PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL PART I

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th July 2006

APPLICATION No: 06/52188/FUL

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

Mr And Mrs Palmer

Part Of Garden Area At Side Of 7 Cavendish Road Worsley

M28 2TQ

PROPOSAL: Demolition of detached garage, erection of a detached dwelling and 2.1m high garden wall between the site and 7 Cavendish

Road

WARD: Worsley

At a meeting of the Panel held on 15 th June 2006 consideration of this application was

DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION

REGULATORY PANEL.

Since the scheme was last considered by the Panel I have received one further letter of objection on the grounds that the development would set a precedent for further similar development and that it is contrary to the Council’s normal privacy standards and to policies in RSS and PPG3.

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to land to the north-west of 7 Cavendish Road and to the south of Broad

Oak Road, Worsley. The land currently forms part of the garden area of 7 Cavendish Road. This application seeks consent to erect a new detached dwelling and a 2.1m garden wall to separate the proposed dwelling and 7 Cavendish Road.

The surrounding area is predominantly residential and characterised by large detached and semi detached Victorian and Edwardian dwellings with spacious gardens. The site is bounded to the north by Broad Oak Road. There are 2 cherries, mature bushes (2m) and a 1.8m high wooden fences along this elevation. In addition there is a mature ash tree situated at the garden of 14

Longley Drive which is in close proximity along this elevation. The ash is protected under TPO 109

(T28).

To the west are the rear gardens of 14 Longley Drive, with 12 Longley Drive to the south-west.

There are 6m high mature hedges along the common boundary between the site and these properties. To the south, the site is bounded by the rear gardens of 7 Cavendish Road, the proposed

2.1m garden wall would be placed along the boundary of the application site and 7 Cavendish

Road.

There are also a six hollies and one cherry set back from the edge of Broad Oak Road by 13m which are required to be removed in order to accommodate the proposed dwelling. These trees are not protected by tree preservation order.

The proposed dwelling would measure 7.1m to the ridge and 4.8m to the eaves. The footprint measures 9.5m (l) X 12.2m (w) at its largest points. It would be orientated north south with the

1


PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th July 2006 property set back 9.3m from Broad Oak Road. It would have an integral garage at the front and the first floor element of the proposed dwelling would also include a rear dormer. The dwelling would be constructed in brick with stone cills and a slate roof.

The vehicular access of the proposed dwelling would be provided by the existing driveway of the rear garage at 7 Cavendish Road, which would be demolished to accommodate the proposed dwelling.

The proposed screen wall would be set back 9.7m from the Broad Oak Road elevation. It would measure 25m in length, 2.1m in height and it would be situated 1m from the application dwelling and 2m from 7 Cavendish Road as it closest point. The wall would be constructed of brick with stone coping.

SITE HISTORY

There are three relevant planning applications relating to the application site.

In November 2003, planning permission was refused for the erection of a detached dwelling house

(03/47035/FUL). The reason for refusal was because by its size and siting it would result in a loss of privacy to the neighbouring residents and the proposed development would be out of character with the surrounding area because of its siting beyond the established building line to the detriment of the openness of Broad Oak Park.

In July 1997, planning permission was granted for the erection of detached garage and an accessway (97/36573/HH).

In June 1996, planning permission was granted for the erection of single storey side extension at 7

Cavendish Road to provide garage area and two-storey rear extension to provide kitchen/breakfast/utility room on ground floor and enlarged bedroom area on first floor and erection of porch at rear (96/35213/HH).

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – no objection, advice given.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

15,17,18,19,21,23,25,27,29,31 Broad Oak Road

10,12,14 Longley Drive

5 Cavendish Road

REPRESENTATIONS

2


PART I


I have received five objections in response to the planning application publicity. The following issues have been raised:-

Size and Siting contrary to the character of the neighbouring properties

Overlooking

Overbearing

Loss of amenity

Over development

Damage to the historic ash tree

No shortage of properties already available in the area

Additional cars – impact on Broad Oak Road

The proposal is within Conservation Area

The proposal did not overcome the previous reason for refusal

Would set a Precedent

On-Street car parking

Councillor Macdonald requested that it is determined by the Planning and Transportation

Regulatory Panel due to the potential impact to the neighbouring residents.

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

Site specific policies: None

Other policies: DP1 – Economy in the use of Land and Buildings

DP3 – Quality in New Development

SD1 - The North West Metropolitan Area

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:

Other policies: DEV1 - Development Criteria,

DEV2 – Good Design,

H1 Meeting Housing Needs,

T13 Car Parking

EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands

DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY


Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context,

DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours,

H1 Provision of New Housing Development,

A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New

Development

EN10 Protected Trees

PLANNING APPRAISAL

3


PART I


The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of the residential development, the impact of the development on the amenity of the area, neighbouring residents and the amenity provisions for future occupiers, the impact of the car parking and the impact of trees within the site and along the boundary of Broad Oak Road.

Principle of residential development

Policy DP1 seeks to ensure that development makes the most efficient use of land. Policies H1 of the Adopted and Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plans also seek to ensure that the City’s housing stock is able to meet the requirements of all groups within Salford by providing a wide range of accommodation.

Policy SD1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy states that development should be focused within the

North-West Metropolitan Area, which includes Salford. Paragraph 5.18 of PPG13 states: ‘ the

Government is committed to maximising the re-use of previously-developed land and the conversion of existing buildings to promote regeneration and minimise the amount of greenfield land being taken for development’ . This approach is reiterated in PPG3 with regard to Housing. The proposal is within the curtilage of an existing residential property. This falls under the definition of previous-developed (brownfield) land, as set out in Annex C of PPG3. Given that the character of the area is predominantly residential and the site is classed as previously developed land, I am satisfied that the general principle of residential development in this location is acceptable.

Impact of the development on the amenity of the area and neighbouring residents

Policy DEV1 seeks to ensure good quality environment and identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining applications. It requires development to respond to its physical context, respect the positive character of its surrounding, and contribute towards local identity and distinctiveness. DEV1 also seeks to ensure that appropriate access and parking is provided within the curtilage of the site. Draft Policy DES1 re-iterates this.

Regional Spatial Strategy DP 3 and the Councils Adopted Policy DEV2 state that planning permission will not normally be granted unless the Council is satisfied with the quality of the design and the appearance of the development.

Policy DES7 of the Draft Replacement UDP states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers of other developments in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout.

Council guidance normally requires that minimum separation distances of 21m should be maintained between facing habitable room windows and 13 metres should be maintained between two-storey gable elevations and habitable room windows in order to prevent any unacceptable detrimental impact in terms of overlooking and the proposal being overbearing.

The front elevation of the proposed dwelling would be oriented to the north. There are properties situated opposite at Broad Oak Road fronting the proposed building. This elevation would, at its closest, maintain a minimum of 28 metres to the front of the properties on the opposite side at the

Broad Oak Road. Therefore, I consider there would be no unacceptable level of overlooking or loss of privacy to the residents at Broad Oak Road.

4


PART I


There are no windows on the gable elevation of the proposed dwelling facing the rear of 14 Longley

Drive and the proposed dwelling would maintain a minimum distance of 18m to the rear habitable room windows of No 14 Longley Drive. The rear elevation of the proposal would maintain a minimum of 25m to the rear of 12 Longley Drive. 12 Longley Drive is also set at a sufficient angle so there would be no direct overlooking. Together with the 6m high mature hedges along the common boundaries, I am satisfied that the proposal would not have any unacceptable negative impact in terms of overlooking or loss of privacy to the properties at Longley Drive.

There would be two small ground floor habitable room windows on the gable elevation of the proposed dwelling facing to the side/rear of 7 Cavendish Road. Although the separation distance is only approximately 8m as its closest point between the two properties, the orientation of No 7

Cavendish Road means that there would be no direct overlooking between the proposed property and No 7 Cavendish Road. Furthermore, the proposed 2.1m garden wall would provide screening to the ground floor of two properties as such I do not consider it would result in any overlooking or overbearing impact for residents at No 7.

Although there would only be 5m between the proposed garden wall and the two small ground floor habitable room windows on the gable elevation as mentioned above, given that those are only secondary windows to the habitable room, I consider in this instance these windows are acceptable and would not have any unacceptable detrimental impact in terms of natural lighting and visual amenity to the future occupiers.

The 9.3m setback of the proposed property from Broad Oak Road means there would be a generous amount of garden area situated in front of the new dwelling. Given that 7 Cavendish Road would still retain a substantial amount of amenity space to the side and the rear of the property, I am of the view that the proposal would retain sufficient useable amenity space to the occupiers of 7

Cavendish Road and would provide adequate usable amenity space for the future occupiers of the proposed dwelling.

I am satisfied that the separation distances and the relationship between the proposed dwelling and the surrounding properties are content with the requirement by the Council. The development would maintain sufficient distance to the neighbouring properties to provide adequate aspect to the neighbours and future occupiers. Therefore it complies with Policies DEV1 of the Adopted UDP and DES1 and DES 7 of the Draft Replacement Plan.

With regard to the design I consider this to be of high quality. As aforementioned, the area of

Cavendish Road, Longley Drive and Broad Oak Road is characterised by large detached and semi detached Victorian and Edwardian dwellings, some of which are set back 8/9 metres from the public highway which forms a strong building line along Broad Oak Road. The use of architectural details such as mock tudor and building materials such as stone cills for the proposed dwelling would accord with the style of surrounding dwellings. The scale and siting of the proposed dwelling would also be commensurate with properties along Broad Oak Road. It would also overcome the previous refusal reasons of detracting the establish building line along Broad

Oak Road as the proposed dwelling would be situated 9.3m back from the public highway (Broad

Oak Road). It would therefore retain the established building line and the openness of Broad Oak

Road, which I consider accords with draft policy DES1.

With regard to the proposed garden wall, the height and materials (brick with stone coping) would harmonize with the surroundings and since it would not be visible from the street scene, I consider this is acceptable. Therefore, I am of the view that the proposed scheme will satisfy the Councils

5


PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th July 2006 policy requirements and is in accordance with Policies DP3 of the Regional Spatial Strategy and

DEV2 of the Adopted Council UDP and DES 1 of the Draft Replacement UDP.

Car Parking and Access

Adopted Policy T13 seeks to ensure that adequate and appropriate car parking is provided where necessary. This is reiterated in Draft Policy A10. The proposal would provide off-street parking for future occupiers as the new dwelling would have an integral garage. Although the proposal would result in the loss of an existing garage for No 7, I consider this is acceptable as No 7 contains another private driveway and garage at the side of Cavendish Road which they use as the main access and parking area. Therefore, I am satisfied the loss of a detached garage at the side/rear garden at No 7 Cavendish Road is acceptable and would not affect the parking provision at 7

Cavendish Road or increase on-street parking along Broad Oak Road.

The access to the proposal would utilise the existing driveway for the garage and it is unlikely that the erection of one detached dwelling would result in a significant increase in traffic and any associated problems in the area. I do not consider the proposal would restrict access for emergency and service vehicles and I have no highway objection in relation to this application.

As such, I am satisfied that the proposal would accord with the Adopted and Replacement Plan policies in this instance.

Impact on trees

Adopted Policy EN7 seeks to protect the City’s treescape and Policy EN10 of the Draft

Replacement Plan re-iterates this states that development that would result in the unacceptable loss of trees will not be permitted.

As aforementioned, there are a number of trees within and along the boundary of the site. The applicants have submitted a tree survey following a request from the planning officer and the

Councils’ Arboricultural Consultant has also inspected the trees on site.

The removal of the 6 hollies and 1 cherry in the middle of the site to accommodate the dwelling is acceptable as those trees offer minimal amenity to the area and are not worthy of protection. I therefore would not be opposed to their removal.

One flowering cherry on the periphery of the site facing Broad Oak Road has a crown spread radius of 5m and this could bring it within 3.6m of the lounge window on the front elevation. This conflict with the Supplementary Planning Guidance on trees. However, the Councils’ Arboricultural

Consultant considers that this could be rectified with careful crown reduction in accordance with

British Standard B.S.No.3998:1989. I have therefore attached a condition accordingly and therefore consider that the development would not have unacceptable detrimental impact to the flowering cherry along the boundary of the site.

Regarding the protected Ash tree (TPO 109, T28) in close periphery of the site, it would not extend over the proposed house and there are no principle windows within 3.6m of the canopy edge. The position of the existing garage and driveway is such that there should be no significant effect upon the aforementioned Ash. However, the tree survey suggested that the Ash should be carefully protected during the construction of new extension. I have therefore attached a condition requiring that during the construction period, the tree should be surrounded by substantial fences in accordance with British Standard BS 5839 and maintained until work is complete to prevent any

6


PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th July 2006 damage of the protected tree. The Council’s Arboricultural Consultant has no objection to this proposal.

I have also attached condition to request additional replacement planting in accordance with a subsequently submitted landscaping scheme to be undertaken in order to comprise the loss of the trees and ensure the amenity of the surrounding area.

In conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposal accords with the policies highlighted above regarding trees.

Other Issues

One of the objectors is concerned that this application would set a precedent for future similar schemes. All planning applications are however determined on their merits having due regard to the development plan policies and other material considerations. Should this application be approved it would not represent a precedent allowing surrounding properties to do likewise, but it would constitute a material consideration when determining any other similar applications in the future.

Regarding the objectors’ concerns about the dwelling being located within Hazelhurst

Conservation Area. I have consulted the Council’s Conservation Officer and he has confirmed that there is no such designation at the moment.

The objectors also raised the issues about the need for this development. I consider that the necessity for development in the local area is not material to this decision as it is down to market forces to inform the need for new housing development. I do not consider that such concerns warrant refusal of the application.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I am satisfied that the design of the proposal is of a high standard and acceptable within this residential context. I am also satisfied that the design and siting of the proposal would be in keeping with the surrounding residential properties and future occupiers without compromising the amenity enjoyed by neighbouring residents, future occupiers or the character of the area. The proposal has overcome the previous reasons of refusal in terms of loss of privacy and detriment of the openness of Broad Oak Road. As such I recommend that the proposal be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit

2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls, roof and garden wall of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the

Local Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaking using the approved materials.

7


PART I


3. No development shall be started until all the trees within (or overhanging) the site which are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order, with the exception of those trees clearly shown to be felled on the submitted plan, have been surrounded by substantial fences. This fencing shall be in accordance with the recommendations of BS5839 and a specification shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall remain until all development is completed and no work, including any form of drainage or storage of materials, earth or topsoil shall take place within the perimeter of such fencing.

4. No development shall be started until the crown of the flowering cherry along Broad Oak Road have been carefully trimmed outside the 3.6m from the lounge window on the front elevation of the proposed dwelling. Such crown reduction shall be in accordance with British Standard

B.S.No.3998:1989 (Recommendations for Tree Work).

5. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local

Planning Authority.

6. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a preliminary risk assessment on the potential for on site contamination has been undertaken and agreed by the

Local Planning Authority. If the preliminary risk assessment identifies potential contamination a detailed intrusive site investigation then prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the approval of the Local Planning

Authority. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of contamination and ground gases on the site and its implications on the risk to human health and controlled water receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA. The investigation shall also address the health and safety of the site workers, also nearby persons, building structures and services, landscaping schemes, final users on the site and the environmental pollution in ground water. The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of the survey, and recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site. A site completion report including details of post remediation ground conditions for the site shall be completed and submitted to the Local

Planning Authority prior to occupation of the site.

Reason(s)

1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

3. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees

4. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees


8


PART I


6. Standard Reason R028A Public safety

Note(s) for Applicant

1. The applicant is requested to contract the Council's Environmental Protection Unit should unsuspected contamination be encountered during the development of the site.

2. the applicant is advised that there should be no construction work (including access and egress for delivery vehicles) outside of the hours 8am - 6pm Monday to Friday, 8am - 1pm Saturday or any Bank or Public Holiday hereby approved by the Local Planning Authority.

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.

APPLICATION No:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

06/52239/REM

Carmen Associates

Site Of Formers Builders Yard Brakesmere Grove/Haysbrook

Avenue Worsley

PROPOSAL: Details of the siting, design and external appearance of 10-three storey town houses, 12- two storey dwellings and one three storey building comprising nine apartments together with associated landscaping, car parking and construction of new vehicular access

WARD: Little Hulton

At a meeting of the Panel held on 15 th June 2006 consideration of this application was


REGULATORY PANEL.

My previous observations are set out below:


This application relates to the site of a former builders yard at Haysbrook Avenue/Brakesmere

Grove close to the Little Hulton district centre. The site is bounded by residential property to the east and west, to the north is an office building beyond which is Haysbrook Avenue and the district centre. To the south is open land within the grounds of Woodlands Hospital. The access to the site would be from Brakesmere Grove. The proposal comprises a mix of apartments, town houses, detached and semi-detached properties.

9


PART I


Apartments -

There would be a three storey apartment block fronting onto Brakesmere Grove which would have nine two bedroom apartments with car parking at the rear.

Town houses -

There would be ten three storey town houses located along the southern part of the site, all with three bedrooms and an integral garage on the ground floor. Each house would also have a driveway and a rear garden.

Corner houses -

Three two storey houses would be located in the south west corner. The central dwelling would have three bedrooms and on either side there would be two bedrooms. All would have a car park space at he front of the properties and a rear garden.

Semi-detached properties -

There would be four pairs of semi-detached properties with three bedrooms, a driveway and a rear garden. Three pairs would be located to the west of the site and the other pair would be located centrally within the site.

Detached properties –

There would be two detached properties which would each have three bedrooms and driveway and a rear garden.

SITE HISTORY

Outline planning permission for the principle of residential development has been granted four times over the last 10 years:

1996 - 96/35560/OUT

1999 - 99/40108/OUT

2003 - 02/45282/OUT

2006 - 05/51946/OUT

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – a condition for a contaminated land investigation report has been recommended.

United Utilities – have no objections providing the site is drained on a separate system with only foul drainage connected into the foul sewer. A pair of public sewers cross the site and United

Utilities would not permit building over them however the sewers could be diverted.

Environment Agency – no objections.

Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – comments and advice has been provided on the lighting, landscaping, bin stores and the private amenity spaces.

10


PART I


PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 24 th March 2006.


Court Welfare Service, Haysbrook Avenue

2 to 6 Brakesmere Grove

30 to 48A Hulton District Centre

15 to 31 Armitage Avenue

1 and 3 Haysbrook Avenue

21 Haysbrook Avenue

‘Wicheves’ Haysbrook Avenue

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received two letters of objection, one with signatures from eight households and the other with signatures from four households in response to the planning application publicity. The following issues have been raised:

Increase in traffic

Headlights shining into windows of existing properties

Disruption during construction period

Access should be from Haysbrook Avenue


Site specific policies: none

Other policies: none



Other policies: H1 – Meeting Housing Needs

DEV1 – Development Criteria

DEV2 – Good Design

DEV4 – Design and Crime

T13 – Car Parking

H6 and H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments

DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY


Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development

A10 – Provision of car, cycle and motorcycle parking in new developments

DES1 – Respecting Context

DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours

DES13 – Design Statements

ST11 - Location of New Development

11


PART I


H8 - Open Space Provision Within New Housing Development

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The principle of residential development has been established through the previous outline planning applications. The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the proposed density and mix of dwellings is acceptable whether the design of the proposed dwellings is acceptable; whether there would be an impact on the amenity of residents as a result of the proposal; whether the proposed level of car parking is acceptable; and whether the proposed development complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted and Draft Replacement UDP. I shall deal with each in turn below.

Density and Dwelling Mix

Adopted Policy H1 states that the Council will endeavour to ensure that the city’s housing stock is able to meet the housing requirements of all groups within Salford by promoting a number of measures, including the release of land to accommodate new house building.

Draft Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area.

National Policy contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note number 3: Housing highlights the need to develop previously developed brownfield sites. It also states that where appropriate higher densities should be considered.

The density of the proposed development would be approximately 61 dwellings per hectare. The proposal includes a variety of dwelling types and sizes including two bedroom apartments and two and three bedroom houses for families. I am satisfied that this is an appropriate mix and accords with policies H1.

The development site is within walking distance of Little Hulton District Centre, and food supermarkets on Armitage Avenue. The site is accessible by public transport with bus stops being located on Manchester Road and on Armitage Avenue. As such, I consider the density to be acceptable and the proposal to accord with the thrust of the policies highlighted above.

Design

Adopted Policy DEV2 states that planning permission will not normally be granted unless the

Council is satisfied with the quality of the design and the appearance of the development.

Draft Policy DES13 requires applicants for major developments to demonstrate that the proposal takes account of the need for good design. A written statement should be submitted which explains the design concepts and how these are reflected in the development’s layout, scale and visual appearance, the relationship to the site and its wider context and how the proposal meets the

Council’s design objectives and policies.

A design statement has been submitted with the application that demonstrates how the development meets the design objectives and policies of the City Council. The existing properties in the immediate area are a mix of semi-detached houses and terraced properties. This scheme provides a mix of dwelling types to increase housing choice, which includes apartments at the entrance to the

12


PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th July 2006 site. The layout is such to allow accessibility and ease of movement whilst maintaining separation distances and providing car parking provision and sufficient private amenity space for future occupiers. The design of the front elevation of the apartments has been amended to include additional detailing and mock entrance features (entrance at the rear from car park) to improve the appearance of the entrance to the development and also provide a more interesting outlook for the residents of Brakesmere Grove.

I have attached a condition requiring the submission of samples of materials to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development to ensure that they accord with those of surrounding buildings and that they are of a suitable high quality.

Amenity of Users and Neighbours

Draft Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.

Draft Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.

The neighbouring residential properties are located to the east and west of the site. The layout of the proposed development ensures that the Council’s minimum separation distances are maintained. I am of the opinion that these distances are sufficient to ensure that the proposed buildings would not be overbearing, reduce the amount of light existing residents currently receive or result in neighbouring residents being overlooked. Consequently neighbouring residents would not experience an unacceptable reduction in the residential amenity they currently enjoy should the proposed development be implemented. This also ensures future occupiers will also have privacy and not be overlooked by existing properties. Each town house, semi-detached dwelling and detached dwelling has a rear garden and the apartments have amenity space for future residents. I therefore consider the proposal accords with the above policies.

Car Parking

Adopted Policy T13 states that the Council will ensure that adequate parking and servicing is provided to meet the needs of new development, in accordance with the Council’s standards and that car parks are designed to a high standard, with particular regard to access arrangements, surface materials, boundary treatments and security measures.

Draft Policy A10 states that the maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.

The access cannot be directly from Haysbrook Avenue as this is not within the red line boundary of the outline application. A total of 32 car parking spaces would be provided within the site and ten of the properties would have integral garages. Given the total number of units proposed (32), the proposed level of car parking is acceptable, particularly given the site’s proximity to Armitage

Avenue and Manchester Road and a number of bus services. The proposed provision is in accordance with the maximum car parking standards advocated by the government in PPG13 and in the Draft UDP. I have no highway objections and do not consider there would be an unacceptable increase in traffic. I therefore have no objections to the application in this regard.

13


PART I


Open Space

Adopted Policy H6 requires adequate provision of informal open space and children’s play within new housing developments. This policy is linked to Policy H11, which sets out a sliding scale for such provision.

Draft Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal open space within housing developments.

In accordance with the above policies, the applicant is aware that a contribution towards the provision and maintenance of an equipped children’s playground and associated open space in the vicinity is required. The total contribution in this regard would be £73,837. I have attached a condition requiring such a contribution. I am therefore satisfied that the application therefore accords with Adopted policies H6 and H11 and Draft Policy H8.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I consider that this proposal incorporates a mix of dwelling types and sizes, with good design. I do not consider that there would be an unacceptable impact on the amenity of existing residents. The application accords with the relevant policies of both the Adopted and Draft

Replacement UDPs. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.

It is recommended that authority be given for the Strategic Director of Customer and Support

Services to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to secure the future maintenance of the play area.

RECOMMENDATION:


1. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the materials for the external elevations and roof of all the buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

2. Prior to the commencement of development a site investigation report (the Report) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the

Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and

14


PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th July 2006 property. The investigation shall where appropriate include a risk assessment and an options appraisal including the remedial strategy.

The proposed risk assessment, including the sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of the site investigation survey.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Report including its risk assessment, options appraisal and recommendations for implementation of the remedial strategy.

Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works were completed in accordance with those agreed by the Local Planning

Authority.

3. The landscaping scheme hereby approved shall be implemented within 12 months of the commencement of development unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning

Authority.

4. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be started by the undertaking of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4)(a-d) of the Town and Country Planning Act,

1990 until a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act,

1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority, and the Local Planning

Authority has given its approval in writing. The planning obligation will provide that a commuted sum as required by Policies H6 & H11 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP 1995,

H8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003 and SPG7 Provision of Open Space and Recreation Space Associated with New Residential Development will be paid to the Local

Planning Authority for open space and recreation space purposes.

Reason(s)


2. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents


4. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space for future occupiers in accordance with policies H6 & H11 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP

1995 and H8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003.


1. Construction works shall not be permitted outside the following hours:

Monday to Friday 08:00 to 18:00

Saturdays 08:00 to 13:00

Construction works shall not be permitted on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays

15


PART I


Access and egress for delivery vehicles shall be restricted to the working hours indicated above.

2. The contractor who demolishes the building shall contact Salford City Council's Building

Control Unit to discuss demolition prior to work commencing.

3. The existing warehouse on the site has corrugated roof covering which is likely to be asbestos, removal of which is controlled under the Licensing Regulations and as such any work to remove these must be carried out by a contractor licensed by the Health & Safety Executive.

4. This planning permission relates to amended plans received on 23rd may 2006.

APPLICATION No:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

06/52478/TPO

Collinson Grant Limited

Ryecroft 10 Aviary Road Worsley M28 2WF

Fell 5 trees 4158, 4162, 4164, 4188, 4189. Crown clean 75 trees,

4145, 4146, 4147, 4149, 4155, 4156, 4157, 4159, 4161, 4163, 4165,

4166, 4167, 4174, 4175, 4168, 4169, 4170, 4171, 4173, 4176,

4177, 4179, 4180, 4181, 4182, 4183, 4184, 4185, 4187, 4190, 4199,

4191, 4192, 4193, 4194, 4195, 4201, 4202, 4203, 4204, 4207, 4209,

4210, 4211, 4212, 4213, 4214, 4215, 4216, 4217, 4218, 4220, 4222,

4223, 4224, 4225, 4226, 4227, 4228, 4229, 4230, 4231, 4233, 4234,

4235, 4236, 4239, 4243, 4244, 4245, 4246, 4249, 4225. Crown raise 13 trees 4145, 4146, 4147, 4155, 4159, 4179, 4190, 4219,

4228, 4236, 4237, 4249, 4255.

WARD: Worsley


This application relates to a large detached house in substantial grounds at the end of Aviary Road.

It was formerly used as a children’s home. The site which amounts to some 3 hectares is bordered by St Mark’s CE Junior and Infants School to the east; a public footpath and the rear garden boundary of houses on The Warke to the west; and the mainly single carriageway road that leads to

The Aviary, to the north. The site has a frontage to Aviary Road. There are a number of mature trees to most of the site boundaries and a wooded area to one corner of the site close to the southern boundary. A 2m high close-boarded fence surrounds the entire site. Worsley footpath no.59 crosses the site at the rear running off from footpath no.58 (which runs adjacent to the eastern boundary) and across the rear part of the grounds to join footpath no.61, which runs adjacent to the rear boundary of the site.

This application is a renewal of consent that was granted consent in 2001. The consent has now lapsed. Some works were carried out prior to the lapse of consent. These included felling 9 trees and pruning 6 trees.

16


PART I


The original application was to fell 22 trees and prune 72 trees. After a visit by the Council’s arborist, it was agreed that some of the works were inappropriate and the application was amended to fell 5 trees and prune 75 trees (some of the works had already been carried out). The application relates to 80 trees situated in the grounds of Ryecroft 10 Aviary Road. They are all mature trees and are situated on the boundaries of the site.

SITE HISTORY

In 2001 an application was made to fell 22 trees and prune 72 trees. This application was granted on

21 st September 2001 and some of the work was carried out. (01/42740/TPO)

CONSULTATIONS

The Council’ Arboricultural Consultant – No Objections to amended proposals.

PUBLICITY


St Marks C of E Primary School, Aviary Road.

1-15 (odd) The Warke

5-7 (odd) Aviary Road.

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 7 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The following issues have been raised:-

Loss of amenity to the area

The trees act as a noise barrier


Site specific policies: none

Other policies: EN13 Protected trees

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy EN13 states that we will encourage the conservation of trees and woodland by supporting the retention of trees, woods, copses and hedgerows.

The Council’s Arboriculturalist has inspected the trees and has no objections to the proposed felling of 5 trees as these trees are in decline. The trees would be located on the east boundary to with the school and to the south boundary.

He also has no objections to the proposed pruning of 75 trees as this is in line with good arboricultural practice and is basic tree maintenance. These works comprise a mixture of crown

17


PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th July 2006 cleaning and crown raising and are set out in a report that accompanied the application submitted in

2001.

CONCLUSION

I am of the opinion that the proposed works would not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the treescape. The application is for felling and pruning in accordance with good arboricultural practice and tree maintenance.

RECOMMENDATION:


1. Standard Condition C08T Time Limit - tree work

2. Standard Condition C09T British Standard - tree work

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R035A Situation to be reviewed

2. Standard Reason R036A Good aboricultural practice

APPLICATION No:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

06/52759/HH

Mr And Mrs Neufield

1 Cleveleys Grove Salford M7 4DE

Erection of a two storey front, two storey side and erection of part single/part two storey rear extension (re-submission of

05/51891/HH)

WARD: Broughton


1 Cleveleys Grove is a semi-detached corner property located at the junction of Cleveleys Grove and Welbeck Grove. The character of the area is residential with a mixture of semi-detached properties located on Cleveleys Grove and terraced properties on Welbeck Grove. The terrace properties on Welbeck Grove maintain a clearly defined building line.

The proposal involves the erection of a two-storey front, two-storey side extension and part single/part two-storey rear extension.

18


PART I


The side extension would project out 4m from the gable wall and would extend a total of 14.2m in length. It would be a maximum of 6.5m in height with a hipped roof. The corners of this extension would be cut on a 45-degree angle for 1m to accommodate the principle habitable room windows.

The front extension would be situated 3.9m from the common boundary with 3 Cleveleys Grove and would project 1.7m to the front of the application property. It would be 2.8m in width, 6.2m in height with a hipped-flat roof and would be attached with the proposed two storey side extension

The proposed ground floor element of the rear extension would be situated along the common boundary with 3 Cleveleys Grove. It would project a total of 5.9m from the rear main wall of the property. It would be 6.3m in width. It would be 4.1m in height incorporated with a glazed lantern/flat roof.

The first floor element of the rear extension would be located at the rear of the existing outrigger and would be situated 2.7m away from the common boundary with 3 Cleveleys Grove. It would project 0.5m from the rear outrigger before coming in on a 45-degree angle by 3.1m. The total rear projection would be 3.7m and would be linked to the proposed two storey side extension. It would have a total height of 6.5m with a hipped-flat roof.

SITE HISTORY

There are three relevant planning applications relating to the site.

Planning permission (92/30584/HH) was approved in September 2005 for the erection of a two-storey rear extension to provide an enlarged kitchen on ground floor and bedrooms on the first floor to 1 Cleveleys Grove and new porch and toilet to 3 Cleveleys Grove only.

Planning permission (05/51140/HH) was withdrawn in August 2005 for the erection of two-storey side and rear extension, single storey rear extension and front porch.

Planning permission (05/51891/HH) was withdrawn in February 2006 for the erection of a two-storey side/rear extension and part single/part two-storey rear extension (re-submission of planning application 05/51140/HH).

PUBLICITY


19, 36-48(even) Welbeck Grove

2,3 Cleveleys Grove

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application publicity.

19


PART I


Councillor Wilson has requested the application be determined by the panel due to special family circumstances.

The applicant has submitted a letter in regarding to the family circumstances. The following issues being raised:

Lack of children play spaces for the large family

Lack of basic facilities for the large family (Bathroom, Kitchen)

Lack of socialising spaces with friends

Lack of Kitchen and Dining spaces for the large family

Lack of Utility Room

No enough bedrooms for the children

The agent has submitted a letter and several photographs to indicate that similar extensions have been approved in close proximity which have been approved contrary to current planning policy.


None



Other policies: DES7- Amenity of Users and Neighbours

DES8- Alterations and Extensions

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are the impact of the proposed extensions on the street scene and whether the proposal complies with the relevant policies of both the Adopted

Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) –

House Extensions.

Policy DES7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan state that development will not be permitted where it would have an adverse impact upon the occupiers or users of other developments in the vicinity or would have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the street scene.

Policy DES8 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan state that any alterations or extensions to existing buildings should respect the general scale, character, proportions, details and materials of the original structure and complement the general character of the surrounding area while ensuring that the resultant building appears as an attractive and coherent whole.

The Council’s Draft SPD – House Extensions has been subject to public consultation and the final document is due to be approved by Council on 19 th July 2006 and should be given substantial weight when determining householder applications. It provides additional policy guidance on determining householder planning applications.

20


PART I


Impact of the extensions on the amenity of the neighbouring residents

Rear Extensions

Policy HE5 of the draft SPD states that single storey rear extension along the common boundary that exceed 3m in length will not normally be granted planning permission. Extensions that exceed

3m will normally be granted provided they do not project beyond a 45 degree line drawn from the mid point of any ground floor habitable room windows to adjacent properties. Although the proposed part single storey element of the rear extension projects more than 3m, it would not project beyond the 45-degree line drawn from the mid-point of any principle window in the adjoining dwelling and would therefore comply with Policy HE5. The glazed lantern/flat roof would not be visible from the street scene and is considered acceptable.

The rear of the application property is directly facing the gable of 19 Welbeck Grove. 19 Welbeck

Grove does not contain any windows on the gable elevation and there is 11.5m between the gable wall and the rear elevation of the application property. Since the proposed part single storey rear extension does not contain any habitable room windows, I consider the relationship between the single storey element of the rear extension and 19 Welbeck Grove is acceptable.

The proposed part two-storey element of the rear extension contains a habitable room window at 1 st floor level. Due to the siting and the orientation of the extension, the proposed habitable room window would be set at an angle to 19 Welbeck Grove and would look across Welbeck Grove.

Policy HE7 of the SPD indicates that in the absence of an extension along the common boundary to the adjoining dwelling, planning permission will normally granted for a two storey/first floor extension provided its projection is equal to or less than its distance from the nearest common boundary. I consider that the proposed rear extension would comply with the principles of Policy

HE 7 as the first 2.8m of the rear extension (including part of the existing outrigger) would be equal to the distance from the nearest common boundary. The proposed part-two storey element of the rear extension would not have any unacceptable detrimental impact to the residents at 3 Cleveleys

Grove.

The proposed extension would retain a small amount of rear yard area to provide sufficient amenity space to the occupiers at 1 Cleveleys Grove.

Draft SPD Policy HE11 states that extensions should maintain a hardstanding of 4.8m in length and

2.4 m in width to accommodate at least one car clear of the highway or unless it can be clearly demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable impact on highway safety and the free flow of traffic. Given that the off-street parking spaces at 1 Cleveleys Grove are located at the rear of the property and are to be retained, the proposal complies with Draft SPD policy HE11.

Front extension

I am of the opinion that the siting of the front extension would not have any overshadowing impact to the neighbouring property at 3 Cleveleys Grove as it would be sited 3.7m from the common boundary and would only project 1.7m in depth.

Given that there would be minimum of 20m from the front extension to the properties on the opposite side of Cleveleys Grove and the proposed 1 st floor habitable room would look out across

21


PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th July 2006 the junction of Welbeck Grove and Cleveleys Grove I do not consider there would be an unacceptable impact to the properties opposite the road.

Side extension

There would be a minimum distance of 18m between the gable of the proposed side extension and the terraced properties on the opposite side of Welbeck Grove. Given that all the principle habitable room windows for the proposed side extension would be set at an angle to the properties along

Welbeck Grove and the two non-principle ground floor habitable room windows would be screened by the 2.5m high mature hedges along the side boundary, I consider the proposal would not have any overbearing or overlooking impact on nearby residents.

French doors would serve the playroom/dining room at the rear of this element of the proposal.

SPD Policy HE2 indicates that extensions should not introduce windows or open aspects close to or directly overlooking the gardens of neighbouring dwellings. In this case, there would be 4.9m to the common boundary with the front garden of 19 Welbeck Grove. The front garden is already overlooked from the street and I do not consider that overlooking from the proposed playroom would cause any significant loss of privacy.

Impact of the development on the amenity of the area

With regard to the design of the proposals, I consider the scheme would not respect the general scale, character, and proportions of the original building and the surrounding area.

SPD Policy HE10 requires that a minimum 2m-separation distance is maintained between the proposed gable wall of a side extension and the boundary with the pavement. This is to preserve the building line of the street scene and prevent an extension dominating the street scene. The proposed two-storey side extension would project out from the side of existing gable elevation by

4m. This would result in a two-storey gable elevation being only 1.2m from the boundary with

Welbeck Grove. There is a well-defined building line on Welbeck Grove and the property is located on a prominent corner site. As such the proposed two-storey side extension would form a very obvious and incongruous feature and have a significant detrimental impact on the street scene.

The scale and character of the proposed extensions would be out of keeping with the existing dwelling and other properties on Cleveleys Grove. The massing and design of the side elevation facing Welbeck Grove, in conjunction with its siting close to the boundary, would be detrimental to the streetscene.

The proposed design of the extensions would also not be appropriate to the original dwelling. Draft

SPD section 5.2 and 5.3 states that any extensions should normally be designed to appear subordinate to the original dwelling, particular to the built form, scale and proportions, the roof form and pitch, the shape, size, proportion and alignment of the window and door etc. The corner windows and the two small non-habitable room windows at the first floor side extension would not respect the fenestration details of the original dwelling.

Cumulatively this could lead to erosion of the character or amenity of the area. This is considered contrary to Adopted UDP Policy DES7 and DES 8.

Other Issues

22


PART I


Regarding to the additional letter from the applicant regarding to their family circumstances.

Council’s SPD section 14.1 states that personal circumstances such as specific requirements of minority group may make it difficult to provide necessary facilities within the standards set out in the SPD. The council may therefore interpret these standards flexibly in such circumstances, but the proposals that significantly deviate from the SPD are still unlikely to be appropriate.

I have taken into consideration the personal circumstances raised by the applicant. While I recognise that due to the religious beliefs and the size of the applicant’s family, there is a need for a bigger house to provide the necessary facilities that suit their needs, I am of the opinion that the scale, massing, siting and design of the proposal would be contrary to the policies and advice set out in the Council’s SPD on House Extensions and the personal circumstances of the applicant do not outweigh the harm created by the development.

The agent raised the issues that there are similar precedents which have been built in close proximity which has been granted planning consent that do not conform to current planning policy.

Detailed inspection was carried out regarding the issues raised by the agent and I acknowledge that most of the extensions referred by the agent (No 17 Castleton Road, 50 Tully Street, 15 Cleveleys

Grove) were recommended refusal by planning officer, but planning consent was granted either by the planning panel or upheld by the planning inspector in planning appeal.

Although it is recognised that previous decisions are a material consideration, no two sites are the same and this proposal should be considered on its own merits.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, although the personal circumstances raised by the applicant are a material consideration, they do not outweigh the impact of the siting, scale, massing and design of the proposal on the streetscene. As such I recommend that the proposal be refused.

RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:

1. The proposed side extension would be within 2m of the side boundary, and would project out

4m from the side of the dwelling resulting in an obtrusive feature in the street scene to the detriment of the character of the area contrary to HE9 of the draft Supplementary Planning

Document- House Extensions and DES8 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development

Plan

2. The proposed extensions, due to their siting, scale, massing and design would be out of character with the original dwelling and the surrounding properties. It would have an adverse impact upon the street scene, contrary to the guidance in Draft Supplementary Planning

Guidance - House Extensions and Policy DES8 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary

Development Plan.

APPLICATION No:

APPLICANT:

06/52752/FUL

City Spirit Regeneration (Salford) Ltd _ Salford Inpartners

23


PART I


LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

Land On Bond Square Salford

Erection of two/three/four storey buildings comprising 12 dwellinghouses and 40 apartments together with associated landscaping, car parking and alteration to existing and construction of new vehicular and pedestrian accesses

WARD: Broughton


The site is currently vacant. The dwellings which previously occupied the site have been demolished. Devonshire Street bounds the site to the north, two-storey residential properties sit to the east, south and west of the site with Leicester Road to the east, Bennett Drive to the south and

Dixon Avenue to the west. The application site is included in the area covered by Supplementary

Planning Guidance for the Higher Broughton Regeneration Area (SPG5), which was adopted in

September 2003. In Higher Broughton, the City Council has established a partnership with the

Royal Bank of Scotland and City Spirit. This aims to transform the area into a safe, sustainable, attractive neighbourhood.

The proposal is for a horseshoe shaped development, the houses to the east and west of the site would be two storeys in height with accommodation within the roof space, the apartment block to the south would range in height from three to four storeys. A total of 52 residential units are proposed including six three bedroom houses, six two bedroom houses, five one bedroom apartments and thirty five two bedroom apartments.

Vehicular access to the site would be via Devonshire Street into a new courtyard and to new access road leading to existing properties on Bond Square Forty one parking spaces including four disabled spaces within a front courtyard, seven spaces to the east of the site and ten spaces to the south including six visitors spaces. In total, 58 car parking spaces would be provided.

A letter from Contour Housing has been submitted with the application. This advises that 11 units within this scheme are being used to assist in the relocation of existing residents in the Higher

Broughton Area. Contour Housing has been allocated a Social Housing Grant from the Housing

Corporation to fund the development of 30 units contained within the development.

A Sustainability Planning Report has been submitted with the application. This provides an outline technical appraisal of the regulations/guidance that apply, the energy options considered and the recommendations for energy conservation measures.

SITE HISTORY

04/49315/FUL – Use of land for a period of 12 months for the tipping of soil from adjacent redevelopment site – Permitted.

CONSULTATIONS

24


PART I


United Utilities – have no objection to the proposal provided that the site is drained on a separate system, with foul drainage only connected into the foul sewer

The Environment Agency has no objection in principle to the proposed development.

Director of Environmental Services – Past uses including regular fly tipping will necessitate the inclusion of a full contaminated land condition. Noise from outside sources is not likely to be an issue for this proposal. The internal layout plans suggest that incompatible uses have been located adjacent to each other i.e. bedrooms adjacent to access corridors and lounges in separate occupancy. As a result, an internal soundproofing scheme should be submitted.

Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – Various comments received. A ‘secure by design’ condition to be attached.

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive has no additional comments to make further to their response to outline application (05/51876/OUT) for the comprehensive redevelopment of the

Higher Broughton area. This expresses the wish for a bus stop on the Leicester Road frontage of the site to be maintained in its current location.

Ramblers’ Association – no comments received to date.

Peak and Northern Footpath Society – no comments received to date.

Open Spaces Society – no comments received to date.

Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – no comments received to date.

Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – no comments received to date.

PUBLICITY

Four site notices were displayed on site on the 26 th May 2006. An advertisement was placed in the local press.


1 and 3 Rigby Street

1A Leicester Road

1 –1 6 (inclusive) Dixon Avenue

16 – 32 (evens) Devonshire Street

53 – 87 (odds) Devonshire Street

2 – 12 (evens) Bond Square

13 – 46 (inclusive) Bond Square

48 – 52 (evens) Bond Square

2 – 46 (evens) Bennett Drive

REPRESENTATIONS

No representations have been received in response to this application.

25


PART I



Site specific policies: None.

Other policies: DP3:

SD1:

Quality in New Development

The North West Metropolitan Area – Regional Poles and

Surrounding Areas.


Site specific policies: None.

Other policies: H1:

H8:

Provision of New Housing Development.

Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing

DES1:

DES7:

Development

Respecting Context.

Amenity of Users and Neighbours.

DES10: Design and Crime

DES11: Design Statements

A10: Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New

Developments

SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT

The Salford City Council Supplementary Planning Guidance 5, Higher Broughton Regeneration

Area adopted 17 th September 2003 (SPG) relates to a 16 hectare area of Higher Broughton where an area based comprehensive redevelopment initiative is underway. An indicative masterplan has been produced showing how the initiative area could be redeveloped. This includes a range of new housing, including both high quality family housing and affordable housing around Bond Square.

A primary objective of the initiative is to create an attractive site for new housing development, which will improve the mix of dwellings within the local area.

Other draft Supplementary Planning Documents which are of relevance to the determination of this application include Design and Crime, Trees and Development and Planning Obligations.

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The key issues to be considered in the determination of this application are: whether the principle of the proposal is acceptable; whether there would be any impact on the amenities of residents; whether the design is acceptable; whether there would be sufficient parking; whether there would be an appropriate contribution towards the provision of open space; and whether the proposed development accords with the provisions of the adopted Unitary Development Plan. I shall deal with each of these in turn.

Principle of the Proposal

Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute towards the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area.

26


PART I


The Higher Broughton SPG and masterplan envisage residential developmen5=t on this site. I am therefore satisfied that the principle of residential development is acceptable. A mixture of two and three bedroom houses and one and two bedroom apartments are proposed. I am satisfied that the proposal would contribute to the provision of a mixture of dwelling types and sizes in the area and would facilitate the regeneration of the wider Higher Broughton area. The application therefore accords with Policy H1.

Impact on Residential Amenity

Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.

At its closest point, the proposed two storey dwellings along the western side of the site would be approximately 14.6 metres from properties within Dixon Avenue. These properties do not appear to have any habitable room windows in the rear elevations facing the application site. The southern side would be situated 17.4 metres from the gable end of 41 Bennett Drive which does not include any habitable room windows. It would be 19.2 metres at its closest point from the habitable room windows within the rear elevations of three properties within Bennett Drive. The eastern side would be situated 12.2 metres from the gable end of 24 Devonshire Street which does not contain habitable room windows and in excess of 30 metres from the rear elevations of properties within Leicester Road.

This level of separation between the proposed development and the existing neighbouring properties is sufficient, having regard to the regeneration benefits of the scheme and the limited reduction in the Council’s normal standards. I am satisfied that the application would not result in an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of residents due to overlooking or loss of privacy. The application therefore accords with Policy DES7.

Design

Policy DES1 requires development to respond to their physical context and to respect the character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.

Policy DES10 encourages greater consideration of crime prevention and personal and property security in the design of new development. Regard will be had to a number of factors including the provision of security features.

Policy DES11 requires applicants for major developments to demonstrate that the proposal takes account of the need for good design. A written statement should be submitted which explains the design concepts and how these are reflected in the development’s layout, scale and visual appearance, the relationship to the site and its wider context and how the proposal meets the

Council’s design objectives and policies.

In accordance with Policy DES11, the applicant has submitted a design statement which outlines design concepts. Within the statement, the applicant has confirmed that the design of the dwellings has been influenced by the community consultation. The proposed development includes a range of heights with pitched roofs to the houses and a flat roof to the apartment block. The use of

27


PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th July 2006 different roof types and heights reduces the overall massing. The use of a mixture of materials adds interest and variety to the scheme.

I am satisfied that the design of the proposal is acceptable and that it would be in keeping with the proposals for the regeneration of the remainder of the area.

The proposed materials would consist of render, brick, spandrel panels, cladding panels, timber effect panels and slate effect roof. A condition would be attached to any planning consent requiring the submission of sample materials to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development. I am satisfied that this will ensure that the materials are of a sufficiently high quality.

I therefore have no objections to the application in this regard.

A boundary treatment plan has been submitted along with detailed elevations of all boundary treatments. The boundary between rear gardens will consist of 1.5 metre timber fencing with a 1.8 metre timber fence to the end of the rear gardens. Front garden areas and parking spaces 36-42 would be bounded by 700 mm high metal railings. A 1250 mm high brick boundary wall to match the brickwork on the building would form the boundary to the south of plot 17. The Devonshire street elevation would be bounded by 1.8 metre high brickwork and railing wall to the parking courtyard with the north side of plots 52 and 1 bounded by a 1.8 metre brick wall. The boundary treatments are acceptable, both in visual amenity terms and in relation to safety and security.

The applicant has confirmed that the vehicular gates to the courtyard would be automatic sliding gates as annotated on the site layout plan despite the gates appearing to be hinged on the layout plan. A condition would be attached to any planning consent ensuring that these gates be sliding automatic gates.

Overall, I am of the opinion that the proposed development would have a positive impact upon the visual amenity of the area as the building will add value and quality to the built environment in accordance with Policy DES1.

Car Parking

Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and motorcyclists in accordance with the Council’s minimum standards. It also states that the maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded and parking facilities should be provided in a manner consistent with the provision and maintenance of adequate standards of safety and security.

There would be a total of fifty-eight car parking spaces, four of which would be disabled spaces and six of which would be visitor spaces. There would be cycle storage to accommodate cycles within the front courtyard.

In light of the Council’s maximum car parking standards to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, and the sites proximity within reasonable walking distance of Bury New Road which is a major public transport route, I consider the level of proposed car parking to be acceptable and in accordance with Policy A10. I therefore have no objections to the application on highway grounds.

Public Open Space S106

28


PART I


Policy H8 requires adequate provision of formal and informal open space within housing development.

In accordance with the above policy, the applicant has agreed to make a contribution of £84,780 towards public open space in the vicinity of the site. I have attached a condition requiring such a contribution. I am therefore satisfied that the residents of the proposed development would have access to adequate open space and I have no objections to the application in this regard.

Other Issues

The application will necessitate that closure of a number of roads and I have attached a condition requiring the relevant closure orders to be obtained prior to the commencement of the development.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the proposed development would make efficient use of a previously developed site within the urban area. Given the previous use of the site, the principle of residential development is acceptable. The scheme would have significant regenerative benefits for Higher Broughton and would not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. The design is such that the proposed dwellings would make a positive contribution to the surrounding area. The application accords with the relevant policies of the UDP. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.

It is recommended that authority be given for the Strategic Director of Customer and Support

Services to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act.

RECOMMENDATION:


1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the materials for the external elevations and roof of the building shall be submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

3. No development shall be commenced unless and until a site investigation report (the Report) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and property. The investigation shall where appropriate include a risk assessment and an options appraisal including the remedial strategy.

29


PART I


The proposed risk assessment, including the sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of the site investigation survey.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Report including its risk assessment, options appraisal and recommendations for implementation of the remedial strategy.

Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works were completed in accordance with those agreed by the Local Planning

Authority.

4. Prior to the commencement of any development on site, the applicant shall submit for written approval a scheme detailing any necessary soundproofing measures to the building structure to protect against the effects of sound affecting residences in separate occupancy. The scheme shall particularly detail any improvements to the soundproofing between adjacent incompatible rooms in separate occupancy - eg. Bedrooms adjacent to lounges or communal corridors. Once agreed, all additional mitigation measures as identified in the report shall be implemented and retained thereafter.

5. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not commence until a Planning

Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority, and the Local Planning Authority has given its approval in writing. The planning obligation will provide that a commuted sum as required by

Policy H8 of the City of Salford Adopted Unitary Development Plan and the Draft Salford

Greenspace Strategy 2006 will be paid to the Local Planning Authority for open space and recreation space purposes and for local environmental improvements or such purposes as agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority

6. Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved the 58 car parking spaces and cycling parking area as shown in drawing number (08) 002 B shall be made available for use.

They shall remain available for use at all times.

7. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted and surface treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

8. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme showing the provision of waste recycling facilities within the site shall be submitted to and approved by the

Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved, unless agreed otherwise, in writing by the Local

Planning Authority.

9. The development hereby approved shall not be commenced until the appropriate order for the closure or diversion of the public right of way affected by the development has been made.

10. Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, the boundary treatments detailed

30


PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th July 2006 in drawing numbers (08) 013 and (08) 016 shall be erected and shall be permanently retained and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

11. As annotated on drawing numbers (08) 002 B and (08) 013, the vehicular gates to the parking courtyard shall be 'sliding automatic gates'. These gates shall be installed prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved and shall be permanently retained and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

12. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme to reduce the vulnerability of the development to crime shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning

Authority. The approved scheme shall form part of the development and shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason(s)


2. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford

Unitary Development Plan.

3. To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance with policy

DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

4. To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DES 7 of

the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

5. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space for future occupiers in accordance with policies H8 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP

6. In the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy A 8 of the City of Salford Unitary

Development Plan.



8. In order to encourage waste recycling.

9. In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy A8 of the City of Salford Unitary

Development Plan.



11. In the interest of design and crime in accordance with Policy DES11 of the City of Salford


12. In the interests of crime prevention.


31


PART I


1. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the applicant/developer is advised to contact the Environmental Protection Team in the

Environment Directorate (Tel: 0161 737 0551).

2. With regards to condition 12 and crime reduction measures, it is advised that the developer contacts the Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit to discuss the Secured by

Design accreditation scheme. It is advised that the principles of Secured by Design form the basis for the scheme which is to be submitted to the LPA. Any development which secures accreditation under the Secured by Design scheme shall be considered to have satisfied the requirements of this condition.

APPLICATION No:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

06/52793/FUL

Cuemasters Snooker Club

Linnyshaw Mill 260 Manchester Road Worsley M28 3TR

PROPOSAL:

WARD:

Retention of enclosed emergency exit staircase on west elevation

Walkden North

At a meeting of the Panel held on 6 th July 2006 consideration of this application was


REGULATORY PANEL.

My previous observations are set out below:


This application relates to the western elevation of Linnyshaw Mill at 260 Manchester Road in

Walkden. The application is to retain an emergency fire escape which is associated with the private members snooker club on the first floor of the mill building.

The enclosed emergency fire escape is 1.7m wide and 11m in length (along the elevation of the building) and 6.5m in height. It is supported on stilts and is enclosed in profiled steel cladding that has been colour treated grey to match the existing cladding on the lower half of the western elevation. There are two doors at ground level to the fire escape, which could be opened by an emergency push bar from the inside.

SITE HISTORY

In April 2005 an application for the proposed change of use of part of the first floor of the mill from an industrial/office use to a private members snooker club was submitted to the Local Planning

Authority but was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant’s agent prior to determination

(05/50570/COU) as further information was required.

32


PART I


In June 2005 there was a resubmission for the change of use which was granted planning permission (05/50915/COU). The change of use also included the construction of new a disabled access and an external fire escape and replacement cladding to the side elevation.

In December 2005 an application for an open external staircase to the western side of the building was refused planning permission (05/51544/FUL) due to the unacceptable impact on nearby residents.

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 1 st June 2006.


252, 254 and 254A Manchetser Road

28, 35, 37, 39 and 41 Firfield Grove

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 3 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. I have also have a request from Councillor Barbara Miller for the application to be determined by the Planning and Transport Regulatory Panel. The following issues have been raised:

Fire escape is an eyesore

Noise/disturbance from wind and rain hitting the steel enclosure

Security implications

Used other than for emergencies



Other policies: DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours

DES8 – Alterations and Extensions

PLANNING APPRAISAL

I consider the main issues in the determination of this application to be the appropriateness of the external alterations, any impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents and whether the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted UDP.

Policies DES7 and DES8 require any alterations or extensions to existing buildings to respect the general scale, character, details and materials of the original structure and not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of users or general character of the surrounding area.

I have received objections from residents of Firfield Grove with regards to the fire escape being an eyesore when viewed from Firfield Grove. The fire escape is mainly blocked from vision by no. 37 and the trees along the boundary of Linnyshaw Mill and Firfield Grove. The fire escape in the previous approval for the change of use was enclosed in brick from the doorway at first floor level to the ground. The staircase that is the subject of this application is enclosed in a material which matches the existing cladding on the side elevation of the mill building. I therefore do not consider

33


PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th July 2006 it to be an eyesore. There is not be an unacceptable detrimental impact on the street scene as the property is set back more than 40m from Manchester Road and the staircase is set back 18m from the front elevation.

Due to the staircase having doors at the ground floor level which can only be opened from the inside and it being enclosed in cladding, the public would not be able to use it at any time other than for emergency access and so there would be no security issues, overlooking or loss of privacy to the neighbouring residents. The fire escape staircase projects approximately 1.7m from the side of the property and taking into consideration the path of the sun I do not consider there is any loss of light to the neighbouring property. I therefore consider the fire escape to be acceptable.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I consider the fire escape to be acceptable as it does not have an unacceptable impact on the neighbouring residents or the surrounding area and it complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted UDP. There are no material considerations which outweigh this finding. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:


1. The staircase shall only be used in the case of an emergency. The door serving the staircase shall be interlocked with an alarm system within the premises so that if the door is opened at any time an audible alarm shall sound within the premises. The audible alarm shall not turn off until the door has been closed and the alarm reset. The alarm system shall be maintained at all times and used whenever the club is opened.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours

APPLICATION No:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

06/52904/TEL56

Hutchinson 3G (UK) Limited

Footpath On Eccles Old Road At Junction Of Manor Road

Salford

PROPOSAL: Prior notification for the installation of a 15m high street works style mast accommodating three antennas contained within a

34


PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th July 2006 cylindrical shroud, radio equipment housing and ancillary development thereto

WARD: Claremont


This application relates to the footpath on Eccles Old Road next to the junction with Manor Road

There is a bus shelter and sign to the west of the proposed location approximately 2m from the radio equipment and 4.5m from the proposed antenna. The proposal is for the erection of a 15m streetworks mast with integral antenna together with the installation of one equipment cabinet at ground floor level measuring 1.75m (width) X 1.5m (height) X 0.9m (depth).

To the south of the site, on the opposite side of Bury Old Road is Buile Hill Park. To the east of the proposal is Buile Hill High School playing fields. To the West of the proposal across Manor Road are residential properties.

SITE HISTORY

None

CONSULTATIONS

Councillor N Owen - No comments to date

Councillor M Ferrer – requests it to be determined by Panel as in residential area.

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 08.06.2006


2 Manor Road

1-5 Manor Road

56 Lullington Road

110-116 Eccles Old Road

Buile Hill High School

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 2 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The following issues have been raised:-

Visual Amenity

De-valuation of property

Out of Character with the area

Health Grounds

Construction of the mast will add to traffic concerns

35


PART I


Anti-social behaviour

Government Guidelines should not be trusted

Need for mast



Other policies: DEV1 – Telecommunications

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are the need for the installation, any health issues resulting from the installation and the visual impact of the installation on the amenity of the area.

Policy DEV1 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP states that proposals for telecommunications development will only be permitted where a number of criteria are met, the proposal should not have an unacceptable impact on visual or residential amenity, the operator should demonstrate compliance with all relevant ICNIRP standards, there is a need for the development, the rationale for site selection has been outlined and where pre-application discussions have taken place.

The applicant has provided coverage plots that demonstrate what the existing coverage is and what the proposed coverage would be following the installation. This information shows that there is a gap in the existing cell coverage for the area, and that the installation would fill that gap.

In accordance with Policy DEV1, the applicants have submitted a declaration which shows that the proposed equipment complies with ICNIRP public exposure guidelines. I am therefore satisfied that sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that there should be no adverse health implications as a result of this proposal.

The applicants have demonstrated that a number of other potential sites/proposals have been investigated in the surrounding area, but were either not feasible as they would not provide adequate coverage or permission to locate there was refused. These include:

Mast sharing with T-Mobile and Orange on a roof top site at Pendleton College.

Alternative location for a ground based mast at Buile Hill Park off Eccles Old Road.

I consider that in visual terms this proposal is acceptable. The proposed streetworks mast would be viewed in conjunction with a number of lighting columns in the vicinity of the site and it would not form an incongruous feature in the street scene.

In response to the objections raised and not covered in the planning appraisal, I do consider that the proposal will be a significant contributor to anti-social behaviour. De-valuation of property is not a material planning consideration. The construction phase of the proposal is not envisaged to result in any serious detrimental impact upon highway safety.

With regards to the objection relating to need, the proposal is to support 3G coverage for a

Hutchinson 3G. PPG8 Paragraph 27 states “each operator is licensed to operate a national 3G

36


PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th July 2006 network. All 3G operators have a requirement in their licenses to build a network covering 80% of the population by 2007.” The applicants have submitted evidence to support the need for a 3G mast in this area.

CONCLUSION

The main planning issues relating to this application are the need for the installation, any health issues resulting from the installation and the visual impact of the installation on the amenity of the area. The applicant has submitted a declaration, which shows that the proposed equipment complies with ICNIRP public exposure guidelines and so I have no objection on health grounds. I am satisfied that there is a need for an installation in this area and that the development proposed would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area. The proposal therefore complies with DEV1 of the adopted UDP. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

No Objections Subject to the following Conditions


2. The poles and radio housing hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior to the commencement of the development by the Local Planning Authority.

The development shall be treated in accordance with the approved colour scheme within 14 days of installation.

Reason(s)


2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area


1. The applicant is advised to contact the landowner to gain their consent proir to the commencement of development.

APPLICATION No:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

WARD:

06/52886/HH

Julie Appleton

7 Buckland Road Salford M6 8GP

Erection of part single/part two storey side extension

Claremont

37


PART I



This application relates to a semi-detached property on Buckland Road in Salford.

The proposal is for the erection of a part single part/two storey side extension to accommodate a garage and utility on the ground floor and a bedroom on the first floor.

The proposed side extension would project 4.4m from the gable at the rear elevation of the existing property and 2.55m from the gable at the front elevation, thus would be situated along the common boundary with number 9 Buckland Road. The first floor element of the proposal would be set back

2m from the front elevation of the existing property. The proposal has a single storey element to the rear. This would not project beyond the existing rear elevation of the dwelling and would join the proposal to the existing garage.

SITE HISTORY

There is no planning history relating to the application site.

PUBLICITY


67, 69, 71 Doveleys Road

5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16 Buckland Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 6 letters in response to the planning application publicity. Issues raised are highlighted below:

1.

Would have an unacceptable impact on the character of the area and would be out of keeping with other properties in this cul-de-sac

2.

Reduce the value of the neighbouring properties

3.

Reduce light to kitchen and hallway

4.

Damage to neighbouring properties

5.

Issues of over the correct certificate being served

6.

Reduced driveway may lead to parking problems

7.

This would set a precedent along the street for other similar type extensions



Other policies: DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours

DES8 – Alterations and Extensions

PLANNING APPRAISAL

38


PART I


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 the Adopted UDP and Draft Supplementary Planning Document.

Policy DES7 of the Adopted UDP states that development will not be permitted where it would have an adverse impact upon the occupiers or users of other developments in the vicinity or an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the street scene.

Policy DES8 of the Adopted UDP states that permission to extend, or alter an existing building will only be permitted if it respects the general scale, character and proportions of the existing building and compliments the surrounding area.

The Council’s Draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) House Extensions is in consultation period and should be given substantial weight when determining planning applications. It provides additional guidance on the factors to be considered and standards maintained when determining householder applications.

The proposed side extension would project 4.4m from the gable at the rear elevation of the existing property and 2.55m from the gable at the front elevation, thus would be situated along the common boundary with number 9 Buckland Road. The proposal would be 7.9m high which is 0.7m lower than the existing ridge line and would have a hipped roof which would match the existing dwelling.

I am of the opinion that the size of the proposal is in proportion and would not dominate the original dwelling. I am satisfied that the design of the extension would be in keeping with the existing dwelling and would not have an unacceptable impact upon the street scene or the character of the area. Therefore is in accordance with DES7 and DES8 of the UDP.

There would be habitable room windows in the front and rear elevation of the proposal at first floor level. Both these windows would maintain over 21m from habitable room windows opposite. I am therefore consider that introducing these windows would not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy or have a detrimental impact upon residential amenity. Thus would be in accordance with

HE1 of the Draft SPD and DES 7 of the UDP.

There are no habitable room windows in the side elevation of 9 Buckland Road. I have received a letter of objection from these residents they have objected to the loss of light to their hallway and kitchen. These are not classed as habitable rooms furthermore the kitchen window on the side elevation is a secondary window therefore would not be the only source of light to this room. I therefore consider the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon the residential amenity of those at 9 Buckland Road and thus would be in accordance with DES7 of the UDP.

I received an objection relating to this application setting a precedent and this then leading to a terracing effect along the street scene. The first floor of the proposal would be set back 2m in accordance with HE8 which prevents potential terracing effect along the street scene. I consider that this proposal would not set a precedent because there is a similar two-storey side extension at

14 Buckland Road which was granted permission in July 2005.

The front elevation of the proposal would be approximately 9m from the pavement. HE12 requires a minimum of 5.5m in length and 2.4m in width to accommodate one car off the highway. I consider that the hardstanding in this proposal would be more than adequate to maintain one car off the highway which complies with policy. I therefore consider that the proposal is in accordance with DES7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.

39


PART I


I have received a letter of objection relating to the issue of certificates. The objector believes that the extension may project over the boundary and therefore the correct certificate has not been served. I have examined the proposal and from the plans the existing garage maintains 0.2m from the boundary. The proposed extension would follow this line thus would be 0.2m from the boundary. I consider that this distance would maintain a suitable distance to accommodate eves and drainpipes. I have confirmed with Building Control that there is scope to build this extension within the curtilage of the property above and below ground. I am therefore satisfied that the correct certificate has been served.

I have also received an objection relating to possible damage the extension may cause to other neighbouring properties. This is a private issue between the applicant and the objector.

CONCLUSION

The proposed two storey side extension is not considered overbearing, dominant or to be out of character with the area or street scene. The proposal accords with the Draft SPD on House

Extensions and DES7 and DES8 of the Adopted UDP. I consider the design of the proposed extension to be acceptable and I am also satisfied that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by virtue of overlooking or loss of privacy.

Therefore I recommend that the application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:



2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason(s)


2. Standard Reason R007B Development-existing building


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

40


PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th July 2006 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

41


PART I


42


PART I


APPLICATION No:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

06/52666/ART10

Bridestones Developments Ltd

Carrington Power Station Manchester Road Carrington

(Article 10)

PROPOSAL: Article 10 Consultation received from Trafford

Metropolitan Borough Council in respect of the erection of a

380 MW gas fired combined cycle gas turbine power station

WARD:


Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council have received a consultation under section 36 of the

Electricity Act 1989 and S90 of the Town and Country Planning Act that relates to the site of the former Carrington power station, located on the southern bank of the Manchester Ship

Canal off the A6144 Manchester Road in Trafford and directly opposite Irlam Wharf Road in

Salford on the other side of the Manchester Ship Canal. The site was previously the Carrington coal fired power station with associated ancillary buildings and ash dumping areas. Many of the power station buildings were demolished when the power station closed in 1991. Trafford

Borough Council have consulted Salford City Council on the proposal as the site lies close to the authority’s boundary.

The site is described as comprising an open area of ‘hardstanding’, through which vegetation is now emerging and also an area of rubble and other materials associated with the former coal-fired power station.

The surrounding area is largely characterised by industrial development. There are residences on the A6144 Manchester Road, however, these will be demolished with the development of the ‘Carrington FIRST’ industrial park. There is additional housing located at Carrington,

Irlam, Cadishead, Partington and Flixton. Since the original environmental study was carried out in 1997, additional residential housing has been constructed in the area at Irlam, separated from the site by the Manchester Ship Canal.

The application is to construct and operate an electricity generating plant to be known as

Partington Power Station. It is accompanied by an addendum environmental statement. It would be located on the same site as a previous approval (see site history) and approximately the same footprint. The application to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is for the siting and power out-put and operational lifespan of the power station. The proposed design and external appearance of the building would be submitted at a later stage as a requirement of any conditions attached by the Secretary of State. These would be approved by Trafford MBC and

Salford City Council would be consulted again via an Article 10 consultation.

SITE HISTORY

An application for Section 36 Consent to build and operate a power station was submitted to the

Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) under the Electricity Act 1989 by AES Partington Ltd

(the former owner of the site) for a 380 MW power station on the same site in 1997. The project was subsequently granted Section 36 Consent by the DTI in November 2000. The consent was not implemented and has lapsed.

43


PART I


CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objection subject to recommendations made relating to monitoring of air quality, noise monitoring and complainants procedure, suppression of dust and lighting.

Ward Councillors C. Hudson and JR Jones were also notified.

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received no letters of representation or objection in response to the planning application publicity.


Regional Policy – EQ2 Air Quality

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The key issues to consider in relation to the impact of the proposal on Salford are the impact the proposed development would have on air quality and noise levels in the vicinity of the site. It should be noted that the plant proposed on the site is as per the original application. This does not automatically mean the principle of the power station is still acceptable due to changes in surrounding land uses. The previous permission can however be taken as a material consideration when evaluating the current application.

National Policy – PPS23 Planning and Pollution Control. This document states that when determing planning applications Local Planning Authorities should assess whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land taking into consideration the impacts that the proposed use would have on neighbouring land users as a result of noise and air pollution that it would generate. In assessing the impact of a proposed development, regard also needs to be had to the effects of existing sources of pollution in and around the site and the cumulative effects when the proposed development is added.

Regional Policy – EQ2 Air Quality. This policy states that Local Authorities should be working together to tackle poor air quality and reduce emissions in order to contribute towards the improvement of air quaility in the North West.

Impact on Air Quality

The power station will be fuelled by gas and therefore the emissions that have a potential impact on air quality are oxides of nitrogen (Nox) and carbon monoxide. The gases will be discharged through a 75 m high stack. The emissions from the stack have been modelled to show how the pollution levels around the stack will increase in the local area.

Carbon Monoxide

Monitoring by Salford City Council at the 2 monitoring station in Eccles and the M60 show that current levels are well be below the air quality standard. Modelling of the stack emissions indicates that the combined effect of emissions from the power station and current levels will not result in a significant increase in levels around the site.

Nitrogen Dioxide

44


PART I


Monitoring and modelling indicate that there are exceedances of the nitrogen dioxide annual average standard. An air quality management area has been declared in Salford and the Council have an action plan in place to meet the targets.

The proposed development was modelled in 1997 and re-evaluated in 2006. The air quality assessment shows that the maximum ground level concentration will occur approximate 1.5 km to the north east of the power plant. This represents a substantial area within Trafford and

Salford. It is predicted that the maximum increase is 0.66 µg/m 3 which is 2% of the air quality standard. This is higher than predicted in the original report in 1997. The area most affected within Salford will be Irlam.

Due to stable weather conditions there will be periods where dispersion will be more difficult and the predicted hourly concentrations will raise. The modelling predicts large increases in the hourly levels, representing 14% of the air quality standard, during these periods, although the report shows that the standard is unlikely to be exceeded. There is currently no monitoring of hourly concentrations in the Irlam area. While the Director of Environmental Services believes that the air quality standard will not be exceeded, he recommends that monitoring of air quality within the Salford area is provided by the developer.

Effect on Air Quality Action Plan.

At present the fall in the recorded nitrogen dioxide levels at the Eccles station is approximately

1 µg per year. The increase in levels as a result of the proposed power station would delay attaining objectives of the Air Quality Action Plan by one year. Also while the objective of the

Air Quality Action Plan is to improve air quality via a number of identified and monitored aims.

While the assessment shows small increases in the annual average, the total emission of nitrogen dioxide from the proposed power station is over 100,000 tonnes. This represents a significant amount of pollution which will add to the background levels of pollution and will be difficult to cut back through other means e.g. reducing car journeys or reducing emissions from homes.

Air Quality mitigation measures

Some mitigation measures have been incorporated in to the design of the plant by using low nox burners and more importantly by selecting a higher stack height to aid dispersion. The original report by ENTEC dated February 1997 section C5.1.4. recommended

Implementation of a monitoring programme once the power plant is fully operational, to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures are effective

As stated earlier this is essential to monitor the plant and also to inform residents in Salford of the effect of the development with accurate and quantifiable data.

A financial contribution to future modelling and monitoring for review and assessment of the proposed power station is recommended as the proposal will trigger further work as part of the

Council’s duties under the Environment Act 1995.

It is also recommended that the Council directly negotiate with the Developer rather that though

Trafford MBC.

Conclusions on Air Quality

45


PART I


The power plant has already been given consent but this permission has lapsed. The plant is unlikely to directly cause exceedances in air quality standard but there is a large amount of uncertainly in the predictions in the modelling process. Overall the plant will discharge a significant amount of pollution and will result in an additional year to achieve the air quality targets set out in the Council’s Action Plan. In order to improve air quality in Irlam, the most affected area in Salford, the Director of Environmental Services requires that the developer provide air quality monitoring in this area.

Noise

The Director of Environmental Services has reviewed the information submitted as part of the application. Much of the data submitted is similar to the information submitted with the 1997 proposal. The Sinclair Knight Merz report referenced as Partington Power Station –

Addendum to Environmental Statement – Issue B1 Final, Dated 9 th February 2006 contains the bulk of the information relating to noise emissions and air quality data for the report.

The Trafford MBC Environmental Health Officer have commented on the proposals and suggested a number of conditions. They appear to reflect concerns that are common to both authorities. The noise data which has been suggested as conditions are comprehensive enough to cover both Trafford MBC and Salford City Council receptor sites. Within Salford, these are

Winskill Road, Fairhills Road and Cadishead Way/Irlam Locks development. Other sites around the area are primarily industrial in nature and are not considered to be as sensitive an end use.

The conditions proposed by Trafford MBC indicate separate noise limits from the operational stage of the site for both night time and daytime use. In each case, reference is made to the background level and further attention is made towards the effects of Tonal Noise on the development.

The Night-time noise limits are set in relation to the background noise levels as measured or calculated at the facade of any residential property on the indicated roads. For the period between 23.00 hrs and 07.00 hrs, noise from the site shall not exceed 5dB below the declared levels. For any noise with a tonal nature, this level has been set to 10dB below the declared background levels. This reflects the sensitivity that tonal noise creates with human receptors as a causal factor for reduction in amenity and/or a Statutory Nuisance and will prevent such issues from arising in the future.

The conditions proposed by Trafford MBC discuss this difference between day and night time noise, however, only details noise to be 5dB below the existing background levels – no mention is made of any tonal noise issues detailed with the site other than a reference to BS4142:1997.

It is noted that some of the Trafford MBC conditons are drafted directly from the SKM report.

The report seems to dictate stringent noise levels which, except in an emergency situation, will ensure that noise from the plant during its operational phase, should not add noise to the existing background level. Bearing in mind that since the original application, several residential sites have been built along the Salford City Council boundary in reasonably close vicinity of the site, the ability to achieve the requirements of this condition will result in careful selection of quiet plant and machinery for the development whilst preventing any significant change to the ambient noise levels for the future. The development as proposed should not cause an increase in the ambient background noise levels at nearby residential properties and as such will not cause an upwards increase of existing background noise levels to occur.

The loudest construction noise is likely to occur at locations closest to the site. In this case both

Trafford MBC and Salford City Council have properties at about 350m from the edge of the

46


PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th July 2006 development site. As works are carried out within this edge boundary, noise levels are likely to be slightly quieter than that predicted, however, at 63dB(A), the noise from construction might be a problem in garden areas of those properties which are closest to the site. The effects of a partially open window vary from between 10-15dB attenuation, which results in a range of noise levels between 48 and 53dB(A) inside properties closest to the development as a result of construction site noise. This compares with a highest level background noise level of 45dB, leaving a 3-8dB range above the existing background noise levels, which may be capable of being a nuisance.

Trafford MBC conditions whereby overall noise limits from the construction site are limited relating to the time of operation. This limit adjusts in relation to various time slots to ensure at evenings or overnight when the ambient background level is lower, noise from the construction of the site will be limited to a much lower level thereby reducing the impact on nearby noise sensitive dwellings. The additional 2dB recommended via condition on the calculated 63dB(A) construction noise limit would not improve the situation for any residents in close proximity to the site during the daytime period, however, the reductions for evening and night time use will be such that noise from the site should not be an issue.

Trafford MBC have proposed a condition whereby the operator must respond, investigate and remediate any reported problems with the construction or operational phase of the development. In order for this to work, all complaints would need to be referred to the Site

Managers at all times. It is likely that the Local Authorities would be called relating to this, so a mechanism would be necessary to ensure that the site managers and both Trafford MBC and

Salford City Council would be included in advice relating to any such incidents and that any complaints are circulated immediately to the Site Managers and copied into the other Local

Authority.

Mitigation Measures

Recommended mitigation ( Those in Italics are Trafford MBC suggestions and it is proposed to recommend these mitigation measures )

1 Operational Noise (Para 2 modified from Trafford Recommendations)

The noise generated by the operation of the development shall not exceed the following noise levels when assessed in accordance with BS 4142 at the facade of the nearest existing residential properties at the following positions:

Crampton Lane (TMBC) 47dB

Stamford Road (TMBC)

Coniston Drive (TMBC)

Dunster Drive

Winskill Road

Fairhills Road

Cadishead Way/Iram Locks

Cottages at site entrance (TMBC)

41dB

38dB

39dB

39dB

39dB

40dB

48dB

Any Tonal Noise shall immediately be assessed with a further 5dB penalty in accordance with the recommendations of BS4142:1997 and shall achieve no tonal or impulse content at any of the above locations in any weather conditions at any time.

The above noise level limitation shall be adhered to at all times except in an emergency.

Any exceedance of the noise limits specified above should be notified to the Council within 2 working days, followed by a written report. If the emergency event persists beyond 24 hours, the company shall inform those residents affected by the emergency of the reason and the expected duration of the event. The company should inform the

47


PART I


Council 2 days in advance of any pre-planned operation of emergency pressure relief valves or similar equipment. Pre-planned operations should take place between the hours of 09.00 and 17.00 hours on any day other than Saturdays, Sundays or Bank

Holidays.

2. Noise Complaints Procedure.

Where complaints are made about the construction or operation of the development, the company shall carry out investigations to establish the cause of the complaint and identify the remedial measures necessary. This information should then be reported to the complainant, and recorded appropriately for the Council to view at request.

Any such complaints shall be notified to the Local Authority within 1 working day of them being made along with the results of remedial measures necessary to prevent a recurrence of the problem and the steps taken to ensure that the remedial measures are implemented fully and retained for the duration of such operations. (Electronic Mail notification is acceptable for these purposes).

3. Construction Noise.

All activities associated with the construction of the development shall be carried out in accordance with BS 5228 Parts 1 and 2:1997 and Part 4:1992; Noise and Vibration

Control on Open Sites.

Times of construction should be limited to Monday to Friday 0700 to 1900 and Saturday

0800 to 1700 unless it is associated with an emergency or is carried out with the prior approval of the Council.

Pile Driving should not take place on the site on any Sunday or Bank Holiday, or any time between 1800 to 0800 hours, and not between 1400 and 0800 hours on a Saturday.

Any deviance from the above restriction should be reported to the Council within 2 days.

Prior to the commencement of the scheme, there should be further information submitted to this Service to detail the schedule of plant items to be used on site.

External night time working should not be carried out unless prior consent is given by the Council. Internal night time construction activities will be carried out where necessary but will comply with the limits set in BS 5228.

Monitoring of the noise levels at the sensitive locations mentioned above will take place on a regular basis to demonstrate compliance with the agreed noise limits. Measured noise levels at the facades of the aforementioned noise sensitive premises should not exceed 65dB LAeq during 0700 to 1900 hours and 60dB LAeq during the evening period

1900 to 2200 hours, and 55dB LAeq 2200 to 0700 hours.

A programme for the monitoring of the noise generated during construction will be submitted to and approved by the Council prior to the commencement of the development.

4 Suppression of Dust

The applicant shall submit to the LPA for written approval a scheme detailing dust mitigation measures proposed for the construction phase of this application. Once agreed, all approved mitigation measures shall be implemented and retained thereafter.

Any complaints received relating to dust generation shall be reported to the Local

Authority within 1 working day of receipt along with any additional mitigation measures necessary to prevent a recurrence of the problem.

5 Lighting.

48


PART I


The developer should submit for approval a scheme detailing the level of artificial lighting proposed for the construction and operation stage which clearly identifies the level of light spillage affecting neighbouring sensitive locations.

Any areas identified to be affected by light spillage shall be redesigned with appropriate luminaries to ensure that a reduction in amenity for those neighbouring sensitive uses does not occur.

Conclusions on Noise

It is recommended that subject to the conditions identified above that the impact on Salford can be limited. The site is adjacent to the Northbank employment park which means that the power station is unlikely to have an undue impact on this area of Salford. On this basis I would recommend that Trafford MBC be advised that no objection be lodged providing the conditions are imposed.

RECOMMENDATION

That no objection be lodged subject to the conditions for noise mitigation, dust suppression and lighting and provisions for air quality monitoring in Irlam contained in this report.

49

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL PART I

Related documents

Products

Support

PLANNING &amp; TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL PART I

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL PART I