PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
APPLICATION No:
04/48666/FUL
APPLICANT:
Salford City Council - Housing Market Renewal Team
LOCATION:
Alleygates To Rear Of 1-7 Laurel Grove And 25 - 63 Weaste Road And
1 - 67 Tootal Road Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Erection of alleygates and fencing to provide secure alleyways
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application is for the erection of 2.4m high railings and lockable alley gates that measure 2.65m at the
crest of the curve to provide residents only access and improved security. The gates would be located at the
entrances of the alleyways to the rear of 25 to 63 Weaste Road, 1 to 19 Tootal Road, 21 to 35 Tootal Road,
37 to 51 Tootal Road, 53 to 67 Tootal Road and 1 to 7 Laurel Grove.
CONSULTATIONS
The following have been notified:
Peak and Northern Footpath Society.
Ramblers Association.
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association.
Open Space Society.
The Manchester and High Peak Area branch of the Ramblers Association are objecting to the closure of the
alleyways as they are Public Rights of Way.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published in the Salford Advertiser on the 14th of October 2004.
A site notice was displayed on the 12th of October 2004.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 to 67 (Odds) Tootal Road
1 to 7 (Odds) Laurel Grove
25 to 63 (Odds) Weaste Road
1 to 39 (Odds) Myrtyeleaf Grove
2 to 18 (Evens) Myrtyeleaf Grove
1 to 33 (Odds) John Atkinson Close
2 to 4 (Evens) John Atkinson Close
1 to 17 (Odds) Birchleaf Grove
2 to 12 (Evens) Birchleaf Grove
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV4 – Design and Crime
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES 11 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the impact the proposed railings and gates would
have on the street scene and the residential amenity of neighbouring residents and the impact the proposed
closures would have upon crime and the fear of crime. The loss of existing public rights of way also needs
to be considered.
Policies DEV1 and DES1 identify a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining
planning applications, these include the visual appearance of the development and its relationship to its
surroundings. I am of the opinion that the that the design, siting and height of the proposed gates and
railings would be in keeping with the character, scale and height of the terraced two storey residential
properties in the area. Consequently the gates and railings would not form visually obtrusive features and
therefore their introduction would not therefore have an adverse impact upon the street scene or the
residential amenity that can reasonably expect to be enjoyed by the neighbouring residents. The proposed
development would in fact improve the environmental quality of the area by contributing towards its
regeneration.
Policies DEV4 and DES11 outline how the City Council will encourage crime prevention in order to
promote personal and property security. The gating of the alleyways and the enclosure of the two sections
of open land at the southern most end of alleyways Y and Z would help to deter crime by only allowing
access to the residents of the properties behind which the alleyways lie. This restricted access would assist
crime prevention by deterring vandalism, theft and other criminal activity, thereby helping to reduce the
resident’s fear of crime.
CONCLUSION
Overall, the proposed development would not have an adverse impact upon the street scene or the
residential amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents. In fact the proposed development would
improve the quality of life currently enjoyed by residents in the surrounding area, as it would contribute to
the regeneration of the area by improving the environment and eliminating vandalism, theft and other
criminal activity. The proposal is therefore in accordance with policies DEV1 and DEV4 the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan and policies DES1 and DES11 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan.
I therefore recommend the application be approved.
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The railings and gates hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior
to the commencement of development by the Director of Development Services.
3. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until the appropriate order for the closure
or diversion of the public rights of way affected by the development has been made.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
APPLICATION No:
04/48734/COU
APPLICANT:
Jaben Homes Ltd
LOCATION:
Ashtonfield's Farm Windmill Road Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing barns and outbuildings and erection of 14 new
dwelling houses together with alterations to existing vehicular and
pedestrian accesses
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
The site is located on Grosvenor Drive/Windmill Road in Walkden. The application site is currently a
working farm and contains a number of barns and outbuildings in agricultural use as well as the main
dwelling. The farmed land is remote from the farm buildings and are located approximately 1 1/2 miles
away.
The proposal seeks to demolish the existing barns and outbuildings and the erection of 14 new dwellings
houses together with alterations to existing vehicular and pedestrian access. The main dwelling on the site
would be retained.
The design of the proposed dwellings seeks to complement the existing cobbled courtyard between the
existing farm buildings. The proposal would provide two blocks of four, 2 bed townhouses and three pairs
of semi detached 3 bedroom properties. One access would be provided into the site via the existing
southern access point. The proposal would be formed around the access road and would have communal
car parking in front of townhouses to continue. Sixteen spaces in total would be provided plus one
additional space marked for visitors and one as a marked disabled space. Car parking for the semi-detached
would be alongside each of the dwellings.
The existing farm house would be retained as part of this proposal and would benefit from a substantial
garden to the north.
The proposal would include reclaimed brickwork, roof slates, stone cobbles and soldier detail around the
windows to provide a courtyard feel to the scheme.
HISTORY
Planning permission was approved in 1981 for the development of the land for residential purposes.
(E/11987/Outline)
CONSULTATIONS
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – Recommends that the application be refused on a number of issues
relating to crime, including; a need for defensible spaces in front of each dwelling, secure parking
arrangements.
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – No response
Open Spaces Society – No response
Ramblers Association – Objects to the proposal
Peak and Northern Footpaths Society – recommend a condition that the public right of way should not be
obstructed
Director of Environmental Services – no objection
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed 19th July 2004-10-06
A notice was displayed within the Advertiser
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
29 – 39 (o), 44 – 52 (e), 48a and 48B, Grosvenor Drive
54 – 62 (e) Grosvenor Road
57 – 69 (o) Trafford Drive
1 – 4 Windmill Close
47 – 65 (o), 44 – 54 (e) Windmill Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The following
issues have been raised:Issues regarding access and egress and impact upon the existing neighbouring dwellings.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, T13
Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES 11
Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of residential development on this
site, whether the proposal would have a direct impact upon the public right of way and whether the design,
form and layout of the proposal accords with the relevant provisions of the Adopted and Revised Deposit
Draft Replacement UDPs.
Principle of residential development
Planning permission was approved in 1981 for the demolition of the farm and associated outbuilding and
the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes. However, national planning policy in the form of
Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 3 : Housing supersedes the policy advice of that time. As such I consider
that the previous approval for residential purposes can be afforded little weight in this instance.
The main thrust of PPG3 seeks to ensure efficient use of land and places emphasis on the use of previously
developed ‘brown field’ sites in preference to ‘green field’ sites. Annex C of PPG3 provides the definition
of previously developed land as land that is or was occupied by a permanent structure and its associated
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
fixed surface infrastructure. The definition of previously developed land also includes land within the
curtilage of the development. However, agricultural buildings and buildings used for forestry are
specifically excluded from this definition.
Therefore, the definition indicates that the site should be classified as greenfield or previously undeveloped
land. As such I am of the opinion that the principle of development on this site is contrary to the thrust of
PPG3 which seeks to promote development of brown field site.
Regional planning guidance and policies contained within the replacement development plan advocates a
sequential approach to development. A sequential approach requires existing buildings and previously
developed or brown field land in accessible locations need to be considered first for development, before
previously developed land in other locations. Finally, if no suitable previously developed sites are available
then consideration can be given to undeveloped or greenfield land.
The applicant has not demonstrated that a sequential approach to site selection has been undertaken.
However, given the number of brown field sites in the area, I do not consider that the applicant could
demonstrate that all previously developed land, as defined within PPG3, has been developed prior to this
site.
Whilst I acknowledge that the principle of redeveloping this site for residential purposes is contrary to
national, regional and local site selection policy, I do not consider that the definition of previously
developed land contained within Annex C of PPG3 was written with sites such as this in mind. This farm is
not located within an established rural area or upon quality agricultural land. The farm is located within a
built up urban area and is completely surrounded by residential and industrial uses. The site to the north has
recently benefited from planning permission for redevelopment by the North West Development Agency
for storage and distribution. The remainder of the surrounding area is completely residential. Furthermore,
the land which is farmed from this site is approximately 11/2 miles away.
I consider that the site specific merits of the this case as outlined above are material considerations that
outweigh the broader principles that PPG 3 aims to achieve. Furthermore, I consider that the aims and
objectives of PPG3 are not compromised in any way by this proposal. As such I consider that the scheme is
appropriate.
Impact upon the public right of way
A definitive right of way (Worsley Footpath 116) bounds the eastern boundary of the site. I have received
an objection from the Ramblers Association regarding the impact of the proposal upon the right of way.
Whilst I acknowledge that the applicant has indicated on the application form (Part 5C, Do you propose to
alter, close or divert a public right of way?) ‘YES’ , the City Council’s highway engineer has confirmed that
the proposal does not affect the line of the footpath. Furthermore, I have attached an informative, informing
that developer that the footpath should not be obstructed at any time without first obtaining a Temporary
Diversion Order.
As such I am satisfied that the proposal would not have any impact upon the Public Right of Way.
Design, Layout and Interface Distances
Adopted policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when dealing
with applications for planning permission. These factors include the location of the proposed development
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
and its relationship to existing land uses, the relationship to the road network, the potential for noise
nuisance, the visual appearance of the development and the effect on trees.
Adopted policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant planning permission unless it is
satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance of the development and policy.
Adopted Policy DEV4 encourages greater consideration of crime prevention and personal and property
security in the design of new development. Regard will be had to a number of factors including the
provision of security features.
Draft Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the character
of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this policy, regard will be
had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings and the quality and
appropriateness of proposed materials.
Draft Policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the Adopted UDP.
Policy DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP requires all new developments to provide
potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact
on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
The proposal would provide a mixture of 2 and 3 bed dwellings in the form of town houses and semi
detached. The external appearance of the scheme would complement some of the features of the existing
farm building to be retained. Those would include, reclaimed brickwork, roof slates, stone cobbles and a
soldier course detail around the windows. The siting of the scheme ensures that the separation interface
distances are maintained to the existing neighbouring properties, but also within the scheme. I such I am
satisfied that the siting, design and layout of the proposal accords with policies DEV1 of the adopted plan
and policies DES1 and DES7 of the replacement plan.
Turning to the issue of crime and design. The Police Architectural Liaison Officer (ALO) has commented
on the application and recommends that the application be refused. He has a number of security concerns
relating to detailed matters, including the number of defensible space and gated car parking. Concerns have
also been raised regarding previous criminal activity upon the neighbouring site.
Whilst I acknowledge the concerns of the Police ALO, I consider that the ‘courtyard’ design of the scheme
to emphasise the existing farm setting and the relationship of the proposal to the remaining farm building,
outweighs the need to provide individual front gardens spaces and gated car parking spaces in this instance.
The disused railway which bounds the site is known to the police as a conduit for crime. Members will
recall that planning permission has recently been approved for industrial purposes. This permission is soon
to be implemented by the Northwest Development Agency. Upon implementation of that scheme a new
security fence would be erected to satisfy a condition of that development. I have also attached a
landscaping condition including boundary treatment in this instance. I such I am satisfied that the concerns
of the police ALO, in this instance, to be addressed.
As such I am of the opinion that the proposal satisfies the requirements of policy DEV1 of the adopted plan
and policies DES1 and DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP in this instance.
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
Car Parking
Policy T13 of the adopted plan 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 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP 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 level of car parking for the scheme is 100% with two additional spaces for visitors and an disabled
space. I have no highway objection and I am of the opinion that the level of parking proposed across the site
is acceptable.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the design of the proposal is acceptable and the surrounding uses and the
isolated location outweighs the policy framework in this instance. I therefore recommend that the
application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following 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 Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
3. 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 Director of
Development Services.
4. Standard Condition F03X Surfacing
5. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 7th October 2004 which shows an
amended car parking layout.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
4. Standard Reason R031A Control in rural areas
5. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant should
take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal. Developers must also
seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any operation that involves entry into any
coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and adits and the implementation of site investigations
or other works. Property specific summary information on any past, current or proposed surface and
underground mining activity to affect the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The
Coal Authority Mining Reports Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
2. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations,
including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other material planning considerations that
outweigh this finding:
DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, T13 Car Parking
APPLICATION No:
04/48797/FUL
APPLICANT:
Nuttall Construction Limited
LOCATION:
Former Victoria Garage, Adjacent To 308 Worsley Road North
Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two three storey blocks comprising 32 apartments together
with alterations to existing vehicular access and associated car parking
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant parcel of land which was last used for car sales. The area generally is
mixed in character with residential adjacent to the north and on the opposite side of Worsley Road. To the
south of the site is an industrial warehouse unit with car sales adjacent to the north. To the south is an
unadopted access.
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
The proposal seeks to develop the site for residential purposes. The scheme would incorporate the erection
of two, three storey blocks to accommodate 32 apartments and alterations to existing vehicular access. One
of the blocks would be located along the Worsley Road frontage. It would be three storey in height. The
majority of the accommodation would be provided within the larger rear block.
The smaller of the two blocks would front Worsley Road and would accommodate nine of the proposed
apartments. The main elevation would be 3.5m from the back of the highway and would match the building
line and position of the neighbouring terraced properties. The footprint of the block would measure 22m X
10m. It would be 2m from the northern common boundary with the existing car sales, 14.5m from the gable
of 308 Worsley Road which is currently in use as an office. This element of the proposal would maintain
25m separation to the two storey properties opposite.
The design of this block would form three distinct three storey elements including pitched roofs. The main
roof space of the block would wrap around these elements and slop down to provide a eaves height similar
to a two storey. Two entrances with separate pedestrian access points would be provided off this Worsley
Road frontage. The ridge height would be 10m (0.8m higher than the ridge of the neighbouring terrace),
with the eaves at 8m stepping down to 5.8m at the two storey element. The rear elevation would be three
storey. No windows are proposed within either of the gable elevations.
The rear block would contain the remainder of the accommodation. The block would form three distinct
three storey elements. The applicants agent has amended the scheme so that the north western most element
is now two storey. This has reduced the number of apartments from the original submission of 33 to 32.
The closet residential properties on Bryony Close would maintain a minimum of 13m to the two storey
element.
The majority of the open space provision would be provided to the rear of the site.
The applicant has proposed 100% car parking.
SITE HISTORY
There has been five withdrawn applications on parts of the site. These included the following:
E/27793, withdrawn in April 1992 which was an outline application for the erection of a new warehouse,
E/32328 withdrawn in September 1994, outline for the erection 9 dwellings with car parking and alteration
to the highway,
98/38311/FUL withdrawn in September 1998, outline for the siting and design of four office/warehouse
units,
99/39839/FUL, withdrawn in October 2000, for the installation of a car wash facility and construction of
vehicular access, and
99/40292/OUT withdrawn in October 2000, outline for the siting design and external appearance of an
office/warehouse unit.
These applications were withdrawn following concerns about access for each proposal.
In 2001, planning permission was granted for use of vacant land as a car sales area (01/43103/COU)
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
The neighbouring property is also relevant in this instance. In 2001, planning permission was granted for
the extension of a single storey rear extension and associated car parking for 308 Worsley Road.
(01/42414/FUL). The approval allows for car parking along the gable of 308 Worsley.
This proposal does not impact upon the extant permission, nor does it restrict the implementation of that
permission.
CONSULTATIONS
The Director of Environmental Health – No response
United Utilities – No objection providing that the easement is maintained across the public sewer. The
applicants agent has amended the scheme to move the development away from the public sewer. The
building would be slightly within the easement. I have been informed that a building over agreement could
be made with the applicant and United Utilities.
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – provide advice
PUBLICITY
A notice was displayed in the Advertiser 5th August 2004
A site notice was displayed on 2nd August 2004
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
294 – 308 (e), 305 – 307 (o) Bolton Road
Industrial Depot, Thorpe Street
1 – 13 (o), Lodge Top Garage, Worsley Road North
4 – 12 (e) Bryony Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application publicity.
The following issues have been raised:Impact upon unadopted highway
Impact upon drain
Potential of double yellow lines
Loss of value
Density
Overlooking
Overbearing
Loss of sunlight
Loss of daylight
Loss of privacy
Inappropriate and alien
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies:
Other policies: None
None
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
H1 – Meeting Housing Needs, H6 – Open Space Provision within New Housing
Developments, H11 – Open Space Provision within New Housing Developments,
DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 – Good Design, DEV4 – Design and Crime,
T13 – Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
H1 – Provision of New Housing Development, H8 – Open Space Provision
Associated With New Housing Developments, DES1 – Respecting Context,
DES11 – Design and Crime, A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle
Parking in New Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of residential development
in this location is acceptable; whether adequate provision would be made for open space; whether the
proposed level of car parking is sufficient; and whether the proposal complies with the provisions of the
relevant policies of both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP. These issues will be
discussed in turn below.
The Principle of Residential Development
Adopted Policy H1 states that the Council will endeavour to ensure that the city’s housing stock is able to
meet the housing requirements of all groups within Salford by promoting a number of measures, including
the release of land to accommodate new house building.
Draft Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a balanced mix
of dwellings within the local area.
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.
Open Space
Adopted Policy H6 requires adequate provision of informal open space and children’s play within new
housing developments. This policy is linked to Policy H11 which sets out a sliding scale for such provision.
Draft Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal open space
within housing developments.
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
In accordance with the above policies, the applicant has agreed to make a contribution towards the
provision and maintenance of open space in the vicinity. In accordance with the recently adopted
Supplementary Planning Guidance, the contribution in this regard would be £73,511. I am satisfied that the
application therefore accords with Adopted policies H6 and H11 and Draft Policy H8.
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.
Draft Policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the Adopted UDP.
The applicants agent has amended the proposal so that the height of the scheme would be two storey closest
to those properties on Bryony Close. The proposal would maintain 13m to their rear elevations. The main
bulk of the proposal would be three storey and maintain 24m from the rear elevation of 6 Bryony Close. As
such, I am satisfied that the rear element of the proposal would maintain sufficient separation to ensure that
the scheme would not have a detrimental impact upon privacy, sun light and day light.
A modern three storey building is equivalent to a two storey Victorian property. The proposal would be
0.8m higher at the ridge than the neighbouring terrace property, as such I do not agree that the proposal
would be inappropriate or alien in this location.
The proposal would maintain the minimum separation distance to the existing surrounding properties. The
applicant has amended the bedroom windows within apartments 25 and 26 so that each bedroom 1 would
have a high level window to safeguard privacy. As such, I am also of the opinion that the design and siting
of the scheme would maintain sufficient separation in accordance with the adopted SPG to ensure the
amenity and privacy of future residents.
The scheme would provide the majority of the private amenity space to the rear of the main block. I am of
the opinion that the level of amenity space is appropriate in this instance and would accord with policy
DEV1 of the adopted plan and DES1 of the replacement plan.
The Police Architectural Liaison Officer (ALO) has commented on the application. He has a number of
security issues relating to detailed matters, including the number of defensible space and gated access. I
have forwarded a copy of the comments made by the ALO to the applicant’s agent. I have attached a
condition requiring details of the landscaping and fencing to be approved prior to the commencement of
development.
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
Car Parking and Access
Adopted Policy T13 states that the Council will ensure that adequate parking and servicing is provided to
meet the needs of new development, in accordance with the Council’s standards and that car parks are
designed to a high standard, with particular regard to access arrangements, surface materials, boundary
treatments and security measures.
Draft Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards. It also states that the maximum car
parking standards should not be exceeded.
The applicant has indicated that a total of 32 car parking spaces would be provided. I have no highway
objection to the application. Given the site’s location in close proximity to public transport links and
Walkden Town Centre and the services and facilities therein, I consider the level of car parking to be
appropriate and in accordance with the Council’s maximum car parking standards.
Turning the proposed access. The City Council’s highway engineer is of the opinion that the proposed
access is sufficient for the proposal. Moreover, I have attached a condition regarding the access road into
the site be laid out, drained, surfaced and sealed prior to the commencement of development. The access
would not impact upon the extant permission of the neighbouring terrace (308 Worsley Road), nor does it
restrict the implementation of that permission.
As such, I am satisfied that the proposal would accords with the adopted and replacement plan policies in
this instance.
Remaining Issues
There is a public sewer which runs across the site. United Utilities have no objection to the scheme
provided that a 3m easement is maintained. The applicant has amended the scheme and has indicated that a
building over agreement would be entered into regarding the siting of small elements of apartments 30-32.
Therefore, I do not consider the issues raised regarding drainage to be matters of concern in this instance.
Loss of commercial value is not a material planning consideration. Turning to the issue of double yellow
lines. The City Council’s highway engineer has assessed the proposal and has no objection to the scheme,
nor does the does he consider that double yellow lines would be necessary to ensure that highway safety is
maintained.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Prior to the submission of the application a similar scheme was concerned by the Development Team
Approach (DTA).
The plans originally submitted have also been amended since the submission of the application to ensure
that the proposal would not result in an overbearing impact upon the residential properties located to the .
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential purpose is
acceptable and that the proposal would result in significant improvements to what is currently an
unattractive site and underused site. I am satisfied that the proposed design is acceptable given the site’s
location within a mixture of uses and house styles. The financial contribution would be in accordance with
adopted policies H6 and H11. I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs and there are no material considerations
which outweigh this finding. I therefore make the following recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION
That Members are minded to grant planning permission subject to the conditions below once the legal
agreement has been signed:
i. that the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under Section
106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the payment of a contribution to the
provision of open space and a commuted sum to the value of £73,511;
ii. that the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded to grant planning permission, subject to
the conditions stated below, on completion of such legal agreement;
iii. that authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application be issued, (subject to the
conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned legal agreement,
iv. that authority be given to refuse the application if the applicant fails to complete the S106 agreement
within a reasonable period on the grounds that the proposals do not support the aim and objectives of
policies H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the external
elevations of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
4. Standard Condition F03X Surfacing
5. 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 Director of Development Services. 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
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
submitted to and agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such scheme as is
approved shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
8. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the
approval of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and
distribution of contamination and underground gases on site and its implications on the risk to human
health and controlled water receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 Part IIA.
The investigation shall also address the health and safety of the site workers, nearby persons, building
structures and services, landscaping schemes, final users on the site and the environmental pollution in
ground water.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to start of
the survey and recommendations and remedial works contained within the improved report shall be
implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.
(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
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant should
take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal. Developers must also
seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any operation that involves entry into any
coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and adits and the implementation of site investigations
or other works. Property specific summary information on any past, current or proposed surface and
underground mining activity to affect the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The
Coal Authority Mining Reports Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
2. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied prior to
the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent renders all
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the Council.
3. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations,
including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other material planning considerations that
outweigh this finding:
H1 - Meeting Housing Needs
H6 - Open Space Provision within New Housing Developments
H11 - Open Space Provision within New Housing Developments
DEV1 Development Criteria
DEV2 - Good Design
DEV4 - Design and Crime
T13 - Car Parking
APPLICATION No:
04/48961/FUL
APPLICANT:
Cadihead Junior Football Club
LOCATION:
Playing Fields Rowson Drive Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey extension to existing changing room facilities,
together with the relocation of the existing groundsman's containers,
alterations to the existing parking layout and construction of additional
car parking area
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the Cadishead Junior Football Club which consists of changing rooms, parking
and recreation fields. The site is located at the end of Rowson Drive, Irlam. The existing single-storey
clubhouse measures 13.5m X 7.5m and there is parking laid out for 24 cars.
The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character, with a total of 9 houses situated on Rowson
Drive. The whole site, including the fields, is contained by residential properties to the north-east and to the
south-east, and by a dismantled railway to the south and south-west and a second railway sidings to the
north and north-west. Beyond the railway to the north is green belt land.
Planning permission is sought for the erection of a single storey extension to the existing changing room
facilities, the construction of an additional car parking area and alterations to the existing car parking area,
and the relocation of two groundsman’s containers.
The proposed extension to the changing room facilities would measure 5.5m X 7.5m and would provide a
kitchen, office and referees changing facility. The resultant building would be rectangular and would
measure 19m X7.5m. The design would match that of the existing building which is constructed from brick
with a pitched metal roof.
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
The proposed car park area is already used for the parking of vehicles, but the land is pot-holed and there are
no spaces marked out. The proposal would result in a total of 43 car parking spaces including 2 disabled
spaces and 10 secure cycle lock-ups. The existing storage containers would be moved a few metres to the
south-west in order to accommodate the new parking layout.
SITE HISTORY
In July 2004, a similar application to that currently under consideration was withdrawn to allow more time
for additional information to be provided and for amendments to be made to the parking layout
(04/48506/FUL).
In January 1999, planning permission was approved for the erection of extension to existing changing
rooms and extension to existing car park (98/38595/FUL). This does not appear to have been implemented
and the expiration of five years has now passed.
In January 1999, an application for an extension to existing car park and erection of wall and gates and
boundary fencing was withdrawn (98/38156/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 3rd September 2004.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2-22 (even) Brackley Avenue
1-9 Rowson Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 8 letters of objection from 7 different parties. The following issues have been raised:i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
The sports club has expanded significantly over the last few years and on match days the area is
turned into one large unsafe car park when what seems to be 200cars plus park in the area. The
proposal for additional car parking is not sufficient and will not solve this problem. Either more
parking should be provided or larger premises should be found elsewhere. It is suggested that
an additional access and parking is created off Sandy Lane.
The proposal represents over-development given the level of traffic which it attracts.
The proposed parking area is already used and the proposal would actually reduce the number
of spaces available causing greater parking problems in the area.
The club already sell cooked food so why are they proposing a new kitchen? The objector asks
if the Environmental Health Department are aware of the sale of cooked food at the club.
The fields were dedicated for the use of the children of Cadishead but now only the Junior
Football Club uses them. Therefore, objection is raised to the extension of the changing
facilities. – any covenants?
It is stated that the club charge for parking and charge the local council school for the use of the
fields during sports days.
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
vii. The expansion of the ‘tuck-shop’ will result in more litter in the area. It is stated that there is
already a problem with litter and rotting food products in the area which attracts rats etc.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
EN5 Nature Conservation
EN6 Conservation of the Mosslands
EN24 Conservation of The Mosslands
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria
T13 Car Parking
R10 Private Recreation Facilities
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
EN7D Wildlife corridors
EN8 Mosslands
Other policies: ST10 Recreation Provision
DES1 Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 Alterations and Extensions
A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
R2 Provision of Recreation Land and Facilities
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY (RSS13)
Policies:
EC10 Sport
ER5 Biodiversity and Nature Conservation
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of development, the design and scale
of the proposal and its impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents and the impact of the development
on nature conservation.
Principle of development
Policies R10, ST10 and R2 and EC10 all support the protection and improvement of recreational facilities.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 – Sport and Recreation (PPG17) also supports the protection and
improvement of recreation facilities and states that such facilities are fundamental to delivering broader
government objectives such as the promotion of social inclusion and community cohesion, health and well
being, and promoting more sustainable development. Therefore, I am satisfied that the principle of
improving the existing club facilities is acceptable.
Design and scale of the proposal and its impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents
Policies DEV1, DES1, and DES8 require development to respect its context regarding height, scale, mass
and materials. Policies DEV1, DES1, DES7 and R2 also require development to respect the amenities of
surrounding properties.
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
The proposed extension to the existing changing room facilities would be of the same design as the existing
building. Therefore, I am satisfied that the design is acceptable and respects the context of the existing
building in terms of scale and materials used.
The majority of objections raised relate to the view that the existing site is no longer able to support the club
due to the number of members and supporters which are attracted to the site on match days and training
days. Although this may be an issue, this application considers only the proposal put forward and its impact
on the local area. The suggestion that an additional access should be created off Sandy Lane is a matter
that is not for consideration on this application. I consider the existing access to be acceptable.
With regard to the parking element of the proposal, I am of the opinion that it will have little or no impact on
the existing parking situation in the area. The only significant impact that this element of the proposal
would have would be to improve the safety and provision (i.e. for disabled persons and cyclists) of parking
currently on site. The existing pot-holed land which is not marked out for parking would be improved and
made safer. Given the modest size of the extension and the improvements to the land that are proposed I do
not support the view that it represents over-development of the land. The existing containers would be
relocated a few metres to the south-west to accommodate the proposed parking layout. I have no objections
to this element of the proposal.
The view that the proposed kitchen would result in more litter in the area is speculation. A condition has
been attached, however, for litter bins to be provided on site. The issue over the sale of cooked food on site
presently has been raised with the Director of Environmental Services for further investigation. The
Director of Environmental Services has raised no objection to the proposal. Any littering that takes place
on or around the site is a matter which should be dealt with under laws outside of the scope of planning law.
The issue of whether the club charges for the use of its land or facilities is not a material planning
consideration. Similarly, the issue over who is allowed to use the club’s facilities is not an issue which I can
consider. However, I can clarify that the City Council are the owners of the land and that a 25year lease has
been agreed with the football club which started in September 1996. There is a covenant on the lease
agreement which states that only the football club are allowed to use the fields.
Policies T13 and A10 seek to achieve appropriate provision of parking for new developments. The
proposal would improve the existing parking provision by providing better for disabled person’s and
cyclists. I am therefore satisfied with the alterations to the parking provision.
Impact of the development on nature conservation
Policies EN5, EN6, EN24, EN7D, and EN8 all seek to protect existing wildlife habitats in the City. This
view is reiterated in Policy ER5 of the Regional Spatial Strategy. The northern area of the fields form part
of the Mosslands area of the City. As this area would not be affected by the proposal, I am satisfied that the
Mosslands will not be affected. The whole of the site is also identified as a wildlife corridor. Given that the
proposal only relates to the existing parking area and changing facilities, I do not consider the proposal
would have any impact on the wildlife corridor. The Director of Environmental Services has no objection
to the proposal.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Discussions were held during the previous submission to address the provision of parking that
was being proposed and to improve facilities for disabled person’s and cyclists.
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
CONCLUSION
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of development, the design and scale
of the proposal and its impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents and the impact of the development
on nature conservation. I am satisfied with the principle of improving the existing recreational facilities,
and consider the design to be acceptable. I do not consider the proposal would have any significant impact
on the amenities of neighbouring residents or on the natural environment. I therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Prior to the first occupation of the extension hereby approved the car parking spaces shown on the
submitted plans hereby approved shall be laid out and made available at all times in connection with the
use of the premises.
3. Prior to the commencement of the use of the kitchen hereby approved, litter bins shall be provided in
locations to be agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement
of development. The litter bins shall be retained thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations,
including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other material planning considerations that
outweigh this finding:
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
EN5 Nature Conservation
EN6 Conservation of the Mosslands
EN24 Conservation of The Mosslands
Other policies:
DEV1 Development Criteria
T13 Car Parking
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
R10 Private Recreation Facilities
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
EN7D Wildlife corridors
EN8 Mosslands
Other policies: ST10 Recreation Provision
DES1 Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 Alterations and Extensions
A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
R2 Provision of Recreation Land and Facilities
2. Please contact the Food Team at the Environmental Services Department on 0161 737 0551 for advice
on fitting out the kitchen.
APPLICATION No:
04/49026/FUL
APPLICANT:
Space New Living Ltd
LOCATION:
Junction Of Andoc Street Lane End Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing building and erection of two storey building
comprising eight supported /wing flats, ancillary rooms together with
associated car parking and construction of new vehicular access
WARD:
Barton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land at the junction of Andoc Street and Lane End, Eccles. At present the site
comprises of a single-storey vacant building which is in a state of dis-repair, and an area of parking to the
rear, set back from the two roads. There are several trees located around the periphery of the car park, all of
which are in poor condition. The building was previously used as a community occupational therapy
centre, but it is evident that this use ceased some time ago given the existing condition of the site. The site
is enclosed at present to the rear by a dwarf wall with railings above.
The surrounding uses are predominantly residential. To the north, south and east are two-storey flat
developments. To the west, on the opposite side of Lane End, is a row of terraced properties, and to the
north-west, again on the opposite side of Lane End but fronting Regent Street, are commercial properties.
Eccles Centre is located to the north, only 50m away.
Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing building and the erection of a two storey
building comprising eight supported living flats together with associated car parking, landscaping and the
construction of a new vehicular access. Four car parking spaces are proposed.
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
The massing of the proposed building would be pivoted on the junction of the two roads with both the
pedestrian and vehicular access taken from Lane End. The parking area would be located to the rear of the
site allowing maximum street frontage for the building. External amenity space would be located to the
south-east of the site, contained between the proposed building and a 3m landscaped zone fronting Andoc
Avenue. The building would be set back from the footpath between 1-4m to allow for a landscaped zone
which would provide an element of defensible space for the development whilst still allowing for the
building to be a prominent feature at the junction. The importance to the corner site would be emphasised
further by the introduction of a double height wrap-around window within a blue-render panel.
The building would be designed with a flat roof reflecting some of the architectural elements of the
two-storey flats adjacent. However, it is proposed to use modern materials, such as coloured render and
panels of brickwork, which would be punctured by window zones to create a multi-layered facade.
The development is intended for both male and female young adults with an approximate age range of
16-18 years. They are likely to be people who have lived in either children’s homes, or foster care but who,
because of having reached 16 years old must now move on. The main aim of the facility will be to provide
residents with guidance and preparation for more independent living until they reach about 18 years old.
There will be no resident staff, but there will be two or three people available on site at all times (24hrs a
day, 7 days a week).
SITE HISTORY
No site history
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections, recommendations made.
Architectural Liaison Officer – no comments received
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 3rd September 2004.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
52-56 (even) Regent Street
2-12 (even), 23 Hunterston Avenue
8,9,11,12 Kerrier Close
1-4 North Haven Close
1-9, 12 Andoc Avenue
21-31 (odd) Lane End
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 10 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity and one petition
against the development signed by approximately 100 people. The following issues have been raised:Most of the local residents are elderly people who often feel insecure and intimidated. There
are enough disturbances in the area already. Introducing more youths (reference is made to
young offenders and/or youths with ‘mental problems’) to the estate would make the situation
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
worse. It is stated that the area is somewhat secluded and an ideal location for crime to take
place. Some objectors, however, refer to the area as a quiet and lovely place, but still feel that
introducing more youths to the area would have a negative impact on the character of the
neighbourhood. One objector states that the area is age-banded for the elderly – check with
Salford housing.
The proposal would result in an increase in traffic to the area.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
none
H1 Meeting Housing Needs
H6 & H11 Open Space Provision
EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
SC10 Care in the Community
SC12 Residential Care Homes and Nursing Homes
DEV1 Development Criteria
DEV2 Good Design
DEV4 Design and Crime
T13 Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
none
ST11 Location of New Development
H1 Provision of New Housing Development
H8 Open Space Provision Associated With New Housing Development
H6 Residential Social and Community Uses
EN9 Important Landscape Features
DES1 Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES11 Design and Crime
A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY (RSS13)
Policies:
UR6 Existing Housing Stock and Housing Renewal
SD1 The North West Metropolitan Area – Regional Poles and Surrounding Area
UR4 Setting Targets for the Recycling of Land and Buildings
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of development, the design and scale
of the proposal and its impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents, the amenity provisions for future
occupants, and the loss of trees.
Principle of development
Both H1 policies seek to meet the housing needs of all groups within Salford. Policy SD1 states that
development should be focused within the North-West Metropolitan Area, which includes Salford. Policy
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
UR6 seeks to improve the quality of the Region’s housing stock by ensuring sufficient supply across all
tenures and values.
The development would see the re-use of brownfield land thus complying with criteria 2 of Policy ST11
and the guidance contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 – Housing (PPG3), which seeks to
prioritise the development of such land over land which has not been previously developed (greenfield
land). This is reiterated in Policy UR4 which states that the redevelopment and re-use of vacant sites within
urban areas should be a priority. This policy sets a target for at least 70% of new dwellings in the region to
be on previously developed land.
Policy SC10 encourages the provision of community based care facilities to care for those people with
special needs. Policy SC12 states that planning permission will only be granted for new residential care
homes in primary residential areas where a number of criteria can be satisfied. The first criterion states that
the site must be located within an established residential area, and have convenient access for less mobile
people and is close to ordinary amenities of town life (i.e. public transport, shops, post offices, churches,
and social and community facilities). This is reiterated Policy H6 of the Revised Plan which follows the
general thrust of Policy SC12.
Given the intended occupants, it is unlikely that any will be car owners. Therefore, they would be reliant
upon easy access to all the public services outlined above. The proposed site is located within a very short
walking distance of Eccles Town Centre. This is ideal, and would provide easy access to all of the required
public services for future occupants. Therefore, on this basis, I am satisfied that the principle of such a
development in this location is acceptable.
Design and scale of the proposal and its impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents
Policies DEV1, DEV2, DES1, DES7, SC12 and H6 require development to respect its context regarding
height, scale, mass, materials and also privacy and sunlight/daylight of surrounding properties. They also
seek to protect the amenities of neighbouring residents in terms of noise and general disturbance.
In terms of the proposed replacement building it would comply with the general themes of both H1 policies.
The proposal would provide a stepping-stone home for sections of the community who require support and
guidance before moving on into independent living. Many of the objectors are concerned that the future
occupants of the development may have criminal backgrounds, and it is assumed that, given the young age
of the intended occupiers, that this will lead to social disturbances and a greater fear of crime for existing
residents. Although fear of crime is a concept which stems from a fear of the unknown, this specific
proposed development is not intended for people who have a criminal history. Furthermore, 24hour staff
would always be available to provide care for the occupiers and to ensure that they integrate with the local
community. I do not consider that the proposal would result in an increase in crime or social disturbances in
the area. It should be bourne in mind that this is a residential institution and could be used for other purposes
wihtin the use class ie C2
With regard to the design of the development, the scale and massing is comparable to the neighbouring
two-storey flats. The basic architectural style of the building also reflects that of the neighbouring units.
However, modern materials would be used which would contrast with the existing buildings and which, in
my view, would add interest to the street scene whilst still respecting local context.
Council Guidance stipulates minimum separation distances from habitable room windows in order to
provide future occupants and neighbouring residents with sufficient levels of amenity. There would be a
distance of at least 30m from the elevation fronting Lane End to the commercial buildings opposite.
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
There would be a distance of 18m from the north-east facing elevation of the proposed development to the
front elevations of 2 and 8 Hunterston Avenue. A secondary habitable room window is proposed facing the
habitable room windows of these neighbours. Although the properties are not directly facing, I feel that this
element of the proposal would result in a loss of privacy/overlooking for the occupiers of 2 and 8
Hunterston Avenue. Given that the window would be secondary, I have attached a condition for it to be
fitted with obscure glazing.
The habitable room windows of flat 3 and 6, located in the south-east facing elevation would not directly
face any neighbouring properties, and would therefore maintain adequate separation distances. There
would be a distance of 11m from the lounge room windows of flat 2 and 8 to the blank gable elevation of 1
Northavon Close. There would, however, be additional lounge windows in the elevation fronting Andoc
Avenue. The separation distance to the habitable room windows of the property opposite would be 16m.
Under normal, circumstances, if the properties were directly facing a minimum separation distance of 21m
would be required. However, given that the properties are off-set from each other, I am satisfied that this
element of the proposal would not result in a loss of privacy/overlooking for neighbouring residents. I
consider that the proposal would not result in a significant loss of privacy or a loss of light for neighbouring
residents and that the development will provide sufficient aspects for future occupants of the development.
.
Policies T13 and A10 seek to achieve appropriate provision of parking for new developments. Planning
Policy Guidance Note 13 – Transport and Policy A10 seek to encourage the use of more sustainable forms
of travel such as public transport, cycling and car sharing. Therefore, one of the measures encouraged is
maximum levels of parking. Given the proximity of the site to Eccles Town Centre and given that it is
unlikely that the future occupants would own a car, I am satisfied with the level of car parking provision. A
condition has been attached for cycle parking to be provided. I do not consider the proposal would result in
a significant increase in traffic in the area.
Amenity provisions for future occupants
The proposal includes an area of communal outdoor amenity space (approximately 125m2) as detailed
earlier in the first section of this report. In addition, a communal games room is also proposed. I am
satisfied with the level of amenity space that the development would offer.
A significant zone of defensible space is proposed fronting Andoc Avenue and Lane End (together with
0.9m high railings), and 1.8m fencing is proposed to the rear of the site. The design details of the boundary
treatment would be agreed at a later stage if approval were granted. Furthermore, Supplementary Planning
Guidance – Designing Out Crime encourages natural surveillance for new developments (i.e. windows
overlooking parking areas and courtyards in order to discourage criminal activity). The proposal would
provide sufficient levels of natural surveillance for the parking area my view, and so I consider the proposal
to be in accordance with Policies DEV4 and DES11.
Loss of trees
The proposal would result in the loss of 9 small trees from the site. However, none of these trees are of
particular merit, and they offer little amenity to the area. Given that additional trees would be planted as
part of a landscaping scheme, which would be agreed via a condition, I have no objection to their removal.
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that the regeneration benefits for the area offered by the proposal far
out-weigh the loss of the existing trees.
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Pre-application discussions were held to highlight the potential issues and to inform the design
of the proposal.
Alterations to the internal accesses have been secured to allow for easier access for future
occupants, particularly disabled persons.
Conditions have been added to prevent any significant loss of privacy for neighbouring and
future occupants, to improve security of the development and to secure a suitable landscape to
improve the contribution to the amenity of the area.
CONCLUSION
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of development, the design and scale
of the proposal and its impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents, the amenity provisions for future
occupants, and the loss of trees. PPG3 and Policies SC10, SC12 and H6 (Revised Plan) support this type of
development in this location on brownfield land. I am satisfied that sufficient levels of amenity will be
provided for neighbouring occupiers and for future occupiers of the development, and am of the opinion
that the loss of trees is acceptable. I therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls of the
development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
4. Prior to the commencement of any building works on site, the applicant shall submit for written
approval an assessment of noise likely to affect the application site. This assessment should follow
PPG24 guidelines towards assessing the noise from the surrounding road network and the Metro
tramway and other noise sources which are deemed significnt 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. Once agreed, all identified noise control measures shall be
implemented and thereafter retained.
5. The window in the north-east facing elevation leading into flat 4 shall be fitted with obscure glazing
prior to first occupation and shall be maintained as such thereafter.
6. Prior to first occupation a minimum of two secure cycle lock-ups shall be provided for use by the future
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
occupiers of the development. The cycle lock-ups shall be made available at all times thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
6. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant should
take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal. Developers must also
seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any operation that involves entry into any
coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and adits and the implementation of site investigations
or other works. Property specific summary information on any past, current or proposed surface and
underground mining activity to affect the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The
Coal Authority Mining Reports Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
2. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the Regional Spatial Strategy set out below, and to
all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other
material planning considerations that outweigh this finding:
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
none
Other policies:
H1 Meeting Housing Needs
H6 & H11 Open Space Provision
EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
SC10 Care in the Community
SC12 Residential Care Homes and Nursing Homes
DEV1 Development Criteria
DEV2 Good Design
DEV4 Design and Crime
T13 Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
Site specific policies:
none
Other policies:
ST11 Location of New Development
H1 Provision of New Housing Development
H8 Open Space Provision Associated With New Housing Development
H6 Residential Social and Community Uses
EN9 Important Landscape Features
DES1 Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES11 Design and Crime
A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY (RSS13)
Policies:
UR6 Existing Housing Stock and Housing Renewal
SD1 The North West Metropolitan Area - Regional Poles and Surrounding Area
UR4 Setting Targets for the Recycling of Land and Buildings
3. The Environmental Services Directorate can be contacted on 0161 737 0551 for further discussions
concerning assessment of noise and subsequesnt mitigation measures at this site
4. The proposal site is 316 metres from the Weaste Quarry land fill site and although the proposal site is
beyond the 250 mtres buffer zone from the Landfill Site it is recommended that a gas proof membrane
is installed under the building to prevent ingress of any gases associated with the Weaste Quarry
Landfill site to protect the health and wellbeing of the occupants of the properties.
5. This application relates to the amended plans that were received on 5th October 2004 and which show
minor alterations to the accesses within the site.
APPLICATION No:
04/49054/HH
APPLICANT:
L Jackson
LOCATION:
5 Pine Grove Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a first floor side extension over existing single storey garage
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site is a semi-detached modern house. The property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac and
has an existing single storey side extension. The proposal is for the erection of a first floor extension above
the existing side extension. The proposed extension would be approximately 7.9m in length and 5.3m wide.
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
The height of the proposal is 6.7m. The proposal projects out approximately 3.7m from the rear elevation
and is approximately 5.6m from the common boundary with 10 Pine Grove the adjoining house. The
proposal is for two bedrooms and the main windows would be located on the north and south aspects. The
South-facing window is adjacent to Pine Grove and the North-facing window is adjacent to 3 Pine Grove.
CONSULTATIONS
United Utilities have no objection to the application and request a condition is attached stipulating that the
applicant must obtain a building over agreement from United Utilities.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
3 and 10 Pine Grove
1 and 3 Linden Avenue
69-83 Ellesmere Street
REPRESENTATIONS
Councillor Antrobus has requested this application be determined at Panel due to the application being
contrary to policy.
I have received one letter of representation and one objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised: Loss of light
Overbearing
Dominant
Contrary to Policy DEV8 by having an unacceptable detrimental impact on the character of the
original dwelling and would be dominant in height, massing and appearance
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 - House Extensions
DEV1 - Development Criteria
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 - Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 - Alterations/Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the size, height and siting of the proposal
would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents at and
whether the proposal would comply with the provisions of the relevant policies of the Adopted and Revised
Deposit Draft Replacement UDP and the SPG on House Extensions.
DEV8 stipulates that extensions will only be granted when it can be demonstrated that that it would not
have an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking,
overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light.
DEV1 stipulates that all development must not adversely affect the daylight to neighbouring residents.
DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan stipulates that all extensions should not
adversely impact the existing amenity of occupiers of other developments. DES8 of the Revised
Deposit Draft Replacement Plan states that planning permission will only be granted for alterations and
extensions to existing buildings that respect the general scale, character, rhythm, proportions, details
and materials of the original structure.
The proposal is located approximately 5.6m away from the common boundary with No.10. The
proposal projects out approximately 3.6m from the rear elevation. As such it is not considered that the
proposal will result in an overbearing or dominant structure by reason of height or projection.
The proposal is not introducing any habitable room windows directly overlooking the neighbouring
gardens as such I do not consider that the proposal will result in any loss of privacy to the neighbouring
residents.
Due to the distance to the common boundary from the proposal and the lower ridge height of the
proposed roof I do not consider that the proposal will result in any significant loss of daylight to the
garden area of 10 Pine Grove.
The proposal has a lower ridge height of the roof than the existing house and it is not so large as to result
in material changing the appearance of the original dwelling house. I consider therefore that the
proposal is in keeping with DEV8 and DES8. The proposal is in accordance with the SPG on House
Extension, HH12.
I am satisfied that the proposed extension would not have an adverse impact on the residents of 3 Pine
Grove
CONCLUSION
The proposal is not considered overbearing or dominant. The proposal is not expected to change the
character of the original dwelling house. It is not envisaged that the proposal will significantly affect the
daylight to the patio area of 3 Pine Grove. The proposal accords with the SPG on House Extensions. It
is not envisaged that the proposal will be out of character with the area or the street scene. I therefore
recommend this application for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
3. No development shall commence unless and until the necessary consent and implementation of
measures that may be required to safeguard the integrity of the public sewerage network have been
obtained from United Utilities.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. To safeguard the integrity of the public sewerage network in accordance with Policy DEV1 of the City
of Salford Unitary Development Plan
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Reason for Granting Planning Permission
This application was determined having regard to Policy DEV8 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan and the City Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions and
planning permission has been granted because the proposals accord with that Policy in that they respect
or contribute to the character and amenity of the area and are of a satisfactory quality of design. There
are no other material planning considerations that outweigh this finding.
2. The applicant is advised that their site lies within 250m of a former landfill site. In the event that
landfill gas is migrating, suitable precautions need to be undertaken to avoid the ingress of landfill gas
into the new extension or existing house. It is strongly advised that the detailed design specification
incorporates suitable measures to mitigate against the ingress of landfill gas. Any measures would be
expected to conform to the standards contained in the 1990 Building research Establishment Report
"Construction of new buildings on gas-contaminated land"
APPLICATION No:
04/49132/FUL
APPLICANT:
Nigel Hall
LOCATION:
Units 1-4 Wynne Street Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Erection of an extension to provide storage for gas cylinders together
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
with new external exhaust stack
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant single storey light industrial unit within a mixed use area and seeks
consent for the erection of an extension to provide storage for gas cylinders and an external exhaust stack.
To the north of the site is the Salford University Business Park. Directly adjoining the premises are similar
units for light industrial purposes. To the west is of the site is a builders merchant. To the south east are
residential properties. The site is bounded by semi mature trees along the south eastern elevation, between
the application site and the closest residential properties.
Car parking and access is provided off Wynne Street to the north of the unit. Vehicular access is restricted
from Lissadel Street to Wynne Street by way of bollards outside the residential properties. The site as a
whole is secured by 2m fencing. To the rear of the site, outside the fenced area, is a grassed area.
The proposed extension would project 1m from the rear elevation X 5.5m. It would have a pitched roof 2m
in height at its highest point. The store would be 16.6m from the south eastern elevation, 35.1m from the
closest residential property.
The proposed exhaust stack would also be mounted on the rear elevation. The base of the stack would be
protected by a protective cage. The stack itself would measure 5.1m in height and would extend to ground
level and 0.8m above the ridge of the building. The main stack would be 12.7m from the south eastern
elevation.
CONSULTATIONS
The Director of Environmental Services – conulted on the 16th September. No reply has been recived within
the necessary time.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Travis Perkins, Lissadel Street
28 – 48 (e) Strawberry Hill
Unit 9, 13 and 15, Wynne Street
45, 51 and 53 Leslie Hough Way
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The following
issues have been raised:Visual appearance
Health and Safety
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
Asks questions regarding detail
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
none
none
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
EC14 Improvements Proposals, EN23 Croal Irwell Valley
DEV1 Development Criteria, EC3 Re-Use of Sites and Buildings
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
E2 Innovation Park
E5 Development within Established Employment Areas, DES1 Respecting
Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours,
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the re-use of a vacant unit, whether the siting, detail
and visual appearance of the proposal is acceptable, consideration of the emission of noise and fumes and
whether the application accords with the relevant provisions of the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft
Replacement UDPs.
Re-use of existing employment use
Adopted policy EC3 states that where existing industrial and non-retail commercial sites and/or premises
become vacant, the city council will seek to re-use or redevelop them for similar or related uses, unless the
premises could be used for other purposes without an unacceptable shortfall in supply.
This approach is continued in the Revised Deposit Draft UDP policy E5, Development within Established
Employment Areas.
Policy EC14 seeks improvements to industrial and commercial estates within four areas of the city
including Pendleton.
I am of the opinion that the alterations required by this proposal would facilitate the reuse of a vacant unit
within an area identified as an industrial and commercial area. Therefore, the re-use of the premises for
employment purposes is supported by both the adopted and replacement plan policies.
Visual Impact
Adopted policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when dealing
with applications for planning permission. These factors include the location of the proposed development
and its relationship to existing land uses, the relationship to the road network, the potential for noise
nuisance, the visual appearance of the development and the effect on trees.
Policy DES1 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP requires developments to respond to their
physical context and to respect the character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
proposals comply with this policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to
existing buildings and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.
Policy DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP requires all new developments to provide
potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact
on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
The extension is modest in relation to the elevation and would project only 1m from the rear boundary. The
highest part of the pitched roof would tie into the existing rear elevation below the cladded roof. I have
attached a condition requiring the materials to be used for the construction of the storage compound to
match those of the existing building.
Turning to the stack, it would project 0.3m above the height of the ridge, I do not consider that it would be
an intrusive feature upon the building or within this mixed use area and would be viewed against the
backdrop of the existing rear elevation and pitched roof. As such I am of the opinion that the proposal
satisfies the requirements of policy DEV1 of the adopted plan and policies DES1 and DES7 of the Revised
Deposit Draft Replacement UDP in this instance.
Health and Safety Implications
The proposed storage and external stack is necessary to facilitate the production of wire from metal powder.
The process involves compaction and heat treatment. Statutory Instrument 1992 No.656, The Planning
(Hazardous Substances) Regulations 1992, is also relevant in this instance. The applicant has stated that the
storage facility would accommodate less than one ton of hydrogen. SI requires a license to be obtained
should the amount of hydrogen exceed 2 tonnes.
As the proposal would result in less than half of that which could be keep on site without obtaining a
license, I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in a hazard to the surrounding properties.
Other Relevant Planning Issues
I have no highway objection and I am of the opinion that the level of parking proposed across the site is
acceptable.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposal is acceptable as it accords with the development plan policies
highlighted above. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be used
for the walls and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant should
take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal. Developers must also
seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any operation that involves entry into any
coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and adits and the implementation of site investigations
or other works. Property specific summary information on any past, current or proposed surface and
underground mining activity to affect the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The
Coal Authority Mining Reports Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
2. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations,
including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other material planning considerations that
outweigh this finding:
EC14 Improvements Proposals
DEV1 Development Criteria
EC3 Re-Use of Sites and Buildings
APPLICATION No:
04/49172/FUL
APPLICANT:
Salford Royal Hospitals Trust
LOCATION:
Hope Hospital Stott Lane Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Construction of single storey modular building to provide new ward
and assessment unit
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a site within the Hope Hospital complex. The site lies on the western edge of the
hospital site to the rear of houses on Devonshire Road.
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
It is proposed to erect a single storey modular building providing a 28 bed ward and associated assessment
unit. It would be located to the rear of the maternity building in a courtyard car park bounded by the
ante-natal clinic to the south, radiology II to the north and a corridor to the east.
The building would be set back from the boundary with houses on Devonshire Road by approximately 6m
and with existing adjacent buildings already being closer to that boundary.
The proposal would result in the loss of 29 parking spaces but the Trust have submitted a plan showing how
an additional 25 car parking spaces could be provided on the site through white-lining existing paved or
hardstanding areas. An additional 17 spaces could be provided through the removal of existing landscaped
areas and I have indicated to the Trust that planning permission would be required for these 17 spaces.
In a supporting statement the Trust have stated that this ward is required for a number of reasons. Firstly it
is required so that essential work can be undertaken in the old three-storey Victorian wards in order to
reduce the risk of infection caused through the age and condition of the buildings. Secondly, all of the three
companies bidding to undertake the redevelopment of the hospital have identified the need for a decanting
ward at the earliest stages of the redevelopment and the location identified for the new ward is not in a
location affected by the early stages of demolition in any of the three bidders plans.
SITE HISTORY
In April 2000 planning permission was granted in outline for the progressive selective redevelopment of the
hospital (99/39299/OUT).
In December 2000 an amendment to this outline permission was granted. The amendment related to the
timing of junction improvements (00/40937/FUL).
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 12 October 2004.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
27 to 45 Devonshire Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: none
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, T13 Car Parking, SC9 Health Care Facilities
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EHC4 Hope Hospital
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, A10 Provision of car,
Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments, DEV6 Incremental Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the development is acceptable in terms of
its effect on neighbours, on parking at the Hospital and on the future redevelopment of the site.
Effect on Neighbours
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the likely scale and type of traffic generation, the visual appearance of
the development and the effect on neighbours.
Draft policy DES7 states that all new development will be required to provide potential users with a
satisfactory level of amenity and that development will not be permitted where it would have an
unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.
The development would be both further away from the boundary with neighbouring dwellings and lower
than adjacent buildings. I do not therefore consider that there would be any significant detrimental effect on
the amenity of neighbouring residents as a result of the development.
In terms of future users of the building the new facilities will be new and purpose built as opposed to the old
Victorian wards that are now so far beyond their life expectancy that essential upgrading is required even
though the wards will be demolished as part of the redevelopment of the hospital. I consider therefore that
the occupiers of the new ward would have an acceptable level of amenity.
Effect on Parking
Policy T13 states that the City Council will ensure that adequate and appropriate car parking is made where
necessary.
Draft policy A10 states development will be required to make adequate provision for disabled drivers,
cyclists and motorcyclists and that maximum parking standards should not be exceeded.
Firstly there would be no increase in staff as a result of this proposal as this ward will be used as a decanting
ward to allow one ward after the other to be emptied and refurbished within the three-storey Victorian
blocks. Secondly the applicant has identified 25 car parking spaces in order to replace the 29 parking
spaces lost as result of the development. I consider this slight shortfall acceptable given that the Trust has
identified a further 17 car parking spaces that, because they require the removal of existing landscaping
require planning permission, could also be provided.
I am satisfied therefore that adequate and appropriate car parking provision is being provided in accordance
with policies T13 and A10.
Effect on future development of the site
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
Draft policy DEV6 states that on sites within an area identified for major development planning permission
will not be granted for incremental development that would unacceptably hamper or reduce the
development options for that wider area.
The need for a decanting ward has been identified by all three bidders for the PFI project. The area
identified as a suitable location for the new ward is one that does not figure in the short or medium term
development plans of any of the three bidders. I therefore consider that the proposal would in no way
hamper or reduce the development options for the redevelopment of the site.
Other Issues
Policy SC9 states that the City Council will encourage the safeguarding, maintenance and improvement of
health care provision throughout the City.
I consider that the development is fully supported by this policy.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The applicant has identified additional car parking
CONCLUSION
I consider that the main issues are whether or not the application has a detrimental effect on neighbours, on
car parking at the hospital or on the future redevelopment of the site. I am satisfied that the Trust has
demonstrated the need for the new ward and that the development is in accordance with the development
plan. I therefore recommend that the application be approved subject to the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant should
take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal. Developers must also
seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any operation that involves entry into any
coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and adits and the implementation of site investigations
or other works. Property specific summary information on any past, current or proposed surface and
underground mining activity to affect the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The
Coal Authority Mining Reports Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
APPLICATION No:
04/49209/TEL56
APPLICANT:
Vodafone Limited
LOCATION:
Site Adj To Community Centre At Junction Of Ferryhill Road And
Liverpool Road Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Prior notification for the installation of a 9.5m high immitation
telegraph pole to accommodate telecommunications antennas and one
equipment cabinet.
WARD:
Irlam
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the back of the public footpath at the junction of Ferryhill Road and Liverpool
Road, Irlam. The surrounding area is predominantly residential, but there are also a number of businesses
in close proximity to the site. In particular, the Upper Irlam Key Local Centre is located only 40m away to
the north-east, along Liverpool Road. To the south of the site is the Ferry Hill Road Community Centre.
Located between the application site and the Community Centre are several mature trees. To the east of the
site, on the opposite side of Ferryhill Road are residential properties. To the west, on the opposite side of
Liverpool Road is St Paul’s Methodist Sunday School, and surrounding this are residential properties.
The application has been amended and is now for the installation of an imitation telegraph pole which
would house telecommunications equipment for Vodafone Limited. The finished height of the timber-clad
pole would be approximately 9.5m. The proposal also includes the installation of 1 equipment cabinet at
the base of the pole. The equipment cabinet would be 1.9m in height and 1.3m in width.
CONSULTATIONS
Irlam and Cadishead Community Committee – objection on the grounds that it was not necessary for the
mast the be sited in the area and there are more appropriate locations and that these should be presented.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 5th October 2004.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Ferryhill Road Community Centre
1-9 (odd), 10 and 12 Ferryhill Road
200-204 (even), 222-230 (even), 133-139 (odd), 129a, and St Paul’s Methodist Sunday School, Liverpool
Road
2,4,8,10 and Irlam Endowed Primary School, Chapel Road
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
Councillors Jones, Lightup and Kean
REPRESENTATIONS
In response to the planning application publicity I have received 2 letters of objection from local residents,
1 letter of objection from the Irlam and Cadishead Community Committee, and one petition signed by 382
people opposing the development. The following issues have been raised:Should it be necessary for a mast to be sited in the area, a more appropriate location should
be found.
The application states that the nearest school is over 100 metres away. However, it does
not take into account that there is a playgroup/nursery held every day within the
community centre which is within 10 of the proposed position.
The public perception of mobile phone masts will have a detrimental effect on the finances
of the playgroup as parents will either take their children out or will not send them their in
the first place.
The application states that there is already established street furniture. However, the
nearest furniture is 10 metres away.
The site is in a very prominent location.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
None relevant
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
SC14 - Telecommunications
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV1 - Telecommunications
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the need for the installation, any health issues
resulting from the installation and the visual impact of the installation on the amenity of the area.
Policy SC14 of the Adopted UDP states that permission for telecommunications development will normally
be granted where there would not be an unacceptable impact on visual or residential amenity. In
determining such applications, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the significance of the
proposed development as part of a national telecommunications network, whether there are any suitable
alternative sites and whether there would be an unacceptable visual impact in terms of siting and design.
Policy DEV1 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP states that proposal for telecommunications
development will only be permitted where a number of criteria are met, including where there would not be
an unacceptable impact on visual or residential amenity, where the operator has demonstrated compliance
with all relevant ICNIRP standards, there is a need for the development, the rationale for site selection has
been outlined and where pre-application discussions have taken place.
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
In accordance with Policy DEV1, the applicants have submitted a declaration which shows that the
proposed equipment complies with ICNIRP public exposure guidelines. I am therefore satisfied that
sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that there should be no adverse health implications
as a result of this proposal.
The applicants have demonstrated that a number of other potential sites have been investigated in the
surrounding area, but were either not feasible or not available. These include:
viii. Side verge, Sandy Lane, Irlam
ix. Fiddlers Lane/ Liverpool Road Junction, Irlam
x. Side Verge Outside Clinic, Liverpool Road, Irlam
xi. Total Filling Station, Liverpool Road, Irlam
xii. Irlam Pumping Tower, Irlam Locks
xiii. St Pauls Methodist Church, Liverpool Road, Irlam.
xiv. Irlam Fire Station Training Tower.
The applicant has provided coverage plots which demonstrates what the existing coverage is and what the
proposed coverage would be following the installation. This information shows that there is a gap in the
existing cell coverage for the area, and that the installation would fill that gap. Some of the sites identified
above would not have provided the necessary plot coverage. I consider that this justification satisfies the
relevant provisions of policies SC14 and DEV1.
The original proposal was for a slimline monople structure. Following negotiation this structure was
replaced by an imitation telegraph pole of similar height. Given the mature trees which provide a backdrop
for the development, I am satisfied that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the visual
amenity of the area. Furthermore, given that Liverpool Road is a principle road, there are a number of tall
lampposts in the area and other types of street furniture including two telegraph poles in the immediate
vicinity. The equipment cabinet would be colour treated prior to installation. Such colour treatment would
ensure that the proposed cabinet would blend in with the area.
With regard to the objector’s comments relating to the playgroup/nursery based at the Ferryhill Road
Community Centre, they have been sent notification of the application, and the impact on their amenity has
been considered together with all of the local businesses and occupiers. The financial impact of the
development on the playgroup is not an issue that can be considered by this application.
On the above basis, I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with policies SC14 and DEV1 and I
therefore recommend approval.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
v.
The monopole structure was replaced by an imitation telegraph pole in order to blend in better with
the area, in particular the trees which provide a backdrop for the development.
CONCLUSION
The main planning issues relating to this application are the need for the installation, any health issues
resulting from the installation and the visual impact of the installation on the amenity of the area. The
applicant has submitted a declaration which shows that the proposed equipment complies with ICNIRP
public exposure guidelines and so I have no objection on health grounds. I am satisfied that there is a need
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
for an installation in this area and that the development proposed would not have a detrimental impact on
the amenity of the area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The equipment cabinet hereby approved shall be treated in a colour prior to its installation which is to
be agreed in writing prior to the commencement of development. The agreed colour shall be
maintained thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The decision to grant permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the City
of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations,
including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other material planning considerations that
outweigh this finding:
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
SC14 - Telecommunications
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV1 - Telecommunications
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
APPLICATION No:
04/48906/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Environmental Services Directorate
LOCATION:
Princes Park Liverpool Road Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Construction of tarmac surfaced BMX facility together with associated
fence enclosure and floodlighting
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
Planning permission is sought for the construction of a tarmac surfaced BMX facility together with an
associated fence enclosure and floodlighting at Princess Park, Liverpool Road, Irlam. The proposal is sited
at a grassed area to the rear of an existing car park associated with Irlam swimming pool, which lies to the
north. To the west lie residential properties some 100m away. The proposed BMX facility consists of 9
plywood ramps set on a tarmac surface. A 1.2m high bow-top fence and gate would enclose the site, which
measures 40.0m by 40.0m. The proposed four floodlighting columns to illuminate the facility are 7.88m
high with two luminaries per column and would be positioned at each corner of the site.
SITE HISTORY
The site has no planning history.
CONSULTATIONS
The Director of Environmental Services – no response
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – “It is unclear from the drawings provided as to the alterations
proposed to the layout of the car park that remains. I recommend the avoidance of parking spaces backing
onto the proposed boundary so as to ensure against damage and maximise natural surveillance over the
proposed facility. I also recommend vehicles be stepped back from the proposed gates entrance by at least
2.5m.”
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 22nd September 2004 and the application has also been advertised in a press
notice.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1-19 (odd numbers only) Winskill Road
1-39 (odd numbers only), Fire Station and Youth Centre, Fairhills Road
326-406 (even numbers only) and 237-243 (odd numbers only) Liverpool Road.
1 and 2 Leader Williams Road
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 2 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The following issues
have been raised: Lighting for the facility should be of a type that stops light pollution
Fear of anti-social behaviour (drinking and congregation of a gang) caused by use of floodlighting over a
long period
Litter
Development will be an eyesore in a few months time.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site Specific Policies: R12/19 - Provision of Recreation Land and Facilities
Other policies:
EN3 – Protected Open Land, EN7 – Conservation of Trees and Woodlands, EN10 – Landscape, EN20 –
Pollution Control, T13 – Car Parking, R4 - Improvement of Recreation Land and Facilities, DEV1 –
Development Criteria, DEV2 – Good Design, DEV4 – Design and Crime
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site Specific Policies: EN7D – Wildlife Corridors
Other Policies:
DES1 – Respecting Context, DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES9 – Landscaping, DES11 –
Design and Crime, A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments, EN14 –
Pollution Control, ECH1 – Provision and Improvement of Health and Community Facilities
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the provision of additional facilities within the
park, whether the proposal would have any detrimental impact upon adjacent trees and the neighbouring
residents and whether the application accords with the relevant provisions of the Adopted and Revised
Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs.
Recreational value
Policy R4 seeks to improve the appearance, access to and use of parks and play areas. Policy EHC1 states
that planning permission will be granted for the improvement of existing facilities providing that a number
of factors are satisfied including impact upon residential amenity, environmental quality and accessibility.
The proposal would improve the range of facilities available at Prince’s Park. I consider that the provision
of the facility is clearly supported by both the adopted and replacement development plans.
Impact on residential amenity
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the effect on neighbouring residents and the visual appearance of the
development. Policy DES7 states that development will not be permitted where it has an unacceptable
impact on the amenity of neighbours. Policies EN20 and EN14 seek to protect residential amenity from
nuisance connected to pollution.
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
The proposal would be located within an established and well used park. It would be located adjacent to an
existing sports facility with an illuminated car park and would provide a greater distance (the nearest
equipment being100m) away from the closest residential properties. As such I do not consider that the
lighting would have any detrimental impact upon the neighbouring residents. The proposed lighting would
extend the hours of use available for use of the facility. Furthermore, I have attached a condition to control
the position of the floodlights to ensure that nearby trees are not adversely affected by the proposal and to
ensure an appropriate level and duration of luminance for the site.
The proposed ramps are covered with plywood panelling. The colour of the ramps, floodlighting, columns,
gates and fence is controlled under an attached condition. I am satisfied with the appearance of the proposal.
The proposed floodlighting columns, boundary fencing and gate, would be sited an ample distance away
from surrounding properties to prevent loss of light to neighbouring residents or an overbearing effect to the
street scene and would not be an unduly obtrusive feature in the landscape. Given the adjacent car park and
its associated lighting for Irlam swimming pool swimming pool to the north, I believe that the light and
noise levels resulting from the use of the facility would be acceptable in the area. A group of trees abut the
eastern border of the proposed perimeter fence. The nearest tree is sited 0.4m away from the proposed
fence. However, under policy EN7 I consider that they would not be adversely affected by the proposal.
Therefore, in accordance with polices R4, DEV1, DEV2, EN20, EN14, DES1 and DES7, I consider that the
amenity of the street scene and local residents will not be significantly adversely affected by the proposal.
Impact on the Wildlife Corridor
Policy EN7D (Review UDP) requires development in wildlife corridors to enable the movement of flora
and fauna, which can be facilitated by attached conditions. Policy R12/19 (Adopted) allocates the site for
recreation purposes and includes the site as land reserved for the future extension of Irlam Pool. Policy EN3
(Adopted) seeks to protect and enhance all existing areas of open land.
The site is currently a public park and as such, the recreational use of the land would remain unchanged,
however the use of the site would be intensified. An existing mesh boundary fence to Irlam pool car park is
situated between Liverpool Road and the site. The site would take up a small surface area of land, for a
purpose that would provide increased safety and an improved facility for users of the site without causing
an unacceptable detrimental impact on the wildlife corridor. Thus, I consider that the development would
not harm the character of the area or detract from the recreational use of the park. It therefore complies with
policies DEV1 (Adopted UDP), DES1 and EN7D (Review UDP). Given the site is not allocated in the
Review UDP for the extension of Irlam Pool, I consider the size and siting of the site would not have an
unacceptable impact on the future development of the adjacent swimming pool facilities or the openness of
Prince’s Park, in accordance with policy EN3.
Tree Issues
Policy EN7 (Adopted UDP) seeks the retention of trees. Policy EN10 (Adopted) seeks to protect and
enhance landscape quality. A group of unprotected trees is located bordering the eastern boundary of the
site. The application contains information regarding the planting of trees and shrubbery, the siting of which
is not shown in a site plan. Therefore a landscaping condition is attached. The position of the proposed
floodlights and fence is also conditioned to ensure the proposal does not adversely affect the adjacent trees,
consistent with policy EN7.
Other material considerations
Policies T13 (Adopted) and A10 (Review UDP) require proposals to make adequate provision for car
parking within the site. Policies DEV4 (Adopted) and DES11 (Review UDP) require development to deter
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
crime. Given use the proximity of the small site to the Liverpool Road bus route, I consider the proposal
does not require allocated car parking space and is accessible under policies T13 (Adopted UDP) and A10
(Review UDP). The proposed perimeter fence would contain the activities and equipment associated with
the proposal, thereby protecting vehicles from damage at the adjacent car park. Pedestrian access to the
BMX facility is provided from Irlam Pool car park. The proposed fencing would help to retain the users
equipment e.g. bicycles and skateboards within the curtilage of the site, thereby reducing nuisance to
neighbouring residents and damage to vehicles at the adjacent car park. The layout of the car park cannot be
controlled under this application and I do not consider that it would suffer a significant adverse impact as a
result of the proposal.
Loss of view is not a material planning consideration. The site would be secured by a fence and gates.
Whilst the facility is used, it is as at risk of vandalism and litter as other facilities in the rest of the park. I am
satisfied the proposal has adequate natural surveillance from the surrounding park and the use of the park’s
other facilities, consistent with policies DEV4 (Adopted UDP) and DES11 (Review UDP).
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
An amended location plan was received on 23rd September 2004, which shows the size and siting of the
application site to scale within Prince’s Park.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, as the site lies within the park, set 100m away from the nearest residential properties, I am
satisfied that there should be no adverse impact on the amenity of the park or nearby residents and the
scheme accords with the policies contained within the development plan. I have no highway or drainage
objections and there are no other material planning considerations that outweigh this view.
Therefore, I recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The fencing, gates, ramps and tarmac surfacing hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to
be agreed in writing prior to the commencement of the development by the Director of Development
Services. The approved colours shall be implemented prior to the first use of the scheme and shall be
maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
3. The floodlights hereby permitted shall ONLY be operated between the hours of 08:00a.m. and
22.00p.m. at all times the premises are in use.
4. This permission shall relate to the design and height of the floodlighting columns and lights in
accordance with the information and plans submitted with the application. Prior to the commencement
of development a lighting scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
Development Services. The lighting scheme shall provide details of the siting and colour of the
floodlighting columns, level of luminance across the site and level of light spillage outside of the area
of the proposal. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the first use of the scheme and
shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
5. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within 6 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
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.
2. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations,
including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other material considerations that outweigh
this finding:
Adopted UDP: R12/19 - Provision of Recreation Land and Facilities
EN3 - Protected Open Land
EN7 - Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
EN10 - Landscape
EN20 - Pollution Control
T13 - Car Parking
R4 - Improvement of Recreation Land and Facilities
DEV1 - Development Criteria
DEV2 - Good Design
DEV4 - Design and Crime
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th November 2004
Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan: EN7D - Wildlife Corridors
DES1 - Respecting Context
DES7 - Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES9 - Landscaping
DES11 - Design and Crime
A10 - Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
EN14 - Pollution Control
ECH1 - Provision and Improvement of Health and Community Facilities
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
50
4th November 2004
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
51
4th November 2004