PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
APPLICATION No:
5th April 2007
06/53454/FUL
APPLICANT:
Nikal Ltd
LOCATION:
Sillavan Way Industrial Estate Sillavan Way Bounded By
William Street And Chapel Street Salford
PROPOSAL:
Retention of an 11 storey building comprising 141 apartments
(Class C3) with retail frontage (A1) onto Chapel Street together
with associated car parking and landscaping (Further to
planning permission 05/50254/FUL)
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application is a resubmission of a previously approved scheme and relates solely to the first
phase (Block A) of the larger Sillavan Way mixed-use development in the Chapel Street area of the
City.
The application site covers an area of 0.29 hectares and is bounded by Chapel Street to the south,
the Deva Centre to the east (comprising a number of commercial units including the grade II listed
former Chester’s Brewery Tower), a collection of buildings in a variety of residential and business
uses to the west (including the grade II listed Chapel Street and Hope United Reform Church
building on the Chapel Street frontage and Arlington House, Salford House, the Model Lodging
House and the Kings Arms Public House fronting Bloom Street) and the site of the second and third
phases of the Sillavan Way development to the north (see below). Views into the site from Chapel
Street are relatively limited.
The need for this application arose because the building is being built in a location that differs from
that previously approved. Construction of the building in question is nearing completion.
Although the overall footprint of the building has not increased significantly, it is being built
approximately 1.18 metres to the north and 1.33 metres to west from its approved position, bringing
it slightly closer to existing buildings to the west and the forthcoming second phase (Block B) of the
Sillavan Way development to the north.
The applicants have stated that the reason the building is being constructed in its current position is
due to an error in the original submission that prevents them from implementing the extant
permission, due to both unacceptable encroachment onto neighbouring property and the proximity
of the railway bridge crossing Chapel Street that prevents the erection of necessary scaffolding.
The component parts of the development remain unchanged from that previously approved and
comprise 513 square metres of retail floorspace at ground floor level (two separate units on the
Chapel Street frontage), 141 apartments above (17 one bed apartments, 98 two bed apartments and
26 three bed apartments) and a total of 87 car parking spaces. Access arrangements also remain
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
unchanged with direct vehicular access from Chapel Street leading to two levels of car parking.
Parking provision includes five spaces for disabled drivers and bicycle and motorcycle parking
facilities, to serve both future residents and the staff of the two retail units. Pedestrian access to
both the residential element and two retail units would be gained from Chapel Street.
The detailed design of the development remains unchanged from that previously approved. The
palette of materials also remains unchanged and comprises a mix of white render, timber boarding,
red brick, colour coated metal panels and a substantial amount of glazing.
The applicant has submitted the following, updated documents in support of the application:
Design Statement
Access Statement
Planning Statement
Daylight and Sunlight Study
Landscaping Scheme
SITE HISTORY
In September 2005 a hybrid application was conditionally approved that gave full permission for
the building in question (Phase 1 – Block A) and outline permission for phases 2 and 3 of the wider
Sillavan Way development (Ref: 05/50254/FUL).
In June 2006 reserved matters were approved for Phases 2 and 3 (Ref: 06/52455/REM).
Members will recall that a separate, full application was presented to the Planning and
Transportation Regulatory Panel on 16 November 2006 for the erection of a 26 storey mixed use
development comprising 212 residential units and 3346 square metres of commercial floorspace
with associated car parking, landscaping and ancillary works in place of the previously approved
Phase 3 (Block C) element of the wider Sillavan Way redevelopment. Panel resolved to
conditionally approve the application providing the Strategic Director of Customer and Support
Services had entered into a legal agreement, under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990 and Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980, to secure the payment of a contribution to the
implementation of environmental and highway improvements in the local area within a reasonable
timescale.
CONSULTATIONS
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – Reiterate previous comments requesting
financial contributions be secured through a Section 106 agreement to fund improvements to public
transport infrastructure in the area.
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company (URC) – No objection providing the design and
materials are not in any way compromised given its size and prominence on both Chapel Street
itself and the wider primary transformation area.
Director of Environmental Services – No response to date.
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No response to date.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – No response to date.
The Ramblers Association – Support the proposal as a good example urban regeneration.
The Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – No response to date.
Peak and Northern Footpaths Society – No response to date.
The Open Spaces Society – No response to date.
United Utilities – No objection.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Flats 1 to 36 Model Lodging House, Bloom Street, Salford, M3 6AJ
4 Bloom Street, Salford, M3 6AJ
The Kings Arms, 11 Bloom Street, Salford, M3 6AN
Arlington House, Bloom Street, Salford, M3 6AJ
1 to 3 The Malt House, Deva Centre, Trinity Way, Salford, M3 7AD
Units 1 to 7 Cook Street, Salford 3
Units 1 to 7 Sillavan Way, Salford, M3 6AE
2 to 60 (evens) Bevill Square, Salford, M3 6BB
23 to 203 (odds) City Point, 156 Chapel Street, Salford, M3 6EU
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:
Noise nuisance resulting from refuse collections
The potential for access to be restricted during refuse collections
Impact on the appearance of the adjacent grade II listed Model Lodging House
A second letter of objection was also received from the residents of 142 Chapel Street. This has
since been verbally withdrawn after the applicant and objector resolved the dispute privately.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY (RSS)
The following policies from the adopted RSS are considered to be of relevance:
SD1 – The North West Metropolitan Area
DP1 – Economy in the use of Land and Buildings
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
UR1 – Urban Renaissance
EQ1 – Tackling Derelict Land and Contamination Issues
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
MX1/1 – Development in Mixed Use Areas
Other policies:
ST11 – Location of New Development
ST12 – Development Density
MX2 Chapel Street Frontage
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES2 – Circulation and Movement
DES5 – Tall Buildings
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES9 – Landscaping
DES10 – Design and Crime
H1- Provision of New Housing Development
H2 – Managing the Supply of Housing
H4 – Affordable Housing
CH2 – Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building
A1 – Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
DEV5 – Planning Conditions and Obligations
DRAFT SUBMITTED 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
MCR2 – Regional Centre and Inner Areas of Manchester City Region
OTHER LOCAL PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE
Design and Crime Supplementary Planning Document
Housing Planning Guidance
Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document
PLANNING APPRAISAL
As the principle of the development and its component parts have already been approved by the
Panel (Permission Ref: 05/50254/FUL), the primary focus of this report is whether the proposed
change in the siting of the building is acceptable in design and amenity terms. However, as the
original, extant permission was assessed against the policies contained within the previous UDP
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
and the now superseded Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan, it is
considered necessary to assess the application afresh. As such the main planning issues relating to
this application are whether the principle of the proposed development is acceptable; whether the
design of the building is acceptable; whether there would be an unacceptable impact on the amenity
of users and neighbouring residents; whether there would be an unacceptable impact on the setting
of adjacent listed buildings; whether the applicant has addressed crime prevention considerations;
whether the proposed level of car, motorcycle and cycle parking is acceptable; whether there would
be an acceptable contribution towards open space and environmental improvements and/or
regeneration in the vicinity of the site and whether the proposed development complies with other
relevant policies of the Development Plan. I shall deal with each of the issues in turn below.
The Principle of the Proposed Development
UDP Policy ST11 seeks to ensure that new development is located on the most sustainable sites
within the City and that less sustainable sites are only brought forward where necessary. The re-use
and conversion of existing buildings is made a priority followed by previously developed land in
locations that are well served by a variety of means of transport and are accessible to housing,
employment, services and other infrastructure.
UDP Policy H2 requires the release of land for housing development to be managed in accordance
with the sequential approach set out in Policy ST11.
RSS Policy DP1 requires economy in the use of land and buildings. It states that development plans
should adopt a sequential approach to meeting housing needs as follows: firstly, the effective use of
existing buildings and infrastructure within urban areas; secondly, the use of previously developed
land; and finally the development of previously undeveloped land, where it would avoid areas of
important open space, is well located in relation to houses, jobs, other services and infrastructure
and is or can be made accessible by public transport, walking or cycling.
UDP Policy ST12 states that development within the regional centre, town centres, and close to key
public transport routes and interchanges will be required to achieve a high density appropriate to
the location and context.
UDP Policy MX1/1 states that Chapel Street East will be developed as a vibrant mixed use area
with a broad range of uses. Appropriate uses include housing, offices and retail uses. In
determining whether a proposed mix of uses is appropriate, regard will be had to a number of
factors, including the positive impact of the development on the regeneration of the wider area, the
use on adjoining sites, the prominence of the location, the existing and previous use of the site and
the potential to support the Knowledge Capital initiative.
UDP Policy MX2 requires development along Chapel Street to incorporate active uses at ground
floor level, including retail, food and drink and financial and professional services and limit
residential uses to upper floors.
UDP Policy H1 states that new housing development should be built at appropriate densities which
will be no less than 30 dwellings per hectare throughout the City and no less than 50 dwellings per
hectare on sites within or adjoining designated mixed use areas, town and neighbourhood centres
and major transport nodes along good quality public transport corridors. It goes on to state that
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
these standards may be varied, having regard to other criteria listed in the policy. It also states that
new housing development should contribute to the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within
the local area and not contribute to an oversupply of any particular type of residential
accommodation.
UDP Policy H4 states that in areas where there is a demonstrable lack of affordable housing to meet
local needs, developers will be required, by negotiation with the Council, to provide affordable
housing, of appropriate types, on all residential sites over 1 hectare or in housing developments of
more than 25 dwellings.
Planning Guidance for Housing has replaced the draft Housing Supplementary Planning Document
(SPD) and was recently adopted by the Council. Whilst the guidance does not form part of the
Local Development Framework, it is a material consideration in the determination of planning
applications and specifically supplements UDP Policies H1 and H4. The guidance seeks to secure
a sustainable mix of dwellings to meet housing needs.
Policy HOU1 identifies apartments as the most appropriate form of housing provision in
this location.
Policy HOU2 requires apartment development to provide a broad mix of dwelling sizes
both in terms of the number of bedrooms and the net residential floorspace provided.
Policy HOU3 requires 20% of the dwellings provided to be affordable in developments of
this size unless exceptional circumstances exist that justify taking an alternative approach.
Exceptional circumstances include where the scheme was substantially developed before
the adoption of the Guidance on 20 December 2006.
The site is previously developed and in a highly accessible location in close proximity to
Manchester City Centre and the services and facilities therein. The scale of development proposed
is therefore considered appropriate and in accordance with UDP Policies ST11 and ST12. The
application proposes a balanced mix of residential and retail uses and provides active ground floor
uses on the Chapel Street frontage, in full accordance with UDP Policies MX1 and MX2 and Policy
HOU1 of the Housing Planning Guidance.
Of the proposed 141 apartments, 12% would have one bedroom, 69.5% would have two bedrooms
and 18.5% would have three bedrooms. This ensures that small dwellings do not predominate and
a significant proportion of three bedroom apartments have been provided. 97 (69%) of the
apartments proposed have a floorspace in excess of the 57 square metres. Affordable housing units
are not proposed, however it is not considered reasonable to insist on such provision in this case
given that affordable housing was not required as part of the original, extant permission and that the
need for this application arose solely due the building not being constructed in the approved
position on site. The building itself was also substantially built well in advance of the Housing
Guidance being adopted and the application being submitted. I am satisfied the requirements of
UDP Policies H1 and H4 and the Housing Planning Guidance have been met and therefore have no
objection to the application in this regard.
The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed retail units would serve local needs and would
not have an unacceptable impact on the vitality and viability of existing town and local centres in
the vicinity. I have attached a condition restricting the floorspace of the retail units to that applied
for to ensure that this remains the case and I have also limited the level of comparison floorspace to
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
20% of the overall retail floorspace. I have also attached a condition requiring the submission and
written approval of a scheme detailing how the two shopfronts on the Chapel Street elevation will
be treated post construction and prior to first occupation to ensure a positive relationship between
the street and the building is maintained if the retail units are vacant.
Given the incorporation of two retail uses along the Chapel Street frontage and a balanced mix of
apartment types and sizes, I am satisfied that the proposed development incorporates a satisfactory
mix of uses and therefore complies with the above policies.
Design
UDP 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.
UDP 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.
UDP Policy DES5 states that tall buildings will be permitted where they meet a number of criteria.
Those criteria include that the scale of the development is appropriate to its context and location;
that the location is highly accessible to public transport, walking and cycling; that the building
would relate positively to and interact well with the adjacent public realm; that the building would
be of the highest quality design; that the building would make a positive addition to the skyline and
would not detract from important views and that there would be no unacceptable impact on the
setting of a listed building or on the character or appearance of a conservation area. The reasoned
justification for the policy goes on to say that tall buildings are more likely to be appropriate within
the mixed use areas identified on policy MX1.
The scale, mass and detailed design of the building remains unchanged and was previously
approved on the basis that, following detailed discussions between the applicant, Central Salford
URC, the Chapel Street Project Office and the Council’s architectural advisor, all relevant parties
were satisfied with the building’s design quality and the contribution it would make to the street
scene and the surrounding area. As no changes have been made I see no reason to depart from a
positive recommendation on design grounds. In keeping with the original approval, I have attached
a condition requiring the submission and written approval of materials to safeguard design quality.
Subject to this condition, I am of the opinion that the proposed development accords with the above
policies.
Amenity
UDP 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.
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
The building is being constructed 1.33 metres closer to 142 Chapel Street (a commercial and
residential property) and 1.18 metres closer to Block B of the wider Sillavan Way development
(commercial and residential uses). Despite this closer relationship, I have not received any
objections from neighbouring residents regarding the impact of the proposed development on their
quality of life, in terms of privacy, outlook or loss of light. The interface standards which are used
to guide development elsewhere within the city (privacy distances, sense of enclosure and
overshadowing) are not achieved in this case, however given the city centre location of the site and
the high-density nature of the urban form, it is not considered appropriate to rigorously apply those
standards in this case. Such concerns must be considered against the benefits of the scheme,
namely the redevelopment of an underused and largely unattractive site, the provision of a mixture
of uses, including active uses along the Chapel Street frontage, and the construction of buildings
which would enhance the area and which accord fully with other Council policies. Using the
industry standard Building Research Establishment’s ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and
Sunlight’ methodology, the applicant has shown in a Daylight and Sunlight Study that re-siting the
building to the position currently proposed has a negligible overall impact on daylight and sunlight
reaching surrounding buildings, including the remaining phases of the wider Sillavan Way
development.
An objection has been received from a resident of the Model Lodging House relating to noise and
access issues arising as a result of problems over waste collection. Following the closure of
Sillavan Way, there would be no access to the bin storage area. At present, the bins are stored to the
rear of the Model Lodging House and are collected from Sillavan Way. This issue has been
discussed with the applicant, who has confirmed that the residents/management company of the
Model Lodging House has no right for the collection of bins over the application site. The applicant
has however agreed to formulate a refuse management strategy in conjunction with the Model
Lodging House, whereby it would be possible for the bins to be collected from within the
application site at agreed times. I have attached a condition to that affect and I am satisfied that this
will address the resident’s concerns.
I therefore have no objections to the application in respect of residential amenity.
Impact on the Setting of Listed Buildings
UDP Policy CH2 states that planning permission will not be granted for development which would
have an unacceptable impact on the setting of any listed building.
As discussed above, the application site is located in close proximity to a number of listed
buildings, in particular the former Chester’s Brewery Tower and the Model Lodging House, both of
which are Grade II listed. Despite receiving an objection from a resident of the Model Lodging
House in this regard, the Council’s Conservation Officer assessed the previous proposal and was
satisfied that the building would not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the setting of
surrounding listed buildings. The proposed resiting of the building is considered immaterial in
terms of its impact on adjacent listed buildings. I am therefore satisfied that the setting of the listed
buildings in the vicinity of the site would not be detrimentally affected and that the application
accords with UDP Policy CH2.
Crime Prevention
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
UDP 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.
Further, more detailed policies, are set out in the Design and Crime SPD including the need to seek
advice from the Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit (ALU).
The ALU provided a number of comments on the previous scheme and has raised no objection to
the current proposal. Although initially objecting to original proposals, concerns were addressed
following discussions with the applicant. The applicant has confirmed that the pedestrian route
through the wider Sillavan Way site linking William Street to Chapel Street would be for residents
and employees only. Key fob access and CCTV will be provided preventing unauthorised people
from accessing the route and would provide added security. The route is considered crucial in order
to ensure high levels of permeability and connectivity between different buildings and uses within
the site. The applicant has also confirmed that the different uses within the site would promote
natural surveillance of spaces and would create activity at different times of the day, to which I
agree. Access into the wider Sillavan Way development, whether on foot or by car, would only be
possible with the use of key fobs or other similar access control equipment. Following the
comments of the ALU made in relation to the original application, I have attached a condition
requiring the submission and written approval of a lighting scheme before the building is occupied.
In light of the above, I have no objections to the application in relation to safety and security.
Access and Parking Provision
UDP 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.
UDP Policy A1 states that planning applications for developments which would give rise to
significant transport implications will not be permitted unless they are accompanied by a transport
assessment and, where appropriate, a travel plan.
UDP Policy DES2 requires new developments to be fully accessible to all people including those
with disabilities
The building includes a total of 87 car parking spaces at basement and ground floor level. Given
the number of apartments proposed (141), this would equate to approximately 62% provision.
National, regional and local planning policy emphasise the need to reduce reliance on the private
car and encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport. The proposal also includes cycle
parking facilities, in accordance with Policy A10. There would be no provision for visitor parking
to the retail units, however, given the location of the site, I am of the opinion that the majority of the
visitors to the retail units would travel on foot from the surrounding residential properties, or by
public transport. In light of the above policy framework, and in view of the site’s location in close
proximity to Manchester City Centre, Salford Central Station and bus facilities, I consider the
proposed level of car parking to be acceptable and in accordance with the Council’s maximum
parking standards.
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
I have no objections to the proposed access points into the site from Chapel Street and William
Street and consider both to be acceptable.
A total of five disabled car parking bays have been provided in accordance with UDP Policy A10,
whilst level thresholds and internal lifts ensure the building remains fully accessible to all.
I therefore consider the proposed access arrangements and level of parking provision acceptable.
Landscaping
UDP Policy DES9 requires developments to incorporate high quality hard and soft landscaping
provision.
A condition requiring the submission and written approval of a detailed landscaping scheme was
attached to the previous permission. In response, the applicant submitted a landscaping scheme as
part of this application. Whilst the content of the proposed scheme is considered acceptable, the
extent of the scheme is considered inadequate insofar as the applicant has failed to address the large
of expanse of flat roof above the ground floor parking element. Whilst only visible from within the
site, this is considered a missed opportunity given the relatively hard and high-density nature of the
scheme. The matter was raised with the applicant who agreed to investigate the feasibility of
softening the visual impact of the development by incorporating a ‘green roof’ for the benefit of
future residents. I therefore attach a condition requiring the submission and written approval of a
revised landscaping scheme.
Open Space Provision, Regeneration and Environmental Improvements
UDP Policy DEV5 states that development that would have an adverse impact on any interests of
acknowledged importance, or would result in a material increase in the need for infrastructure,
services, facilities and/or maintenance, will only be granted planning permission subject to
planning conditions or planning obligations that would ensure adequate mitigation measures are
put in place.
UDP Policy H8 states that planning permission will only be granted where adequate and
appropriate provision is made for formal and informal open space and its maintenance over a
twenty-year period. Such provision is required either as part of the development or through an
equivalent financial contribution to fund off-site provision. This policy refers to access to
recreational land and facilities standards set out in UDP Policy R2.
The adopted Planning Obligations SPD sets out current requirements for open space, public realm,
infrastructure, heritage, construction training and climate change provision. These new policies
significantly increase the size of financial contributions ordinarily required.
As part of the original permission covering all three elements of the wider Sillavan Way
development, the applicant entered into a legal agreement securing a financial contribution of
£260,097 towards the provision of open space within the vicinity of the site. This was based on the
total number of bedspaces approved across all three phases of the wider Sillavan Way development
in accordance with the policies in place when the original permission was granted, including the
now superseded Provision of Open Space and Recreation Space Associated with New Residential
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
Development SPG. The applicant also agreed to contribute a total of £393,180 towards
environmental improvements within the Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy Area, in accordance
with the Council’s Development Control Policy Note. This amount is slightly less that the
contribution that would have ordinarily been required as the applicant also agreed to install CCTV
across the site that would improve security and safety for future residents, visitors and employees.
The provision of such security measures were taken into account when calculating the overall
contribution. Payments were staged to reflect the different phases of the development (Block A,
Block B and Block C).
Of the total contribution secured, the proportion relating to Block A equates to £240,593 plus
CCTV provision. A payment of £103,850 has already been made in respect of Block A leaving a
total of £136,743 plus CCTV provision outstanding.
Given the escalating complexity of the wider Sillavan Way development and the additional
permissions in place, it is considered both necessary and appropriate to update the original legal
agreement to ensure it is sufficiently robust to secure the commuted sum.
Given the nature of the application, the time it was submitted and the fact that construction is
nearing completion, it is not considered appropriate or reasonable to insist upon the larger
contributions set out in the recently approved Planning Obligations SPD.
I therefore recommend that a planning condition be added to that effect and that the Panel give the
Strategic Director of Customer and Support Services authority to enter into a legal agreement under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the payment of a commuted sum
for improvements to and maintenance of existing open space, environmental improvements and/or
regeneration in the local area to the value of £136,743 in accordance with Policies H8, R2 and
DEV5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Other Issues
In addition to the attachment of conditions discussed above, it is also considered necessary to ‘carry
over’ conditions from the previous consent relating to land contamination, the environmental
impact of the building including the incorporation of sustainable urban drainage systems, air
quality, noise mitigation, parking provision, access provision, waste collection and recycling
facilities. It is also considered necessary to attach an additional condition relating to the potential
impact on TV Reception given the close proximity of neighbouring dwellings/buildings.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The applicant has agreed to investigate the viability of incorporating a green roof for inclusion in a
revised landscaping scheme. The applicants were encouraged to resume negotiations with
neighbouring residents, at 142 Chapel Street in private, resulting in the resolution of a dispute and
the withdrawal of their written objection.
CONCLUSION
The proposal would make effective use of a previously developed site in close proximity to
Manchester City Centre. The scheme would secure the appropriate redevelopment of an
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
unattractive and under-utilised site and provide active ground floor uses on the Chapel Street
corridor. I am satisfied that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable detrimental
impact on the setting of any of the adjacent listed buildings or highway safety or on the amenity of
any neighbouring resident. 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 payment of a commuted sum for improvements to and
maintenance of existing open space, environmental improvements and/or regeneration in the local
area to the value of £136,743 in accordance with Policies H8, R2 and DEV5 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
Conditions
1. Within three months of date of this permission, the developer shall submit a site investigation
report for the approval of the Local Planning Authority (LPA). The investigation shall address
the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall
include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the
Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and
controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions
on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and
landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and
property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to the start of the site
investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved
report shall be implemented by the developer prior to first occupation of any of the units hereby
approved.
Prior to discharge, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority
for approval. The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works undertaken on site were
completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.
2. Within three months of the date this permission, a noise assessment detailing the acoustic
protection measures to be incorporated into the final design of the building shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The assessment shall also detail
mitigation measures that demonstrate how noise levels agreed within the assessment will be
achieved when the ventilation rates are increase (windows open - as for when Summer Cooling
or Rapid Ventilation is required). Any additional ventilation requirements to enable
compliance with the report shall be identified within the assessment. The approved acoustic
protection and additional ventilation measures shall be implemented prior to first occupation of
any of the residential units hereby approved and retained thereafter.
3. Within three months of the date of this permission, an air quality assessment of the existing and
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
future air quality for years 2010, 2020 and the opening year with and without the development
hereby approved for Nitrogen Dioxide and particulate matter less than 10 microns shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. The assessment shall identify
the worst case exposure, changes in pollution concentration to residents of the approved
development and shall identify any changes in pollution levels where public exposure occurs as
a result. The predicted levels shall be compared with the relevant Air Quality Objectives set in
the Air Quality Regulations 2000 and amendments thereof. The assessment shall detail
mitigation measures required to address the air quality issues identified. The approved
mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to first occupation of any of the units hereby
approved and retained thereafter.
4. No retail or residential units within the building hereby approved shall be brought into use until
the means of vehicular access from Chapel Street has been constructed and laid out in
accordance with the approved plans.
5. Notwithstanding the approved plans, within three months of the date of this permission,
samples of the materials to be used on all external elevations, external surfaces and the roof
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
construction of the development hereby approved shall be carried out using only the approved
materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
6. The car parking spaces and bicycle and motorcycle storage area shown on the drawings
numbered 6298/L(00)8 Rev A and 6298/L(00)85 Rev B shall be made available for use prior to
first occupation of any of the retail or residential units hereby approved and shall be made
available at all times the premises are in use.
7. The total internal floorspace of the retail units hereby approved shall not exceed 513 square
metres.
8. No more than 20% of the retail floorspace hereby approved shall be used for the sale of
comparison goods.
9. Notwithstanding the submitted landscaping scheme, the development hereby approved shall be
treated in accordance with a landscaping scheme that shall be submitted to the Local Planning
Authority for written approval within three months of the date of this permission. The scheme
shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface
treatments and shall be carried out prior to any of the units hereby approved being occupied and
thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or
shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority.
10. Within three months of the date of this permission, a scheme for the provision of recycling
facilities within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the building hereby approved
being first occupied and shall thereafter be retained at all times the premises are in use.
11. The refuse storage areas shown on the approved plans shall be made available for use prior to
first occupation of any of the retail and residential units hereby approved and shall be made
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
available at all times the premises are in use.
12. Within six months of the date of this permission, a strategy detailing the storage, collection and
management of refuse from the Model Lodging House adjacent to the site shall be submitted to
the Local Planning Authority for written approval. The approved strategy shall be implemented
in accordance with timescales set out in the strategy, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
13. Within six months of the date of this permission, an external lighting scheme shall be submitted
to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. The approved scheme shall be
implemented in full prior to the occupation of any of the residential units hereby approved.
14. Within three months of the date of this permission, a scheme detailing how the development
addresses sustainability issues, including sustainable urban drainage systems, shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval. The approved measures shall
be implemented in full prior to first occupation of any of the residential units hereby approved,
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
15. A scheme detailing how the shopfronts of the retail units fronting Chapel Street will be treated
in the time period between the cessation of construction works and prior to their first
occupation shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval within three
months of the date of this permission. The approved measures shall be implemented in full and
be retained until first occupation of the retail units hereby approved.
16. The developer, with regard to television reception in the area containing the application site,
shall provide the Local Planning Authority with studies that:
a) Identify the potential impact area in which television reception is likely to be adversely
affected by the development. The study shall be carried out either by the Office of
Communications (Ofcom), or by a body approved by Ofcom and shall include an assessment of
when in the construction process an impact on television reception might occur.
b) Identify the television signal reception before development commenced, within the
potential impact area identified in (a) above.
c) Assess the impact of the development on television signal reception within the potential
impact area identified in (a) above within one month of the practical completion of the
development or before the development is first occupied, whichever is the sooner, and at any
other time during the construction of the development if requested in writing by the local
planning authority in response to identified television signal reception problems within the
potential impact area. The study shall identify such measures necessary to maintain at least the
pre-existing level and quality of signal reception identified in the survey carried out in (b)
above. The measures identified must be carried out either before the building is first occupied
or within one month of the study being submitted to the local planning authority, whichever is
the earlier.
17. 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
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
(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
commuted sums will be paid to the Local Planning Authority for open space and recreation
space purposes, environmental improvements and/or the regeneration of the Chapel Street
Area.
(Reasons)
1. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance
with Policy EN16 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.
2. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance
with Policies DES7 and EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.
3. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance
with policies DES7 and EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.
4. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. This is in accordance with Policies A8 and A10 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.
5. Reason: To ensure the development hereby approved is of a high design quality. This is in
accordance with policies MX1, DES1 and DES5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan 2004-2016.
6. Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision is made for the users of the development hereby
approved and to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport. This is in
accordance with Policy A10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.
7. Reason: To ensure a balanced mix of uses is provided in the Chapel Street Area. This is in
accordance with Policy MX1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.
8. Reason: To safeguard the vitality and viability of nearby designated shopping centres. This is
in accordance with Policy S2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016 and
Planning Policy Statement 6.
9. Reason: To ensure a high quality and comprehensive landscaping provision is provided that
reflects the needs of the development hereby approved. This is in accordance with Policy
DES9 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.
10. Reason: To promote the recycling in the intersts of resource conservation. This is in
accordance with policy EN22 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.
11. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES7 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.
12. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy DES7 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
13. Reason: In the interests of crime prevention and to safeguard the amenity of the future
occupants of the development. This is in accordance with Policies DES10 and DES7 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.
14. Reason: In the interests of resource conservation and creating sustainable urban
neighbourhoods. This is in accordance with Policies ST1 and EN22 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.
15. Reason: To ensure a positive relationship between the street and the building is maintained if
the retail units are vacant. This is in accordance with Policy MX2 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan 2004-2016.
16. Reason: To provide an indication of the area of television signal reception likely to be affected
by the development to provide a basis on which to assess the extent to which the development
will affect television reception and to ensure that the development at least maintains the
existing level and quality of television signal reception, as advised in Planning Policy
Guidance Note 8: Telecommunications. This is in accordance with Policy DES7 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
17. Reason: To ensure the residential development provides adequate open space and recreation
space for future occupiers in accordance with Policy H8 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan and that the development makes a contribution to environmental
improvements and/or the regeneration of the wider Chapel Street in accordance with Policy
DEV5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is advised that this permission relates to the following plans:
Site Location Plan numbered 6298/L(00)/144a
Site Edged Red numbered 6298/L(00)100 Rev B
Proposed Access Gate numbered 001091 Rev xX
Block A Lower Car Park Level numbered 6298/L(00)85 Rev B
Block A Upper Car Park numbered 6298/L(00)86 Rev A
Block A Residential Level 1 numbered 6298/L(00)87 Rev C
Block A Residential Level 2 numbered 6298/L(00)88 Rev C
Block A Residential Level 3 numbered 6298/L(00)89 Rev C
Block A Residential Level 4 numbered 6298/L(00)90 Rev C
Block A Residential Level 5 numbered 6298/L(00)151
Block A Residential Level 6 numbered 6298/L(00)152
Block A Residential Level 7 numbered 6298/L(00)153
Block A Residential Level 8 numbered 6298/L(00)154
Block A Residential Level 9 numbered 6298/L(00)91 Rev A
Block A Residential Level 10 numbered 6298/L(00)92 Rev A
Block A Roof Plan numbered 6298/L(00)104 Rev A
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
East Elevation numbered 001091/A201 Rev C9
East Elevation (colour) numbered 6298/L(00)/118D
North Elevation numbered 001091/A203 Rev C8
North Elevation (colour) numbered 6298/L(00)/119D
West Elevation numbered 001091/A204 Rev C9
West Elevation (colour) numbered 6298/L(00)/120D
South Elevation numbered 001091/A202/C8
South Elevation (colour) numbered 6298/L(00)/117E
2. 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
APPLICATION No:
06/53445/FUL
APPLICANT:
Steven Dorsey
LOCATION:
Land Forming Side Garden Of 82 Liverpool Road Irlam M44
6FN
PROPOSAL:
Erection of one detached dwelling
WARD:
Irlam
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to the erection of a single detached dwelling within the side garden of
number 82 Liverpool Road. The area of the site is 352 square metres. There is currently a dropped
kerb which serves number 82 Liverpool Road. The site is currently occupied by a garage which is
to be demolished as part of the application. It is proposed that access to the site will be taken from
Liverpool Road across the existing dropped kerb and footpath crossing.
It is proposed that a triangular garden area is provided to the rear of the house. The remainder of the
area within the site is to be brick paved. Six metres remains from the front elevation of the house to
the front boundary. The front boundary treatment is a 1.2 metre high privet fence. To the side
boundaries is a 1.6 metre privet hedge. One tree exists in close proximity to the site however this is
5.5 metres from the dwelling and it is not proposed to remove this tree.
The proposed dwelling is a detached house which is to be 7.9 metres high to the ridge and 4.9
metres to the eaves. The proposed materials are brick and render similar to 82 Liverpool Road, with
orange roof tiles. The footprint of the building is 8.5m x 9m
To the North of the development site are two residential blocks of flats, to the East is the garden
area and house at number 82 Liverpool Road, to the South is Liverpool Road itself beyond which
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
are residential properties approximately 40 metres from the development. To the West of the site is
an area of open land beyond which are more residential properties fronting onto Liverpool Road.
SITE HISTORY
06/52898/FUL - Erection of a detached dwelling - Withdrawn
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – Recommendation that a full contaminated land
condition is included, and that an informative is attached stating that uprated acoustic glazing
should be installed to habitable room windows facing Liverpool Road.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Flats1-32 Holly Court (Odds and Evens)
Warden’s Flat – Holly Court
Flats 1-32 St. Clements Court (Odds and Evens)
Warden’s Flat St Clements Court
80, 82F, 82B, 82 Liverpool Road
1-7 Pasturegreen Way (Odds)
7-15 Grazing Drive (Odds)
1-5 Marlborough Road (Odds and Evens)
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 30 letters of objection to the proposal. The following issues were raised:
Unpleasant outlook
Loss of light
Presence of a sewer in close proximity to the site
St Clements Court is occupied by Council Tax Payers and therefore their views should be
taken into account
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Other policies:
Policy DES1 (Respecting Context)
Policy DES7 (Amenity of Users and Neighbours)
Policy ST11
(Location of New Development)
Policy H1
(Provision of new Housing Development)
Policy A2
(Cyclists Pedestrians and the Disabled)
Policy HOU1 (Type of New Housing)
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the suitability of the proposed location for
development of this type, the impact the development would have on the amenities of nearby
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
residential occupiers, the impacts of the development upon highway safety and traffic volumes and
the quality of design and the impact on the local area
Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that all developments should
respect the context of the area within which they are situated. In particular regard should be had to
the impact upon and relationship to the existing landscape, the character, scale and pattern of streets
and building plots, the relationship to existing buildings and features that contribute to townscape
quality, the quality of the proposed materials and the functional compatibility with adjoining land
uses.
Policy DES7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that all new developments and
alterations and extensions to existing buildings provide potential users with a satisfactory level of
amenity in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout. Policy DES7 states that
permission should not be granted for development where it would have an unacceptable impact
upon the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.
Policy ST11 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that sites are brought forward for
development in a sequential order. The most preferable sites being existing buildings which can be
re-used or converted, or upon previously developed land which is well-served by a means of
transport, particularly walking cycling and public transport, and which are well related to housing,
employment, services and infrastructure.
Policy H1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that new housing development
should provide a high quality residential environment and an adequate level of amenity, in
particular focussing upon the size of the development, the physical characteristics of the site and
the accessibility of the site and its location in relation to jobs and facilities.
Policy A2 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that all new development makes
adequate provision for cyclists, pedestrians and the disabled.
Policy HOU1 of the recently adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance states that within West
Salford, Broughton Park, Claremont and the Northern part of Weaste and Seedley, the large
majority of dwellings should be in the form of houses rather than apartments.
Location and Design of Development
The proposed development would involve the re-use of brownfield land in accordance with Criteria
2 of Policy ST11 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and the guidance contained within
Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) which seeks to prioritise the development of such land over
land which has not been previously developed (Greenfield land). The site is within Irlam which is
classed as West Salford in Policy HOU1 of the Adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance on
Housing. Therefore the proposed single dwelling accords with this policy.
The site is on a major arterial route in Salford and therefore it is considered that the development
would be accessible by a number of travel modes.
I therefore consider that the principle of the development in this location is acceptable.
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
I consider that the positioning of the proposed dwelling would respect the general building line, and
that the materials proposed for the development would be in keeping with those on other buildings
in the immediate area. I consider that the design and height of the proposed building is acceptable
and would not look out of place in the locality and therefore would not unduly affect the character
of the area. I consider that the proposed use and would respect the overall character of the area and
therefore am of the opinion that the development would be in accordance with Policy DES1 of the
Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
Impacts upon Amenity
I have received 30 letters of objection to the proposal. The nature of the objections are
predominantly associated with residential and visual amenity. Objectors from St Clements Court
have raised the issue of loss of light to windows. However, there would remain 13 metres between
the windows within St Clements Court and the boundary of the site. There would remain
approximately 14 metres between the windows within St Clements Court and the closest corner of
the building. Whilst it is accepted that the proposed building is South of St Clements Court, it is
considered that the height of the proposed building coupled with the minimum separation distance
of 13m between the buildings and the boundary of the plot that no significant loss of light or
shadowing would occur to windows in St Clements Court.
Objectors also raised the issue of loss of outlook. Again it is considered that the separation distance
between the proposed building and St Clements Court is sufficient to protect the outlook of
residents. I do not consider that the proposal would constitute an unsightly development nor would
it look out of place within the locality.
The are no windows proposed to be inserted in the side elevation of the proposed dwelling which
faces 82 Liverpool Road and therefore consider that there will be no impact upon this neighbour in
terms of privacy or overlooking. There are habitable room windows at ground and first floor in the
rear elevation of number 82 Liverpool Road however I do not consider that these would be subject
to any overshadowing as the gable of the proposed dwelling is situated further forward than this
property. I do not consider that there would be any loss of outlook to this neighbour as the gable of
the proposed dwelling would not be visible from the rear of number 82. The tree which exists on the
boundary of the site is mature however is not considered worthy of protection by a Tree
Preservation Order. The tree falls outside of the site and I am satisfied that the tree would not be
affected by the development I do not consider that the amenities of any nearby residential occupiers
would be unduly affected by the development and therefore consider that the proposal is in
accordance with Policy DES7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
Highway Safety
The proposal includes a new vehicular access to the front of the dwelling. The kerb to the front of
the proposal site is already dropped. The driveway is to be shared with number 82 Liverpool Road
and there is sufficient space within the curtilage of the site for the parking of two vehicles. I have no
objections to the proposal on highway grounds.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The applicant has provided amended plans to show the access to the driveway and space within the
site to park two vehicles.
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
CONCLUSION
It is considered that the proposal is of a suitable design and is located upon a
sequentially preferable site in accordance with the requirements of Policy ST11
of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and PPS3.
I do not consider that the proposed development would have any significant impact
upon the amenity of any nearby residential occupiers in terms of privacy,
overshadowing or visual intrusion. It is considered that the proposed dwelling would
not look out of place in the locality and would respect the context of the area
within which it is set. For these reasons I consider that the development would
be in accordance with Policies DES1 and DES7 of The Adopted Unitary Development
Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Standard Condition D03Y Samples of materials
3. No development shall be commenced unless and until a site investigation report (the Report)
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and
ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors
as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks
to human health and controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of
ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building
structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors
including ecological systems and property. The investigation shall where appropriate include a
risk assessment and an options appraisal including the remedial strategy.
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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Reason: In the interests of public safety in accordance with policy EN16 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan
Note(s) for Applicant
1. It is considered advisable to install uprated acoustic glazing to habitable rooms with a line of
sight to Liverpool Road. Glazing specifications should be to install sealed double glazed units
comprising glass of 10mm and laminated 6.4mm with a 12mm air gap. The unit should be
installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations to avoid air gaps when fitting
the frames. Acoustic trickle vents are recommended for ventilation purposes.
APPLICATION No:
07/54057/FUL
APPLICANT:
Alan Norwood
LOCATION:
Wentworth High School Wentworth Road Eccles M30 9BP
PROPOSAL:
Replace existing boundary fencing with 2.4m high palisade
fencing
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
Permission is sought for the erection of a 2.4 metre high security fence at the front boundary, rear
entrance and boundary adjacent to the playing field at Wentworth High School in Eccles. The
design of the fencing is proposed to be palisade. Weld mesh fencing currently exists at the site. The
change in fence types is required to reduce the likelihood of crime and vandalism which the school
has fallen victim to in the last twelve months. Replacement of the existing fencing is also required
to increase security for staff and pupils of the school.
It is proposed that the fencing is constructed of polyester powder coated galvanized steel palisading
and would be powder coated in green to match the existing fencing. The access to the school would
remain the same as the existing gates would be replaced by gates to match the proposed fencing in
the same location.
The site is within a predominantly residential area and houses on Chatsworth and Wentworth Road
would either back onto, or face the proposed fencing. To the North of the site is a wooded area.
SITE HISTORY
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
99/40254/DEEM3 - Erection of two sections of 2.4 metre high palisade fencing - Permitted
04/49421/DEEM3 - Erection of 2.4m high boundary fencing adjacent to Chatsworth Road entrance
and on part of northern boundary – Permitted
CONSULTATIONS
Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No Comments
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
7-13 Portland Road (Odds)
36 Westminster Road
45 Westminster Road
1 Wentworth Road
2-32 Wentworth Road (Evens)
13-25 Salisbury Road (Odds)
75-85 Salisbury Road (Odds)
18-24 Chatsworth Road (Evens)
21-25 Chatsworth Road (Odds)
33-37 Chatsworth Road (Odds)
34-40 Chatsworth Road (Evens)
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of objection to the proposal. The following issues have been raised:
The school will have a ‘prison-like’ appearance and would not be welcoming
Eyesore and loss of view
Loss of value to property
Fencing already in place and the need to replace it
Intruders access the site over the gate rather than via the existing railings
Wentworth High should seek to utilise security staff and site security more effectively in
liaison with the police.
I have received one letter in support of the application stating that the new fencing would bring
welcome peace of mind.
Councillor Alan Broughton has formally requested that the application is decided by the Planning
and Regulatory Panel giving the reason that the school has recently been vandalised and a stronger
fencing type will help to reduce this.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site Specific Policies: Adopted Ellesmere Park Supplementary Planning Document
Other policies:
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10 – Design and Crime
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
SPD Policy DC16 – Boundary Treatments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the development is acceptable in
terms of design especially having regard to the requirements of the Adopted Supplementary
Planning Document relating to Ellesmere Park, and if the proposed fencing would have a negative
impact upon the amenity of the area and users and occupiers of it.
Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that all developments should
respect the context of the area within which they are set and where possible contribute positively to
the landscape character type.
Policy DES7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that developments do not impact
detrimentally upon the amenity of users or occupiers of the development or occupiers of adjoining
uses.
Policy DES10 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan states that all development should be
designed to a high standard, and discourage crime, the fear of crime and anti social behaviour.
Policy DC16 requires that boundary treatments are designed to a high standard and are visually
permeable to reduce areas of concealment where criminal activity can occur.
The Adopted Supplementary Planning Document which relates to Ellesmere Park has the function
of ensuring that the character and environment of Ellesmere Park and its individual buildings,
landscape and streets is enhanced and that new development within Ellesmere Park is built to the
highest standard. The SPD is designed to raise awareness of the need for good design in the
Ellesmere Park Area.
A key characteristic of Ellesmere Park are the strong boundary features which include low walls
and significant landscaping. Although it is recognised that such a treatment is not feasible for a
school which has different security needs bearing in mind the site is not always occupied, the
design of the palisade fence which is usually associated with industrial areas, is considered
unacceptable.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the school needs protection from crime and vandalism Policy DC16
of the Adopted Supplementary Planning Document Design and Crime states that crime prevention
measures should not be at the expense of overall design quality, and requires that proposals are not
permitted where they would have a hostile appearance or would engender a fortress like
atmosphere. I consider that the proposed fencing would have an unacceptable impact upon the
outlook of a number of residents, and from those houses whose rear gardens back onto the proposed
fencing there would be a significant enclosing effect and it is considered that the fencing type
proposed would have a fortress like appearance to these neighbours.
The erection of this type of fencing would constitute a hostile appearance, and
is considered to be of a poor design. In design terms it is not considered that
the circumstances warrant accepting a less satisfactory fence type, and the location
of the site, part within and part adjacent to Ellesmere Park, that extra regard
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
should be had to the special character of the area and the need to protect it from
proposals such as this.
I consider that the development is contrary to the requirements of the Adopted Supplementary
Planning Document relating to Ellesmere Park and Policies DES1 and DES10 of the Adopted
Unitary Development Plan.
CONCLUSION
I consider that the proposed fence type would constitute a hostile feature and would engender a
fortress-like atmosphere contrary to the provisions of Policy DES10 of the Adopted Unitary
Development Plan. The development would be out of place in the local area and would
compromise the special character of Ellesmere Park contrary to the requirements of Policy DES1 of
the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and the Adopted Supplementary Planning Document
relating to Ellesmere Park.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed fence type would be out of keeping in the local area and would have a
detrimental impact upon the special character of the area contrary to Policy DES1 of the City
of Salford's Adopted Unitary Development Plan and the Ellesmere Park Adopted
Supplementary Planning Document.
APPLICATION No:
07/54083/HH
APPLICANT:
Mohammed Ayub
LOCATION:
37 Wensley Road Salford M7 3GJ
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a two storey side extension and a single storey rear
extension
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached property on Wensley Road in Salford 7.
This application seeks to erect a two storey side extension and a single storey rear extension. The
proposed two storey side extension would provide a study and wc at ground floor and two
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
bedrooms at first floor. The first floor element would be set back 2m from the front of the house, the
ground floor would be flush with the front of the house. The proposed extension would project
2.35m from the side of the property and would be 5.3m in length. The proposed single storey rear
extension would contain a kitchen and a dining room, it would project 3.3m from the rear elevation
and would be 8.4m in width.
The proposed extensions would be situated only from the common boundary with 35 Wensley
Road and 1.5m from the boundary with 39 Wensley Road. Along the boundary with 35 and 37
Wensley Road are fences that measure 2m in height.
SITE HISTORY
There have been no previous applications on this site
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Flat 11,12 Wensley Court, 32, 34, 35, 39 Wensley Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter in response to the planning application publicity from the occupier of 35
Wensley Road. Concern has been expressed that the proposed extension would be built on land
belonging to her.
I have had a request from Councillor Wilson that this application be considered by the Panel. He
objects to the application on the grounds that the proposal is over-development’.
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.
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 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 first floor element of the side extension would be set back by 2m from the front of the main
house wall in accordance with Policy HE8 of the House Extensions SPD. There would be one study
room window at ground floor in the front elevation and one bedroom window at first floor. Given
that there are existing bedroom windows in the front elevation of the house and the first floor
element of the extension is set back by 2m I do not consider that the introduction of these windows
would result in any loss of privacy to the residents of the property facing number 32 Wensley Road.
To the rear of the application property is a brook and Prestwich Golf course. There would be one
bedroom window in the rear elevation of the proposed extension. Given that there are no properties
to the rear, there would be no issues of overlooking or loss of privacy.
The adjacent dwelling, 35 Wensley Road, has a single storey rear extension that projects 2m from
the rear elevation. The proposed single storey rear extension does not project beyond 3m from the
rear elevation of the adjacent dwellings extension. This is in accordance with Policy HE5 of the
House Extensions SPD. The adjacent dwelling, 39 Wensley Road, has habitable room windows in
the rear elevation the proposed extension does not project beyond a 45 degree splay drawn from
this window, which is in accordance with Policy HE5. There would be one kitchen window in the
rear elevation. Given there are no properties to the rear there would be no issues of over looking or
loss of privacy.
With regard to the concerns raided by the adjacent neighbour it has been explained that boundary
disputes are a civil matter and not something the Local Planning Authority could get involved in.
The agent for the application has confirmed that certificate A, which accompanies the application,
was correct and that any development would be within the curtilage of 37 Wensley Road. In
addition, the agent has submitted amended plans reducing the side extension by 0.1m so that it does
not encroach on the boundary.
CONCLUSION
The proposal complies with policies contained within the Council’s Supplementary Planning
Document: House Extensions and policies DES1, DES7 and DES8 of the Adopted UDP. I consider
the design of the proposed extension to be acceptable and am satisfied that the proposal would not
have any unacceptable detrimental impact on the neighbouring residents. I therefore recommend
the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same
type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by
the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007B Development-existing building
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works. Property specific summary
information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect
the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports
Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
2. The applicant is advised that their site lies within 250m of a former landfill site. In the event
that landfill gas is migrating, suitable precautions need to be undertaken to avoid the ingress of
landfill gas into the new extension or existing house. It is strongly advised that the detailed
design specification incorporates suitable measures to mitigate against the ingress of landfill
gas. Any measures would be expected to conform to the standards contained in the 1990
Building research Establishment Report "Construction of new buildings on gas-contaminated
land"
APPLICATION No:
07/54104/COU
APPLICANT:
L Plaister
LOCATION:
80 Manchester Road Worsley M28 3LN
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from residential to offices
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an end terrace property on the north side of Manchester Road. The
application is bounded to the east by residential properties, the residential properties on Church
Road, to the west by Church Road and commercial properties and to the south by Manchester Road,
beyond which are residential dwellings.
Consent is sought for the change of use of the existing dwelling house to an office, the hours of use
proposed are 9-5 Monday to Friday.
SITE HISTORY
Planning consent was granted in July 1994 for a change of use from a veterinary surgery to an
office for a family support unit. (ref: 94/32616/COU)
Planning consent was granted in December 2000 for the change of use from a veterinary surgery to
a single-family dwelling. (ref: 01/41769/COU)
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Services – no objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
68-88 Manchester Road (Evens)
2-12 Church Road (Evens)
1 Church Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 6 letters of objection on the grounds of:
Lack of carparking
Problem with shared access
Increased Traffic
Problems with refuse collection
Other premises in Walkden Available
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
EC8 – Town Centres, Retail, Leisure and Office Development
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site Specific Policies: None
Other policies:
ST9 Retail, Leisure, Social and Community Provision
ST11 – Location of new development
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
S1 – Retail and Leisure Development within Town and Neighbourhood Centres
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of office development in this
location, the impact of the proposed development on the viability of Walkden Town Centre and
impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents.
Policy ST11 requires that sites for new development be brought forward using a sequential
approach, with the priority being the reuse of existing buildings. The proposed development
involves the reuse of an existing building and therefore is in accordance with policy ST11.
Policy ST9 seeks to protect and enhance the vitality and viability of existing town centres. Policy
S1 identifies Walkden as a town centre within Salford’s hierarchy of centres. PPS 6 directs that
office development should be located towards town centres. Policy EC8 of the Regional Spatial
Strategy requires that office development that generates a significant amount of trips should be
directed within or adjoining town centres.
The application site is located approximately 250m from Walkden Town Centre and is therefore
considered to be an edge of centre development. It is considered that the site is easily accessible in
relation to Walkden Town Centre and has good public transport links to other parts of Salford.
The application proposes small-scale office development that would employ 5 staff. The
application is part of the relocation of the existing premises from Emerson Business Centre on
Pendleton Way. The company operating from the development would be a small-scale mortgage
advisor. Due to Financial Standards Authority regulations and the material required to be displayed
within a meeting room and the general internal condition of the property, all meetings with
potential customers are to take place at the customer’s place of work. The company currently has 3
staff but has plans to recruit 2 extra staff. One member of staff would be based permanently at the
office with the other members of staff primarily at meetings elsewhere in Salford, using the office
only for administration purposes. It is anticipated that at least one member of staff would travel to
site by public transport.
It is considered that this size of development is acceptable in an edge of centre location and would
not harm the vitality or viability of Walkden Town Centre. It is therefore considered that the
proposed use is acceptable and in accordance with policy ST9 and EC8 of the RSS.
Prior to purchasing this property the applicant searched within Salford for suitable premises and
undertook a MIDAS search for suitable property. The applicant was not able to find suitable
premises as most properties within the MIDAS database were for 10 staff plus or in an
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
inappropriate location. One objection has been raised by a neighbour that suitable premises exist
within Walkden town centre, however the applicant is not aware of any suitable premises in this
location.
There is a history of commercial development on this site and planning permission was only
granted to return the property to a dwelling house in December 2000. Prior to this time the site was
used as a veterinary surgery. There are a number of small A1 units in the close vicinity of the site
and consent was recently granted for a similar change of use on the opposite side of Manchester
Road (06/53345/COU).
The application site contains two/ three carparking spaces to the rear of the property for use by the
employees. Objections have been raised regarding lack of parking at the development. It is
considered that the provision of two/ three spaces in this location is sufficient as the development is
well related to public transport and the proposed development does not exceed the Councils
maximum car parking standards. In addition the nature of this company means that most members
of staff would not be parked at the property during the day.
An objection has been raised regarding problems with servicing of the property. It appears that the
collection of refuge in this location is a wider issue caused by cars parking on Church Road. It is not
considered that this development would give rise such a level of additional traffic that it will cause
additional parking problems within Church Road.
There are parking restrictions on Manchester Road and no parking restrictions in place on Church
Road. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed development would not give rise to an
unacceptable increase in traffic generation.
In regards to the amenity of existing residents, it is proposed that the offices would be open 9-5
Monday to Friday, it is considered that these hours are acceptable and would not give rise to
unacceptable levels of noise or disturbance to nearby residents. I have attached a condition to
control the hours of operation.
CONCLUSION
It is considered that the proposed development would provide small-scale office development in an
edge of centre location without harming the vitality or viability of Walkden town centre in
accordance with policy ST9 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and EC8 of the Adopted
Regional Spatial Strategy. It is not considered that the proposed development would give rise to a
significant level of traffic generation, which would adversely impact on the amenity of the
surrounding residents and therefore is in accordance with policy DES7 of the Adopted Unitary
Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
2. The use hereby permitted shall NOT be operated on Sundays and Bank Holidays and shall
ONLY be operated between the hours of 9-5 Monday to Friday
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
APPLICATION No:
07/54119/FUL
APPLICANT:
Mr G Lupton
LOCATION:
501 Manchester Road Worsley M27 9QN
PROPOSAL:
New pavement crossing and driveway and conversion of
existing garage into a memorial masons showroom
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application is for a change of use of a domestic garage belonging to 501 Manchester Road to a
memorial masons showroom. The application includes alterations to the front elevation of the
garage where there is currently an up and over door to create a display window and door to the
showroom. It is also proposed that a new vehicular access is created to the front of the existing
house at number 501, involving a dropped kerb and a footpath crossing. The plans include space
within the curtilage of the site to manoeuvre a vehicle and enter and leave in a forward gear. The
garage faces the unadopted Wardley Hall Road and stands to the rear of number 501 Manchester
Road. There are no stopping or parking restrictions on Manchester Road at this point.
The development would result in the creation of 27 square metres of retail floor space. The
applicant considers that there would be no more than ten visitors per week. The proposed hours of
opening are 9.30am to 4.30pm Monday to Saturday.
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No Comments
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
501B Manchester Road
503 Manchester Road
505 Manchester Road
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
1-7 Wardley Hall Road (Odds)
The Lodge, Wardley Hall
2&4 Larch Grove
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three neighbour letters of objection. The following issues have been raised:
The negative effect upon the residential area and semi- rural environment
Restricted and limited road access
No designated parking for visitors to the showroom causing issues of congestion, highway
safety and blocking of resident’s driveways. Also the increased possibility of accidents on
egress from Wardley Hall Road onto Manchester Road.
Refuse collection difficulties
Security, privacy and emotional health issues
Financial implications on property value should the use be granted planning permission
Retail uses should be located in established town/neighbourhood centres
Setting of a precedent
Unsustainable use requiring visitors to use private vehicles
The premises could be used for other types of retail use unless controlled by condition.
The occupier is already trading from the premises
The location of the site in close proximity to designated green belt
Access issues for emergency vehicles
Councillor Dawson has requested that the application is heard by the Planning and Transportation
Regulatory panel due to the creation of a business use in a domestic building. Councillor Dawson
has also requested that a site visit be carried out by the Panel.
RSS Policies
DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10 – Design and Crime
Policy S2 – Retail and Leisure Development Outside Town Centres and Neighbourhood Centres
Policy A2 – Cyclists, Pedestrians, and the Disabled
PPS 6 – Planning for Town Centres
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of the use and whether the
location for it is acceptable. Whether the development would have a significant and negative
impact upon the amenities of nearby residential occupiers in terms of visual amenity, quietude,
highway safety and congestion and general residential amenity.
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that all developments should
respect the context of the area within which they are situated. In particular regard should be had to
the impact upon and relationship to the existing landscape, character, scale and pattern of streets
and building plots, the relationship to existing buildings and features that contribute to townscape
quality, the quality of the proposed materials and the functional compatibility with adjoining land
uses.
Policy DES7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan states that all new developments and
alterations and extensions to existing buildings will be required to provide potential users with a
satisfactory level of amenity in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout. Policy
DES7 requires that permission is not granted for development where it would have an unacceptable
impact upon the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.
Policy DES10 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan states that development should not be
permitted unless it is designed to discourage crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime and
support personal and property security. It is identified within the Policy that development should
clearly delineate public, communal, private and semi-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.
Policy S2 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan states that outside town and neighbourhood
centres planning permission will be granted for retail and leisure only where certain criteria are
met. These criteria include that it should be clearly demonstrated that there is a quantitative need for
the development, that there are no more appropriate sites or buildings available within town
centres. Where this is not the case preference is given to sites on the edge of centres or sites which
are out of centres but which are served by a choice of means of transport. Also it should be clearly
demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable impact upon the vitality and viability of any
town or neighbourhood centre, the development would not give rise to unacceptable levels of
traffic congestion, or have an adverse impact upon highway safety in terms of traffic generation,
parking or servicing, the development would be of a scale appropriate to the location, and that the
development would not have an unacceptable impact upon environmental quality or residential
amenity.
Policy A2 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that development proposals make
adequate provision for safe and convenient access by the disabled, pedestrians and cyclists.
Policy DP1 states that New development and other investment in infrastructure and services should
be located so as to make the most effective use of land, promote appropriate mixes of uses within a
site and its wider neighbourhood, make efficient use of transport facilities and assist
people to meet their needs locally.
Principle
The proposed development would result in an A1 retail use being situated within a mainly
residential area, which is out of the town centre, and not within a neighbourhood centre. According
to the criteria of Policy S2 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and Planning Policy
Statement 6, where retail development is to take place outside of town centres it should not
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
compromise the vitality of existing town centres. As the proposed retail floor space of the
development is 27square metres it is not considered that the extent of the development is such that
it would unduly affect the vitality of any existing centres. It is considered that the location for
development is acceptable in light of the small scale of the development and its specialist nature. I
consider that there is a ‘need’ for this development in this location as it is in close proximity to the
cemetery and such a use wouldn’t compromise the vitality of existing centres. I consider that the
proposed development is in an appropriate location and that there are no sequentially preferable
sites in the local area. A condition has been attached to restrict the hours of operation of the
business and it is considered that this will reduce the impacts of the development on the immediate
area and residents of it thereby making the use more acceptable in this location.
Policy A2 and PPS6 also require that sites for retail development outside of existing centres should
be accessible by public transport. The site would be easily accessible from Manchester Road which
is a major arterial route connecting a number of existing centres.
Policy DES1 requires that all developments should respect the physical context of the area and in
assessing applications the impacts of the development on the surrounding area should be taken into
account. I do not consider that the development would be out of place in the locality and although it
is recognised that the development would result in a retail use in close proximity to residential
units, the intensity of the use is such that it would not be incompatible with the adjoining residential
units. I am of the opinion that the development would not be out of place in the area and would not
have a significant impact upon existing conditions in the area therefore I consider that the proposal
would be in accordance with policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
Residential Amenity
I consider that due to the small number of visitors per week and the proposed hours of use only
being from 9.30am to 4.30pm Monday to Sunday that the effect upon the existing conditions in the
area in terms of residential amenity would be minimal. In addition there would not be frequent
deliveries to or from the premises as the primary use is as a showroom and not as a workshop or
storage facility.
The objections to the proposal in this respect are acknowledged, however it is not considered that
the use would unduly affect the amenities of nearby residents as the increase in activity would not
be sufficient to impact upon the level of amenity of neighbours.
Objectors also raised the issue of emotional health due to the goods, which are to be sold from the
premises. In some circumstances the psychological impacts of development can be taken into
account in exceptional circumstances. However the proposed use is primarily as a showroom
therefore the intensity of use will be low. The level of distress caused by the use is a subjective
matter and as the proposed use is for the viewing of stones only, I am satisfied that the use is an
acceptable one in this area. The applicant has reduced the size of the proposed window and has
altered the design to reflect that of a residential dwelling.
Concerns were raised by the adjoining neighbour at 1 Wardley Hall Road in relation to the view,
which could be gained by visitors into their property. The boundary treatment between the
development site and number 1 Wardley Hall Road is a 1.2 metre close board fence for most of its
length, however this steps up to a height of two metres for one panel’s length from the front of 1
Wardley Hall Road. Therefore I do not consider that the proposal would result in any additional
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
overlooking into number 1 Wardley Hall Road. I do not consider that the privacy of this resident
would be significantly compromised by visitors walking on the driveway to the showroom.
I consider that the development would not have a significant negative effect upon the amenities of
nearby residents.
Highway Safety and Congestion
I have received objections to the proposal on the grounds that there would not be adequate parking
space for visitors cars and this would result in congestion and compromise the safety of drivers
entering and leaving Wardley Hall Road, and also pedestrians as there is no footpath along this part
of the road.
The loss of a car parking space in the existing garage is not considered to be significant as the
applicant has compensated for this by provided a new parking space at the front of the dwelling for
one vehicle. There are no waiting or stopping restrictions either on Wardley Hall Road or
Manchester Road so it is accepted that visitors to the site could park vehicles either adjacent to the
boundary wall of the property on Wardley Hall Road or on Manchester Road itself. As the number
of visitors to the premises would be limited I do not consider that there would be significant issues
in terms of congestion. Therefore it is not considered that there would be any significant increase in
the number of cars parking around the site at any given time, and subsequently there would be no
significant impact upon highway safety.
As part of the proposed driveway the applicant has provided space within the curtilage of the site to
manoeuvre a vehicle and enter and leave the driveway in a forward gear. In addition, boundary
treatments have been removed to create 2x2 metre visibility splays. I consider that this element of
the development is acceptable in highway safety terms.
I do not consider that the number of vehicles visiting the site would increase significantly enough to
create problems of congestion on Wardley Hall Road. I am of the opinion that the applicant has
addressed all of the issues associated with ensuring highway safety and therefore have no
objections to the proposal on highway grounds.
Visual Amenity
The appearance of the building is currently as a domestic garage with an up and over door. It is
proposed that the door is removed and a doorway and display window inserted. The applicant has
amended the design of the window to reflect a more residential appearance and has, in doing this
reduced the display area of the window. I consider that the design and appearance of the
development is acceptable and would not unduly detract from the character of the area. The
showroom would not be visible from any of the windows of the adjacent property and only from the
furthest part of the front garden closest to Wardley Hall Road. There is vacant land opposite the site
so there would be no loss of visual amenity in this respect. In light of the above I do not consider
that there would be any loss of visual amenity to any of the nearby residential occupiers.
Other Issues
Policy A2 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that all development is accessible by
the disabled, and also by foot and bicycle. The showroom would be capable of being accessed by
the disabled and it is considered that the proposed development is in an accessible location close to
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
a main arterial route and public transport routes. The business would be accessible by foot and
bicycle and there would be no difference in levels on the site therefore access for the disabled is
provided. I consider that for these reasons the development would be in accordance with Policy A2
of the Adopted Unitary Development.
Objections were raised which related to the impact a business would have on the safety and security
of the adjoining residents and their properties. Concerns relate to the commercial use attracting
persons wishing to commit criminal activity to the showroom and to houses in the local area. I am
of the opinion that the nature of the business is not such that it would attract criminal activity to take
place. The neighbour at 1 Wardley Hall Road has noted that access could be gained from their
driveway due to the relatively low height of the wall at the boundary. However this property is open
to Wardley Hall Road for the majority of its length. I do not consider that the change of use of the
garage would lead to a higher possibility of trespassing than that which currently exists at this
property. I consider that adequate security measures have been proposed in the erection of the gates
to the front of the driveway, which clearly delineate the space between Wardley Hall Road and the
showroom as private during the hours when the business is not in operation. I consider that the
proposal is in accordance with Policy DES10 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
Issues were raised in relation to difficulties withrefuse vehicles accessing Wardley Hall Road due
to parked vehicles related to the showroom. Wardley Hall Road is a private unadopted road and
therefore there are no restrictions on waiting or stopping. It is therefore a private dispute between
the landowners. As discussed earlier in this report it is not expected that the proposed will have a
significant impact on parking in the area.
Neighbours also raised property value as an issue, however this is not a material planning
consideration.
A neighbour also raised the issue that the use of the premises could be changed to any other falling
within the A1 Use Class. Whilst this particular use is considered acceptable this is solely on the
grounds that the intensity of the use will be small and that it would be a specialist retail use which
needs ideally to be in close proximity to the cemetery. Should the use be changed to another retail
use however, the level of activity could be much greater that that which would occur at a memorial
showroom thereby having an unacceptable impact upon residential amenity. For this reason a
condition has been added to the permission to restrict the use of the premises to that of a memorial
masons showroom only and cannot therefore be changed without the prior permission of the Local
Planning Authority.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The applicant has amended the original plans to show a turning head at the front of the building,
within the curtilage of the site, to allow turning and therefore vehicles are able to enter and leave in
a forward gear ensuring highway safety. The boundary treatment has also been removed from the
plans at the request of the Local Planning Authority in order to ensure 2x2 metre visibility splays
are provided to protect pedestrians using the footpath.
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
The applicant has reconsidered the design of the front elevation of the showroom to reflect a more
residential appearance in order to protect the visual amenity and character of the area.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion I consider that the proposed use would, by virtue of its size, hours of operation and
low intensity be acceptable in this predominantly residential area. I consider that the development
would be accessible by public transport and that it would not unacceptably affect the vitality or
viability of any existing centre. I do not consider that the development would have any significant
additional impact upon residential or visual amenity nor would it compromise highway safety. It is
considered that the proposal is in accordance with the Development Plan taking account of all the
material considerations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. The use hereby approved shall not be open for business except between the hours of 9am to
6pm Monday to Saturday and 10am to 5pm on Sundays and Bank Holidays
3. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be
used for the Front elevation and gates of the development have been 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.
4. Not withstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987,
or any order revoking or re-enacting that order with or without modification the premises shall
be used for the display and sale of memorial mason's goods and other goods ancillary top or
directly associated with these goods and for no other purpose unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
4. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
APPLICATION No:
07/54162/FUL
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
APPLICANT:
Simon Bird
LOCATION:
Land Between 35-41Gore Crescent Salford M5 5LT
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a terrace of three dwellings together with associated
car parking and construction of new vehicular access
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the erection of three townhouses on the site of 37 and 39 Gore Crescent.
The site for development consists of two plots, formerly occupied by a pair of semi detached
dwellings which were demolished due to subsidence in 2003. One half of the site at 37 Gore
Crescent was granted consent for a single detached dwelling in 2006. (Ref: 06/53661/FUL)
To the West of the site are a series of pairs of semi-detached houses with 41 Gore Crescent being
the nearest property. To the East is 35 Gore Crescent, which is one half of a pair of semi detached
dwellings on a corner plot at the junction of Kensington Drive.
The rear elevations and windows of these dwellings face the development site at a 45 degree angle.
There are semi-detached houses on the opposite side of Gore Crescent. To the South of the site
there is vacant land. The site is currently secured by mesh fencing to the front and new timber fence
to the Eastern Boundary. It is proposed that new fencing is constructed to the Western and Southern
Boundaries of the site and a 1m timber fence with gates to the front of the site.
The applicant has amended the scheme so that the building is set lower than that which was
originally proposed. Therefore the ridge height of the roof is lower than that which was originally
proposed and is level with the ridge height of adjoining dwellings.
The proposed dwelling would have an eaves and ridge height which matches the existing houses in
the immediate locality and would be 2.5 storeys in height. The building has been set lower than
adjacent buildings to achieve matching ridge and eaves height. The proposed materials are Marley
Modern slates to the roof to match existing dwellings and details of the brickwork are to be
confirmed. The design of the dwellings incorporates soldier course above the windows and doors.
The proposed dwellings have an area of private garden and a driveway to the front. It is proposed
that the dwellings will each have four bedrooms with the master bedroom located in the roof space.
There are some trees on the site, however these are not mature and not of any special amenity value
which would warrant protection by a Tree Preservation Order.
SITE HISTORY
06/53661/FUL - Erection of one detached dwelling - Permitted
PUBLICITY
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
11 -19 Kensington Drive (Odds)
35 Gore Crescent
41 –48 Gore Crescent (Odds and Evens)
50& 52 Gore Crescent
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received letters of objection from 10 neighbours. The following issues have been raised:
The proposed building being out of keeping with buildings in the area
The applicant does not reside in the local area
Dismay that the Council accepted the application
The applicant had previously told residents that the proposal was to be for either detached
or semi detached houses
That the proposed housing type will ‘bring the area down’
Proximity of the proposed building to the boundary fences or nearby resident’s gardens.
That the properties may be rented instead of sold and this may attract certain groups.
The applicant has not specified the materials to be used for the development
Devaluation of properties.
Refusal of previous applications at neighbour’s properties due to terracing effect
Increase in traffic volumes leading to on-street car parking and congestion
The proposed dwelling would not have the same roofline as the existing
That the development would be overbearing
Loss of light due to the height of the proposed building
Impact of the development on the ‘fabric’ of the road
That the development is not in accordance with Policy DES1 of the adopted Unitary
Development Plan.
RSS Policies
DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
DES1 Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Areas
ST11 Location of New Development
A2
Cyclists Pedestrians and the Disabled
H1
Provision of New Housing Development
PPS3 Housing
Housing Planning Guidance
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main issues associated with this proposal are the design of the dwellings including their height,
whether the building as a whole would be acceptable in this particular location, if the proposal
would unduly increase traffic volumes or congestion in the area, and whether the development
would have an unacceptable impact upon the visual or residential amenity of the area and whether
sufficient amenity would be provided for future occupants of the development.
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that all developments should
respect the context of the area within which they are situated. In particular regard should be had to
the impact upon and relationship to the existing landscape, the character, scale and pattern of streets
and building plots, the relationship to existing buildings and features that contribute to townscape
quality, the quality of the proposed materials and the functional compatibility with adjoining land
uses.
Policy DES7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that all new developments and
alterations and extensions to existing buildings will be required to provide potential users with a
satisfactory level of amenity in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout. It also
requires that permission is not granted for development where it would have an unacceptable
impact upon the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.
Policy ST11 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that sites are brought forward for
development in a sequential order. The most preferable sites being existing buildings which can be
re-used or converted, or upon previously developed land which is well-served by a range of means
of transport, particularly walking cycling and public transport, and which are well related to
housing, employment, services and infrastructure.
Policy H1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that new housing development
should provide a high quality residential environment and an adequate level of amenity, in
particular focussing upon the size of the development, the physical characteristics of the site and
the accessibility of the site and its location in relation to jobs and facilities.
Policy A2 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that all new development makes
adequate provision for cyclists, pedestrians and the disabled.
Policy HOU1 of the recently adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance states that within West
Salford, Broughton Park, Claremont and the Northern part of Weaste and Seedley, the large
majority of dwellings should be in the form of houses rather than apartments.
Policy HOU2 states that the majority of new dwellings should provide a minimum of three
bedrooms.
Policy DP1 states that New development and other investment in infrastructure and services should
be located so as to make the most effective use of land, promote appropriate mixes of uses within a
site and its wider neighbourhood, make efficient use of transport facilities and assist
people to meet their needs locally.
Location of the proposed development
The proposed development would involve the re-use of brownfield land therefore would be in
accordance with Criteria 2 of Policy ST11 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and the
guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) which seeks to prioritise the
development of such land over land which has not been previously developed (Greenfield land).
The site is within the ward of Weaste and Seedley which is classed as Central Salford in the
Adopted Housing Planning Guidance. In this area it is preferable that a mix of dwellings is
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
provided with the most accessible locations being occupied by apartments. However, it is
considered that the dwelling houses are the most appropriate solution for this as it is located within
a row of houses.
The proposal site is accessible by foot, bicycle and by a choice of means of public transport to a
number of centres including Salford, Eccles, and Swinton. I consider that the site is well served by
a wide range of facilities and employment and therefore would be in accordance with Policy ST11
of The Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
I consider that the positioning of the proposed dwelling would respect the general building line and
would not unduly affect the character of the area. I consider that the proposed use would be in
keeping with the adjoining land uses and the overall character of the area. The design of the
dwelling is such that it would not look out of place and it is considered that by reducing the height
of the building as a whole so that ridge and eaves height match adjacent dwellings that the proposal
would not have a significant or negative effect upon the character of the area or the streetscene.
Therefore I am of the opinion that the development would be in accordance with Policy DES1 of
the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
Traffic Congestion and On-Street Parking
Objections have been raised relating the potential increase in on-street parking caused by the
development. The adopted car parking standards require that a maximum of two car parking spaces
are provided for each dwelling. The proposal incorporates one car parking space per dwelling and I
am satisfied that there would be adequate off street parking for residents. I have no objections to the
proposal on highway safety grounds.
Amenity
Objections have been raised in relation to a loss of light and overshadowing and that the building
will be overbearing. There would remain 22 metres from the front of the proposed building to the
habitable room windows of houses opposite. I do not consider therefore that there would be any
detrimental impact on these neighbours. Although the proposed building would be within one
metres of the side boundaries of the site, there are no habitable room windows proposed in the side
elevations of the building. There are no habitable room windows in the side elevation of the
adjacent property at number 41. Number 35 Gore Crescent is set at a 45 degree angle from the
proposed building and at its closest point there would be 13 metres between number 35 and the
proposed building. There are also no windows proposed for the side elevation facing number 35.
For these reasons I do not consider that there would be any loss of amenity to neighbours in terms
of privacy and overlooking. The decking to the rear of the dwellings has been removed from the
proposal.
The proposed dwellings would extend past the rear building line of number 41, however it is
considered that the difference is not such that it would detrimentally impact upon the amenity of the
adjacent neighbour and that the distance between the proposed building and number 41 is sufficient
to remove any overshadowing.
The development includes the provision of a garden for each of the properties to the rear which
would provide an adequate amount of private amenity space. It is also considered that the proposed
development would allow a sufficient level of residential amenity for future occupiers in terms of
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
privacy, light and space. I therefore consider that the proposal would be in accordance with Policy
DES7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
There are some trees to the rear of the site, however these are small and not mature and have no
special amenity value, therefore it is considered that they are not worthy of protection by a Tree
Preservation Order. The development does not include the removal of any of the trees on the site.
Other objections included the design of the dwelling being terraced dwellings in an area which is
predominantly semi-detached or detached dwellings. I do not consider that the house type would
have a significant detrimental impact upon the character of the area. but the initial design being
higher than existing buildings in the immediate area. The applicant has reduced the height of the
building so that it relates better to the height of the neighbouring dwellings. I consider that the
amended scheme is more acceptable in design terms and would have a significantly lesser impact in
terms of building mass than that which was originally proposed. I therefore consider that the
amended proposal is acceptable in terms of massing and height.
Objectors also raised the issue that the development would result in a building which has a higher
ridge height than existing buildings in the immediate area. The applicant has amended the scheme
so that the ridge height is the same as houses in the immediate area.
It was also identified that materials for the development have not been specified within the
application. A condition has been attached to require that samples of materials are provided and
approved in writing prior to the commencement of development. This will ensure a quality finish
for the development
Objections were also raised in relation to devaluation of neighbour’s properties, the fact that the
applicant does not reside in the area, and the refusal of previous applications at neighbour’s
properties. These issues are not considered material planning considerations for this development
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The applicant has addressed the issue of the building being overbearing by reducing its overall
height to match those of the adjacent dwellings.
CONCLUSION
It is considered that the proposed development in its amended form would not have a visually
intrusive impact nor would it be an overbearing or obtrusive feature in the streetscene. It is
considered that the proposed development would be in keeping with the character of the local area
and would not unduly affect the amenities of nearby residential occupiers or cause any issues of
highway safety. I consider that the proposal is in accordance with all of the relevant Policies within
the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and Housing Planning Guidance, and that there are no
other material considerations that outweigh those policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Standard Condition D03Y Samples of materials
3. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 21.03.07 which shows Reduced
Ridge Height.
4. Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings the windows within the side elevations shall be
glazed with obscure glass and maintained as such to the satisfaction of the Local Planning
Authority.
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 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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
4. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy
DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This permission relates to amended plans received 21.3.07 which show a reduction in height of
the of the proposed buildings.
APPLICATION No:
07/54259/COU
APPLICANT:
M H Hishaque
LOCATION:
485 Liverpool Street Salford M6 5QQ
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
PROPOSAL:
Change of use of car spares shop to shop for the sale of hot food,
installation of extraction flue to rear, installation of a new shop
front and use of first floor for staff room and storage
WARD:
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a commercial property within a terraced row of shops on Liverpool
Street. The proposal is for the change of use of a car spares shop to a shop for the sale of hot food
together with installation of an extractor flue to the rear and alterations to front elevation. The
proposed hours of opening would be 5pm until 12pm Monday till Thursday, 5pm till 12.30am on
Friday and Saturday and 5pm till 11.00pm Sunday.
The proposed alterations to the front elevation of the building involved replacing the existing door
and windows together with new signage above.
SITE HISTORY
There has been one previous planning application on this site for the change of use of car spares
shop to sale of hot food with installation of extract flue to the rear and alterations to front elevation
with separate access to first floor flat. It was refused on the 26th January 2007 (06/53917/COU).
489 Liverpool Street applied for a change of use from retail to sale of hot food (98/37790/COU) this
was refused on 2nd July 1998, for the reason that the proposed change of use would seriously injure
the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of noise and general disturbance. The applicant
appealed and the appeal was upheld.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No response.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified:
428, 438, 440, 442, 444, 446, 448, 450, 454, 477, 481, 483, 485, 487, 489 Ground Floor,
489 Liverpool Street
2 Horsham Street
1 Hersey Street
Alleycats Residents Association, 8 Ashley Street
Alleycats Residents Association, 10 Middlebourne Street
Chairperson Millwood Residents Association, 57 Milford Street
Chairperson Langould Homewatch And Residents Association, 38 Langton Street
Secretary HKH Residents Association
Chairperson Seedley Street Residents Association
REPRESENTATIONS
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
I have received 8 letters of objection and a letter of objection from Councillor Warmisham. The
following issues have been raised:
Late night noise and disturbance
Car parking/traffic problems
Attract anti-social youths
Increase in litter
Increase in fumes and odours and the impact on the gated alley to the rear
The proposal would have a negative impact on the area
The proposed hot food takeaway would not contribute to the local economy
There are too many hot food takeaways in the area
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
None
Other policies: S4 – Amusement Centres and Food and Drink Uses
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether there will be any impact on the
amenity of neighbouring residents by virtue of noise, disturbance, smells, fumes, litter, vehicular
traffic movements, parking or pedestrian traffic and the impact of the alteration to the front
elevation on the street scene.
Impact on Amenity
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 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 DES7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan states that development will not be
permitted where it would have an adverse impact upon the occupiers or users of other
developments in the vicinity or an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the
street scene.
The proposed alterations to the shop frontage would be similar to that existing and would involve
replacing an existing door and window with new signage above. I consider that the proposal would
be in accordance with DES1 and would not have an unacceptable impact on the street scene.
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
The site is located within a commercial row of 6 shops along Liverpool Street and is not allocated in
the UDP. There are no other hot food takeaways within this terrace. Directly opposite the
application site and to the rear are residential properties. There are no shops within this row which
open into the early evening however Liverpool Street is relatively busy with vehicular traffic. I
would therefore consider that this proposal would not result in a significant increase in noise from
customers visiting the premises either by car or on foot.
Directly adjacent to the application property at no 483 is a dental surgery and at 487 is an office.
There is no residential accommodation adjoining the premises. The application 98/37790/COU for
a hot food takeaway at no. 489 was refused due the potential noise and general disturbance to
nearby residents. I consider that there has been no significant change in the surrounding area as the
properties surrounding the site are the same as when this application for no 489 was upheld at
appeal. I am therefore of the opinion that the proposed change of use would not have an
unacceptable impact on the existing residential properties in particular those directly to the front
and rear of the proposal by reason of noise and disturbance.
Objections have been raised with regards to smells and fumes that will result from the proposed
change of use to a hot food shop. The nearest residential properties are approximately 14m from the
proposed extraction flue which is located on the rear of the building. I consider that adequate
conditions can be imposed requiring the applicant to submit the details of the extractor system to
the Local Planning Authority before the business is brought into use. I therefore consider that the
use of this condition will ensure there would be no unacceptable detrimental impact on
neighbouring residents as a result of fumes and odours.
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 are no parking
restrictions along Liverpool Street in front of the row of shops. I therefore have no objection to the
proposal on highway grounds.
Objections have been received regarding the increase in litter as a result of this application. There
are no litter bins in the immediate vicinity. I have therefore attached a condition requiring provision
of a litter bin. I have received a number of objections with regard to the proposal attracting
antisocial youths. I do not consider it reasonable to assume that a hot food shop would result in an
increase of anti-social youths. A number of objections have been received with regard to the
number of hot food takeaways in the immediate vicinity. There are no hot food takeaways within
this terraced row. I therefore consider it would be unreasonable to refuse an application on
cumulative impact. Issues have been raised that the proposal would have a negative impact on the
area and would not contribute to the local economy. This unit is currently vacant I therefore
consider that the reuse of the property would be beneficial for the local economy, local residents
and the local area.
CONCLUSION
I am of the opinion that the introduction of a hot food takeaway would not result in an unacceptable
detrimental impact on the amenity of the surrounding residents. The proposal is in a row of shops
and on a road with a high level of general activity in the day and evening. I therefore consider that
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th April 2007
the proposal is in accordance with DES1, DES7 and S4 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
I therefore recommend the application
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
49
5th April 2007
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
50
5th April 2007