation of
sports pitches to replace the existing pitches at Northumberland Street.
This site relates to the eastern and southern sections of the former playing fields, fronting Tully
Street and Wellington Street East and the southern section of Rigby Street.
A total of 70 houses and 38 apartments would be constructed as part of this phase, which
comprises three blocks – C, E and F. A total of 96 car parking spaces, including four disabled
spaces and cycle parking facilities, would be provided within the site. The remainder of the site,
comprising blocks A, B and D, was the subject of a separate reserved matters application which
was approved in January 2005. Work is currently underway on that phase of the redevelopment.
The proposal comprises one and two bedroomed apartments and four, five, six and seven
bedroomed properties. The buildings would be three and four storeys high. The design and layout
of this site is similar to that already approved at blocks A, B and D. Across the majority of the site,
private courtyards and garden areas would provide amenity space for residents at ground and first
floor level. Residents’ parking areas would be provided below the first floor garden areas. These
areas would be secure and would be surrounded by blocks of dwellings. The tree-lined footpath
which surrounds the majority of the site and which will ensure that the majority of the existing
trees surrounding the playing fields, would extend along most of the Tully Street frontage and the
Rigby Street frontage. Along Wellington Street East, the proposed dwellings would each have a
car parking space to the front, accessed directly from Wellington Street East.
As part of this proposal, a new play area would be provided within the site. This would front Tully
Street and would be in a similar location to the former play area.
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
SITE HISTORY
In June 2005, outline permission was granted for the creation of a community hub, and for the
means of access for the residential development, and full permission was granted for the
construction of natural turf pitches and artificial mini pitches without complying with condition 16
(provision of sports pitches) on planning permission 03/47158/OUT (ref: 05/50310/OUT).
In January 2005, permission was granted for the siting, design, external appearance and
landscaping of 50 houses and 22 apartments with associated car parking on land at
Northumberland Street/Rigby Street (ref: 04/49292/REM).
In December 2003, full planning permission was granted for the construction of natural turf
pitches and artificial mini pitches and outline permission granted for the erection of a community
hub and the means of access of residential development (ref: 03/47158/OUT).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – comments received. The Director of Environmental Services
has concerns relating to the proximity of the proposed dwellings to the proposed new play area. He
has therefore recommended that some of the properties closest to the play area have alternative
forms of ventilation and acoustic dual glazing to their living rooms and that the garden area to one
of the properties be surrounded by a 1.8m high close boarded fence, in order to reduce any noise
and disturbance from the play area. He has also recommended that the hours of use of the play area
be restricted to between 9am and 6.30pm.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – no objections.
United Utilities – no objections
Environment Agency – no objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no comments received to date
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by both press and site notices
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 9 (O), 6 – 8 (E) Ashbourne Grove
1 – 12 Bond Square
53 – 79 (O), 72 – 80 (E) Bradshaw Street
393 – 431 (O) Bury New Road
1 – 24 Newbury Place
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
Flats 1 – 36 Stoney Knoll, Bury New Road
The House that Jack Built, Greek Orthodox Church, Bury New Road
1 – 12 Cardiff Street
2 – 22 (E), 13 – 65 (O) Devonshire Street
Flats 1 – 18 Glover Field, Devonshire Street
2 – 8 (E) Dixon Avenue
1 – 45 (O), 2 – 50 (O) Hampshire Street
1 – 11 King Street
34 – 78 Rigby Street
Flats 1 – 32 The Beenstock Home, 19 – 21 Northumberland Street
60 – 68 Northumberland Street
1 – 10 Bramley Meade, Northumberland Street
Machzikei Hadass Synagogue, Northumberland Street
41, 43, 50 – 64 (E) Tully Street
1 – 14 Turner Street
1– 47 (O), 2 – 48 Vincent Street
2 – 12, 5, 7 Welbeck Grove
11, 13, 19 – 39 (O), 2 – 46 Wellington Street East
13, 17, 31, 33, 37, 41, 47 Wiltshire Street
2 – 8 (E) Acer Grove
1 – 8 Betula Gove
1 – 8 Buddleia Grove
1, 3 Clivia Road
1 – 25 (O) Legh Street
21 Broughton Mews, Legh Street
15 Cleveleys Grove
Day Nursery, Bradshaw Street North
19 – 63 (O), 42 – 52 Wiltshire Street
9 Northumberland Street
HPL Knoll Street
1 Bispham Grove
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received letters of objection from the residents of fifteen of the surrounding properties in
response to the planning application publicity. The following issues have been raised:
Noise and vibration from the work currently underway on the site
Development has commenced without planning permission
Powder is being sprayed on the playing fields which is covering surrounding houses
Insufficient car parking
There is a river below the playing fields
The replacement playing fields and play area have not been provided
Hours of construction
The proposed houses should front Tully Street and Northumberland Street
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: none
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
T13 – Car Parking
DEV2 – Good Design
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
A10 – Provision of car, cycle and motorcycle parking in new developments
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
INSPECTOR’S REPORT
Draft Policy DES1 – recommended only relatively minor amendments
Draft Policy DES7 – recommended that no modifications be made to this policy
Draft Policy H1 – recommended a number of changes but the thrust of the policy remains largely
the same.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the proposed density and mix of
dwellings is acceptable whether the design of the proposed dwellings is acceptable; whether there
would be an impact on the amenity of residents as a result of the proposal; whether the proposed
level of car parking is acceptable; and whether the proposed development complies with the
relevant policies of the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP. I shall deal with
each in turn below.
Density and Dwelling Mix
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.
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
It should be noted that the site had been allocated in the Draft UDP for housing under Policy H9/7.
However, following the public inquiry, the Inspector has recommended that, given that outline
planning permission has already been granted for the redevelopment of the site, and in order to
ensure that the UDP is as up-to-date as possible, this site be deleted from the list of allocated sites.
The density of the proposed development would be approximately 61 dwellings per hectare.
Condition 6 of the outline permission requires the density across the whole site to be a minimum of
35 dwellings per hectare. The density of the first phase of the housing development was 34.7
dwellings per hectare, giving an overall density for the site of 47 dwellings per hectare, which
accords with Condition 6 and national government guidance in PPG3.
The proposal includes a variety of dwelling types and sizes, including one and two bedroomed
apartments and four, five, six and seven bedroomed houses. I am satisfied that this is an
appropriate mix and accords with policies H1.
Design and Amenity
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.
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 rationale behind the design and layout of the proposed scheme reflect those of the first phase
of the redevelopment. The applicants envisage the whole area having the image of a traditional
terraced community, and, whilst the majority of the dwellings proposed are relatively large, this is
a concept which has been achieved through this phase of the development. The area is to be of a
relatively high density and the applicants aim to promote social inclusion and sustainability and
encourage residents to move back into the area. The site is also intended to be permeable and
pedestrian-orientated. This has been achieved through the use of ‘home zones’ and the inclusion of
relatively narrow streets running through the site.
The applicants claim that rigid interface distances, such as the requirement to have a minimum of
21m between facing habitable room windows, can sometimes limit the ability to deliver high
density development and that the quality of the external space can be enhanced through not
applying such standards. The buildings have been pushed together in order to slow down traffic on
the roads running through the site, to reduce the dominance of the car and to enable future residents
to have a higher level of ownership over the spaces adjoining their properties. This in turn would
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
have the added benefit of encouraging natural surveillance and thereby having the potential to
reduce crime and the fear of crime. In some instances within this phase, there would be a minimum
of 9m between the front elevations of facing properties. It is acknowledged that this is below the
distance ordinarily required. However, there would be a minimum of 19m between the rears of
properties, which are separated by the private courtyards and car parking areas. This would
provide a much higher level of privacy and reduce overlooking between the rears of properties. In
addition, in most instances in this phase of the development, not all of the windows on the front
elevations of the proposed dwellings are to habitable rooms, as there are kitchens on the ground
floors of many of the properties. Some screening would also be provided through the planting of
trees within the home zones, which would further increase privacy. The proposed dwellings
fronting Wellington Street East would directly face existing properties, the majority of which are
residential. There would however be a minimum of 23m between these properties, which I
consider to be acceptable.
Although it is recognised that the distance between some facing habitable room windows of
properties within the site is below the standards the Council ordinarily applied, I am of the opinion
that this is acceptable in this instance, particularly given the nature of the scheme already approved
at phase 1. I am also satisfied that there would be no unacceptable loss of privacy to existing
residents as a result of this scheme. The proposal would have significant regenerative benefits and
would result in improvements to the area. I am of the opinion that, in this instance, it would be
detrimental to the scheme as a whole to apply the Council’s interface standards so rigidly. I
therefore have no objections to the application in this regard.
The applicants have submitted samples of the materials to be used for the first phase, which, as
they are of a suitably high quality and in keeping with the character of the area, have been
approved. They have confirmed that they wish to use the same materials for this phase and I have
therefore attached a condition requiring those materials to be used for this phase.
In light of the above, I consider that the regenerative benefits of the scheme and the innovative
design outweigh the need for the development to accord with the Council’s privacy distances. I am
satisfied that the application accords with the above policies.
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.
A total of 96 car parking spaces would be provided within the site, including four disabled spaces.
Cycle parking would also be provided. Given the total number of apartments and houses proposed
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
(108), the proposed level of car parking is acceptable, particularly given the site’s proximity to
Bury New Road and a number of bus services. The proposed provision is in accordance with the
maximum car parking standards advocated by the government in PPG13 and in the Draft UDP.
The provision of cycle parking would encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, in
accordance with Draft Policy A10. I therefore have no objections to the application in this regard.
Other Issues
I have received a number of objections from local residents. The majority of the objections relate
to noise and vibration from work which has taken place on the site. This work was required in
association with the site investigations which, in accordance with a condition attached to the
outline permission, was required to be undertaken prior to the commencement of the development.
This work involved compacting, which was the source of the noise and vibration. The compacting
has now ceased and I therefore have no objections to the application in relation to noise and
vibration.
Other residents are concerned that development has commenced on site without planning
permission. I can confirm that the development which has been undertaken on site relates to the
first phase of the residential development, for which reserved matters approval was granted in
January 2005. Any activity on this site is associated with the site investigations which have taken
place and which are required in accordance with the outline consent as mentioned above.
Another issue raised by residents related to powder which was sprayed on the site. The applicants
have confirmed that this was a chalk based powder used to soak up excess water due to rain or wet
ground conditions and that has now all been completed.
Residents have raised concerns relating to a river which runs under the former playing fields. The
applicants have confirmed that there is no river under the playing fields.
There is however a small culvert (drain) that crosses the site. This has however been diverted.
One of the residents has requested that the properties front Tully Street and Northumberland
Street. The majority of the Northumberland Street frontage was covered by the previous
application for phase 1. However, the majority of the properties adjacent to Northumberland Street
and Tully Street and within this application site would front these roads.
Finally, in relation to issues raised by local residents, a number of residents have raised concerns
relating to the hours of construction. Such matters are controlled by separate legislation and, given
that any noise or disturbance would be for a temporary period only, I do not therefore consider it
necessary or appropriate to attach a condition restricting the hours of construction.
The applicants have already entered into a Section 106 agreement relating to the provision of
public open space, which requires a combination of on-site provision and a financial contribution
towards provision in the vicinity of the area. The proposed play area would constitute the on-site
provision. The play area would be managed and maintained by the Council, rather than by the
applicant, and the applicant will therefore need to enter into a legal agreement reflecting this.
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Following discussions with the applicant, disabled car parking and cycle parking have been
provided within the site. The location of the apartment block adjacent to Wellington Street East
has been amended and the associated car parking located to the rear, rather than adjacent to
Wellington Street East, in order to improve the relationship to the street scene. Entrances into the
apartment blocks from the street have also been included in order to create more active frontages.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that this proposal represents an innovative scheme which will have
significant regenerative benefits for the area. It incorporates a mix of dwelling types and sizes, the
design of which is of a high standard. The distances between properties has been adequately
justified and I do not consider that residents would be unacceptably detrimentally affected as a
result. 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,
to secure the future maintenance of the play area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the following materials
shall be used for the external elevations and roofs of the properties hereby approved:
Baggeridge Red Dragface
Ibstock Calderstone Claret
Redland Cambrian Slate - Slate Grey
Permarock render - Grey 25
Reconstituted stone - Portland
2. Prior to the commencement of the development, a scheme detailing which of the materials
specified within Condition 1 of this permission are to be used for each of the properties hereby
approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.
3. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, there shall be no bedroom, living
room or dining room windows within the gable of the dwelling at plot E19.
4. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the living rooms of the
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
properties at Plots E16-E19 shall be fitted with alternative forms of ventilation to the standard
of the Noise Insulation Regulation 1988 (as amended) and shall be capable of having a
ventilation rate of 37 litres per second. Such forms of ventilation shall be fitted prior to first
occupation of the properties and retained thereafter.
5. The play area hereby approved shall only be used between the hours of 9am and 6.30pm
6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme providing full
details of the fence to the garden area of the dwelling at plot E20, which shall be a minimum of
1.8m in height and close boarded, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The approved fence shall be erected prior to first occupation of the
dwelling and retained thereafter.
7. The glazing to the living room windows within the dwellings at Plots E16-E19 shall be 6 mm
12mm 6mm air - glass - air. Such glazing shall be installed prior to first occupation of these
dwellings and retained thereafter.
8. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the play equipment
shown on drawing no. O2653 B40 Revision C (and any subsequent revisions) shall meet the
requirements of BSEN1176 and the surfacing within the play area shall meet the requirements
of BSEN1177.
9. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the cycle storage areas
shown on drawing no (08) 001 Rev M (or any subsequent revisions approved by the Local
Planning Authority) in relation to Blocks C, E and F shall be provided and made available for
use prior to first occupation of any of units within each respective Block.
Reason(s)
1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
4. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
6. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
7. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
8. To ensure that the equipment is of sufficient standard.
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
9. In order to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, in accordance with
Policy A10 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is advised that this permission relates to the amended plans received on 4th
October 2005 which show the inclusion of disabled and cycle parking facilities.
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 and
site drainage.
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
At the meeting of the panel held on the 6th October 2005 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to 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.
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
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
Loss of trees already
Would set a precedent
Damage to wildlife
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
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: None
Other policies:
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.
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th 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.
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
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.
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
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
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 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
external elevations 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
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
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
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:
05/50965/FUL
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs D Kay
LOCATION:
Land To Rear Of 4 The Priory Salford
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a terrace of three dwellings together with associated
car parking and alteration to existing and construction of new
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
vehicular access
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the rear garden of a large semi detached property within The Cliff
Conservation Area. The application seeks full consent for the erection of three dwellings. The site
is generally flat although the remainder of the garden of 4 The Priory is approximately 2m higher
than the proposal site.
The three dwellings would be located to the left hand side of the site with car parking located to the
right hand side. Three car parking spaces are proposed. The dwellings would be two storey in
height with accommodation in the roof space. Velux windows are proposed in the rear and one
small dormer in each dwelling at the front. They would include two storey bays. They would be
sited 1.5m from the back of the pavement.
The dwellings would be 9.7m in height at the ridge and collectively would occupy a footprint of
16.4m X 10m. They would be set in 8m from the common boundary closest to the TPO’d trees.
SITE HISTORY
95/34263/OUT - Outline planning application for the erection of three dwellings – Refused
because replacement planting could not be provided due to the size of the site and the number of
replacement trees required.
00/40706/FUL - Erection of detached dwellinghouse with garage and construction of new
vehicular access – Approved with the following condition “The landscaping scheme required to
be submitted under Condition 2 of this permission shall include details of trees to replace the
protected trees removed from the boundary of the site with Priory Grove”
CONSULTATIONS
The Environment Agency – no objection
PUBLICITY
The site has been advertised by way of press and site notice
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
388 Lower Broughton Road
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
1 - 3 (con), Flat 1 – 8, 6 The Priory, 8 – 14 (even) Priory Place
4 & 6 Priory Grove, Laburnum Court Nursing Home
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any response to the application publicity
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
None
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
H1 – Meeting Housing Needs, DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 – Good
Design, DEV4 – Design and Crime, T13 – Car Parking EN7 Conservation
of Trees and Woodlands, TR5 – Protection of existing and potential assets.
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 Developments, DES1 – Respecting Context,
DES11 – Design and Crime, A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle
Parking in New Development, EN10 Protected Trees
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of residential
development in this location is acceptable; whether the development would have any impact upon
the TPO’d trees; whether the proposal is acceptable within a conservation area and whether the
proposal complies with the provisions of the relevant policies of both the Adopted and Revised
Deposit Draft Replacement UDP. These issues will be discussed in turn below.
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.
The Inspector has recommended a number of amendments to this policy including the deletion of
some of the criteria but that a minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare should be sought.
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
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.
The planning history highlighted above clearly demonstrates that the principle of a residential
scheme on this site is acceptable and would accord with general thrust of PPG3. It would not be
defined as a ‘greenfield’ site.
Given the change in levels and the orientation of the existing property I consider that the proposal
would provide sufficient privacy to the existing property and future occupiers. There are no
principle windows within the gable of the nursing home opposite and would provide in excess of
the Council’s minimum privacy distances.
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.
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 design.
The Inspector has recommended no changes to this policy.
The proposal would reflect design features of the surrounding area. It would bring into use a site
which is vacant and detracts from the area. I have attached conditions to ensure that the materials
to be used for the dwellings and the paving areas are of a high standard to further ensure that the
scheme enhances the conservation area.
Impact upon the Conservation Area
Adopted policy EN11 states that in considering planning applications for development in
conservation areas, the Council will consider the extent to which the proposal is consistent with the
desirability of preserving or enhancing the Conservation Area. The Council will have the need to
encourage high standards of development which are in keeping with the character of the area.
Revised replacement policy CH5 states that development in Conservation Areas will only be
permitted where it would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation
Area.
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
The report of the Planning Inspector into the objections to the replacement plan has suggested two
minor wording amendments. Those are to replace “preserve or enhance” in the policy and
reasoned justification with “preserve and enhance.” No other amendments are recommended. As
such I consider that this policy can be afforded significant weight.
The City Council listed building and conservation officer has assessed the proposal. He is of the
opinion that the proposal would satisfy the requirement to preserve and enhance the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area.
The site in its current form does not contribute in a positive manner to the character and
appearance of the conservation area. I consider that the scale and massing coupled with the design
of the proposal does preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Cliff conservation
area. This scheme would develop an area of the conservation area, which is in need of
enhancement. Moreover, whilst the design elements of the proposal would improve the character
of the conservation, this scheme would also allow for some additional tree planting which would
also contribute positively to the conservation area.
I consider that the scheme would enhance the conservation area it would also allow for some
additional tree planting. I have attached a condition to this end. As such I consider that the scheme
accords with the policies highlighted above.
Trees
There are a number of trees on the neighbouring site which have been afforded the protection of a
Tree Preservation Order. The applicant’s agent has submitted a supporting statement with regard
to the impact of the proposal upon these neighbouring 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.
The Inspector has recommended no changes to this policy.
Urban Vision’s arboricultural consultant has assessed the trees and the submitted tree assessment.
The consultant raised some concerns regarding the health of one of the neighbouring trees. He has
also raised the issues of the canopy of the trees to windows. The proposal would not be directly
facing the canopy. The proposal would not provide habitable windows closest to these trees. As
such, having regard to the advice and the layout of the proposal, I am satisfied that the proposal
would conform with the Council’s adopted SPG for trees.
Moreover, I have also attached a condition requiring replacement tree planting.
CONCLUSION
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
Given the above, I consider that the character and appearance of the conservation area would be
preserved and enhanced from redevelopment. Whilst the refusal of outline consent is a material
consideration, I consider that the principle of a residential scheme has been established on this site
and that this scheme is of a sufficient quality to enhance the conservation area and also provide for
some replacement tree planting.
Therefore, I consider that this scheme should be approved. I do not consider that there are any
other material planning considerations which outweigh this view.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the
external appearance of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaken using the approved materials
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme
shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, 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.
4. Prior to commencement of development a scheme detailing the construction method for the
retaining wall along the eastern boundary shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include the method necessary to safeguard the
root systems of the neighbouring trees which are the subject of Tree Preservation Order No.7.
The statement shall also include details of the proposed levels around T1 as identified within
the submitted tree report. The retaining wall shall be constructed in accordance with the
approved details prior to first occupation of the dwellings
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R006A Character - conservation area
3. Standard Reason R006A Character - conservation area
4. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
APPLICATION No:
05/51045/OUT
APPLICANT:
Moylan Homes
LOCATION:
Land On Fereday Street Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for the erection of a three/four
storey building comprising 28 apartments together with
associated car parking and construction of new vehicular access
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site comprises two vacant, grassed pieces of land at the end of Fereday Street. To
the north of the site is a recently developed site comprising eleven flats together with associated
car parking, the site is still under construction. To the east and west of the application site are the
rears of residential properties. To the south is the car park for part of the Ellesmere Shopping
Centre.
The outline application seeks permission for the erection of a part three / four storey building
comprising twenty eight apartments and associated car parking. The application includes all
details except landscaping.
SITE HISTORY
In October 2004, outline planning permission was refused for the erection of two three storey
buildings comprising 30 apartments with associated car parking and construction of new vehicular
access (04/47562/OUT)
In April 2003, outline planning permission was granted for the erection of one part three/part four
storey building comprising eleven flats, together with associated car parking and the construction
of a new vehicular access (ref: 03/45706/OUT)
In October 2002, and outline application for the erection of two buildings comprising twenty four
flats, together with associated car parking and the construction of a new vehicular access was
refused (ref: 02/44545/OUT)
In June 2002, an outline application for two blocks of three storey flats comprising a total of
twenty eight flats was submitted and subsequently withdrawn in July 2002 (ref:02/43905/OUT)
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
In April 2001, an outline application for nine dwellings including 3 three storey properties fronting
Brackley Street, together with associated car parking and access was approved (ref:
01/41728/OUT)
In November 1999, an outline application for eleven dwellings, associated car parking and
alterations to the existing access was submitted and subsequently withdrawn in December 1999
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections to the principle of the development but
recommends conditions requiring site investigations and a noise assessment
Ramblers’ Association – no objections
Peak and Northern Footpath Society – no response received to date
Open Spaces Society – no response received to date
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – no response received to date
United Utilities – no objections to the principle of the proposed development but objects to the
application as originally submitted due to the siting of the proposed buildings, as several public
sewers cross the application site and building over them would not be permitted
Environment Agency – no objections to the principle of the proposed development but
recommends a condition requiring site investigations
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no comments received to date
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by both press and site notices
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
173 – 213 (O) , 185 Bolton Road
1 – 14 Wesley Court, Brackley Street
31-41 (O) Brackley Street
2 – 30 (E) Dagmar Street
25 – 30 (O) Fereday Street
REPRESENTATIONS
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
I have received two letters of objection and one letter of no objection in response to the planning
application publicity. The following issues have been raised:
Design
No. of flats being built in area
Loss of light
Loss of privacy
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: none
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
T13 – Car Parking
DEV2 – Good Design
H6 – 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
A10 – Provision of car, cycle and motorcycle parking in new developments
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
H8 – Open Space Provision Associated with new Housing
INSPECTOR’S REPORT
Draft Policy DES1 – recommended only relatively minor amendments
Draft Policy DES7 – recommended that no modifications be made to this policy
Draft Policy H1 – recommended a number of changes but the thrust of the policy remains largely
the same.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the proposed density and mix of
dwellings is acceptable whether the design of the proposed dwellings is acceptable; whether there
would be an impact on the amenity of residents as a result of the proposal; whether the proposed
level of car parking is acceptable; and whether the proposed development complies with the
relevant policies of the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP. I shall deal with
each in turn below.
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
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.
The Inspector has recommended a number of amendments to this policy including the deletion of
some of the criteria but that a density of 30 dwellings per hectare should be sought.
National planning policy guidance is also relevant. PPG3: Housing highlights the need to develop
previously developed brownfield sites and where appropriate higher densities should be
considered. PPG3 also states that, when considering conversions, a more flexible approach is
required with regard to densities, car parking, amenity space and overlooking.
The proposal would consist of twenty-seven two bedroom apartments and one, one bedroom
apartment. Given that planning permission has been granted and implemented adjacent to the
planning application site for the erection of a building comprising eleven apartments, I consider
that the principle of residential development in this location is acceptable. This proposal would
result in the re-use of what is currently a vacant and unattractive site and would present an
opportunity to improve the site and the surrounding area.
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.
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. The Inspector has recommended no
changes to this policy.
Draft Policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the Adopted UDP.
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
As mentioned the block would be part three / four storey in height. The four storey element would
be central within the site, with three storey elements on either side closer to the existing residential
properties. The design is similar to that approved and under construction on the adjacent site. In
conclusion, I am satisfied with the design of the proposed building and consider that it accords
with the above policies.
The policy architectural liaison officer has raised some concerns with regard crime and design
issues. The applicant has been informed and amended the application and included a design
statement to address these concerns.
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 three storey elements of the proposal would be 16m from the habitable room windows of the
existing surrounding residential properties. The four storey element would be approximately 24m
from the habitable room windows of the existing surrounding properties. Habitable room
windows would be located to the front and rear elevations. The front elevation would face the
adjacent site currently under construction, and would be a distance of 40m. the rear elevation
would overlook the Ellesmere Centre Car Park. I would not consider the proposal to have a
detrimental impact on the privacy or outlook of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings or the
future occupants of the proposal in accordance with Draft Policy DES7. The provision of external
space is appropriate having regard to its close proximity to Walkden Town Centre and the
requirement to make the efficient use of land.
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.
A total of 31 car parking spaces would be provided within the site, including two disabled spaces.
Cycle parking would also be provided. Given the total number of apartments proposed, the
proposed level of car parking is acceptable, particularly given the site’s proximity to Bolton Road
and a number of bus services. The proposed provision is in accordance with the maximum car
parking standards advocated by the government in PPG13 and in the Draft UDP. The provision of
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
cycle parking would encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, in accordance with
Draft Policy A10. I therefore have no objections to the application in this regard.
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 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal
open space within housing developments.
In accordance with the above policies, the applicant is aware that a contribution towards the
provision and maintenance of open space in the vicinity is required. In accordance with the
recently adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance, the total contribution in this regard would be
£61, 328. I have attached a condition requiring such a contribution. I am therefore satisfied that the
application therefore accords with Adopted policies H6 and H11 and Draft Policy H8.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The proposal would necessitate the closure of pat of Fereday Street. The necessary consultations
have been undertaken and I have not received any objection in this regard. I have attached a
condition requiring the relevant closure order to be obtained prior to the commencement of
development.
In accordance policies H6 and H11 of the Adopted UDP, I have attached a condition requiring the
applicant to enter into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990 for the payment of a total of £61, 328. This would contribute to the provision of open space in
the vicinity. The proposal has been amended at my request to re-locate the bin storage facilities.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential purpose
is acceptable and that the proposal would result in helping to meet an under-supply with a specific
type of housing. 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.
Should members be minded to approve this application an associated resolution is also sought to
allow the City Council to enter into a 106 agreement. That the Strategic Director of Customer and
Support Services be given authority to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the provision of improved local open space/play
equipment.
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
- a landscape scheme for the site which shall include details of trees and shrubs to be planted,
any existing trees to be retained, or felled indicating the spread of the branches and trunk
positions, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment.
3. Prior to commencement of the development the developer shall submit a site investigation
report for the written 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, focussing primarily on risks to human health and to 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 in writing 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 and a verification report shall be
submitted for written approval prior to occupation of the site.
4. Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the car parking provision
for each site shall be laid out and completed in accordance with Drawing No. FS-P-22 Rev J
prior to first occupation of the residential units.
5. No development shall be started until the appropriate orders for the closure of the highway
have been approved.
6. 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.
7. 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
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
implemented in full prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
Reason(s)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
4. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
5. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
6. 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
7. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
8. To reduce the risk of flooding
9. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space
for future occupiers in accordance with policies H6 & H11 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP
1995 and H8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003.
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
10. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached letter from United Utilities
2. Please note the permission relates to the following plans:
Drawing No
FS - P-22
FS11-P-37
FS11-P-36
FS-P-30
Rev
J
D
B
3. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached letter from Environment Agency
4. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached letter from Greater Manchester Police
5. 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:
05/51106/FUL
APPLICANT:
Degussa Feb
LOCATION:
Feb Limited Albany House Swinton Hall Road Pendlebury
Swinton M27 4DT
PROPOSAL:
Retention of the erection of an external storage racking system
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Albany House on Swinton Hall Road in Swinton. The applicant
Degussa Feb is applying to retain a wooden external racking system used for storage purposes,
which is located at the north east of the site. It is approximately 70m in length, 1.2m in depth and
3.6m in height.
SITE HISTORY
A complaint was made to the Council by a nearby resident regarding the racking system and its
location within the site. The complainant claimed the racking was higher than the height of the
boundary wall. A site visit was undertaken by an Enforcement Officer and due to the racking
being fixed to the floor by bolts it is considered to be a permanent structure used to store drums and
hence required planning permission. A retrospective application was submitted by Degussa Feb
Ltd to retain the racking.
CONSULTATIONS
The Director of Environmental Services – no objection.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 20th September 2005.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1, 2, 3 and 4 Acme Drive
2 – 20 (E) Old Mill Close
26 – 36 (E) Old Mill Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 3 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. One of the
letters included a petition with twenty-one names. Four of the names on the petition appear on the
other two objection letters. The following issues that have been raised which are relevant to this
application are:
Proximity of chemical storage to residential properties
Loss of privacy
Unacceptable visual impact
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
Increase in noise
Height of racking
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
EN20 – Pollution Control
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
EN14 – Pollution Control
INSPECTOR’S REPORT
Draft Policy DES1 - The report of the Planning Inspector into the objections to the replacement
plan has recommended no changes to this policy.
Draft Policy DES7 - The report of the Planning Inspector into the objections to the replacement
plan has recommended no changes to this policy.
Draft Policy EN14 - The report of the Planning Inspector into the objections to the replacement
plan has suggested there are six further environmentally sensitive areas that should be considered
along with the original five considerations. The policy would also give consideration to the
cumulative effect of pollution, having regards to the effects of existing sources of pollution and
any balancing benefits of the development. As such I consider that this policy can be afforded
significant weight.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether there is an unacceptable impact
on the amenity of nearby residents both visually and in 5erms of noise and disturbance from
stacking operations and whether the proposal accords with the provisions of the development plan.
Adopted Policy DEV1 and Revised Policies DES1 and DES7 state regard should be had to factors
such as the relationship to existing buildings and its surroundings, the character of the area, the
visual appearance of the development and the amenity of users and neighbours.
Adopted Policy EN20 and Revised Policy EN14 state development would not normally be allowed
if it is considered to have an unacceptable increase in noise particularly around sensitive areas such
as housing.
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
The use of Albany House as an industrial unit which handles chemicals has been operating for
many years prior to planning permission being granted for the residential development of the
former Acme Mill into 59 dwellings in 1988. It was therefore considered acceptable to have
housing on the land adjacent to Degussa Feb. The company does have existing external storage
within the site and has recently erected a racking system to the north east of the site. This racking
is the subject of this planning application.
The boundary treatment between the racking system and the residential properties consists of an
embankment with tall trees to the rears of 2 to 10 Old Mill Close, and fencing/walls to the rears of
12 to 38 Old Mill Close. The nearest property to the application site is 30 Old Mill Close where it
is the side elevation of the house facing the application site. There are no habitable room windows
on this elevation. The neighbouring properties on Old Mill Lane have their rear gardens between
the rear of the properties and the boundary with Degussa Feb which is in excess of 15m at the
minimum distance and I consider there to be sufficient screening with the fencing and walls for
there not to be an unacceptable detrimental impact on the residential amenity of Old Mill Lane and
Acme Drive and any overlooking.
As previously mentioned the use of Albany House as a unit which handles and stores chemicals
has been in existence for many years and so the issue of these chemicals near to houses is not a new
occurrence. I would consider the presence of the racking system to be a suitable and safer method
of storing the drums rather than having the drums simply put one on top of the other. There is
existing activity eg fork lift trucks etc. in this part of the site and as such members need to consider
whether the activities associated with the stacking of materials (fork lift trucks, lifting and
unloading materials and so on) is significant in terms of the frequency, intensity and nature of the
activities themselves.
In response the Director of Environmental Services has not objected to the proposal. He has
assessed the proposals and given existing site conditions and activity that already takes place, the
addition of a stacking system would not unduly harm the living conditions of residents in terms of
noise and disturbance.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the racking system is acceptable, as it does not have an unacceptable
detrimental impact on the amenity of the nearby residential properties in terms of overlooking, loss
of privacy and any increase in noise. 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 - unconditional
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
APPLICATION No:
05/51128/REM
APPLICANT:
Westbury Homes
LOCATION:
Site Of Former Kwiksave Store Fairhills Road Irlam M30 6BA
PROPOSAL:
Details of the siting, design and external appearance of
91dwellings together with associated landscaping, car parking
and alteration to existing vehicular access (resubmission of
previous application 05/50560/REM)
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a 2.42 hectare site. The site is bordered by Cadishead Way to the east,
Fairhills Road to the south and a residential development site which is still under construction to
the north and west. All the houses abutting this site have been completed. To the south of the site is
the Kingsland’s Wines and Spirits industrial premises. This application site was last in use for
retail (Kwik Save and Iceland) with associated car parking and servicing. Members will recall that
outline planning permission, with all matters reserved, was granted in February this year for
residential development.
This application seeks reserved matters approval for the siting, design, external appearance,
landscaping and means of access of 91 dwellings. The proposed mix of dwellings includes 22
five-bed detached houses, 15 four-bed detached houses, 30 three-bed semi/terraced houses and 24
two-bed flats in three blocks. The houses and apartments are a mixture of two, two and a half and
three storeys in height.
The sole vehicular access to the site utilises the existing access from Fairhills Road at the south
west corner of the site. An estate road loops around the site with a joint bicycle and footpath
connecting the site to Cadishead Way at the north eastern corner of the site.
Houses and apartment blocks have been positioned to face Fairhills Road, whilst housing also
backs onto Cadishead Way. The developer proposes to finish some housing in red brick, some in
yellow and some with rendered finish. Separation distances within the site are generally less than
those required by Council standards. Parking levels are at least 100% for the development.
Boundary treatment to Fairhills Road is proposed to be a 0.6 metre high wall with 0.5m high
decorative railings atop. Rear boundaries to Cadishead Way are 1.8m high fencing with 0.3m high
trellis on top.
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
The application has been submitted with a noise report which states that attenuation to windows
and acoustic screens to gardens is required to mitigate against noise impacts.
SITE HISTORY
In February 2005, outline planning permission was approved for residential development
(04/49633/OUT).
In June 2005, a reserved matters application for the siting, design and external appearance of 87
dwellings was refused (05/50560/REM). Seven reasons for refusal were given; 1) impact upon
trees on Cadishead Way, 2) inward looking street scene along Fairhills Road, 3) regimented
parking layout not creating a sense of place, 4) loss of privacy, overshadowing and amenity to
neighbouring properties, 5) four parking spaces at the site entrance detrimental to highway safety,
6) footpath link not wide enough to accommodate bicycles, and 7) lack of defensible space.
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – No objections. Recommend adding an informative regarding the
safeguarding within 8 metres of Platts Brook and new surface water outfalls should be agreed with
the Environment Agency.
GM Police Architectural Liaison Unit – object to the permeability of the site with access available
for escape of criminals and recommends redesign to ensure development is accessed from either
Fairhills Road or the estate road. Also objects to the layout where parking spaces are not
overlooked, requires clear boundaries between dwellings, would prefer a leaking cul-de-sac be
stopped up, and requires boundary fencing to be 2.1m where they join public space and requires
defensible space around the units. The unit also recommends a lighting scheme for the
development to British Standards.
GMPTE – No comments to add to the comments raised in the outline application, where
GMPTE required the development to be laid out in such a way to allow for bus routing.
United Utilities - No objections to the proposal, providing that the site is drained on a separate
system, with only foul drainage connected to the foul sewer. Surface water should be discharged to
the watercourse/soakaway/surface water sewer and may require the consent of the Environment
Agency. A 1300mm diameter public sewer crosses the south of the site and United Utilities will
not permit building over it and access strip of not less than 12m wide will be required. A United
Utilities electricity substation is located within the site, the applicant should therefore check land
ownership/access rights.
Director of Environmental Services – No comments received on this application, however
comments received on the outline.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 31 August 2005
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2 – 46 even Rixtonleys Drive
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
1 – 7 odd Calamanco Way
8 – 26 even Calamanco Way
2 – 36 even Stickens Lock Lane
Kingsland Wines and Spirits, Fairhills Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP3 Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, H6 &
H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES11
Design and Crime, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments,
EN9 Important Landscape Features, H1 provision of New Housing Development, H8 Open Space
Provision Associated With New Housing Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the suitability of the access, the design and
density of the proposed housing, impact upon amenity of existing and future occupiers, impact
upon trees, issues of design and crime and open space and children’s play space provision.
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. DES1 and DEV2 require good design in developments. Policies H4 and H11
relate to designing out crime. Policy H1 requires housing at an appropriate density for the site.
Policy EN9 requires landscape features such as trees are retained wherever possible. H6, H11 and
H8 require open space to be set out on site or off site through a commuted sum.
Density, Separation and Design
The Inspectors report on the UDP public inquiry advises that policy H1 should be amended to
require at least 30 units per hectare on a site such as this. The development is laid out at 38 units
per hectare, and includes a mix of dwelling types, which I consider to be appropriate. The layout
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
provides a minimum of 21 metres separation distance between facing habitable rooms to existing
houses outside the site. Within the site separation distances between facing habitable rooms are
lower, some at 17metres.
The applicant explains within the design statement that the layout and disposition of buildings has
been designed to create a sense of place in accordance with Government guidance. Government
guidance, PPS1, also explains rigid separation distances should not be imposed where they would
stifle good innovative design. I am satisfied that the proposed separation distances of the
development accord with Council’s policies.
I also consider that the variation of height of proposed houses, the mix of house types and the mix
of materials to be appropriate for the site. The applicant has shown a range of materials including
stone cills and lintels and gable vents and whilst I am happy with the principle of such details I
recommend a condition requiring that materials are submitted and agreed. I am also satisfied that
the applicant has sought to front properties onto Fairhills Road and thus will bring activity to the
road.
The application was submitted with a distance of 4m from trees on Cadishead Way to the
apartment blocks. The application has been amended to move the apartments further away from
the trees. I am satisfied that the distance of 8.5m will allow the treescape to be retained during
construction and with regard to future people pressure.
Access and Parking
The applicant proposes to utilise and modify the existing access from Fairhills Road. Each unit has
at least one off street parking space with the five bed houses having double garages. The applicant
also proposes to modify the existing cycle and pedestrian path at the north-eastern corner of the
site. The proposed cycle/footpath is between two proposed houses and will allow improved access
to the cycle and footpaths along Cadishead Way. Neither cycle parking or disabled parking is
identified within or adjacent to the apartments. I recommend a condition be attached to require a
scheme be submitted for cycle parking and disabled parking. I also suggest a condition to require
details of recycling and bin store facilities. I consider the layout of the estate could potentially
allow for bus routing.
Design and Crime
The Architectural Liaison Unit submitted concerns over a number of factors. The heights of
boundary fencing have been increased to 2.1m by adding 300mm of trellis to 1.8m high fencing. I
consider the position of proposed dwellings does provide natural surveillance around the site. I
also consider it important that the development does not turn its back on Fairhills Road by
presenting 2.1m high fencing along this principal road. I consider the proposed layout
satisfactorily addresses Fairhills Road, with housing and flats fronting onto it, and that suitable
boundary treatments and defensible are proposed to seek to minimise opportunities for crime. I
consider these amendments are appropriate with reference to policies DEV4 and DES11.
Open Space Provision
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
The outline permission included a condition requiring the development to be laid out in
accordance with policies H6 and H11. The developer has sought to maximise development on site
and to provide off site facilities through a commuted sum. This approach is in accordance with
policies H6, H11 of the adopted plan and H8 of the deposit draft plan. SPG7 Open Space
associated with New Housing Developments provides a cost based on bedspaces for an off site
contribution. The development includes 399 bedspaces which equates to a commuted sum value of
£188,766.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Significant improvements to the layout of the development have resulted since the
previous refusal of reserved matters (05/50560/REM).
Each of the reasons for refusal has been addressed through this amended application.
An objector to the previous application, on the basis of loss of residential amenity, is
satisfied with this layout.
The layout and design have been significantly improved over the processing of this and
application 05/50560/REM.
S106 of £188,766 for open space, children’s play space and environmental improvements
CONCLUSION
The principle for housing has been established through the outline approval. I am satisfied that the
density, layout and detailed design of the housing and apartments is in accordance with Council
policies. Furthermore I find the access and level of parking acceptable and also the relationship
with trees along Cadishead Way. Whilst the Architectural Liaison unit still offer concerns over the
siting of houses I find the layout acceptable given the streetscene benefits and defensible space
proposed. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.
Should members be minded to approve this application an associated resolution is also sought to
allow the City Council to enter into a Section 106 agreement. That the Strategic Director of
Customer and Support Services be given authority to enter into a legal agreement under Section
106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the provision of improved local open
space/play equipment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
2. Standard Condition F05D Provision of Parking
3. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a scheme for the
approval of the Local Planning Authority which shall detail secured and covered cycle
parking, disabled parking, bin stores and recycling facilities. Once approved such a scheme
shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any dwelling hereby approved.
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
4. 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 & H11 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP 1995,
H8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003 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 R004A Amenity-area
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan and to esnure appropraite cycle and disabled parking
provision in accordance with policy A10 of the Revised Deposit Draft UDP.
4. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space
for future occupiers in accordance with policies H6 & H11 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP
1995 and H8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This application relates to the amended layout plan EL:283:00:01H.
2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment
Agency.
APPLICATION No:
05/51172/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs P Ashton
LOCATION:
34 Castlewood Road Salford M7 3GN
PROPOSAL:
Erection of part single/part two storey rear extension
WARD:
Kersal
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property on Castlewood Road, Salford 7.
The proposal is for the erection of a part single/part two storey rear extension, to provide an
extended kitchen / dining room on the ground floor and extended bedroom on the first floor. The
ground floor element of the proposal would be the width of the rear of the property ( 5.8m) and
project 1.7m from the rear elevation. The first floor element of the proposal would project 1.7m
from the rear elevation X 2.5m with a height to the eaves the same as the existing property ( 5.2m)
and a hipped roof.
SITE HISTORY
An application for a similar proposal was submitted and refused in July 2004 (04/48540/HH). The
applications are the same dimensions, the previous application had no windows within the first
floor element of the proposal.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
284, 286, 292 –298 (evens) 304, 306 Littleton Road
32, 36, 29 and 31 Castlewood Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any letters in response to the planning application publicity. Councillor
Connor has requested that it is determined by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel
due to the applicants personal circumstances.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
INSPECTOR’S REPORT
DES7 - The report of the Planning Inspector into the objections to the replacement plan has
recommended no changes to this policy.
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the proposal would seriously
injure the amenity of existing residential properties and whether the proposal complies with the
relevant policies of both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs.
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 HH4 of the SPG states planning permission will not normally be granted for extensions that
do not maintain a minimum distance of 9m between its blank gable end wall and facing habitable
room windows. The policy can be applied between ground floor windows and single storey gable
ends and first floor windows and two-storey gable ends. The existing bedroom has a window on
the side elevation and a window on the rear elevation. The proposal would include the retention of
the existing window on the side elevation of the property facing the gable end of No.32
Castlewood Road. This would be the only window to the proposed extended bedroom. The
window would be approximately 4.4m from the gable end of No.32. I would consider the proposal
to create substandard living conditions for existing and future occupiers and therefore contrary to
Policy HH4 of the SPG, Adopted Policy DEV8 and Draft Policy DES7.
Policy HH9 of the SPG states that single storey rear extension along the common boundary that
exceed 2.74m will not normally be granted planning permission. The proposed single storey
element of the proposal would project 1.7m along the boundary. I would therefore not consider
this element of the proposal to have an unacceptable impact on the occupiers of the neighbouring
property.
Policy HH12 of the SPG states that planning permission would normally be granted for two-storey
extensions at the rear of the property where the projection is equal to the distance from the nearest
common boundary. The first floor element of the proposal would project 1.7m. It would be 2m
from the boundary with No.32 and 3.4m from the boundary with No.36. The proposal would be in
accordance with HH12 of the SPG.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion I believe the proposed extensions would create substandard living conditions for
existing and future occupiers and would prejudice any future extensions at No.32 Castlewood
Road. . I am of the opinion that the proposal does not comply with the relevant policies of both the
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs and the House Extension Supplementary
Planning Guidance and therefore recommend it for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would not achieve satisfactory living conditions for the occupiers
of the proposal by reason of inadequate light and the overbearing effect of the neighbouring
house No. 32 Castlewood Road. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DEV1 of the
Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and Policy DES7 of the Revised Deposit
Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan.
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
APPLICATION No:
05/51189/FUL
APPLICANT:
Manchester Methodist Housing Group
LOCATION:
Land Formerly 2 - 6 Grange Street Salford
PROPOSAL:
Erection of one pair semi-detached dwellings
WARD:
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a piece of land on Grange Street, Salford 6. The land is situated at the
end of a row of terraces on the corner of Grange Street and Western Street and is currently derelict
where properties have been previously removed. To the north of the site the land on the opposite
of Western Street has recently been developed with a number of bungalows and semi detached
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
properties. The rest of the area surrounding the site, including Grange Street itself is characterised
by rows of identically styled terrace properties.
Permission is sought to erect two semi-detached properties on the land. The proposed development
would adjoin with 8 Grange Street and would be constructed to match with the local area. The
building will be two storey and each dwelling would be 5.5m in width and 8.5m in length. There is
garden space provided at the rear of both dwellings and a side garden provided at the proposed
property alongside Western Street. No off street car parking is proposed
SITE HISTORY
On the 18th of February 1999 Prior notification of the demolition was granted for the demolition of
three dwelling houses at 2-6 Grange Street, reference 03/47262/DEMCON.
CONSULTATIONS
Directorate of Environmental Services (Turnpike House)- No objections, recommendation for
following condition:
Acoustic dual Glazing
Site investigation report
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 7th September 2005
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2 - 14 (Even numbers) 5, 9 Western Street
31, 21, 29 Seedley Park Road
1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Grange Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection from the Granoseed Residents Association and a petition
signed by 32 residents raising the following issues:
Loss of green space
Residents do not want houses they want a community garden
That bungalows on the site would be out of character with the surrounding area
Future alley gating scheme will be jeopardised
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: none
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 - Meeting Housing Needs
DEV1 - Development Criteria
DEV2 - Good Design
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 - Respecting Context
H1 - Provision of New Housing Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are, the acceptability of locating housing on
this site, the acceptability of the design of the properties proposed, car parking provision for the
new dwellings and any impact upon the surrounding properties.
Policy H1 of the revised Draft Deposit Replacement Plan states that new housing should provide
accommodation at an appropriate density for the site and should provide for a high quality
residential environment. Policy DEV1 of the Adopted UDP calls for consideration of the scale and
density of the proposed density of the proposal and its relationship to existing and proposed land
uses and the visual impact of the proposed development. This is backed up in policy DEV2 which
states that The City Council will require all development to pay due regard to existing buildings
and the character of the surrounding area. Similarly, DES1 calls for development to respond to its
physical context, respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated and
contribute towards local identify and distinctiveness having regard to a number of factors
including the following:
The impact on, and relationship to the existing landscape
The character, scale and pattern of streets and building plots
The streets vertical and horizontal rhythms
The area is characterised by terraced residential properties I therefore consider that the principle of
residential dwellings on this site is acceptable. The proposed dwellings, whilst different to the rear
have been sympathetically designed to respect the context and distinct features of the rest of the
row of dwellings to which it is intended that they form the end two properties. Following
discussions with the applicant bay windows to match the existing terraced properties in the vicinity
have been included, as part of the design to allow the front elevation of the proposed dwellings to
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
tie in with the front elevation of the existing row of terraces. A large canopy and projection at first
floor level have also been removed.
To the rear the proposed dwellings will differ from the existing terraces, as they will not have the
two-storey outrigger characteristic of this style and age of terraced property. The outrigger has
been omitted to enable to the provision of amenity space for each dwelling in accordance with
policy DEV1 of the UDP. This row of terraced properties has an alleyway running to the rear. The
two properties will form the end of the terrace and will therefore be visible from Western Street.
However, whilst I consider that it may be desirable for the properties to tie in with the existing row
of terraces to the rear I feel that the provision of amenity space and the tieing of the properties with
the adjacent houses to the front significantly outweigh the need for the properties to be identical to
the rear. A 2.2m high brick wall runs to the rear of the properties along Grange Street and the
applicant has stated his intentions to continue this wall to the rear of the proposed dwellings.
Therefore any future alley-gating scheme will not be jeopardised, as the wall will be of an identical
height to those of the adjacent properties. To the side of the property adjacent to Western Street an
area of garden is proposed for the end property. It is proposed to surround this garden with a low
brick wall with railings mounted on top. I consider this to be appropriate for this location. A
condition can be used to ensure that these railings are colour treated prior to erection
I consider the proposed dwellings to be of an appropriate scale and density for this plot of land
given the surrounding properties and that the design and proportions both respect the scale and
density and the horizontal rhythms of the street. I feel that following amendments the properties
have been designed sensitively to respect the context and character of the area and will provide a
positive contribution to the street scene in accordance with policies DEV1 and DEV2 of the
Adopted UDP and policy DES1 of the RDDRP.
The RDDRP does not set out a definitive standard for the number of car parking spaces to be
associated with new dwellings. The area is characterised by terraced properties, very few of which
have any off road parking. There are no parking spaces proposed as part of the development. The
proposed site is located less than 5 minutes walk from Langworthy Road, which is well served by
public transport. I consider that in an area where very few houses have off road parking that any
excess cars generated by two new dwellings are unlikely to significantly increase any existing
traffic problems. I have no highways objection to the proposal. I therefore consider that in this
instance that the provision of no off road parking is acceptable.
Policy DEV1 of the Adopted UDP and policy DES7 of the RDDRP call for new development to
have regard to the sunlight, daylight and privacy of neighbouring properties. There are no
properties directly to the rear and any habitable room windows in the rear elevation of the
proposed dwellings will be significantly off set from the nearest property to the rear at Seedley
Park Road. I am therefore satisfied that there will be no loss of privacy to properties at the rear.
The proposed dwellings do not project significantly further to the rear than the neighbouring
terrace sand therefore I am satisfied that they will not result in a significantly overbearing impact
on neighbouring properties. A habitable room window proposed in the side elevation facing
across Western Street will be angled sufficiently to ensure that it does not directly overlook any of
the properties directly opposite.
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
There is a distance of only 12.5m between the habitable room windows of the proposed dwellings
and the habitable room windows of properties opposite. In normal circumstances a distance of
21m would be required between facing habitable room windows. In this instance there are a
number of factors that mean that this reduced distance is acceptable. The proposed dwellings
would make a positive contribution to an area currently undergoing a significant amount of
regeneration where standard distances between habitable room windows have often been required
to be relaxed due to the street pattern in an area where distances between the original 1900's
terraced properties fall significantly short of the distances required under the policies implemented
today. The proposed dwellings will follow the original street pattern and will not be any closer to
properties opposite than the existing properties. I therefore consider than in this instance that these
distances are acceptable.
With reference to the objection relating to bungalows being out of character with the area, the
application is for two semi-detached dwellings.
Several objections have been received relating to a desire by local residents to have a community
garden on the site. The application has been received for two dwellings and therefore must be
considered. I do not consider that there is any objection in principle to use of the site for residential
development.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The applicant has amended the original design of the proposed dwellings to ensure that the
proposed dwellings emulate the distinct character of the surrounding properties and area in
accordance with policy DES1 of the RDDRP.
CONCLUSION
Overall, the proposed development complies with all the relevant policies of the adopted Unitary
Development Plan and the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan. It would make effective use
of the site and would not detract from the character of the area and the privacy and amenity of the
neighbourhoods. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls
and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
3. Details of the proposed railings to the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of
Development Services before the
commencement of development. The development shall be carried out in accordance wih the
approved details prior to first occupation.
4. 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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
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 floor front extension
WARD:
Walkden South
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
At the panel meeting of 6th October the members resolved to approve the application. An issue
was raised by one of the neighbouring residents concerning separation distances after the meeting
but before the decision notice was issued. I am returning the application to the panel to clarify
several points regarding the distances between the existing windows at the rear of 44 Carlton Road
and the proposed bedroom window of 15 Harbourne Close.
My report addressed the distance from the rear of 15 Harbourne Close to the rear of 44 Carlton
Road as being approximately 22.4m. I was referring to the distance from the proposed bedroom
window at first floor level of the application property and the dormer windows of 44 Carlton Road,
which, due to being in excess of 21m complies with policy HH1. There is also a ground floor room
window of 44 Carlton Road that would face the proposed bedroom window of the application
property, which would also be more than 21m apart, which complies with HH1. The occupier of
44 Carlton Road did not believe there would be a distance of 21m or more from their dining room
extension to the proposed bedroom window. (A kitchen window would be on the ground floor of
the extension and bathroom and en-suite windows at first floor level would be directly opposite the
windows of the dining room extension and as these are not habitable windows HH1 does not apply
in this relationship).
A site visit was undertaken on 7th October where the distance was measured using a tape measure.
The distance was less than 21m from the window of the dining room extension to approximately
where the bedroom window at the rear of 15 Harbourne Close at 20.38m. However, HH1 states
permission will not normally be granted for extensions that do not maintain a minimum of 21m
between facing habitable room windows. The dining room window and the proposed bedroom
window do not directly face each other and due to windows being off set and the distance only
being short of less than 1m at 0.62m I remain of the opinion there would not be an unacceptable
detrimental impact on loss of privacy to the residents of 44 Carlton Road.
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
I therefore consider the application is acceptable and should be approved.
observations are as follows:
My previous
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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:
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
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th 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
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
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.
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 Local Planning Authority.
Reason(s)
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
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
APPLICATION No:
05/51243/COU
APPLICANT:
D Lewis
LOCATION:
145 The Green Worsley M28 2PA
PROPOSAL:
Change of use of rear access to garden area
WARD:
Worsley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application is for the change of use of land to the rear of the property (Grade II) to provide an
extended garden area. The alterations also include the erection of two walls and two gates
measuring 2m in height and the erection of a 2m high wall within the side garden of 145 The
Green, the walls and gates do not require planning permission. The garden extension would extend
across the existing rear access, which also runs behind the properties between 140 and 149 The
Green. The access is not a definitive right of way. Beyond the rear access is Worsley Boat Yard.
An application for Listed Building Consent appears elsewhere on this agenda.
CONSULTATIONS
Worsley Civic Trust and Amenity Society - no comments received to date.
PUBLICITY
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
140 - 149, The Boathouse the Dock House The Green
The Old Boat Yard, Worsley Road, Worsley
Wharfside, Worsley Boatyard
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
application is before the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel due to the applicant being
a Councillor.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1-Development Criteria
EN11-Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
EN12 – Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: CH2-Works to Listed Buildings
CH5-Works Within Conservation Area
INSPECTOR’S REPORT
Draft Policy CH5 - The report of the Planning Inspector into the objections to the replacement plan
has suggested two minor wording amendments. Those are to replace “preserve or enhance” in the
policy and reasoned justification with “preserve and enhance.” No other amendments are
recommended. As such I consider that this policy can be afforded significant weight.
Draft Policy CH2 – The report of the Planning Inspector into the objections to the replacement
plan has suggested that Policies CH2 and CH3 are combined into one policy. The policy would
refer to Works To. And Demolition of Listed Buildings. The inspector has added criteria to the
policy, as such I consider that the policy can be afforded significant weight.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issue relating to this application is the principle of the change of use and its
impact on the character and appearance of Worsley Village Conservation Area and whether the
proposal accords with the provisions of the development plan.
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
Adopted Policy EN11 and Draft Policy CH5 states that the Council will seek to preserve and
enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.
I would not consider the change of use of an existing passageway to the rear of the property to have
an unacceptable detrimental impact on character of the Conservation Area.
Adopted Policy EN12 states that that the City Council will only permit development that does not
detract from the architectural and historic character of a Listed Building. Draft Policy CH2 states
that proposals involving the alteration or change of use of a listed building will only be permitted
where they would preserve or enhance the character and features of special architectural or historic
interest that contribute to the reasons for its listing. As per the Inspectors Report he recommends
that alterations of a listed building be considered in relation to the importance of the listed
building, particular physical features, contribution to local street scene and benefits to the
community.
The change of use of land to the rear for inclusion within the domestic curtilage has already been
granted to some properties along The Green, including 143, 146 and 149 The Green. I therefore
would not consider the current proposal would have an unacceptable detrimental impact upon the
setting of the listed building and that the change of use of land is fully in accordance with Adopted
Policy EN12 and Draft Policy CH2.
CONCLUSION
Overall, the proposed development would not have an adverse impact upon the listed building or
the character of the conservation area. I consider that the development accords fully with the
provisions of the adopted unitary development plan and the revised
deposit draft replacement plan. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning with the
date of this permission.
Reason(s)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
APPLICATION No:
05/51244/LBC
APPLICANT:
D Lewis
LOCATION:
145 The Green Worsley M28 2PA
PROPOSAL:
Listed Building Consent for the demolition of garden wall and
rebuilding 2m high wall, erection of 2m high access gates and
insertion of two conservation roof lights.
WARD:
Worsley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a Grade II listed building within the Worsley Village Conservation
Area. This application is for the demolition of the existing rear boundary wall, erection of two
walls and two gates measuring 2m in height at the rear of the property and erection of a 2m high
wall within the side garden of 145 The Green and the installation of rooflights. An application for
full planning permission appears elsewhere on this agenda for the change of use of the existing rear
passageway to form an extended garden area.
CONSULTATIONS
Worsley Civic Amenity Centre - no comments received to date.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
140 - 149, The Boathouse the Dock House The Green
The Old Boat Yard, Worsley Road, Worsley
Wharfside, Worsley Boatyard
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
application is before the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel due to the applicant being
a Councillor.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1-Development Criteria
EN11-Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
EN12 – Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1-Respecting Context
DES7-Amenity of users and Neighbours
CH2-Works to Listed Buildings
CH5-Works Within Conservation Area
INSPECTOR’S REPORT
Draft Policy CH5 - The report of the Planning Inspector into the objections to the replacement plan
has suggested two minor wording amendments. Those are to replace “preserve or enhance” in the
policy and reasoned justification with “preserve and enhance.” No other amendments are
recommended. As such I consider that this policy can be afforded significant weight.
Draft Policy CH2 – The report of the Planning Inspector into the objections to the replacement
plan has suggested that Policies CH2 and CH3 are combined into one policy. The policy would
refer to Works To. And Demolition of Listed Buildings. The inspector has added criteria to the
policy, as such I consider that the policy can be afforded significant weight.
Draft Policy DES1 - The report of the Planning Inspector into the objections to the replacement
plan has recommended no changes to this policy.
DES7 - The report of the Planning Inspector into the objections to the replacement plan has
recommended no changes to this policy.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of the change of use and the
erection of the wall and gates and their impact on the character or appearance of Worsley Village
Conservation Area and whether the proposal accords with the provisions of the development plan.
Adopted Policy EN11 and Draft Policy CH5 states that the Council will seek to preserve and
enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.
It is intended to demolish the existing rear boundary wall to enable the garden to be extended to the
rear, to include the existing rear access that runs from No’s. 140 to 149 The Green. Two walls and
gates would be erected at either end of the passage on both side boundaries of the application site.
The walls and gates combined would measure 1.8m wide with a height of 2m. The walls would be
constructed from antique brick with wrought iron gates. A 2m high wall constructed from antique
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
brick would be erected in the side garden of 145 The Green. It would extend from the existing side
elevation of the property to the boundary of No.146 The Green. The wall would have diamond
details within it. The proposed walls and gates are designed to a high quality and respect the
context of the surrounding area. I have attached a condition requesting samples of materials prior
to the commencement of development to ensure the proposal is built to a high quality. The
proposal includes the installation of two roof lights. They would be located towards the front of
the building on the side hipped roof. The rooflights would measure 1m X 0.8m. The style of the
rooflights are known as “Conservation Rooflights” due to their unique style. They would lie flush
with the existing roofline and include a sash effect. I would therefore not consider the proposal to
detract from the character of the conservation area and therefore be in accordance with Adopted
Policy EN11 and Draft Policy CH5.
Adopted Policy EN12 states that that the City Council will only permit development that does not
detract from the architectural and historic character of a Listed Building. Draft Policy CH2 states
that proposals involving the alteration or change of use of a listed building will only be permitted
where they would preserve or enhance the character and features of special architectural or historic
interest that contribute to the reasons for its listing. As per the Inspectors Report he recommends
that alterations of a listed building be considered in relation to the importance of the listed
building, particular physical features, contribution to local street scene and benefits to the
community.
The change of use of land to the rear for inclusion within the domestic curtilage and the erection of
boundary walls and extensions has already been granted to some properties along The Green,
including 143, 146 and 149 The Green. The materials to be used are of a high quality and design I
would therefore not consider the current proposal would have an unacceptable detrimental impact
upon the setting of the listed building in accordance with Adopted Policy EN12 and Draft Policy
CH2.
Adopted policy DEV1 and Draft Policy DES1 states that the City Council will have regard to a
number of issues when dealing with planning applications, these include the location of the
proposed development, the visual appearance of the development and its relationship to its
surroundings. The proposals would not form visually obtrusive features and therefore their
introduction would not have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity that can expect to be
enjoyed by the neighbouring residents.
Draft policy DES7 states that development will not be permitted where it would have an
unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.
The proposed gates at each side give access to neighbours across the bottom of the garden when
required. The passageway is not a definitive public right of way, I am therefore satisfied that the
proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.
CONCLUSION
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
Overall, the proposed development would not have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity
currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents or upon the listed building or the character of the
conservation area. I consider that the development accords fully with the provisions of the adopted
unitary development plan and the revised
deposit draft replacement plan. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions:
1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning with
the date of this permission.
2.
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the
materials for the proposed walls 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)
1.
2.
Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990.
To ensure the development fits in with the existing building in accordance with
policy DEV3 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
05/51282/FUL
APPLICANT:
The David Ellwood Lever Sipp
LOCATION:
48 Park Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing office building and erection of one three
storey building comprising nine apartments together with
associated car parking and alteration to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
The application site comprises of a vacant three-storey office building together with and a single
storey outbuilding to the rear. The site fronts onto Park Road and is bounded on three sides by
residential properties. Vehicular access into the site is from Park Road.
The proposed L shaped building would be three storeys in height. It would be a minimum of 5m
from the back of the footpath on Park Road. It would be set in 1m from the boundary with 50 Park
Road and would run for 16m along this boundary. It would have a 16m frontage along Park Road.
It would be 7.3m to the eaves and 10.8m to the ridge. A total of nine car parking spaces would be
provided to the rear of the proposed building and vehicular access into the site would be gained
from Park Road. A cycle storage area would also be provided within the site.
SITE HISTORY
An application for the demolition of the existing offices and the erection of a three-storey building
comprising of 9 apartments together with associated landscaping was submitted in May 2005 (Ref
– 05/50659/FUL). This application was withdrawn in June 2005.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on the 13th of September 2005.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
37 to 43m (odd) Park Road
50 to56 (even) Park Road
St Peter & St Paul Church, Park Road
1 and 3 Tandis Court
6 to 18 (even) Tandis Court
9 to 17 (odd) Tandis Court
21 Victoria Road
63 to 79 (odd) Victoria Road
77 and 83 St Georges Crescent
209 Eccles Old Road
Gilda Brook Post Offices, 258 Eccles Old Road.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 12 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity, including one from Councillor Ainsworth. The following issues have been raised:1. Inadequate plans that are difficult to understand
Loss of a building with lots of character that makes a positive contribution to the area
The building should be reused for office purposes – Salford does not need any more
apartments but more affordable family accommodation and more specifically in this area
accommodation for hospital workers.
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
The building should be reused as according to the Inspector’s report priority should be
given to the re-use of buildings that are sound and worthy of re-use.
Disruption during the construction period
Loss of view
Loss of light
Overshadowing
Loss of privacy
Inadequate parking provision
Over-development of the site
Insufficient amenity space for future residents
Failure to provide a separate pedestrian access will result in conflicts between pedestrians
and vehicular traffic to the detriment of pedestrian safety
Insufficient space to maintain the side if the building that runs along the boundary with 50
Park Road
Impact on trees
Disruption during the construction period and loss of view are not material planning
considerations, nor is future maintenance of the building.
Cllr Ainsworth also raised concerns about the of the gated access and its position relationship to
car parking space number 1 which would, in his opinion, inhibit users of space 1 to enter and leave
the site in a forward gear, thus causing highway safety concerns.
Councillor Ainsworth has also requested that members consider a site visit in order to appreciate
the scale and context of what is proposed (and the difficulties likely to impact on existing
residents) and to respond to the significant amount of local opposition, as many residents cannot
attend this meeting.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Other policies: Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
T13 – Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES11 – Design and Crime
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
ST11 Location of New Development
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
INSPECTOR’S REPORT
Draft Policy H1 - recommended a number of changes but the thrust of the policy remains largely
the same.
Draft Policy DES1– recommended only relatively minor amendments
Draft Policy DES11 - recommended no changes to this policy.
Draft Policy A10 - recommended only relatively minor amendments
ST11 –
recommended re-wording to give priority to the
re-use/conversion of existing buildings where they are sound and
worthy of reuse and/or of architectural or historic interest and
their re-use is effective.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider the main issues in the determination of the application to be: whether the principle of the
use is acceptable; whether the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of
neighbouring residents; whether the design of the proposed building is acceptable; whether the
proposed level of car parking is acceptable; whether the proposal would be satisfactorily secure;
and whether the proposed development accords with the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft
Replacement UDP. I shall deal with each in turn below.
Principle Policy ST11 advocates a sequential approach to the location of new development, which gives
priority to previously developed land ahead of Greenfield land. In his report the Inspector has
recommended that the policy be amended to give priority to the re-use/conversion of existing
buildings where they are sound and worthy of reuse and/or of architectural or historic interest
ahead of other previously developed land.
The site is currently occupied by a three-storey building and a single storey outbuilding, which
have been vacant for a number of years as they are not compliant with legislation passed under the
Disability Discrimination Act. The applicant submitted a supporting statement that outlines their
reasoning for not re-using the existing buildings. They state that their ability to be reused for office
purposes or converted to residential accommodation is limited as considerable economic outlay
would be required to make the buildings DDA compliant and suitable for use particularly given
that the buildings have been vandalised in the past and the out building is in a poor state of repair.
Consequently the applicant is of the opinion that re-use or conversion of the existing buildings
would not therefore be an effective solution to bring the site back into use. I am satisfied with this
justification for not reusing the existing buildings and therefore I am of the opinion that the
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
proposed development is in accordance with the sequential approach to the location of new
development outlined in Policy ST11 and the Inspectors Report.
I do not have any objections to the demolition of the existing buildings as the site is not located
within a conservation area and the buildings themselves do not have any architectural merit nor do
they have any “special” history that makes them worthy of listing or re-use.
The application site is located in a predominantly residential area and I am therefore of the opinion
that the use of the land for residential purposes would be compatible with surrounding land uses.
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 surrounding area comprises predominantly semi-detached and terraced dwellings, and I am
therefore of the opinion that, as this application proposes apartments, it would contribute to the
provision of a mix of dwelling types in the area, in accordance with policies H1. I therefore
consider the principle of the proposed development to be acceptable.
Amenity of neighbours and future residents
Adopted Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria to which regard should be had in the
determination of planning applications. Of most relevance to this application are the location of the
proposed development, including its relationship to existing and proposed land uses, the size and
density of the proposed development and the impact on neighbouring residents.
Draft Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory
level of amenity. Development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the
occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
There would be habitable room window-to-window separation distances of 23.5m to the properties
at the rear of Victoria Road and 24m to those opposite on Park Road. The proposed apartments
would not therefore result those on Victoria Road or Park Road experiencing a loss of privacy or a
reduction in the residential amenity they can reasonable expect to enjoy.
The relationship between the proposed apartment block and the properties located within Tandis
Court is such that there would not be any facing habitable room windows. At its closest the
building would be located 13.5m from the habitable room windows contained within Tandis
Court, the same as the existing building. There are 2 mature trees on the common boundary of the
site, which provide screening. I am therefore of the opinion that the proposed apartment block
would not form an overbearing structure and therefore its introduction would not have an adverse
impact upon the amount of light the residents of Tandis Court currently receive. Consequently the
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
residential amenity the occupants of Tandis Court currently enjoy would not be adversely affected
by the proposal.
The residential amenity the occupants of 50 Park Road would not be affected by the proposal
either as those residents at 50 Park Road do not have any habitable room windows in their gable
end and the building would not project beyond a 45-degree line drawn from any habitable room
window in the rear elevation of the property.
In the light of the above separation distances, 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 majority of the adjacent buildings are two storeys in height, I do not however have any
objections to the scale and massing of the proposed building, as it would only be 1m higher than
the existing building and despite having a larger footprint and a more prominent front elevation I
am of the opinion that the proposed building would not have an adverse impact upon the visual
amenity of the area. It respects the existing building line and it is well designed so it incorporates a
number of the local architectural features. I have attached a condition requiring the submission of
samples of materials to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development
and I am satisfied that this will ensure that they will be of a suitably high quality and in keeping
with the surrounding area. This should ensure that the proposed building makes a positive
contribution to the character of the area.
On the above basis, I am of the opinion that the application accords with Adopted Policy DEV2
and Draft Policy DES1.
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.
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
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 nine car parking spaces would be provided within the site. In addition, there would be a
cycle storage area within the site. The application site is also well located in terms of public
transport. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed level of car parking is acceptable and accords
with the Council’s maximum car parking standards.
Part of the proposal involves the widening of the exiting vehicular access, which will be gated
9.5m from the site boundary and the introduction of a separate pedestrian access. The City
Council’s highway engineer is of the opinion that the proposed car parking layout and the new
access is acceptable and therefore I do not have any concerns with the proposal on highway safety
grounds.
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.
The adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance for trees states that “In the case of residential
buildings, a development in which a principle window (main window to a lounge, dining room or
main bedroom) is overshadowed by a tree, or where any part of a tree is sited within 3.6m of a
window will be resisted”.
There are two large trees within the grounds of 48 Park Road, a sycamore and a horse chestnut.
City of Salford Tree Preservation Order Number 13 protects the sycamore. The horse chestnut is
not protected. The City’s arboricultural consultant has inspected the horse chestnut, which has
been topped in the past, and therefore in his opinion it is not worthy of protection, particularly
given the limited contribution the tree makes to the visual amenity of the area. The applicant has
however stated that they intend to retain the tree and consequently I feel it is appropriate to use
protection measures to ensure that its health is not unnecessarily adversely affected by the
proposed development.
In the arboricultural consultants opinion the erection of protective fencing would ensure that the
construction of the proposed apartments would not have a detrimental impact upon the trees. The
separation distances between the canopies of the trees and habitable room windows in the
proposed apartments complies with the guidance in the SPG and therefore the development would
not result in an unacceptable impact upon the trees due to future people pressure either. Overall, I
am therefore satisfied that the proposal accords with the policies highlighted above regarding
trees.
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
As result of my concerns relating to its design and appearance in the street scene the scheme
submitted under 05/50659/FUL has been amended to include architectural features typical of other
buildings in the area. A separate pedestrian access has also been introduced in order to minimise
the potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicular traffic.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider the principle of the proposed development to be acceptable and that the
proposed scheme would contribute to the provision of a mix of dwelling types in the area. I am
satisfied that the amenity of existing or future residents of neighbouring properties and the
proposed apartments would not be unacceptably detrimentally affected as a result of this scheme
and that the design of the buildings is acceptable. Consequently, I am satisfied that the application
accords with the relevant policies of the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs. I
therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three 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.
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme
shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, 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.
4. Prior to the first use of the apartments hereby approved the 9 car parking spaces as shown in
drawing number P/R 1B shall be made available for use. They shall remain available for use at
all times whilst the building is being used as apartments.
5. Before the first occupation of the apartments hereby permitted, the new vehicular access and
pedestrian access to the development, as shown on the approved plans, shall be provided to the
satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
6. No development shall be started until substantial fences, located 5m from the base of the trees,
have been erected around the sycamore and horse chestnut trees located within the site. Such
fences shall be erected in accordance with a specification to be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development 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.
7. Notwithstanding the details submitted, prior to the commencement of development an
arboricultural method statement that details the special procedures and materials that will be
used to remove the tarmacadum within the sphere of influence of the sycamore and
horsechestnut tree and to construct the new driveway, car parking and landscaped areas shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved the
tarmacadum shall be removed in accordance with the approved scheme and the new driveway,
car parking and landscaped areas shall be constructed in accordance with the approved
scheme.
8. No development shall be started until full details of the location, design and construction of bin
stores have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such
approved bin stores shall thereafter be constructed and made available for use before the
development is brought into use.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
5. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
6. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
7. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The permission shall relate to the amended plan received on the 3rd of October 2005 which
shows a revised access arrangement.
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
2. 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 Environmental Protection Unit as
soon as is practicable should contamination be encountered during development of the site.
Historical map searches have identified a former potentially contaminative use (i.e. may be a
former industrial use, an infilled feature such as a pond etc.) that may effect the development of
the site. You need to ensure that your builder and the building control officer dealing with the
developer are aware of this so that appropriate precautions can be taken to protect the
developer, the public, the environment and the future occupants from contamination issues.
For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Advisory, the
applicant/developer is advised to contact the Environmental Protection Team in the
Environment Directorate (Tel: 0161 737 0551).
APPLICATION No:
05/51323/HH
APPLICANT:
Lowry Developments
LOCATION:
Lowry House 1 Bank Place Salford M3 6BS
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey rear extension with roof terrace
(re-submission of planning application 04/49814/HH)
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the erection of a single storey rear extension at The Lowry House, 1
Bank Place, Salford. The proposal is located within Adelphi/Bexley Square Conservation Area
and the site is located within Chapel Street regeneration area.
There is a three-storey Grade II listed residential apartment (Old Court House) and a car park
situated at the east and west hand side of the site respectively. The site itself is currently used as car
parking spaces for the applicant and the residents at the Old Court House.
The proposed single storey extension will project a total of 3.1 m in height (plus a 1.8m high
wooden louvered screening set back 2.1m at the roof) and 9m to the rear of the property. A 4m
x3.5m courtyard would be introduced between the existing and the proposed extension. The
proposal also includes a 2.2m high mesh screening to the courtyard and a high level obscure
glazing window position 2.2m above the ground at the right hand side elevation.
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
SITE HISTORY
There are three relevant planning histories relating to the application site.
On the 16th June 1997, Conservation Area Consent was approved for demolition of the property at
25 Bank Place (Reference 97/36771/CON).
On the 20th December 2001, planning permission was approved for the erection of railings and
pedestrian and vehicular gates to front elevation (Reference 01/43488/FUL).
On the 11th of February 2005, planning permission was refused for the erection of two-storey rear
extension. The two storey rear extension would by reason of its size and sitting result in an
over-bearing and dominant structure on the neighbouring residents living at the Old Court House
and is contrary to Policy DEV8 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan, Policy
DES7 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement City of Salford Unitary Development Plan, and HH3
of Supplementary Planning Guidance - House Extensions (Reference 04/49814/HH).
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on the 7th September 2005.
A conservation area site notice was displayed on 30th September 2005
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 Encombe Place, Salford
Flat 3,5,7,9,11,15,17,19,21,23,25,27,29,31,33,35 Old Court House
Solicitors, 123 Deansgate
The Studio, 3 St Georges Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received eight letters of representation /objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised:
Loss of car parking space
Excessive size of extension
Right of way over the land
Loss of natural light
Out of character with conservation area
Problems with future maintenance of Old Court House
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
Other policies: EN11 - Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
EN13 - Works to Listed Buildings and Buildings Within Conservation Areas
DEV2- Good Design
DEV8 - House Extensions
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies:
CH5 - Works Within Conservation Areas
DES7 - Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8- Alterations and Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issue relating to this application are the acceptability of the design of the
extension proposed, the impact the proposed extension may have on the architectural and historic
character of the Adelphi/Bexley Square Conservation Area and the residential amenity currently
enjoyed by neighbouring residents.
Policies EN13, EN11 and DEV2 states that the Council will not normally permit any development
which would detract from the architectural and historic character of a building within conservation
area, something that is reiterated in Policy CH5. In order to do this, the Council will seek to ensure
that extensions preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The
proposed extension has been designed to respect the character of in terms of its size, location and
proposed materials. Consequently it would preserve the character and appearance of
Adelphi/Bexley Square Conservation Area.
Policy DEV8 state that development must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity
of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or
light, something which is reiterated in DES7 and DES8. The location and positioning of the
proposed extension is such that a distance of 9m between the habitable room windows of the
proposed extension and the habitable room windows of properties opposite. In normal
circumstances a minimum distance of 21m would be required between facing habitable room
windows. However, in this circumstance the proposed window would be positioned 2.2m above
the floor, which is well above head height level and it proposed to be obscure glazed. It is therefore
the right hand side elevation of the single storey extension could be consider treated as a blank
gable wall. Hence, it complies with the separation distance, as a minimum distance of 9m would be
required between facing habitable room windows and a blank gable wall for single storey
extension. In this instance I consider this separation distance sufficient to negate any serious
impact on the amenity of the residents in these flats in terms of outlook and visual amenity.
The proposal will also involve the erection of a 1.8m high wooden louvered screening at the roof
of the extension. I envisage that it would not result in overlooking or overshadowing impact to the
neighbouring residents at the Old Court House. The 1.8m height screening would provide
screening which would avoid direct overlooking and provide privacy to the neighbour. The 2.1m
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
set back from the ground floor extension would provide a reasonable 11.1m distance between the
proposed extension and the Old Court House, and the type and material of the screening (wooden
louvered) would negate the affect of loss of natural lighting and ventilation for the residents in the
Old Court House.
Several objections have been received relating to legal easement of right of way and car parking.
The applicant has submitted a Certificate A so the proposal is being built solely on the ground
owned by the applicant. As such I do not consider the loss of car parking a material consideration
in the determination of this application.
I also do not consider the objection point on post development maintenance of the Old Court
House a material planning consideration.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Three amended plans were received in response to recommendations made by the Planning
Officer, which secured improvements to the original submission to ensure that the proposed
extension would emulate the distinct character of the surrounding properties and area in
accordance with policies DEV7, DES7 and DES 8, and safeguard residential amenity.
CONCLUSION
Overall, the proposed development complies with the relevant
policies of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and the Revised
Deposit Draft Replacement Plan. It would not therefore detract from
the character or setting of the building to which it would be attached
nor would it have an adverse impact upon the character of the
Adelphi/Bexley Square Conservation Area. It would make effective use
of the site and protected the privacy and amenity of the
neighbourhoods. I therefore recommend that the application be
approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three 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 Local Planning Authority.
3. Prior to first occupation the glazing for the element of the extension facing the Old Court
House shall be obscured, and shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority.
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
4. No development shall be commenced unless and until full details of the wooden louvred
screening have been submitted to and app4oved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The screening shall be erected in accordance with the approved details prior to first use of the
roof area and retained as such thereafter.
5. The use of the flat roof area of the extension hereby permitted shall be limited at all times to
that area enclosed by the wooden louvred screening.
Reason(s)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
APPLICATION No:
05/51321/FUL
APPLICANT:
Del Greco Homes Ltd
LOCATION:
Oakwood 337 Manchester Road Clifton M27 6PT
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of two three-storey
building comprising 18 apartments together with associated
landscaping, car parking and alteration to existing vehicular
access
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a large detached property which is bounded by a belt of mature TPO’d
trees on its northern and western boundaries. To the front of the site is a stone wall approximately
1.5m in height. The site is within an established residential area comprising mainly of two storey
semi detached properties, although there are some three storey apartments opposite and bungalows
on Oakwood Avenue to the west.
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
The proposal seeks to demolish the existing property and erect two blocks of apartments. Each
block would contain 9 two bed apartments. Both blocks would be three storey with the front
proportion of each block utilising the roof space. Access would be taken from the existing
vehicular access. Car parking for 18 cars would be provided between each of the blocks.
Amenity space would be provided to the rear of block B, the front of block A and along the eastern
common boundary.
SITE HISTORY
A similar scheme was refused under delegated authority earlier this year (05/50777/FUL). The
following reasons for refusal were attached:
1. The design of Block A would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area by reason
of its height, scale and proportions of the proposed roof. The proposed development is contrary to
Policy DEV2 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and Policy DES1 of the
Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan.
2.
The proposed development would result in the removal of a mature tree which has the
protection of a provisional Tree Preservation Order. The loss of this tree would be to the
significant detriment of the character and appearance of the local area, contrary to both the City
Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance on Trees and policy EN10 of the Revised Deposit
Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan
CONSULTATIONS
The Director of Environmental Services – No objection subject to conditions regarding site
investigations and noise assessments
Environment Agency – no objection in principle subject to drainage condition
United Utilities – no objection in principle
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – Advises that a cul-de-sac would enable greater secured by
design principles.
PUBLICITY
The site has been advertised by way of press and site notice.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2 – 16 Oakwood
16 – 24 (even), 21 – 31 (odd) Solway Close
Clifton Post Office
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
1 – 48 (con) Kirkstile Place
321 – 335 and 343 – 347 Manchester Road
Flat 1 – 18 (con) Clifton Court
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 13 letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following
issues have been raised:
Impact of additional vehicles
Bats
Removal of mature trees
Overlooking
Loss of privacy
Amount of development already in area
Amount of flats in area
Shadows effect upon Solway
Access to property
Character of the area
Work has already commenced
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
None
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
H1 – Meeting Housing Needs, DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 – Good
Design, DEV4 – Design and Crime, T13 – Car Parking EN7 Conservation
of Trees and Woodlands,
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
H1 – Provision of New Housing Development, DES1 – Respecting Context,
DES11 – Design and Crime, A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle
Parking in New Development, EN10 Protected Trees
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of residential
development in this location is acceptable; whether the development would have any impact upon
the TPO’d trees; whether the proposal satisfies the previous reasons for refusal of a similar scheme
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
and whether the proposal complies with the provisions of the relevant policies of both the Adopted
and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP. These issues will be discussed in turn below.
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.
The Inspector has recommended a number of amendments to this policy including the deletion of
some of the criteria but that density of 30 dwellings per hectare should be sought.
National planning policy guidance is also relevant. PPG3: Housing highlights the need to develop
previously developed brownfield sites and where appropriate higher densities should be
considered. PPG3 also states that, when considering conversions, a more flexible approach is
required with regard to densities, car parking, amenity space and overlooking.
The site has previously been developed and considered as a brownfield site, as such, I consider the
principle of the redevelopment of this site for residential accommodation to be acceptable and
accords with the thrust of the policies highlighted above. This has to be balanced against the loss of
a potential tourism asset and the existing building.
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.
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. The Inspector has recommended no
changes to this policy.
Draft Policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the Adopted UDP.
74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
Block A
The applicant’s agent has provided a street scene elevation of the proposal within the context of the
neighbouring semi detached property. Block A has been amended to reduce the height of the ridge
from 9.3m adjacent to the common boundary. It would also include a hipped roof similar to that of
the neighbouring semi detached dwelling. The height of the scheme would then increase to a
height of 10.7 some 10m from the main wall of the neighbouring semi. This section also includes
a hipped roof.
The foot print of this element of the scheme would measure 18.4m X 13.6m. The element closet to
the common boundary would be on a similar building line to that of the rear of the neighbouring
property. The part of block A which would project beyond that of the rear elevation would
measure 5m and would be 5m from the common boundary.
There are no habitable windows within this neighbouring semi detached gable.
Access to the block would be provided from both the Manchester Road Elevation and the rear car
park elevation.
Block B
Block B would be three storey with the third storey partially in the roof space and would include
hipped roofs. It would also include two storey bays to reflect the design and appearance of the
surrounding residential properties. Three dormers would be provided within the elevation facing
the car. The rear elevation would be of a three storey appearance. The footprint of this block
would measure 17 X 14m. The eaves height at the front of the block would be 6.7m stepping to
8.6m. The highest part of ridge would be 12.2m.
This block would provide 6 two bed apartments and 2 one bed apartments
The block would be 6m from the common boundary and 12.8m to the closest corner of the
properties on Solway Avenue. Block B would be sited parallel to the space between 24 and 31
Solway. These neighbouring properties on Solway are sited so that the main rear aspects would
not face the gable of the proposed block B. Given that the aspects do not face the proposal I
consider that this part of the proposal acceptable.
The policy architectural liaison officer has raised some concerns with regard to the gated access at
the front of site. He has recommended that the inclusion of a cul-de-sac would enable the scheme
to accord with the principles of secured by design. However, whilst the proposal would not
achieve secured by design status the constraints of the site including position of TPO’d trees are
such that a cul-de-sac could not be incorporated into the scheme and provide the neighbouring
properties and future occupiers with the same level of amenity. The site would include gated
vehicular and pedestrian access points which would accord with the design and crime policies of
the adopted and revised plan and with guidance provided within the Council’s adopted SPG for
Design and Crime.
75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
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. The Inspector has recommended no changes to
this policy.
The Inspector has recommended no changes to this policy.
Urban Vision’s arboricultural consultant has assessed the trees and the submitted tree assessment.
The previous reason for refusal stated:
“The proposed development would result in the removal of a mature tree which has the protection
of a provisional Tree Preservation Order. The loss of this tree would be to the significant
detriment of the character and appearance of the local area, contrary to both the City Council's
Supplementary Planning Guidance on Trees and policy EN10 of the Revised Deposit Draft
Replacement Unitary Development Plan”
The siting of Block B has been amended so that it would be 12.5 from the Sycamore which has
been afforded the protection of a provisional TPO. Moreover, Urban Vision’s arboricultural
consultant is of the opinion that this tree is in need of pruning. He has recommended that the
crown be reduced by 1m. The revised siting coupled with the suggested pruning work would
ensure that this element of the proposal would accord with the adopted Supplementary Planning
Guidance for trees.
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposal accords with the policies highlighted above
regarding trees.
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.
The applicant has indicated that a total of 18 car parking spaces would be provided, I have no
highway objection to the application. Given that the site is located on a major route in and out of
City and one that is well served by public transport, I consider the level of car parking to be
appropriate and in accordance with the Council’s maximum car parking standards. Two spaces
would be marked for disabled persons. I have attached a condition requiring details of cycle stores
to be provided.
76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
Turning to the proposed access. The City Council’s highway engineer is of the opinion that the
proposed access is sufficient for the proposed development providing adequate protection
measures are provided to ensure visibility.
Other issues
I have instructed the applicant’s agent to undertake a bat survey following comments from the
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit. I will report the findings of this assessment to the Panel.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Since the refusal of the last scheme the design of the proposal has been amended to address reason
for refusal number one. The siting of block B has also been amended so that the large sycamore on
the edge of the mature woodland can be retained. I consider that these amendments address the
reason why the previous scheme was refused.
Moreover, the improvements to the design of block A have also been replicated on block B to the
rear of the site.
CONCLUSION
I consider that the amendments made to the design of Block A and the siting of Block B are
sufficient to offset the reasons for refusing the previous scheme. As such I consider that this
revised scheme should be approved. I do not consider that there are any material considerations
that outweigh this view.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the
external elevations of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme
shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, 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.
77
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
4. Standard Condition F03X Surfacing
5. Standard Condition J04X Bin Stores
6. No development shall commence until a scheme of recycling facilities for the apartments has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme as is
approved shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
7. No development shall commence until an external lighting scheme for the apartments has been
submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme as is
approved shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
8. 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.
9. Prior to commencement of the development; the developer shall undertake an assessment to
determine the external noise levels from the surrounding roads that the proposed residential
elements will be subjected to (day time and night time). The developer shall detail what steps
have to be taken to mitigate the disturbance from the above. The assessment shall have due
regard to the Department of the Environment Guidance PPG 24 - Planning and Noise,
achieving BS8233: 1999 in all habitable rooms. This assessment and mitigation measures shall
be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the
development. Once agreed, all identified noise control measures shall be implemented and
thereafter retained.
10. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 4th October 2005 which shows
the revised siting of Block B and amendments to the design of both blocks
78
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
11. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
12. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the provision of surface water
drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
drainage shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation
of the dwellings
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R013A Use of parking areas
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
6. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
7. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
8. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
9. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
10. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
11. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
12. To reduce the increased risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of
surface water disposal in accordance with policy DEV 11 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. 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.
79
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
2. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition and
issues relating to noise during construction and demolition, the applicant/developer is advised
to contact the Environmental Protection Team in the Directorate of Environmental Services
(Tel: (0161) 737 0551).
3. The applicant is advised to contact United Utilities with regarding to drainage and connection
to the sewer network
80
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
81
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th October 2005
82