PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
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:
Eccles
At the meeting of the panel held on the 4th November 2004 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY
PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Since the completion of this report, the applicant has provided a site contamination desk study. This study,
which was carried out by the Greater Manchester Geological Unit, recommended that an intrusive site
investigation be carried out before any development commences. Therefore, an additional condition has
been attached.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.
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
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
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:-
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
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
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.
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.
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
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
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.
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
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.
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.
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
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.
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
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
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
occupiers of the development. The cycle lock-ups shall be made available at all times thereafter.
7. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a site investigation report
for the approval of the Director of Development Services. The investigation shall address the nature,
degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an
identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act
1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and controlled waters. The investigation
shall also address the implications of ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on
nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental
receptors including ecological systems and property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Director of Environmental Services prior
to the start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the
approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to
the Director of Development Services for approval. The Site Completion Report shall validate that all
works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by 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 R024A Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
6. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
7. To ensure development that poses no unacceptable risk to human health.
Note(s) for Applicant
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
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
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
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
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
At the meeting of the panel held on the 4th November 2004 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY
PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
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.
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:
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
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
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
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
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
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.
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
(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:
04/49175/FUL
APPLICANT:
Wainhomes
LOCATION:
Site Of The Oaks Oakwood Drive Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a residential development consisting of 51 dwellings
together with creation of new access and associated landscaping
(re-submission of planning application 04/48254/FUL)
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
This application relates to The Oaks, licensed premises and function rooms of Manchester Road. The site
covers an area of approximately 0.7 hectare and is bounded by a recreation ground to the west, How Clough
woods and Site of Biological Importance to the east and south and by residential development on Oakwood
Drive to the north. Beyond a narrow tree belt to the south is further residential development on Woodside
Avenue.
The only vehicular access to the site is from Oakwood Drive.
The site falls from north to south by over 4m and is currently occupied by The Oaks and a two-storey
outbuilding with the remainder of the site being given over to grounds and car parking. The site contains a
significant number of mature trees and Tree Preservation Order 78 protects the majority of these.
It is proposed to demolish the existing buildings on the site and erect two three storey and one four-storey
blocks of apartments and a single three-storey detached dwelling providing a total of 51 dwellings, a
reduction of 10 dwellings . All the apartments would be two-bedroomed and the single detached property
would have four bedrooms. The first block would be sited approximately on the site of the current building
with the new detached building being located between the first block and existing houses on Oakwood
Drive. The second block would be located approximately 7m to the south and at approximately 1m lower
with the third block a further 27m away on the site of the surface car park at the bottom of the site at a level
approximately 2m lower than the second block. It is the second and third block which would be three
storey. The third block is that closest to Woodside Avenue.
The detached dwelling would be 13m from the closest dwelling on Oakwood Drive and the first block some
29m away. The third block would be approximately 2m higher than the closest houses on Woodside
Avenue and approximately 28m away from the closest house.
A total of 61 car parking spaces would be provided for the apartments. The detached dwelling would have
a double garage and drive.
With regard to trees on the site an arboricultural report has been submitted with the application. The main
conclusions of this report are that while there are a considerable number of mature trees on the site there has
been no management of these trees and many are in poor condition or are dangerous. The report lists a total
of 77 trees. Of these a total of 50 are recommended for removal. Of those 50 trees 41 are protected by
TPO.
The applicant has undertaken a bat survey. The main conclusions of this report are that there is no evidence
of bats on the site, but recommend that a further inspection be undertaken prior to the demolition of the
buildings.
SITE HISTORY
Members have considered a similar scheme comprising the demolition of existing building and erection of
one detached dwelling and three - four storey buildings comprising 61 apartments together with associated
landscaping, car parking and construction of new vehicular access (04/48254/FUL).
This scheme was refused by members of the panel. The following reasons for refusal were attached to the
decision:
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
1. The proposed development would, by reason of the passing and repassing of traffic on Oakwood
Drive and the resulting general disturbance, have a significant detrimental effect on the living
conditions of occupiers of dwellings on Oakwood Drive contrary to City of Salford adopted
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 and revised deposit draft Unitary Development Plan
policies DES1 and DES7.
2. The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the living conditions of properties on
Woodside Avenue by virtue of its proximity, height, massing resulting in overshadowing and
overdominance and would not be in accordance with City of Salford Unitary adopted Development
Plan policy DEV1 and deposit draft Unitary Development Plan policies DES1 and DES7.
In February 2000 an outline application for the demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of 27
houses on the site was withdrawn (99/39468/OUT).
In February 1986 planning permission was refused for the erection of 16 dwellings on the site (E/19409).
There were two reasons for refusal; firstly, that the proposed development would result in the loss of a
pleasant area of open land that, together with adjoining open land in How Clough to the east and Oakwood
Park to the west, contributes to the open character and environmental quality of the area generally and its
loss would thereby seriously detract from the amenity of the area, and secondly, that the proposed
development would result in the loss of a number of trees included within a tree preservation order and as
such would detract from the environmental quality of the area.
In September 1985 planning permission was refused for the erection of 19 dwellings on the site (E/18860).
The only reason for refusal related to the loss of trees and the resulting injury to the amenity of the area.
CONSULTATIONS
United Utilities – No objections in principle and provides advice
Environment Agency – No objections in principle
Director of Environmental Health – No objection but request a noise condition
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – No objections
English Nature – No response to date
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections in principle but provide advice about
detailed security matters.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
1 to 11, 11A, 15, 2 to 20 and Oakwood Lodge, Oakwood Drive
377, 377A, 379 and 340 to 346 Manchester Road
2 to 12 (e), 1 – 3 (o) Oakwood Avenue
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
11 to 19, 11A and 18 Woodside Avenue
28 to 68 Old Clough Lane
1 – 3 (o) East Lynn Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a total of 13 letters of representation / objections in response to the planning application
publicity. Many of the letters reaffirm the objections previously reported regarding the refused scheme.
The following issues have been raised:Loss of green space
Increase in traffic and creation of traffic hazard
Loss of local pub
Enough building in Worsley area over the last 10-15
years
Application forms have been filled in incorrectly
Insufficient car parking spaces have been provided
Lack of information about drainage of the site
Loss of trees
Loss of wildlife
Enough housing developments have been granted
permission already
Loss of privacy
The development will be overbearing, oppressive and
intrusive
Four-storey development is too much
Increase in noise and pollution
Overdevelopment of the site
Minutes of previous panel meeting inaccurate
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies:
Other policies
None
None
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 Meeting Housing Need, H6 and H11 Open Space Provision
Within New Housing Developments, DEV1 Development
Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, EN7 Conservation of Trees and
Woodlands, EN2 Development Within Green Belt, EN5 Nature
Conservation.
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
H1 Provision of New Housing Development, H8 Open Space Provision Within
New Housing Developments, DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
and Neighbours, ST11 Location of New Development, EN7C Nature Conservation
Sites of Local Importance, A8 Impact of Development on the Highway Network,
EN1 Development Affecting the Green Belt,
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of development on the site, the overall
level of the development on this site and whether this results in an unacceptable effect on the existing
treescape, the amenity of neighbouring residents, the local highway network or on nature conservation.
Principle of development
Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 on Housing is relevant in this instance. It encourages the re-use of
previously developed land rather than Greenfield sites, and encourages the efficient use of land by avoiding
developments of less than 30 dwellings per hectare.
This site is classified as previously developed land and its re-use is in accordance with PPG3.
Overall level of development
Policies H1 of the revised draft UDP states that all new housing development will be required to meet a
number of criteria that includes contributing towards the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within
the local area in terms of size, type, tenure and affordability; not lead to an oversupply of any particular type
of residential accommodation or otherwise result in an unacceptable impact on the housing market; provide
accommodation at an appropriate density for the site as well as being consistent with other policies and
proposals of the UDP. Policy EN22 and EN1 are relevant here. Both state that planning permission will not
be granted for development conspicuous from the Green Belt that might be visually detrimental by reason
of its siting, materials or design, even though it would not prejudice the purposes of including land in the
Green Belt.
PPG3 states that local planning authorities should encourage housing development that makes more
efficient use of land (between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare) and seek greater intensity of development at
places with good public transport accessibility such as city, town, district and local centres or around major
nodes along good quality public transport corridors.
Taking account of the proposed density of 72 dwellings per hectare, I am satisfied the scale of development
is appropriate having regard for the sites characteristics. The site would be well screened by existing trees
and not surrounded by existing residential development.
With regard to the Green Belt issue I am satisfied that the large number of mature trees that abut the site
within the How Clough SBI and Green Belt and that the land falls away into the Clough before rising again
some considerable distance from the site ensures that no development within the site, even one four storeys
high, will not harm the visual amenity of the Green Belt.
I therefore consider that the overall level of development is appropriate and that the development is in
accordance with policies H1 and EN1 of the revised deposit draft UDP. Moreover, the reduction in number
of dwellings from 61 to 51 continues to be supported by the principles of PPG3 in terms of density, but also
has regard to the previous reason for refusal.
Treescape
Policy EN7 states that the City Council will encourage the conservation of trees and woodland.
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
The City Council’s arboricultural officer has inspected the site. He is broadly in agreement with the
findings of the arboricultural report submitted with the application. In only one case has the City Council’s
arboricultural officer disagreed with the report findings that a tree should be felled. In other cases he has
recommended that trees be felled that the report stated could be retained. The referred to should now be
retained.
The site is surrounded to the east and south by large mature trees. All of these, with the exception of one
tree that is in poor condition and which the City Council’s arboricultural officer has requested be removed
by the developer, will remain. Within the site, the two main areas of trees will remain and the overall effect
of the tree removal proposed will, because of the lack of management in the past, will not have a significant
impact on views into the site from the surrounding area.
With regard to the City Council’s normal requirement for a two for one tree replacement the previous lack
of management of the treescape has meant that many trees are coming out for sound arboricultural reasons.
It would be impossible to replace all 82 new trees within the site and so I have investigated whether it would
be possible to plant some within the adjacent park. The Director of Education and Leisure would prefer to
see new trees planted within the wider area and would require a contribution to be made towards
management and maintenance of these trees. The applicant has agreed to make a contribution of £10 000
towards replacement tree planting within the locality.
.
Amenity of neighbouring residents
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the effects of a development on neighbouring residents. Policy DES7
states that developments will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity
of the occupiers or users of other developments.
Between blocks one and two the only windows that face each other are secondary windows. The buildings
do not affect residents of Oakwood Drive. I have carefully assessed the impact of the third block on the
amenity of residents of Woodside Avenue. This application has reduced the height of this block to three
storeys. Although the proposed three-storey development would be on ground 2m higher than the closest
dwellings on Woodside Avenue the mature trees within the How Clough SBI would substantially screen the
existing dwellings. A distance of 28m is proposed in this instance. All windows on the elevation facing
Woodside Avenue would be obscure glazed. The closest buildings do not directly face each other and a
substantial screen of mature trees within the How Clough SBI will remain. Taking account of this and the
reduction in the height of the block, I am satisfied that there will be no loss of privacy. The proposed
development would no longer be overbearing, oppressive or intrusive upon those properties on Woodside
Avenue compared to the previous four storey building which was refused.
Impact on the local highway network
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the relationship of the development to the road and public transport
networks. Policy A8 states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable
impact on highway safety or have an unacceptable impact on the ability of the Strategic Route Network to
accommodate appropriate traffic flows.
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
The Greater Manchester Transport Unit (GMTU) transport Statistics for Salford 2003 shows that the A6 in
this area has an annual average weekday total of 17,300 vehicles, a peak flow average of 2000 vehicles at
peak hour. The Trip Rate Information Computer (TRICS) gives a peak trip generation for this scheme and
the existing properties on Oakwood Drive of 35 trips within the busy hour of the day. This represents 1
vehicle every two minutes at the junction of Oakwood Drive and the A6.
It must be remembered that the existing development already generates significant amounts of traffic. It is
accepted that residential development will create peak traffic flows during rush hour but I am satisfied that
the A6, although busy during these times, can accommodate the comparatively small amount of increased
traffic generated by this development and that there would not be any significant amount of queuing to get
onto the A6.
Furthermore, as the density of the scheme has been reduced, the frequency of vehicle movements along
Oakwood Drive would also be reduced. As such, I consider that the number of dwellings now proposed
would not have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of those existing residents of Oakwood Drive. This
should also be considered against the background of the existing public house with function room use.
Therefore, I am satisfied that there would be no unacceptable effect on living conditions, the highway
network, highway safety or on the ability of the A6 to accommodate traffic.
Nature Conservation
Policy EN5 states that the City Council will seek to improve the environment for nature through the
protection of SBIs and that planning permission will not normally be granted for development that would
have an unacceptable impact on any site or would prejudice the functioning of a wildlife corridor or would
otherwise prejudice the implementation of the policy. Policy EN7C states that development that would
adversely affect the nature conservation value of an SBI will only be permitted where: the benefits of the
development clearly outweigh the reduction in the nature conservation interest of the site; the detrimental
impact on the nature conservation interest of the site has been minimised as far as is practicable; and
appropriate mitigation is provided to ensure that the overall nature conservation interest of the area is not
diminished.
There is currently an access road running alongside the boundary to the How Clough Site of Biological
Importance. The proposed site layout makes provision for significant areas of open space and I have
attached conditions regarding two for one tree replacement. I am therefore satisfied that the development
will not have any significant detrimental effect on any nature conservation interest and is in accordance
with policy EN7C of the development plan. The applicant has also confirmed that a sum of £10 000
towards replacement tree planting within the locality will be provided via a s106 planning obligation.
Representations not covered in main issues
The closure of a local facility such as this cannot be controlled through the planning process and The Oaks
could close whether or not this application is approved or refused. The amount of car parking proposed is in
accordance with Government advice regarding reducing reliance on the private car and is completely
appropriate in this location so close to the A6 and good public transport. Drainage issues will have to be
satisfactorily addressed and both the Environment Agency and United Utilities have no objections in
principle to the development but have provided advice. I do not consider that there would be any significant
loss of wildlife and the additional tree planting that will result from the two for one replacement tree
condition should ensure that the opposite is the case. I am mindful of the fact that it is not likely to be
possible to plant all the replacement trees within the site and therefore I have attached a condition requiring
agreement to be reached about the location of new tree planting in the adjacent Oakwood Park as well as
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
within the site itself. I do not agree that the development will result in noise and pollution. I would suggest
that instead, for those residents closest to these licensed premises, this development would represent a
reduction in noise and pollution. Whilst there was significant discussion at the previous panel meeting
regarding the amount of traffic along the A6, members resolved to refuse the application on the impact of
the traffic on the amenity of the residents on Oakwood Drive.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The developer has agreed to contribute £86,211 towards children’s equipped play space and open
space in accordance with policies H6 and H11.
Two trees would be planted for every protected tree removed and a proportion of these would be
planted in the local area via a contribution of £10 000.
CONCLUSION
The main planning issues relating to this application have been the principle of development, the overall
level of the development on this site and whether this results in an unacceptable effect on the existing
treescape, the amenity of neighbouring residents, the local highway network and nature conservation.
I am satisfied that there would be no significant effect on the local highway network, on the amenity of
neighbouring residents or on the existing treescape, Green Belt or SBI. I am also satisfied that the level of
development is appropriate on this site and that therefore the development is in accordance with both
national policy guidance and with policies in both the adopted and revised deposit draft UDPs.
I am satisfied that the reduction in the number of dwellings on the site and the reduction in height of blocks
two and three have reduced the impact upon the amenity of the surrounding properties to an acceptable
level in accordance with the adopted plan policies of this Council.
I therefore recommend that the application be approved subject to the following recommendation and
conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
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 commuted sum for, and
implementation of, equipped children’s play space and informal open space in accordance with
policies H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan in the local area to the value
of £86,211 and for replacement tree planting in the locality in accordance with policies EN7 and
EN10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan to the value of £10 000;
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;
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,
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
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 proposal would be contrary to policies
H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
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 within six months of the commencement of
development. Such scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences,
boundary and surface treatment and shall include two trees to be planted for every tree removed and
shall be carried out within 18 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. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
4. Standard Condition C05C No topping etc to Trees protected by TPO
5. 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.
6. Within three months of the commencement of development samples of the facing materials to be used
for the roofs of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
7. Standard Condition F03X Surfacing
8. No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision and implementation of a surface
water regulation system has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme.
9. Within six months of the first occupation of any unit Oakwood Drive shall be resurfaced in accordance
with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.
10. Prior to the commencement of development full details of the location and design of cycle stores and
recycling facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services. Such approved cycle stores and recycling facilities shall be constructed in accordance with
the approved details and shall be made available for use prior to the first occupation of any unit.
11. No development shall commence until a scheme for foul drainage has been submitted to and approved
in writing by the Director of Development Services. The development shall not be occupied until the
approved scheme has been implemented.
12. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, the existing gateposts to the entrance of the
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
site shall be moved to the back of the highway in accordance with details to be previously submitted to
and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The gateposts shall be retained so
positioned thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
4. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
5. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
6. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
7. Standard Reason R013A Use of parking areas
8. To reduce the risk of flooding in accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
9. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
10. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
11. To ensure the site is satisfactorily drained in accordance with Policy DEV1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
12. 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. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under Section 106
of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, prior to the granting of planning permission.
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
3. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment Agency.
4. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from United Utilities.
5. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Greater Manchester
Police Architectural Liaison Unit.
6. The development creates an opportunity for Black Poplars (Populus nigra) to be planted and the advice
of the Lancashire, Manchester and North Merseyside Wildlife Trust should be sought as to the most
appropriate way to incorportate it into the development.
7. 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.
8. 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
EN5 Nature Conservation
H1 Meeting Housing Need
H6 and H11 Open space Provision Within New Housing Developments
DEV2 Good Design
EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
EN22 Development Within Green Belt
APPLICATION No:
04/49192/OUT
APPLICANT:
A And B Motors
LOCATION:
Land To The Rear Of A And B Motors Lester Road Little Hulton
PROPOSAL:
Outline application for the siting of a workshop extension and car
parking together with associated landscaping
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
18th November 2004
Little Hulton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the rear of an established industrial unit on the Lester Road Industrial Estate. The
premises are currently used for the repair of motor vehicles. The site measures 0.46ha.
Outline planning permission is sought for the erection of a workshop extension and car parking area. The
proposal also includes a nature conservation area. Consent is only sought for the siting of the extension and
means of access. The proposal would be provided at the rear of the site. The extension would project 14m
from the rear (western) elevation. The majority of the site at the rear would be used for the parking of
vehicles awaiting repair.
The proposal would maintain 16m from the north western corner to the corner of the closest residential
property. The proposal would not directly face any of the residential properties on Manchester Road West.
The site at the rear is designated a Site of Biological Interest (SBI), Marsh and Pool at Greenheys. The
majority of the area identified as an SBI would be lost to facilitate this proposal. The proposal would
provide an alternative nature conservation area, which would be managed and maintained by way of a new
S106 agreement. It would comprise of three elements:A corridor of open scrub along the west side of the site and the Wharton Lane;
Marsh/wet ‘inundation’ grassland in the north/north east part of the site; and
Grassland on the north/north west bank.
It is proposed that this nature conservation area and strip would connect the marsh on the north side of the
site to the larger SBI known as, Ponds North of Cleworth Hall, to the south west of the site also in Little
Hulton. The proposal would match in size the part of the site, which is considered to have ecological value
at present.
SITE HISTORY
Planning permission was recently refused for an identical outline scheme (04/47874/OUT). The reason for
refusal states: “Insufficient ecological information have been submitted to enable the full
implications of the proposed development to be assessed.”
A public inquiry is time tabled for early next year with regard this refusal.
In 1996, planning permission was approved for the erection of 3 metre high brick boundary wall and 3.3m
high (96/35115/FUL)
In 1995, planning permission was approved for the erection of single storey extension to rear of vacant
building (95/34185/FUL)
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
The applicant agreed to enter into a Section 106 agreement as part of this approval to manage and
maintain the Site of Biological Interest. The agreement required a management plan “for the future
management maintenance and enhancement of the S.B.I.” to be provided within 6 months of the
commencement of development.
In 1994, planning permission was approved for the change of use from manufacturing/warehouse use to
motor vehicle repair centre together with associated car parking
CONSULTATIONS
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – Advise that the site has deteriorated since the site was last inspected
and the area of most ecological interest (marsh/marshy grassland with a characteristic species assemblage)
has reduced in size to an area not more than about 500m2 towards the centre of the site. This deterioration
has been caused by scrub encroachment on the site causing subsequent shading, drying and nutrient
enrichment. The marsh will continue to deteriorate and reduce in size and species diversity if action is not
taken to restore and subsequently manage the site. If no action is taken the site can be expected to lose its
important ecological features and will cease to justify designation as an SBI within 5-10 years.
The ecologist considers that the site could be restored albeit it would constitute a considerably onerous task
involving the clearance of encroaching scrub by cutting and uprooting, and then stripping a layer of topsoil.
Important plants will need to be moved from the site and then reinstated after topsoil stripping.
Management of scrub by cutting and uprooting would then be required on an annual basis to prevent future
scrub encroachment.
However, due to the condition of the site at present, the need to protect and enhance ecological value, and
the limited amount of important habitat which remains, the ecologist supports this scheme as it would
provide a new nature conservation area and preserve the remaining elements on the site of ecological value.
Details of drainage would have to be provided with the submission of any reserved matters application.
Director of Environmental Services – no comments
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Units 1 – 6, Garage Premises, Lester Road
231 – 243, 231A, 237 Manchester Road West
Wharton House, 6, 10, 11 Wharton Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one objection in response to the planning application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Lack of maintenance
Lack of enforcement has resulted in the current situation
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
None
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: EN5 Nature Conservation, EN9 Derelict and Vacant Land, EC4
Improvements to Employment Areas, DEV1 Development
Criteria
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
EN7C/10 Nature Conservation Sites of National Importance
E5 Development Within Established Employment Areas, DES7 Amenity of Users
and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the proposed development would result in
the loss of a Site of Biological Importance and whether the proposal complies with the relevant policies of
both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs and the implications for the living
conditions of neighbouring residents These issues will be discussed in turn below.
Ecology
Policy EN5 of the adopted plan states that the City Council will seek to improve the environment for nature
through:
ii) the protection of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Local
Nature Reserves and Sites of Biological Importance…
The reasoned justification states, “The preparation of detailed management plans and the use of
management agreements with landowners can provide the opportunity to ensure that such management is
carried out”.
Policy EN9 of the adopted plan states that the City Council will encourage the use of derelict and vacant
sites taking account of:iii) the existing and potential ecological and recreational value of the site…
As the applicant did not manage the site it has returned to its natural state, including some incursion of
scrub and drying out.
Policy EN5 also indicates that planning approval will not normally be granted for development that would
have an unacceptable impact upon such sites. The reasoned justification indicates that where development
proposals would damage a protected site, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that the potential
benefits of the development exceed the decrease in the nature conservation value of the site, and that such
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
decrease has been kept to a minimum and compensated for by appropriate habitat creation / enhancement
elsewhere within the or surrounding area.
Policy EN7C of the revised deposit draft replacement plan states that development that would adversely
affect the nature conservation value of an SBI will only be permitted where the benefits of the development
clearly outweigh the reduction, the impacts have been minimised and appropriate mitigation has been
provided to ensure that the overall nature conservation interest of the area is not diminished.
The previous scheme was refused due to a lack of ecological information. The application itself was
somewhat premature as it was provided at an inappropriate time of the year to fully assess the ecological
merits of the SBI. A survey has now been undertaken by the applicant’s ecologist and Derek Richardson,
Principle Ecologist at the Ecology Unit. This survey was undertaken in July of this year.
Although the site has deteriorated significantly since the time of the last survey, the GMEU, consider that
an area of 0.1ha of sufficient ecological merit to warrant the downgraded designation of Grade ‘C’, SBI.
The site has a net lost 0.3ha of ecological value since the last survey. The applicant is prepared to enter into
a legal agreement to safeguard and consolidate the existing SBI by way of a new management plan within
three months of the date of this decision. A legal agreement would also be entered into to safeguard,
manage and maintain the proposed nature conservation area. The ecologist supports the proposed nature
conservation area as it would safeguard the further loss of nature conservation interest on the site.
The proposal, albeit in outline, identifies an alternative nature conservation area which would be managed
and maintained. It would comprise of three elements; a corridor of open scrub along the west side of the site
and the Wharton Lane; Marsh/wet ‘inundation’ grassland in the north/north east part of the site; and
Grassland on the north/north west bank. This proposal would provide a similar level of land for nature
conservation when compared to the remaining land on the site considered of ecological value.
The benefit of this proposal would provide a specific area around the periphery of the site which would be
managed and maintained. The elements of ecological value would be relocated within this newly formed
area. Moreover, as the scheme would provide a grassland corridor along the western boundary, an
ecological link would be provided to link the proposed marsh/wetland to the SBI in the south west.
In conclusion, I consider that the proposed nature conservation area would benefit the site, ensure that the
ecological merits of the site are not loss forever and would connect this site with the larger SBI to the south
west. As such I consider that the overall nature conservation interest of the site would be retained and
therefore supported by policies of the adopted and revised deposit draft development plans.
Employment Use
Adopted policy EC4 seeks to improve employers operating conditions by encouraging the improvement of
land and premises and promoting improvement of employment areas generally.
Policy E5 of the Revised Deposit Draft UDP, Development within Established Employment Areas, seeks to
promote the re-use or redevelopment of sites or buildings within an established employment areas for
employment uses.
Therefore, the principle of the development accords with policies of the development plan as discussed
above in relation to the use of the site for employment purposes.
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
Siting 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
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.
The proposal would be sited some 16m (corner to corner) from the closest residential property. The
proposed extension would match the width of the existing rear elevation, projecting 14m into the site. It
would not be directly situated behind the closest residential property. As such I am satisfied that the
proposal would not result in an over bearing impact upon this neighbour as it maintain sufficient separation.
The car parking element of the proposal would continue to be screened by the mature trees along the
northern common boundary and the proposed nature conservation area. I do not consider that the parking of
motor vehicles in this area would be unduly noisy within the context of the wider industrial nature of the
area. I have attached conditions regarding the hours of operation pueumatic equipment to match those of
the original consent in order to safeguard residential amenity. As such, I do not consider that this element
would have any detrimental impact upon the neighbouring residential elements.
In conclusion, I do not consider that the amenity of the neighbouring residents would be unduly affected by
this proposal and would accord with the development plan policy outlined above.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the measures proposed to mitigate the loss of the SBI and siting of the
proposal is acceptable in this instance. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.
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 management and maintenance of the Site of
Biological Interest and proposed nature conservation area;
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 EN5 of the City of Salford Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
2. Standard Condition B01X Reserved Matters
3. The development hereby permitted shall ONLY be operated between the hours of 8.00am- 6.00pm
Mondays to Fridays and 8.00am to 1.00pm on Saturdays. The use shall only be operated for emergency
purposes on Sundays.
4. The use and operation of pueumatically controlled hammers and saws shall be contained within a
suitable enclosure inside the building the details of which shall first be submitted and agreed in writing
by the Director of Development Services prior to the use commencing.
5. Details of the vehicle spraying process including the position and design of any paint booth, the
proposed means of discharging fumes odours and other emissions associated with the vehicle spraying
process from the building, shall be first submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services prior to the use commencing.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
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
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
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:
EN5 Nature Conservation
EN9 Derelict and Vacant Land
EC4 Improvements to Employment Areas
DEV1 Development Criteria
APPLICATION No:
04/49241/HH
APPLICANT:
Kenneth Reeveley
LOCATION:
1 Bridgefoot Close Boothstown Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of side extension at first floor level over existing garage to
provide a granny flat and erection of a conservatory at the rear of the
property (re-submission of planning application 04/48420/HH)
WARD:
Boothstown And Ellenbrook
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached property on Bridgefoot Close in Boothstown, Worsley.
The proposal is for the erection of a side extension at first floor level over the existing garage to provide a
granny flat and the erection of a conservatory at the rear of the property.
SITE HISTORY
An application was received on the 14th May 2004 for the erection of a first floor side and single storey rear
extension, reference 04/48420/HH. This application was refused permission on the 8th July 2004 on the
basis that:
“The proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents at 9 Boothstown
Drive by reason of it size and siting, contrary to the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan Policy DEV8
and the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions”.
The applicant is currently appealing against this decision. The applicant has also chosen to re-submit the
same application for it to be determined by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel with the
support of Councillor Robin Garrido who e-mailed me to say “ I spoke to Mr & Mrs Reeveley shortly
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
after their last application failed and I am fully aquainted with the case. I feel there are adequate grounds for
the Panel to consider this revised application, which I fully support and ask that this be considered by the
Panel.”
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2 and 3 Bridgefoot Close
7 to 11 and 23 Bridgefoot Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any letters of objection to this application.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 and DEV8
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 and DES7
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the proposal would seriously injure the
amenity of existing residential properties and whether the proposal complies with the relevant policies of
both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs.
The City of Salford Unitary Development Plan (UDP) was adopted in November 1995. The Plan is in
review and a Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan was published in November 2003.
Policy DEV1 of the adopted UDP and Policy DES1 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan outline
the factors that will be considered when determining planning applications. These include the location,
nature, size, density and appearance of the proposed development and its relationship to its surroundings.
Policy DEV8 of the adopted UDP and Policy DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan state
that development will not be permitted where it would have an adverse impact upon the occupiers or users
of other developments in the vicinity.
The Council ’ s Supplementary Planning Guidance was adopted in December 2002 after public
consultation. It provides additional guidance on the factors to be considered and standards maintained when
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
determining householder applications. Policy HH3 of the SPG states that “ planning permission will not
normally be granted for a two-storey/first floor extension that does not maintain a minimum distance of
13m between its blank gable wall and facing ground floor habitable room windows of neighbouring
dwellings” .
Mr Reeveley informed the Council when he submitted his first application that he felt there were special
circumstances to consider when determining the application, as the extension would provide living
accommodation for his mother who is registered blind. The Council was however of the opinion that whilst
there are exceptional circumstances, those circumstances did not justify a departure diversion from policy
in this case. The Council therefore continued to apply policy as normal.
The relationship of 1 Bridgefoot to the rear of 9 Boothstown Drive is such that the proposed first floor side
extension would be directly opposite the rear elevation of number 9 Boothstown Drive. The proposed
extension would therefore create a blank gable wall which would stand 7.5m in height at a distance of 9m
from the rear elevation and the ground floor/first floor habitable room windows of number 9 Boothstown
Drive. This is 4m short of the minimum separation distance required by policy HH3 of the Council’ s
Supplementary Planning Guidance on House Extensions.
This failure to maintain the minimum separation distances required by the Council means that the proposed
development would have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity those at 9 Boothstown Drive
currently enjoy. The extension would appear as an overbearing and unduly prominent feature, which would
result in the occupants of number 9 Boothstown Drive experiencing a material reduction in daylight and
sunlight as well as having an overbearing and over dominating effect on the habitable room windows and
rear garden.
Mr Reeveley contends that despite being contrary to policy the proposed development should be granted
planning permission as the owners of number 9 Boothstown Drive have expressed their support for the
project. PPG1 does however state that local support or opposition is not a valid reason for granting or
refusing planning permission unless it is founded upon valid planning principle, which is not the case in this
instance. The Council feels that it is essential that their policies should be upheld in this case in order that
the residential amenity that current and future tenants/owners of number 9 Boothstown Drive can
reasonably expect to enjoy is maintained and the aim of the planning system regulate the development of
land in the public interest is achieved.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion I believe the proposed development should not be granted permission as it is contrary to
planning policy and would harm the residential amenity of the occupiers of 9 Boothstown Drive. I therefore
recommend the application to be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents at 9
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
Boothstown Drive by reason of it size and siting, contrary to the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan Policy DEV8 and the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions.
APPLICATION No:
04/49330/FUL
APPLICANT:
Mr A Nuttall
LOCATION:
Land At Junction Of Broad Oak Park And Brackley Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of a three storey building
comprising eight apartments together with associated car parking
(Resubmission of planning application 04/49002/FUL)
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of an existing bungalow at the junction of Brackley Road and Broad Oak
Park. The proposal is to demolish the bungalow and replace it with one three-storey block comprising eight
two-bedroom apartments. The development fronts Brackley Road and Broad Oak Park and the footprint of
the building is 29 metres by 16.5 metres and has been designed with recessed elements in the facades. The
building would be set back 7.5 metres at its nearest from the back of the pavement. The building would
result in an 11 metre gap between itself and 27 Brackley Road. Ten car parking spaces would be positioned
adjacent to the southern and eastern site boundaries. The existing vehicular access to the site, from Brackley
Road, would be utilised with vehicle gates set in 6.5m from the vehicle highway. The existing pedestrian
access to Broad Oak Park would also be retained. The majority of the amenity space is located to the front
of the buildings.
There are numerous mature trees at the site and overhanging the site from the adjacent gardens. The
majority of the trees at the application site and the tree overhanging from 27 Brackley Road are protected by
Tree Preservation Order (TPO) No. 100. The trees overhanging from 2a Broadoak Park Road are protected
by TPO 248. TPO 296 covers seven trees on the site. The applicant has submitted an arboricultural survey
which relates to trees at and around the site. This survey states that no trees are to be removed.
The application site is located within a predominantly residential area. The properties on adjacent sites are
all two-storey dwellings. There is a bowling green to the opposite side of Broad Oak Park. Whilst the site is
not within the Monton Green conservation area, the south and west boundaries to the site adjoin the
conservation area.
SITE HISTORY
97/37172/TPO - Crown thin by 10% and crown lift to clear the highway one lime, one silver birch and one
horse chestnut tree. Approved 15.12.1997.
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
03/45522/TPO - Crown raise to 6m above the highway, 1/3 crown thin and prune back from the building by
1m one Horse Chestnut (T1). Crown thin 1/6, and crown raise to 6m above highway one Birch tree (T2)
Approved 28.02.2003.
03/47143/FUL - Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of two three-storey blocks comprising eight
apartments together with associated car parking and creation of new vehicular access. Withdrawn by the
applicant 03.12.2003.
04/47635/FUL - Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of two - three storey blocks comprising
eight apartments together with associated car parking. Refused 20.05.2004. The reason for refusal being the
impact upon trees.
04/49002/FUL - Erection of a three storey building comprising eight apartments together with associated
car parking. Withdrawn 28.09.2004.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objection in principle condition proposed for site investigation.
Environment Agency – No objection in principle condition proposed for site investigation.
Monton Village Traders Association – No comments received.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 28th October 2004
A site notice was displayed on 29th October 2004
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
10, 12, 23 – 27 (o) Brackley Road
2, 2a Boddon Lodge, Broadoak Park
6 – 14 (e) Monton Green
1 – 8 Churchill Place, Golf View Drive
Worsley golf Club, Stableford Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received four letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. For the previous
application 04/49002/FUL I received seven letters of objection, whilst for 04/47635/FUL I received
fourteen letters of objection, and for application 03/47143/FUL I received sixteen letters of objection.
The following issues have been raised the current development of one three storey block:concerns over access – Broadoak Park Road is unadopted and in a poor state of repair, any increase
in traffic will advance deterioration. This road is also too narrow for more than one vehicle to pass
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
increase in traffic and associated dangers to elderly and children
quiet residential area will become dominated by flat conversions
erection of flats will be out of scale and out of character with area
development is out of character with the conservation area
concerns regarding replacement of bungalow with three storey building
too many flats are proposed
loss of trees
loss of property value
chaos during construction period
overdevelopment
loss of privacy and light to dwellings on Monton Green and Broadoak Park
development will impose on current views from surrounding dwellings
loss of privacy and light to 12 Brackley Road
strain on existing sewers and services
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP3 – Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
EN7 – Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
EN10 – Protected Trees
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that regard must be had to a number of factors when
determining applications for planning permission including the layout and relationship of existing and
proposed buildings and the effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for neighbouring properties; the
amount, design and layout of car parking provision and the likely scale ant type of traffic generation. 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. DP3 explains that new developments must
demonstrate good design. Policy EN7 states that the City Council will encourage the conservation of trees
and woodland. In addition the City Council has adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance with regard to
trees. Importantly this states that considerations for layout design should ensure that no building should be
located within the maximum spread of any tree and that in the case of residential buildings, a development
in which a principal window is overshadowed by a tree, or where any part of a tree is sited within 3.6m of a
window, will be resisted. The Guidance also states that private gardens should not be planned to include an
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
excessive proportion overshadowed by trees. I consider that the policies of the First Deposit Draft
Replacement UDP are generally similar in respect of this development proposal.
With regards to the proposed use of the site, I consider that the principle of residential development is
acceptable, given the existing use and the residential nature of the area.
With reference to vehicular access and traffic, I consider that the position of the access is acceptable in
highway safety terms and I do not consider that a development of this size, i.e. eight apartments, would
result in any significant increase in traffic generation. The main issues for consideration are therefore the
impact on trees, the design, scale and appearance of the development and its impact on the character of the
area and the impact of the proposal on existing residents in terms of privacy, overlooking and loss of light.
With reference to amenity distances, there would be a minimum of 26.5 metres between the development
and 10 and 12 Brackley Road opposite, I do not therefore consider that there would be any loss of light or
privacy to these dwellings. There would be a distance of 11 metres between the eastern facing side of the
building and the side windows to the ground floor of 27 Brackley Road, one of these windows is obscure
glazed and the other appears to be a secondary window to the lounge (there is a bay window to the front).
The floor plans for the proposed show there are no windows to this elevation as such I have no concerns
regarding privacy. There is a minimum distance of 8.5 metres between the proposed buildings and the
boundary with the rear gardens of 6 and 8 Monton Green and in excess of 24.5 metres between facing
windows, I do not therefore consider that there would be any overlooking of garden areas or loss of privacy
or light to these dwellings. There is a distance of 9.5 metres between the blank side elevation of the block
and 2a Broad Oak Park and approximately 16.5 metres to the first floor window that appears to be a
secondary window to the bedroom. Although I have received objections to privacy and sunlight/daylight
the scheme complies with Councils standards and I am satisfied with the resulting amenity of occupiers of
surrounding houses and future occupiers.
With regards to the siting, design and external appearance of the development, whilst the site lies outside
the conservation area, it is in fact immediately adjacent to it and the schemes impact upon the Monton
Green Conservation Area must therefore be given careful consideration. The 1:1250 block plan submitted
indicates that the proposed development would respect the building lines on both Brackley Road and Broad
Oak Park. This is an improvement on previous applications which showed one of the two blocks set forward
of the Broad Oak Park building line and therefore very prominent in relation to views into and out of the
conservation area. The proposed ridge height of the development is 11.3 metres, which is a similar height to
dwellings on Brackley Road (27 Brackley Road has a ridge height of 10.5 metres and 25 Brackley Road a
ridge height of 12.2 metres). The properties on Broad Oak Park are lower in height – the adjacent 2a Broad
Oak Park has a ridge height of 8.2 metres. I do not, however, consider that this additional height would be
detrimental to the streetscene given that the footprint of the building is set in line with 2a Broad Oak Park
and at a distance in excess of 13 metres. Similarly there is a distance of 11m between the proposed building
and 27 Brackley Road allowing defined gaps between the development and its neighbours. The length of
the block along Brackley Road is also similar to the length of 10 and 12 Brackley Road opposite. I consider
the mass and siting reflects the existing character of the street scene and also the adjacent Conservation
Area. The City Council’s Monton Green conservation area plan shows that two buildings with a similar
footprint were originally located at this site prior to being demolished for the existing bungalow. The
proposed materials and design do not directly reflect those of the surrounding dwellings, but I consider that
the design and appearance of the development would be of an acceptable standard in this location and does
not impinge upon the character of the streetscene or the adjacent Conservation Area.
With regard to trees at the site the applicant has amended his application following the previous refusal
which was based solely on the impact of trees that surround the plot when a horse chestnut was proposed to
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
be felled and the development did not comply with the SPG on trees. The tree survey submitted with this
application considers trees in adjacent gardens that overhang the site and addresses the fact that there are
Tree Preservation Orders within the site. This submission shows that the tree canopies would not overhang
the proposed buildings and the development does comply with the City Council’s SPG on trees. The SPG
recommends that a minimum distance of 3.6 metres should be maintained between the tips of branches and
habitable windows, which is achieved. The Councils Arborist has no objection to the development and as
no trees are to be felled I consider that the scheme also complies with policies EN7 and EN10.
The proposed car parking provision is in accordance with the City Council’s current standards and the
existing and proposed trees would provide some screening between adjacent gardens. With regards to
amenity space the amenity space is mostly situated to the front of the development and would be screened to
an extent by the trees and bushes surrounding the site.
In respect of concerns raised regarding noise and disturbance from construction, I consider that as this
would be for a limited period only, existing residents should not suffer any long-term effects. Other
objections relate to loss of property value, which I do not consider to be a material planning consideration
and the strain on drains/sewers, which would be a consideration for United Utilities should permission be
approved. I do not consider that the increased activity associated with the development would result in an
increase in crime.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The scheme has been amended over the course of the four applications for apartments and significantly so
since the refusal. The original two blocks are now one and are reflect more its surroundings in scale and
size. The impact upon trees has been negated following the submission of the tree survey.
CONCLUSION
I am satisfied with the proposals size, scale and mass in terms of its impact upon amenity of neighbouring
occupiers and upon the streetscene and also views into and out of Monton Green Conservation Area. The
proposal complies with Councils guidance on trees and the Arborist is satisfied with the submission and
minimal impact upon trees. The level of parking is appropriate and I am satisfied with the use of the existing
vehicular and pedestrian access points. I consider that the scheme does not conflict with adopted or
emerging development plan policies and recommend approval subject to the conditions set out below.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls and roofs
of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
3. No dwelling shall be occupied until the associated provision for off street parking has been completed
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
and made available for the use of that dwelling to the satisfaction of the Director of Development
Services. Such spaces shall be available at all times for the parking of a private motor vehicle.
4. Standard Condition M05 Site investigation
5. So far as they lie within the site, visibility splays of 2.4m by 90m; shall be provided at the junction of
the vehicle entrance/exit with Brackley Road; and shall thereafter be maintained free of any obstruction
over 1.0 metres; in height above the adjacent carriageway.
6. 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 twelve months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
7. No development shall be started until all the trees within (or overhanging) the site which are the subject
of a Tree Preservation Order have been surrounded by substantial fences which shall extend to the
extreme circumference of the spread of the branches of the trees as detailed in the acs consulting report
report dated October 2004. Such fences shall be erected in accordance with the specification detailed
within the acs consulting report report dated October 2004 and shall remain until all development is
completed and no work, including any form of drainage or storage of materials, earth or topsoil shall
take place within the perimeter of such fencing.
8. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a scheme detailing both refuse
and recycling storage facilities within the site for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. Once
approved such scheme shall be completed prior to the first occupation of any dwelling hereby approved
and shall be therefater maintained.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R014A Parking of vehicles - each dwelling
4. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
5. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
7. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18th November 2004
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. United Utilities should be consulted regarding details of drainage.
3. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied prior to
the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent renders all
development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the Council.
4. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in
the Salford City Council 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:
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP3 - Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
None
Other policies: DEV1 - Development Criteria
DEV2 - Good Design
EN7 - Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 - Respecting Context
DES7 - Amenity of Users and Neighbours
EN10 - Protected Trees
A10 - Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
5. For further information on refuse and recycling facilities the developer can contact Beverley Egerton,
Commercial Contracts Development Officer on 0161 925 1012.
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
39
18th November 2004
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
40
18th November 2004