PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
APPLICATION No:
07/54217/FUL
APPLICANT:
Mr Bellini
LOCATION:
198 Monton Road Eccles M30 9LJ
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from shop to restaurant
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the ground floor and basement of an end-terraced property on
Monton Road the first floor of which is used as two flats. The ground floor and basement
are currently vacant. They were last used as an A1 retail unit. There is no on site parking
however the site is located approximately 50m from a public car park with approximately
100 spaces.
It is proposed to change the use of the ground floor and basement to a restaurant that would
be operational between 8am and midnight 7 days a week.
The land to the north of the premises is used for residential purposes and the land to the
east, west and south of the site is used for a mix of commercial and residential uses. The
site is located within the Monton Key Local Centre.
SITE HISTORY
Application 05/51341/COU for the change of use of the ground floor and basement of the
premises to a restaurant was refused in November 2005 for the following reasons –
1. The proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring
residents by reason of noise and disturbance and general activity and would therefore be
contrary to Policy S5 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and Policy
S4 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan.
2. Insufficient details of the proposed fume extraction system have been submitted to enable
the full implications of the proposed development to be assessed in relation to visual
amenity, odour, noise and nuisance.
The applicant appealed the refusal.
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
The Planning Inspectorate did not support the first reason for refusal stating that in their
experience it is possible for a restaurant to operate without unduly disturbing those who
may live above the premises as well as in the wider area providing, amongst other matters,
that adequate sound insulation measures are put in place to safeguard the amenities of those
living the closest.
The Planning Inspectorate did however dismiss the appeal on the basis that without
knowing the appearance and other potential impacts of the extraction system-such as noise,
vibration and smells affecting neighbouring residents would be acceptable the scheme
cannot be approved.
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
188 to 208 (even) Monton Road, including 198A and 198 B Monton Road
225 to 243 (odd) Monton Road
1 to 6 Highfield Drive
7 Brackley Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 11 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning
application publicity and a petition with 27 signatures. The following issues have been
raised –
The proposal would exacerbate parking problems on Highfield Drive. In order to
alleviate their concerns the residents of Highfield Drive are requesting a review of the
residents parking scheme with restricted parking being extended to after 6pm and to
include weekends.
Increased noise and disturbance
Monton does not need another restaurant
Litter/bins on the street
Smells and odours
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DES1 – Respecting Context
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES11 – Design and Crime
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
S3 – Loss of Shops
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the
proposed development is acceptable; whether there would be a detrimental impact on
residential amenity; whether the proposed level of parking is acceptable; and whether the
proposal complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan. I
shall deal with each of these issues in turn.
Principle
Policy S3 states that within an established neighbourhood centre a change of use from class
A1 retail will only be permitted where it would not have an unacceptable impact upon the
vitality or viability of the centre either individually or cumulatively. I do not have any
objections to the loss of an A1 unit in this instance as it would not have an adverse impact
on the vitality and viability of the centre, as there are a variety of businesses that cater for
the needs of the immediate residents. In fact the proposal could result make a positive
contribution towards the vitality and viability of the centre by bringing a vacant unit back
into use.
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.
Policy DES7 states that development that would have an unacceptable impact on the
amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
Under the previous planning application the Local Planning Authority were concerned
over the impact that the proposed development would have upon the residential amenity
the occupants of the flats at 198A and 198B Monton Road and other residents in the
immediate vicinity would enjoy should a restaurant open at 198 Monton Road.
Concerns were expressed over the noise and disturbance residents would experience as a
result of general comings and goings and people parking on neighbouring streets, for
example Highfield Drive.
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
The planning Inspector did not share the Councils concerns. They did not feel that
neighbouring residents would be affected by the general comings and goings of customers
in particular by the slamming of car doors and the starting of engines because the parking
restrictions and limited availability of spaces on Highfield Drive and in front of the
premises on Monton Road mean that it is more likely that patrons of the proposed
restaurant would use the public car park in Partington Street.
的
With regards to concerns that the Local Planning Authority expressed over noise and
disturbance from within the restaurant the Inspector was of the opinion that while there
might be disturbance from noise generated within the restaurant from music and loud
conversation, for example, the disturbance this would cause could be addressed by
conditions imposing maximum noise levels audible outside the premises and requiring a
soundproofing scheme for the flats above. In order to ensure that activities within the
restaurant do not have an adverse impact upon the amenity of neighbouring residents I
recommend that such conditions be attached.
Turning to the second reason for refusal which stated that nsufficient details of the
proposed fume extraction system have been submitted to enable the full implications of the
proposed development to be assessed in relation to visual amenity, odour, noise and
nuisance_ and was supported by the Planning Inspector. The applicant has now provided
some details of the fume extraction system proposed including the arrangement of the stack
and technical details of the system in order to try and demonstrate that it is possible to
introduce a fume extraction system capable of removing fumes and odours without having
an adverse impact upon the visual amenity of the area and the residential amenity that
neighbouring residents currently enjoy.
The proposed fume extraction system would be located on the rear of the building. It would
not project beyond the ridge of the main roof and therefore it would not be visible within
the street scene and consequently its introduction would not have an adverse impact upon
the visual amenity of the area. In order to accommodate the flue the kitchen window will
be removed and replaced. I do not have any objections to this as the proposed window
would be of a similar style and design to the one it replaces and the others within the
property.
Turning to residential amenity the proposed fume extraction system would be located
adjacent to a kitchen window of one of the first floor flats. As this room is a non-habitable
room I do not have any concerns over loss of light in this room. In order to protect the
residential amenity of the occupants of this flat it is proposed to install acoustic glazing and
mechanical ventilation within the new window. It is also proposed to have a number of
measures to reduce noise and vibration emanating from the fume extraction system
including anti vibration mounts, an inline silencer and flow fan. Full details of these
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
protective measures have not been provided to date, however, from the evidence provided I
am satisfied that it is possible to install a fume extraction system that would not have an
adverse impact upon the residential amenity that neighbouring residents can reasonably
expect to enjoy. In order to ensure the correct specification for the window and the fume
extraction system I have attached conditions requiring full details of each to be submitted
and approved prior to the commencement of use.
Car parking and Access
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists
and motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards.
There is no car parking provision exclusively for use by staff/visitors to the proposed
restaurant. Despite this I do not have any objections to the proposal on highway safety
grounds, and the proposed use will not generate any greater additional vehicular traffic
than an A1 unit would and parking for users of businesses within Monton Village is
provided in a central car park.
With regards to concerns expressed by neighbours over the intensification of parking
problems on Highfield Drive both the Council and the Planning Inspector are of the
opinion that given the parking restrictions on Highfield Drive, customers to the restaurant
would not park there during the day nor is it likely that customers would park on Highfield
Drive during the evening when local residents and their visitors would monopolise the
kerbside spaces given the limited availability of parking available on Highfield Drive.
Other Issues
With regards to residents opinions that Monton does not need another restaurant, while I
acknowledge the presence of numerous restaurants within Monton village, I am of the
opinion that the introduction of another would not have an adverse impact upon the vitality
and viability of the centre as there would still be numerous other uses within the centre that
can cater for the retail needs of residents.
Residents requests for a review of the residents parking scheme and an increase of its hours
of operation it is not possible to request such a review under this application. The Council’s
Highways department has however been made aware of the residents requests for such a
review.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, in the light of the recent inspectors decision and the new evidence presented
with this application, I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with the relevant
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
policies of the Adopted UDP and there are no material considerations that outweigh this
finding. I therefore recommend that the application be approved
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme detailing soundproofing
measures to be installed to protect the amenity of the residential flats above the
restaurant shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The scheme shall identify all soundproofing measures and any specific
installation requirements necessary to protect the integrity of the soundproofing
measures. Once agreed in writing, all approved soundproofing measures shall be
implemented in full prior to the first use of the premises as a restaurant and shall be
maintained as such thereafter.
3. Prior to the commencement of development details of the proposed extraction scheme
for dealing with the kitchen cooking odours shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall specifically detail
extraction efflux velocities, air change rate, sound attenuation capabilities and overall
noise levels from the extraction system. Details shall also be provided on the internal
filtration system for the extractor. Once all mitigation measures and equipment
specifications have been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, all
measures shall be implemented prior to the first use of the premises as a restuarant and
shall be retained thereafter. Servicing of equipment shall be carried out in accordance
with the manufacturers recommendations to maintain the effectiveness of the system.
4. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme detailing changes to the first
floor kitchen window shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. Details shall include the glazing specification and alternative
ventilation systems including the rate of air changes per hour under standard/boost
conditions. Once approved in writing, all measures shall be implemented prior to the
first use of the premises as a restuarant and maintained as such thereafter.
5. Noise from within the restaurant and associated kitchen activities and equipment shall
be inaudible at the boundary of the nearest residential property.
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
3. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
4. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
5. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
APPLICATION No:
07/54327/FUL
APPLICANT:
Talmud Chinuch Neorim
LOCATION:
11 Wellington Street East And Land To East Salford M7
2AU
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing school and erection of a four storey
classroom block with nursery accommodation at ground
floor level and administration accommodation
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to an existing pair of large semi-detached properties that have been
converted into a school. There are considerable problems with the facilities at the school
because of the limitations arising from the conversion. Therefore, the proposal is to replace
the building with a purpose built school. The site is bounded to the north, east and west by
residential properties.
A phased development is proposed to allow the existing school to remain open while the
construction works take place. It is proposed that phase I be constructed whilst the existing
school remains open, Pupils will then be decanted to phase I and phase II will be
constructed. This is possible by extending the existing site boundary to the east.
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
It is proposed to build a four-storey building dropping to 3-storeys at the east and west
elevations with a maximum height of 16.6 metres. The building would measure a
maximum of 48.8 metres wide and 22.5 metres deep. The building would be constructed
on the eastern boundary and set in 1.2 metres from the western boundary at its closest
point. Emergency vehicular access and access to 4 staff car parking spaces is proposed in
the north east corner of the site.
SITE HISTORY
01/42104/FUL – Erection of a replacement school building – Permitted.
CONSULTATIONS
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No objection
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – recommend the attachment of conditions
relating to the submission of a desk study and a construction phase impact assessment.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 28th March 2007
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser 22nd March 2007
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Flats 1-8, 14 Wellington Street East
Flats 1, 3, 4, 16 Wellington Street East
Flats 1, 2 & 3, 26 Wellington Street East
1 – 9 (odds) Wellington Street East
14 – 30 (evens) Wellington Street East
2 – 12 (evens) Broughton Park Suites, Wellington Street East
Topfields, 19 Wellington Street East
Flats 1 – 24 Topfields, 19 Wellington Street East
REPRESENTATIONS
No letters of objection have been received in response to the application publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Policy DP1:
Policy DP3:
Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
Quality in New Development
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies:
ST11: Location of New Development
DES1: Respecting Context
DES7: Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10: Design and Crime
EHC1: Provision and Improvement of Schools and Colleges
A8:
Impact of Development on the Highway Network
A10: Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1: Regional Development Principles.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this development are: whether the principle of
development is acceptable; whether the design and appearance is acceptable; the impact on
the amenity of local residents; and highway safety issues.
Principal of Development
Policy EHC1 states that planning permission will be granted for the provision of new
schools and colleges, and also for the improvement or replacement of schools and colleges
on existing sites, provided that the development would meet a number of criteria relating
to: the amenity of neighbouring uses; securing an adequate standard of playing field and
other recreation provision; be accessible by a range of means of transport; incorporate
adequate disabled provision; not give rise to unacceptable traffic congestion; and make
provision, where possible, for community use of the buildings and grounds.
Recreational provision would consist of an all-weather surface with all weather surfacing
suitable for three and four year old children adjacent to the nursery accommodation. The
existing school does not incorporate any soft landscaping. The site is constrained in terms
of size and the proposed recreational provision is considered acceptable in this instance.
The proposal represents the re-development of the school on the existing school site and is
acceptable in this regard, however as discussed in more detail below, the proposed
development would have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties in terms of
overshadowing and overbearing impact. Furthermore, insufficient evidence has been
submitted to justify the limited provision of staff car parking. The proposed development
is therefore contrary to policy EHC1 of the adopted UDP.
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
Design and Appearance
Policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its physical context,
respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated, and contribute towards
local identity and distinctiveness. Policy DES10 states that development will not be
permitted unless it is designed to discourage crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of
crime.
The existing school is housed in two large dilapidated Victorian semi-detached houses.
Various levels of adaptation and low quality extensions have left the buildings with a poor
presence on the street. The negative impact of the school is exacerbated by the tall concrete
security fencing topped by barbed wire. The current school does not provide a positive
contribution to the merging character of the nearby Broughton Green redevelopment
scheme.
The proposed school would present a strong frontage to the street and through its scale and
massing provides a strong public building as a focus and stimuli for the area. Although not
a traditional school format i.e. buildings set in its own recreation areas away from the
street, the design has been led by its function and follows familiar design precedents by
developing the vernacular of other Talmud Torah throughout the world. This can be seen
most prominently in the elongated round arch windows. I consider the design of the
building to be appropriate to the context of the surrounding area and the proposed
development therefore accords with policy DES1.
The existing boundary treatment consists of a concrete wall with barbed wire attached to
the top approximately 3 metres in height. This is unacceptable visually and it is proposed
that a new boundary treatment be erected. This would be 2.4 metres in height and be
constructed in brick with close boarded timber panels, with Arstone coping stones. This
would be acceptable subject to a condition relating to samples of the proposed brickwork.
Amenity
Policy DES7 considers that all new development would not be permitted where it would
have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other
developments.
The proposed school building would be situated 11.8 metres from the three-storey housing
development to the east. This is considered acceptable given that an apartment block was
approved (05/50754/REM) at a distance of approximately 3 metres from this building. The
extension of the site boundary to the east ensures that this apartment block could not be
built if the school were to be constructed. The new school building would be situated 28.8
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
metres from habitable room windows situated within the 4-storey apartment block situated
to the rear, this is considered to be acceptable.
3-storey residential properties are situated to the west of the site. These were recently
constructed as part of the Broughton Green development and are not currently occupied.
The proposed building is set 1.6 metres from the western site boundary and the 3-storey
element would be set 3.6 metres from the boundary with these properties. The 4-storey
element would be set 7 metres from the boundary with these properties. The existing
school building is 3 storeys in height and is situated 10.6 metres from the boundary with
these properties at its closest point. The proposed building would therefore be coming
much closer to these properties than the existing building.
A car park exists to the rear of these properties with both private and communal amenity
space at first floor level. Two bedroom windows exist at both first and second floor level.
The proposed school building would be orientated to the east of these properties and
therefore any overshadowing would be limited to early morning. However, normal space
about building standards state that planning permission will normally be granted for
development beyond the rear wall of a neighbouring dwelling provided that its projection
is equal to or less than its distance from the nearest common boundary. The proposed
3-storey element would be situated some 3.6 metres from the boundary with the
neighbouring residential properties and would project by 6.2 metres and the 4-storey
element would be situated 7 metres from the boundary and project by 9 metres. The
proposed development would therefore cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of future
occupants of the adjacent terrace block in terms of overshadowing.
Furthermore, the erection of a 3-storey building, rising to 4-storey would have an
unacceptable overbearing impact on these properties resulting in a detrimental impact on
the amenities of any future occupants of these properties.
With respect to overlooking, beyond the rear wall of the dwellings to the west, windows
proposed in the west side elevation of the proposed school comprise: 4 toilet windows at
ground floor level and 6 toilet windows at first and second floor level. A condition could
be attached to any planning consent ensuring that these windows are obscure glazed.
The agent has stated that the gable end of the school is adjacent to the gable end of the
house. Therefore there is no lack of privacy or amenity between the two buildings. Were
the new building to be situated toward the rear of the site, this would have an overbearing
effect on the adjoining raised communal garden. A letter has been received from the
Director of the High Broughton Partnership, this states that it is their view that the school is
appropriate for their development to the west and do not regard it as having an overbearing
and overshadowing impact on the adjoining terrace block. However, in light of the above I
consider that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the amenities of
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
future occupants of the terrace block to the west both in terms of overshadowing and
overbearing impact on amenity space and habitable rooms.
The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy DES7 of the UDP and it is accordingly
recommended that the application be refused.
Highway Safety and Parking Issues
Policy A8 of the UDP states that development would not be permitted where it would have
an unacceptable impact on highway safety. Policy A10 states that development will be
required to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and motorcyclists in
accordance with the minimum standards set out in appendix B and not exceed the
maximum car parking standards set out in appendix C.
The current school has no parking provision and no drop off facility for pupils. Staff car
parking and a drop-off facility were requested by the case officer in addition to details of
the existing and proposed numbers of staff and pupils. The agent has stated that there are at
present 240 children on the school roll, once the second phase is complete this will increase
by approximately 120 children. No information regarding the number of existing or
proposed staff has been received.
The agent has forwarded information from the school principal which states that the vast
majority of children reach school by foot. Those pupils who come by vehicle number 50 in
total. These children are brought to school in two mini-buses, each with a capacity of 18
passengers; the remaining 14 come by car. Even the latter number are shared between cars
for neighbours or siblings. The priority as far as the school is concerned is to maximise
play area for the children. The agent considers that such a facility would impose a major
health and safety risk in the school grounds due to conflicts between cars and pupils.
Emergency vehicular access is proposed to the north east corner of the site. Amended
plans have been received but no drive in /drop off facility has been provided. Four staff car
parking spaces are proposed within the north east corner of the site, no disabled car parking
spaces are proposed. I take on the board the comments relating to the drive in drop off
facility and consider that given that the existing school currently operates without any
special vehicular provision, a refusal on this basis could not be justified.
However, with regards to staff car parking, no details have been provided with regard to the
existing or proposed numbers of staff. Whilst the previous application (reference:
01/42104/FUL) was approved with no staff car parking this proposed a floor area of 1,549
square metres. The proposed school building would have a floor area of 3,322 square
metres. This is more than double that which was previously approved. No justification has
been provided in relation to the limited provision of staff parking and the proposal could
therefore have a detrimental impact on highway safety contrary to policy A8. Furthermore,
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
the proposal incorporates no parking provision for disabled drivers contrary to policy A10.
It is therefore recommended that the application be refused.
VALUE ADDED
Amended plans have been submitted showing the provision of 4 car parking spaces.
Details of the boundary treatment have been provided. Colour elevations have been
provided. Justification has been provided relating to the lack of a drive-in-drop off facility.
CONCLUSION
The proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the terrace block to the
west of the site in terms of overshadowing and overbearing impact. No information has
been received regarding proposed staff numbers, 4 staff car parking spaces would be
provided, this may lead to increased activity in terms of demand for ‘on street’ car parking
to the detriment of highway safety. For the reasons outlined above, it is accordingly
recommended that the application be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development, by virtue of its height and depth of projection would result
in an unacceptable level of overshadowing of the residential dwellings to the west and
have an overbearing impact on these properties contrary to policies DES7 and EHC1
of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
2. The proposed development proposes 4 staff car parking spaces and no provision for
disabled drivers. Insufficient information has been submitted regarding the proposed
staff numbers and justification relating to the limited car parking provision. The
proposed development may therefore lead to increased activity in terms of demand for
'on street' car parking in a locality that is already subject to 'on street' parking
pressures, and increased movement and activity associated with the use. As such, the
proposal would be detrimental to highway safety contrary to policies A8, A10 and
EHC1 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
APPLICATION No:
07/54303/REM
APPLICANT:
Shepborough Development Co Ltd
LOCATION:
Agecroft Commerce Park Agecroft Road Pendlebury
Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Details of the siting, design, external appearance,
landscaping and means of access of a B1 (Light
Industrial), B2 (Geneal Industrial) an B8 (Storage and
Distribution) unit together with associated landscaping,
service yards and car parking
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application site is located within Agecroft Commerce Park. The site is currently
vacant. To the south of the units is Bunzl and to the west is unit 4 which is under
construction beyond this is the railway line and a number of residential properties. To the
east are a number of small units. The remainder of the Commerce Park comprises of a
mixture of light industrial units and warehouse buildings. Some of the land within the
Commerce Park, to the north of the application site is currently vacant, however, planning
permission has been granted for B1, B2 and B8 uses/.
Consent is sought for details of siting, design, external appearance, means of access and
landscaping of the a B1, B2 and B8 storage and distribution unit with associated
landscaping, service yards and carparking. The application proposes 2,787 sq metres of
warehouse and distribution space and 279sq metres of office space. Access to the site
would be from a roundabout to the east which has been constructed as part of a separate
phase of the Commerce Park. A total of 63 car parking spaces would be provided between
the proposed unit and the access road and would include 3 disabled parking spaces as well
as an area for cycle storage. The proposed unit would be a maximum of 14.2m in height.
SITE HISTORY
In January 2002, outline planning permission was granted for the development of the part
of the former Agecroft Colliery site and Brindle Heath Sidings to form a commerce park,
including light industrial, general industrial, warehousing uses and intermodal facility (ref:
00/41657/OUT).
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
In November 2003, planning permission was granted for the details of the siting, design
and external appearance of one Business (B1)/Industrial (B2)/Warehousing (B8)
speculative unit (Unit 4) including means of access together with the siting of gate house
(ref: 03/46854/REM).
In June 2005, an application to extend the period for submission of reserved matters in
respect of outline planning application 00/41657/OUT for the development of land to form
a commerce park including light industrial, general industrial, warehousing and intermodal
facility was approved (ref: 05/50437/OUT).
In September 2005, an application for details of siting, design, external appearance and
means of access for two industrial units (Units 4 & 5) together with associated landscaping
was approved (05/50919/REM).
In August 2006, an application for siting, design and external appearance of a
warehouse/distribution unit with associated two storey offices together with associated
landscaping, car parking and access was approved (06/52795/REM)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Greater Manchester Archaeology Unit – No comments received to date
Environment Agency – No objection, recommends that a site investigation condition is
attached.
Railtrack – No Comments received to date
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – No objection
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Association – No objection, but request that any
s106 monies from the original outline application be pooled with those from other
developments in the area to increase accessibility to public transport.
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – No comments received to date
Lancashire Wildlife Trust – No objection provided that care is taken to ensure construction
materials do not enter the SBI
Bury Metropolitan Borough Council – No comments received to date
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 24th April 2007
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser 15th March 2007
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
31 - 32 Egmont Street, Salford, M6 7LA,
31 - 32 Minden Street, Salford, M6 7LE,
31 - 32 Dettingen Street, Salford, M6 7LF,
112 - 114 Bank Lane, Pendlebury, Salford, M27 8XU,
1 -5 Bank Lane, Pendlebury, Salford, M27 8XU (odds)
2 – 80 Broomhall Road, Pendlebury, Swinton, MANCHESTER, M27 8XQ (evens)
2 Overman Way, Swinton, MANCHESTER, M27 8UQ,
Unit 1, Agecroft Commerce Park, Agecroft Road, Pendlebury, Swinton, MANCHESTER, ,
Unit 4, Agecroft Commerce Park, Agecroft Road, Pendlebury, Swinton, MANCHESTER, ,
Unit 5, Agecroft Commerce Park, Agecroft Road, Pendlebury, Swinton, MANCHESTER, ,
Unit 11, Agecroft Network Centre, Lamplight Way, Swinton, MANCHESTER, M27 8UJ,
Unit 12, Agecroft Network Centre, Lamplight Way, Swinton, MANCHESTER, M27 8UJ,
Unit 14, Agecroft Network Centre, Lamplight Way, Swinton, MANCHESTER, M27 8UJ,
Unit 15, Agecroft Network Centre, Lamplight Way, Swinton, MANCHESTER, M27 8UJ,
Unit 16, Agecroft Network Centre, Lamplight Way, Swinton, MANCHESTER, M27 8UJ,
Unit 17, Agecroft Network Centre, Lamplight Way, Swinton, MANCHESTER, M27 8UJ,
Unit 18, Agecroft Network Centre, Lamplight Way, Swinton, MANCHESTER, M27 8UJ,
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: E4/10 – Sites for Employment Development
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES9 – Landscaping
A2 – Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
A10 – Provision of car, cycle and motorcycle parking in new developments
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the design of the proposed
building is acceptable; whether the level of car parking and cycle parking is acceptable;
whether appropriate provision has been made for access for the Disabled and whether the
landscaping scheme submitted is acceptable.
Principle of the Use
Policy E4/10 identifies the application site as being suitable for offices, light industry,
general industry or storage and distribution.
The principal of the development of this site for employment purposes was granted consent
in January 2002 (00/41657/OUT), in June 2005 planning consent was sought to extend the
time period in which the applicant could apply for reserved matters for an additional 3
years, until June 2008. The current application is within this time frame and therefore it is
considered that the principle of the development of this site for employment uses is
acceptable.
Design, Siting and Access
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context, respect the
character of the local area and contribute towards local identity and distinctiveness. In
assessing the extent to which a development complies with these policies, regard will be
had to a number of factors.
The design of the proposed unit is similar to that of the existing units already built on the
business park and to the previous application for a larger unit approved on this site
(06/52795/REM). It is proposed that a mix of steel cladding and composite panels are used
for the external elevations of the buildings. I recommend that a condition is attached
requiring samples of materials to be submitted and approved in writing prior to the
commencement of development, to ensure that the materials are in keeping with those
elsewhere in the commerce park.
It is considered that the siting of the unit is appropriate, as it would provide a frontage along
the new access road, helping to create a presence on the street with unit 1. The provision of
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
car parking and servicing areas to the front of the building, is similar to the layout already
approved at units 1, 4 and 5.
Access to the site would be taken from the existing roundabout on Lamplighter Way,
which will serve both the carparking area and service area. Due to a change in levels across
the site it would not be possible to take access from the new access road created to the east
to serve units 4 and 5. The access point from the existing roundabout is the same as that
approved previously within 06/52795/REM.
Landscaping
Policy DES9 states that developments will be required to incorporate appropriate hard and
soft landscaping provision. Where landscaping is required as part of a development, it must
be of a high quality, reflect and enhance the character of the area, not detract from safety
and security, form an integral part of the development, be easily maintained and respect
adjacent land uses.
The proposed landscaping is to be located around the boundary of the site, with some small
areas of soft landscaping present within the carparking areas of the site. The landscaping is
to comprise of a trees, native hedgerows and ornamental shrub planting. There will also be
some areas of mown lawns.
The landscaping scheme has been designed by the same company and is similar to that of
the approved scheme for the surrounding units on the site. I am satisfied that the
landscaping to be provided is of a high quality and is appropriate. I recommend that
conditions be attached requesting the landscaping scheme to be fully implemented within
18 months of the commencement of development, that any plants or trees that dies within
5 years of planting are replaced and that the maintenance of the site is undertaken in
accordance with the strategy outlined on drawing no. PL665.M103.
The landscaping plan submitted also indicates a 2.4m fence to be located around the
perimeter of the site. No details have been submitted regarding the design and therefore it is
recommended that a condition be attached requesting details to be submitted and approved
prior to the commencement of development.
Car Parking
Policy A2 requires developments to make adequate provision for safe and convenient
access by the disabled.
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
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.
It is proposed that 63 car parking spaces would be provided on site. The maximum level of
car parking that should be provided on this site is 69 car parking spaces, therefore the level
of carparking is considered to be acceptable. It is proposed that cycle parking would be
provided for 7 cycles. This is considered to be acceptable.
The application proposes the provision of 3 disabled parking bays, this equates to 5%
provision, which is in accordance with policy A2.
Amenity
Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory
level of amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity
of the occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
I have not received any objections from the Strategic Director of Environmental Services
in relation to this proposal or any objections from nearby residents or units. I am of the
opinion the proposed unit would not have any unacceptable impact on nearby occupiers or
users and so the proposal complies with DES7.
No objections have been received in relation to this application, the Director of
Environmental Services has requested that a condition be attached requiring the
submission of a site investigation survey. Such a condition was attached to the outline
consent and therefore it is not necessary to repeat the condition at this stage.
GMPTE have requested that the s106 monies from the outline application be pooled
together with other monies to increase public transport in the area. It is considered that this
request falls outside the scope of this application.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider the design of the proposed building and the landscaping scheme
to be acceptable and in keeping with the remainder of the Commerce Park. I am satisfied
that the development would not give rise to a loss of amenity I any nearby residents and I
have no objections relating to the access to the site. I therefore recommend that the
application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details
of the materials for the External Elevations of the development shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried
out using the approved materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
2. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of materials to
be used for the fencing 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.
3. The landscape scheme hereby approved shall be carried out within 18 months of the
commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained in accordance with
the measures set out within drawing no. PL665.M103 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.
4. The car parking spaces, servicing area and cycle parking provision shown on drawing
number 4170-006F shall be provided and made available for use prior to occupation of
the unit and shall be retained thereafter.
5. This permission shall relate to the amended plans received on 29th March 2007 which
shows amendments to the landscaping arrangements. For the avoidance of doubt the
drawing nos are PL665.D 300A and PL 665.M 103B
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
4. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
5. Standard Reason L02G Amended Plans
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
APPLICATION No:
07/54377/FUL
APPLICANT:
Salford Roman Catholic Diocesan Trustees Registered
LOCATION:
St Edmunds RC School Bridgewater Street Little Hulton
M38 9ND
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing school building and erection of new
primary
school
incorporating
external
teaching/playgrounds together with hard/soft landscaping,
an all weather sports pitch and associated parking with
access from Queen Street and Bridgewater Street
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site is 1.56 hectares in size. To the north is Bridgewater Primary School, there is
residential development to the east and south and the church of St Edmunds is situated to
the north west of the site. The proposed part two-storey, part single storey building
incorporating a roof garden would be designed to accommodate 315 pupils and 45 nursery
places in a 1.5 form entry school and would be orientated towards Ellesmere Close to the
south. Out of school hours, areas such as the main hall and the ICT suite will be used for
community activities.
The building would be approximately 75 metres wide at its widest point and 28 metres
deep. The single storey element would have a height of 5.5 metres and the two-storey
element a height of 9 metres.
The existing school is situated to the west of the site, orientated north-east to south-west,
the new school building would be situated to the south of the site, orientated north west to
south east.
It is intended that the proposed school would replace the existing St Edmunds RC School,
St Joseph’s RC School and Our Lady and the Lancashire Martyr Primary School.
Recreational provision would be in the form of a junior playground, infant playground
outdoor provision for nursery and reception aged children, ecology roof garden and an all
weather pitch.
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
Vehicular access to the site would remain as existing, with vehicular access taken from
Bridgewater Road to the west leading to a parking area, comprising 20 car parking spaces
(including 2 disabled bays). New pedestrian access and emergency vehicle access would
be taken from Queen Street, further pedestrian access would be taken from the church of St
Edmunds. Secure and covered cycle parking for 35 bicycles is proposed.
The existing 2.4 metre green paladin boundary fence would be retained.
SITE HISTORY
Planning permission was granted for a 2.4 metre high perimeter fence on 08 October 2003
(Application Ref: 03/46799/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No objection in principle providing
conditions are attached to any consent to ensure contamination issues are fully addressed
and to protect residential amenity, particularly in respect of noise given the proximity of
neighbouring dwellings. Conditions to control the following are recommended:
Hours of operation
Construction Environmental Management Plan
Noise from fixed plant and machinery
Noise from amplification equipment
Boundary noise mitigation measures
External lighting
Contaminated Land (gas contamination only)
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No objection providing the
submitted Crime Prevention Plan is implemented in full. All of their detailed comments
and suggestions have been incorporated into a revised Crime Prevention Plan.
Sport England – The proposals have been assessed against Sport England’s playing fields
policy. Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, they raise no objection to the
loss of the existing grassed junior playing pitch on the basis that the new, replacement
sports facilities proposed are of an equivalent or better quality and quantity. In order to
achieve this they recommend that conditions be attached to any consent requiring details of
the proposed community use, phasing and detailed design of the proposed synthetic turf
pitch. They also recommend that plans be amended to incorporate changing provision
particularly in respect of changing facilities being made available to the wider community
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
outside school hours and that sensitively designed, high quality floodlighting be
incorporated to maximise use of the sports facilities, subject to amenity considerations.
United Utilities – No objection.
The Environment Agency – Currently object to the proposals on the basis that there is
insufficient information contained within the submitted flood risk assessment to make an
informed decision. Although the site is considered to be at low risk from nearby
watercourses and rivers, there is a need to carefully consider flooding from all sources
including surface water run off, sewers and groundwater. The Environment Agency are
considering further information submitted by the applicant to address their concerns and
their response will be reported verbally to the Panel.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority – No objection or further comments
made.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 23rd March 2007 and 19th April 2007.
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser on Thursday 29 March 2007.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 to 12 Regent Avenue (inclusive)
18 Birchfold Close
1-16 Bexley Drive (inclusive)
18-22 Bexley Dive (evens)
2-16 Weaste Avenue (evens)
1-7 Weaste Avenue (odds)
1-4a Ellesmere Close (inclusive)
1-36 Ellesmere Street (inclusive)
38-56 Ellesmere Street (evens)
Bridgewater Primary School, Bridgewater Street
12-14 Bridgewater Street (inclusive)
16-31 Bridgewater Street (inclusive)
33-57 Bridgewater Street (odds)
2-12 Seedley Avenue (evens)
1-17 Birchfold Close (inclusive)
3-7 St Edmunds Row (odds)
2-4 Queen Street (evens)
5-11 Queen Street (odds)
166-216 Manchester Road East (evens)
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
128-152A Manchester Road East (evens)
206 Manchester Road East
114-124 Manchester Road East (evens)
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:
The plans do not show improved parking areas for the increased traffic that will
occur due to the increase in numbers of families using the facilities.
Sometimes access cannot be gained to homes for cars blocking drives.
Cannot get along Bridgewater Street because cars are parked on both sides.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Policy DP1:
Policy DP2:
Policy DP3:
Policy DP4:
Inclusion
Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
Enhancing the Quality of Life
Quality in New Development
Promoting Sustainable Economic Growth and Competitiveness and Social
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
ST11: Location of New Development
ST14: Global Environment
DES1: Respecting Context
DES2: Circulation and Movement
DES7: Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES9: Landscaping
DES10: Design and Crime
EN12: Important Landscape Features
EN16: Contaminated Land
EN17: Pollution Control
EHC1: Provision and Improvement of Schools and Colleges
A1: Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
A2: Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
A8: Impact of Development on the Highway Network
A10: Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
EN10: Protection of Species
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
EN16: Contaminated Land
EN17: Pollution Control
EN19: Flood Risk and Surface Water
EN22: Resource Conservation
R1: Protection of Recreation Land and Facilities
OTHER LOCAL PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE
Design and Crime Supplementary Planning Document
Trees and Development Supplementary Planning Document
Nature Conservation and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Policy L1:
Health and Education Services Provision
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the principle of a new
school is acceptable in this location, whether the design and appearance is acceptable, the
impact on the amenity of local residents, access issues, landscaping, crime prevention,
environmental performance, flood risk and surface water and the impact on nature
conservation and biodiversity.
Principle of Development
Policy ST11 adopts a four-point sequence in which development sites should be brought
forward. The first being the reuse and conversion of existing buildings followed by
previously developed land in an accessible location that is well related to housing,
employment, services and infrastructure. The third relates to previously development land
in other locations, provided that adequate levels of accessibility and infrastructure
provision could be achieved and finally previously undeveloped land in locations that are
well served by a choice of means of transport and are well related to housing, employment
and services.
The Planning Statement indicates that the reuse of the three existing school buildings has
been explored, however none are of sufficient size or of suitable quality to accommodate
the required 1.5 form entry primary school. The proposed new school building would be
situated on the previously developed, existing St Edmunds school site benefiting from the
existing infrastructure. The proposal therefore accords with policy ST11.
Policy R1 states that the redevelopment of existing recreational land will not be permitted
unless, amongst other things, adequate replacement recreation provision, of equivalent or
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
better accessibility, community benefit and management is made in a suitable location to
the satisfaction of the City Council.
A synthetic turf pitch (STP) of dimensions 85m x50m would be laid out following
demolition of the existing school buildings. The Planning Statement that accompanies the
application indicates that the new STP will include a formal agreement for the provision of
community use. The extent of the community use would be controlled through the use of a
condition requiring the submission and written approval of a community use scheme to
ensure that the pitch can be used by the local community outside school hours. It is also
recommended that notwithstanding the approved plans a condition be attached to any
planning consent ensuring the detailed design and construction of the STP including the
details of floodlighting around the STP be submitted and approved in writing to ensure
high quality facilities are provided. Furthermore, no provision for changing is shown on
the plans submitted, to ensure its value to the community, a condition requiring the
submission of details of changing provision would be attached to any planning consent.
I am satisfied that the wider community will benefit from the replacement recreation
provision subject to the attachment of appropriate conditions relating to a community use
agreement scheme and changing provision condition
The principle of the proposed development must also be considered against policy EHC1 –
Provision and Improvement of Schools and Colleges that places a general presumption in
favour of such provision provided six fundamental criteria are met. Each criteria is
considered in turn below:
The development would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of
neighbouring uses
I am satisfied that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on the
amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of adjacent properties. This is discussed in
more detail below within the amenity section.
An adequate standard of playing field and other recreation provision in an
accessible and convenient location is provided
It is proposed that the new school building be located on previously undeveloped playing
fields within the same site as the existing school. The long thin building design minimises
intrusion of the building into the playing fields both during the construction phase and upon
completion and allows the new building to be constructed whilst retaining the use of the
existing school. Once the new school building is constructed the site of the existing school
would be returned to an all weather pitch and junior play ground.
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
The site currently includes a grassed area of approximately 1.1 hectares which
accommodates 1 junior playing pitch. The proposed school would be developed on a
portion of this playing field. Whilst the loss of playing field land would initially be
significant, new sports facilities would be laid out following demolition of the existing
school buildings. This would include a synthetic turf pitch (STP) and a retained area of
grass playing field (0.2ha). Tarmacadam junior play areas will also be of a format to allow
use for netball, basketball and 5-a-side football etc. The existing playing fields are grass
and limited to seasonal use, the proposed STP could be used all year round.
Sport England do not object to the proposals. I am satisfied that the new, replacement
sports facilities proposed are of an equivalent or better quality and quantity to the existing
provision subject to the conditions outlined above in the evaluation of policy R1 and an
additional condition relating to phasing.
The development is accessible by a range of means of transport, particularly foot,
cycle and public transport
I am satisfied that the development is accessible by a range of means of transport, this is
discussed in more detail below within the access section.
The development incorporates adequate provision for disabled access
The design and access statement states that the development would be DDA compliant.
The provision of 2 disabled car parking spaces are proposed in accordance with UDP
policy A10. I therefore have no objection to the application in this regard.
The development would not give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic congestion or
have an adverse impact on highway safety in terms of traffic generation, parking or
servicing
I am satisfied that the development would not result in unacceptable traffic congestion or
be detrimental to highway safety. This is discussed in more detail below within the access
section.
The development makes provision, wherever possible, for community use of the
building and grounds.
I am satisfied that the wider community will benefit from the replacement recreation
provision. This is discussed in more detail above.
In conclusion, I have no objection to the principal of development in that I consider the
proposed development to comply with policies ST11, R1 and EHC1 of the UDP, subject to
the imposition of appropriate conditions discussed above.
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
Design and appearance
Policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its physical context,
respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated, and contribute towards
local identity and distinctiveness.
The existing school is of no architectural merit and its demolition to provide modern
facilities on the same site would be acceptable. The development site is largely landlocked
at the rear by residential properties on three sides and by another primary school to the
north. As such, development on site is largely hidden from public views. Whilst the church
of St Edmunds situated to the north west of the site is not listed, it is on the City Council’s
local list and it is considered that the re-siting of the school building away from the Church
as is proposed would improved its setting.
The proposed school is to be orientated on a north-west, south-east alignment, which will
improve the school’s ability to maximise natural light. It is intended that most users of the
school will access the main entrance on foot from Queen Street. The new school comprises
a two storey and single storey element; the larger of these provides a satisfactory
termination to views along Queen Street. The main entrance will be positioned within the
two storey element of the scheme and this should be easily recognised for visitors and users
of the school. Neighbouring residential properties are two-stories in height and at one and
two storeys the proposed school is not considered to adversely affect the setting of adjacent
residential properties in respect of height, massing and scale.
The architectural treatment proposed is modern and uses a palette of materials including
render, timber cladding and brick, in addition to aluminium framed windows and profiled
metal roof. A condition requiring the submission of sample materials would be attached to
any planning consent and I am satisfied that this will ensure the materials are of sufficient
quality and appropriate colour.
The existing 2.4 metre high green paladin fencing would be retained, this is an appropriate
height and colour in this location and is considered acceptable.
Amenity
Policy DES7 considers that all new development would not be permitted where it would
have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other
developments.
Policy EN17 relates to pollution control and considers that development proposals that
would be likely to cause or contribute towards a significant increase in pollution to the air,
by reason of noise, odour, artificial light or vibration, will not be permitted.
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
The all weather, synthetic turf pitch has been situated towards the north west of the site and
at its closest point would be situated 22 metres from the boundaries of residential properties
within Ellesmere Street, this does not meet the separation distance normally required for all
weather pitches for community use. It is therefore recommended that a condition be
attached to any planning consent restricting the hours of use during term time to between
09:00 and 19:30 Mondays to Fridays and to between 09:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays.
Floodlighting is proposed around the school building. Lighting should be designed to
provide a standard maintained illumination (LUX) of between 5 and 20 LUX with the
lower level being the preferable one. A LUX diagram has been submitted in support of the
application showing the resulting spillage. This illustrates that at the site boundary, LUX
levels drop to 8 adjacent to properties within Queen Street and would range between 20 and
0 in the rear gardens of properties within Ellesmere Street. Futhermore, a number of
mature trees provide screening along the eastern and southern boundaries of the site. In
light of the above it is not considered that the proposed floodlighting would be detrimental
to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.
The proposed school building would be single storey in height towards the south east and
would be situated some 26 metres from properties within Ellesmere Street and 24 metres
from Nos.4 and 4A Queen Street. The two-storey element incorporates a roof garden and
extends to 9.0 metres in height, this element would be situated 28 metres from 11 Queen
Street. A condition would be attached to any planning consent restricting the hours of use
of the roof garden to between 08:00 – 19:30 Mondays to Fridays and to between 08:00 to
13:00 on Saturdays.
Playgrounds, which will potentially be used by 45 children at any time, are located within
15m of the rear elevations of residential properties. In order to control and mitigate the
noise from these sources strict controls over the design and use of this school will be
required and it is therefore recommended that conditions relating to the hours of use and
the erection of an acoustic barrier be attached to any planning consent.
It is recommended that a site operating condition be attached to any planning consent
requesting details in relation to provision of permitted hours for construction works,
delivery of materials and delivery and collection of equipment, provision and use of on-site
parking for contractors’ and workpeople’s vehicles, wheelwashing facilities and street
sweeping.
I am satisfied that the application would not result in an unacceptable detrimental impact
on the amenity of residents due to overlooking or loss of privacy and would not result in
unacceptable disturbance in terms of noise subject to conditions being attached to any
consent relating to external lighting, noise from amplication equipment, noise from fixed
plant and equipment, construction site working, hours of operation of play areas and the
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
sports pitch, considerate contractors and boundary noise treatment. The application
therefore accords with Policies DES7 and EN17.
Access
UDP Policy A2 – Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled requires development proposals to
make adequate provision for safe and convenient access by the disabled, pedestrians and
cyclists through the protection and improvement of key routes.
UDP Policy A8- Impact of Development on the Highway Network states that development
will not be permitted where it would compromise highway safety by virtue of traffic
generation and access.
UDP Policy A10 states that development will be required to make adequate provision for
disabled drivers, cyclists and motorcyclists.
UDP Policy DES2 – Circulation and Movement 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.
The site represents the re-development of the school on the existing site incorporating the
existing vehicular access. The site therefore continues to be accessible via public transport
and car, as well as on foot and by cycle. With respect to objectors concerns regarding
traffic congestion along Bridgewater Road, as identified above, the school would utilise the
existing vehicular access on what is a fairly constrained site. A 10 metre turning circle is
proposed to the west of the proposed car park which would allow for the dropping of and
picking up of pupils, appropriate gates and pedestrian routes are proposed allowing safe
access to the school for pupils being dropped off. A pedestrian access and access for
emergency vehicles is proposed from Queens Street with a further pedestrian access from
the St Edmunds Church.
A car park with space for 20 cars is proposed including 2 disabled spaces. In addition,
secure and covered cycle parking is proposed to accommodate 35 bicycles.
UDP Policy A1 states that planning applications for developments likely to give rise to
significant transport implications should be accompanied by a travel plan.
A draft travel plan was submitted in support of the application in order to promote the use
of more sustainable modes of transport. I am therefore satisfied that this will encourage the
use of more sustainable modes of transport in accordance with local and national policies.
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
For the travel plan to meet DfES criteria, the full travel plan will need to be received by the
Local Planning Authority no later than February 2008. A condition requiring the
submission of a full travel plan by this date is therefore recommended.
On the basis of the information submitted, I am satisfied that the proposed access
arrangements would not give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic congestion or adversely
affect highway safety, subject to conditions being attached to any consent requiring the
submission, implementation of a travel plan for staff and pupils and a considerate
contractors scheme.
Landscaping
Policy DES9 states that developments will be required to incorporate appropriate hard and
soft landscaping provision. Policy EN12 considers that development that would have a
detrimental impact on, or result in the loss of, any important landscape feature will not be
permitted.
The Trees and Development Supplementary Planning Document contains further policies
and guidance in relation to tree protection that includes the requirement to replace trees that
are lost on a two for one basis.
The applicant has submitted a tree survey in support of the application, this assesses 46
trees on the site, which range from young to mature, and are located around the border of
the site. None of the trees are protected. It is proposed that 5 of these trees be removed, all
of which are of poor quality and offer little amenity value being of limited public visibility.
The Council’s arboriculturist does not consider it necessary to protect any trees, as the trees
which do not have to be removed to accommodate the proposed development are far
enough away from the new building to not be affected by the construction process. Given
the above, the loss of the trees in this instance is considered acceptable.
Insufficient detail has been submitted with the application relating to the proposed hard and
soft landscaping on site. It is therefore recommended that a landscaping condition be
attached to any planning consent requiring the submission, approval and implementation of
a scheme before the new school is first brought into use. In accordance with the Trees and
Development SPD, this condition would ensure that any tree removed to enable
development are replaced on site on a two for one basis.
Crime Prevention
Policy DES10 states that development will not be permitted unless it is designed to
discourage crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime. Further detailed policies and
guidance are provided in the Design and Crime Supplementary Planning Document.
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
A Crime Prevention Plan has been submitted in support of the application. Comments
from the Police Architectural Liaison Officer advise that the crime prevention plan
incorporates all their recommended measures. It is therefore recommended that the
implementation of the crime prevention plan be conditioned.
Sustainable Construction and Environmental Performance
UDP Policy EN22 states that development proposals of this size will only be permitted
where it can be demonstrated that the impact on the conservation of non-renewable
resources, and on the local and global environments, has been minimised as far as
practicable; and full consideration has been given to the use of realistic renewable energy
options, and such measures have been incorporated into the development where
practicable.
I can confirm that it is a requirement of the Department for Education and Schools that new
school buildings achieve a ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ BREEAM Schools rating. This is the
industry standard, Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment
Methodology tailored specifially for schools. The applicants have confirmed that the
deisgn building is being progressed to achieve a ‘very good’ rating. I am therefore satisfied
that the requirements of Policy EN22 will ultimately be met and that an environmentally
responsible, sustainable, resource efficient building will be delivered. To ensure such a
positive outcome for the purposes of this planning application it is recommended that a
condition be imposed to that effect.
Flood Risk and Surface Water
Policy EN19 states that development will not be permitted where it would be subject to an
unacceptable risk of flooding, materially increase the risk of flooding elsewhere or result in
an unacceptable maintenance liability for the city council or any other agency in terms of
dealing with flooding issues. Any application for development that is considered likely to
be at risk of flooding, or to increase the risk of flooding elsewhere materially, will need to
be accompanied by a formal flood risk assessment that should accurately assess the level of
flood risk involved. Where appropriate, it should clearly identify the mitigation or other
measures to be incorporated into the development or undertaken on other land which are
designed to reduce that risk of flooding to an acceptable level. It goes on to state that,
development will not be permitted unless adequate provision is made for the discharge of
foul and surface water associated with the proposal.
The Environment Agency are currently objecting to the application on the grounds that the
submitted flood risk assessment (FRA) is inadequate insofar as further information is
required in respect of correspondence and agreements with United Utilities including
discharge calculations and drainage systems. The FRA has been revised accordingly and is
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
currently being considered by The Environment Agency. It is anticipated that the matter
will be resolved prior to the date of the Panel and the report and recommendation will be
updated accordingly.
Contamination
Policy EN16 states that development proposals on sites known or thought to be
contaminated will require the submission of a site assessment as part of any planning
application, identifying the nature and extent of the contamination involved, the risk it
poses to future users/occupiers of the site, and the practical remedial measures proposed to
deal with the contamination.
The application site is located within 250 metres of a known landfill site (E023). It is
therefore recommended that a condition be attached to any consent requiring the
submission, written approval and implementation of appropriate ground gas mitigation
measures. I am satisfied that, subject to compliance with the condition, there would be no
unacceptable detrimental impact as a result of the existing ground conditions, in
accordance with Policy EN16.
Nature Conservation and Biodiversity
UDP Policy EN10 – Protection of Species states that development which would be likely to
have an adverse impact on legally protected species will only be permitted where
mitigation measures are put in place to maintain the population level of the species at a
favourable conservation status within its natural range.
Further detailed policies and guidance are provided in the adopted Nature Conservation
and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document, including Policy NCB1 –
Maintaining and Enhancing Biodiversity that states that development proposals should
seek to maintain and enhance biodiversity and the nature conservation interest of sites.
All species of bats are European Protected Species with full protection at all times under
Schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994. Bat roosts are
also protected, even when unoccupied. Bats are found across Salford and roost in a variety
of buildings, structures and natural features including trees with hollows, cracks and
cavities and stone or/brick built structures. Given the proposals involve the demolition of
the existing school building and the removal of 5 trees, a bat survey undertaken by an
appropriately licensed ecologist is required before a decision is made. An appropriate
survey is currently being undertaken but has not yet been formally submitted. The results
of the survey and the comments of the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit will be reported
prior to the date of the Panel meeting and the ‘minded to approve’ recommendation will be
updated accordingly.
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the proposed development would provide a modern educational facility
which can be used by the community. The existing vehicular access would be utilised
ensuring that there would be no detrimental impact on highway safety. The scheme would
have significant benefits for the wider community and would not have an unacceptable
detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. The design is such that the
proposed building would make a positive contribution to the surrounding area. Adequate
replacement trees would be provided to compensate for the felling of trees on site. The
application accords with the relevant policies of the UDP. I therefore recommend that the
application be approved providing that matters relating to the Flood Risk Assessment are
resolved to the satisfaction of the Environmental Agency and that no adverse impacts on
protected species are raised by the Bat Survey.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The development hereby approved must be begun not later than the expiration of three
years beginning with the date of this permission.
2. Before development commences, a community use scheme relating to the school's
sports facilities, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The Scheme shall include details of pricing policy, hours of use, access by
non-school users/non-members, changing provision, management responsibilities and
include a mechanism for review. The approved scheme shall be implemented from
upon commencement of the use hereby permitted and shall remain in place whilst the
use is in operation unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
3. Before development commences, details of the phasing of development, including the
provision of outdoor sports facilities, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the local planning authority. The development shall be carried in accordance with
approved details.
4. Notwithstanding the approved plans, details of the design and construction of the
synthetic turf pitch and floodlighting, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be implemented in
accordance with the approved details.
5. Notwithstanding the approved plans, samples and details of the facing materials to be
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
used in the development, including roof materials, shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using only
the approved materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
6. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall:
a) Submit a preliminary risk assessment report to assess the potential risk of
contamination from ground gas. This report must include a conceptual model and be
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Should a potential risk be
identified then progression must be made onto point b.
b) Submit a site investigation report for the written approval of the Local Planning
Authority. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground
gas contamination 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 the wider environment including
property.
c) The ground gas monitoring strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning
Authority prior to the start of the site investigation.
d) Proposed remedial works shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority and,
where applicable, shall be incorporated by the developer during the course of
construction.
e) Prior to discharge of the Ground Gas Condition, a Validation Report shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval.
f) If, during any works on site, contamination is suspected or found, or contamination
is caused, the Local Planning Authority shall be notified immediately. Where required,
a suitable risk assessment shall be carried out and/or any remedial action shall be
carried out in accordance to an agreed process and within agreed timescales in
agreement with the Local Planning Authority.
7. The development hereby approved shall operate in accordance with the following
restrictions unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
Use of the all weather pitch audible at the site boundary shall be limited to:
09.00 to 19.30 hours on Mondays to Fridays; and
09.00 to 13.00 hours on Saturdays.
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
Use of the external playgrounds and external circulation areas audible at the site
boundary shall be limited to:
08.00 to 19.30 hours on Mondays to Fridays; and
08.00 to 13.00 hours on Saturdays.
Use of the roof garden audible at the site boundary shall be limited to:
08.00 to 19.30 hours on Mondays to Fridays; and
08.00 to 13.00 hours on Saturdays
8. No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until the
Local Planning Authority has received and approved in writing a site operating
statement for each phase of construction in relation to provision of street sweeping,
permitted hours for construction works, delivery of materials and delivery and
collection of equipment and the provision and use of on-site parking for contractors'
and workpeople's vehicles and no development or activities related or incidental
thereto shall take place on the site in contravention of such site operating statement
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
9. The rating level (LAeq,T) from all fixed plant and machinery associated with the
development, when operating simultaneously, shall not exceed the background noise
level (LA90,T) by more than -5dB at any time when measured at the nearest noise
sensitive premises. Noise measurements and assessments shall be carried out
according to BS4142: 1997.
10. Noise from any amplification equipment used on the site shall not be audible at any
residential property located on Queen Street and / or Ellesmere Street at any time.
11. Prior to first use, a scheme for the provision of a noise barrier or acoustic fence to
protect the amenity of residential dwellings on Queen Street and Ellesmere shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved
scheme shall be implemented in full prior to first use and be retained and maintained
thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
12. Prior to first use and notwithstanding the submitted plans, an external lighting scheme,
including floodlighting, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. This information shall include a layout plan with beam orientation,
a schedule of equipment (luminaire type, mounting height, aiming angles and
luminaire profiles) and proposed hours of use. The scheme shall be implemented in
full, maintained and operated in accordance with the approved scheme unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
13. A full school travel plan shall be submitted for approval to the local authority no later
than 28 February 2008, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The school travel plan shall include details on 'Safer Routes to Schools'
measures for pupils, parents and staff, and measures ensuring opportunities for
sustainable travel are maximised. Once approved, the Plan shall be implemented in full
and thereafter maintained whilst the development is in use, unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the local planning authority.
14. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, the site shall be treated in accordance with a
detailed landscaping scheme that shall be submitted to and approved by the Local
Planning Authority prior to first use of the development. The scheme shall include full
details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatments
and shall be implemented in full prior to first use of the development, unless otherwise
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The completed scheme shall
thereafter 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.
The scheme shall ensure that any trees removed to enable development are replaced
on-site on a two for one basis, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
15. The Crime Prevention Plan contained with the Design and Access Statement, stamped
as received on 11 April 2007, shall be implemented in full unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the local planning authority.
16. The development hereby approved shall achieve a post-construction Building Research
Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) Schools rating of 'very
good' or 'excellent', unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
A post-construction review certificate shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the local planning authority before any of the buildings hereby approved are first used,
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
(Reasons)
1. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
2. Reason: To secure well-managed and safe community access to the school building
and its sports facilities. This is in accordance with Policies EHC1 and R1 of The City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.
3. Reason: To ensure satisfactory compensatory outdoor sports and recreation provision
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
that secures continuity of use is delivered. This is in accordance with Policies EHC1
and R1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.
4. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory quantity and quality of compensatory sports facility
provision is delivered. This is in accordance with Policies R1 and EHC1 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 Policy DES1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
2004-2016.
6. Reason: To ensure that the presence of or the potential for contamination is detected
and appropriate remedial action is taken. This is in accordance with Policy EN16 of
the City of Salford Unitray Development Plan 2004-2016.
7. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity. This is in accordance with Policies
DES7, EN17, EHC1 and R1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
2004-2016.
8. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity. This is in accordance with Policies
DES7 and EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.
9. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity. This is in accordance with Policies
DES7 and EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.
10. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity. This is in accordance with Policies
DES7 and EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.
11. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity. This is in accordance with Policies
DES7 and EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.
12. Reason: In the interests of design quality and residential amenity. This is in
accordance with Policies DES1, DES7 and EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan 2004-2016.
13. Reason: To ensure sustainable modes of transport are promoted. This is in accordance
with Policies EHC1, A1 and A2 and DES2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan 2004-2016.
14. Reason: To ensure a high quality and comprehensive landscaping scheme is provided
and any loss of trees is adequately compensated. This is in accordance with Policy
DES9 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016 and the City of
Salford Trees and Development Supplementary Planning Document.
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
15. Reason: To ensure agreed measures to discourage crime, anti-social behaviour and
the fear of crime are implemented in the interests of crime prevention. This is in
accordance with Policy DES10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
2004-2016 and the City of Salford Design and Crime Supplementary Planning
Document.
16. Reason: In the interests of resource conservation and environmental sustainability.
This is in accordance with Policy EN22 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan 2004-2016.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. If you wish to discuss the requirements of the Ground Gas Condition, please contact the
Contaminated Land Team in the Environment Directorate (Tel: (0161) 737 0551
2. In noise terms, 't' refers to any 1 hour period between 07.00hrs and 23.00hrs, between
23.00hrs and 07.00hrs the following day, 't' refers to any 5 minute period. For further
advice regarding the requirements of noise conditions, the applicant/developer is
advised to contact the Environmental Protection Team in the Environment Directorate
(Tel: 0161 737 0551)
3. This permission relates to the following drawings and documents:
- Location Plan MH326-204 (stamped as received 13 March 2007)
- Demolition Works
MH216-205 Revision B
(stamped as received 13
March 2007)
- Proposed Site Plan MH326-201 (stamped as received13 March 2007)
- Elevations GA MH326-218 Revision B (stamped as received 11/04/07)
- Ground Floor GA Plan MH326-206 Revision E
(stamped
as
received
11/04/07)
- First Floor GA Plan
MH326-207 Revision E
(stamped
as
received
11/04/07)
- Second Floor GA Plan MH326-208 Revision E
(stamped
as
received
11/04/07)
- Outline M&E Services Installation External 426/M/E/01 Rev 0 (stamped as received
13/03/07)
- Proposed Sections Sheet 1 of 4 (as amended) MH326-219 Revision A (stamped
as received 13/03/07)
- Proposed Sections Sheet 2 of 4 MH326-220 Revision A (stamped as received
13/03/07)
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
- Proposed Sections Sheet 3 of 4 MH326-221
13/03/07)
- Proposed Sections Sheet 4 of 4 MH326-222
13/03/07)
- Proposed Sections C:C G:G H:H and N:N
11/04/07)
17th May 2007
Revision A
(stamped as received
Revision A
(stamped as received
MH326-SK16 (stamped as received
4. For information and advice and the preparation of the school travel plan you should
contact Steve Glazebrook of Urban Vision on 0161 779 4870.
5. You should refer to Sport England's design guidance notes to inform the detailed
design of sports facilities, particularly synthetic turf pitches. These notes are available
online at:
http://www.sportengland.org/index/get_resources/resource_downloads/facilities_guid
ance/facilities_guidance_documents.htm
6. Please note that a separate system of drainage is required for this development.
7. Construction works shall not be permitted outside the following hours:
Monday to Friday 08:00 to 18:00
Saturdays
08:00 to 13:00
Construction works shall not be permitted on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays
Access and egress for delivery vehicles shall be restricted to the working hours
indicated above.
8. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be
satisfied prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the
conditions precedent renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and
appropriate action may be taken by the Council.
APPLICATION No:
07/54269/FUL
APPLICANT:
Paul Killduff
LOCATION:
Ship Hotel 538 Liverpool Road Irlam M44 6AJ
PROPOSAL:
Formation of new paved and grassed areas to front,
construction of disabled access ramp and new covered
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
areas to side and first floor rear area
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the erection of a new paved and grassed area to the front, the
construction of a new access ramp for the disabled and covered areas to the east and west
side at ground floor and covered area at first floor to the rear. The covered area on the west
elevation of the building will have an access ramp for use by the disabled. It is proposed
that that the covered area at ground floor is constructed from timber posts and a slate roof to
match the existing roof of the building and the side covered to be timber posts and glazed
roof. It is proposed that a covered area is located at first floor level utilising the existing flat
roof and constructed of timber posts and a glazed roof. It is proposed that trellising is
erected to the first floor area to protect visual amenity. Both the proposed covered area will
be heated and lighted.
The proposal includes the erection of a ramp for use by the disabled to access the covered
area to the side.
To the north east of the site is an access road which leads to the bowling green and pavilion
and a site currently under construction to the rear of the public house. Residential
properties exist beyond this approximately 20 metres from the public house. Commercial
properties exist opposite the public house at ground floor level with residential units at first
floor level. To the south of the site are residential properties both on Liverpool Road and
Dixon Street. To the north west of the site is a site which is currently under construction to
create 20 dwellings.
Councillor Mann has requested that the application is heard by the Planning and
Transportation Regulatory Panel due to the effect of the development by reason of noise
and disturbance to nearby residential occupiers.
SITE HISTORY
There is no relevant planning history which relates to this site.
CONSULTATIONS
The Strategic Director of Environmental Services has commented that there are concerns
regarding the level of noise which may be created by the development but cannot confirm
that this would lead to a statutory noise nuisance.
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Flat 533 Liverpool Road
535A Liverpool Road
Buchanan Veterinary Practice, Liverpool Road
Unit 3 535 Liverpool Road
First Floor 535 Liverpool Road
535 Liverpool Road
535B Liverpool Road
535C Liverpool Road
535D Liverpool Road
542 Liverpool Road
Irlam Steel Recreation and Social Club
533 Liverpool Road
536A Liverpool Road
537 Liverpool Road
539 Liverpool Road
2 Dixon Street
4 Dixon Street
6 Dixon Street
8 Dixon Street
536 Liverpool Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of objection to the proposal. The following issues have been
raised:
Increase in noise pollution leading to a loss of amenity
Loss of privacy to residents of dwellings to the rear
Increase in congestion affecting highway safety
Councillor Mann has requested that the application is heard by the Planning and
Transportation Regulatory Panel due to the impact the development may have on
residential amenity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Policy DES1 - Respecting context
Policy DES7 – Amenity of users and neighbours
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
Policy DES8 - Alterations and extensions
Policy S4
- Amusement Arcades, Restaurants and cafes, drink establishments and hot
food takeaways
Policy A2 - Cyclists, pedestrians and the disabled
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the impact of the development on
amenity both visual and residential.
Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan states that development should
respond to the physical context and positive character of the area within which it is situated.
In particular regard should be had to the impact on and relationship to existing landscapes,
the character, scale and pattern of streets and building plots, the impact on and quality of
views and vistas, scale of the proposed development, impact upon the re-development of
an adjacent site and the functional compatibility of adjoining land uses.
Policy DES7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan states that all new developments
and alterations should provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity, in terms
of space, sun lighting, day lighting, privacy, aspect and layout. Development will not be
permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of the occupiers
or users of other developments.
Policy DES8 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that planning permission
be only granted for alterations and extensions that respect the general scale, character,
rhythm, proportions, details and materials of the surrounding area.
Policy A2 requires that developments make adequate provision for Cyclist Pedestrians and
the Disabled.
I consider that as the use of the unit is already established as a public house, the use of
outdoor areas by members of the public is currently possible. I do not consider that there
would be any significant increase in disturbance above that which already exists. A
distance of 20 metres would remain to the nearest residential properties at the side and in
excess of 30 metres to the houses which are currently under construction to the rear.
The Strategic Director of Environmental Services has commented that the creation of the
covered areas may result in an increase in disturbance to nearby residential occupiers
however cannot confirm that development will result in a statutory noise nuisance. It is
recognised that the ground floor part of the proposed development could be protected by
fencing and ground features but some concerns remain with regard to the first floor
element. I am of the opinion that as the flat roof currently exists and could be used by
members of the public that there would be no additional noise nuisance than that which
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
could reasonably occur at present. I consider that adequate distance would remain between
the proposed shelters and residential properties to protect the residents from noise
nuisance. The hours of use of the outdoor areas would be covered by separate licensing
legislation.
In terms of loss of privacy to neighbours at the rear of the site due to the first floor area I do
not consider that there would be any significant loss of privacy as a distance of 30metres
would remain between the rear of the development and habitable room windows within the
rear elevations of new dwellings on the site to the rear. I am also of the opinion that there
would be no additional loss of privacy to that which could reasonably already exist due to
the flat roof being in situ. I remain of the opinion that the development would not have a
significant addition impact upon residential amenity due to loss of privacy or noise and
disturbance and therefore consider that the development would be in accordance with
Policy DES1 and DES7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
I consider that the elevational changes to the building would not look out of place in
relation to the existing building or within the local area. The applicant has specified that
timber and slate will be used for the ground floor covered area, and this is in keeping with
the materials used on the original building. Screening to the upper area by way of trellising
and planting is proposed and it is considered that this is adequate to protect the visual
amenity of nearby occupiers, and protect the character of the building. I am therefore of the
opinion that the development would be in accordance with Policy DES8 of the Adopted
Unitary Development Plan.
I consider that some disturbance may occur close to 542 Liverpool Road by virtue of the
proximity of the outdoor area to residential properties. I also consider that some loss of
amenity due to noise may be experienced by residents on Dixon Street. I am of the opinion
however that the effect of locating an outdoor area at this location, as it is at ground floor,
can be mitigated by the introduction of acoustic fencing to the Western boundary of the
site. I have added a condition to require an acoustic fence is constructed along this
boundary prior to this area being used for the public. I consider that this is adequate to
protect the amenities of neighbours at this side of the site from noise and disturbance.
I consider that the applicant has made adequate provision for access to the new external
area to the west side of the building, by the disabled via a new ramp. The ramp would not
be visible from the streetscene and would not be visible from any nearby residential
properties. I do not consider that this would be an intrusive feature or look out of place and
therefore would be in accordance with Policy DES8 and S4 of the Adopted Unitary
Development Plan.
I do not consider that the proposed development would result in the generation of more
vehicles using the access road to the east of the site and am therefore of the opinion that no
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
increase in congestion or on street parking would occur. I therefore have no objection to the
proposal on highway grounds.
The neighbour objections are acknowledged. However I am of the opinion that the
development would not have a significant or detrimental impact upon the character of the
area, nor would it look out of place on the building. I am also of the opinion that the
development would not lead to a significant loss of amenity to nearby residential occupiers
subject to conditional control.
CONCLUSION
I consider that although the proposal would introduce outdoor areas where groups of
people may congregate, there would be no significant increase in noise or disturbance than
that which could occur at present. I consider that the elevational changes which are
proposed would not look out of place and would not have any significant impact upon the
character of the building or the area, nor would it detrimentally affect the visual amenity of
existing or future residential occupiers.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Prior to the first use of the external areas, a scheme for the erection of acoustic fencing
to the Western Boundary of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be carried out in accordance
with the approved plans and the fence maintained to the satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority.
3. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing
materials to be used for the 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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
3. 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. Under the Health Act 2006 smoking shelters must have at least half of its sides
completely open. This requirement applies to all such structures which are covered by a
roof or ceiling, and to comply must not have more than 50% of the perimeter made up
of one or more walls and similar structures. If more information is required please
contact your Environmental Directorate (Environmental Health Section)
2. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be
satisfied prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the
conditions precedent renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and
appropriate action may be taken by the Council.
APPLICATION No:
07/54357/FUL
APPLICANT:
Astley Park Estates
LOCATION:
2A Moorside Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Alteration to car parking, relocation of bin store, erection
of steel railings, retention of post and panel fence and
security gate, together with cycle storage to the rear.
WARD:
Worsley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a site on Moorside Road in Swinton which is currently occupied
by a vacant two-storey building that was previously used as a children’s care home.
Vehicular access to the site is via Moorside Road. The land to the north and west of the site
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
is occupied by residential properties, the land to the east is currently open land and The
Sides Medical Centre occupies the land to the south of the site.
In November 2002 permission was granted to change the use of the building to B1 offices
(ref 02/44645/COU). This permission is being implemented at present. In order to increase
parking and to improve the office environment this application seeks permission for the
creation of an additional 3 car parking spaces, increasing the total number of spaces on site
to 14, including 2 that are suitable for use by disabled persons. It is also proposed to erect a
2m high post and panel fence along the eastern boundary and to erect 2m high steel railings
along the southern boundary. Permission is also sought to reposition the bin store at the
front of the property in order to allow for the installation of a cycle store at the rear of the
building. Various landscaping works are also proposed including the creation of a seating
area to the west of the building and an area of landscaping to the south west of the building.
SITE HISTORY
In March 1998 planning permission was granted for the demolition of the existing building
and the erection of a two storey, 10 bedroomed children’s reception unit, health centre,
ancillary offices and pharmacy together with landscaping, car parking and alteration to
existing vehicular access (Ref 98/37568/FUL).
In November 2002 an application for the change of use of the premises from a children’s
centre to a day nursery was refused (Ref 02/44644/COU).
In November 2002 planning permission was granted for the change of use of the building
from a children’s centre to B1 offices (Ref 02/44645/COU).
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
The Sides Medical Centre, Moorside Road
6, 8 and 12 Moorside Road
23, 25 and 27 Moorside Road
47 to 59 (odd) Ashley Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of representation / objection in response to the planning
application publicity from No 12 Moorside Road on behalf of Moorside South Residents
Association Committee. The following issues have been raised –
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
The boundary to the east of the building is shown in a different position to that
shown under the original approval for the change of use of the land and building for
uses as offices raising questions on whether the use of this section of land for
offices/parking is authorised.
Steel fencing is out of keeping within this residential area. It would be more
appropriate to have wooden fences as proposed on the eastern boundary.
The fencing to the front boundary should run inline with the front elevation of the
building it should not be set back.
Vehicular traffic flow in the vicinity of the site will increase should planning
application 06/53857/FUL for the erection of 12 dwellings on the land to the east of
the site receive favourable consideration.
The land to the south west of the building which is shown as being a landscaped
area on the plans has been excavated and an area of hardstanding laid down raising
questions on whether this area will be landscaped or not.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES11 – Design and Crime
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether there would be a
detrimental impact on visual and residential amenity; whether the proposed level of
parking is acceptable; and whether the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the
Adopted Unitary Development Plan. I shall deal with each of these issues in turn.
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.
I do not have any objections to the design and siting of the proposed railings and fencing
nor do I have any concerns over the design of the proposed bin store, which would be
constructed out of timber panelling. In order to ensure that the proposed railings make a
positive contribution towards the visual amenity of the area I recommend that a condition is
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
attached that requires them to be colour treated in a colour approved by the Local Planning
Authority. I consider that the location of the cycle storage area is acceptable and I have
attached a condition requiring full details of its design and external appearance to be
submitted for approval.
The landscaping works proposed would have a positive impact upon the visual amenity of
the area. With regards to concerns expressed by the Moorside South Resident’s
Association comments over whether the landscaped area to the south west of the building
will be installed should the application receive favourable consideration, I have attached a
condition requiring details of trees and shrubs to be provided.
Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory
level of amenity. Development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of
the occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
The land to the south and east of the site is not used for residential purposes. With regards
to the impact that the development would have on the neighbouring residents located to the
north and east of the site I am of the opinion that the 3m high (approx) wall that runs along
the western and northern boundary would screen the proposed parking, fencing and
landscaping from these residents thereby ensuring that the proposed development would
not have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity the occupants of the properties on
Moorside Road and Ashley Drive currently enjoy.
Car Parking –
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists
and motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards.
An additional 3 car parking spaces would be created under this proposal, bringing the total
amount of car parking on site to 14 spaces, including 2 that are suitable for use by disabled
persons. According to the Councils maximum car parking standards a stand-alone office
with 463sq.m of floorspace should have a maximum of 14 car parking spaces. The proposal
is therefore in accordance with the Councils maximum car parking standards. The
proposed car parking would be laid out and the existing access is laid out in such a way that
I do not have any objections to the proposed development on highway safety grounds. I am
of the opinion that the proposal would not result in a significant increase in traffic flow in
the vicinity of the site.
With regards to concerns expressed by the Moorside South Resident’s Association
Committee regarding the increase in traffic flow that would occur should the application
for 12 dwellings on the adjacent site be developed, this is not a material planning
consideration in the determination of this application.
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
Other Issues
There is a large sycamore tree located within the northwestern corner of the site. This tree
is not protected by a tree preservation order. The proposed seating area has already been
installed under the tree. The Councils arborist has inspected the tree and concludes that the
area occupied by the seating area appears to have been previously occupied by an
outbuilding, which implies that a solid base would have been present in this location prior
to the construction of the seating area. This in combination with the method of construction
used to erect the seating area that involved the use of widely spaced slabs interspersed with
large stones laid on a geotextile sheet means that the works have been carried out in such a
way that they do not appear to of have an adverse impact upon the tree.
With regards to the issue with the position of the post and panel fence on the eastern site
boundary and the lawfulness of the use of the land, the plans indicate that the eastern
boundary has been moved approximately 40cm to the east. This is considered to be
de-minimis.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the
Adopted UDP and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. I
therefore recommend that the application be approved
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. The railings hereby approved shall be colour treated with the approved colour black
prior to installation and shall be maintained as such thereafter.
3. No development shall be started until full details of the materials, design and
construction of the cycle stores have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved scheme.
4. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is
started. Such scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, and
surface treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of
development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of the initial
implementation of the planting scheme shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority.
5. Prior to first use of the car park, that part of the site to be used by vehicles shall be laid
out, drained, surfaced and sealed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and
shall thereafter be made available at all times in connection with the use of the building
at 2A Moorside Road.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
4. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
5. Standard Reason R012B Parking only within curtilage
APPLICATION No:
07/54333/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr S Kilgor-Kent
LOCATION:
23 Wolfreton Crescent Clifton Swinton M27 8LE
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a two storey side extension, single storey rear
extension and single storey extension to front of dwelling
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
The application relates to a semi-detached property on Wolfreton Crescent, Clifton,
Swinton. The local area is characterised by a mixture of detached and semi-detached
properties. A neighbouring property, 21 Wolfreton Crescent, is a detached property.
The applicant seeks to erect a two storey side extension, single storey rear extension and a
single storey extension to the front of the dwelling. The application has been amended from
that originally submitted, resulting in alterations to the proposed side extension so that it
would be set back at first floor by 2m from the front main wall of the house. The amended
plans show a revised side elevation view, and the ground floor and first floor layout plan.
They should be read in conjunction with the original plans, as only part of the original plans
have been superseded.
The proposed first floor front extension would project forward 1.3m from the main wall of
the house, and would be 7m wide (extending across the front of the dwelling to the
common boundary with no. 21 Wolfreton Crescent). It would be built in line with an
existing porch. The proposed side extension would in total be 11.4 in length at ground
floor, and would project from the rear of the existing dwelling by 3m. The first floor, would
be 7.8 in length and be set back from the front main wall of the house by 2m. The proposed
rear extension would project 2.4m from the rear wall of the dwelling and would be 4m
wide. A pitched roof with a pike is proposed on the front / side extension, and at its highest
point would be 6.4m to the eaves. A lean to roof is proposed to the single storey rear
extension.
The proposed front/side extension would be situated along the common boundary with 21
Wolfreton Crescent.
SITE HISTORY
There has been one previous application on the site (05/51830/HH), for the erection of a
two storey side extension and the erection of a single storey front extension. This
application was withdrawn by the applicants, following advice from a planning officer that
the proposed extension would lead to a terracing effect. This was due to the fact that the
ground and first floor were proposed to be in line with the front main wall of the property.
PUBLICITY
The following addresses have been notified
17, 19, 21, 25 and 39 Wolfreton Crescent
REPRESENTATIONS
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
I have had a request from Cllr Maureen Lea that this application be reported to panel on the
basis that the proposed development would lead to a terracing effect, and the proposed
extension would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of residents in the local area.
I have received 2 letters of objection in response to the application publicity, that have
raised the following concerns:
Loss of light
Creation of a terracing effect
Value of home may be adversely affected
Loss of privacy
Obligations under the Part Wall Act 1996
Noise as a result of the development and upon occupation
Contrary to Human Rights Act.
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 planning application are: whether there would be
an unacceptable impact on neighbours and residents; the potential impact on the street
scene; and whether the development accords with the relevant policies of the UDP and the
Council’s SPD on House Extensions.
UDP Policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its physical
context and respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated, and
contribute towards a local identity and distinctiveness.
Policy DES7 of the UDP states that 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 states that development will not be
permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of occupiers or user
of other developments.
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
Policy DES8 of the UDP states that planning permission will only be granted for
extensions where they respect the scale, character, rhythm, proportions, details and
materials of the original structure and complement the general character of the area. The
design of alterations and extensions must ensure the resultant building appears as an
attractive and coherent whole. I consider that the propped development would respect and
complement the general character of the area, in terms of its scale and proportions. The
proposed materials and roof would match the existing and would not be an incongruous
feature in this residential setting. The proposal therefore complies with Policy DES8.
The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) House Extensions was adopted
in July 2006. It provides additional guidance on the factors to be considered and standards
to be maintained when determining householder planning applications. The policies in the
House Extensions SPD seek to strike the correct balance between the needs of people who
wish to extend their home, and the impact of such development on neighbouring occupiers.
Policy HE1 of the House Extensions SPD states that permission will not normally be
granted for extensions that do not maintain a minimum distance of 21m between facing
principal windows of habitable rooms; and a minimum distance of 10.5m between the
principal window of any habitable room of the proposed extension and the common
boundary with the facing property. A minimum distance of 26m would be maintained
between facing habitable room windows to the front of the property, whilst there would be
no directly facing habitable room windows to the rear. A distance of 10.5m would be
maintained to the common boundary with the facing property to the rear (39 Wolfreton
Crescent). The proposal therefore complies with Policy HE1, as it would not lead to
unacceptable direct overlooking of neighbour's gardens, or result in a ‘first come first
served’ situation where an extension to one property would restrict the development
potential for a neighbouring property.
Policy HE8 of the House Extensions SPD states that planning permission for the erection
of a two storey side extension that lies within 1m of the side boundary of the dwelling will
not normally be granted unless either: the first floor element is set back a minimum of 2m
from the front main wall of the house; or the ground and first floor elements are both set
back a minimum of 1m from the front main wall of the house. The proposed side extension
would be adjacent to the common boundary with 21 Wolfreton Crescent. As originally
submitted the proposed first floor was set back only 0.8m from the front main wall of the
house, and so would have led to a terracing effect. However, the applicant subsequently
amended the plans to set back the first floor back 2m from the front main wall of the house.
This ensures that the proposed development complies with Policy HE8, and I am satisfied
that the proposed development would not lead to the houses appearing to be a terrace rather
than separate dwellings. I do not consider the proposed extension would harm the
character of the area or that of the dwelling itself.
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
The two storey side elevation extends beyond the rear of the existing property, and would
be sited in line with the rear of the neighbouring property. I am satisfied it would not have
an unacceptable overbearing impact on neighbouring residents, or result in unacceptable
overshadowing. It therefore complies with UDP Policy DES7 and DES1.
Policy HE5 of the House Extensions SPD states that planning permission will not normally
be granted for single storey rear extensions to detached, semi detached or terraced
dwellings that project beyond a 45 degree line drawn from either: the mid-point of any
principal window of a ground floor habitable room in the adjoining dwelling; or a point 3m
along the common boundary from the rear elevation of the adjoining dwelling. The single
storey rear extension would be adjacent to the common boundary with no. 19 Wolfreton
Crescent and would not project beyond a 45 degree line drawn from either a ground floor
habitable room in the adjoining dwelling or a point 3m along the common boundary. As a
result I do not consider the development would result in an unacceptable loss of light or be
overbearing for neighbouring residents.
There is a principal habitable room window at the front of the neighbouring property at
ground floor, and the neighbour has raised concerns regarding loss of light as a result of the
proposed extension. However, applying the priniples of Policy HE5, I am satisfied that the
proposed extension would not lead to an unacceptable loss of light or be overbearing for
the neighbouring residents. The proposed ground floor element would not project beyond a
45 degree line drawn from the mid-point of the principal ground floor habitable room
window in the adjacent dwelling.
With regards to specific objections received to this application, not covered above:
The potential loss of value to a home as a result of a development is not a
material consideration in the determination of planning applications;
Any obligations the applicant may have under the Party Wall etc 1996 Act, is a
civil matter, outside of the scope of the planning system;
It is recognised that there would be noise during construction, although this
would be for a limited time only and would not be a reason for refusal in this
instance;
The application would not result in an unacceptable impact on the character of
the area, or have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of
neighbouring residents in terms of privacy and light. I do not therefore consider
that it would be contrary to Human Rights legislation.
CONCLUSION
As amended the proposed extension accords with Policies DES1, DES7 and DES8 of the
UDP and also the relevant policies of the House Extensions SPD. The proposed
development would not lead to a terracing effect or have a unacceptable impact on the
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
amenity of neighbouring residents or the street scene. I therefore recommend that the
application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
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. The scheme shall be carried out using the
approved materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007B Development-existing building
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Construction works shall not be permitted outside the following hours:
Monday to Friday 08:00 to 18:00
Saturdays
08:00 to 13:00
Construction works shall not be permitted on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays
Access and egress for delivery vehicles shall be restricted to the working hours
indicated above.
2. 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
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
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
3. 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"
4. This permission relates in part to amended plans received 24th April, showing the first
floor of the side extension set back from the main wall of the front of the house by 2m.
APPLICATION No:
07/54388/FUL
APPLICANT:
Northern Estates (Manchester) Ltd
LOCATION:
400 - 402 Lower Broughton Road Salford M7 2GD
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a new building comprising 10 flats
(Amendment to planning application 04/48536/FUL
allowed on appeal)
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to land to the south of 400 Lower Broughton Road, between this
property and 1 The Priory. The site is currently vacant and occupied only by shrubs and a
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
number of self seeded trees. It is generally overgrown and in a poor condition, having been
vacant for a number of years.
The proposed new building would accommodate three two-bedroomed flats and seven
one-bedroomed flats. The proposed new building would be part four/part three storey’s,
excluding the basement, with the lower element closest to 1 The Priory.
Car parking for the residents of the proposed flats would be provided to the rear of the
properties, accessed from an alley off The Priory. A total of ten spaces would be provided.
The site is located within the Cliff Conservation Area.
Planning permission has already been granted for the conversion of existing premises into
10 flats and erection of new building on adjacent land to form 10 flats (04/48536/FUL),
this was refused by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel and subsequently
allowed at appeal.
The changes proposed from the previous approved application 04/48536/FUL relate to the
depth of the proposed building which has been reduced. The proposed new building would
be located a minimum of 7.4 metres from the back edge of the footpath and a maximum of
8 metres, compared to a minimum of 6 metres and a maximum of 7.4 metres as previously
approved. The distance from the alley to the rear of the site would be a minimum of 5.6
metres and a maximum of 10.8 metres as proposed and a minimum of 5.6 metres and a
maximum of 7.4 metres as previously approved. No alterations to the elevations are
proposed.
SITE HISTORY
In May 1984, planning permission was granted for the conversion of 400 and 402 Lower
Broughton Road into eight self-contained flats (ref: E/16726)
In March 1991, planning permission was granted for the conversion of 400 and 402 Lower
Broughton Road into eight self-contained flats (ref: E/16726)
In August 1991, planning permission was granted for the erection of a three storey building
comprising ten flats together with associated landscaping, car parking and construction of a
new vehicular crossing on land adjacent to 400 Lower Broughton Road (ref: E/28442)
In January 2004, an application was submitted for the conversion of 400 and 402 Lower
Broughton Road into ten flats and the erection of a new building on adjacent land to form
eleven flats (ref: 04/47652/COU). That application was withdrawn in March 2004 as a
result of officer concerns regarding the design and siting of the proposed building.
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
04/48536/FUL – Conversion of existing premises into 10 flats and erection of new building
on adjacent land to form 10 flats – This application was refused by the Planning and
Transportation Regulatory Panel but was subsequently allowed at appeal.
CONSULTATIONS
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Unit – Object to the scheme because the proposal
would create noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour detrimental to the users life styles.
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – Recommends the attachment of a desk
study to any planning consent.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 19th April 2007
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser 29th March 2007
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1, 3, 4, 6 The Priory
Flats 1-8, The Priory
1, 3, 5, 7 Priory Avenue
404 – 410 (evens) Lower Broughton Road
Flats A-E, 410 Lower Broughton Road
417 – 429 (odds) Lower Broughton Road
Flats 1-3, 427 Lower Broughton Road
Flats A-C, 427 Lower Broughton Road
Flats A-F, 429 Lower Broughton Road
Flats 1-6, 408 Lower Broughton Road
Basement flat, 408 Lower Broughton Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 3 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Land registry records show that this property is not owned, as claimed, by Northern
Estates;
Concern regarding the timescale and whether the development would actually go
ahead; and
Limited off-street parking.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
DP1: Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
DP3: Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CH3/5: Works within Conservation Areas (The Cliff)
Other policies:
H1:
Provision of New Housing Development
DES1: Respecting Context
DES7: Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1: Regional Development Principles
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the proposed
amendments are acceptable in terms of design and impact on the Cliff Conservation Area;
whether the impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers is acceptable; and whether
a reduction in the time limit would be appropriate.
The principle of development including access and parking arrangements has already been
established under the previous planning permission.
Design and appearance and impact on the Cliff Conservation Area
Policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its physical context,
respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated, and contribute towards
local identity and distinctiveness.
Policy CH3 states that development within conservation areas will only be permitted where
it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area. Regard will be had to
whether the proposal is of a high standard of design and retains or improves features which
contribute to the character or appearance of the conservation area.
The amendments proposed as part of this application relate solely to the depth of the
proposal and the elevations would therefore remain the same as that approved.
The proposed new building includes a number of features present within the original
buildings. These include the bay windows, brick arches above the windows and doors and
string courses. The use of such architectural features ensures that the proposed building
would be in keeping with adjacent buildings. As with the neighbouring properties, the
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
proposed building would have a vertical emphasis. The height to both the eaves and the
ridge of the proposed building would be similar to that of 400 Lower Broughton Road. The
siting of the proposed building has slightly altered to that originally proposed and is set
further back from Lower Broughton Road, the proposal would respect the established
building line of the existing terraced properties. In light of the above, I am satisfied that the
siting and design of the proposed building would be satisfactory and in keeping with the
character and appearance of the conservation area in accordance with policies DES1 and
CH3.
The Greater Manchester Police Architectural Unit object to the scheme because the
proposal would create noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour detrimental to the users life
styles. The principle of development has already been established through the granting of
the previous application, the application represents relatively minor alterations to a
previously approved scheme in terms of a reduction in the depth of the building, it would
not therefore be reasonable to insist upon the measures recommended. Furthermore, the
inspector considered that ‘the crime prevention measures proposed would be satisfactory’.
An informative would be attached to any planning consent drawing the applicants attention
to the comments received.
Impact on Amenity
Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory
level of amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity
of the occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
The proposed new building would be in excess of 21 metres from No.417 on the opposite
side of Lower Broughton Road. 3 The Priory is not directly to the rear of the proposed new
building and I am therefore satisfied that there would not be an unacceptable level of
overlooking. On the above basis, I am of the opinion that the proposal would not result in
an unacceptable loss of privacy and I have no objections to the application in this regard. I
am satisfied that the application also accords with policy DES7.
Time Limit
As part of the appeal process, the City Council recommended that if approved, the
development should commence within one year of the date of permission, because of the
time that the site has been vacant and so that its future development would not be
prejudiced. The inspector considered that one year would be too short a period, and that
such a restriction would be onerous and unreasonable. Nevertheless, the inspector
considered that allowing a further five years for commencement would result in continued
uncertainty about the future development of the site, which would be particularly
concerning for local residents. The inspector therefore attached a condition requiring
commencement to take place within two years which would give a reasonable period to
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
commence development and a measure of certainty to the local residents about the future
redevelopment of the site. The appeal was allowed on 3rd May 2006, meaning
development must commence by 3rd May 2008 for the previously approved scheme.
Given the relatively minor nature of the proposed amendments to the scheme and the view
taken by the inspector, I consider the attachment of a condition requiring the
commencement of development within one year of the date of this permission to be
reasonable.
CONCLUSION
The principle of residential development has already been established under the previous
planning approval. I am satisfied that the siting and design of the proposed building would
be satisfactory and in keeping with the character and appearance of the conservation area I
consider that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the amenities of
neighbouring occupiers and that the proposal would provide future occupants with a
satisfactory level of amenity. I consider the application to be in accordance with the
provisions of the UDP and therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of one year
from the date of this decision.
2. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before
development commences. The scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to
be planted, walls, fences and boundary and surface treatment. As part of the scheme, a
minimum of six trees shall be provided within the site, the species and location of
which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority
prior to the commencement of development. The approved scheme shall be carried out
within 12 months of the commencement of development. Any trees or shrubs dying
within five years of planting shall be replaced with similar species or as agreed in
writing with the local planning authority.
3. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, samples of the
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
materials for the external elevations and roof of the building shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be carried out
using the approved materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the local planning
authority.
4. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use that part of the site to be
used by vehicles shall be laid out, drained, surfaced and sealed in accordance with the
requirements of the local planning authority, and shall thereafter be made available at
all times the premises are in use.
5. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a scheme for cycle
and refuse storage within the curtilage of the site shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented
prior to the first occupation of any of the apartments hereby approved and shall
thereafter be retained.
6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a scheme showing
the provision of waste 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 first occupation of any of the apartments hereby approved,
and shall thereafter be retained.
7. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a preliminary
risk assessment on the potential for on site contamination has been undertaken and
agreed by the Local Planning Authority. If the preliminary risk assessment identifies
potential contamination a detailed intrusive site investigation should be carried out in
accordance with the following:
No development shall be commenced unless and until a site investigation report (the
Report) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground
contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an identification and
assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act
1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and controlled waters. The
investigation shall also address the implication 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.
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Report including
its risk assessment, options appraisal and recommendations for implementation of the
remedial strategy.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall
be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion
Report shall validate that all works were completed in accordance with those agreed by
the Local Planning Authority.
The applicant/developer is requested to contact the Council's Environmental Protection
Unit as soon, as is practicable should unsuspected contamination be encountered
during the development of the site.
(Reasons)
1. So as not to prejudice the future redevelopment of the site
2. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the Conservation Area in accordance with policy
CH5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the Conservation Area in accordance with policy
CH5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the parking of vehicles within
the curtilage of the site in accordance with policy A10 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
5. In order to encourage the use of more sustainable transport modes, in accordance with
Policy A10 of the UDP and in order to ensure sufficient provision for refuse storage, in
accordance with Policy DES1 of the UDP
6. To encourage the re-cycling of materials in accordance with policy EN22.
7. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached letter from the Greater Manchester
Police Architectural Unit.
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
APPLICATION No:
07/54548/FUL
APPLICANT:
Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Lumns Lane And
Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of eight dwellings (substitution of house types on
planning permission 04/47881/FUL)
WARD:
Pendlebury
Agecroft Road Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site is currently being developed in accordance with a previous planning
permission that has been granted on the site (04/47881/FUL). The original application
was for the erection of 58 dwellings and 96 apartments. The site has changed owners and
an application was submitted and approved for amendments to the 96 apartments
(05/51472/FUL). The whole site is bounded by the railway line to the west and Agecroft
Road to the south, beyond which are residential properties. To the north of the site is the
area for the proposed Slack Brook Country Park and to the east is Lumns Lane.
The current application proposes the substitution of seven dwellings with eight dwellings.
The extant permission proposed six four bedroom dwellings (Mayfield) and 1 three
bedroom dwelling (Harvington). There are other four bedroom dwellings within the site
that have not yet sold and stand vacant, the applicant has therefore decided to substitute the
dwellings with 8 three bedroom dwellings (Harvington), which have been selling
elsewhere within the site. There would be 1 car parking space per dwelling. Vehicular
access into the site would be from Agecroft Road.
SITE HISTORY
In December 2005 planning permission was granted for the erection of seven - three storey
buildings comprising 96 apartments together with associated landscaping, car parking and
construction of new vehicular access (ref: 05/51472/FUL)
In March 2005 planning permission was granted for the erection of 58 dwellings and 96
apartments with associated car parking together with the creation of a new vehicular access
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
of Agecroft Road. The application also includes the provision of a footpath / cycle way
through the site linking Agecroft Road to the proposed country park (ref: 04/47881/FUL).
In February 2004, a full planning application was submitted for the erection of 60
residential dwellings on part of the application site, with associated car parking together
with the creation of a new vehicular access and alterations to an existing pedestrian access,
the application was withdrawn. (ref: 04/47878/FUL)
In February 2000, planning permission was granted for the erection of 56 dwellings with
vehicular access off Agecroft Road (ref: 99/39133/FUL)
In March 1998, planning permission was granted for the erection of 115 dwellings with
vehicular access off Lumns Lane (ref: 97/36458/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – no comments received to date but original
comments taken into consideration relating to noise and contaminated land.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
8 - 38 Pendlecroft Avenue, Pendlebury, Swinton, MANCHESTER, M27 8TH,
3 , 4, 5 Frankby Close, Pendlebury, Swinton, MANCHESTER, M27 8ST,
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning
application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EN6 – Irwell Valley
EN7D – Wildlife Corridors
R4 – Key Recreation Areas
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
H8 – Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
A8 – Impact of Development on the Highway Network
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
A2 – Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
DES9 – Landscaping
EN13 – Contaminated Land
DES11 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider the main issues in the determination of this planning application to be: whether
the principle of the proposed development is acceptable, whether the proposal would
provide adequate access into the site; whether the applicant would make an appropriate
contribution to the provision of open space; whether issues of contamination have been
taken into account, whether the layout and design of the site is acceptable; and whether the
proposal complies with the relevant provisions of the Adopted UDP. I will deal with each
in turn below.
The Principle of the Proposed Development
Policy SD1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy states that development should be focused
within the North-West Metropolitan Area, which includes Salford. The development
would see the re-use of brownfield land thus complying with criteria 2 of Policy ST11 and
the guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement Note 3 – Housing (PPS3), which
seeks to prioritise the development of such land over land that has not been previously
developed (greenfield land).
Policy H1 states that new housing development should, inter alia, contribute to the
provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area, provide a high quality
residential environment and make adequate provision for open space.
Policy HOU1 states that Within West Salford, the large majority of dwellings within new
developments should be in the form of houses rather than apartments, in order to protect the
existing character of the areas and reflect the generally lower levels of accessibility
compared to other parts of the city.
Policy HOU2 states that the majority of dwellings shall have a minimum of three
bedrooms.
Policy EN5 states that development within the Irwell Valley will not be permitted where it
would be contrary to a number of factors, including where it would reduce public
accessibility of the valley, result in the unacceptable loss of land of acknowledged
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
recreational value or have an unacceptable impact on important views into, through or
within the valley.
Policy R4 states that planning permission will only be granted on land within, adjoining or
directly affecting a Key Recreation Area where it would be consistent with a number of
objectives, including the protection and enhancement of the existing and potential
recreational use of the area, the protection and improvement of the amenity of the area, the
provision of public access for walking and cycling and the provision of open land
recreational uses.
The site is located within the Croal-Irwell Valley and an area of search for wildlife habitats
and corridors in the Adopted UDP, and is also allocated for recreational purposes in the
Adopted UDP under Policy R4.
The site has extant permissions for the erection of 58 dwellings and 96 apartments
including the provision of a footpath / cycle way through the site linking Agecroft Road to
the proposed country park. The current application seeks to amend one area of dwellings
within the same footprint as the extant permission. The current application would be
linked to the extant permission by amending the existing Section 106 Legal Agreement, to
include the proposal set before the Panel. The amended Section 106 would ensure the
provisions of the footpath / cycle way agreed by the extant permission. I am therefore of
the opinion that the proposal complies with the policies above and I am therefore satisfied
that the principle of the proposal is acceptable.
Impact on the Highway Network
Adopted 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.
In terms of car parking within the site, it is proposed to provide 8 parking spaces. This
would be the same level per dwelling as that approved I consider the proposed level of car
parking to be acceptable and accords with Adopted Policy A10.
Open Space
Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal
open space within housing developments.
In accordance with the above policies, the applicants have agreed to make a contribution
towards open space. This would be through a combination of on-site provision and the
provision of a commuted sum towards open space in the vicinity. The proposed
footpath/cycle link and the wooded area to the rear of the site would constitute the on-site
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
informal open space provision. The existing Section 106 agreement would be amended to
reflect the current application and the total fee payable is £154,719. This is in accordance
with Adopted policy H8 and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on open
space.
Layout and Design of the Proposal
Adopted 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.
Adopted Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a
satisfactory level of amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on
the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
Adopted Policy DES9 states that landscaping should be of a high quality, reflect the
character of the area and the development, not detract from safety and security and form an
integral part of the development.
Given the siting of the proposed dwellings and that they will be sited in the same place as
the extant permission, I am satisfied that there would be no unacceptable loss of privacy or
detrimental impact on the amenity of existing residents as a result of this. I am of the
opinion that the application accords with Adopted DES7.
The proposed dwellings are featured elsewhere within the site and would stand two blocks
of three dwellings and one pair of semi-detached dwellings. The materials to be used
consist of brick and roof tile already approve as part of the extant permission. I have
attached a condition ensuring the approved materials are to be used. The proposed in
accordance with Adopted Policies DEV2 , DES7 and DES1
I have attached a condition requiring details of landscaping within the site. I am satisfied
that this will ensure that the landscaping meets the criteria of Adopted Policy DES9 .
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The applicants will enter into a Section 106 Agreement to secure public access along the
footpath/cycle link and through the wooded area and contributions towards the provision
and maintenance of open space and in the area.
CONCLUSION
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
On balance, I am satisfied that the application is acceptable. This proposal would be an
amendment to the extant permission and would provide a satisfactory footpath/cycle link
from Agecroft Road to the proposed Country Park. I am satisfied that the conditions will
ensure that the landscaping, materials, footpath/cycle link and wooded area would be of a
suitably high standard and that future residents would not be detrimentally affected by
contamination. I therefore make the following recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions and that the Strategic Director of Customer
and Support Services be given authority to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106
of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the provision of improved local open
space/play equipment.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Prior to first occupation the surface water regulation system shall be completed in
accordance with details submitted on Drawing No. 2214-E030 P2.
3. No development shall be started until:
a) The site has been subjected to a detailed scheme for the investigation and
recording of all contamination, including soil/ground contamination and its potential to
be harmful to human health and to pollute the water environment, and a report has been
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority
b) Detailed proposals to protect future occupiers and to prevent pollution of
groundwater and surface waters in line with current best practice for the contaminant
monitoring protocols, remediation of such contamination and confirmatory testing has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These
contamination proposals shall be carried out either before or during such development
as appropriate.
c) If further contamination is identified during development then the contamination
proposals shall be revised and the revisions submitted to and approved by the Local
Planning Authority
4. Prior to the commencement of development a detailed designs of the gas protection
measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. This shall include all details of the gas control schemes for the site and
individual properties, details of the gas vent stacks, the method of connection between
the stacks and the Geofin, the method of connection around service entries to the
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
houses and the layout of foundation down stands.
5. The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the means of
vehicular access from Agecroft Road has been constructed and laid out in accordance
with the approved plans.
6. Car parking within the site shall be laid out in accordance with the details shown on
drawing no. 12138/PSP/02 and shall be made available at all times
7. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be started by the
undertaking of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4) (a-d) of the Town and
Country Planning Act, 1990 until a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town
and Country Planning Act, 1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning
Authority, and the Local Planning Authority has given its approval in writing. The
planning obligation will provide that a commuted sum as required by Policy H8 of the
Adopted, having regard to the standards set out in Policy R2 of the Adopted UDP and
Salford's Greenspace Strategy will be paid to the Local Planning Authority for open
space and recreation space purposes.
8. Within 12 months of commencement of development the site shall be treated in
accordance with the landscape scheme as detailed on the submitted plan Drawing No.
2766.01 Rev A and 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.
9. The development hereby approved shall be constructed in accordance with the
materials as detailed on the submitted Drawing No. 12138/PSP/02 unless otherwise
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. In order to reduce the risk of flooding
3. Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety
4. The site has been landfilled in the past and contains landfill gas and measures are
required to prevent this becoming a hazard to occupiers
5. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
6. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
7. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation
space for future occupiers in accordance with policies H8 and R2 of the Adopted UDP.
8. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
9. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Please note this permission relates to the following plans;
Drawing No
0075 03
HAI/05/30 A
12138/PSP/02
APPLICATION No:
06/53102/COU
APPLICANT:
Tesco Stores Ltd
LOCATION:
34 Chorley Road Swinton M27 5AF
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from car showroom to local convenience
store together with associated car parking
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing car showroom on Chorley Road in Swinton. To the
north, south and west of the application site are residential properties to the east is
Manchester Road with a petrol filling station and car sales showroom on the opposite site.
The application proposes the change of use to a local convenience store (Tesco Express
class A1) with alteration to the external elevations of the building including the blocking up
of large garage doors, new shop front and associated parking.
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
SITE HISTORY
In 2004 a change of use to a pet shop (ref. 04/48312/CLUDP) was deemed lawful as it did
not constitute a change of use under the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO)
1995. This is due to both motor car showrooms and pet shops being under the same A1 Use
Class grouping. (It should be noted that the Certificate of Lawfulness was issued prior to
the changes made to the Use Class Order by the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order (2005). The changes to the Use
Class Order meant that the car showroom became sui-generis and therefore it is no longer
permitted development to change from a car showroom to another Clsss A1 retail use.)
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No objections in principle but recommends
a number of conditions relating to the hours of use (7am – 11pm), hours of deliveries (7am
– 10pm), noise, contamination and fume extraction.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 1st August 2006
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Swinton Bathroom Centre, 25A Chorley Road, Swinton, MANCHESTER, ,
23, 23A, 25, 37, 39, 26 – 28, 30, 32 36, 38, 40, 42 Chorley Road, Swinton, MANCHESTER,
M27 5AF,
2 - 4 New Cross Street, Swinton, MANCHESTER, M27 4TU,
1, 3, 5 Broom Street, Swinton, MANCHESTER, M27 5AN,
1 – 6 Beech Street, Swinton, MANCHESTER, M27 5AH,
1A Broom Street, Swinton, MANCHESTER, M27 7AF,
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 8 letters of objection and one thirty page petition will approximately 400
names in support of the application in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised: Loss of Privacy and Overlooking (1, 3 broom Street)
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
Noise pollution
Light pollution
Increase in parking
Proximity to Swinton Shopping Centre and other local convenience stores
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY
PPS6 Planning for Town Centres.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings, DP3 Quality in New Development, SD1
The North-West Metropolitan Area, EC8 Town Centres – Retail, Leisure and Office
Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site Specific Policies: none
Other Policies: ST1 Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods, ST11 Location of New
Development, DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES7
Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES10 Design and Crime, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle
and Motorcycle Parking in New Development, S2 Retail and Leisure Development
Outside Town centre and Neighbourhood Centres.
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 Regional Development Principles, W5 Retail Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the
proposed use is acceptable, whether the proposed use would have any impact on the
amenity of neighbouring residents by virtue of noise and disturbance and whether there
would be sufficient car parking.
Principle of Development
Planning Policy Statement 6 requires the following tests to be demonstrated;
Need for the development
That the development is of an appropriate scale
That there are no more central sites for the development
That there are no unacceptable impacts on the existing town centre
74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
That locations are accessible
It also considers that the sequential approach should be considered for site selection with
the following priority;
Within town and neighbourhood centres
On the edge of town and neighbourhood centres
Out of centre sites
It also states that developers and operators should be able to demonstrate that in seeking to
find a site on or on the edge of existing centres they have been flexible about their proposed
business model. Policy S2 of the UDP re-iterates this.
The existing building is 400sq m and it is proposed that 260 sq m of the building would be
used for retail, with the remaining areas used for baking and staff facilities.
Since the above application was submitted in August last year, the applicant has submitted
a variety of additional information following concerns about the level of information in
their retail assessment work to justify and support this retail proposal. In particular it has
been considered important that the retail assessment should take into consideration the
findings of the RPS Retail Capacity Study, which was undertaken for the city council in
2003.
It is acknowledged that the applicant has sought to address our concerns and submitted
additional information when requested. However, at the start of March we had arrived at a
position where the figures the applicant had submitted in relation to turnover in local
Swinton stores varied considerably from that suggested in the RPS Study. The applicant
had explained that their workings were on the basis of a “standard” floorspace for each
premise which had probably resulted in an over-estimate (£2.44M identified by the
applicant but only 0.47M in the RPS Study). In order to overcome this significant
discrepancy it was considered essential that a more accurate estimate of overall turnover
from these premises should be provided by the applicant.
The RPS Study also identified that there is a relatively significant element of leakage from
Swinton Town Centre of approximately 38%, which the applicant indicated would all be
clawed back by the proposed store. It was considered that this was unrealistic and the retail
assessment should take into consideration that some leakage would continue from the
centre following the opening of the proposed retail store.
The applicant was asked to submit more information and justification in respect of the
above but unfortunately the applicant now considers that they have submitted sufficient
information to justify the proposal and have not therefore undertaken any additional work
to address these concerns. They consider it unjustified and disproportionate to the nature
75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
of the proposal. Paragraph 3.7 of PPS6 Town Centres, does state that the level and type of
evidence and analysis should be proportionate to the scale and nature of the proposal.
However, paragraph 3.23 goes one step further and states that impact assessments may be
necessary for smaller developments, such as those likely to have a significant impact on
smaller centres, depending on the relative size and nature of the development in relation to
the centre.
The application site is within approximately 400m of the edge of Swinton town centre (and
580m from the site to the centre of the precinct and 1,970m from the site to the edge of
Irlam O’th’ Heights neighbourhood centre). With such close proximity, and situated along
a main transport route, the proposed store could have a significant detrimental impact upon
the vitality and viability of both of these centres, but particularly Swinton town centre. It is
for these reasons together with the discrepancies in the information that has been submitted
from the applicant in relation to the RPS study that it is considered essential that this
additional information is required. Without it, I consider that the applicant has not
adequately demonstrated that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact upon these
neighbouring centres. I would therefore consider that there is insufficient information to
adequately demonstrate that there is a clear need for the proposal or that it will not have a
detrimental impact upon the adjacent town and neighbourhood centre.
In addition to the above, there is a recently constructed retail unit located on the edge of
Swinton Town Centre on Station Road. The applicant was asked to provide additional
information and justification why this unit was not sequentially appropriate and suitable for
the proposed store. In one of their earliest submissions the applicant stated that the
application premises currently has a gross floorspace of approximately 400 sq m but the
resultant building following planning permission would have a retail sales area of “some
260 sq m”. In a later submission, dated 2nd February 2007, it was suggested that the unit at
Station Road in its entirety at 300 sq m would be larger than required but that half the unit
would be too small. It was also considered that this site would not address the need that had
been identified in the applicant’s catchment area. The proposed retail floorspace is slightly
smaller than that of the recently constructed retail unit on Station Road. Paragraph 3.6 of
PPS6 requires developers and operators to be able to demonstrate that they have been
flexible about their proposed business model in seeking sites in or on the edge of existing
centres. The purpose of this is to enable exploration of the possibility of enabling
development to fit onto more central sites. The applicant has demonstrated no such
flexibility and therefore I am not able to accept that this retail unit is not sequentially
preferable to the application site, especially given its proximity to the town centre
boundary and its location just outside of the applicant’s catchment area. I would therefore
consider that the applicant has not demonstrated sufficiently why this retail unit is not
sequentially preferable.
The applicant considers that in the absence of any identified harm to the vitality and
viability of existing adjacent centres, this proposal should be acceptable. I do not consider
76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
that sufficient information has currently been submitted that adequately demonstrates that
there would be no such harm nor that the application site is sequentially preferable contrary
to PPS6 and Policy S2 of the UDP.
Residential Amenity
Policy EN17 considers that development proposals that would be likely to cause or
contribute towards a significant increase in pollution to the air by reason of noise will not
be permitted.
Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory
level of amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity
of the occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
The proposal would be contained within the existing footprint of the building. The main
elevations would face Chorley Road and Beech Street, both of which have existing
windows within the car sales showroom. The entrance to the building would be from
Chorley Road. I would therefore not consider the change of use to have an unacceptable
impact on neighbouring occupiers in terms of privacy and outlook.
The Strategic Director of Environmental Services has no objections to the proposal
however they do recommend a number of conditions to ensure the safeguarding of the
existing surrounding residential amenity in terms of noise and disturbance. The
application form indicates hours of opening to be agreed. I would consider that the
following restrictions on the hours of use would be acceptable in terms of protecting
residential amenity, hours of use 7am – 11pm, hours for deliveries 7am – 10pm. I would
also consider that a condition relating to any proposed extraction unit be submitted prior to
the commencement of development.
Car parking and Access
Adopted Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled
drivers, cyclists and motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards.
It also states that the maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
The existing vehicular access from Beech Road would be retained, with car parking located
to the rear of the site. The proposal would provide 13 car parking spaces including two for
disabled purposes. Policy A10 states that the maximum car parking for a store of this size
would be 16 spaces including 4 disabled spaces. Considering the size and amount of
parking to be provided I would consider the level of parking to be acceptable. I have no
objections on highway safety grounds.
77
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
Other Issues
The Strategic Director of Environmental Services considers that the existing covered oil
storage tank is to be removed from the site. With the oil storage tank on the site there is the
potential of contaminated land issues and therefore would recommend a condition relating
to a site investigation for contaminated land.
CONCLUSION
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the
proposed use is acceptable, whether the proposed use would have any impact on the
amenity of neighbouring residents by virtue of noise and disturbance and whether there
would be sufficient car parking.
I am of the opinion that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the
occupiers of neighbouring properties and that the level of parking is acceptable; however, I
would not consider that the principle of development is acceptable and do not consider that
sufficient information has been provided in terms of the sequential test for site selection or
the impact of the proposal on the vitality and viability of existing town and neighbourhood
centres contrary to Policy S2 of the UDP and Planning Policy Statement 6. I therefore
recommend the application be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The applicant has submitted insufficient information in accordance with the
requirements of PPS6 Planning for Town Centres and policy S2 of the adopted Unitary
Development Plan, to adequately demonstrate to the satisfaction of the LPA, that there
is a clear quantitative need for a Class A1 food retail development in this out of centre
location, that it is of an appropriate scale for this location and that it would not have an
unacceptable impact on the vitality and viability of Swinton town centre and Irlam O'
th' Heights neighbourhood centre. The applicant has also failed to satisfy the
requirements of the sequential approach as set out in PPS6 or demonstrated sufficient
flexibility in seeking alternative sites, and has not therefore adequately demonstrated
that there are no more centrally located sites available for the proposed use."
78
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
APPLICATION No:
07/54188/FUL
APPLICANT:
Forestry Commission
LOCATION:
Land To East Of Cliveley Avenue And West Of Lumns
Lane Clifton
PROPOSAL:
Construction of livia way footpath, surfacing of existing
footpath within community woodland
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site is part of the Lower Irwell Valley Improvement Area (LIVIA). The
whole of LIVIA is approximately 212ha. The Forestry Commission has submitted a
number of applications across LIVIA which include play areas, upgrading and constructing
footpaths across the site.
This application relates to 15.6 hectares located to south and west of Lumns Lane and to the
east of Clifton Green. The application has been amended from that originally proposed. It
was originally intended to provide a viewing platform within the site, but this element of
the proposal has since been removed due to the concerns raised by local residents. It is now
only proposed to construct a new LIVIA way footpath, and surface an existing footpath
within the community woodland. The site covers two Sites of Biological Importance
(SBIs): grassland and heath of Clively Avenue and marsh near Clifton Junction,
Pendlebury.
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – no objections
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – no objections to the principle of the proposal, but
recommends conditions requiring the submission, approval and implementation of a
method statement for the protection of the two SBIs during construction and the use of
footpath surfacing within the SBI’s.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
39-61, 50-54 (E), 88-102 (E) Cliveley Avenue
79
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
9-47 (O) Wedgewood Road
250, 257, 261-265 (O) Rake Lane
1-9 (O), Sandwood Depot, Units 1 and 2 Sandywood Depot, Greylands Farm
Lumns Lane
52-68 Falcon Crescent
2-18 (E), 15, 17 Copeland Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received letters from the residents of seven adjacent properties. One of these raises
no objections. Of the remainder, most were concerned about the provision of the viewing
platform within the scheme. Although this aspect of the proposal has now been removed
from the proposals, the objections have not been withdrawn. The following additional
issues have however also been raised:
Reduction in value of property
Increase in nuisance, vandalism
Maintenance of the footpaths
Litter
Impact on wildlife
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: R4/6 – Key Recreation Areas
EN5 – Irwell Valley
EN9 – Wildlife Corridors
EN1 – Development Affecting Green Belt
EN8 – Nature Conservation Sites of Local Importance
Other policies: A2 – Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
DES2 – Circulation and Movement
EN10 – Protection of Species
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the
proposal is acceptable; and whether there would be an impact on ecology or wildlife.
Principle of the Proposal
Planning Policy Guidance 2 states that new buildings inside the Green Belt are
inappropriate unless they are for the following purposes:
80
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
Agriculture and forestry
Essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation
Limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings
Limited infilling in existing villages
Limited infilling or redevelopment of major existing developed sites identified within
the adopted local plans
Development that does not meet the above criteria is considered to be inappropriate and
harmful to the green belt. In relation to other forms of development, PPG2 states that the
carrying out of such operations is inappropriate unless they maintain the openness and do
not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt
The site is located within the Green Belt. Policy EN1 re-iterates PPG2 and states that
development that does not meet the above criteria is considered to be inappropriate and
harmful to the green belt. The proposed development within the greenbelt would be
confined to the upgrading of existing and construction of new footpaths. The proposed
footpath would be located to the south of the site and through the middle of the site. I am
satisfied that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the openness of the
green belt and would provide essential recreation access across the site in accordance with
the above policy.
Policy R4 states that development directly affecting a Key Recreation Area would only be
granted where it would be consistent with the following objectives:
Protect and enhance the existing and potential recreational use of the area;
The protection and improvement of the amenity of the area;
The protection of existing trees, woodland and other landscapes features
Where appropriate, the provision, improvement and maintenance of new areas of
woodland;
Provision, improvement and maintenance of public access where appropriate;
The provision, improvement of maintenance of accessible, open land, recreation
uses; and
The protection, provision, improvement and maintenance of the quality and diversity
of wildlife habitats.
Policy R2 states that planning permission for recreation development will be granted
unless it would:
i. have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity in terms of noise, traffic
generation, light pollution, hours of operation, visual amenity, or any other
disturbance;
ii. have an unacceptable impact on highway safety in terms of traffic generation,
parking or servicing;
81
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
iii. fail to make adequate provision for cyclists, pedestrians and disabled people;
iv. have an unacceptable impact on the quiet enjoyment of the open countryside;
v. have an unacceptable impact on sites or features of archaeological,
ecological, geological or landscape value; or
vi. have an unacceptable impact on existing recreation facilities.
Policy EN5 states that that development within the Irwell Valley will not be permitted
where it would:
i. result in the severance or fragmentation of the open land resource;
ii. reduce the public accessibility of the valley, or sever or fragment any existing
or potential strategic recreation routes within the valley;
iii. have an unacceptable impact on the landscape or wildlife interest of the
valley;
iv. result in the unacceptable loss of land of acknowledged existing or potential
recreation value;
v. have an unacceptable impact on important views into, through, or within the
valley;
vi. have an unacceptable effect on water quality and levels of river flows;
vii. have an unacceptable impact on the visual quality of the river frontage; or
viii. have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of other valley users.
As mentioned the proposal would improve and maintain public access across the site
leading to beyond. It would also improve the Countryside Access Network in accordance
with the above policies.
Impact on Ecology and Wildlife
Policy EN8 states that development that would adversely affect the nature conservation
value of a Site of Biological Importance will only be permitted where the benefits of the
development outweigh the reduction in the nature conservation interest, where the
detrimental impact has been minimized as far as is practicable and where appropriate
mitigation is provided to ensure that the overall conservation interest of the area is not
diminished.
Policy EN9 states that where development would affect any land that functions as a
wildlife corridor or that provides an important link or stepping stone between habitats, will
not be permitted where it would unacceptably impair the movement of flora or fauna.
Policy EN10 states that development that would be likely to have an adverse impact on
legally protected species will only be permitted where mitigation measures are put in place
to maintain the population level of the species at a favourable conservation status.
82
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
As mentioned above, the application site covers two SBIs, both of which are Grade B sites.
The Greater Manchester Ecology Unit has been consulted on the application, and has no
objections to the principle of the proposal following discussions with the applicant. The
Unit has however recommended that a number of conditions be attached requiring the
submission, approval and implementation of a method statement for the protection of the
two SBIs during construction and no bitmac is used with the SBIs. Subject to these
conditions, I am satisfied that there would be no unacceptable detrimental impact on the
SBI or any flora or fauna therein. I am therefore satisfied that the application accords with
the above policies.
Other issues
In respect of the other issues raised by the objectors in their letters, the impact of
development on the value of land and property is not a material planning consideration and
is not therefore a matter on which any weight can be placed in the determination of this
application.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The application as originally submitted included the construction of a viewing platform, A
number of neighbours objected to this element of the proposal due to the proximity from
houses and that it may attract youths to congregate. The application was amended to omit
the platform for the site.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion the proposal would upgrade existing recreational access across the Slack
Brook Country Park by upgrading existing pathways and the construction of new
pathways. I would therefore consider the proposal to be acceptable and in accordance with
the above policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. No development shall be started until the Sites of Biological Importance as defined by
UDP policies EN8/14 and EN8/16, have been surrounded by substantial fences which
shall extend to the extreme boundary of the sites (or such positions as may be agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority). Such fences shall be erected in accordance
83
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
with a specification to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority prior to development commencing and shall remain until all development is
completed and no work, including any form of drainage or storage of materials, earth or
topsoil shall take place within the perimeter of such fencing.
3. Prior to the commencement of development full details of the proposed surfacing of the
footpaths within the Sites of Biological Importance as defined by policies EN8/14 and
EN8/16 of the UDP shall be submitted to and approved in writing the surfacing of the
paths shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
4. No development shall be started until a method statement for the protection of the two
Sites of Biological Importance as defined by UDP policies EN8/14 and EN8/16, has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All
measures identified in the statement shall be implemented.
(Reasons)
1. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
2. To protect Sites of Biological Importance in accordance with Policy EN8 of the
Unitary Development Plan.
3. To protect Sites of Biological Importance in accordance with Policy EN8 of the
Unitary Development Plan.
4. To protect Sites of Biological Importance in accordance with Policy EN8 of the
Unitary Development Plan.
84
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
APPLICATION No:
06/54004/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Childrens Services Directorate
LOCATION:
St Pauls C Of E School Heathside Grove Worsley M28
3NZ
PROPOSAL:
Siting of a portable building for use as a childrens centre
to include construction of car park and erection of fencing.
WARD:
Walkden North
At a meeting of the Panel held on 1st February 2007 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL. Sport England also had to be consulted.
Additional Observations
Representations
Further to the completion of the original report an additional 3 letters of objection have
been received, the issues raised can be summarised as follows:
a) Concerns regarding what the children’s centre will be used for;
b) Concerns regarding the hours of use;
c) Objection to the bright blue colour or the use of any bright playground colour anywhere
on the site, the use of any colours other than tasteful shades of green, cedar wood or a
matching earthy neutral tone would not be in keeping with the neighbourhood;
d) The light to all gardens will be severely impeded, the trees that are intended to be
chopped down near Heathside Grove cast such a long shadow in the morning that it
nearly reaches the objectors house on Whittle Street. Therefore the 2.8 metre building
5 metres from the objectors property will cast a shadow in the same direction, covering
the garden;
e) Child Security;
f) Garden is currently private;
g) Will attract vandals; and
h) Too close to properties within Whittle Street.
To summarise, a total of 9 objection letters have been received from 7 different residents.
The issues raised have been considered and the recommendation remains the same.
85
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
Amended plans
In response to concerns raised by neighbours, amended plans have been received showing
the building slightly orientated away from properties within Whittle Street. This has the
effect of the building being situated at a distance of 6.4 metres at its closest point and 12.8
metres at its furthest point from the rear garden boundaries of the dwellings on Whittle
Street.
Consultation Response
A consultation response from Sports England has been received. This raises no objection
to the application subject to any approval being conditioned that the new pitch be marked
out before the centre is occupied and a scheme for community use be agreed. It is also
recommended that consideration be given to re-orientating the portable building and
possible re-siting of the proposed car park so that the layout of the playing pitch does not
closely abut residential boundaries and the portable building. An appropriate form of
fencing to prevent loose balls being kicked into residential curtilages should also be
considered.
Information received from the agent confirms that the existing size of the playing field is
approximately 4,227 square metres and the proposed development is 1,065 square metres
so the usable space for games and recreational use is 3,162 square metres. An amended
plan has been received indicating that a junior playing pitch would still fit onto the site
adjacent to the proposed children’s centre, the applicant has confirmed that they are
prepared to mark this out and a condition to this effect is proposed. The school has another
playing field that has been marked out as a running track to the east of the site and is used
for general sports and school Sports Day so the children’s centre will have no impact on
these activities. The building is required as part of a Government Initiative (Sure Start) to
assist young parents in childcare and associated matters in a deprived area. The school was
approached as a suitable location due to it being a 10 minute walk from the centre of
Walkden. Both the School and Board of Governors have been consulted on the location of
the building and have agreed to its proposed position.
The applicant has provided community use information in relation to pricing policy, hours
of use, promotion, management, access/maintenance and monitoring and review. The
submission of a scheme prior to the first use of the children’s centre in accordance with the
parameters set out by the agent will be conditioned.
With regard to Sport England’s comments about possible re-siting of the building and far
park and erection of fencing, this is an existing playing field which has been used as a
sports pitch in the past and as such this is not considered to be reasonable or necessary.
86
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
My previous observations are set out below:
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Further to the completion of the original report a further 2 letters of objection have been
received, the issues raised can be summarised as follows:
Lack of security.
Loss of privacy.
Noise, from gates constantly opening and closing, the soft play area and opening
hours.
The plans do not indicate the height of the building, should a disabled ramp need to
be installed, this will heighten the level of the windows increasing the level of
invasion of privacy.
Inhibits the use of garden area.
Loss of view.
Loss of light.
The flat roof will invite intruders in.
The centre is likely to be victim to arson attack.
Use of unsightly coloured panels and security fence, not in keeping with the school
or houses.
The security fence around the soft play area is too high.
The building is too close to residential properties.
The issues raised have been considered and the recommendation remains the same.
A consultation response has been received from the Strategic Director of Environmental
Services recommending a condition restricting the hours of use of the external soft play
area between 08:00 and 18:00 Monday to Friday and a further condition restricting the
rating level from all fixed plant and machinery.
The school site is not subject to restricted hours of use, the proposed Children’s Centre
would be situated within the curtilage of the St Pauls Church of England school and as such
it would not be considered reasonable to restrict the hours of use of the soft play area.
In light of the comments received from the Strategic Director of Environmental Services it
is recommended that a condition restricting the rating level of the fixed plant and
machinery be attached to any planning consent.
Consultation letters have been sent to neighbours advising of amended plans, the publicity
period has not expired until 3rd February. It is recommended that if the Panel are minded to
approve this application that decision is delegated to the Chair plus one other member of
the Panel unless objections are received from local residents. If objections are received the
87
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
application will be brought back to the next meeting of the Panel on 15th February 2007 to
allow the consideration of any representations received during the publicity period.
BACKGROUND
The proposed development is funded by Sure Start. Sure Start is a Government
programme which aims to achieve better outcomes for children, parents and communities
by: increasing the availability of childcare for all children; improving health and emotional
development for young children; supporting parents as parents and in their aspirations
towards employment.
Children’s Centres are a significant delivery arm in achieving the five outcomes for
children and young people as set out in the Government’s paper `Every Child Matters'. The
Government would like to see a Children’s Centre in every community and nationally,
under the Sure Start Programme, are hoping to have 2500 Children’s Centres by 2008.
Sure Start national guidance states that the ideal Centre should be on or close to a Primary
School. The selection of a school site also promotes and supports 'extended school'
provision and allows further development of the Government’s ideas for accessible
community school sites.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land currently within the grounds of St Pauls Church of England
school. The site is bounded by residential properties.
The applicant seeks consent for the siting of a portable building for use as a children’s
centre. The building would be rectangular in shape and measure 9.2 metres wide, 27.2
metres deep and 2.8 metres high with a flat roof. The Children’s Centre would incorporate
a creche, training/meeting room, health room, interview room, plant room, offices, toilets
and store rooms.
It is proposed that the site be bounded by a 2.4 metre weld mesh fence to the south and west
and 2.55 metre railings and vehicular and pedestrian gates to the eastern boundary.
The proposal would include five car parking spaces and one disabled space. The centre
would be open between the hours of 08:00 am and 18:00 Monday to Friday and five
members of staff would be employed on the site.
SITE HISTORY
04/48649/DEEM3 – Erection of 2.4 metre high fencing and gates – Permitted.
88
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
03/45812/DEEM3 – Replace existing flat roof with new pitched roof – Permitted.
00/41132/DEEM3 – Installation of roller shutters – Permitted.
97/36878/DEEM3 – Installation of roller shutters to various windows – Permitted.
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – no comments received to date.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Brindley Arms, Whittle Street
27 – 59 (odds) Wilbraham Road
53A, 57A Wilbraham Road
99 – 133 (odds) Whittle Street
107A, 109A, 111A, 113A, 123A, 125A, 127A, 129A, 131A, 133A Whittle Street
10, 10A, 12, 12A, 25, 25A, 27, 27A Leaside Grove
1 – 8 Heathside Grove
29 – 59 (odds) Egerton Grove
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 4 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity, 2 of
which are from the same property. The following issues have been raised:Vandalism and possible criminal intent.
Too close to private and Council property, elderly people live in these
properties.
Noise from increased traffic and new play area.
Loss of light.
Removal of another piece of Greenland.
Property devaluation (not a material planning consideration).
Overlooking.
Increased traffic flow on Whittle Street.
Hours of work too long to allow privacy, open to use weekends.
Loss of view, no trees to rear of 111 Whittle Street.
The field is used for school sports day.
Running track only used about once a year.
The area is not deprived.
89
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1: Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies:
DES1: Respecting Context
DES7: Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10: Design and Crime
EHC1: Provision and Improvement of Schools and Colleges.
A10: Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
EN12: Important Landscape Features
ST11: Location of New Development.
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1: Regional Development Principles.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The key issues to be considered in the determination of this application are; whether the
principle of development is acceptable, whether the design and appearance is acceptable,
whether the impact on trees is acceptable, whether the proposal would be detrimental to the
amenities of neighbouring occupiers; whether the proposal satisfactorily addresses issues
of parking and access and any other issues. I shall deal with each of these in turn.
Principle of development
Policy EHC1 considers that planning permission will be granted for the improvement or
replacement of schools on existing sites provided that the development would not have an
unacceptable impact on amenity, be accessible to the community it serves, incorporate
adequate provision for disabled access, not give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic
congestion or have an adverse impact on highway safety and make provision, where
possible for community use.
Policy DP1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy seeks to ensure that existing buildings and
brownfield land is developed before Greenfield land. Policy ST11 of the adopted UDP
re-iterates this policy. Previously developed land is defined within Annex B of PPS3 as
‘that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the
developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure.’ The proposal would be
situated within the curtilage of an existing school. The application site would therefore be
90
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
considered to be brownfield land, thus complying with criteria 1b of Policy ST11 and the
guidance contained within PPS3, which seeks to prioritise the development of such land
over land that has not been previously developed (Greenfield land).
The proposed development represents the improvement of the existing school facilities in
accordance with Policy EHC1 of the adopted UDP. In view of the above, I am satisfied
that the principle of development is acceptable.
Design and appearance
Policy DES1 considers that development will be required to respond to its physical
context, respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated, and
contribute towards local identify and distinctiveness.
Policy DES10 considers 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.
The site would be surrounded by a 2.4 metre high weld mesh fence to the south and west
boundaries and 2.55 metre railings to the eastern boundary. The site would have both a
vehicular and pedestrian access independent to the main school site, this would help
maintain security to the school when the school is closed. The proposal therefore accords
with Policy DES10.
The proposed weld mesh fencing is an appropriate form of fencing in this location and the
proposed railings would match the school’s existing perimeter fencing. A condition would
be attached to any planning consent ensuring that the colour be agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
The building would be roughly rectangular in shape measuring 9.2 metres wide, 27.2
metres deep and 2.8 metres high with a flat roof. Amended plans have been received
showing amended materials. The building would be constructed of white aluminium
cladding, grey marble chip panel and blue fascia. The building represents a community use
and is low rise, the proposed development would not therefore have an adverse impact
upon the visual amenity of the area and consequently the proposal is in accordance with
Policy DES1 of the UDP.
A condition would be attached to any planning consent requiring sample materials to be
submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development. I am satisfied that
this will ensure that the materials are of a sufficiently high quality.
Impact on trees
91
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
Policy EN12 relates to important landscape features and considers that where development
would have a detrimental impact on, or result in the loss of, any important landscape
Supplementary Planning Document
Trees and
“
feature will not be permitted.
”
Development states that in the case of replacement tree planting the Council will require,
wherever practicable, the replacement on the basis of at least two new trees for each tree
lost.
The proposed development would result in the felling of two Prunus (Cherry) trees on the
eastern boundary of the site to allow for the creation of a new vehicular access. These trees
are situated on Council owned land and subsequently are not subject to Tree Preservation
Orders. A tree survey has been submitted by the applicant, the trees are in good and fair
condition and offer good amenity value being situated on the eastern boundary of the site
and visible from the public realm. I am satisfied that ample space remains within the
school site for replacement planting which can afford an equivalent amenity value to those
trees to be felled. Furthermore, trees of a similar amenity value will remain on either side
of the access, (three to the north of the proposed access and a group of seven to the south)
and I do not consider that the loss of these trees will have an adverse effect on visual
amenity. Replacement planting would be best situated to the south west of the proposed
Children’s Centre. Here trees would be both visible from Heathside Grove and would
partially screen the building from the main school site.
The felling of these trees offers the least intrusive option for constructing a Children’s
Centre at St Pauls Church of England School. Should the Children’s Centre be proposed at
any other location accessed from Heathside Grove it would also result in the felling of trees
and would additionally be impractical because the school track occupies the eastern side of
the school site. It is important that the Children’s Centre incorporates its own access
separate to that of the school in order to maintain security to the school after hours.
No objection is raised to the felling of these trees and it is recommended that a condition be
attached to any planning consent requiring the provision of four standard replacement
trees, the exact species and location of the trees to be submitted prior to commencement of
development.
Amenity
Policy DES7 of the UDP considers that all new development will be required to provide
potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity, in terms of space, sunlight, daylight,
privacy, aspect and layout. Development will not be permitted where it would have an
unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.
The proposal includes windows in the north elevation facing properties within Whittle
Street. At its closest point the proposal would sit 5.6 metres from the rear boundaries of
92
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
properties within Whittle Street and at its furthest 12 metres. The length of rear gardens of
properties within Whittle Street is approximately 15 metres. This coupled with the limited
2.8 metre height of the proposal ensures that the application would not result in an
unacceptably detrimental impact on the amenity of residents due to overlooking or loss of
privacy.
The proposed Children’s Centre and new vehicular access would be situated adjacent to
No.8 Heathside Grove. This property does not have any windows in the west side
elevation and the proposal would not therefore result in an unacceptably detrimental
impact on the amenity of residents due to overlooking or loss of privacy. The Children’s
Centre would function in a similar way to the existing school just with extended opening
hours (08:00 am until 18:00 pm) and the proposed access would be situated adjacent to the
existing vehicular access for the main school site. Therefore, vehicular traffic along
Heathside Grove would not intensify as a result of the new access to such an extent as to
have a detrimental impact on the residents of Heathside Grove in terms of noise and
disturbance. The application therefore accords with Policy DES7.
Parking and access
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists
and motorcyclists in accordance with the Council’s minimum standards
The children’s centre would provide family support and outreach, integrated care and
education and children and family services to the local community. The proposed
children’s centre would therefore function in a similar way to the existing school just with
extended opening hours (08:00 am until 18:00 pm).
In light of the nature of the proposed use, the Council’s maximum car parking standards to
encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, and the sites proximity within
reasonable walking distance of both Manchester Road and Bolton Road which is a major
public transport route, I consider the level of proposed car parking to be acceptable and in
accordance with Policy A10. I therefore have no objections to the application on highway
grounds.
CONCLUSION
The scheme would have significant benefits for the wider community and would not have
an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. Adequate
replacement trees would be provided to compensate for the felling of trees on site. The
application accords with the relevant policies of the UDP. I therefore recommend that the
application be approved.
93
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning
with the date of this permission.
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of the colour
of the weld mesh fencing and railings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The weld mesh fencing shall be painted with the
approved colour within 3 months of its erection and maintained thereafter.
3. Prior to the first use of the children's centre hereby approved, the 6 car parking spaces
shown on the approved plan (E11262 02 A) shall be constructed and laid out to the
satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and shall be made available at all times the
children's centre is in use.
4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details
of the materials for the walls and roof of the development shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out
using the approved materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
5. During the first available planting season following the felling of the 2 trees hereby
granted consent, they shall be replaced by 4 standard trees in accordance with British
Standard 3936:Part 1:1992 (Specification for Nursery Stock Part 1: Trees and Shrubs)
and which shall have a clear stem height from the ground of 1.8m, a minimum overall
height from the ground of 2.75m, a minimum circumference of stem at 1m from the
ground of 8 cm. The species and location of the two replacement trees shall be agreed
in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the felling of the trees.
6. No external lighting shall be installed unless and until a scheme has been submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall
be implemented and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details.
7. The rating level from all fixed plant and machinery associated with the development,
when operating simultaneously, shall not exceed the background noise level at any
time when measured at the nearest noise sensitive premises.
8. Prior to the first use of the children's centre hereby approved, a junior playing pitch will
be marked out in the location shown on drawing number E11262 02 C.
9. Prior to the first use of the children's centre hereby approved, a community use scheme
94
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th May 2007
for the playing pitch in accordance with the parametres set out in an email from the
applicant received 2nd May 2007 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall thereafter be implemented and
maintained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
2. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy A 8 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
6. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with
policy DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
7. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with
policy DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
8. To compensate for the loss of playing field provision in accordance with policy R1 of
the UDP.
9. To secure well managed, safe community access to the playing pitch, to ensure
sufficient benefit to the development of sport in accordance with policy R1 of the UDP.
95
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
96
17th May 2007