PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL PART I

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th July 2007

APPLICATION No: 07/54327/FUL

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

Talmud Chinuch Neorim

11 Wellington Street East And Land To East Salford M7 2AU

Demolition of existing school and erection of a four storey classroom block with nursery accommodation at ground floor level and administration accommodation

WARD: Broughton

Introduction

At a meeting of the Panel held on 17 th May 2007 consideration of this application was deferred in order that officers work with the applicant to deal with the two concerns - residential amenity and parking. I have amended my original report.

Further information has also been received by the agent in relation to staff numbers. It is advised that there are currently twenty four members of staff, all of whom are part time. There are separate teachers for religious and secular studies, the timetable is such that there is no overlap of the former and the latter.

At any one time, there are no more than twelve members of staff on site and without exception, the teachers live within walking distance of the School. The principal has stated that there are usually no more than four to five cars parked at the School at any one time.

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.

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.

1


PART I


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 28 th March 2007

A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser 22 nd 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: Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings

Policy DP3: Quality in New Development

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

2


PART I


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.

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.

3


PART I


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 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.

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. 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.

Amended plans have been received plotting a 45 degree angle from the centre of the neighbouring property west of the site. This angle is slightly compromised by the proposed development. The

4


PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th July 2007 agent has stated that ‘the perceptible impact on the amenity enjoyed by this space will be compensated by having a second window which is not in any way affected by these proposals.’ It is also stated that ‘the rear elevation of this house faces directly north.’

It is acknowledged that the application is finely balanced given the regeneration benefits that the new school would bring. A letter has been received from the school principal stating that the proposal would allow teaching in a modern environment ‘tailor made’ for school children which will allow the finest education for pupils. Furthermore, at present, the numerous changes of level within the premises preclude access to pupils and staff with physical disabilities.

On balance, and in light of the above, it is considered that the regeneration benefits of the scheme outweigh any impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property and it is therefore recommended that the application be approved.

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. I take on 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.

Amended plans have been received showing the provision of 7 car parking spaces within the north east corner of the site, 3 of which would be disabled parking spaces and showing provision for 6 covered parking spaces for bicycles adjacent to the car park for staff. The agent has stated that the school has a policy which is strictly enforced that no children should travel to or from school by bicycle for safety reasons. In addition, it has a policy of not allowing any members of staff to travel to school by motorcycle due to potential noise. It has been confirmed that an additional 7 members of staff will be employed as a result of the proposed development. In light of the above, I consider the proposed car and bicycle parking provision to be acceptable.

5


PART I


VALUE ADDED

Amended plans have been submitted showing the provision of 7 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

In conclusion, the proposed development would provide a modern educational facility. The scheme would have significant benefits for the local 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. Sufficient provision for on-site parking has been incorporated. The application accords with the relevant policies of the UDP.

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 first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, the 7 car parking spaces shown on the approved plan (M2017 20 Rev B) shall be constructed and laid out to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and shall be made available at all times.

3. No development shall be started until full details of the design and construction of the covered bicycle parking have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning

Authority. Such approved bicycle stores shall thereafter be constructed and made available for use before the development is brought into use.

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

Local Planning Authority. If the preliminary risk assessment identifies potential contamination a detailed intrusive site investigation should be carried out in accordance with the following:

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

6


PART I


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

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

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

Authority.

5. The applicant shall submit to the Local Planning Authority, in writing prior to the commencement of development, a scheme assessing the impact from the construction phase on neighbouring land uses. The scheme shall include as a minimum, assessment of working hours, dust, smoke and noise arising from the construction/demolition activities on site. The scheme shall identify necessary mitigation measures to control the impacts on neighbouring amenity. Once approved in writing, all necessary identified mitigation measures shall be implemented for the duration of the construction and demolition works. All agreed measures shall be covered by this requirement unless exceptions have been specifically agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the development hereby approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the phasing shown on submitted drawing numbers M2017 21 and M2017 40 Rev A.

(Reasons)

1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

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

Development Plan.

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

Unitary Development Plan.

4. In the interests of public safety in accordance with policy EN16 of the City of Salford Unitary

Development Plan

7


PART I


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

City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

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

Unitary Development Plan.

7. 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.

8. In order to ensure that any impact on the environment and the amenity of neighbouring residents is minimised, in accordance with policies DES7 and EN14 of the adopted City of

Salford Unitary Development Plan.

APPLICATION No:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

07/54428/FUL

JWS Waste And Recycling Services Ltd

Westport House 35 Frederick Road Salford M6 6LD

Erection of extension to existing materials recycling building and extension to existing offices

WARD: Irwell Riverside


This application relates to JWS, Westport House, 35 Frederick Road, Salford, which is the site of an existing materials recycling building together with offices, parking provision and open storage.

Vehicular and pedestrian access is via Frederick Road, situated along the south eastern boundary of the site. The site is bounded by the Manchester to Preston mainline railway with industrial buildings beyond. To the north are more industrial buildings together with residential dwellings along Lissadel Street.

Planning permission is sought for the erection of extensions to both the existing materials recycling building and offices. The proposed materials recycling facility extension measuring 31.8m x

30.5m x 15.5m (h) is to be attached to the side of the existing building and 2m lower in height. The proposed office extensions to both sides of the office building are flush with the front and rear elevations and have front and rear dormer windows with a distance of 1.2m between the gutter line of the office building and the base of the front wall of the dormer and 0.5m between the ridge of the office building and the junction of the dormer. The proposed extension to the northern elevation of the building measures 5.3m x 11.5m x 7.8m (h) and the extension to southern elevation measures

6.8m x 11.5m x 7.8m (h).

The purpose of the proposed office extensions is to create additional accommodation for administrative activities. The extension to the existing material recycling facility is for improving

8


PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th July 2007 and cleaning recycled products. The proposal as a whole is to improve the efficiency of the current operations, where it is intended that the improvements will enhance the quality of the recycled products, provide new recyclable material and reduce the overall amount of waste sent to landfill.

SITE HISTORY

05/50708/FUL - Continued use of land as a waste and recycling plant without complying with conditions 6,9,13 and 20 (tipping on site restriction, hours of operation, aggregate storage restriction and storage height) on planning permission 01/43439/FUL – Approved

01/43439/FUL - Waste and recycling treatment plant including 3600 sq.m industrial unit and admin. building, 2.5m high fence with retaining wall to north boundary, 3.5m wall to east boundary and 5m high palisade fence to railway - Approved

CONSULTATIONS

Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to conditions regarding noise levels, the types of materials to be processed in the proposed extension

Environment Agency – No objections subject to conditions regarding oil storage and drainage

Network Rail – No objections

Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal Society – Consider whether it would be appropriate to require a Section 106 contribution towards acquisition or enhancement of the canal adjacent to the site

British Waterways – No objections, providing boundary treatments take into consideration the future restoration of the adjacent canal

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 3 rd April 2007

A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser on 5 th April 2007


Canal House, 100 Lissadel Street

Cartwright House, Lissadel Street

J D Raynes & Sons LTD, Lissadel Street

Norweb PLC, Frederick Road

Microsolve Ltd, Ground Floor and Fist floor, Cumberland House, Lissadel Street

Lazer Kits, Ground Floor, Cumberland House, Lissadel Street

1 Cheltenham Street

Kennedy House, Cheltenham Street

Gloucester Mill, Gloucester Street

Plastic Trade Warehouse Ltd, Cheltenham Street

Cheltenham House, Cheltenham Street

Units 1,3,4,5,7,8 Cheltenham House, Cheltenham Street

38 Broughton Road

44-50 (even) Rockley Gardens

9


PART I


45-51 (odd) Rockley Gardens

1-5 (odd) Rockley Gardens

2-6 (even) Rockley Gardens

Units 2,3,4,5, 76 Broughton Road

Cumberland House, Lissadel Street

First Floor Room 3, Cumberland House, Lissadel Street



JDT Shirts, Ground Part and First Floor Part, Cumberland House, Lissadel Street

1-2 Cumberland House, Lissadel Street

First Floor Part Rooms, 1 and 2 Cumberland House, Lissadel Street

Microsolve Ltd, Part rooms 1 and 2 Cumberland House, Lissadel Street

Second Floor Part, Cumberland House, Lissadel Street

Ground Floor Part, 14-16 Cumberland House, Lissadel Street

Cumberland Garage, Cumberland House, Lissadel Street

Inquam Telecom Ltd, Cumberland House, Lissadel Street

First Floor Room 6 and 7, Cumberland House, Lissadel Street

Second Floor, 5 Cheltenham Street

Pendleton Radiator Company Salford Ltd, Cheltenham Street

First Floor Olympia Manufacturing, 5 Cheltenham Street

Ground Floor, 5 Cheltenham Street

First Floor, 5 Cheltenham Street

Third Floor, 5 Cheltenham Street

B & J Contracts Ltd, Second Floor Part, Cumberland House, Lissadel Street

First Floor Part, Gloucester House, Cheltenham Street

Second Floor, Gloucester House, Cheltenham Street

Speedy Products Ltd, Cheltenham Street

10 Cheltenham Street

Speedy House, Cheltenham Street

Travis Perkins Ltd, Lissadel Street

Cranbich Ltd, Lissadel Street

M H Excavations, Cheltenham Street

Old Coach House, Cheltenham Street

Basement 5, Cheltenham Street

5 Cheltenham Street

Surface Solutions Ltd, Part Second Floor, Cumberland House, Lissadel Street

The Frame People, Gloucester House, Cheltenham Street

Unit 1, 76 Broughton Road

Gardner House, Cheltenham Street

REPRESENTATIONS

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

Noise nuisance

Smell

Litter

Infestation of flies

Dust

10


PART I



DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings

DP3 - Quality in New Development

EQ4 - Principles Governing a Regional Approach to Sustainable Waste

Management

EQ5 - A Regional Approach to Waste Management

PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE

PPS10 – Planning for Sustainable Waste Management


Site specific policies:

Other policies:DES1 – Respecting Context

A8 – Impact of Development on the Highway Network

EN17 – Pollution Control

W1 – Waste Management


EM10 – A Regional Approach to Waste Management

EM11 – Waste Management Principles

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are the impact of the proposed development on visual and residential amenity, the environment in terms of noise nuisance, smell, vermin, dust, vibration and the existing highway network.

The Government’s overall approach to planning and waste management is set out in Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) which provides advice on how the planning system should contribute to sustainable waste management through the provision of appropriate sites for waste management facilities and the effective control of environmental effects. Policy W1 of the

Adopted Unitary Development Plan reiterates this and requires proposals amongst other criteria to be consistent with the principle of seeking to dispose of waste; have an unacceptable impact on health, residential amenity or the amenity of other environmentally sensitive uses; have an unacceptable impact or would cause unacceptable harm to, the water environment; have an unacceptable impact on the highway network, not make

11


PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th July 2007 satisfactory provision for screening and landscaping of the site whilst it is being used for waste management

The principle of waste management has already been established on this site by the granting of the original application for the materials recycling facility. As no additional waste is to be imported and the vehicular movements are to remain as existing, it is considered that there would be no unacceptable impact on health; residential amenity in terms of noise nuisance, flies, odour or dust; water environment or the highway network in accordance with Policy W1 of the adopted Unitary

Development Plan.

Policy EN17 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan 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 unless they include mitigation measures commensurate with the scale and impact of the development.

The application relates to the erection of an extension to the existing material recycling facility within which glass, plastics and cans collected during kerbside collections will be sorted. Within the building will be located various plant and machinery. Although it is felt that the type of material, which is to be processed within the proposed building, will not create additional problems in terms of flies, odour or dust there is concern regarding noise. The Strategic Director of

Environmental Services has received complaints regarding the level of noise from the site and this proposal will introduce more plant and machinery onto the site, albeit within an enclosed building.

However it is considered that the matter can be controlled by the appropriate design of the building and the restriction of hours of operation.

The nearest residential properties are situated off Lissadel Street on Rockley Gardens approximately 70m away from the site boundary. Concerns regarding an infestation of flies, noise, smell, litter and dust have been raised in the letters of objections received. Such concerns can be dealt by the Environment Agency under the Waste Management Licence for the recycling facility,

Environmental Health legislation and planning condition on any grant of permssion. Following correspondence with the Environment Agency, JWS currently have measures in place such as continual spraying during dry periods, keeping stocks down and visits form Rentokil in order to overcome the concerns raised. On this basis it is felt that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on residential amenity and satisfactorily complies with Policy EN17 of the adopted Unitary

Development Plan.

Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that developments respond to their physical context and respects the positive character of the local area. In assessing applications regard should be had to the existing landscape; the character scale and pattern of streets and building plots; the relationship to existing buildings; the impact, on and quality of views; the scale of the proposed development; the improvement of the existing townscape and public space; the quality of proposed materials and their appropriateness; and the functional compatibility with adjoining land uses.

The proposal consists of an extension to the existing material recycling facility built of cladding to match the existing building. The existing office building is constructed of red brick and natural slate roofing materials. The application form and Design and Access Statement states that the proposed office extensions are to be built of materials to match the existing. Visually the proposal is considered to be acceptable and on any grant of permission the proposed materials of

12


PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th July 2007 construction can be conditioned. It is considered that the proposed dormer windows, which do not project beyond the ridge of the office building, do not over dominate the roof form and overall are centrally placed therefore do not have a detrimental effect on the roofscape. The proposal is situated adjacent to the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal. As this is an extension to the existing materials recycling facility with existing boundary treatments, it is considered that no unacceptable impact would be caused to the canal and therefore would not warrant the applicant entering into a section 106 to provide contributions towards its acquisition or enhancement. The proposal in terms of size, scale, siting and design is acceptable and it is considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on visual or residential amenity and therefore complies satisfactorily with

Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.

Policy A8 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that developments should not have an unacceptable impact on the highway network. In assessing applications, development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the ability of the

Strategic Route Network to accommodate appropriate traffic flows; or cause an unacceptable restriction to the movement of vehicles along Abnormal Load Routes.

Access to the site is via the existing 10m wide access point off Frederick Road, with parking and turning provisions within the site. The applicant (JWS) assert that they cannot increase the amount of waste, which is handled on the site as a result of this proposed development and therefore it will not lead to an increase in vehicular movements. Given the access, parking provisions and turning facilities within the site, it is felt that the proposal is in accordance with Policy A8 and would not have a detrimental impact on highway or pedestrian safety.

CONCLUSION

In summary, this is an extension to an existing recycling facility and offices. It is not considered that the proposal will have an undue impact on the visual amenity of the host buildings or the area, the residential amenity of owner/occupiers of adjacent residential dwellings or highway safety. In accordance with Polices DES1, A8, EN17 and W1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and guidance contained in PPS10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management, conditional full permission is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION:



2. The facing materials to be used for the elevations 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.

3. The site shall be drained by a separate system of foul and surface water drainage, with all clean roof and surface water being kept separate from foul water, details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority

13


PART I


4. No material other than glass, plastic and metal shall be processed or deposited within the material recycling facility extension area

5. The rating level (LAeq,T) from all fixed plant and machinery associated with this 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 in Lissadel Street.

'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. Noise measurements and assessments shall be carried out according to BS4142; 1997.

6. The rating level of the noise emitted from the site shall not exceed the existing background noise determined to be 50dBL(A90,1h) between 0700 and 1900 and 44dBL(A90,1h) between

1900 and 2300 by more than 5dB. The noise level shall be measured at the nearest residential dwelling on Lissadel Street. The measurement and assessment shall be made according to

BS4142:1997 "Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas"

7. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and shall be carried out within 3 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of the initial implementation of the planting scheme shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

8. There shall be no working in the extension to the materials recycling facility hereby approved outside the hours of 0600 to 2300 Monday to Friday inclusive or 0700 to 1400 Saturday,

Sunday or Bank Holidays. There shall be no working of materials externally except between the hours of 0730 to 2100 Monday to Friday inclusive or 0800 to 1400 Saturday, Sunday or

Bank Holidays. Vehicular movements outside of these 'working of material' hours shall be limited to access and egress to the site only with no unloading or other activities permitted except when wholly contained within the extension to the materials recycling facility.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area

3. In the interest of the proper drainage of the site in accordance with policy EN17 of the City of

Salford Unitary Development Plan.

4. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policies DES 1, EN17 and W1 of the


5. To ensure that the amenities of nearby residents and the character of the locality are not adversely affected by noise and nuisance in accordance with policies DES1, EN17 and W1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

14


PART I


6. To ensure that the amenities of nearby residents and the character of the locality are not adversely affected by noise and nuisance in accordance with policies DES1, EN17 and W1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.


8. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policies DES 1, EN17 and W1 of the


Note(s) for Applicant

1. The applicant/developer is advised to contact the Greater Manchester Geological Unit (Tel:

0161 275 7150)

2. The applicant is advised that they ensure that the existing foul drainage system is in good state of repair, regularly desludged and of sufficient capacity to deal with any potential increase in flow and loading which may occur as a result of this proposal.

3. The applicant is advised that where it is proposed to store more that 200 litres of any type of oil on site it must be stored in accordance with the Control of Pollution (oil storage) (England)

Regulations 2001. Drums and barrels can be kept in drip trays if the drip tray is capable of retaining 25% of the total capacity of all oil stored.

4. The applicant is advised that the adjacent Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal is to be restored in the near future and therefore any boudary treatments should take this into consideration.

APPLICATION No:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

07/54630/LBC

Godliman And Watson Ltd

226 Great Clowes Street Salford M7 2ZS

Listed Building Consent for partial demolition of existing building

WARD: Broughton

At the meeting of the Panel held on 21 st June 2007 consideration of this application was

DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION

REGULTORY PANEL and to allow for additional information to be provided at the next meeting.

A letter has been received from English Heritage advising that the proposed demolition of two walls is in line with previous pre-application discussions on site between English Heritage, the owner’s agent, the developer, the Council and the owner’s structural engineer.

15


PART I


From these discussions the conclusion was drawn that two walls will have to come down due to instability. The remaining two walls and a return will be retained and secured with scaffolding during the period when work is carried out to secure them properly. English Heritage does not therefore object to the proposed demolition.

With respect to the powers available to the Local Authority to ensure improvements to, and prevent further dereliction of, Listed Buildings, there are three methods and these will each be summarised in turn:

Repairs Notice (as preliminary to compulsory acquisition)

A Repairs Notice can be served on an owner of a listed building that is deteriorating due to lack of maintenance. A schedule of works is drawn up and served on the owner with a specified time in which to carry them out. At the expiration of the time if part of the work has been completed then a new notice has to be served and, again, a time period specified. The disadvantage of this notice is that the owner can counter serve the Local Authority, if they are unable to fund the works, and request the Local Authority to Compulsorily Purchase the property and require the Local Authority to carry out the necessary works at its expense.

Urgent works to preserve unoccupied listed buildings

A Notice can be served on owners of unoccupied buildings, or parts of buildings, requiring them to prevent wind and weather ingress. In the event of non-compliance the Local Authority can carry out the work and re-charge the cost to the owner. The works required are limited to the prevention only of wind and weather ingress.

Section 215 (untidy property/gardens)

This Notice can be served on the owner of any property (Listed or not), requiring them to carry out works to improve the appearance of the building and land on which it stands.

Park Villa was built in around 1840 and was Grade II listed on 18 th January 1980. No reason was given for its listing. Park Villa was constructed during a rapid period of residential development in the Broughton suburb during the late 1830s and 1840s and was very much typical of the types of houses being constructed on individual plots during this period. The building itself is in a Regency style by an unknown architect.

As detailed within the main report much of the original fabric of the building has been removed or is now damaged. This includes much of the detail specified within the listed building description.

Since the structural report was undertaken in June 2005 a significant additional crack developed to the left hand gable wall where it abuts the front elevation, together with widening of cracks around and between the windows to the right hand gable wall where it abuts the front elevation. The development of additional cracks indicates that movement is continuing or has not ceased as originally conjectured in the June 2005 report. There is also evidence to suggest that the floor joists and boards are collapsing in parts.

My previous observations are set out below:

16


PART I



The application site is a Grade II Listed Building situated on the east side of Great Clowes Street opposite Albert Park.

The applicant seeks consent for the demolition to basement level of the left (north west) and remaining rear (north eastern) wall and outrigger including the removal of the roof and internal floors. The front (south west) and right hand side (south eastern) wall, and rear wall return would be retained, a temporary support system would be erected to retain in situ the front and right side walls along with the return to the back wall up to the rear outrigger.

The application involves the demolition of a principal external wall of the principal building and subsequently must be referred to the Secretary of State.

SITE HISTORY

07/54261/LBC - Listed Building Consent for the demolition of existing building – Withdrawn.

04/49790/LBC - Listed Building Consult to convert building into eight apartments – Withdrawn.

04/49631/FUL - Selected demolition, conversion of two listed buildings to form 14 apartments, erection of four four-storey blocks comprising 43 apartments, 31 three-storey terraced dwellings, associated parking and new vehicular access – Permitted.

CONSULTATIONS

English Heritage have considered the information and do not wish to object to the application, the demolition of two walls is in line with previous pre-application discussions. Comments received in response to a meeting held in relation to the previously withdrawn application advise that English

Heritage appreciates that two exterior walls are in such bad condition that they will have to be demolished. The remaining two walls and the return could be secured through a scaffold while the roof is taken off the building. This way as mush as possible of the historic value of this villa in this prominent location could be retained and made part of the new development.

The Ancient Monuments Society advise that they are prepared to defer to English Heritage, as they are not lodging an objection, neither by extension shall they.

The Conservation Officer advises that the details contained in the documents that accompany the application represents a fair summary of the issues raised by English Heritage. The current proposal falls in line with the conclusions reached during the previously withdrawn submission.

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 22 nd May 2007

A press notice was published on 17 th May 2007


12, 14, 15, 16 Firth Close

17


PART I


380, 459 Lower Broughton Road

REPRESENTATIONS

No objections have been received in response to this application.


DP3 – Quality in New Development

ER3 – Built Heritage


Site specific policies: None.

Other policies: CH1 – Works to, and Demolition of, Listed

Buildings.

DES1 – Respecting Context.

DRAFT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

DP1 – Regional Development Principles

PLANNING APPRAISAL

PPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment states within paragraph 3.17 that the Secretaries of

State would not expect consent to be given for the total or substantial demolition of any listed building without clear and convincing evidence that all reasonable efforts have been made to sustain existing uses or find viable new uses, and these efforts have failed; that preservation in some form of charitable or community ownership is not possible or suitable; or that re-development would produce substantial benefits for the community which would decisively outweigh the loss resulting from demolition. Paragraph 3.19 states that the Secretaries of State would expect the authority to address the following considerations: the condition of the building; the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; and the merits of alternative proposals for the site.

Policy CH1 considers that proposals for the alteration, extension, change of use or demolition of a listed building will be considered in relation to the importance of the building; the particular physical features of the building; the buildings setting and contribution to the local scene and the extent to which the proposed works would bring substantial benefits for the community.

Planning permission was granted in 2005 (reference: 04/49631/FUL) for the conversion of the building into 8 apartments, this included the insertion of dormer windows, balcony and reinstatement of staircase, windows, railings and the alteration of the portico door to form a window. The applicants have confirmed that their intention is to proceed with the approved scheme of conversion to apartments.

With regards to PPG15 and policy CH1, I consider the retention of the faēade, right hand side wall and rear wall return only would be acceptable. The building has historically suffered from a

18


PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th July 2007 number of unsympathetic and structurally unsound alterations and has been vacant for approximately 30 years, the building is in a poor state and is becoming increasingly derelict. Much of the original fabric of the building has been removed or is now damaged, timber window and door frames are now absent and the latticed cast iron porch has been lost and internally little remains of note.

The applicant has submitted a statement in support of the application which includes details of a structural survey undertaken in June 2005 with an addendum report in December 2006. These highlight a number of significant structural issues which would require remedial attention in order to stabilise the building prior to conversion works being undertaken. This questioned the viability of a cost effective conversion scheme given the works required to stabilise the structure. Safe access to the building was considered to be no longer possible. Figures arrived at indicates that the cost for the repair and conversion is £848,800 and the estimated that the end market value of the apartments would be £805,000 demonstrating a likely negative margin.

Conditions would be attached to any planning consent requiring a scheme demonstrating how the front facade of the existing building and the south eastern wall and rear wall return will be protected and maintained during the phased demolition and requiring a development contract to be signed for carrying out the works of redevelopment and listed building consent has been granted for the redevelopment.

The proposal has been considered by the Conservation Officer. He has no objection to the proposal.

The proposal is in accordance with PPG15 and policy CH1 of the UDP and it is accordingly recommended that Members be minded to approve the application subject to referral to the

Secretary of State in accordance with the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act

1990.

CONCLUSION

With regards to PPG15 and policy CH1, I consider the retention of the faēade, right hand side wall and rear wall return only is considered acceptable. It is recommended that Members be minded to approve the application subject to referral to the Secretary of State in accordance with the Planning

(Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

RECOMMENDATION:

Referred to Secretary of State Subject to the following Conditions


2. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate how the front facade of the existing building and the south eastern wall and rear wall return will be protected and maintained during the phased demolition. All demolition works shall proceed in strict accordance with the approved scheme.

19


PART I


3. No demolition shall commence until a development contract has been signed for carrying out the works of redevelopment on the site and listed building consent has been granted for the redevelopment for which the contract provides and evidence of this has been submitted to the

Local Planning Authority.

(Reasons)

1. Required to be imposed by virtue of Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and

Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

2. In order to preserve the character of the Listed Building in accordance with PPG15 and Policy

CH1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

3. In order to preserve the character of the Listed Building in accordance with PPG15 and Policy

CH1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

APPLICATION No:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

07/54777/ADV

Childrens Services Directorate

Little Hulton Childrens Centre Longshaw Drive Worsley M28

0BD

PROPOSAL:

WARD:

Display of various non illuminated signs

Little Hulton


This application relates to Little Hulton Children’s Centre, Longshaw Drive, a part brick and clad built building. Mesh fencing and walling run along the boundaries of the building with residential properties and a day care centre situated immediately adjacent.

Advertisement consent is sought the erection of three non-illuminated signs which consist of the following:

Sign E, measuring 1500mm x 600mm, to be mounted to the existing mesh fencing that runs along the boundary with the properties on Red Rose Gardens

Sign J, measuring 1200mm x 900mm, to be mounted to the wall adjacent to the vehicular entrance to the centre

Sign K, measuring 1200mm x 900mm, to be mounted to the wall adjacent to the pedestrian access to the centre

20


PART I


SITE HISTORY

07/54268/DEEM3 - Erection of 1.9m high boundary fence to boundary with Longshaw Drive –

Approved

04/49453/FUL - Demolition of existing community centre, erection of two storey front extension and refurbishment of existing early years centre to create new 'Sure-Start Centre' – Approved

03/45576/DEEM3 - Siting of a storage container – Withdrawn

02/45225/FUL - Installation of roller shutter door over main entrance – Approved

94/32559/DEEM3 - Siting of container for storage of outside play equipment - Approved

CONSULTATIONS

Head of Engineering and Highways – No objections

PUBLICITY


15 to 23 (odd) Red Rose Gardens, Little Hulton

16 to 24 (evens) Red Rose Gardens, Little Hulton

Day Care Centre, Longshaw Drive, Worsley

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity has been received. The following issue has been raised:-

The objector currently has gates outside her house and is subject to staff members and visitors loitering, smoking and dropping litter outside and therefore does not want the advertisement outside her house.


No relevant policies

PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE

PPG19 – Outdoor Advertisement Control


Site specific policies: None

Other policies: DEV2 - Advertisements


21


PART I


No relevant policies

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are the impact the proposed advertisements would have on amenity and public safety. In terms amenity this includes visual and aural amenity.

Public safety includes both road safety and crime prevention.

PPG19 states that in assessing advertisements regard must be had to amenity and public safety.

DEV2 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan reiterates this and states that in assessing proposals for advertisement consent, advertisements will need to be of a size and scale consistent with their surroundings; respect the sensitivity of the location; avoid creating signage clutter; avoid the use of intense or intermittent illumination, where this would have a negative material impact on visual amenity or highway safety; and where appropriate, incorporate artistic features, landscaping and decorative fencing.

Amenity

The proposed signs are to be made of aluminium and are non-illuminated. The signs are modest in terms of size and scale; due to their siting and design minimise the impact on the host building and adjacent residential area would not result in a clutter of signage or generate noise. It is therefore felt that the proposal satisfactorily complies with Policy DEV2 of the UDP and guidance contained in

PPG19.

Public safety

The proposed signs are non-illuminated and due to their siting and design would not have a detrimental impact upon public safety or cause an obstruction. The proposal thereby complies with

Policy DEV2 of the UDP and guidance contained in PPG19.

In response to the letter of objection received, the issue raised are not relevant to this proposal and cannot be considered when determining this application.

CONCLUSION

In summary, it is considered that the proposal would not be detrimental to amenity or public safety.

Complying satisfactorily with the relevant policy of the UDP and guidance contained in PPG19.

RECOMMENDATION:


1. Standard Condition K01S Standard Advertisement Condition

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R034A Advert

22


PART I


APPLICATION No:

APPLICANT:

07/54813/HH

Miss A Puddy

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

36 Partington Street Worsley M28 2SY

Erection of two storey side/rear extension and single storey rear extension

WARD: Worsley


The application relates to a semi-detached property on Partington Street, Worsley. The local area is characterised by a mixture of semi detached and terraced properties. The neighbouring property, no.34 Partington Street, is an end of terrace property.

The applicant seeks to erect a two-storey side and rear extension and a single storey rear extension.

The proposed side extension would project 2.6m from the existing side elevation, it would extend

8.8m along the side of the applicant’s dwelling, projecting 2.4m beyond the existing rear elevation.

It would then extend 5m along the rear of the applicants dwelling towards no.38 Partington Street.

The proposed single storey extension would extend 3.3m from the common boundary with no.38.

Moreover, it would sit flush with the proposed two storey rear elevation.

PUBLICITY

The following addresses have been notified:

18, 20 and 22 East Lancashire Road, Worsley

11, 13, 15, 34 and 38 Partington Street, Worley

REPRESENTATIONS

I have had a request from Cllr Compton that this application be reported to panel for the following reasons:

There has never been 13 metres between the applicants (no.26) and the adjoining property

(no.34).

Evidence can be shown of various properties throughout the City where there is less than

13 metres between properties.

The window at no.34 is below the fence line and no more than 1 metre square. It is also fitted with obscured glass.

23


PART I


The adjacent shed, which is 10x8 does not cause any obstruction as the window is below the fence line.

The sun moves around the back of no.34, as such, there is no shadow until 8.30 in the evening.

The shadow created by no.34, being 3 stories high, shadows no.36 almost all afternoon.

Should the extension be granted it would not affect the natural light that no.34 currently enjoys.

Panel should visit the premises and view the properties before making a decision.


Site specific Policies: None

Other Policies: DES1 – Respecting Context

`

DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours

DES8 – Alteration and Extensions

OTHER LOCAL PLANNING GUIDANCE

Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Housing 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 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 proposed 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. Moreover, the proposed roof matches the existing hipped roof. The proposal therefore complies with Policies

DES8 and DES1.

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 users of other developments.

24


PART I


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.

With respect to the rear of the property, a minimum distance of 26m would be maintained between the proposed rear elevation and properties at the rear (no.18 East Lancashire). A minimum distance of 13m would be maintained to the common boundary with the nearest property to the rear (20 East

Lancashire Road). It is therefore considered that the proposal would not lead to unacceptable direct overlooking of neighbours 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.

With respect to the front of the property, a minimum distance of 21m would be maintained between the proposed front elevation and facing properties. It is therefore considered that the proposed extension would not have an unacceptable impact upon properties at the front and rear of the application site. Moreover, the extension would comply with Policy HE1

Policy HE5 states that planning permission will not normally be granted for a single storey rear extension where the proposed development would project beyond a 45 degree line drawn from either: the mid point of a ground floor habitable room in the adjacent dwelling; or a point 3m along the common boundary from the rear elevation of the adjoining or adjacent dwellings (whichever allows the longer extension). The proposed single storey rear extension does not project beyond a

45 degree line drawn a point 3m along the common boundary from the rear elevation of no.32. The proposal therefore complies with Policy HE5.

Policy HE7 states that in the absence of an extension along the common boundary to the adjoining dwelling, planning permission will not normally be granted for a two storey/first storey extension provided its projection is equal to or less than its distance from the nearest common boundary. The proposed two storey rear extension projects 2.4m from the rear of the existing dwelling. The distance between the proposed extension and the common boundary with no.38 is 3.5m. The proposal therefore complies with Policy HE7.

Policy HE8 states that planning permission for the erection of a two storey side exentsion will not nornally be granted unless either: the first floor extension that lies within 1m of the side boundary of the dwelling 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 application relates to a street that is mostly dominated by terraced houses. It is not deemed that the introduction of a two storey extension to the applicant’s property would have a detrimental effect on the street scene in terms of terracing.

Policy HE11 states that planning permission will not normally be granted for extensions that do not maintain a hardstanding of 4.8m in length and 2.4m in width to accommodate at least one car clear of the highway. The proposed extension would result in a hardstanding of 8.2m in length by 3.2m in width. The proposal therefore would comply with Policy HE11

25


PART I


Currently, there is a 4.9m seperation between the side elevation of the applicantion site and the side elevation no.34 Partington Street. Under the 1995 General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) the residents of no.34 installed a principal window of a dining room on the ground floor of the side elevation facing the application site.

Policy HE3 states planning permission will not normally be granted for a two storey or first floor extension that does not maintain a minimum distance of 13m between its blank gable end wall and facing ground floor principal windows of habitable rooms of neighbouring dwellings. This same distance shall normally be maintained for principle windows of habitable ground floor rooms in a proposed extension that faces an existing two storey blank gable wall of a neighbouring dwelling.

The proposed extension would result in a distance of 2.1m between its blank gable end wall and a facing ground floor principal window of a habitable room of no.34. The proposal therefore would not comply with Policy HE3 and would result in an unacceptable loss of light and overbearing contrary to DES7.

OTHER ISSUES

Councillor Compton has raised a number of issues that were documented earlier. The following will deal with each in turn.

The current distance between the application site and side elevation of no.34 is 3.9m, therefore, considerably less than the 13m requirement set out in Policy HE3. The proposed extension would result in a reduction in this separation by 1.8m. It is considered that the introduction of a two storey extension in such close proximity to a principal habitable window will result in unacceptable loss of light to the residents and future residents of no.34.

There may be a number of cases throughout Salford where there is less than 13m between side elevations of adjoining properties. It may be the case that a number of these examples include a window in close proximity to a two storey side elevation. Moreover, some of these examples may have received planning permission for the erection of a side extension in close proximity to a neighbouring window on the adjacent elevation (similar to the documented case). However, in such cases, it is expected that the window of concern has been identified not to be a principal window of a habitable room, as such, Policy HE3 would not be applicable and a proposed extension would be considered acceptable.

I acknowledge that the window at no.34 is below the fence line, is no more than 1 metre square and is fitted with obscured glass. Such specifics have been implemented to ensure privacy. It should be noted that the application has been recommended for refusal on the basis that it would result in overbearing and loss of light, not loss of privacy.

I further acknowledge that the shed located at the application site, measuring 10x8 does not cause any obstruction as the window is below the fence line. It is considered however, that the approval of a two storey side extension, maintaining just 2.1m from the principal habitable window of no.34 would result in significant loss of natural light that is currently enjoyed at no.34.

26


PART I


Finally, I acknowledge that no.34 may subject no.36 to shadowing throughout the afternoon.

However, it is considered that this is an existing circumstance and is therefore circumstantial in relation to the proposed application.

CONCLUSION

The proposed extension accords with Policies DES1 and DES8 of the UDP. The side extension, if completed, would have an unacceptable impact in terms of overbearing and loss of light to the residents of no.34 Partington Street. In respect of this, the development is considered to be contrary to Policy HE3 of the SPD and DES7 of the UDP.

RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:

1. The proposed extension by virtue of it's size and siting would result in an unacceptable loss of light and be overbearing to the residents of 34 Partington Street. The proposed extension is contrary to Policies HE3 of the Council's Supplementary Document :House Extensions and

Policy DES7 of the Adopted UDP.

APPLICATION No:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

07/54867/HH

Ms T Peake

36 Crossfield Drive Worsley M28 2QQ

Erection of first floor side extension and conversion of existing roof space incorporating a habitable room and rear dormer window

WARD: Worsley


The application relates to a detached dormer residential dwelling fronting Crossfield Drive,

Worsley. The area is characterised by semi-detached and dormer bungalows. The adjacent properties no.34 and no.38 Crossfield Drive are dormer bungalows.

Proposed is the erection of a first floor extension above the existing garage space, thus, increasing the height of the building from 2.7m to 6.6m (to the ridge). As a result, the new ridgeline would match the existing building. The dimensions would match the existing ground floor footprint of the garage, utility room and morning room. The proposed interior would include two bedrooms, en suite and landing. Furthermore, the existing roof void near to the common boundary with no.38 would introduce a new bedroom.

The rear elevation of the proposed extension (i.e. extending above the original morning room) will incorporate a non-habitable dormer forming a balcony with double patio doors, measuring 2.3m in

27


PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th July 2007 height, 1.5m wide and projecting 1m from the roof. Above the eaves, the proposed dormer balcony would sit approximately 0.6m. Below the ridgeline, the dormer balcony would sit approximately

1.2m. Furthermore, a habitable dormer window is proposed on the rear of the extension, catering for the existing first floor bedroom. The proposed dormer window would measure 3.6m wide,

1.6m deep and project, from the roof, by 1.9m. Above the eves, the proposed dormer window would sit approximately 1.2m. Below the ridgeline, the dormer window would sit approximately

1.3m. The proposed front elevation, introduces two habitable windows. The side elevation facing no.34 will introduce no new windows. The side elevation facing no.38 will remain unaltered.

SITE HISTORY

There have been two previous applications in regards to this site.

(06/53068/HH) – Erection of first floor side and rear extension – withdrawn 19 th July 2006

The above application was for a residential development including an office to be used for commercial/business purposes. It was therefore deemed that the applicant had the intention of using the residential dwelling for business use. Ultimately, without an application for change of use, this would have been deemed unacceptable and therefore the applicant withdrew the application.

(06/53252/FUL) - Erection of first floor side extension including dormer balcony to rear to form an office to be used for commercial/business purposes, and a rear dormer window in existing building

– refused 14 th September 2006

The application proposed the formation of an office to be used for commercial/business purposes.

The application was refused, as it was considered that the proposed change of use would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by virtue of noise and disturbance caused by frequent visits to the property by customers, and is therefore contrary to Policy DES7 and

Policy En17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

As a consequence, the applicant has now been served with an enforcement notice preventing 36

Crossfield Drive being used for business use.

PUBLICITY


6 Woodlands Road

31, 34 and 38 Crossfield Drive

REPRESENTATIONS

I have had a request from Cllr McDonald that this application be reported to panel on the basis that the proposed development would have an adverse effect on surrounding properties.


Site specific Policies: None

28


PART I


Other Policies: DES1 – Respecting Context

DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours

DES8 – Alteration and Extension

OTHER LOCAL PLANNING GUIDANCE

Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Housing 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, respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated, and contribute towards local identity and distinctiveness.

Policy DES8 states that planning permission will only be granted for alterations or extensions to existing buildings that respect the general scale, character, rhythm, proportions, details and materials of the original structure and complement the general character of the surrounding area.

Crossfield Drive is made up of wide range of varied residential dwellings. A mixture of detached dormers, detached houses, bungalows and semi-detached dwellings personify the area. In respect of this, and due to the property been situated at the end of a cul-de-sac it is considered that the proposed changes would not have an adverse effect on the surrounding area. As such, it is considered that the proposed development would not negate the requirements of DES1 or DES8.

Moreover, the proposed extension has been designed in such a way to ensure that the resulting building will appear as a coherent whole. The proposed extension reflects the existing dwelling, as such, a well formed development would result

Policy DES7 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.

Policy HE1 states that planning 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. The proposed development introduces two habitable windows on the front elevation of the dwelling. Both windows are approximatley 28m away from the properties at the front of the applicants dwelling. Therefore, the proposal complies with Policy HE1.

Policy HE2 states that permission will not normally be granted for extensions that introduce windows close to and directly overlooking the gardens of neighbouring dwellings. For the purposes of this policy ‘close’ refers to a window within 5m of the boundary. The proposed dormer balcony and dormer window overlook the Worsley Greenway, not the adjoining residents.

Therefore, the proposed development complies with Policy HE2.

29


PART I


The first floor extension would be within 1m of the common boundary with no.34 Crossfield Drive.

This dwelling is set at a lower level to that of the applicants. However, it is deemed that the proposed extension would not result in overshadowing. The proposed side elevation would not project any closer to the boundary than the existing garage. The southern elevation of no.34 accommodates a bathroom and toilet, both of which are fitted with obscured glass. The proposed extension introduces no windows. Therefore, it is deemed that there would be no unacceptable impact on no.34.

The proposed first floor extension cannot be seen from no.38 Crossfield Drive. Therefore, it is not deemed to have an unacceptable impact on the residents at no.38.

CONCLUSION

I therefore consider that 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 overbearing effect or have a unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents or the street scene. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:


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)


2. Standard Reason R007B Development-existing building

Note(s) for Applicant

1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.

Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works. Property specific summary

30


PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th July 2007 information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports

Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk

31


PART I


APPLICATION No: 07/54803/DEEM3

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

Irlam Endowed Primary School, FAO Miss J Decosta

Irlam Endowed Primary School Chapel Road Irlam M44 6EE

Erection of a single storey storeroom extension and erection of new 2.4m high weldmesh security fencing to Chapel Road and

School Lane elevations

WARD: Irlam


The site to which this application relates is occupied by Irlam Endowed Primary School. The school is situated in a predominantly residential area, characterised by semi-detached and terraced houses.

It is proposed that a single storey storeroom is erected to the northern elevation of the school adjacent to School Lane. The storeroom is proposed to project from the northern elevation of the building by 4.3 metres and will stand at a height of approximately 3.6 metres. It is proposed that the store will have a sloping roof.

It is proposed that a fence is erected along two of the boundaries of the school grounds, the first being along the School Lane boundary and the other along the Chapel Road boundary. The fencing type is to be weldmesh, erected to a height of 2.4 metres, and the applicant has stated that the fence will be colour treated in Green, RAL 6005. The fencing will replace the current railings which are

1.8 metres high. Some weldmesh fencing exists within the grounds of the school at present, close to

School Lane but not directly on the boundary. It is proposed that this fence is relocated.

The vehicular access to the site will not be altered and will remain from Chapel Road.

CONSULTATIONS

Architectural Liaison Unit – No comments to date

NOTIFICATIONS

The following neighbours were notified of the proposed development:

4 Springfield Lane

Vicarage, Vicarage Road

2 & 4 Platts Drive

1&2 Doodson Avenue

43-49 Chapel Road (odds)

1 Balshaw Avenue

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received four letters of objection to the application. The following issues were raised:

1.

The design of the fence being out of keeping with the character of the area and having a detrimental impact upon the visual amenity of nearby residential occupiers.

32


PART I


2.

Groups of youths will congregate causing noise and nuisance.


DES1 (Respecting Context)

DES7 (Amenity of users and Neighbours)

DES8 (Alterations and Extensions)

EHC1 (Provision and Improvement of Schools and Colleges)

DC16 (Boundary Treatment)

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that developments respect the context of the area within which they are set and respond to the physical characteristics of that area.

The proposed store is relatively small and although it will be visible from School Lane, I do not consider that it would look out of place or have any negative visual impact within the streetscene if constructed from the same materials as the main building. I am of the opinion that the fence is also acceptable in terms of amenity, both visual and residential, as although it is not as sympathetic as that which exists at present, it is not as visually intrusive as some other fence types, such as palisade fences. I consider that the colour treatment of the fence will assist in reducing its overall visual impact. I am satisfied that the fencing is acceptable and would not unduly detract from the character of the area or cause any loss of amenity to any nearby residential occupiers.

Policy DES7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan states that developments should provide the users of that development and the occupiers of other developments in the area with a satisfactory level of amenity. I am of the opinion that the development would not have any significant impacts upon occupiers of other nearby residential units in terms of visual or residential amenity. As stated previously I am of the opinion that the colour treatment of the fence in green will assist in reducing the visual impact of the development. I do not consider that the extension would cause any loss of amenity to either nearby occupiers or to those using it. It is therefore my opinion that the development would be I accordance with Policy DES7 of the Adopted Unitary

Development Plan.

Policy DES8 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan states that developments should be of a size appropriate to the building to which they area attached and respect the general character of that building. I consider that the proposed extension would not be out of keeping with the character of the building or look out of place. I am of the opinion that the extension is of a size and scale which is appropriate and therefore am satisfied that the development would be in accordance with Policy

DES8 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.

Policy DES10 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy DC16 of the Adopted

Supplementary Planning Document ‘Design and Crime’ requires that boundary treatments maintain views across the site and remain visually permeable to allow natural surveillance. It also requires that boundary treatments are not granted permission where there design is unacceptable in an attempt to increase security. I consider that the fencing type is acceptable as it would remain visually permeable and views across the site would be maintained. I am satisfied that the fence is of an appropriate height, and that the design, although not the most sympathetic, is acceptable subject to colour treatment. I am therefore satisfied that the development would be in accordance with

Policy DC16 of the Adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Design and Crime’.

33


PART I


Policy EHC1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan states that proposals for the improvements of school should be granted as long as they do not, amongst other things, have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring uses; secure an adequate standard of playing field and other recreation provision in an accessible and convenient location; 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 of the opinion that the fencing, subject to colour treatment would not have any significant impact upon amenity and that there would be adequate space remaining to accommodate playing fields and other facilities within the site. I do not consider that there would be any issues associated with parking or traffic congestion as the level of visitors will not increase, and parking arrangements will not be affected by the development. I am therefore of the opinion that the development would be in accordance with Policy EHC1 of the Adopted Unitary

Development Plan.

The objector’s views are acknowledged; however, I remain of the opinion that the fencing and the extension are acceptable in terms of design and am satisfied that the development would not lead to any loss of visual or residential amenity.

I have no objections to the scheme on highway grounds and consider that the proposal is in accordance with all of the relevant policies within the Unitary Development Plan. I subsequently recommend that the application is approved subject to conditions.

CONCLUSION

I remain of the opinion that the development would have no significant impact in terms of visual or residential amenity and would provide security for the site in accordance with the requirements of adopted policies. I consider that the development is in accordance with all of the relevant policies within the Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION:



2. Standard Condition D06A Colour treatment, colour known

(Reasons)



APPLICATION No: 07/54411/DEEM3

34


PART I


APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

Burglary Reduction Unit

Alleyway To Rear Of 60-76 Barton Road And Side Of 2

Ashdown Drive Swinton M27 5LP

PROPOSAL: Erection of 2.2m high gates to alleyway

WARD: Swinton South


This application relates to a slightly overgrown alleyway to the rear of 60-76 Barton Road and adjacent to 2 Ashdown Drive. Brick built detached and semi-detached residential dwellings and

Springwood Primary School bound the alleyway. Vehicular and pedestrian access is via Ashdown

Drive.

Planning permission is sought for the erection of 2.2m high galvanised steel alleygates across the frontage of the alleyway.

CONSULTATIONS

Ramblers Association – No objections

The Open Spaces Society – Awaiting comments

Peak and Northern Footpaths Society - Awaiting comments

GM Pedestrian Association - Awaiting comments

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 4 April 2007

A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser on 5 April 2007


60-76 Barton Road (evens)

2 Ashdown Drive

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity has been received. The following issues have been raised:-

The right of way will be blocked by the installation of the proposed alleygates

Noise nuisance generated by youths kicking balls against the alleygates


35


PART I


Site specific policies: None

Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context

DES10 – Design and Crime

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are the visual impact and the impact of the development on crime and the fear of crime.

Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that developments respond to their physical context and respects the positive character of the local area. In assessing applications regard should be had to the existing landscape; the character scale and pattern of streets and building plots; the relationship to existing buildings; the impact, on and quality of views; the scale of the proposed development; the improvement of the existing townscape and public space; the quality of proposed materials and their appropriateness; and the functional compatibility with adjoining land uses.

The proposed alleygates are to be constructed of galvanised steel painted black with gold finials.

Visually this is acceptable and the materials are considered to be appropriate.

Given the scale and siting, it is felt that the presence of the alleygates along the Ashdown Drive frontage although visible from the adjacent residential properties would not significantly affect the amenity of the residents but be seen as an integral part of the streetscene. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on visual or residential amenity and therefore complies satisfactorily with Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.

Policy DES10 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that developments are designed to discourage crime, anti social behaviour and the fear of crime, and support personal and property security. In assessing applications, proposed development should clearly delineate the different types of spaces, avoid ill-defined or left over spaces; allow natural surveillance; avoid places of concealment and inadequately lit areas; and encourage activity within public places.

The purpose of the proposed alleygates is to provide security to the rear of the adjacent properties on Barton Road and to help reduce crime and anti-social behaviour. In terms of crime prevention measures the proposal is not solid but allows for views through them, incorporates vertical single spike fencing so as not to act as a “ladder rung” and being located adjacent to residential dwellings allows for natural surveillance. The alleygates will clearly define the alleyway to the rear of the properties, for which property owners on Barton Road are to be allocated a key to the alleygate.

Landlords will be responsible for supplying tenants with a key and utility companies will be entitled to gain access. It is therefore considered that the proposal in accordance with Policy

DES10 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy DC18 of the Design and Crime

Supplementary Planning Document which helps to discourage crime, the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour.

The issues raised in the letter of objection are not planning considerations and cannot be considered when determining this application. However, the applicant (Housing Connections Partnership) have agreed to give the objector a key to the alleygates on the provision that he can prove he has a right of way along the alleyway.

36


PART I


CONCLUSION

In summary, the siting, design and materials of the proposed alleygates are acceptable. It is not considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on visual or residential amenity or encourage crime or anti-social behaviour. Complying satisfactorily with Policies DES1 and

DES10 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy DC18 of the Design and Crime

Supplementary Planning Document conditional full permission is recommend.

RECOMMENDATION:



(Reason)


37


PART I


38

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL PART I

Related documents

Products

Support

PLANNING &amp; TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL PART I

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL PART I