PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
APPLICATION No:
07/54017/FUL
APPLICANT:
The Manse Day Nursery
LOCATION:
The Manse Nursery 1 Cambridge Grove Eccles M30 9AP
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a porch and conservatory
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the Manse Nursery at number 1 Cambridge Grove, Eccles. The property
is situated at the corner of Belgrave Crescent and Cambridge Grove. The building was formerly
part of a Church, which has been demolished. The Manse was formerly flats but is currently a
children’s day nursery. The building is a three storey Victorian detached Property.
Consent is sought for the erection of a conservatory and porch area to the side of the existing
building. The conservatory would stand at 2.05 metres in height at its closest point to the boundary
and would slope to 2.9 metres in height where it joins the existing building. The Conservatory will
stand in an area which is currently used as part of the garden and would extend up to the existing
boundary wall with the dwelling at number 13 Belgrave Crescent. It is proposed that the land
directly adjacent to the boundary wall is excavated to allow for the conservatory to be set lower
than the wall and therefore not be visible from any other properties The porch would be situated
between the existing building and the proposed conservatory. There is a wall which is two metres in
height which surrounds the site. Garages stand to the front of the site and are situated between
Cambridge Grove and the proposal site. The conservatory would not be visible to the front because
of these garages. The site is accessed from a driveway on the corner of Belgrave Crescent and
Cambridge Grove. It is not proposed that any alterations are made to the parking or access
arrangements and no trees are to be affected by the development. The application would provide
level access to the ground floor of the building for persons with disabilities.
SITE HISTORY
99/39060/TPO - Fell one laburnum(T2) at the front of the property and one sycamore(T5) at the
side of the property. Permitted.
99/39120/FUL - Erection of single storey rear extension. Permitted.
94/32445/FUL - Erection of single storey extension to provide baby room. Permitted.
06/52919/FUL - Erection of a detached bungalow. Withdrawn.
06/52271/FUL - Erection of a dwellinghouse. Withdrawn.
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services - Contaminated Land Desk Study required.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Flats 1-3 and ground, first and second floor flats at 15 Belgrave Crescent.
15 Belgrave Crescent
Belgrave Guest House
6, 8,10, 11 12, 13 and 14 Belgrave Crescent
Ground and top flats of 6 Belgrave Crescent
3- 29 Cambridge Grove (odds)
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received six letters of objection to the proposal. The following issues were raised:
Proximity to the Boundary with number 13 Belgrave Crescent
There is existing access for disabled persons therefore no need for the development
Lack of consultation in building the boundary wall between the site and number 13
Belgrave Crescent
Future of the garages which currently exist on the site and possibility of future
development
The area is primarily residential and would suffer from increased noise and traffic
congestion which is currently a problem in the area, and this being dangerous to
children attending the nearby school.
A decking area to the rear of number 13 Belgrave Crescent would mean that the
extension would be visible from this property and would be imposing to adjacent
neighbours and neighbours to the rear.
The conservatory is too high.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES 7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 – Alteration sand Extensions
A2 – Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
EN16 Contaminated Land
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are firstly the impact of the development on
the amenities of nearby residential occupiers, the visual impact and the effect this will have on
immediate neighbours, the scale of the development and the impact the development would have
on traffic volumes and road safety.
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that developments respond to
their physical context and respects the positive character of the local area. In assessing applications
regard should be had to the existing landscape, the relationship to existing buildings and the scale of
the proposed development.
Policy DES7 requires that all new development and alterations to existing buildings should provide
potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity, in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy,
aspect and development and will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact
upon the amenity of occupiers or users of other developments.
Policy DES8 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan states that planning permission is only
granted for alterations and extensions which respect the general scale, character, rhythms,
proportions details and materials of the original structure and complement the general character of
the area.
Policy A2 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that development should make safe
and adequate provision for safe and convenient access by the disabled.
I do not consider that the presence of decking to the rear of number 13 Belgrave Crescent would
significantly affect the visual amenity of this neighbour as the extension would be concealed from
view by the two metre high wall which exists to the boundary. The only part of the development
which would be visible from this property would be the roof of the conservatory. There would be
no shadowing caused by the development and no loss of light to the property. I do not consider that
the development would have a detrimental impact upon the visual or residential amenity of this
neighbour. I consider therefore, that the development would be in accordance with Policy DES7 of
the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
It is considered that the siting and design of the proposed conservatory to the side of the existing
house is acceptable as only a small area of the roof would be visible from the adjacent property at
number 13 Belgrave Crescent. It is acknowledged that the extension would project close to the
boundary with number 13 Belgrave Crescent, however, with the existence of a wall and the glazing
to this side elevation to be obscured, I do not consider that there would be any significant loss of
visual amenity to the immediate neighbour at number 13 and the development would not be visible
from Belgrave Crescent due to the presence of garages nor would it be visible from Cambridge
Grove as it would be concealed behind the nursery itself.. It is considered that obscured glazing to
this elevation is necessary because although there is a wall, it is possible that this wall may be
removed or reduced in height in the future, therefore in order to protect the privacy of the adjoining
neighbour obscured glazing is recommended. I do not consider that there would be any loss of
visual amenity to this neighbour. I do not consider that the scale of the proposed development
would result in an unacceptable addition to the existing building nor would it look out of place in
relation to the building or others in the locality. I therefore consider that the proposed extension
would be in accordance with policy DES1 and DES7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
The building which is the subject of the application is a large three storey detached house. Whilst it
is recognised that the conservatory is quite large in size, it is not considered that the development
would be out of scale or keeping with the original building, nor would it compromise the character
of the building. The development would only be partially visible from the rear of the site and
therefore I do not consider that it would have a significant or detrimental effect upon the overall
character of the area. I consider that the development respects the general character and scale of the
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
original structure and therefore am of the opinion that it would be in accordance with Policy DES8
of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
The applicant has demonstrated that the development will include an entrance which is suitable for
use by the disabled allowing access to the ground floor of the nursery. An issue raised by an
objecting neighbour stated that disabled access currently exists. However, it is not considered that
this has any bearing on the outcome of the application as it would not be disadvantageous to allow
two entrances that can be used by disabled persons. The applicant has demonstrated a willingness
to provide a disabled access route and therefore I am satisfied that the proposed extension would
meet the requirements of Policy A2 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
Environmental Services have not objected on the grounds of loss of amenity due to increased noise
and it is not considered that there will be significant increase in numbers of children using the
facility and therefore no significant increase in noise pollution or loss of residential amenity in this
respect.
Similarly in the case of increased traffic volumes and danger to children raised by neighbours, I do
not consider that there would be a sufficient increase in cars visiting the site to cause any additional
congestion or danger. The proposal will not result in the loss of any car parking spaces. It is
considered that the proposal is an extension to the facilities currently provided and to improve
access to the site by disabled persons and not to extend the business which is currently run from the
premises. I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds.
Reference was made in the neighbour objections to the boundary wall which was recently
constructed and the lack of consultation with neighbours regarding this. The wall, however stands
at a height of two metres which under Class A Part 2 (Minor Operations) is deemed as permitted
development and therefore falls out of the control of the Local Planning Authority. The
development would not be visible from Belgrave Crescent due to the presence of garages nor would
it be visible from Cambridge Grove as it would be concealed behind the nursery itself.
I do not consider that the development would have a significant effect upon the amenities of nearby
residential occupiers, nor would it be out of keeping with existing conditions in the area.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion I consider that although the development is fairly large, it is not out of proportion
with the original building and would not result in a disproportionate addition. The neighbour
objection letters are acknowledged however I do not consider that there would be any loss of
amenity to nearby residential occupiers nor would the development be intrusive in the streetscene.
For these reasons it is considered that the development would be in accordance with all of the
relevant Policies within the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and is subsequently recommended
for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Not withstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
Development Order 1995 or any order revoking or re-enacting that order with or without
modification at no time shall the glass within the North facing elevation of the conservatory
hereby approved be glazed with anything other than obscure glass to a type and degree to first
be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3. 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 should be carried out In accordance with the following:
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.
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.
The applicant/developer is requested to contact the Council's Environmental Protection Unit as
soon, as is practicable should unsuspected contamination be encountered during the
development of the site.
4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the
materials for the Roof and Elevations of the development 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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
3. Reason: In the interests of public safety in accordance with policy EN16 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
4. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
APPLICATION No:
07/54027/OUT
APPLICANT:
Mr P And Mrs A Ellis
LOCATION:
100 Rocky Lane Eccles M30 9LY
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application to include layout, scale and means
of access for the erection of four mews type dwellings
WARD:
Eccles
At the meeting of the panel held on the 15th February 2007 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a 0.11 hectare plot of land on Rocky Lane in Monton. A large, detached
dormer bungalow currently occupies the site. There are currently two vehicular accesses to the site
– one off Rocky lane and other to the rear of the site, via an unadopted road located at the end of
Egerton Road. A pedestrian footpath occupies the land to immediately to the north of the site,
beyond this, and to all other sides residential properties can be found.
It is proposed to demolished the existing dwelling and erect a terrace of four, 3 bedroomed mews
houses, fronting onto Rocky Lane. Six car parking spaces, accessed via the private drive at the end
of Egerton Road, would be provided at the rear of the site. The applicant is seeking permission for
the site layout, the scale of the proposed development and the means of access to the site. The
external appearance of the dwellings and the landscaping details have been reserved at this stage.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
98, 98A, 104 and 106 (even) Rocky Lane
125, 125A and 127 Rocky Lane
21, 23 and 30 Egerton Road
19 to 23 (odd) Hardy Grove
CONSULTATIONS –
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
Director of Environmental Services – no objections subject to conditions
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 10 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised –
The access to the site is via a private road, which is already in a poor condition. The
additional traffic flow that the proposed development will result in, together with the
construction traffic will worsen the roads condition. The construction traffic will also have
the potential to ruin the front gardens of the properties on Egerton Road.
The nature of the access to the site is such that visibility is restricted and therefore the
proposed development has the potential to create highway safety problems, particularly
given the increased vehicular traffic flow to site.
Loss of trees
Noise and disruption during the construction phase generally and on the health of the
terminally ill mother of the owner of 98A Monton Road
Loss of light
The proposed dwellings would form an overbearing structure when viewed from 98A
Monton Road
Devaluation of property
The proposal will not enhance the area
The proposal represents an over-development of the site
I have also been contacted by Cllr Jane Murphy and she has requested that this application be
considered by Panel in order that members can fully consider the concerns of 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 – Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas
DRAFT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
The following policies of the Draft RSS – The North West Plan (March 2006) are considered to be
of relevance:
DP1 – Regional Development Principles
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10 – Design and Crime
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
ST11 - Location of New Development
H8 - Open Space Provision Within New Housing Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether there would be a detrimental impact on residential amenity;
whether the proposed level of parking is acceptable; whether the impact upon trees is acceptable
and whether the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development
Plan. I shall deal with each of these issues in turn.
Principle –
Policy DP1 seeks to ensure that development makes the most efficient use of land. This is
re-iterated in Draft Policy DP1.
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.
Policy ST11 states that sites for development will be brought forward in a sequential order. The
sequential order is defined below:
1
2
The re use and conversion of existing buildings
Previously-developed land in locations that:
are, or as part of any development would be made to be, well-served by a choice of
means of transport; and
(ii)
are well related to housing, employment, services and infrastructure
(i)
3
Previously-developed land in other locations, provided that adequate levels of accessibility
and infrastructure provision could be provided
4
Green field locations
(i) are, or as part of any development would be made to be, well-served by a choice of
means of transport; and
(ii) are well related to housing, employment, services and infrastructure development,
followed by previously developed land with Greenfield sites last.
The Council’s Planning Guidance on Housing states that in this area, West Salford, the majority of
units within new developments should be in the form of houses rather than apartments.
A dormer bungalow currently occupies the site. The site is therefore previously developed and
consequently the proposals to redevelop the site are in accordance with Policy ST11.
With regards to Policy H1 of the adopted UDP and the Council’s Planning Guidance on Housing
and the mix of units proposed the proposed development would provides four 3 bedroomed mews
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
houses. The proposed development is therefore in accordance with Policy H1 and the Council’s
Planning Guidance on Housing, as it would make a positive contribution towards the mix of
dwellings in the locality.
Scale and Massing –
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.
The proposed mews houses would measure 4.8m to the eaves and 8m to the ridge. The detached
bungalow at 98A Monton Road measures 2.4m at the eaves and 4m at the ridge. The bungalow is
however located in an elevated position, set 1.7m above road level. The proposed mews properties
would therefore only appear 2.3m higher than the bungalow. The property at 104 Monton Road a
two-storey dwelling that measures 6.2m to the eaves and 9.7m to the ridge. With the exception of
the bungalows at 98 and 98A, the majority of properties located on Rocky Lane are two storey
dwellings of a height comparable to the property at 104 Monton Road. I am therefore of the opinion
that the scale and massing of the proposed apartment block is acceptable in this location.
I am also satisfied that despite extending across the width of the site the proposed development
would not be at odds with the character of the area as the plot sizes and layout of the dwellings
within each plot varies considerably in the vicinity of the site.
Amenity Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of
amenity. Development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or
users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
The property at 98A Monton Road does not have any habitable room windows in the gable end that
face onto the application site. The proposed properties would be located within closer proximity to
the property at 98A Monton Road than the bungalow that currently occupies the site. The proposed
terrace would however be set in 1.6m form the common boundary and it would not project beyond
the main front or rear elevation of 98A Monton Road. Consequently the proposed development
would not have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity the occupants of this property
currently enjoy.
At their closest the proposed mews properties would be located in excess of 30m from the property
opposite the application site, 125A Rocky Lane. The proposed development would not therefore
have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity the occupants of the property at 125a Rocky
Lane can reasonably expect to enjoy.
The property at 104 Monton Road has a habitable room window contained within the elevation that
fronts the application site. There would be approximately 20.6m between the proposed mews
houses and this window. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed dwellings can be introduced
without reducing the level of light received in this room. The property at 104 Monton Road also has
its garden area fronting onto the application site. The garden area contains a number of mature
trees, which result in the garden area being well shaded. Taking into consideration these trees, the
location of the existing bungalow 1m from the common boundary with 104 Monton Road and the
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
fact that the eaves height of the existing bungalow and proposed dwellings is comparable means
that I am satisfied that the proposed development can be introduced without having an adverse
impact upon the amenity the occupants of 104 Monton Road can reasonably expect to enjoy in their
garden area.
The proposed dwellings would run alongside the driveway of 23 Egerton Road. The proposed
dwellings would be off set from the dwelling at 23 Egerton Road, set 10.2m beyond the corner of
the building, 3.8m further away than the existing bungalow. I am therefore satisfied that the
proposed dwellings can be introduced without having an adverse impact upon the residential
amenity the occupants of 23 Egerton Road currently enjoy.
Policy DES7 also requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level
of amenity.
Each of the proposed dwellings would be provided with a reasonable amount of useable amenity
space in the form of a rear garden.
Access
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards.
6 parking spaces would be provided in a secure communal parking area located to the rear of the
proposed dwellings. The proposed car parking would be laid out in such a way that I do not have
any highway safety concerns with this element of the proposal. With regards to the concerns raised
over the rear access and potential conflicts with users of the public footpath it should be noted that
this is an existing access to the site. The proposed development would not intensify the use of the
access to the extent that concerns would be raised over the safety of pedestrians and other users of
the unadopted road serving the access.
Other Issues –
There are 18 trees on site, none of which are protected by a tree preservation order. It is proposed to
fell 8 of these trees, six to accommodate the proposed development and two in the interests of good
arboricultural management. The Council’s consultant arborist has inspected the trees and considers
they are not worthy of protection as they are of low and moderate value. As a result the removal of
the 8 trees would not have an adverse effect on the visual amenity value of the area. With regards to
the amenity of future residents the proposed development complies with Policy TD3 of the
Council’s SPD on trees which requires a minimum of 3.6m between any part of a tree and any
habitable room windows. I do not therefore have any objections to the development on tree
grounds.
With regards to concerns over noise and disruption during the construction phase a condition has
been attached that requires a site operating plan to be submitted to and approved by the Local
Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. This should ensure that residents
do not experience significant levels of noise and disturbance during the construction phase.
Devaluation of property is not a material planning consideration.
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes
is acceptable. I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the
Adopted UDP and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. I therefore
recommend that the application be approved
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition B01B reserved matters time limit
2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
a) appearance
b) landscaping
3. 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.
4. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the acoustic double glazing of the
windows of all habitable rooms fronting Rocky Lane and the mechanical ventilation of all
habitable rooms fronting Rocky Lane shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented and thereafter retained
in accordance with the approved details.
5. Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority the finished floor levels of
the buildings hereby approved shall be a minimum of 300mm above the adjacent road level.
6. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details of the tree
survey conducted by Cheshire Woodlands Arboricultural Consultancy reference CW/5347-AA
submitted on the 29th of January 2007.
7. Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted the 6 car parking spaces shown
in the approved plan (8424 Drawing 04 Amendment A) shall be constructed and marked out
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
within the curtilage of the site. The spaces shall be made available for future occupants of the
development hereby approved at all times whilst the dwellings are in use.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
4. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
5. In order to reduce flooding in accordance with policy EN19 of the adopted UDP.
6. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
7. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The site lies within the 2005 declared air quality management area for NO2
2. This permission relates to drawings 8424 Drawing 05 and 8424 Drawing 04 Amendment A.
APPLICATION No:
07/54049/HH
APPLICANT:
B Dzieciolkiewicz
LOCATION:
34 Ukraine Road Salford M7 3TE
PROPOSAL:
Erection of part single, part first floor rear extension
(re-submission of planning application 06/53606/HH)
WARD:
Kersal
At the meeting of the panel held on the 15th February 2007 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a terraced property on Ukraine Road in Salford 7
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
This application seeks to erect a part first floor/part single storey extension at the rear of the
property. The proposed first floor extension is to provide a bathroom. The first floor extension
would project 1.990m in length and 2.6m in width. The proposed single storey extension is to
enlarge the kitchen. The proposed single storey extension would project 2.8m in length and 2.6m in
width.
The proposed extension would be situated along the common boundary with 36 Ukraine Road. The
habitable room windows on the rear elevations of the properties are set forward 0.6m. The
extension would be situated 1.4m from the boundary with 32 Ukraine Road. On the site there are
existing boundary walls that measure 1.2m in height and are the full length of the rear yards
SITE HISTORY
There has been one previous application on the site 06/53606/HH, for the erection of part fist floor
part single storey rear extension. This application was reported to panel on 16.11.2006. The
application was refused at panel on the grounds that., the proposed extension would, by vitue of
size and siting have an unacceptable impact on the residents of No.32 Ukraine Road by reason of
it’s overbearing nature contrary to the City Of Salford Unaitary Development Plan Policy DE S7
Policy HE5 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document for House Extensions
PUBLICITY
The following addresses have been notified
31 Valencia Road
33 Valencia Road
35 Valencia Road
32 Ukraine Road
36 Ukraine Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have had a request from Cllr Peter Connor and Cllr George Wilson that this application be
reported to panel. Cllrs Connor and Wilson are objecting to the application on the basis that it is
over bearing and out of character with the area. They have requested a site visit by panel.
I have received six letters of objection in relation to this application. The following issues have
been raised
Loss of light
Loss of privacy
Overlooking
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific Policies: None
Other Policies: DES 7
PLANNING APPRAISAL
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
The main planning issues relating to this planning application are: whether the design of the
proposed extension is acceptable; whether there would be an unacceptable impact on neighbours
and residents and whether the development accords with the relevant policies of the UDP and the
Councils SPD on House Extensions.
Policy DES7 of the Adopted UDP states that development will not be permitted where it would
have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments
The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) House Extensions was Adopted in July
2006. It provides additional guidance on the factors to be considered and standards maintained
when determining house holder planning applications.
The proposed extension is to be situated at the rear of the property along the common boundary
with 36 Ukraine Road and 1.4m away from the boundary with 32 Ukraine Road. There is a
habitable room window on the ground floor elevation of 32 Ukraine Road, close to the common
boundary. This window is set forward 0.6m from the rear elevation. Policy HE7 requires that in the
case of first floor extensions to the rear when there is an absence of an extension to the adjoining
dwelling that the proposed extension must project equal to or less than the distance to the nearest
common boundary. The proposed first floor would project 1.990m and the distance to the nearest
common boundary is 1.4m, however because the window is set forward 0.6m the first floor
extension would project 1.4m from this window. This is in accordance with Policy HE7of the SPD.
The existing kitchen at 34 Ukraine Road projects 1.9m from the rear elevation of 32 Ukraine Road.
The proposed single storey extension would project 3m. The overall projection from the rear
elevation of 32 Ukraine Road would be 4.9m. Policy HE5 requires that an extension should not
project beyond a 45 degree line drawn from either the midpoint of principal window of a ground
floor habitable room in an adjoining dwelling or from a point 3m along the common boundary from
the rear elevation of an adjoining dwelling, whichever allows the longest extension. The proposal
would not exceed the 45 degree splay from a point 3m along the boundary. The proposal is
therefore in accordance with Policy HE 5 of the SPD.
CONCLUSION
The proposed extension accords with Policies HE5 and HE7 of the House Extensions SPD and
Policy DES7 of the Adopted UDP. I therefore recommend the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Standard Condition D01C Materials to match
(Reasons)
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007B Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
06/53108/FUL
APPLICANT:
BH Three Ltd
LOCATION:
The Works Site Great Clowes Street Salford
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 32 dwellinghouses and 23 apartments together with
associated car parking and construction of new and alteration
to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site is bound by Upper Camp Street to the north, Great Clowes Street to the west,
Tenerife Street to the south and residential and commercial properties to the east including a
children’s play area. The site compromises of mostly vacant land with a commercial business
premises located in the southern eastern corner. The site is mostly overgrown with a number of self
seeded trees within its boundary. The site has recently been used for fly tipping. The site is located
immediately to the east of the Former Lowry High School which has an extant outline planning
permission for the demolition, conversion and redevelopment of 22.7 hectares of land and
buildings to provide mixed use development comprising residential (C3), school, community uses
(D1), assembly and leisure (D2), business (B1), retail (A1/A2), cafes, restaurants and public houses
(A3,A4,A5), car parking, public spaces and ancillary uses together with associated highways and
other works.. Directly to the north of the site is a development consisting of both dwellings and
apartments.
The proposal seeks full planning permission for the erection of 32 dwelling houses and 23
apartments. It would include the erection of one four storey apartment block and two further
apartment blocks located adjoining dwelling houses. One block would be three storey and one
would be four storeys in height. The dwelling houses would be in the form of rows of two, three,
four and five houses ranging from two-storey to four storeys in height. The scheme would include
the construction of a new vehicular access and both private and communal parking areas. The
proposed vehicular would be located on Tenerife Street.
SITE HISTORY
Planning permission was granted for the erection of 36 three and four storey dwellings with
associated vehicular access on the site excluding the commercial premises in May 2004
(03/47173/FUL)
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
Outline planning permission was granted for residential purposes of the site excluding the
commercial premises in April 2005 (05/50091/OUT)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objection subject to conditions relating to contaminated
land and a noise survey. Conditions have been attached accordingly.
United Utilities – No objection
Environment Agency – No objection subject to conditions relating to the existing and proposed
floor levels and land contamination. Conditions have been attached accordingly.
Police Architectural Liaison Advisor – made a number of comments relating to the lack of
natural surveillance to blocks A, B,C D and I. There appears to be no defensible space to the rear of
Block F. The application has been amended to incorporate the comments and additional secondary
windows have been inserted into the gables of the affected blocks.
Urban Regeneration Company – No comment
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – No objections in principle however the site lies close
to a cluster of Roman period finds and a condition relating to an archaeological desk study has been
recommended.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 25th July 2006
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser 27th July 2006
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
174 – 190 (evens), 167 – 173 (odds), The Community Centre Great Clowes Street
12 – 22 (evens), Lancashire Motor Bodies, North Western Commercials Upper Camp Street
2 – 6 (evens) 5 – 11 (odds) Tenerife Street
2 – 16 (evens) Perkins Avenue
1 – 10 and 12 Burland Close
2 – 6 (evens) Benson Close
Star House 11 Grove Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
SD1 - The North West Metropolitan Area
DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, H1
Provision of New Housing Development, H8 Open Space Provision
Within New Housing Developments, ST11 Location of New
Development, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking
in New Development, EN14 Pollution Control, EN19 – Flood Risk
and Surface Water,DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours,
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1
L4
–
-
Regional Development Principles
Regional Housing Provision
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether the density, design, layout and mix of the proposal is
acceptable; whether there would be a detrimental impact on residential amenity; whether the
proposal would have any impact upon highway safety; and whether the proposed level of parking is
acceptable. I shall deal with each of these issues in turn.
The Principle of Residential Development
Policy SD1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy states that development should be focused within the
North-West Metropolitan Area, which includes Salford. With regards to the principle of the
proposed development, the site is located within an area of mixed uses.
National planning policy guidance is also relevant. PPG3: Housing highlights the need to develop
previously developed brownfield sites and where appropriate higher densities should be considered
in accessible locations.
The release of draft RSS in January 2006, proposes to significantly increase the housing
requirement in Salford with over a threefold increase in the annual requirement from 530 to 1600
units per annum. Whilst the provision of housing is relevant in the consideration of this scheme, it
should be noted that little weight can be afforded to draft RSS at this time.
Policy ST11 states that sites for development will be brought forward in a sequential order. The
sequential order is defined below:
1
2
3
4
The re use and conversion of existing buildings
Previously-developed land in locations that:
(i) are, or as part of any development would be made to be, well-served by a choice
of means of transport; and
(ii) are well related to housing, employment, services and infrastructure
Previously-developed land in other locations, provided that adequate levels of
accessibility and infrastructure provision could be provided
Green field locations
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
(i) are, or as part of any development would be made to be, well-served by a choice
of means of transport; and
(ii) are well related to housing, employment, services and infrastructure
There is a commercial building located on part of the site. The site has two previous planning
permissions upon it both of which are extant I would therefore consider the re-development of the
site to be acceptable. Policy E5 is not relevant to this planning application due to the existing
commercial site not being:
an area with five or more adjacent business units;
a continuous site area of 0.5ha or greater; or
or having building(s) with a floor area of 5,000 square metres or greater.
Policy R1 states that the development of existing recreation land or facilities will not be permitted
unless;
(i)
have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity in terms of noise,
traffic generation, light pollution, hours of operation, visual amenity, or
any other disturbance;
(ii)
have an unacceptable impact on highway safety in terms of traffic
generation, parking or servicing;
(iii)
fail to make adequate provision for cyclists, pedestrians and disabled
people;
(iv)
have an unacceptable impact on the quiet enjoyment of the open
countryside;
(v)
have an unacceptable impact on sites or features of archaeological,
ecological, geological or landscape value; or
(vi)
have an unacceptable impact on existing recreation facilities.
This site has been identified in the Greenspace Strategy as a 'greenspace site'. This was following
the audit of wider greenspace areas in the city, which included derelict and underused land - the
regeneration/development status of some of these sites was not necessarily known at the time of the
audit.
The site has not been identified as necessary for meeting any of the standards set by the Greenspace
Strategy (i.e. as a proposed site for any of the categories of open space provision). For this site to be
developed for housing, it must be clearly shown that the site is surplus to recreation requirements
and is not needed to meet the standards of the SPD.
The existing condition of the site is poor, however, PPG17 confirms that the current condition of a
site should not lead to an assumption that the site is surplus to recreation requirements and all other
potential recreation uses of the site should be considered prior to concluding the site should be
developed.
The site is located adjacent to an existing LEAP (Pegwell Drive), and is within the catchment for
Albert Park, as an existing LEAP, NEAP, Neighbourhood Park and District Park and a potential
Local Semi-Natural Greenspace. The site is also located within the catchment of Kersal Dale as an
existing Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace.
Broughton and Blackfriars only currently meets 29-20% of the NPFA standard for Youth and Adult
Facilities. The Greenspace Strategy confirms that a full range of adult and youth facilities should be
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
available within each Community Committee Area. It explains, however, that it is expected that
most facilities would be located within existing recreation sites, such as parks and NEAP, rather
than new sites being specifically identified for them.
Therefore, it can be concluded that this site is not required to meet any of the standards set by the
Greenspace Strategy SPD. The site has limited current recreation value, at most providing the
potential for a landscaped area. Broughton and Blackfriars currently have a substantial over
provision (318-255%) of the NPFA standard for informal open space - the replacement of this type
of provision would not be required.
The site has an outstanding planning permission for housing development which did not include
any compensation for the loss of greenspace, and this must be taken into account when considering
the protection of the greenspace through UDP policy R1.
I consider that the development of this site for housing would be acceptable on the grounds of UDP
Policy R1(iii) since it can be clearly demonstrated that the site is surplus to recreational
requirements and the development would facilitate the wider regeneration of the local area; and
because the principle of housing development has already been established by the previous
planning approvals and the site has limited recreation function, being a cleared brownfield site.
Housing Mix and Density
Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a balanced
mix of dwellings within the local area. Criterion 1, of this policy states that all new housing
development will be required to contribute towards the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings
within the local area in terms of size, type, tenure and affordability. Criterion 2 states that new
housing development be built at an appropriate density. On sites within or adjoining Mixed use
Areas the density shall be no less than 50 per hectare. The proposed density would be 70 dwellings
per hectare, given that the extant permission proposes 63 dwellings per hectare I would consider
this to be an appropriate density for this location.
Planning Guidance for Housing has now been adopted by the Council (20 th December 2006) and
replaced the draft Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The thrust of this guidance
is to ensure a balanced mix in accordance with policy H1 of the UDP. Whilst the guidance is less
prescriptive than the draft SPD in terms of specifying an amount of any one type of
accommodation, it does seek to provide an appropriate mix. The guidance has been adopted by the
City Council and is therefore a material consideration.
SPG Policy HOU1 states within the rest of Central Salford (i.e. excluding the Regional
Centre Broughton Park, Claremont, and the northern part of Weaste and
Seedley), new developments should provide a broad mix of dwelling types. Apartments
should only be the predominant form of provision on sites in the most accessible locations
within Central Salford.. The application site is within 1.5miles of Manchester City Centre
and there a number of existing and proposed community facilities within the area. Given
that 59% of the proposed units are in the form of dwellings and there are a number of
recently approved apartment schemes within the vicinity I would consider an element of
apartments to be acceptable in this location
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
SPG Policy HOU2 states that where apartments are proposed they should provide a broad
mix of dwelling sizes in terms of the number of bedrooms and the amount useable
floorspace, that small dwellings should not predominate and a significant proportion of
three bedroom apartments should be provided wherever practicable. The proposed
housing mix is considered to satisfy these policy requirements in that a balanced mix of
dwellings have been provided.
Five bedroom houses – 6 (10%)
Four bedroom houses – 18 (33%)
Three bedroom houses – 7 (14%)
Two bedroom houses – 1 (2%)
Two double bedroom apartments – 20 (36%)
Two bedroom apartments (one single, one double) – 3 (5%)
The floorspace of the apartments ranges from 61m2 to 75m2 , ensuring 100% of the the
apartments are in excess of 57m2. The floor area of the dwellings ranges from 70m2 to 170m2.
SPG Policy HOU3 supplements UDP Policy H4, by requiring 20% of proposed dwellings to be
affordable in developments of 25 or more dwellings, with provision preferred on site. A lower
proportion of affordable housing may be permitted where material considerations indicate that
this would be appropriate. Exceptional circumstances include where there are exceptional
costs associated with the development or where the scheme was substantially developed before
the adoption of the SPD. As mentioned part of the site has extant planning permission for the
erection of dwellings none of which would be provided in the form of affordable housing. The
applicant has agreed to provide affordable housing units on the element of the site which
currently houses the commercial buildings. This element of the site would accommodate ten
dwellings, therefore two units of affordable housing will be provided within the scheme in
accordance with the above policy. The details of the type and tenure of housing will be dealt
with as part of the S106 agreement.
Design, Scale and Massing
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the character
of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this policy, regard
will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings and the quality
and appropriateness of proposed materials.
Policy DES2 requires the design and layout of new development to be fully accessible to all people,
maximise the movement of pedestrians and cyclists to, through and around the site, enable
pedestrians to navigate their way through an area by providing appropriate views, vistas and
transport links, enable safe, direct and convenient access to public transport facilities and other
local amenities and minimise potential conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.
Adopted Policy DES11 requires applicants for major developments to demonstrate that the
proposal takes account of the need for good design. In accordance with the requirements of this
policy a written statement has been 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.
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
”
“
Policy LBDC 2of the Lower Broughton Design Code states that the design of new development
should respond to the emerging character of the character area within which it is located, as
identified in the SPD, and should contribute to the character of Lower Broughton as a whole.
Policy LBDC 3 of the Lower Broughton Design Code states that design must respond to existing
and potential views within Lower Broughton.
The scheme has three main frontages. The Upper Camp Street frontage would consist of two blocks
of three dwellings. Plot 22 would be four storeys in height whilst plots 17 – 21 would be 3 storeys
in height. On the corner of Upper Camp Street and Great Clowes Street would be a four storey
apartment block. The two adjacent blocks further along Great Clowes Street would consist of one
block of five dwellings (plots 12 – 16) with the middle dwelling 2 storeys in height and the
surrounding dwellings 3 storeys in height. The other block of three dwellings would be 3 storeys in
height (plots 9-11). On the corner of Great Clowes Street and Tenerife Street would be a three
storey block of apartments adjoining two dwellings (Apartments 1-3 and plots 7 and 8), one would
be 3 storeys in height and the other adjacent to the proposed vehicular access would be four storeys
in height. On the opposite side of the proposed vehicular access fronting Tenerife Street would be
two blocks of three dwellings. The proposed dwelling immediately adjacent to the proposed access
would be 4 storeys in height with the two remaining dwellings being 3 storeys in height (plots 4 -6).
Plots 1 and 2 are located directly to the rear of existing two storey properties on Burland Close and
would be 2 storeys in height whilst plot 3 would be 3 storeys in height. Within the site is a block of
4 storey apartments surrounded dwellings ranging from 2 – 3 storeys. Great Clowes Street slopes
from the corner with Upper Camp Street down towards Tenerife Street and beyond.
The main focal point of the development is the 4 storey building located on the corner of Upper
Camp Street and Great Clowes Street. To the north of Upper Camp Street is a recently
development site currently under construction with a range of three storey dwellings and four
storey apartment blocks. The proposed materials would be a combination of glazing, render and
brickwork. The proposed roof would be cantilevered projecting towards the city centre. The
remaining properties differ in style. The majority of proposed properties stand three storeys high
with unequal gables to minimise the impact of the properties. By varying the eaves and ridge
heights along with varying pitches the proposed design breaks up the building mass and roof form.
Balconies are located on various properties and at different levels. The proposed materials for the
site are that of the four storey apartment block. I would consider the proposed design to be
acceptable in this location and have attached a condition requesting samples of materials to be
submitted to ensure a high quality design in accordance with Policy DES1 and the Lower
Broughton Design Code.
In accordance with Policy DES11 and LBDC1, the applicant has submitted a design statement
which outlines design concepts.
As mentioned the only vehicular access to the site is from Tenerife Street. The design excludes
private driveways along Great Clowes Street and maximises pedestrian activity with the formation
of secure routes from Great Clowes Street. Although there is some private parking within the
cartilage of dwellings the majority of parking is formed within communal areas within the site to
the rear of the proposed properties front Great Clowes Street and within an internal courtyard I
would therefore consider the proposed development to be accessible to all in accordance with
Policy DES2.
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
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.
In terms of the impact of the proposal on the amenity of occupiers of existing properties the closest
residential dwellings are 1, 3 and 5 Burland Close. Plot 1 would be located beyond the rear garden
of these properties. The proposed Plot 1 would be two-storeys in height and would be located 13m
from the rear elevation of these properties. I would consider the level of separation to be acceptable
and would not consider the proposal to have an unacceptable impact on the occupiers of existing
neighbour properties.
The internal relationships of the residential blocks within the development would provide an
appropriate level of separation and privacy in accordance the Councils normal separation distances.
Each dwelling would have a private garden area whilst the proposed apartment blocks would have
communal amenity space.
I would consider the proposed development to provide potential users with an adequate level of
amenity and would not have an unacceptable impact on the occupiers of neighbouring properties.
Design and Crime
Policy DES10 and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Design and Crime
seeks to ensure that development is designed to discourage crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear
of crime, and support personal and property security. Crime and Disorder is a material planning
consideration.
A number of amendments have been made to the proposal to ensure that the development
discourages crime. All the communal parking areas are overlooked by the surrounding proposed
properties. The existing play area located on the adjacent development can be observed from side
windows introduced into the gable of Plot 32. The issues raised by the Police Architectural Liaison
Advisor have been incorporated into the scheme and although I do not have full details of the
proposed boundary treatment for each of the properties the applicant has stated that this will be
done to Secure by Design standards and I have attached a condition to requiring details of all the
boundary treatments prior to commencement of development.
As such I consider that the proposal complies with the adopted development plan in respect of
designing out crime.
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.
The proposal would provide 19 paring spaces directly associated with individual plots. There
would be a further 33 communal spaces including two disabled spaces.
I have also attached a condition requiring the provision of cycle stores for the apartments.
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
I am satisfied that the proposed level of car parking is acceptable in this location and that the
proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety
Open Space Provision
Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal open
space within housing developments.
The applicant has agreed to make a contribution towards the provision of open space in the area, in
accordance with the above policy. The amount would be £122,040 based on 226 bed spaces. This
is in accordance with Adopted policy H8 and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on
open space.
Other Issues
There are a number of self seeded trees within the site all of which would be removed as part of the
development. The Consultant arboriculturalist has inspected the trees and is of the opinion that the
trees do not present a valuable asset and would not be worthy of protection.
Policy CH5 states that where planning permission is granted for sites that that will affect known or
suspected remains of archaeological importance, planning conditions will be imposed to secure the
recording and evaluation of the remains and, if appropriate, their excavation and/ or removal prior
to the commencement of development.
The Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit –have been consulted on the application and have no
objections in principle however have commented that the site lies close to a cluster of Roman
period finds a condition relating to an archaeological desk study has been attached to ensure that the
proposal would be in accordance with Policy CH5.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with Policy H8 of the Adopted UDP, the applicant has agreed to enter into an
agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the payment of a
total of £122,040. This would contribute to the provision of open space in the vicinity.
A number of amendments have been incorporated into the scheme including the omission of four
dwellings and the reduction in height of plots 1 and 2to ensure the protection of amenity for
adjacent residents. The omission of a communal garden to secure private garden areas to ensure
that the area does not attract anti-social behaviour.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential purpose is
acceptable ;I am satisfied that the amended design is of a high quality and that the application
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
would not have any significant detrimental effect upon the amenity of neighbouring residents or on
the surrounding area in general. I am also satisfied that the level of on site parking is acceptable.
and. I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted
Unitary Development Plan and there are no material considerations, which outweigh this finding. I
therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions and that the Strategic Director of Customer and
Support Services be given authority to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the provision of improved local open space/play
equipment and affordable housing.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of development / demolition is commenced, the applicant shall
secure the implementation of a programme of archaeological work including excavation of
trenches in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, which shall have first been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The archaeological
investigation shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.
3. Prior to the commencement of the 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 ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall
include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the
Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and
controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions
on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and
landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and
property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior
to the start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained
within the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the
site.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall
validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by
the Local Planning Authority.
4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the
materials for the external elevations including walls and roofs of the development 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.
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
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 the initial implementation of the planting scheme shall be
replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
6. The development shall not be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing all the following
matters including; sustainable construction techniques; natural ventilation techniques;
sustainable urban drainage systems; techniques to reduce solar heat gain and use of renewable
energy sources; and all energy efficiency and sustainability matters have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the first occupation of any
dwelling the approved scheme shall be installed and shall thereafter be retained and maintained
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
7. Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the car parking provision
shall be laid out and completed in accordance with Drawing No. 510-204B prior to first
occupation of any of the residential units.
8. No development shall commence until an external lighting scheme has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be
implemented in full prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
9. No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until the local
planning authority has received and approved in writing a site operating statement in relation to
provision of permitted hours for construction works, delivery of materials and delivery and
collection of equipment, provision and use of on-site parking for contractors' and workpeople's
vehicles, wheelwashing facilities, street sweeping and no development or activities related or
incidental thereto shall take place on the site in contravention of such site operating statement.
10. Prior to the commencement of any building works on site, unless otherwise agreed in writing
by the Local Planning Authority the applicant shall submit for written approval an assessment
of noise likely to affect the application site. This assessment should follow PPG24 guidelines
towards assessing the noise from the surrounding road & rail network including Great Clowes
Street and any other local noise sources which are deemed significant on the site. The
assessment shall identify all noise attenuation measures which may be determined appropriate
to reduce the impact of noise on the residential properties on site and achieve the requirements
of BS8233 for internal noise levels. Consideration shall also be given to achieving adequate
Summer Cooling and Rapid Ventilation. If deemed necessary, alternative ventilation measures
shall be identified and incorporated into the noise assessment report. Once agreed, all identified
noise control measures shall be implemented and thereafter retained.
11. No development shall commence until a scheme of recycling facilities for the apartments
contained within the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Such scheme as is approved shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of
any dwelling.
12. No development shall be started until full details of the location, design and construction of bin
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
stores have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such
approved bin stores shall thereafter be constructed and made available for use before the
development is brought into use.
13. No development shall be started until full details of the location, design and construction of
cycle stores have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Such approved cycle stores shall thereafter be constructed and made available for use before
the development is brought into use.
14. Prior to the commencement of development details of the existing and proposed floor levels
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved
levels shall be implemented prior to first occupation,
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. To ensure the site is investigated for archaeological remains in accordance with policy CH5 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety
4. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
5. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
6. In order to reduce pollution in accordance with policy EN19 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
7. Standard Reason R012B Parking only within curtilage
8. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
9. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
10. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
11. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
12. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
13. To encourage alternative sustainable modes of transport in accordance with policy A10 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
14. Reason: In order to reduce the risk of flooding in accordance with policies EN19 and EN20 of
the Unitary Development Plan and policy 9 of the Salford City Council Supplementary
Planning Document, Lower Broughton Design Code
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment
Agency.
2. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
3. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the
applicant/developer is advised to contact the Pollution Control Section of the Environment
Directorate (Tel: (0161) 737 0551
4. 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
Access and egress for delivery vehicles shall be restricted to the working hours indicated
above.
APPLICATION No:
06/53857/FUL
APPLICANT:
Seddon Homes Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent 2a Moorside Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 12 semi-detached dwellings together with associated
landscaping and car parking
WARD:
Worsley
At the meeting of the panel held on the 15th February 2007 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a 0.4-hectare site located to the rear of The Sides Medical Centre and 2A
Moorside Road, a two-storey office block. The site is a brownfield site upon which a number of
mature trees are sited, 54 of which are protected by Tree Preservation Order Number 255. Access to
the site is via Moorside Road. The site slopes away from north to south by approximately 2.35m
and from east to west by approximately 1.9m.
The site is surrounded by residential properties to the north, south and east and by the medical
centre and the office block to the west.
It is proposed to erect 12 two storey semi-detached dwellings, a series of four dwellings running
west to east and a series of eight running north to south. The existing access road would be extended
in order to allow vehicular access to the proposed units. A total of 18 car parking spaces would be
provided on site. In order to accommodate the development it is proposed to fell 24 protected trees
and 19 non-protected trees.
SITE HISTORY
An application for the erection of a terrace of four town houses and two, two-storey buildings
comprising of four flats and seven garages, together with associated landscaping, car parking was
approved in December 2002 (ref 02/44646/FUL).
PUBLICITY
A press notices was published on the 7th of December 2006.
A site notice was posted on the 20th of December 2006.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
15 to 59 (odd) Ashley Drive
6 to 12 (even) Moorside Rd
2A Moorside Road
17A, 17B to 33 (odd) Moorside Road
The Sides Medical Centre, Moorside Rd
The Limes, Moorfield Close
1 to 15 (odd) Moorfield Close
1A, 3A and 5A Norwood Drive
2 and 4 Norwood Drive
CONSULTATIONS –
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No objections
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No objections
United Utilities – No objections
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 7 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised –
Loss of light
Loss of privacy
Loss of trees
Impact on local wildlife including bats
Noise and disturbance during the construction period
Increased noise and air pollution as a result of the increased traffic flow to the site.
The materials proposed would not respect the surrounding area
The design of the dwellings is basic
Loss of view
The proposal involves the loss of a Greenfield site
Devaluation of property
Concerns over drainage and possible flooding of gardens
The proposals represent an overdevelopment of the site.
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 – Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas
DRAFT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
The following policies of the Draft RSS – The North West Plan (March 2006) are considered to be
of relevance:
DP1 – Regional Development Principles
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10 – Design and Crime
DES11 – Design Statements
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
ST11 - Location of New Development
H8 - Open Space Provision Within New Housing Development
EN13 – Protected Trees
PLANNING APPRAISAL
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether there would be a detrimental impact on residential amenity;
whether the proposed level of parking is acceptable; whether the loss of trees is acceptable; and
whether the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development
Plan. I shall deal with each of these issues in turn.
Principle
Policy DP1 seeks to ensure that development makes the most efficient use of land. This is
re-iterated in Draft Policy DP1.
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.
Policy ST11 advocates a sequential approach to development with sites involving the reuse and
conversion of existing buildings being the preferred location of development, followed by
previously developed land with Greenfield sites last.
The Council’s Planning Guidance on Housing states that in this area, West Salford, the majority of
units within new developments should be in the form of houses rather than apartments.
The proposed development site is a Brownfield site and consequently the proposals to redevelop
the site are in accordance with Policy ST11.
With regards to Policy H1 of the adopted UDP and the Council’s Planning Guidance on Housing
and the mix of units proposed the development would provide twelve 3 bedroomed semi-detached
houses. The proposed development is therefore in accordance with Policy H1 and the Council’s
Planning Guidance on Housing, as it would make a positive contribution towards the ability of the
city’s housing stock to meet the housing requirements of all groups within Salford.
I also consider that the proposed development density of 30 dwellings per hectare to be acceptable
in this location.
Design –
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the character
of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this policy, regard
will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings and the quality
and appropriateness of proposed materials.
Policy 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.
It is proposed to erect 2 different dwelling types on site, type A and type B. The type A dwellings
would be two storeys high measuring 4.8m at the eaves and 7m at the ridge. The proposed type B
dwellings would measure 4.8m to the eaves and 7.5m to the ridge. Both sets of properties would be
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
gable-ended buildings. I am of the opinion that the design, scale and massing of the proposed
dwellings would respect the that of other properties in the vicinity of the site, including those on
Ashley Drive, which are all two storeys in height. Consequently I am of the opinion that the
proposed development would harmonise with its surroundings.
The design of the buildings is of an acceptable standard and in accordance with Policy DES11 a
design statement has been submitted with the application.
The proposed materials would consist of brick, UPVC windows and roofing tiles. 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 suitably high quality.
In the interests of sustainable development I have attached a condition requiring a detailing all the
following matters including; sustainable construction techniques; natural ventilation techniques;
sustainable urban drainage systems; techniques to reduce solar heat gain and use of renewable
energy sources; and all energy efficiency and sustainability matters scheme to be submitted and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Overall, I am of the opinion that the proposed development would have a positive impact upon the
visual amenity of the area in accordance with policies DES2 and DES11 of the adopted UDP.
Amenity Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of
amenity. Development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or
users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
At their closest the proposed dwellings at plots 1 to 4 which run east west across the site, along the
northern boundary of the site would be located 21m from the rear elevation of the properties at 45 to
51 Ashley Drive. A 3m high (approx) wall marks the boundary between the properties at 45 to 51
Ashley Drive and the application site. I am therefore of the opinion that the proposed dwellings at
plots 1 to 4 would not have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity the occupants of the
properties at 45 to 51 Ashley Drive can reasonably expect to enjoy.
The blank gable end of the property at plot 5 would be located 16.8m from the common boundary
with the properties at 41 and 43 Ashley Drive. The introduction of this property would not therefore
have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity the occupants of this property currently enjoy.
The properties at plots 5 to 12 that run north south across the site, along the common boundary with
the properties at 17 to 31 (odd) Ashley Drive would be located at least 25.6m from the rear
elevation of these properties. Adequate separation would therefore be maintained between facing
habitable room windows and adequate separation would be maintained to prevent any significant
overshadowing of garden areas occurring.
The blank gable end of the property at plot 12 would be located 1.5m from the common boundary
with The Limes. There would be approx. 18m between the blank gable of the proposed property
and the habitable room windows contained within The Limes. Consequently I am of the opinion
that adequate separation would be maintained to ensure that the dwelling at plot 12 would not form
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
an overbearing structure. This level of separation would also ensure that the occupants of The
Limes do not experience a significant reduction in the level of light received in their habitable
rooms. The proposed dwelling would run alongside an area of open space at The Limes. This area is
however densely populated by trees and consequently already well shaded. As a result I do not have
any concerns over the situation of the dwelling at plot 12 and its relationship with this area of open
space.
The land to the west of the site is not used for residential purposes.
Policy DES7 also requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level
of amenity.
There would be adequate separation within the site to ensure that future occupants of the proposed
dwellings enjoy a satisfactory level of amenity.
Each of the proposed dwellings would be provided with a reasonable amount of useable amenity
space in the form of a rear garden.
Car Parking Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards.
One parking space would be provided for each of the proposed dwellings and there would be 6
visitor spaces. I am satisfied that the proposed level of car parking is acceptable. The proposed car
parking and access would be laid out in such a way that I do not have any objections to the proposed
development on highway safety grounds as I do not consider that there would be any long term
issues with the increased vehicular traffic flow to and in the vicinity of the site.
Trees Policy EN13 of the adopted UDP relates to protected trees. It states that development that will
result in the unacceptable loss of, or damage to, protected trees will not be permitted.
The proposed development would result in the loss of 26 protected trees. Of the 26 protected trees
that would be felled 5 need to be felled for arboricultural management reasons or because any value
these trees currently have would be lost within 10 years. These trees are 01255 (holly) 01275
(sycamore), 01297 (Horse Chestnut), 01301 (sycamore) and 01303 (holly).
11 of the other protected trees that would be felled have been classified by BS5837 as trees that are
of a low quality and therefore make a limited contribution to the amenity of the area (grade c).
The remaining 8 TPO’d trees that would be removed have not been assessed individually, as they
only make a contribution to the visual amenity of the area in a group. It is not therefore possible to
give these trees an individual grading. Initial inspections outlined in the arboricultural statement
have however indicated that 5 of these trees are poor specimens and consequently it is highly likely
that they would be classified under BS5837 as grade c trees. The other 3 trees that would be felled
are not referred to in the statement and therefore such a judgement cannot be made. However it
should be noted that the removal of these trees would allow for the construction of an access road in
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
a location that allows the majority of trees within the group to be retained. The removal of these
trees would also allow for a substantial level of replanting.
In addition to felling these trees it is proposed to fell 20 other trees - 14 apple trees running along
the northern boundary of the site, one scotts pine (01251), one holly (01256), one silver birch
(01288), one sycamore (02191), one ash (01300A) and one maple (01308). According to the
BS5837 classification all these trees, with the exception of the sycamore (01291) and the maple
(01308) which are trees of a low quality, need to be felled for arboricultural management reasons or
because any value these trees currently have would be lost within 10 years.
The Councils consultant arborist has inspected the trees and he is of the opinion that as the majority
of the trees on site make a limited contribution to the visual amenity of the wider area.
Consequently he does not have any objections to the proposed tree felling.
In order to protect the trees that would remain on site during the construction period I have attached
a condition requiring protective fencing to be erected around the trees. In addition to this a further
level of protection needs to be afforded to the trees located within close proximity of the proposed
parking outside plots 7 to 12. I have therefore attached a condition requiring a scheme to be
submitted that shows how these spaces will be constructed using a non-dig construction method.
In order to ensure that the visual amenity of the area is not eroded by the proposed development I
have attached a condition that requires a landscaping scheme that provides for significant tree
planting being submitted and approved.
With regards to the impact that the remaining trees would have upon future occupants of the
proposed dwellings I am satisfied that the proposed development complies with Policy TD3 of the
Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on trees as it would not contain any habitable room
windows within 3.6m of any point of the crowns of the trees that would remain on site.
Open Space –
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 £25,920 contribution towards
the provision and maintenance of open space in the vicinity is required.
Other Issues –
With regards to concerns over noise and disruption during the construction phase a condition has
been attached that requires a considerate contractors management plan to be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. This should
ensure that residents do not experience significant levels of noise and disturbance during the
construction phase.
Devaluation of property is not a material planning consideration, nor is loss of view.
Concerns have been expressed over drainage and the potential for flooding. In order to reduce the
risk of flooding, in accordance with Policy EN19 of the adopted UDP, I have attached a condition
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
that requires a scheme for foul and surface water drainage to be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. I have also
attached a condition that requires finished floor levels to be 300mm above the adjacent road level.
A number of mature trees currently occupy the application site. It is possible that these trees could
be used by bats as locations to hibernate or roost. In order to ensure the protection of a protected
species in accordance with Policy EN10 I have therefore attached a condition that requires a bat
survey to be carried out and submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes
is acceptable. I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the
Adopted UDP and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. I therefore
recommend that the application be approved
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the
materials for the walls and roof of the development 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 12months of the commencement of development and
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or
shrubs dying within five years of the initial implementation of the planting scheme shall be
replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
5. The development shall not be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing all the following
matters including; sustainable construction techniques; natural ventilation techniques;
sustainable urban drainage systems; techniques to reduce solar heat gain and use of renewable
energy sources; and all energy efficiency and sustainability matters have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the first occupation of any
dwelling the approved scheme shall be installed and shall thereafter be retained and maintained
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
6. Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority the finished floor levels of
the buildings hereby approved shall be a minimum of 300mm above the adjacent road level.
7. Prior to the commencement of development a bat survey shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The survey should provide details on whether the
trees on site are used as hibernation sites, roosts or breeding sites by bats. Should the trees be
used by bats, or have the potential to be used by bats, details should be provided on how
alternative potential roosting places will be provided.
8. Prior to the first occupation of plots 7 to 12 hereby permitted the 12 car parking spaces shown
in the approved plan (311/01 Drawing 03 Revision B) shall be constructed and marked out
within the curtilage of the site. The spaces shall be made available for future occupants of the
development hereby approved at all times whilst the premises are in use.
9. Standard Condition C03X Fencing of Trees/no work within spread
10. Prior to the commencement of development an Arboricultural Method Statement that details
how the 12 proposed car parking spaces opposite plots 7 to 12 shall be constructed without
damaging the trees shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.
11. 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 policy H8 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP and the Salford
Greenspace Strategy 2006 will be paid to the Local Planning Authority for open space and
recreation space purposes.
12. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the proposed foul and surface water
drainage for the site shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The development shall be carried out and maintained in accordance with the
approved scheme.
(Reasons)
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
4. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
5. In order to reduce pollution in accordance with policy EN19 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
6. In order to reduce flooding in accordance with policy EN19 of the adopted UDP.
7. In order to ensure the protection of bats in accordance with Policy EN10 of the City of Salford
UDP.
8. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
9. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
10. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
11. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space
for future occupiers in accordance with policy H8 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP.
12. In order to reduce flooding in accordance with policy EN19 of the adopted UDP.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. In order to satisfy condition 10 a non-dig method of construction should be utilised.
APPLICATION No:
06/53910/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Bagshaw
LOCATION:
1A Blakefield Drive Worsley M28 7DW
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a two storey extension to front of dwelling
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached property on a short cul-de sac, Blakefield Drive in Worsley.
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
The application seeks to erect a two storey extension to the front of the property. The proposal
would accommodate a study at ground floor and a dressing room at first floor. The proposed
extension would contain two windows in the side elevation facing the boundary with number 1
Blakefield Drive, one at ground floor and one at first floor. There would be one window in the front
elevation at first floor. The proposed extension would measure 3.8m in length, 4.5m in width.
SITE HISTORY
There has been one previous application relating to this site planning application 04/49199/HH
which was for the erection of a single storey front extension. This planning permission has not been
implemented.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
27, 29, 31 Mesne Lea Road
1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 Blakefield Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 2 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Loss of light and over shadowing to the residents of number 29 Mesne Lea Road
Loss of privacy to number 31 Mesne Lea Road
I have received a request from Cllr Witkowski that this application be reported to the Panel. His
reason for this is that the proposal would obstruct the views of residents.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:DES1- Respecting Context
DES7- Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8- Alterations and Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the design of the proposed
extension is acceptable; whether there would be any unacceptable detrimental impact on
neighbours and residents and whether the development accords with the relevant policies of the
UDP and the House Extensions SPD.
Policy DES1 of the Adopted UDP 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 the character of streets, impact on views, scale and the quality and appropriateness of
proposed materials.
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
Policy DES7 of the Adopted UDP states that development will not be permitted where it would
have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments
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 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) House Extensions was adopted on the
19th July 2006. It provides additional guidance on the factors to be considered and standards
maintained when determining householder applications.
The proposed extension would be sited 1.6m from the side boundary of number 1A Blakefield
Drive which forms the rear boundary of 1A Blakefield Drive is the rear boundary of 29 Mesne Lea
Road. The rear elevation of 29 Mesne Lea Road contains a dining room window and a family room
window at ground floor and a bedroom window at first floor. The proposed extension would
maintain14.6m from the two storey gable elevation to these habitable room windows in the rear
elevation of 29 Mesne Lea Road. Policy HE3 requires that a minimum distance of 13m is
maintained between habitable room windows and two storey gable elevations. I would therefore
consider the proposed extension would not result in any unacceptable loss of light or over
shadowing to the neighbouring residents, the proposal is in accordance with Policy HE3.
To the rear of 31 Mesne Lea Road is the front garden area of 1A Blakefield Drive, Number 1A
Blakefield Drive has an existing single storey garage situated 0.6m from the rear boundary of
number 31 Mesne Lea Road. The proposed extension would be 8m from the rear boundary and
does not directly face 31 Mesne Lea Road. There are no windows proposed in the side elevation of
the extension, I therefore do not consider there would be any unacceptable loss of privacy to the
residents of 31 Mesne Lea Road.
The existing property at the application site has a different orientation and building line to the other
properties on Blakefield Drive. The adjacent properties face north east, whilst the application
property faces east and does not share a common building line. The proposed extension would be
6.8m from the common boundary with number 1 Blakefield Drive. As number 1 Blakefield Drive is
orientated away from number 1A Blakefield Drive I do not consider there would be any
unacceptable loss of amenity to the residents of this property.
There is an existing garage to the front of the proposed extension, the proposal would not project
beyond the garage. I would therefore not consider the proposal would have an unacceptable
detrimental impact on the street scene. This is in accordance with Policy DES1 of the Adopted
UDP.
CONCLUSION
The proposal accords with Policies contained within the Council’s Supplementary Planning
Documents on House Extensions and Policies DES 1,DES7, 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 any unacceptable loss of light or privacy to the neighbouring residents. I
therefore recommend the application be approved.
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the
date of this permission.
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same
type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by
the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990.
2. Reason: To ensure the development fits in with the existing building in accordance with policy
DES1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works. Property specific summary
information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect
the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports
Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
APPLICATION No:
06/53967/COU
APPLICANT:
Mr N Kay
LOCATION:
Units 2,3, And 4 Armitage Avenue Little Hulton
PROPOSAL:
Use of units to include A1, A2 (gaming), A3 (restaurant) and
A5 (hot food takeaway)
WARD:
Little Hulton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
This application relates to units 2, 3 and 4 Armitage Avenue, in Little Hulton. The application is for
the use of units to include A1, A2 (gaming), A3 (restaurant) and A5 (hot food takeaway). The units
currently are within Use Class A1. Unit two at present is occupied by a food retail unit and the other
two units (3 and 4) are currently vacant. The applicant proposes to extend the use classes in order to
provide an extend uses for future occupants. No external alterations or extensions are proposed.
The applicant proposes hours of opening till 12am in the evening.
The units are located on a small retail park on Armitage Avenue. The proposal is not located within
a neighbourhood centre. The proposal however is located on a busy signalled junction and along
Manchester Road West are a number of shops and public houses. The three units are located toward
the back of the site and there is a large car park in front of the units. The boundary of the site is
formed by a retaining wall to the front of the site and there is a ground difference of 1m between the
application site and Armitage Avenue.
SITE HISTORY
96/35559/OUT - Outline planning application for development of site for retail purposes –
Approved 11th December 1996
99/40116/OUT - Renewal of outline planning application for development of land for retail
purposes – Approved 20th January 2000
02/45324/REM - Reserved matters application for the siting, design and external appearance of two
retail units together with associated car parking. – 20th March 2003
03/45463/OUT - Renewal of outline planning application for development of land for retail
purposes – 20th March 2003
05/49842/ADV - Display of four fascia signs and one tower sign, all externally illuminated – 21st
February 2005
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services - No objections, conditions have been recommended.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 5th January 2007
The following neighbours were notified:
1, 1a, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, Armitage Avenue
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Armitage Grove
St Pauls Church, Manchester Road West
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a petition from the residents of Armitage Avenue and Armitage Grove with
fourteen signatures objecting to the proposal. The following issues have been raised:
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
Environmental Issues – by reason of noise especially at night, smells, antisocial behaviour and
litter.
Increase in traffic would have an unacceptable impact on amenity
Youths congregating anti-social youths
Details of proposal are a bit vague
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
S4 – Control of Food and Drink Premises
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the proposed uses if implemented
would have any impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by virtue of noise, disturbance,
smells, fumes and litter and whether there would be sufficient car parking in order to accommodate
the extended use classes.
Impact on Amenity
Adopted Policy S4 states that proposals for hot food shop uses would not be permitted by the
Council where the use would have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of surrounding
residential occupiers by reason of noise, disturbance, smells, fumes, litter, vehicular traffic
movements, parking or pedestrian traffic and the vitality and viability of a town centre and visual
amenity.
Policy DES7 state that development will not 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 A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards. It also states that the
maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
Policy S3 is mainly relates to retail units in within Town and Neighbourhood Centres. However
reference is made to units outside town centres and in these cases change of use from A1 would
only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that there is no demand for the retail premises and an
alternative use would be more appropriate.
With reference to policy S3 the application is not located within a Town or Neighbourhood Centre.
I consider that the principle of a change of use in this location would be acceptable as two of the
three units are vacant and therefore it can be proved that an alternative use may be more appropriate
in order to lease the units.
The units are located on a small retail park on Armitage Avenue. The proposal is not located within
a neighbourhood centre. The proposal however is located on a busy signalled junction and along
Manchester Road West are a number of shops and public houses. The three units are located toward
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
the back of the site and there is a large car park in front of the units. The boundary of the site is
formed by a retaining wall to the front of the site and there is a ground difference of 1m between the
application site and Armitage Avenue.
There are residential units to the east and south of the site, along Armitage Avenue and Armitage
Grove. The closest residential property would be approximately 20m from the proposal. I have had
objections from these residents with regard to potential increase in noise and disturbance. The units
the proposal relates to are A1 units and there are no conditions restricting times of opening,
therefore there is nothing to prevent any existing currently retail (A1) uses from opening into the
evening. I would therefore consider due to the location of the proposal in a busy area of Little
Hulton and that there are existing retail shops which do not have restricted hours that this proposal
would not result in a significant increase in noise from customers visiting the premises either by car
or on foot. A condition restricting the hours of use till 12am will be attached to the permission,
which would prevent the proposal from having an unacceptable impact on residential amenity.
I do not believe that a hot food shop would generate significantly more traffic or demand for car
parking than a successful A1 use which is the current permitted use of the unit. There is a car park
in front of the shop which would provide 57 spaces and 2 disabled parking spaces, this is adequate
parking for customers in accordance with provisions of the Unitary Development Plan. I therefore
have no objection to the proposal on highway grounds. The Director of Environmental Services has
recommended conditions which would prevent unit two from being used a drive thru take away
which could have the potential to have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of residents along
Armitage Grove by reason of vehicular traffic movement.
Objections have been raised with regards to smells and fumes that will result from the proposed
change of use to Classes A3 or A5. The nearest residential properties are approximately 20m from
the proposal therefore I do not consider the use of these units for either A3 or A5 use to be
inappropriate in this location. A condition has been recommended by the Director of
Environmental Services to address these concerns by requiring any future occupiers, if proposing
an A3 or A5 use, to submit the details of the extractor system to the Local Planning Authority for
approval before the business is brought into use. I therefore consider that this condition will ensure
there would be no unacceptable detrimental impact on neighbouring residents as a result of fumes
and odours.
Other Issues
An objection has been received with regard that extending the use classes in this proposal would
lead to an increase of anti-social youths in the area in the evenings. I do not consider it reasonable to
assume that a hot food shop would result in an increase of anti-social youths and I do not consider
that this should constitute a reason for refusal.
CONCLUSION
I am of the opinion that extending the use classes to A3, A2 and A5 would not result in an
unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of the surrounding residents. The proposal is
located on a busy junction in Little Hulton. I therefore consider that the proposal is in accordance
with DES7 and S4 of the Unitary Development Plan. I therefore recommend the application be
approved.
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. There shall be no opening to the southern facade of unit two facing Armitage Grove and no
vehicular access between unit two and Armitage Grove
3. The use hereby permitted shall only be operated between the hours of 7.30am and 12.00am on
Mondays to Sundays.
4. Prior to the units being brought into A3 or A5 use details of the fume extraction system serving
the cooking or/and food preparation areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to first use
and maintained in such a condition thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in Armitage Grove in accordance with
policy DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
4. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
APPLICATION No:
07/54015/FUL
APPLICANT:
Peel Investments (North) Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Off Pacific Way, Near To Junction With Daniel Adamson
Road Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Erection of six - two storey office units comprising 4092sq.m
floorspace together with associated landscaping, car parking
and construction of new, and alteration to existing vehicular
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
access
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant, 0.7-hectare site located at the junction of Pacific Way and
Daniel Adamson Road. Access to the site is via Daniel Adamson Way. Commercial units occupy
the land to the east and west of the site and the Manchester Ship Canal occupies the land to the
south of the site. The plot of land immediately to the north of the site is currently vacant. Beyond
this vacant plot the North West Water Authority Sewage Works are found.
Planning permission is sought for the erection of six two-storey B1 office units offering a combined
total of 4092sqm of office floorspace together with associated parking (100 spaces) and
landscaping. In order to allow access to the proposed office park a new access would be created off
Pacific Way. In total 100 car parking spaces would be provided throughout the site, seven of which
are suitable for use by disabled persons.
CONSULTATIONS
Trafford MBC – no objection subject to HSE consultation
Manchester Ship Canal Company – no comments received to date.
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – no comments received to date.
Environment Agency – no objections.
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – no objections subject to the attachment of
conditions requiring a site investigation and a green travel plan.
Health and Safety Executive – Do not advise against granting planning permission.
United Utilities – No objections
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on the 18th of January 2007
A site notice was published on the 1st of February 2007.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
5 Pacific Way
Osprey House, Pacific Way
North West Water Authority Sewage Works, James Corbett Road
1 and 7 Broadway
500, 510, 520,530, 540, 550, 560 Broadway
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
Tarmac Construction, Daniel Adamson Way
Pioneer Concrete UK, Daniel Adamson Way
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
DP3: Quality in New Developments.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other Policies :
E4/15: Sites for Employment Development.
DES1: Respecting Context.
DES6: Waterside Development
DES7: Amenity of Neighbours and Users.
DES10: Design and Crime
DES11: Design Statements.
A1:
Transport Assessments and Travel Plans.
A10: Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments.
EN17: Pollution Control.
ST3: Employment Supply.
ST11: Location of New Development.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether the design of the proposed development is acceptable; whether
the proposed level of parking is acceptable; and whether the proposal complies with the relevant
policies of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan. I shall deal with each of these issues in turn.
Principle –
Policy DP1 seeks to ensure that development makes the most efficient use of land.
Policy ST11 advocates a sequential approach to development with sites involving the reuse and
conversion of existing buildings been the preferred location of development, followed by
previously developed land with Greenfield sites last.
Policy ST3 of the adopted UDP seeks to encourage a good range of local employment
opportunities.
Policy E4 allocates a number of sites as appropriate sites for employment development.
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
Policy EC8 of the Regional Spatial Strategy relates to town centres and the location of new retail,
leisure and office development. It states that office development that generates a significant number
of trips should be directed towards locations within or adjoining main city or district centres and
near to major public transport interchanges within urban areas.
PPS6 advocates a sequential approach to site selection stating that new retail, leisure and office
development should be located within existing centres. It goes on to state that in the absence of any
appropriate site in established centres, edge of centre sites are considered most appropriate
followed by out of centre sites, with preference being given to locations that are accessible, close to
an existing centre and have a high likelihood of forming links with the centre. PPS6 states that this
sequential approach should be applied to all development proposals for sites that are not in an
existing centre nor allocated in an up-to-date development plan document.
The development site is allocated in Policy E4 of the newly adopted UDP as a site that is suitable
for employment development. All the sites considered within Policy E4 are considered to accord
with the sequential approach set out in PPS6, Policy ST11 (Location of new development) and be in
accordance with Policy ST3, which relates to employment supply.
Policy A9 states that development that would prejudice the construction of the Broadway Link will
not be permitted.
The site is located to the south of the proposed Broadway Link. The proposed development would
not prejudice the construction of the link as it would not encroach upon the land required for the
links construction or the landscaping required in association with the link.
Overall I am therefore satisfied that the proposal is acceptable in land use terms.
Design
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the character
of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this policy, regard
will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings and the quality
and appropriateness of proposed materials.
The proposed development involves the erection of six office units, A to F, around a central parking
courtyard. Each of the buildings would vary slightly in size and design however all the buildings
respect a common theme. The units would be two storeys in height measuring 6.4m to the eaves and
10m to the ridge. The proposed office units would be constructed using a mixed palette of
materials including brickwork, metal roofs and focal entrance points utilising tinted glass, all of
which contribute to the modern design and distinctiveness of the proposal, and help to add interest
to the street-scene, which is dominated by two storey high industrial sheds and commercial
buildings.
The northern portion of the site lies adjacent to the site of the proposed Broadway Link. In order to
ensure that the proposed development would provide an active frontage to the link road, or at least
what would appear as an active frontage, feature glazed panels have been inserted into the rear
elevation of unit A and the front elevation of unit B which occupy the northern most section of the
site. These units also have windows in all elevations. I am satisfied that these details would ensure
that these buildings would have a positive impact upon the visual amenity of the area as the
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
buildings will add value and quality to the built environment and they would be fitting for a
prominently located site at the gateway to the Quays.
I have attached a condition requiring the submission of samples of materials to be submitted and
approved prior to the commencement of development and I am satisfied that this will ensure that
they will be of a suitably high quality and in keeping with the surrounding area.
Policy DES6 relates to waterside development and considers that all new development adjacent to
the Manchester Ship Canal will be required to facilitate pedestrian access to, along and, where
appropriate, across the waterway by the provision of: a safe, attractive and overlooked waterside
walkway, accessible to all and at all times of the day, where this is compatible with the commercial
role of the water way; pedestrian links between the waterside walkway and other key pedestrian
routes.
Policy R5 relates to the Countryside Access Network. The section of the Manchester Ship Canal
that runs to the rear of the application site is allocated in the adopted UDP as a proposed strategic
recreation route that would facilitate access for pedestrians and cyclists to the waterside. According
to Policy R5 planning permission will not be granted for any development that would result in the
permanent obstruction or closure of any part of the Countryside Access Network.
The rear elevation of block E and the side elevation of Block F front onto the Manchester Ship
Canal. In order that the development address the waterside, provides an attractive elevation to the
waterside and provides natural surveillance for the proposed strategic recreational route block E
contains a feature-glazed panel together with a series of large windows in the rear elevation.
Similarly block F contains a number of large windows in the side elevation that fronts onto the
waterside.
In order to facilitate pedestrian access to the waterside it is also proposed to have a pedestrian
access gate leading from the development site onto the strip of land immediately to the rear of the
site that runs adjacent to the Manchester Ship Canal. The provision of this pedestrian access would
ensure that the proposed development would not preclude access to the waterside as well as
ensuring that the proposal would not inhibit the creation of a strategic recreational route alongside
the Ship Canal.
In order that the development makes a positive contribution towards the council’s aspirations for
the creation of a canal side walkway and a strategic recreational route at the rear of the site in
accordance with Polices DES6 and R5 I recommend that a condition be attached to any approval
that requires the 9m wide strip of land adjacent to the Manchester Ship Canal to be laid out as a
walkway and landscaped. This is possible as despite being outside the redline for the application
the land is owned by the Manchester Ship Canal Company a branch of Peel Holdings and
consequently the applicant has an interest in the land.
Access
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards.
According to the Councils maximum standards a maximum of 1 space should be provided for every
35sqm of office floorspace created. The proposed development would create 4092sqm of
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
floorspace and consequently a maximum of 117 parking spaces should be provided for the
proposed office park. It is proposed to provide 101 spaces, 7 of which would be suitable for
disabled persons. The level of parking proposed is therefore in accordance with the Council’s
maximum standards.
The developer is also intending to provide cycle stores and motorcycle parking. Full details have
not been provided on the and therefore in order ensure compliance with the Council’s standards I
recommend that conditions are attached that require full details of the proposed cycle and
motorcycle parking to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior
to the commencement of development.
The proposed car parking and new access off Pacific Way would be laid out in such a way that I do
not have any objections to the proposed development on highway safety grounds.
In order to encourage more sustainable forms of transport in accordance with Policy A1 and PPG13
I recommend that a condition is attached the requires a green travel plan to be drawn up and its
proposals implemented in order that schemes are schemes are put in place to minimise car usage.
CONCLUSION
The proposed scheme would provide a suitable employment use in accordance with the land use
allocation in the UDP. I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of
the Adopted UDP and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. I therefore
recommend that the application be approved subject to the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the
materials for the walls and roof of the development 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.
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface
treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and
thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or
shrubs dying within five years of the initial implementation of the planting scheme shall be
replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
4. 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
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
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.
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.
5. Within a period of three months of the occupation of the unit, the tenant/landlord shall
undertake a travel survey and this data will form part of a Travel Plan. Within a period of 6
months from the first date of occupation of the building, a Travel Plan shall be submitted for the
written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan shall as a minimum include
the broad areas of actions, objectives and timescales for review and monitoring. Within twelve
months of occupation of the building, a Travel Plan shall be submitted for the written approval
of the Local Planning Authority, which shall include a review of targets, measures, staff survey
data and a monitoring survey. Annually from the occupation of the building, a Travel Plan shall
be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority for a period of 5 years
and then at a time agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
6. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the location, design and
construction of on-site parking facilities for cycles and motorcycles shall be submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. These facilities shall be provided prior
to the first occupation of the development and thereafter made available at all times the
development is operational.
7. Prior to the first occupation of the office units hereby permitted the 101 car parking spaces
shown in the approved plan (MH481-02 Revision E) shall be constructed and marked out
within the curtilage of the site. The spaces shall be made available for future occupants of the
development hereby approved at all times whilst the premises are in use
8. Prior to the first occupation of the office units hereby permitted, the new vehicular access to the
development, as shown on the approved plan (MH481-02 Revision E), shall be completed and
made available for use.
9. No external lighting shall be installed unless and until a scheme has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be
implemented and thereafter in accordance with the approved details.
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
10. Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority the finished floor levels of
the buildings hereby approved shall be a minimum of 300mm above the adjacent road level.
11. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the provision of a walkway,
associated landscaping and street furniture on the land to the rear of the site, adjacent to the
Manchester Ship Canal shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. No part of the site shall be occupied until the approved scheme has been
implemented.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
4. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
5. In order to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, in accordance with
Policy A1 of the UDP.
6. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
7. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
8. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
9. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
10. In order to reduce flooding in accordance with policy EN19 of the adopted UDP.
11. In order to ensure access to the waterfront in accordance with policies DES6 and R5 of the
adopted UDP.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. In order to satisfy the requirements of condition 3 the treatment to gable end of unit A should of
a particularly high quality. The provision of some form of public art in this area would be
welcomed.
APPLICATION No:
07/54061/FUL
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Bull
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To 5 Kent Road Cadishead M44 5YH
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a detached bungalow
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a plot of land at 5 Kent Road in Cadishead. The site is currently occupied
by a two-storey semi detached dwelling and a series of single storey, detached outbuildings.
Vehicular access to the site is via Kent Road, a cul-de-sac. The site is bounded on all sides by
residential properties. It is proposed to split the plot in order to erect a detached dormer bungalow,
which would have a footprint of 10.1m by 6.5m and would measure 6m at the ridge and 2.2m at the
eaves. The two car parking spaces would be provided for future occupants of the proposed
bungalow. These spaces would be accessed via the existing access.
SITE HISTORY
An application for the erection of a detached bungalow on the site was refused in September 2006
(ref 06/53197/FUL). This application was refused for the following reasons –
1. The proposed development would, by virtue of its size and siting, have a detrimental impact on
the amenity of future residents of the proposed dwelling. The proposal would therefore be contrary
to Policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and Policy DES7 of the Revised
Deposit Draft Replacement Plan.
2. The proposed development would, by virtue of its size and siting, have an adverse impact upon
the residential amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents and it would prejudice the
future development opportunities of the neighbouring sites. The proposal would therefore be
contrary to Policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. Insufficient details of the existing and proposed site levels have been submitted to enable the
implications of the proposed development to be assessed.
4.
The siting of the proposed bungalow to the rear of 5 Kent Road would not provide for
adequate natural surveillance and as a result would lead to conditions prejudicial to designing out
crime and the fear of crime and compromise the living conditions of any future occupants contrary
to policies DES1 and DES10 of the adopted UDP and the Council's SPD on crime.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
9, 9A, 11, 11A, 13, 13A, 15 and 15A Melville Road
1 to 8 Kent Road, including 7A and 8A
13, 15, 17, 17A and 19 Buckingham Road
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
Councillor C Hudson, Councillor J Hunt and Councillor K Mann were also notified of the
application.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections subject to conditions
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 3 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised –
The proposed bungalow does not have a separate access.
The access to the property is too narrow to allow access by the emergency services
Increased traffic flow in the cul-de-sac
The proposed bungalow is out of character with the area
Disruption during the construction phase
Councillor Mann does not feel that the site is suitable for a detached bungalow. He has therefore
requested that the application be considered by Panel.
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 – Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas
DRAFT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
The following policies of the Draft RSS – The North West Plan (March 2006) are considered to be
of relevance:
DP1 – Regional Development Principles
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10 – Design and Crime
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
ST11 - Location of New Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether there would be a detrimental impact on residential amenity;
whether the proposed level of parking is acceptable; and whether the proposal complies with the
relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan. I shall deal with each of these issues in
turn.
Principle –
Policy DP1 seeks to ensure that development makes the most efficient use of land. This is
re-iterated in Draft Policy DP1.
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.
Policy ST11 advocates a sequential approach to development with sites involving the reuse and
conversion of existing buildings been the preferred location of development, followed by
previously developed land with Greenfield sites last.
The Council’s Planning Guidance on Housing states that in this area, West Salford, the majority of
units within new developments should be in the form of houses rather than apartments.
A semi-detached property and a series of single storey outbuildings currently occupy the site. The
site is therefore previously developed and consequently the proposals to redevelop the site are in
accordance with Policy ST11.
With regards to Policy H1 of the adopted UDP and the Council’s Planning Guidance on Housing
and the mix of units proposed the proposed development would provide a detached bungalow. The
proposed development is therefore in accordance with Policy H1 and the Council’s Planning
Guidance on Housing, as it would make a positive contribution towards the mix of dwellings in the
locality, the majority of which are two storey semi detached properties and flats.
Design –
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the character
of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this policy, regard
will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings and the quality
and appropriateness of proposed materials.
Policy DES10 of the adopted UDP states that development will not be permitted unless it is
designed to discourage crime, antisocial behaviour and the fear of crime and support personal and
property safety.
The proposed dormer bungalow would measure 2.2m at the eaves and it would be 6m at the ridge.
The bungalow would be a gable-ended building. The design of the proposed bungalow is simple
but acceptable. The majority of properties in the vicinity of the site are two storey semi-detached
properties with flat roofs. While the bungalow differs in design from those it its vicinity I do not
have any concerns with the proposed development from a street scene perspective as the proposed
siting is such that the bungalow would be set back in the site, screened from the public realm by the
existing buildings on Kent Road.
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
Given the low visibility of the bungalow from the public realm it is proposed to install security
gates, external lighting and an intruder alarm in order to overcome design and crime issues. I am
satisfied that the security measures proposed would secure the site and ensure that the proposed
bungalow is not vulnerable to crime.
The proposed materials would consist of brick, UPVC windows and roofing tiles. 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 suitably high quality.
Overall, I am of the opinion that the proposed development would have a positive impact upon the
visual amenity of the area in accordance with policies DES1 of the adopted UDP.
Amenity Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of
amenity. Development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or
users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
In order to facilitate the proposed development the plot of 5 Kent Road would be divided into two.
Despite reducing the land associated with 5 Kent Road I am satisfied that the occupants of this
property would be provided with adequate car parking (2 spaces) and a satisfactory level of useable
amenity space in the form of a rear garden. The residential amenity the occupants of 5 Kent Road
would not be adversely affected by the introduction of the proposed bungalow as the bungalow
would be sited away from the property, fronting onto the garden area of 5 Kent Road from which it
would be set 10.5m.
The proposed bungalow would be set 9.3m from the common boundary with numbers 7 and 7A
Melville Road, along which a 1.8m high fence runs. I am of the opinion that this level of separation
is sufficient to ensure that the occupants of numbers 7 and 7A Melville Road would not experience
a reduction in the residential amenity they currently enjoy.
The proposed bungalow would be sited 1.6m from the common boundary with the properties at 9,
9A, 11 and 11A Melville Road. The properties at 9, 9A, 11 and 11A Melville Road have 21m long
gardens. As a result the introduction of the proposed bungalow would not reduce the amount of
light received in the habitable room windows contained within the rear elevation of these
properties. With regards to shadowing given the length of the gardens and the siting of the proposed
bungalow to the west of the properties at 9, 9A, 11 and 11A Melville Road I am satisfied that the
useable garden area of these properties would not receive a significant level of overshadowing.
Consequently I am of the opinion that the residential amenity the occupants of 9, 9A, 11 and 11A
Melville Road currently enjoy would not be adversely affected by the proposed development.
At its closest the blank gable end of the proposed bungalow would be located 16.5m from the
properties at 7 and 7A Kent Road. The properties at 7 and 7A Kent Road do not have any habitable
room windows in the elevation fronting the application site. This, in combination with the fact that
the proposed bungalow runs along the driveway of 7/7A Kent Road from which it would be located
1.6m at its closet, increasing to 7.5m, means that I am satisfied that the proposed development
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
would not have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity the occupants of 7 and 7A Kent
Road can reasonably expect to enjoy.
Policy DES7 also requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level
of amenity.
I am satisfied those future occupants of the proposed bungalow would receive adequate light in
their habitable rooms and that they would be provided with adequate outlook from their habitable
rooms. The provision of a rear garden means that future occupants of the proposed bungalow would
also be provided with a reasonable amount of useable amenity space.
Access
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards.
2 car parking spaces would be provided for future occupants of the proposed bungalow. The
proposed car parking and access would be laid out in such a way that I do not have any objections to
the proposed development on highway safety grounds. I do not consider that the introduction of the
proposed bungalow would have an adverse impact upon traffic flow along Kent Road.
Other Issues –
With regards to concerns over noise and disruption during the construction phase a condition has
been attached that requires a considerate contractors management plan to be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. This should
ensure that residents do not experience significant levels of noise and disturbance during the
construction phase.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes
is acceptable. I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the
Adopted UDP and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. I therefore
recommend that the application be approved and that the decision be delegated to the Chair
following the expiration of the neighbour notification period.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegate decision to Chair
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the
materials for the walls and roof of the development 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.
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface
treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and
thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or
shrubs dying within five years of the initial implementation of the planting scheme shall be
replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
4. 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.
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.
5. No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until the local
planning authority has received and approved in writing a site operating statement in relation to
provision of permitted hours for construction works, delivery of materials and delivery and
collection of equipment, provision and use of on-site parking for contractors' and workpeople's
vehicles, and no development or activities related or incidental thereto shall take place on the
site in contravention of such site operating statement.
6. No external lighting shall be installed unless and until a scheme has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be
implemented and thereafter in accordance with the approved details.
7. Prior to the first occupation of the bungalow hereby permitted the 2 car parking spaces shown
in the approved plan (drawning Number 251) shall be provided within the curtilage of the site.
The spaces shall be made available at all times whilst the premises are in use.
8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995 in Article 3, Schedule 2, Class A part (d) no windows shall be
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
inserted in the side elevation of the dwelling that faces the properties on Melville Road without
prior grant of planning permission by the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
4. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
6. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
7. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
8. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
APPLICATION No:
06/53039/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Urban Vision Partnership Ltd
LOCATION:
The Withies 103 Worsley Road Eccles M30 8LY
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application to include access for the
development of land for residential purposes
WARD:
Winton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the land currently occupied by The Withes, a residential care home for
the elderly. Existing access to the site is via Worsley Road. A mix of residential and commercial
properties occupy the land to the north of the site. The rest of the land surrounding the site is used
for residential purposes.
Planning permission is sought to demolish the residential care home and for the use of the land for
residential purposes. Access to the site, appearance, layout, scale and landscaping details have been
reserved at this stage (this application was submitted prior to changes made to the outline planning
procedures in August 2006:- no design and access statement or indicative details are required to be
submitted).
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 to 40 Shepway Court
12 to 18 (even) Signal Close
2 and 4 Midford Avenue
1 to 7 Ainsdale Close
1 and 3 Campbell Road
2 to 20 (even) New Lane
143 and 145 Worsley Road
98, 98A, 100 to 112 (even), 118, 120 to 128 (even) Worsley Road
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to the attachment of
conditions requiring a site investigation and a noise survey
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No objections
United Utilities – No objections
Environment Agency – No objections
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 7 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised –
Loss of trees and greenery
Concerns over possible access from Midford Avenue
Disruption during the construction phase
Removal of parking area on Midford Avenue
Increased traffic and impact on residential amenity
Midford Avenue’s narrow and will not cope with increased traffic
I have also received a petition with 102 signatures.
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 – Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas
DRAFT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
The following policies of the Draft RSS – The North West Plan (March 2006) are considered to be
of relevance:
DP1 – Regional Development Principles
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
EHC4 – Reuse of Existing Health and Community Facilities
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
ST11 - Location of New Development
H8 - Open Space Provision Within New Housing Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether the proposed access is acceptable; and whether the proposal
complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan. I shall deal with
each of these issues in turn.
Principle –
Policy DP1 seeks to ensure that development makes the most efficient use of land.
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
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.
Policy ST11 advocates a sequential approach to development with sites involving the reuse and
conversion of existing buildings been the preferred location of development, followed by
previously developed land with Greenfield sites last.
Policy EHC4 states that the reuse or redevelopment of existing or former community facilities will
only be granted where there is a clear lack of demand for the existing use or adequate alternative
provision is made.
The Withies, a residential care home, currently occupies the site. The site is therefore previously
developed and consequently the proposals to redevelop the site are in accordance with Policy ST11.
With regards to the development of the site for residential purposes, the site is located within a
predominantly residential area and therefore, subject to compliance with Policy EHC4 I do not
have any in principle objections to the use of the site for residential purposes.
In order to demonstrate that the proposals are in accordance with policy EHC4 the applicant has
submitted a supporting statement with their application. This statement provides details on how
The Withies is no longer suitable for use as a residential care home, the alternative provision which
is being made for occupants of the home and demonstrates that there is no current or future demand
for the facility.
Turning first to the use of The Withies as a care home and the alternative provision being made for
previous occupants. The applicant describes how the policy framework for caring for the elderly
has altered with Local Authorities now being advised to withdraw from the provision of residential
care homes as these are facilities best provided through the private and voluntary sectors. In
response to the revised agenda for care home provision the applicant notes how The Withies was
closed as the Council entered into a contract with Manchester Care, a non-profit organisation, to
provide residential care in the City. As part of this contract two new residential care homes were to
be provided in Irlam and Little Hulton on the sites of two existing Council owned facilities. It was
hoped that these homes better serve the needs of the elderly as they would comply with standards
sets by the Commission for Social Care Inspectorate unlike the Withies which could not be updated
to meet such standards and remain a viable business unit. From 2003, while the construction of the
new residential care home in Irlam was undertaken, The Withies has been used on a temporary
basis to provide accommodation for the elderly however residents were relocated to the new home
in Irlam in October 2006.
With regards to demonstrating that the building is not required by any other departments of the
Council that provides community facilities, the applicant has provided the minutes of the Resource
Planning Group where the various Council departments were made aware of the availability of the
building and given the opportunity to express any interest they may have. No expressions of
interest were made.
In the light of this evidence, I am of the opinion that the proposed redevelopment of the site for
residential purposes is in accordance with Policy EHC4 and therefore I do not have any in principle
objections for the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes.
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
Open Space –
Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal open
space within housing developments.
In accordance with the above policies, the applicant is aware that a contribution towards the
provision and maintenance of open space in the vicinity is required. I have attached a condition
requiring such a contribution. I am therefore satisfied that the application therefore accords with
Policy H8.
Other Issues
With regards to concerns over the loss of trees and landscaping from the site and concerns over the
proposed access these are issues that will be considered at the Reserved Matters stage, when the
layout of the site is known.
With regards to concerns over noise and disruption during the construction phase, a condition has
been attached that requires a considerate contractors management plan to be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. This should
ensure that residents do not experience significant levels of noise and disturbance during the
construction phase.
With regards to concerns raised about vehicular access to the site and an increase in traffic, this
matter will be considered at the reserved matters stage when access to the site and the amount of
development is known.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes
is acceptable. I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the
Adopted UDP and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. I therefore
recommend that the application be approved and that the Strategic Director of Customer and
Support Services be authorised to enter into a planning obligation under Section 106 for the
provision of open space.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition B01B reserved matters time limit
2. Standard Condition B01D Reserved matters
3. Unless otherwise agreed 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,
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
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 Adopted, having regard to
the standards set out in Policy R2 of the Adopted UDP and Salford's Greenspace Strategy will
be paid to the Local Planning Authority for open space and recreation space purposes.
4. The finished floor levels shall be 300mm above adjacent road level unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
5. 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.
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.
6. An assessment of noise likely to affect the application site shall be submitted with the reserved
matters application. This assessment should follow PPG24 guidelines towards assessing the
noise from the surrounding road network including Worsley Road and any other noise sources
which are deemed significant on site. The assessment shall identify all noise attenuation
measures and alternative methods of ventilation to reduce the impact of noise on the residential
properties on site and achieve the requirements of BS8233 for internal noise levels. The
approved measures shall be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of any of the units
hereby approved and retained thereafter.
7. No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until the local
planning authority has received and approved in writing a site operating statement in relation to
provision of permitted hours for construction works, delivery of materials and delivery and
collection of equipment, provision and use of on-site parking for contractors' and workpeople's
vehicles, wheelwashing facilities, street sweeping and no development or activities related or
incidental thereto shall take place on the site in contravention of such site operating statement.
(Reasons)
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
1. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space
for future occupiers in accordance with policies H8 and R2 of the Adopted UDP
4. To reduce the risk of flooding in accordance with policy EN19.
5. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
6. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
7. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
Note(s) for Applicant
1. A separate drainage system will be required for the storage of surface water in order to limit
discharge to 15 L/S.
2. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
APPLICATION No:
06/53897/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Community, Health And Social Care Directorate
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To 82-84 Greenheys Road Little Hulton M38
9TH
PROPOSAL:
Construction of a multi use games area with two and three
metre high fencing, floodlighting and link path access
WARD:
Little Hulton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application is for the construction of a multi use games area with two and three metre high
fencing, floodlighting and link path access. The proposal would be situated to the rear of Peel
Community Sports Development Centre on the school playing fields. The proposal would allow
local teenagers, community groups and Whatton Primary School to have an all year sports facility
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
which would facilitate a range of sports to be played on the facility including 5 a-side football,
tennis and basketball.
SITE HISTORY
There have been no previous planning applications on this site.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections, conditions have been recommended.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 19th December 2006
The following neighbours were notified:
34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, Belcroft Drive
1 Brookhurst Lane
53, 55, 66, 66A, 68, 68a, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80, 86, 88, 90, 92, 94, 96, 98, 98a, 100, 100A,
102, 104, 106, 108 Greenheys Road
3, 3A, 5, 5A, 7, 9, 9A, 11, 11A, 13, 15, 17, 19 Mill Hill
1, 2, 3 Mossbrook Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection with regard to this application issues raised are summarised
below
Anti social behaviour by children in the area
The children using the sports field are usually unsupervised
The floodlights will affect resident’s amenity
Car parking issues at present will be made worse by the proposal
The gates to the fields are never lock therefore it will be the same with the proposal
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
R2 – Provision of Recreation Land and Facilities
DES 7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES 10 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are to assess whether the proposed games
facilities are acceptable on this site and suitable within the surrounding area, whether there will be
any impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by virtue of noise, disturbance and lighting
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
and whether the development would be in accordance with the Adopted Unitary Development Plan
policies.
Policy R2 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan states that planning permission for recreation
development will be granted unless it would have an unacceptable impact on amenity, an
unacceptable impact on highway safety, or an unacceptable impact on existing recreation facilities.
Policy DES7 states that development will not 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 DES10 states that development will not be permitted unless it is designed to discourage
crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime, and support personal and property security. All
proposed development should clearly delineate public, communal, semi-private and private spaces,
avoiding ill-defined or left over spaces; allow natural surveillance, particularly of surrounding
public spaces, means of access, and parking areas; avoid places of concealment and inadequately lit
areas; and encourage activity within public areas.
The proposal would be situated to the rear of Peel Community Sports Development Centre on the
school playing fields. This site is not allocated in the Unitary Development Plan. There are
residential properties surrounding the existing school playing field to the north, east and south. The
closest residential property would be 30m from the proposal.
The proposed games area would be located 31.4m from the rear elevation of the sports centre. The
multi games area would be 37m x 18.5m. The sports pitch would be raised approximately 10cm
above ground level to ensure the pitch does not suffer from problems with flooding. Around the
perimeter of the games area would be a 2m/3m high fence and beyond this a 1.2m wide bitumen
macadam path. The path would be sloped to existing ground level to compensate for the raised
pitch area and the path would be extended to the sports centre to provide a link to those using the
facility. All paths would be inaccordance with legislation and requiments of the Disabled
Discrimination Act. The proposal would include high duex mesh fencing around the perimeter of
the games area. The lower 1.2m section of the fence would be reinforced. The proposed fencing
would be polyester powder coated green in RAL6005. To the north and south (goal ends) the
fencing would be 3m in height and to the east and west the fencing would be 2m in height.
I consider that the design and colour of the fencing would not have an unacceptable impact on the
visual amenity of surrounding residents or would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the
street scene. Therefore the proposal would be in accordance with R2 and DES7.
I consider that the proposed fencing would clearly define private space in the area. This would
create a sense of ownership and security, which is a requirement of DEV10 of the Unitary
Development Plan. The proposed fencing would be in accordance with the Council’s Design and
Crime Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which states that boundary treatments should
normally be visually permeable so that no hiding places are created.
The proposal includes the erection of four floodlights. The proposed floodlight would be erected at
the corners of the games area. They would be 8m high and would have a twin arm bracket
containing two lighting arms. The applicant has not specified the colour of the floodlight columns
therefore I have attached a condition to the permission to agree a colour prior to the commencement
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
of the development.
Issues have been raised in relation to the floodlighting having an unacceptable impact on residential
amenity. The applicant has submitted a light spill survey, which indicates the proposed flux levels
surrounding the site when the floodlights are in use. The survey indicates that the lighting on the
pitch would be 200 lux and due to the position of the floodlights directed down onto the pitch the
lux levels near residential properties would be between 0.1 and 0.3 lux. I therefore consider that the
impact on the surrounding properties would be minimal. I therefore consider that the proposed
floodlighting would not have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity. The Director of
Environmental Services has recommended a condition be attached regarding hours of use of the
games pitch to protect the amenity of surrounding residents.
Objections have been raised from residents with regard to proposals impact on car parking. There is
a hardstanding area in front of the Sport Centre of the which can be used for car parking however
this is not formally laid out and there is no parking restriction along Greenheys Road.. It is not
proposed to provide any formal parking on site but the opportunity for funding to create a car park
for the facility is being explored as part of future plans. Despite this the proposal is considered to be
highly accessible location I am of the opinion that proposal would not exacerbate parking problems
to such an extent as to result in material harm to highway safety or a significant increase in traffic in
the locality. I do not therefore have any objections to the proposal from a highway safety
perspective.
Issues have also been raised in relation to antisocial behaviour in the area and the children using the
facilities unsupervised. I do not consider it reasonable to assume that the proposal would result in
an increase of anti-social youths. When the facility is not in use the gates to the games area will be
locked I therefore consider that children will not use the facility without supervision. I therefore do
not consider that this should constitute a reason for refusal.
CONCLUSION
I consider that the proposed games area would not have an unacceptable impact upon the amenity
of neighbouring resident’s or on the street scene. I therefore consider that the proposal would be in
accordance with DES7, DES10 and R2 of the Adopted Unitary Development.
Therefore I recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of development full details of the colour of the floodlight columns
hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The floodlight columns shall be powder coated in the approved colour prior to
installation and shall be maintained as such thereafter.
3. The perimeter fencing hereby approved shall be colour treated with the approved colour green
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
(RAL6005) prior to installation and shall be maintained as such thereafter.
4. The use of the multi use games area shall be prohibited outside of the following hours;
Monday to Friday 09.00 hours to 21.00 hours
Saturdays 09.00 hours to 18.00 hours and
Sundays and Bank holidays 09.00 to 16.00 hours.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
4. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works. Property specific summary
information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect
the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports
Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
2. The applicant is advised to contact United Utilities prior to the commencement of
development.
APPLICATION No:
06/53923/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Childrens Services Directorate
LOCATION:
Eccles Alder Park County Primary School Walnut Road Eccles
M30 8LE
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4m high security fencing, construction of new
entrance with disabled access ramp and provision of additional
parking spaces
WARD:
Winton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the erection of a 2.4 metre high security fence, the construction of a new
entrance with disabled access ramp and the provision of additional car parking spaces at Eccles
Alder Park Primary School on Walnut Road in Eccles.
The site is currently occupied by a disused school building which is protected to the front by a 2.4
metre weldmesh fence however there is poor boundary treatment to the sides and rear of the site
currently rendering the school and its grounds vulnerable to attacks of crime and vandalism. It is
proposed that the fencing will be erected to a height of 2.4 metres and will form a continuous
barrier around the site.
The application includes the erection of an access ramp for disabled persons and the removal of 7no
trees to provide clear observation of the site by CCTV cameras, which are proposed to be erected in
the grounds of the school. An additional 17 car parking spaces will be constructed in the place of
part of the school, which is to be demolished. This is to accommodate visitor and disabled persons
car parking.
SITE HISTORY
02/44271/DEEM3 Erection of 2.4m high palisade security fence (Approved)
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
62 to 68 Walker Road (Evens)
1, 2 and 4 Walnut Road
1 to 23 Kingswood Road (Odds)
18 to 34 Cranbrook Road (Evens)
2 to 10 Walker Green (Evens)
9 Walker Green
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection to the proposal from a nearby resident. The following issues
were raised:
The fence abuts the boundary of the objector’s property at 28 Cranbrook Road
The new fence will not improve the current situation of people using the objectors garden
to bypass the security gate which is currently in situ
The fence would prevent the maintenance of fence panels
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
Noise disturbance in the form of whistling from the fencing in windy conditions
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
Adopted Unitary Development Plan
DES1 Respecting Context
DES8 Alterations and Extensions
DES10 Design and Crime
A2
Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are, the visual impact of the development on
the surrounding area, the importance of protecting the premises from crime and vandalism,
highway safety, and access.
Policy DES10 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan states that development will not be
permitted unless it is designed to discourage crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of criminal
activity. In relation to the proposed weldmesh fencing it is considered that the site would be
adequately secured by this and future renovation works to the school will be protected from crime
and anti-social behaviour. Policy DC16 of the Adopted Supplementary Planning Document Design
and Crime requires that all developments should be designed to a high standard and good quality
design should not be compromised by the need to secure buildings or their grounds. Whilst it is
recognised that the weldmesh design of fencing is not highly decorative it is considered that due to
the presence of such fencing being in situ at the front of the site, the continuance of the fencing to
the remainder of the site boundaries is not considered to be incongruous in the locality, and is
considered to be more acceptable than more severe methods of boundary treatment such as palisade
fencing. Policy DES10 and Policy DC16 specify that boundary treatments should be visually
permeable and allow views across the site in order to reduce the number of concealed spaces. It is
considered that the weldmesh design allows this and therefore is in accordance with Policy in this
respect. I consider that the design of the fencing is acceptable and would not be visually intrusive in
the streetscene or with regard to residential residents in the immediate area.
The proposed fence is located within the existing fence line and it is proposed that a space is
retained in between the proposed fence and those of the residents. A lockable gate which residents
will have access to, to carry out maintenance on their fences, will secure the space between the two.
As this space is to be secured it is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with Policy
DES10 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy DC16 of the Adopted Supplementary
Planning Document ‘Design and crime’
Policy A2 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that all developments make adequate
provision for amongst others- the disabled. The proposed new entrance will make adequate
provision for the disabled to access the building. For these reasons I consider that the application is
acceptable in terms of Policy A2.
The proposed new entrance to the building is considered to be acceptable in terms of visual amenity
as it would not be highly visible from the road or from residential properties in the area. I do not
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
consider that the construction of the new access is significantly different to that which currently
exists and I am of the opinion that the development would not unduly affect the character of the
building or the surrounding area.
The applicant has specified that the development will require the removal of seven trees. The
removal of these trees is necessary due to the need for visibility across the site by the CCTV
cameras. The arboricultural consultant has confirmed that the trees which are to be removed are
relatively poor specimens and do not warrant protection by Tree Preservation Orders. The only tree
which it would be advantageous to retain would be the Alder tree which is indicted as T2 on the site
plan, however it has been confirmed that the CCTV cameras would not be able to adequately
survey the site should this tree remain. The consultant has confirmed that should the loss of the tree
be necessary then this would not significantly affect the visual amenity or character of the area, and
any effects of the loss of the tree could be adequately mitigated by the provision of trees along the
boundary of the site with adjoining neighbours on Cranborook Road. I have attached a condition
requiring that this boundary treatment is planted within twelve months of the commencement of the
development.
The development would include an additional 14no car parking spaces totalling 28 on site. The
maximum car parking standards require that no more than 1 space/full time member of teaching
and office staff, plus 1 space/3 other (daily) staff, and 1 space/unit of staff residential
accommodation. As a guide it is expected that one space per 10 children is provided for dropping
off and picking up. It is considered that the number of car parking spaces would not exceed the
maximum car parking standards.
The neighbour objection is acknowledged, however it is not considered that there would be any
significant additional impact upon the immediate neighbours in terms of loss of visual amenity.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The applicant has amended the scheme with regard to the electronic gates and has set these back
from the footway by a distance of 5 metres to ensure highway and pedestrian safety is maintained.
CONCLUSION
The development is considered to be in accordance with all of the relevant policies within the
Adopted Unitary Development Plan and I do not consider that the proposed fencing would have
any significant additional impact upon the amenities of adjoining properties nor would the
development significantly affect the visual amenity or character of the area. I therefore consider
that the development is acceptable and subsequently recommend approval of the application.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Standard Condition D02Y Details of materials
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
3. Prior to the commencement of development details for a scheme of tree planting along the
South Western Boundary of the site adjoining the rear gardens of properties on Cranbrook
Road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
approved scheme shall be implemented within 12 months of the implementation of this
development, and shall be maintained according to the approved scheme, to the satisfaction of
the Local Planning Authority. If the replacement trees die or are removed within 5 years of
planting, they shall be replaced within 12 months of removal or death to the satisfaction of the
Local Planning Authority.
4. The Fence hereby approved shall be colour treated with the approved colour Blue RAL 5010
prior to installation and shall be maintained as such thereafter.
5. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 9th January 2007 which shows
Vehicular Gates set back 5 metres from the footpath.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy
DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5. Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy A 8 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th March 2007
72