PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
APPLICATION No:
05/51270/FUL
APPLICANT:
M Keelty And M Field
LOCATION:
6-8 Trinity Court St Stephen Street Salford
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a nine storey building comprising 50 apartments, 305 sq.m
ground floor commercial unit (A1, A2, B1) and basement car parking
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of an existing two-storey office block
located on St Stephen Street approximately 70m from Chapel Street. The
site measures just 0.06 hectare and backs onto Trinity Way and Lamb Lane
and is bounded to the north by a small park and to the south by a recently
constructed five-storey apartment building.
The site is prominent when viewed from Trinity Way and is square, having
a 24m frontage to St Stephen Street.
It is proposed to erect a nine-storey building comprising 50 apartments
on the site. The building would have just five storeys adjacent to the
existing apartment block and would then rise up to nine storeys adjacent
to the park. A total of 305sq.m of commercial floorspace would be provided
at ground floor level and this is proposed to be occupied by one of the
applicants who currently occupies the existing office building. Pedestrian
access would be from St Stephen Street with a secondary pedestrian access
for the office space on to Trinity Way. A total of 30 spaces would be
provided in two basement levels, 25 of which would be for future residents
and 5 for the office users. These would be accessed from St Stephen Street.
Cycle and bin storage would also be provided in the basement.
The building has been designed so that it would both compliment and improve
on the recently constructed adjacent apartment block. As with the adjacent
building the predominant facing material would be brick, augmented by zinc
cladding to the park elevation with timber cladding. There is just a 3m
gap to the adjacent building but both have been designed taking this into
account and both are equidistant from the common boundary. The proposed
building has obscure glazed bedroom windows that directly face the adjacent
building as well as windows that are angled to Trinity Way and St Stephen
Street in order to give future occupants an acceptable level of amenity.
These are windows to the second bedroom in a two-bed apartment. The adjacent
building has no main living room windows that face the common boundary.
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
There are no trees within the site but one small cherry tree in the adjacent
park would be removed and replaced.
SITE HISTORY
In November 2003 an outline application for a five-storey building comprising 33 apartments was approved
(03/46911/OUT).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections but given the location recommends conditions
regarding contaminated land, noise and for the management of dust during the construction phase.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – no objections but make a number of detailed
comments regarding security issues relating to the entrances to the apartments.
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – the location of this proposal is in a key transformational
area as identified by the draft Vision and Regeneration Framework for Central Salford. In addition the site
is in a high profile location on Trinity Way. Therefore the design quality of this proposal and its
relationship with the heritage of the area is crucial as it will be setting a benchmark for the URC’s
aspirations for Chapel Street. With this in mind, and in light of protocols that are being established between
the URC and the City Council, it is felt that this scheme would benefit consideration by the ‘to be
appointed’ design panel.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – the site in question is well located in relation to public
transport being within walking distance of the bus stops on Chapel Street, New Bailey Street as well as
Salford Central Station. Frequent bus and train services are therefore available to a large number of
destinations within Greater Manchester and beyond. Future occupants would therefore have access to a
choice of travel mode that should help to reduce the amount of car travel otherwise generated by this
development. Although the site is accessible by public transport, there is a growing need to encourage
future occupants to use it, as the Chapel Street area appears to becoming more congested with traffic.
GMPTE would expect the applicant to help encourage future occupants to use sustainable modes of travel
by raising awareness of the public transport services in the area and encouraging their use.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
All apartments at Trinity Edge 1 St Mary Street
Turret House St Stephen Street
Chapel Street and Hope United Reformed Church Chapel Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application publicity.
The following issues have been raised:-
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
Too many flats already
Loss of light
Existing parking problems would be made worse
Loss of privacy
Car parking insufficient
Any permission should require that the residents parking is free
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY.
SD1 – The North West Metropolitan Area Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas
DP3 - Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Other policies: none
Other policies: H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
T13 – Car Parking
H6 and H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments
CS1 – Central Salford
EC14/1 – Improvement Proposals
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
H8 - Open Space Provision Within New Housing Development
MX1/2 – Development in Mixed Use Areas
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
Draft policy ST11 – recommended a number of minor changes but the thrust of the policy remains the same.
Draft policy H8 – recommended a number of changes but the thrust of the policy remains the same.
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
Draft policy MX1/2 – recommended only relatively minor changes.
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; whether there would be appropriate contributions
towards public open space and environmental improvements in the area and
whether the proposed development accords with the Adopted and Revised
Deposit Draft Replacement UDP. I shall deal with each in turn below.
Principle Of Development
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 previously developed land and I am of the opinion that the proposed development is in
accordance with the sequential approach to the location of new development outlined in Policy ST11 and
the Inspectors Report.
The application site is located in an existing mixed use area but one that is increasingly becoming more
residential in nature 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.
Planning permission has already been granted in outline for a residential scheme on this site and therefore
the principle of residential development is already established. The wider surrounding area comprises
predominantly older semi-detached and terraced dwellings with a smaller number of older low-rise
apartment buildings and an increasing number of new apartment blocks. I am of the opinion that, as this
application proposes a mix of studio 1 and 2 bedroomed apartments, it would contribute to the provision of
a mix of dwelling types in the area, in accordance with policies H1. I consider that in a location such as this
so close to the regional centre apartments are appropriate and I do not therefore agree that there are too
many apartment blocks in the area already. I therefore consider the principle of the proposed development
to be acceptable.
Amenity of neighbours and future residents
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
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.
The separation distances for future occupiers of the development would (with the exception of 10 windows
to the second bedroom in 10 apartments) comply with those normally required under the Council’s normal
separation distances. Issues of privacy and overlooking have been overcome through the orientation of
habitable room windows and in the light of the above I am satisfied that there would be no unacceptable
detrimental impact on the amenity of existing or future residents. I am therefore of the opinion that the
application accords with Policy DES7.
The issue of loss of light has been raised by an adjoining office user and I do not therefore consider that this
objection carries significant weight given that the Council’s current policies do not seek to protect the
amenity of office workers.
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.
Draft policy DES13 requires that applicants for major developments must demonstrate how their
development takes account of the need for good design through the submission of a design statement.
The design of the building is of high quality and a design statement has
been submitted with the application that demonstrates how the development
meets the design objectives and policies of the City Council. The design
deliberately addresses the height of the adjacent building and
appropriately rises to provide a proper end to the street scene and a
landmark on Trinity Way. I am of the opinion that the proposed development
would have a positive impact upon the visual amenity of the area. 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.
On the above basis, I am of the opinion that the application accords with
Adopted Policy DEV2 and Draft Policy DES1.
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
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.
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 30 car parking spaces would be provided within the site. There would be 5 parking spaces for
office users and 25 for residents. In addition, there would be a cycle storage area within the site. The site is
close to the regional centre and to means 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 and do not
agree that the development would necessarily contribute to parking problems in the area, the solution to
which would not be affected by the number parking spaces provided within the development. Whether or
not the parking spaces are charged for is not a matter that I consider it appropriate to include within the
sphere of planning control but is instead a matter for the developer and occupiers.
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”.
The one tree affected by this proposal is a small specimen that will be replaced and therefore I do not
consider that the proposal conflicts with the policies highlighted above regarding trees.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with the policies H6, H11, H8, SPG7 and the approved Chapel
Street Planning Obligations Development Control Policy Note, the applicant
has agreed to make a financial contribution towards children’s play space,
open space and local environmental improvements. A total of £126,177 would
be contributed in this regard.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider the principle of the proposed development to be
acceptable, that the scheme proposes a building designed to a high quality
that would contribute to the provision of a mix of dwelling types in the
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
area and to the street scene and major views within the City. I am satisfied
that the amenity of existing or future residents of neighbouring properties
and the proposed building would not be unacceptably detrimentally affected
as a result of this scheme. 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 and 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 and
environmental improvements in accordance with the approved Chapel Street
Planning Obligations Development Control Policy Note.
(Conditions)
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. 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.
3. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for all external
elevations and roofs of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out using the approved materials.
4. No dwelling shall be occupied until the associated provision for off street parking has been completed
and made available for the use to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Such spaces shall be
available at all times for the parking of a private motor vehicle.
5. Standard Condition M08 Site Investigation - new
6. 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, SPG7 Provision of Open Space and Recreation Space Associated with New Residential
Development and the Chapel Street Planning Oblications Development Control Policy Note will be
paid to the Local Planning Authority for open space, recreation space and environmental improvements
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
purposes.
7. Prior to the commencement of development the applicant shall submit for written approval an
assessment of noise likely to affect the application site. The assessment should follow PPG24
guidelines towards assessing the noise from the surrounding road and tram network including Trafford
Road, and any other local noise sources which are deemed significant on the site. The assessment shall
identify all noise attenuation measures which may be determined appropriate to reduce the impact of
noise on the residential properties on site and achieve the requirements of BS8233 for internal noise
levels. Consideration shall also be given to achieving adequate rapid ventilation and Summer cooling
whilst achieving the requirements of BS28233:1999. If deemed necessary, alternative ventilation
measures shall be identified and incorporated into the noise assessment report. Once agreed, all
identified noise control measures shall be implemented prior to occupation and shall be thereafter
retained.
8. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit, for the approval of the Local
Planning Authority, a scheme to detail measures to ensure entrances are operated on a secure entry
system. Once approved the scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the residential units
hereby approved and shall be thereafter maintained.
9. Notwithstanding the details shown on the elevations the perforated sheet balustrade shall not form part
of the approved plans and should instead be replaced with glass balustrading or such other material
which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in accordance
with condition 3.
10. 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 apartment hereby approved.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
4. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
6. 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.
7. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
8. To safeguard the security of the area in accordance with policy DEV4 of the City of Salford Unitary
Plan
9. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
10. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan and to ensure appropriate cycle and disabled parking provision in accordance with
policy A10 of the Revised Deposit Draft UDP.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Construction works should not take place outside the following hours: Monday to Friday inclusive
08:00 to 18:00, Saturdays 08:00 to 13:00. Construction works should not be undertaken on Sundays or
Bank/Public Holidays. Access and egress for delivery vehicles should be restricted to the working
hours indicated above.
2. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under Section 106
of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, prior to the granting of planning permission.
3. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied prior to
the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent renders all
development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the Council.
4. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the
applicant/developer is advised to contact the Pollution Control Section of the Environment Directorate
(Tel: (0161) 737 0551
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
APPLICATION No:
05/51527/HH
APPLICANT:
Mrs Daniella Berkeley
LOCATION:
11 Park Lane Salford M7 4JE
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension, single storey rear extension
including construction of dormer extension to roofspace. Alterations to
existing main house roof and construction of dormer extension to front
of dwelling (amendment to previous planning application
05/50921/HH) OPTION ONE
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
13 Park Lane has an existing two-storey rear extension which projects approximately 3m from the rear
elevation. No 9 Park Lane is set an angle to number 11 Park Lane. It has an existing single storey rear
extension which projects 5.2m from the rear main wall of the property.
11 Park Lane itself has an existing single-storey rear extension which projects approximately 2.6m from the
rear main wall of the property.
The ground floor element of the proposed side extension would be set back by 2m from the front of the
property, with the first floor element set back a further 2m. It would be a maximum of 11m in length.
The single storey rear extension would be a maximum of 12.5m wide and would project 3.5m from the rear
of the house.
There would be two small dormer windows, one to the front and one to the rear, both of which would have
pitched roofs. The application also involves the construction of a pitched roof over the existing two-storey
side extension.
SITE HISTORY
There are two relevant planning applications relating to the application site.
On the 1st August 2005, planning permission was approved for the erection of a two-storey side extension,
single storey rear extension including construction of dormer extension to roof space. Alternations to
existing main house roof and construction of dormer extension to front of dwelling (Reference
05/50801/HH).
There is another planning application at 11 Park Lane for erection of a two-storey side extension, single
storey rear extension including construction of dormer extension to roof space, alterations to existing main
house roof and construction of dormer extension to front of dwelling (Reference 05/51531/HH). That
application appears elsewhere in this agenda.
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
The Croft, 3 Worthington Drive
1, 2A, 2, 4 Worthington Drive
9, 13, 12 Park Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
No representations have been received in response to the planning application publicity.
Councillor Connor has request the application to be considered by Members of the Panel. The reason that
Councillor has requested the application to be considered by Panel for the benefit of neighbourly cohesion.
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
DES8- Alterations and Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issue relating to this application are the siting and size of the proposed extension in
relation to the building, and the impact of the residential privacy and amenity that the proposed extension
would have on the current and future neighbouring occupiers.
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 proposed single storey rear extension would not project any closer to properties at the rear than the
existing rear extension, and the mature hedgerows at the rear of the property provide screening to the
proposed rear extension. I consider the proposed extension would be acceptable and would not result in any
loss of amenity or privacy to the future occupiers or neighbouring residents.
Several precedents have been set in the nearby properties for various sizes and designs of dormer extension
and the proposed pitched roof of the dormers would improve their appearance. Therefore, I consider the
proposed dormers in the front and the rear roof spaces would be acceptable and would not have an
unacceptable detrimental impact on the street scene and the character of the area and would not have an
unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents due to loss of privacy.
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
The construction of a new hipped roof over the existing roof would improve the building’s current
appearance and would be in keeping with the surrounding development. I therefore have no objections to
this aspect of the proposal.
The location of the proposed two storey side extension is such there would be only 3.2m between the
proposed side extension and first floor rear bedroom window of 9 Park Lane. The first floor element of the
two storey side extension would be within a 45 degree line drawn from the mid point of the first floor
bedroom window of 9 Park Lane. However, only a small proportion of the extension would fall within the
45-degree line and I consider that any impact of this section of the extension on the amenity of the residents
of 9 Park Lane would be minimal, particularly given the orientation of the extension. I am therefore of the
opinion that there would not be an unacceptable overbearing impact as a result.
I am therefore of an opinion that the proposed side element would not create a significant adverse impact to
the neighbouring residents.
I have no highway objections.
CONCLUSION
I am of the opinion that the proposal would not significantly affect the amenity of neighbouring residents. 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.
(reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
05/51531/HH
APPLICANT:
Mrs Daniella Berkeley
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
LOCATION:
11 Park Lane Salford M7 4JE
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension, single storey rear extension
including construction of dormer extension to roofspace. Alterations to
existing main house roof and construction of dormer extension to front
of dwelling.(amendment tp previous planning application
05/50921/HH) OPTION TWO
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
13 Park Lane has an existing two-storey rear extension which projects approximately 3m from the rear
elevation. No 9 Park Lane is set an angle to number 11 Park Lane. It has an existing single storey rear
extension which projects 5.2m from the rear main wall of the property.
11 Park Lane itself has an existing single-storey rear extension which projects approximately 2.6m from the
rear main wall of the property.
The ground floor element of the proposed side extension would be set back by 2m from the front of the
property, with the first floor element set back a further 2m. It would be a maximum of 11m in length.
The single storey rear extension would be a maximum of 12.5m wide and would project 3.5m from the rear
of the house.
There would be two small dormer windows, one to the front and are to the rear, both of which would have
pitched roofs. The application also involves the construction of a pitched roof over the existing two-storey
side extension.
SITE HISTORY
There are two relevant planning applications relating to the application site.
On the 1st August 2005, planning permission was approved for the erection of a two-storey side extension,
single storey rear extension including construction of dormer extension to roof space. Alternations to
existing main house roof and construction of dormer extension to front of dwelling (Reference
05/50801/HH).
There is another planning application at 11 Park Lane for erection of a two-storey side extension, single
storey rear extension including construction of dormer extension to roof space, alterations to existing main
house roof and construction of dormer extension to front of dwelling (Reference 05/51527/HH). That
application appears elsewhere in this agenda.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
The Croft, 3 Worthington Drive
1, 2A, 2, 4 Worthington Drive
9, 13, 12 Park Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one representation (9 Park Lane) in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:
The non-habitable room (Kitchen) is more important than the bedroom for the occupant at 9 Park Lane
The proposal would not seriously affect the loss of natural light in the habitable room
They do not want to preserve the current view in the habitable room
Councillor Connor has request the application to be considered by Members of the Panel. The reason that
Councillor has requested the application to be considered by Panel for the benefit of neighbourly cohesion.
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
DES8- Alterations and Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issue relating to this application are the sitting and size of the proposed extension in
relation to the building, and the impact of the residential privacy and amenity that the proposed extension
would have on the current and future neighbouring occupiers.
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.
Given that the proposed single storey rear extension would not project any closer to properties at the rear
than the existing rear extension, and the mature hedgerows at the rear of the property provide screening to
the proposed rear extension. I consider the proposed extension would be acceptable and would not result in
any loss of amenity or privacy to the future occupiers or neighbouring residents.
Several precedents have been set in the nearby properties for various sizes and designs of dormer extension
and the proposed pitched roof of the dormers would improve their appearance. Therefore, I consider the
proposed dormers in the front and the rear roof spaces would be acceptable and would not have an
unacceptable detrimental impact on the street scene and the character of the area and would not have an
unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents due to loss of privacy.
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
The construction of a new hipped roof over the existing roof would improve the building’s appearance and
would be in keeping with the surrounding development. I therefore have no objections to this aspect of the
proposal.
The location and positioning of the proposed extension is such that those at number 9 Park Lane would only
have a distance of 3.2m between the proposed side extension and their first floor rear bedroom window. The
first floor element of the two-storey side extension would fall within a 45-degree line drawn from the mid
point of the first floor bedroom window of 9 Park Lane. Unlike the other application for this property which
appears elsewhere on this agenda and which is recommended for approval, a significant proportion of the
first floor element falls within the 45 degree line, I consider that the projection of the first floor element and
its proximity to the bedroom windows of 9 Park Lane are such that it would have an unacceptable
detrimental impact on the amenity of those residents, contrary to policies DEV8, DES7 AND DES8.
The neighbouring residents at 9 Park Lane have written a letter of representation to support the proposed
scheme as they state that the first floor habitable room would not normally be used in daytime. The
proposed side extension would not block out the summer evening sun and they did not want to preserve the
current view for their bedroom.
I acknowledge the neighbours comment. I do not however consider it appropriate to place significant
weight on the personal circumstances of neighbouring residents, as these inevitably change over time, I
remain of the opinion that, in view of the projection of proximity of the extension, and given that the
window in question is the only window to that habitable room, the first floor element of the extension would
have an unacceptable impact adverse impact of overbearing, dominance and loss of visual amenity to the
bedroom which would not be possible to alter for the future occupiers.
I have no highway objections.
CONCLUSION
Overall, the proposed development does not comply with the relevant policies of the adopted Unitary
Development Plan and the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan. It would therefore adversely affect the
amenity and privacy to the future occupiers or neighbouring residents. I therefore recommend that the
application to be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The size and siting of the proposed two storey side extension would create an overbearing impact and
dominance to the residents of the neighbouring property at 9 Park Lane. It would therefore have an
unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of the residents of 9 Park Lane, contrary to policy
DEV8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and policies DES7 and DES8 of the Revised
Deposit Draft Replacement City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
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
WARD:
Pendlebury
At the meeting of the Panel held on 20th October 2005 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observation are as follows: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 puposes, 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:
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
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
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.
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
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.
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.
.
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve - unconditional
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
At the meeting of the Panel held on 20th October 2005 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are as follows:ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Since writing my report I have received three additional letters of objection. Whilst the letters do not raise
any new issues, they do raise concerns over the amended location of block B and possible implications upon
the TPO’d trees.
Urban Vision’s arboricultural consultant has assessed the trees and the submitted tree assessment. He has
also met with the applicant’s own aborist on site and discussed the amendment to the siting of block B. He
is of the opinion that the amendment to the siting of block B would be sufficient to safeguard the protected
(confirmed and provisional) trees on site.
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.
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
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
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
1 – 48 (con) Kirkstile Place
321 – 335 and 343 – 347 Manchester Road
Flat 1 – 18 (con) Clifton Court
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
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:
Other policies: None
None
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
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:
Other policies:
None
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 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.
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
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.
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.
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
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.
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
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
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.
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:
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
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.
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.
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
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
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.
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 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
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
At the meeting of the Panel held on 20th October 2005 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are as follows:Since writing the panel report Cllr Ainsworth has made additional comments on the following aspects of the
proposal
Car parking and access
The driveway and gated access inhibit users of car parking space number 1 (located to the front of
the property) from entering/leaving the site in a forward gear.
The driveway is not wide enough to allow two way flow of traffic
The location of Park Road in close proximity to Hope Hospital means that existing on road car
parking space is already under pressure and as a result residents only parking scheme and a
restricted waiting bay have been introduced. Consequently Cllr Ainsworth is of the opinion that on
site parking provision is inadequate as there is no provision for visitors and the possible demand for
car parking by residents of the proposed apartments could exceed supply as the proposed
apartments are all 2 bed and only 9 spaces are provided.
Cllr Ainsworth has also requested that members are made aware of the proposed changes to policy A10
advocated by the Inspector in their review of the revised deposit draft replacement plan namely the addition
of a penultimate paragraph that states “Car parking provision in residential developments will be assessed
on a case by case basis, having regard to the type and accommodation of the properties, their location, the
availability of and proximity to public transport, the availability of shared parking facilities, and the
existing level of on street parking. Development with more than 1.5 off-street parking spaces per dwelling
or unit of accommodation, averaged over the city area, is unlikely to be regarded as sustainable”.
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
Dwelling type – The most appropriate from of new residential development that would contribute to a
balanced mix of housing in the area would be larger family houses not the apartments proposed.
Design – The attractiveness of the design is a matter of subjective opinion. If any new building is to make as
distinctive a contribution to the streetscape and contribute to the present eclectic mix of styles present along
Park Road then it should be more 'modernistic' and 'purist' design.
Contribution to open space within the area - Policy H8 applies and therefore the developer should make a
contribution, via a section 106 agreement, to open space provision within the area, particularly given that
the locality is identified within the UOSS as being deficient in formal and informal recreation space and the
development would create additional demand for open space.
Cllr Ainsworth has also asked that a note be made of his lack of awareness of vandalism to the building
despite being both a local resident and a local Councillor.
In the light of these observations and those made previously Cllr Ainsworth has requested that the
conditions that require the following are attached –
A contribution to the provision and or maintenance of public open space in the vicinity of the
site.
Either a contribution to the introduction of a residents parking scheme or a restriction on the
number of car owning residents that can occupy the apartments together with a ban on
occupants of the proposed apartment obtaining residents parking permits.
Details of the proposed cycle store and bin stores.
The driveway and car park to be surfaced in paviors.
A revision to the proposed car-parking layout to ensure compliance with the minimum
standards for disabled spaces
A revision to the front elevation, which involves the removal of the ground floor French doors
and the insertion of traditional windows.
My Additional Observations
Policy H8 seeks to secure new open space or open space improvements as part of new housing
developments and is to be read in conjunction with the Council Supplementary Planning Guidance on Open
Space Provision that provides details of when a contribution to open space provison is required and what
the contribution should be. It states that the policy only applies to developments that encorporate 50 or more
bedspaces (the number of bedspaces in each dwelling/apartment being equal to the number of bedrooms
plus one). In this case 27 bedspaces would be provided, insufficient to trigger the requirement for open
space provison and therefore I cannot attach a condition that requires a contribution to open space provision
in the locality.
Attaching a condition restricting the number of car owning residents of the proposed apartments would not
satisfy the 6 tests of a condition as such a condition would not be reasonable nor would it be enforceable. A
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
condition requiring a contribution to the introduction of additional residents car parking would not satisfy
the 6 tests either as it would not be reasonable as the proposed development would not generate significant
traffic or parking demand.
Details of the proposed cycle stores have already been provided and a condition has been attached that
requires the details of the proposed bin stores to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of
development. Similarly a landscaping condition has been attached which requires details of any proposed
surface treatments to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development.
With regards to the provision of disabled car parking the standards in the
revised deposit draft replacement plan state that 5% of the total number
of parking spaces provided should be suitable for use by disabled persons.
To be suitable spaces should be 3.6m wide. 9 spaces will be provided on
site and therefore 1 disabled space should be provided. The proposed
car-parking layout does not currently include any spaces suitable for use
by disabled persons. It can however be amended in order to incorporate 1
space and therefore I have added a condition requiring a revised car parking
layout that incorporates 1 disabled space to be submitted and approved prior
to the commencement of development.
I do not feel that it is necessary to revise the design of the proposed apartments.
An additional letter of representation has also been received since the writing of the attached report. The
writer does not raise any new issues to those already highlighted.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
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.
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 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: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.
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.
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
Cllr Ainsworth also raised concerns about the position of the gated access and its 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
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.
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
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 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.
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
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 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
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
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.
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.
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
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.
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. 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.
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Prior to the commencement of development a revised car parking layout providing 9 spaces that
incorporates 1 disabled car parking space shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The car park shall be laid out and made avaliable for use prior to the first
occupation of the apartments. Such provision shall be retained and kept avaliable for use thereafter.
(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 R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
6. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
8. To accord with Policy A10 of the revised deposit draft replacement plan in the interests of highway
saftey and residentail amenity.
Note(s) for Applicant
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
1. The permission shall relate to the amended plan received on the 3rd of October 2005 which shows a
revised access arrangement.
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:
05/51082/HH
APPLICANT:
B Sutton
LOCATION:
254 Manchester Road Worsley M28 3LZ
PROPOSAL:
Retention of detached garage at rear of dwelling
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a terraced property on Manchester Road in Walkden, Worsley. The application
is to retain a detached garage to the rear of the dwelling in the alleyway. The garage is 5.868m by 6.136m
and 3.45m in height.
SITE HISTORY
An application for the change of use of 254 Manchester Road from a single dwelling to two self-contained
flats was granted planning permission in March 1999 (Salford City Council Ref: 99/38921/COU). In
November 2001 an application for the erection of 2.1m high fencing and gates (Salford City Council Ref:
01/43340/HH) across the alleyway was received to provide secure car parking for the new tenants of the
two flats at 254 Manchester Road. This application was withdrawn as the applicant no longer wishes to
undertake that development.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
252 Manchester Road
37 and 39 Firfield Grove
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of representation in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:
Restricts access of neighbouring residents
Ownership of land
One letter had an attached petition with eleven additional signatures. A neighbour of the resident of 252
Manchester Road, who sent in the petition, has confirmed in writing that there is a signature of their name
on the letter but they did not sign it. There are also no addresses accompanying the signatures on the
petition to know where they live.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
INSPECTOR’S REPORT
DES1 – Slight modifications recommended but no alteration to the policy stance.
DES7 – No modifications recommended.
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 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 DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan states development will not be permitted
where it would have an adverse impact upon the occupiers or users of other developments in the vicinity.
Due to the garage being at the end of the alleyway I do not consider there is an unacceptable impact on the
amenity of neighbouring residents. The properties on Firfield Grove are more than 30m away from the
garage and to the east of the site is the car park of Linnyshaw Mill.
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
The garage does not have an unacceptable impact on the character of the area as other garages exist in the
vicinity and due to being at the bottom of the alleyway it does not have any impact on street scene. As there
is not an unacceptable detrimental impact on the occupiers of neighbouring properties I consider the garage
to comply with polices DEV1, DES1 and DES7.
As a result of concerns of the Councils drainage engineer the applicant was required to undertake a survey
to establish the locations of the surface water and foul sewers and whether the construction of the garage
had caused any damage. A CCTV survey was undertaken in October 2005 by a private contractor which
confirmed no damage has been done to the sewers as they do not run directly underneath the garage.
The red line boundary shows that the applicant owns the land at the rear of 254 Manchester Road and he has
signed the relevant certificate to confirm this. I am therefore satisfied that the correct procedure has been
followed. The alleyway is used by neighbouring residents on Manchester Road for vehicular access into
their rear gardens. I do not consider the presence of the garage will restrict neighbour’s access into their
rear gardens in any way as it is at the end of the alleyway. Although the doors open outwards the tenant of
one of the flats at 254 confirmed the doors are kept closed when not in use for security reasons.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion I believe the garage should be granted planning permission as it complies with the policies in
the adopted and revised Unitary Development Plan. I therefore recommend the approval of this
application.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve - unconditional
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th November 2005
41