PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
APPLICATION No:
07/54055/REM
APPLICANT:
J D Holmes Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Off Egerton Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Details of design and external appearance of one-two storey and
one part three/part four storey buildings comprising 28
apartments together with associated landscaping, car parking
and construction of new, and alteration to existing vehicular
access
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant site on Egerton Road in Walkden, which was formally occupied
by a garage where car parts were sold and the servicing of vehicles took place. The surrounding
area comprises a mixture of uses. There are two storey residential properties on the opposite side of
Egerton Road and on Emlyn Street to the north and there is a part three, part four-storey apartment
block on the land to the west. To the south of the site is the Stocks Hotel public house.
In December 2004 outline approval was granted for the erection of one two storey and one part
three/part four storey block comprising of 28 apartments with vehicular access from Egerton Road.
The first block would be sited a minimum of 5.6m back from the footpath on Egerton Road and it
would be 14m wide. It would run along Egerton Road for 51.5m. The second block would be set in
the northwestern corner of the site, 24m to the rear of the front block. It would have a footprint of
11m by 7.6m. An area of car parking that contains 27 car parking spaces, including three disabled
spaces, would be located between the two blocks.
This application seeks reserved matters approval for the design and external appearance of the
blocks together with approval for landscaping.
SITE HISTORY
In December 2004 outline approval was granted for the erection of one two storey and one part
three/part four storey block comprising of 28 apartments with vehicular access from Egerton Road
(City of Salford Reference 04/49176/OUT).
CONSULTATIONS
Head of Engineering and Highways – No objections
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to the attachment of
conditions for a site investigation and a noise survey. These were attached at the outline stage.
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
Architectural Liaison Officer – No objections but issued advice as to how the development could be
made more secure.
United Utilities – No objections subject to the sewer that crosses the site being diverted.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 26th of January 2007
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser 23rd of January 2007
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Bridgewater Garage, Manchester Road
Cottage Tandoori, Manchester Road
Stocks Hotel, Manchester Road
2 to 16 (odd) Egerton Road (including 2a and 2b)
1, 3, 3a and 3b Egerton Road
1 to 7 Emlyn Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 7 letters of objection, from 4 different households. It should be noted that occupants
of 14 different households on Egerton Road and Emlyn Street signed one of the letters. The
following issues have been raised:Loss of light
Loss of privacy
Increase in traffic flow in the vicinity of the site
Disruption during the construction period
The design of the building is not in keeping with the area
The proposed building is too tall and as a result of its height it would not be in keeping with
the area
A number of trees will be felled to accommodate the proposed development
The building works will cause structural damage to neighbouring properties
The site is located on the site of a former chemical factory and as such there are high levels
of contaminants on the site as identified by Leyden Kirby Associates in their report.
Measures need to be put in place in order to ensure that the proposal does not have an
adverse impact upon the health of neighbouring residents.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
DP3 – Quality in New Development
DRAFT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
DP1 – Regional Development Principles
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES2 – Circulation and Movement
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the design, external appearance
and landscaping for the site is acceptable and whether the proposal complies with the relevant
policies of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the character
of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this policy, regard
will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings and the quality
and appropriateness of proposed materials.
Policy DES2 states that the design and layout of new development will be required to maximise
movement of pedestrians through the site, and provide visual links that enable pedestrians to
orientate themselves and navigate through the site.
The outline approval granted permission for two blocks of apartments, one running along Egerton
Road and another in the northwestern corner of the site, which would contain 28 units in total.
It is proposed to provide 27 two-bed apartments and 1 one-bed apartment within the development.
The Council’s Housing Planning Guidance states that where apartments are proposed they should
provide a broad mix of dwelling sizes. The outline application gave approval for a set number of
units within a block of a specified height. Within these constraints there is no reasonably
practicable prospect of increasing the size of any of the units without having to reduce the size of
other units. In this instance it is therefore considered better to maintain the units at a reasonable
size, as recommended by the Planning Guidance, than to reduce the size of some units in order to
introduce some three bed units. It is therefore considered that in this instance the mix of units being
proposed is acceptable.
The block that would front onto Egerton Road would be part three, part four storeys in height. The
four-storey element would be located at the Manchester Road end of the site. The four-storey
element of the building would run along Egerton Road for 17.8m. It would measure 10.1m at the
eaves and a maximum of 13.6m at the ridge, with the fourth floor of accommodation being
provided partly within the roofspace. The front block would then drop down to three stories in
height measuring 8m at the eaves and a maximum of 12.5m at the ridgeline. The three-storey
element would run along Edgerton Road for 33.7m. There would be a 0.6m stagger between the
three and four storey elements. There would be an 8.6m gap between the proposed apartment block
and the dwelling at 1 Egerton Road.
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
The block in the northwestern corner of the site would be two stories in height. It would measure
5.2m at the eaves and 8m at the ridge with a pitched roof.
The properties on Egerton Road and Emlyn Street are two stories in height. There is a block of
apartments at the rear of the site, which is part three, part four stories in height. This provides a
backdrop for the proposed buildings. Having regard for this building, the use of projecting timber
panelling and projecting double height glazing features to provide relief for the elevations, the
stagger between the front elevations of the three and four storey elements and the level of
separation that would exist between the proposed block and the property at 1 Egerton Road it is
considered that the scale and massing of the front block is appropriate within this locality. It is also
considered that the scale and massing of the rear block is also appropriate.
With regards to design of the blocks each of the blocks would be constructed using a mixed palette
of materials including bricks, cedar boarding, glazed panels, stone and grey concrete tiles. The front
block that would run along Egerton Road includes features such as projecting double height glazing
features and pitched roof dormers, which have been introduced in an attempt to give the impression
of depth and to enhance the design of this block, which runs for 51.5m along Edgerton Road. There
is also a 0.6m stagger between the three and four storey elements of this block. It is considered that
these features break up the front elevation of this block as do the timber panelling, which is used to
define the front entrances to the building. The use of timber cladding and the installation of
canopies above the entrance doors also provide a visual link for pedestrians allowing them to easily
navigate through the site.
It is proposed to erect 1.8m high black wrought iron railings along the Egerton Road frontage in
order to create areas of semi-private, defensible space that would be part grassed part planted with
trees and shrubs. Within these railings pedestrian access gates would be provided in order to allow
free circulation and movement. To the rear of the building there would be two grassed areas
together with associated planting. There would be a series of paved walkways through the site that
would link the car parking areas and the rear entrances to the front block and the front entrances of
the rear block. Full details of the proposed planting (species, density and arrangement) have been
submitted with the application together with detailed drawings of the proposed railings. These have
been inspected by the Councils Landscape Architects and they are satisfied with the proposed
landscaping scheme.
Overall, I am of the opinion that the proposed development would have a positive impact upon the
visual amenity of the area in accordance with policies DES1 and DES2 of the adopted UDP.
Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of
amenity. Development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or
users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
The land to the south of the site is not used for residential purposes.
The front block would contain a series of habitable room windows. These windows would be at
least 23.3m from the residential properties on the opposite side of Egerton Road. I am satisfied that
this level of separation is sufficient to ensure that the proposal would not have a significant adverse
impact on the amenity the occupants of the properties at 2a to 10 (even) Egerton Road can
reasonably expect to enjoy.
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
The front block would be located 8.6m from 1 Egerton Road. This property does not contain any
habitable room windows in their gable end. The proposed front block would not contain any
habitable room windows in the elevation facing this block and therefore the development would not
have an adverse impact upon the privacy that the occupants of 1 Egerton Road currently enjoy.
The apartments on the corner of Emlyn Street and Harriet Street are set at an angle to the
application site. The proposed front block would contain habitable room windows in the rear
elevation. This block would be set at least 12m from the common boundary between the two sites.
The block in the northwestern corner would not contain any habitable room windows. It is therefore
considered that the proposal would not have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity the
occupants of these apartments can reasonably expect to enjoy.
With regards to the level of amenity that future occupants of the proposed apartments would enjoy
the buildings are designed and laid out in such a way that all future occupants would receive
adequate light in their habitable rooms. They would also be provided with a satisfactory outlook
from their habitable rooms. There would be 24m between the two blocks proposed by this
application, which is considered to be sufficient to ensure that future residents experience a
satisfactory level of privacy.
In addition they would be provided with adequate private amenity space in the form of two
landscaped areas at the rear of the front block.
Overall, I am of the opinion that the proposed development is in accordance with policies DES1
and DES2 of the adopted UDP.
With regards to the concerns that have been raised regarding contamination and the impact this
could have on the health of neighbouring residents a condition has been attached to the outline
approval that requires a site investigation to be carried out. Any recommendations made in the
report with reference to remediation need to be carried out and/or incorporated and evidence
provided following completion of development. I am therefore satisfied that this condition will
ensure that the proposal would not have an adverse impact upon the health of neighbouring
residents.
With regards to concerns over noise and disruption during the construction phase I have attached an
informative that advises the developer of the need to be considerate to neighbouring land users
during the construction phase.
There were no trees on site at the time of the site visit.
CONCLUSION
It is concluded that the design, external appearance of the buildings is acceptable as are the
proposed landscaping details. The proposal would not have an adverse impact upon the residential
amenity the occupants of neighbouring residents currently enjoy and future occupants of the
development would be provided with adequate levels of amenity. The proposal is therefore in
accordance with the relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan. I therefore
recommend that the application be approved.
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition D03Y
2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans unless otherwise
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
2418:02 Rev BdrB - site layout and ground floor plans
2418:04 Rev F - First floor plans
2418:05 Rev E- Second and third floor plans
2418:09 Rev B- Elevations
2418:10 Rev B - Elevations
2418:11 Rev A - Elevations
3. Within 12 months of commencment of development the site shall be treated in accordance with
the landscape scheme as detailed on the submitted plans Drawing Nos. Q212-001 and
Q212-002 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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004B
2. Standard Reason R019
3. Standard Reason R004B
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The developer should contact Mike Duckworth at United Utilities on 0161 257 4529 in order to
discuss the sewer diversion.
2. In order to minimise disruption to neighbouring residents during the construction phase it is
advised that construction works shall only take place at the following timesMonday to Friday 08:00 to 18:00
Saturdays
08:00 to 13:00
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
It is also advised that construction works do not take place on Sundays or Bank or Public
Holidays
Access and egress for delivery vehicles should also be restricted to the working hours indicated
above.
APPLICATION No:
07/55069/OUT
APPLICANT:
Acorn Construction
LOCATION:
Site Of Former Imperial Graphic Products St Lukes Road
Salford M6 5RH
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application to include layout and access in
respect of the erection of 33 dwellings and 23 apartments
together associated landscaping, car parking and construction
of new vehicular and pedestrian accesses
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a 1.06-hectare site on the corner of Liverpool Street and Church Avenue
in Salford 5. Part of the site is currently occupied by the vacant Imperial Mill building and part of
the site is cleared brownfield land. The site currently forms part of the Weaste Trading Estate,
which extends to the west of the application site.
The land to the north of the site is occupied by residential properties. The land to the east is
occupied by St Lukes Church, which is Grade II* listed and the M602 Motorway and a series of two
storey terraced properties occupy the land to the south of the site.
It is proposed to demolish the Imperial Mill building and erect 30 dwellings (14 3-bed houses and
16 4-bed houses) and 27 apartments (24 2-bed units and 3 1-bed units) on the site. The applicant is
seeking permission for the siting, means of access to the site and the number and mix of units. The
scale, appearance and landscaping details have been reserved at this stage
A row of 13 three-storey dwellings would run along the northern boundary of the site, fronting onto
Liverpool Street. Behind these there would be a parking court and a row of further 10 dwellings. A
row of 7 two-storey dwellings would run along the northernmost part of the eastern boundary and a
two-storey apartment block would occupy the remainder of the sites eastern boundary. These units
would front onto St Luke’s Road. Three further apartment blocks would be sited along the southern
and western boundaries. The block on the southern boundary would be four stories in height and the
two blocks on the western boundary would be three stories in height.
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site would be from St Luke’s Road. Pedestrian access to the
development would also be provided direct from Liverpool Street. The proposed residential
development would result in the closure of the existing access to the Weaste Trading Estate and
therefore it is proposed to create a new access to the remaining units on the estate off Liverpool
Street, together with 28 car parking spaces for employees.
SITE HISTORY
In August 2006 an outline application for the siting and means of access for two buildings
comprising 94 studios and apartments was withdrawn (ref 06/52909/OUT).
In April 2007 an outline application for the siting and means of access for two buildings comprising
of 90 apartments was refused under delegated powers. It was refused for the following reasons –
The proposed development would by virtue of the insufficient level of usable private amenity space
result in an unacceptable detrimental impact on the living conditions of future residents contrary to
Policy DES7 and H1 of the Adopted UDP.
The development would compromise the operating conditions of the adjacent employment uses
contrary to policy E5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
The proposed development would not provide an appropriate mix of residential accommodation
and would work against the provision of sustainable, mixed communities contrary to policy H1 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan, The Council's Housing Planning Guidance,
Planning Policy Statement 1: Sustainable Development and Planning Policy Statement 3 :
Housing.
The proposal by virtue of its design and siting would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the
amenity that future occupiers of the block adjacent to the Weaste Trading Estate would enjoy by
reason of its proximity to the proposed acoustic fence and the unsatisfactory outlook and light that
would be provided contrary to DES7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
CONSULTATIONS
Greater Manchester Geological unit – no objections subject to the attachment of conditions
requiring a site investigation and an air quality assessment, a scheme for acoustic glazing and
mechanical ventilation and a scheme for the 3m high acoustic barrier with the industrial estate.
Design And Heritage Team (Housing And Planning Directorate) – no objections
Planning and Development (Housing And Planning Directorate) – no objections subject to the
attachment of conditions to secure affordable housing and the payment on monies towards the
provision of open space, improvements to the public realm, construction training and measures to
mitigate climate change.
Environment Agency – No objections subject to the attachment of conditions requiring details of
the existing and proposed ground and floor levels and a scheme for the provision of surface water
drainage works.
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
Architectural Liaison Officer – No objections. Commented that the apartments at 10-27 do not have
much amenity space that can be made private and advised that car park for plots 1-13 must be fitted
with electrically operated gates.
United Utilities – No objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 30th of July 2007
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser on the 30th of August 2007
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 to 20 Church Avenue
1 to 19 (odd) Buckingham Avenue
12, 14 and 16 Buckingham Avenue
1 to 4 Edgewater
2A and 2B Wellington Terrace
540 to 564 (even) Liverpool Street
604 to 618 (even) Liverpool Street
617 Liverpool Street
1A and 1B Goldsmith Avenue
2 to 8 (even) Goldsmith Avenue
1 to 7 (odd) Dodd Street
2 to 20 (even) Derby Avenue
Unit D1 Victoria Mills
St Luke’s Church, Saint Luke’s Road
Units B1, B2, G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G6, C1, C2 2CA, 93, 94, 95 and 96 Weaste Trading
Estate
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
DP3 – Quality in New Development
DRAFT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 – Regional Development Principles
L5 - Affordable Housing
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: ST11 - Location of New Development
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
H4 – Affordable Housing
H8 - Open Space Provision Within New Housing Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES2 – Circulation and Movement
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10 – Design and Crime
DES11 – Design Statements
A8- Impact of Development on the Highway Network
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
EN12 – Important Landscape Features
EN16 – Contaminated land
EN17 – Pollution Control
CH2 – Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building
R2 – Provision of Recreation Land and Facilities
DEV5 – Planning Conditions and Obligations
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 DP1 seeks to ensure that development makes the most efficient use of land.
Policy H1 states that the Council will endeavour to ensure that the city’s housing stock is able to
meet the housing requirements of all groups within Salford.
The Council’s Planning Guidance on Housing states that in this area, West Salford, the majority of
units within new developments should be in the form of houses rather than apartments.
Policy ST11 advocates a sequential approach to development with sites involving the reuse and
conversion of existing buildings being the preferred location of development, followed by
previously developed land with Greenfield sites last.
Policy E5 states that the re-use of employment sites/premises for other uses can be acceptable so
long as the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed development would not compromise the
operating conditions of other remaining employment uses, and provided the proposed scheme is
consistent with at least one of 4 listed criteria - there is no current or likely future demand for the
site or building for employment purposes; there is a strong environmental case for rationalising
land uses or creating open space; the development would contribute to the implementation of an
approved regeneration strategy or plan for the area; or the site is allocated for another use in the
UDP.
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
The Imperial Mill currently occupies the site. The site is therefore previously developed and
consequently the proposals to redevelop the site are in accordance with Policy ST11.
The proposed development would block the existing access to the Weaste Trading Estate. In order
to ensure that the estate can continue to function, part of the application proposes to create an
alternative access to the Weaste Trading Estate, off Liverpool Street. It is also proposed to create 28
car parking spaces for use by tenants of the estate.
The applicant has submitted an acoustic survey with the application. This demonstrates that via the
installation of acoustic glazing and mechanical ventilation noise from the Weaste Trading Estate,
Liverpool Street, and the M602 could be successfully mitigated against, ensuring that future
residents would enjoy a satisfactory level of amenity within the proposed apartments. The noise
survey also demonstrates that subject to the erection of a 3m high acoustic fence along the
boundary with the Weaste Trading Estate noise levels within the garden areas would be within the
limits set out by the World Health Organisation as being acceptable.
I am therefore satisfied, that subject to the attachment of conditions requiring a scheme for acoustic
glazing and mechanical ventilation, the installation of a 3m high acoustic fence and the new access
to and car parking for the trading estate being set out and made available for use prior to the first
occupation of the residential units hereby approved, the proposed residential development can be
introduced without compromising the operating conditions of other remaining employment uses.
As a result I am of the opinion that the applicant has demonstrated compliance with part 1 of policy
E5.
The applicant has provided a market appraisal, which demonstrates how the site has been marketed
since 2001 without any firm interest being expressed thus demonstrating that there is no current or
likely future demand for the site or building for employment purposes. This satisfies part 2 of
policy E5.
The site is located within a mixed-use area and therefore I do not have any in principle objections to
the use of the site for residential purposes.
With regards to Policy HOU1 of the Housing Planning Guidance and the mix of units being
provided the proposed development would comprise of 30 dwellings and 27 apartments. It should
be noted that the proposed has been influenced by the sites location adjacent to the Weaste Trading
Estate and the M602 motorway, which have necessitated the introduction of apartment blocks on
the western boundary of the site and within the southern part of the site partly so they can act as
noise barriers and partly because regardless of the acoustic protection installed it would not be
possible to have dwellings close to these boundaries as it would not be possible to achieve noise
readings below the 55DB recommended by the World Health Organisation, in order to prevent
serious annoyance. However in any case the majority of units proposed are houses of three beds or
more and therefore the proposal is in accordance with policy HOU1 of the Housing Planning
Guidance.
Affordable Housing
UDP Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a
balanced mix of dwellings within the local area in terms of tenure and affordability.
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
UDP Policy H4 states that in areas where there is a demonstrable lack of affordable housing to meet
local needs, developers will be required, by negotiation with the Council, to provide affordable
housing, of appropriate types, on all residential sites over 1 hectare or in housing developments of
more than 25 dwellings.
Policy HOU3 of the Councils Housing Planning Guidance supplements UDP Policy H4 by stating
that on all residential sites over 1 hectare, irrespective of the number of dwellings, or in housing
developments of 25 or more dwellings, 20% of the dwellings should be in the form of affordable
housing.
Policy HOU4 provides a definition of affordable housing in respect of tenure.
Policy HOU5 requires the design of affordable housing to be indistinguishable from open market
housing.
Policy HOU6 seeks to control occupancy of affordable housing to ensure it is provided to those
most in need and wherever possible remains affordable in perpetuity.
The proposal would result in the creation of 57 units. The applicant has agreed, at least in principle,
to providing 11 affordable units on site. In order to ensure that the units are provided I recommend
that a condition be attached that requires 20% of the units to be affordable in accordance with a
scheme that addresses the requirements of Policies HOU4, HOU5 and HOU6. Subject to the above
I have no objection to the application in this regard.
Amenity 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.
The land to the east and west of the site is not used for residential purposes.
The residential amenity the occupants of 604 to 610 (even) Liverpool Street would not be adversely
affected by the proposed development as if habitable room windows were inserted in the front
elevations of the dwellings at plots 1 to 4 there would be facing habitable room window to window
distances of in excess of 21m.
The occupants of number 1 Dodd Street would not experience a reduction in the level of residential
amenity they can reasonably expect to enjoy should habitable room windows be inserted in the
front elevations of the dwellings at plots 12 and 13, as they do not have any habitable room
windows in the gable end of their property.
The properties at 1 Buckingham Avenue and 2 Church Avenue do not have any habitable room
windows in the gable elevations, which front the properties at plots 20 to 22. Consequently the
residential amenity the occupants of these properties currently enjoy would not be affected by the
proposed development.
The properties at 1 to 7 Buckingham Avenue have habitable room windows facing the site of
apartments 24 to 27. There would be 21m between the two sets of properties and therefore if
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
habitable room windows were inserted in the front elevation of the apartments their introduction
would not have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity the occupants of these properties
can reasonably expect to enjoy.
The properties at 12 to 16 (even) Buckingham Avenue have habitable room windows that front
onto the application site, facing the site of apartments 16 to 23. There would be 20m between the
two sets of properties. The applicant has indicated that there will not be any habitable room
windows with the gable end of the apartment block that houses apartments 16 to 23. I am therefore
satisfied this level of separation is sufficient to ensure that the proposal would not have an
unacceptable adverse impact upon the residential amenity the occupants of 12 to 16 Buckingham
Avenue currently enjoy.
Policy DES7 also requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level
of amenity.
As outlined previously subject to the incorporation of acoustic protection and careful design of
internal layouts I am satisfied that future residents will enjoy suitable protection from the
neighbouring noise sources including Liverpool Street, the Weaste Trading Estate and the M602
while in the buildings and that the future occupants of the proposed houses would enjoy a
satisfactory level of amenity in the garden areas.
I am satisfied that the potential exists to provide future occupants of the proposed dwellings with
adequate light and outlook from their habitable room windows and I am also satisfied that future
occupants would enjoy an acceptable level of privacy as the units are laid out in such a way that
allows adequate separation between facing windows and windows and blank gables.
Each of the houses would be provided with a garden and a series of amenity areas would be
provided for the future occupants of the apartments. Future occupants of the proposed dwellings
would therefore be provided with a satisfactory level of private amenity space.
Access
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards.
Each of the dwellings at plots 14 to 30 would be provided with a private driveway that would
provide adequate space to park one car. The dwellings at plots 1 to 13 would have parking court at
the rear that would provide parking for 16 cars. Parking for the apartments would be provided in 2
parking courts, which would provide 27 spaces in total including 3 that are suitable for use by
disabled persons. I am satisfied that the proposed level of car parking is acceptable. The proposed
car parking and access would be laid out in such a way that I do not have any highway safety
objections to the proposed car park layout or the access to the new residential development from a
highway safety perspective.
The proposed development would block off the existing access to the Weaste Trading Estate, which
is currently via Church Avenue and St Luke’s Road. In order to ensure that the estate can continue
to function, part of the application proposes to create an alternative access to the Weaste Trading
Estate, off Liverpool Street. It is also proposed to create 28 car parking spaces for use by tenants of
the estate. The proposed car parking and access to the estate would be laid out in such a way that I
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
do not have any objections to the revised access on highway safety grounds.
Relationship With St Luke’s Church
Policy CH2 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would have an
unacceptable impact upon the setting of any listed building.
In order to demonstrate the relationship between the proposed development and Saint Luke’s
Church an indicative street scene elevation has been provided. St Luke’s Church would be located
over 30m from the application site on a raised platform. After studying the indicative elevations I
am satisfied that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact upon the setting of St
Luke’s Church. Consequently I am of the opinion that the proposed development is in accordance
with Policy CH2 of the adopted UDP.
Trees –
There are a number of mature trees on site. A tree survey has been submitted with the application.
In the opinion of the Council’s consultant arborist there are several trees on site that are healthy
mature specimens that make a positive contribution to the visual amenity of the area. These trees
include T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, which make a contribution as a group and T 8, T18 and T22 that
make contributions as individuals and T23 and T25 which also make a contribution as a group. It is
proposed to remove T8, T23 and T22 in order to facilitate the proposed development. This is
necessary in order to allow for the creation of a strong frontage on Liverpool Street and St Luke’s
Road, something that is desirable in the interests of good design. Having regard to the need to
provide strong frontages as supported by the City’s Design & Heritage Team the loss of these trees
is considered acceptable and the Council’s consultant arborist does not have any objection to their
loss.
In order to ensure that the development does not have an adverse impact upon the health of the trees
within the group running along St Luke’s Road the dwellings are sited so that the proposal complies
with the Council’s SPD on trees. I have also attached conditions requiring protective fencing to be
erected at the crown spreads of T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6 and T25 and an arboricultural method
statement to be submitted which details how works within or within close proximity to the crown
spreads of the trees will be carried out.
Developer Contributions –
UDP Policy H1 requires new housing development to make adequate provision for open space.
UDP Policy H8 states that planning permission will only be granted where adequate and
appropriate provision is made for formal and informal open space and its maintenance over a
twenty-year period. Such provision is required either as part of the development or through an
equivalent financial contribution to fund off-site provision. This policy refers to access to
recreational land and facilities standards set out in UDP Policy R2.
UDP Policy DEV5 states that development that would have an adverse impact on any interests of
acknowledged importance, or would result in a material increase in the need for infrastructure,
services, facilities and/or maintenance, will only be granted planning permission subject to
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
planning conditions or planning obligations that would ensure adequate mitigation measures are
put in place.
The Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document requires major residential
developments of 10 dwellings or more to contribute towards the provision, improvement and
maintenance of open space as well as to improvements to the public realm, infrastructure and
heritage features within the vicinity of application sites. It also states that major developments
should make a contribution towards construction-training schemes that improve skills of Salford’s
population and it requires developers on major schemes to introduce/contribute towards projects
aimed at reducing and/or offsetting carbon dioxide emissions.
Open space –
This development would generate 210 bed spaces, with 132 bed spaces from the houses and 78 bed
spaces from the apartments. This equates to an open space requirement for capital provision and
20-year maintenance of:
1.
2.
3.
4.
0.153ha Sports Pitches
0.033ha Children's Equipped Playspace
0.031ha Youth and Adult facilities
0.084ha Amenity / Informal Open Space
Due to the location and nature of the development on a relatively small site it is appropriate for the
majority of the open space requirement to be provided in the form of a financial contribution to be
directed towards open space recreational improvements within the vicinity of the development site.
According to Policy OB1 of the Planning Obligations SPD the standard open space contribution
from houses is £598 per bed space (132) and £658 per bed space for apartments (78), which
includes provision for formal and informal open space identified in policy R2 of the Adopted UDP
and the Greenspace Strategy SPD and its maintenance over a twenty-year period.
The development site will include 3 small amenity areas, which may be considered suitable to
provide the minimum level of 0.084ha of Amenity Space that is required, provided that this is
constructed and landscaped for a clear recreational purpose. The developer has agreed to landscape
the amenity areas so that they have a clear recreational purpose. In order to ensure this happens I
recommend that the following condition be been attached . This has been conditioned.
On the basis that 0.084ha of amenity space is being provided on site a reduction in the standard
open space contribution can be made. The reduction equates to £110 per bed space (£70 capital
contribution with an additional £40 per bed space for maintenance)
After reducing the standard contribution by £110 per bedspace the total financial contribution
towards open space provision would be £107, 160 which is broken down as follows - :
Capital (houses);
Maintenance (houses);
Capital (apartments);
Maintenance (apartments);
£ 38, 544 (£292 per bed space x 132 bed spaces)
£ 25, 872 (£196 per bed space x 132 bed spaces)
£ 25, 428 (£326 per bed space x 78 bed spaces)
£ 17, 316 (£222 per bed space x 78 bed spaces)
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
Additional Financial Contributions – public realm improvements, construction training and
climate change
Policy OB2 of the planning obligations SPD requires a contribution of £1500 per dwelling towards
improvements to the public realm, infrastructure or heritage features within the vicinity of the
application site. In order to satisfy policy OB2 the developer would need to make a financial
contribution of £85,500.
Policy OB3 of the Planning Obligations SPD relates to construction training. It states that major
developments should contribute to the improvement of construction skills amongst Salford
residents. The contribution that should be sought from a new development to feed into schemes that
provide construction training is £150 per dwelling. In order to satisfy policy OB2 the developer
would need to make a financial contribution of £8,850.
Policy OB3 of the Planning Obligations SPD relates to climate change. It states that unless schemes
achieve a very good BREAM rating major developments should make a contribution of £200 per
dwelling towards projects aimed at reducing and offsetting carbon dioxide emissions. In order to
satisfy policy OB2 the developer would need to make a financial contribution of £11,400.
Policy OB5 of the Planning Obligations SPD states that developers should pay all reasonable
expenses incurred by the City Council in drawing up and administrating legal agreements. In order
to ensure this happens an additional charge of 2.5% will be added to cover the administrative costs
of ensuring that the commuted sums are directed towards appropriate schemes.
The developer is aware of the level of contributions required and they have agreed to the
attachment of a condition to secure these monies and the 2.5% administration fee.
Other issuesWith regards to the comments made by the Architectural Liaison Officer it is considered that
adequate amenity space would be provided for future occupants of the proposed apartments. With
regards to their request for the parking area at the rear of the dwellings at plots 1 to 13 to be gated
this is not considered to be necessary, as the habitable room windows within the dwellings would
provide natural surveillance.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes
is acceptable. I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the
Adopted UDP and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. I therefore
recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions 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 a commuted sum of £212, 910 towards
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
open space provision, public realm improvements, construction training and scheme to offset
climate change together with an additional charge of 2.5% to cover the administrative costs of
ensuring that the commuted sums are directed towards appropriate schemes.
.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition B01B
2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
a) appearance,
b) landscaping,
c) scale,
3. Before development commences (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed
in writing by the Local Planning Authority), a scheme to deal with the risks associated with
contamination of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The scheme shall include all of the following elements unless specifically excluded
in writing by the local planning authority.
1. A desk study identifying all previous uses, potential contaminants associated with those
uses, a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors and potentially
unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.
2. A site investigation scheme based on (1) to provide information for an assessment of the
risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.
3. The results of the site investigation and risk assessment (2) and a method statement
based on those results giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are
to be undertaken.
4. A verification report on completion of the works set out in (3) confirming the
remediation measures that have been undertaken in accordance with the method statement and
setting out measures for maintenance, further monitoring and reporting.
4. Prior to the commencement of development full details of the acoustic glazing and mechanical
ventilation for all habitable rooms shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
scheme.
5. Prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved a 3m high acoustic barrier
with a surface density of at least 10kg/m3 shall be erected along the western boundary of the
site and along the northern boundary of the amenity area as shown in theapproved site plan,
drawing number 2625-09 Rev C.
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
6. Prior to first occupation, a scheme for the provision of affordable housing to be delivered as
part of the development hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be prepared in accordance with Unitary
Development Plan policies H1 and H4 and policies HOU3, HOU4, HOU5 and HOU6 of the
City Council’s Housing Planning Guidance. The affordable housing shall be provided in full
accordance with this approved scheme.
The scheme shall:
*
ensure that a minimum 20% of the total number of dwellings hereby approved are
affordable (i.e a minimum of 11 units), unless an alternative percentage and number of
affordable dwellings is otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority
*
define the tenure of affordable housing to be provided;
*
Define the type, size and location of affordable dwellings to be provided ensuring
that the type and size of affordable housing to be provided is proportionate to that of the
approved scheme, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority;
*
define where within the development the affordable dwellings are to be provided;
*
set out the arrangements to be put in place to ensure that the dwellings concerned
are affordable for both initial and subsequent occupiers;
*
define the occupancy criteria to be used for determining the identity of prospective
and successive occupiers of the affordable housing, and the means by which such occupancy
shall be enforced; and
*
define the phasing of the affordable provision.
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 Act 1990 has been prepared and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The planning obligation will provide that
commuted sums as required by Policy DEV5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
and the policies contained within the Planning Obligations SPD, will be paid to the Local
Planning Authority for improvements to and maintenance of existing open space provision and
public realm, infrastructure and heritage and training programmes for local construction
workers, and climate change.
8. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the provision of a minimum of
0.084ha of on-site Amenity Space that is landscaped for a clear recreation purpose shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme
shall be implemented, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, prior to the first
occupation of any of the units hereby approved.
9. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until details of the existing
and proposed ground and floor levels have been submitted and approved by the Local Planning
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
Authority. The scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved
details.
10. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the
provision of surface water drainage works has been approved by the Local Planning Authority.
The scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans.
11. The new access to the Weaste Trading Estate and the residentail development hereby approved
shall be created and the 28 parking spaces for the trading estate and the 60 car parking spaces
for the residentail units shall be surfaced, demarcated and made available for use prior to first
occupation or first use of the dwellings hereby approved. The access and car parking shall
thereafter remain available at all times while the buildings are in use.
12. Before development commences, a scheme detailing how cycle parking provision will be
provided on site in accordance with the standards set out in Appendix B of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to first
occupation of the building hereby approved
13. Before development commences, a scheme detailing how bin storage will be provided on site
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved
scheme shall be implemented in full prior to first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved
14. No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until the local
planning authority has received and approved in writing a considerate contractors scheme in
relation to the delivery and collection of equipment, hours of construction works audible at the
site boundary, wheel washing and street sweeping operations and an assessment of the impact
of any piling works on neighbouring properties. No development or activities related or
incidental thereto shall take place on the site in contravention of such site operating statement.
15. Standard Condition C03X
16. Prior to the commencement of development an Arboricultural Method Statement that details
how any works within the crown spread of the trees retained on site and how the dwelling at
plot number 20 will be constructed without damaging the trees shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved scheme.
17. Prior to development of this site the developer shall prepare an air quality assessment for the
development to assess the existing and future air quality on the site for years 2010, 2020 and
opening year with and without the development, for nitrogen dioxide and particles less than 10
microns. The assessment shall identify the worst case exposure, changes in pollution
concentration and identify any changes in pollution levels predicted for residents of the
proposed development . The predicted levels should be compared with the Air Quality
Objectives set in the Air Quality Regulations 2000 (as amended). The assessment shall identify
fully all control measures which are required to control the impact of the development on local
air quality and to control the impact of poor air quality on future residents of the development.
All control measures identified must be approved in writing by the Local Authority and
installed prior to occupation of the development. All approved measures shall be retained and
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
maintained thereafter. A verification report shall be submitted for written approval to the Local
Planning Authority confirming that all measures recommended by the noise report have been
implemented in full prior to the final occupation of the site.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R002
2. Standard Reason R002
3. Standard Reason R024B
4. Standard Reason R024B
5. Standard Reason R024B
6. To ensure that adequate and appropriate affordable housing is provided as part of the
development to meet local housing needs. This is in accordance with Policies ST1, H1 and H4
of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016 and Policies HOU3, HOU4,
HOU5 and HOU6 of the City Council's Housing Planning Guidance
7. To ensure that the development hereby approved is sustainable and meets the need for new and
improved facilities and infrastructure it generates. This is in accordance with Policy DEV5 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016 and the provisions of the adopted
Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.
8. To ensure that the development hereby approved is sustainable and meets the need for new and
improved facilities and infrastructure it generates. This is in accordance with Policy DEV5 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016 and the provisions of the adopted
Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.
9. To ensure that the development is subject to minimum risk of flooding in accordance with
Policy EN19 of the Adopted UDP
10. To ensure that the development is subject to minimum risk of flooding in accordance with
Policy EN19 of the Adopted UDP
11. Standard Reason R026B
12. To ensure adequate on-site cycle parking provision is provided in accordance with Policy A10
of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.
13. Standard Reason R004B
14. To ensure the environmental impact of construction works are adequately mitigated. This is in
accordance with Policies DES7, EN8, EN14, EN17 and EN18 of the Unitary Development
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
Plan for the City of Salford 2004 - 2016.
15. Standard Reason R009
16. Standard Reason R009
17. Standard Reason R005B
Note(s) for Applicant
1. In order to meet the requirements of condition 4 the following noise levels should be met within
all habitable rooms internal noise levels of less than 35dB LAeq,(16hour) within bedrooms between 23.00
hours and 07.00 hours
internal noise level of less than 40dB LAeq,(16hour) within living areas between 07.00 and
23.00 hours
individual noise events not in excess of 45dB LAmax in bedrooms between 23.00 and
07.00 hours
2. There shall be no habitable rooms or balconies overlooking the M602 motorway or the Weaste
Trading Estate on apartments 1 to 23 or house number 1 and there shall be no balconies on any
faēade of the building containing apartments 16 to 23.
APPLICATION No:
07/55082/FUL
APPLICANT:
Edgewear Properties Limited
LOCATION:
St James House Pendleton Way Salford M6 5FW
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a decked car park
WARD:
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the car park of St James House in Pendleton. St James House is a 1970’s
high rise nine storey office building located adjacent to the Salford Shopping City boundary.
The proposal seeks to build a decked car park to the rear of the building. It would comprise of four
floors (including the ground floor) of car parking provision and pedestrian access points. The
proposed decked car park would be constructed to the rear of St James House upon the existing
surface level car park. The proposal would accommodate 138 car parking spaces. At present there
are 143 car parking spaces within the curtilage. As the proposal would build upon the existing
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
surface car park it would result in a net increase of 94 spaces on site. A further 137 car parking
spaces are available to St James House at Pendleton Way.
The total car parking provision would increase from 280 available spaces to 373 spaces.
The maximum dimensions of the footprint of the decked car park would measure 39.4m X 32.4m
and would be 9.5m in height where it would be closest to Church Green and 13m adjacent to St
James House due to the change in levels.
The external elevations would comprise of cladding and decorative mesh.
Access to the decked car park would continue as per the existing arrangements from Pendleton
Way.
SITE HISTORY
96/35753/FUL - Construction of extension to existing car park to provide 10
additional spaces – Approved
98/38306/FUL - Erection of security fencing around existing and new car park – Approved
06/53946/FUL - Erection of a decked car park – withdrawn from consideration.
CONSULTATIONS
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – No comments in relation to the proposed lighting plan.
Environment Agency – No response.
Police Architectural Liaison Advisor – No objection provided that the car park is adequately
illuminated.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – no comments received
PUBLICITY
The site has been advertised by both site and press notice.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
New Telephone Exchange
Pendleton Way
1-6 con, 16, 20, 24, 32, 36 Maple Close
1 – 26 Church Green
2 - 4 Nursery Street
11 and 24 Pendleton Green
2 and 5 Arbour Close
10 Peterhead Walk
13 Formby Road
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
1, 12 Woolpack Green
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 5 objection letters in response to the planning application publicity. The following
issues have been raised:Loss of residential value
Impact on view
Impact due to noise
Impact due to car headlights
Staff car parking in streets and proposal would not address this existing problem
Pollution
Loss of privacy
Overbearing
No need for further car parking in the area
Impact on health, well being and quality of life
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
SD1 - The North West Metropolitan Area
DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES7
Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES10 Design and Crime, DES11
Design Statements, A1 Transport Assessments and Travel Plans, A10
Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Development, EN17 Pollution Control
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1
–
MCR2 -
Regional Development Principles
Regional Centre and Inner Areas of Manchester City Region
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider that the main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the proposed
increase level of car parking provision is acceptable; whether the design of the proposal would be
acceptable and whether the scheme would safeguard residential amenity. I shall deal with each of
these issues in turn.
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.
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
There are a number of surface car parks within the area. Directly opposite St James House and to
the south are public pay and display car parks. To the north east of St James House is a surface car
park that is within the applicants control providing 137 of the existing 280 car parking spaces.
The applicant has indicated that St James House is currently under occupied and that potential
future occupiers are dissuaded to occupy the building due to a perceived lack of car parking
provision. However, the applicant has not provided any evidence in support of this statement.
Notwithstanding this, the level of car parking provision should be considered against the car
parking standards of the development plan in order to encourage sustainable patterns of
development and not against the demands of potential occupiers.
Appendix C of adopted policy A10 sets out maximum car parking standards. The policy sets out
that a stand alone office (as opposed to one located within a business park) should not exceed a
maximum standard of 1 car parking space per 35 square metres of office floor space. Therefore,
applying this maximum standard to the existing amount of floor space within St James House
would result in a maximum number of 376 car parking spaces.
The amount of existing car parking provision within the curtilage of St James House and the
surface car park to the north east is 280. The provision of the decked car park would result in a net
increase in car parking provision associated to St James House 94 car parking spaces resulting in a
revised total of 374 spaces
Clearly, the total combined (proposed and existing) would not exceed this maximum provision. As
such I am satisfied that the increase in parking provision would, when compared to the existing
floor space of St James House, accord with policy A10 of the adopted UDP.
Moreover, the applicant has indicated that a travel plan would be provided (page 2 Design and
Access Statement) in conjunction with increase in car parking provision. I have attached a
condition to this end and a condition requiring details of cycles stores indicated on the layout plan.
Access to the deck car park would be via the existing barrier controlled vehicular entrance off
Pendleton Way. I have no highway objection to the continued use of this access for the proposal.
Therefore, I consider that the number of spaces proposed would comply with the requirements of
the development plan in this instance.
Design, Scale and Massing
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.
Policy DES2 requires the design and layout of new development to be fully accessible to all people,
maximise the movement of pedestrians and cyclists to, through and around the site, enable
pedestrians to navigate their way through an area by providing appropriate views, vistas and
transport links, enable safe, direct and convenient access to public transport facilities and other
local amenities and minimise potential conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
Policy DES10 states that development will not be permitted unless it is designed to discourage
crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime.
Adopted Policy DES11 requires applicants for major developments to demonstrate that the
proposal takes account of the need for good design. In accordance with the requirements of this
policy a written statement has been submitted which explains the design concepts and how these
are reflected in the development’s layout, scale and visual appearance, the relationship to the site
and its wider context and how the proposal meets the Council’s design objectives and policies.
There is a change in level across the existing car park as such there are two heights for each side of
the car park. It would be taller closer to St James House at a height of 13m. The main element of
the car park closest to the existing Church Green would be 9.6m. The applicant has provided a
section drawing which demonstrates that this part of the car park would be similar in height to the
eaves of those properties on Church Green. It is also comparable with the existing third floor level
of St James’s House. St James’s House itself is 9 storey and approximately 32m in height to the
existing roof level.
Generally the proposed elevations will comprise full height modular horizontal composite cladding
to the proposed stair enclosures sat on a low level plinth constructed from brickwork to match the
existing building. Feature panels will also be formed in this manner with additional contrasting
capping detail.
Adjacent to the modular cladding will be full height feature mesh ‘see through’ panels affixed
securely to the structure that will commence from ground level and continue up to the top levels. It
is envisaged that this method of construction will allow (over time) ivy type planting to grow up
and fully entwine it and above the vehicular openings there will also be planting troughs for
additional planting.
The perimeter of the top levels will include a 1.1m high galvanised pedestrian guard rail. The roof
to the stair enclosure will incorporate a contrasting profiled metal feature eaves detail. The
elevation facing Church Green will have a full height mesh and will also have a solid faēade behind
to screen headlight glare and reduce noise impact.
With regard to scale it is important to consider the relationship and scale of St James House which
will form the back drop to the proposal. Notwithstanding the change on levels across the site,
sloping away from Church Green, St James House would be over 20m taller than the proposed car
park. When considered in this context I am satisfied that the scale is appropriate to the scale of the
existing building. Moreover, the eaves height of the three storey properties on Church Green would
be similar to the height of the decked car park. However, the relationship of the car park to the
residential properties and residential amenity are discussed later in this report.
The Police Architectural Liaison Officer has considered that the proposals and has no objection to
the scheme provided that it is adequately illuminated. The proposal is illuminated and
consideration of the implications of that illumination on the existing neighbouring residents is
considered later in this report.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the proposal is acceptable in design and crime terms and
would therefore satisfy the policies highlighted above and the Council’s adopted SPD for Crime.
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
However, it is necessary to balance the appropriateness of scale and design of the proposal against
any impact upon residential amenity.
Effects of the development on residential amenity
Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of
amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers
or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
Policy EN17 states that development proposals that would be likely to cause or contribute towards
a significant increase in pollution to the air (including dust pollution), water or soil, or 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.
Loss of view is not a material planning consideration nor is effect of residential value whether that
would be an increase or decrease.
The design and construction of the north western elevation of the proposal which would front
Church Green is most important in the assessment of light and noise upon the living conditions of
Church Green. Whilst it is proposed that the north western elevation would be treated in a ‘feature
decorative mesh’ it is proposed that a solid wall be built behind the mesh. This wall would stop
internal light (both fixed lighting and lights from cars) from shining into the living accommodation
of Church Green. It would also reduce internal noise levels. The Greater Manchester Geological
Unit have assessed the application and the submitted car park lighting scheme and have not raised
any objections to the proposals.
The proposed deck car park is positioned 5.5 metres away from the offices at its closest point to the
south eastern elevation and 8 metres at its furthest point away at the south western elevation. The
car park would be sited parallel to the rear elevations of St James House and the existing common
boundary. The properties on Church Green are off set to the line of the proposed car park.
Therefore, the closest element of the car park (9.6m in height) would be 19m from Church Green.
The highest part which this same elevation (11m at the pedestrian access point) would be 34.5m
from the properties on Church Green.
Whilst there are no separation standards applicable in this instance, I consider that the minimum
distance of 19m to be sufficient to safeguard privacy and provide an acceptable outlook.
Whilst the proposed car park would be located to the south of the existing residential properties on
Church Green it would be located only 5.5m from the existing 9 storey office building over 30
metres in height. Clearly, the existing building generates a shadow on the car park area and Church
Green depending upon the time of day and month of the year. A shadowing diagram has been
produced. I do not consider that this proposal would result in a significant change in the existing
shadowing caused by St James House.
On balance I consider that residential amenity would not be unduly affected by the proposal. As
such, I am of the opinion the scheme accords with the policies highlighted above.
Trees
Policy EN10 states that development that would result in the unacceptable loss of trees will not be
permitted.
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
There are five trees within the site along the Church Street elevation. Whilst I do not consider that
they offer a significant amenity value they would not be removed to accommodate the proposal.
The applicant has indicated that there is an opportunity to provide additional landscaping and tree
planting along the boundary with Church Green. I consider that new tree planting will over time
add to the local amenity and climbing planting will soften the elevation and further mitigate the
impact of the development. I have attached a condition requiring a landscaping scheme to be
implemented.
With the inclusion of this additional condition I am satisfied that the existing trees and additional
trees secured through a landscaping scheme (as demonstrated on the submitted elevations) would
further mitigate the impact of the development. As such, I am satisfied that the proposal would
accord with policy EN10 of the adopted UDP.
Other issues
The City Council is currently preparing an Area Action Plan for Pendleton. This emerging policy
document has undergone public consultation although no preferred options have been prepared. At
this stage I consider that the emerging policy has no weight in the determination of this planning
application.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the scheme accords with the policies of the development and that
subject to the following conditions the application should be approved. I do not consider that there
are any other material planning considerations which outweigh this view.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03
2. Standard Condition C01Y
3. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the
materials for all external elevations and solid facade within the Church Green elevation 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
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
4. Prior to the commencement of development a travel plan relating St James House shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such travel plan shall
include objectives and targets, and, where appropriate, measures to promote and facilitate
public transport use, measures to reduce car use and its management, measures to promote and
facilitate cycling and walking, promotion of practices/facilities to reduce the need to travel,
monitoring and review mechanisms, travel plan coordination, and provision of travel
information and marketing. The initiatives contained within the approved plan shall be
implemented and shall be in place prior to the first use of the car park unless otherwise agreed
in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
5. No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until the local
planning authority has received and approved in writing a site operating statement in relation to
provision of permitted hours for construction works, delivery of materials and delivery and
collection of equipment, provision and use of on-site parking for contractors' and workpeople's
vehicles, wheelwashing facilities, street sweeping and no development or activities related or
incidental thereto shall take place on the site in contravention of such site operating statement.
6. Prior to first use of the car park hereby approved the solid faēade behind the full height mesh
facing Church Green (as described on page 16 of the Design and Access Statement submitted
with the application) shall be constructed and retained at all times.
7. The scheme shall be carried out in full accordance with the lighting details submitted with the
application unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
8. No development shall be started until full details of the location, design and construction of
cycle stores have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Such approved cycle stores shall thereafter be constructed and made available for use before
the development is brought into use.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000
2. Standard Reason R004B
3. Standard Reason R004B
4. In accordance with Policy A1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5. Standard Reason R004B
6. Standard Reason R005B
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
7. Standard Reason R005B
8. In accordance with Policy A1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the applicant
should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
Developers must also seek permission from The Coal Authority before undertaking any
operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works. Property specific summary
information on any past, current or proposed surface underground mining activity to affect the
development can be obtained from The Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports
Service can be contacted on 0845-762-6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
2. The applicant is advised that 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:
07/55189/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Tomlinson
LOCATION:
48 Kingsway Worsley M28 7FD
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a first floor side extension
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a semi-detached dwelling on Kingsway, Worsley. The area is
characterised by semi-detached residential dwellings.
The application proposes a first floor side extension.
The proposed first floor side extension would project approximately 2.8m from the existing gable
elevation, it would be approximately 0.3m from the side boundary with no.46 Kingsway, it would
be approximately 8.1m in depth, flush with the existing front and rear elevations of the dwelling. It
would have an overall height of approximately 8.75m.
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
The first floor side extension would consist of a bedroom with an en-suite. The bedroom would
introduce a window to the front and side elevation and the en-suite would introduce a window to the
rear elevation.
PUBLICITY
The following addresses have been notified:
4,6 and 8 Mapel Grove
46,50 and 51 Kingsway
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objection from Councillor Turner, who has requested this application
be reported to panel, as there are similar extensions to the proposal on Kingsway
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
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.
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
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.
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
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.
The proposal would be visible from the street scene and would be visible from occupiers of
neighbouring dwellings. However the proposed development has been designed well with
materials to match the existing. It would be the same height as the existing roof and the eaves would
be the same height as the existing eaves to the main house. I would therefore consider the proposed
development would be in accordance with policy DES8.
Policy HE8 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted
for a two storey side extension that lies within 1m of the side boundary of the dwelling unless the
first floor element is set back a minimum of 2m from the front main wall of the property or the
ground and first floor elements are set back a minimum of 1m from the front main wall of the
property. The proposed development would be approximately 0.3m from the side boundary with
no. 46 Kingsway, which at present there is no boundary treatment. There is currently a 1m gap
between the existing single storey side extensions on no.46 and no.48, which allows the occupiers
of no.46 and no.48 to share access to gain entry to the rear of the dwellings. The proposal would be
flush with the existing front and rear elevations of the dwelling. I would therefore consider the
proposed development would create a terracing effect and I consider the proposal would harm the
character of the area. I would therefore consider the proposed development would be contrary to
policies DES1 and HE8.
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 users of other developments.
Policy HE2 of the House Extensions SPD states that planning permission will not normally be
granted for extensions that introduce windows or open aspects close to and directly overlooking the
gardens of neighbouring dwellings. The term ‘close to’ refers to 5m, however this can be overcome
with obscure glazing, except for principle windows of habitable rooms. There would be a habitable
room window introduced to the side elevation of the proposal that would be approximately 0.3m
from the side boundary with no.46 Kingsway and it would be 1m from the gable elevation of no.46,
however the principal window of the bedroom would be located on the front elevation and it has
been agreed by the applicant that the window on the side elevation could be obscure glazed. A
condition could be attached to ensure that this window would be obscure glazed and retained there
after. There are no windows on the side elevation of no.46. The proposed development would be
introducing an en suite window to the rear elevation that would be approximately 20m from the rear
boundary, which upon this is a 2m high fence. I would therefore not consider the proposed
development would have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring occupiers in terms of privacy
and would be in accordance with polices DES7 and HE2.
Policy HE1 of the House Extensions SPD states 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 principle window of any
habitable room of the proposed extension and the common boundary with the facing property if
applicable. There would be a bedroom window introduced in the front elevation of the proposal that
would be approximately 23.7m from the front elevation of no.51 Kingsway. I would therefore not
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
consider the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring occupiers
in terms of privacy. I would therefore consider the proposal would be in accordance with policies
HE1 and DES7.
OTHER ISSUES
With reference to neighbouring extensions raised by Councillor Turner there are several dwellings
on Kingsway that have existing two storey side extensions some of them being flush with the
existing front elevations these include:
51 Kingsway has an existing two storey side extension that is flush with the existing front
elevation, however the two storey side extension is 1m from the side boundary with 53
Kingsway. I would therefore consider this does not create a serious terracing effect.
31 Kingsway has an existing two storey side extension, the first floor of this extension is set
back 2m from the existing front elevation of the dwelling. I would therefore consider this
does not create a serious terracing effect.
4 and 6 Kingsway have existing two storey side extensions that are flush with the existing
front elevations, however both extensions are 1m from the side boundaries. I would
therefore consider this does not create a serious terracing effect.
27 Kingsway has an existing two storey side extensions that is within 1m from the side
boundary and the first floor element is set back 2m from the existing front elevation. I
would therefore consider this does not create a serious terracing effect.
40 Kingsway has an existing two storey side extension that is 1m from the side boundary. I
would therefore consider this does not create a serious terracing effect.
CONCLUSION
I am of the opinion that the proposal would not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the
occupiers of neighbouring properties and would be in accordance with DES7 and DES8. However
I am of the opinion the proposal would create a terracing effect and have an unacceptable
detrimental impact on the street scene. The proposal is therefore contrary to DES1 of the adopted
UDP and HE8 of the Council's Supplementary Planning Document on house extensions.
I therefore recommend this application be refused.
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed extension would create a terracing effect which would have an unacceptable
detrimental impact on the street scene, contrary to UDP Policy DES1 and Policy HE8 of the
House Extensions SPD.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works. Property specific summary
information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect
the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports
Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
APPLICATION No:
07/54565/FUL
APPLICANT:
Club Cuemasters
LOCATION:
Linnyshaw Mill 260 Manchester Road Worsley M28 3TR
PROPOSAL:
Continued use as a private members snooker club with
variation to condition 2 (marking out and availability of car
parking spaces at all times) on planning permission
05/50915/COU
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
This application relates to Linnyshaw Mill on Manchester Road, Walkden. The application seeks to
vary a condition attached to planning consent 05/50915/COU for the change of use of the first floor
of the mill from an office to a private members snooker club. The variation of condition that is
sought is condition 2, which states:
The parking spaces shall be marked out as shown on the drawing 2520/03 Rev B prior to the
commencement of use and shall thereafter be made available at all times the premises are in use
unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority
The application seeks to reduce the number of car parking spaces on site from 33 spaces plus 3
disabled spaces to 20 spaces plus 3 disabled spaces. The reason given by the applicant for the
variation in condition is due to the fact that part of the car park has now been fenced off by Unit 3
Car Sales and is the subject of a possessionary rights claim due to the land being used by their
business for a period of more than 10 years.
SITE HISTORY
05/50915/COU- Change of use of part of first floor of industrial building to a private members
snooker club together with construction of new disabled access and external fire escape and
replacement cladding to the site elevation – granted permission September 2005
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No comments to make
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
203-205 , 216-218, 223-224, 236-254, 263-287, 305-307 Manchester Road
25-39 Firfield Grove
4 Crompton Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 3 letters of objection to date. The following issues have been raised:
At the original planning panel the condition relating to parking on Rothwell Street was
refused
There is a lorry and a skip permanently parked on site
Customers from the furniture shop reduce the amount of car parking available
Youths congregate in the car park
Young children visit the club
The applicants would not comply with the wording of condition
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
A2
A10
Cyclists Pedestrians and the Disabled
Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main issue with this application is the impact that the reduction in carparking will have on the
amenity of surrounding residents and highway safety.
Policy A2 requires development proposals to make adequate provision for safe and convenient
access by the disabled, other people with limited or impaired mobility, pedestrians and cyclists. The
proposed application still retains 3 disabled carparking spaces as with the previous application,
which is in accordance with Appendix B, disabled, cycle and motorcycle parking standards.
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists in accordance with the minimum standards, not exceed the maximum car parking
standards set out in appendix C and provide parking facilities in a manner consistent with the
provision and maintenance of adequate standards of safety and security.
In addition to the 3 disabled spaces provided on site the application proposes a further 20 spaces (as
opposed to 33 as previously approved). Appendix C of the adopted UDP requires no more than 25
car parking spaces to be provided on site. The site is located on Manchester Road, which is served
by frequent bus routes. It is considered that the vast majority of visitors to the club would be after
normal working hours when the car park would be used only by the snooker club. It is likely a large
proportion of members of the club live within the Little Hulton/ Walkden area that 20 car parking
spaces is therefore considered to be sufficient.
The applicant has also provided evidence that on a recent darts tournament that had 74 entrants,
additional parking was made available in a secure area off Rothwell Street. I am therefore satisfied
that on the occasions when the club hosts tournaments and events that the carparking situation can
be adequately controlled so as not to give cause for disturbance to local residents. This carpark is
however located outside the redline boundary of the application and therefore cannot be controlled.
There are no parking restrictions on Rothwell Street.
With regards to the objections made concerning the presence of a HGV and a skip that appear to be
permanently located on the site. The applicant has stated that the HGV will be removed from the
site, however the skip which is used by several businesses within the complex is to remain, as a
result the number of car parking spaces indicated on the submitted plan has been reduced from 22 to
20 spaces.
With regards to the objections raised in concerning youths congregating within the car park area.
The change of use of the premises has already been granted planning consent and as such the
principle of the development has already been established. It is not considered that the reduction of
car parking on the site would increase the level of anti social behaviour in the area.
CONCLUSION
It is considered that the proposed development accords with the policies set out in Adopted UDP
and would not give rise to an unacceptable loss of amenity or have an adverse impact on highway
safety.
RECOMMENDATION:
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03
2. The parking spaces shall be marked out as shown on the drawing 2520/07 Rev D within one
month of the date of this permission and shall thereafter be made available at all times the
premises are in use unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3. Notwithstanding the approved plans, prior to the commencement of the development the metal
cladding on the western elevation shall be colour coated in acordance with details to be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details
shall be implemented prior to first use of the premises unless agreed otherwise in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
4. Deliveries shall only be taken between the hours of 8am and 6pm Monday to Friday and
between the hours of 8am and 1pm on Saturday. No deliveries shall take place on Sundays or
Bank Holidays.
5. Prior to installation, details of any extraction systems or air conditioning units shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority unless agreed otherwise
in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
6. Noise from amplified music, as measured within 1 metre of the site boundary of the premises
shall not exceed 55dB(A) Leq.
7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987
the first floor shall not be used for any other use than a private members snooker club without
prior grant of planning permission by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason(s)
1. Standard Reason R000
2. Standard Reason R012B
3. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents.
5. To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents.
6. To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents.
7. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
Salford Unitary Development Pla
APPLICATION No:
07/55046/HH
APPLICANT:
D Rowlett
LOCATION:
7 Parkstone Lane Worsley M28 2PW
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a first floor side extension
WARD:
Worsley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property fronting Parkstone Road, Worsley. The street,
in general, consists of semi-detached residential properties, however, a very small number of
detached properties are also located on the street (see location map)
Consent is sought for the erection of a first floor side/rear extension. The proposal would be set
back 1m from the front elevation of the original dwelling, and it would project 2.4m from the
existing side elevation. It would extend the full length of the original dwelling, and project beyond
the rear elevation by 2.6m, therefore, becoming flush with the existing single storey rear extension.
The height of the extension would be a maximum of 5.3m to the eaves, and 7.3m to the ridge. The
minimum height of the extension would be 5.3m to the eaves, and 6.1m to the ridge.
The proposed extension would accommodate two bedrooms, as a consequence, there would be a
bedroom window located on the front elevation and rear elevation.
SITE HISTORY
There has been one previous application.
Permission was granted for the erection of a single-storey side and a conservatory at the rear
extension in September 2002 (02/44378/HH).
PUBLICITY
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
The following addresses have been notified:
5, 9, 12, 14 and 16 Parkstone Lane, Worsley
REPRESENTATIONS
I have had a request from Councillor Ian MacDonald that this application be reported to panel, as he
believes that the applicant has a good case for being considered for having a special reason for not
complying with Planning Regulations, in view of other nearby alterations
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
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 issues to consider with this development are the impact of the proposed development on
the character of the area and impact on the amenity of surrounding and future residents.
Unity Development Plan (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.
The proposed first storey side extension would be visible from the street. The proposal would
incorporate a hipped roof to match the existing. The height of the extension would be lower than
the original dwelling, therefore, successfully appearing to be sub ordinate to the original property.
The applicant states that materials (facing brickwork and roof tiles) would match the existing and in
order to ensure this, a condition would be attached. It is therefore considered that the proposal
would not be an incongruous feature in the residential context and the proposal would be in
accordance with policies DES1 and 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.
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
Policy HE8 states that planning permission for the erection of a two storey side extension that lies
within 1m of the side boundary will not normally be granted unless either the first floor element is
set back a minimum of 2m from the front main wall, or the ground and first floor elements are both
set back a minimum of 1m from the front wall. This is to avoid a terracing effect, which can harm
the character of the area. In this case, there is an existing garage at ground floor, flush with the main
house and therefore the first floor element would need to be set back 2m to comply with this policy.
The proposed extension is set back 1m, as such, it is considered that the proposal could result in a
terracing effect, therefore, having an unacceptable effect on the street scene.
UDP 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 front elevation of the proposed
extension would include a first floor bedroom window. The window directly faces a bedroom
window included in the front elevation of the directly facing property (14 Parkstone Lane). The
distance maintained between the two windows would be approximately 22m. It is therefore
considered that the proposal would not result in any unacceptable loss of privacy to the occupants
of no.14.
The rear elevation of the proposed extension introduces a bedroom window. The distance
maintained between the rear elevation and the nearest property would be approximately 50m. It is
therefore considered that the proposal would not result in any unacceptable effects to the occupants
of the properties at the rear.
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 it’s projection is equal to or less than it’s distance from the nearest common boundary.
The rear element of the proposed extension projects from the rear of the original dwelling by 2.6m.
The distance to the common boundary with the adjoining property (9 Parkstone Road) would be
approximately 5.6m. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not result in any
unacceptable loss of light or overbearing to the occupants at no.9.
Applying the principle of Policy HE7 the distance maintained from the side elevation of the
adjacent property (5 Parkstone Lane) and the proposed extension would be 2.6m. Moreover, the
first floor extension would not project beyond a 45-degree line drawn from the corner point of no.5.
It is therefore considered that the proposal would not result in any unacceptable loss of light or
overbearing to the residents of no.5.
The side elevation of the proposed extension introduces no windows. The side elevation of no.5
includes no habitable room windows. Therefore, in this respect, it is considered that the proposal
would not result in any unacceptable loss of light or overbearing to the occupants of no.5.
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
FURTHER OBSERVATIONS
Councillor MacDonald has requested that this application be heard at panel, as he believes that the
applicant has a good case for being considered for having a special reason for not complying with
Planning Regulations, in view of other nearby alterations. In respect of this, the following will
provide an overview of similar examples present on Parkstone Lane.
There are a number of proprieties located on Parkstone Lane where a two-storey side extension has
been built that sits flush with the front elevation of the original dwelling. However, all of the
properties to be built in this manner sought planning permission prior to the adoption of the
Supplementary Planning Document: Housing extensions. The properties in question are:
2 Parkstone Lane
10 Parkstone Lane
14 Parkstone Lane
16 Parkstone Lane
9 Parkstone Lane
There is one property in the immediate area that has sought planning permission for the erection of
a two-storey side extension since the adoption of the SPD: Housing extensions. The property in
question is:
22 Parkstone Lane
The application was submitted in 2003. Initially, the applicant proposed to set the first floor of the
proposed extension back by 1m. However, it was considered that this would result in an
unacceptable effect on street character. As such, the applicant amended the plans so that the first
floor was set back by 2m, therefore, not resulting in a terracing effect, in accordance with Policy
HE8.
CONCLUSION
The proposed extension is considered not to adversely affect the amenities of the neighbouring
occupier sufficient to justify refusal of planning permission. However, the potential to create a
terracing effect does gives cause for concern and I have concluded that the extension would
adversely affect the character and visual amenity of the locality.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. Standard Reason RR35E
Note(s) for Applicant
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works. Property specific summary
information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect
the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports
Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
2. The applicant is advised that their site lies within 250m of a former landfill site. In the event
that landfill gas is migrating, suitable precautions need to be undertaken to avoid the ingress of
landfill gas into the new extension or existing house. It is strongly advised that the detailed
design specification incorporates suitable measures to mitigate against the ingress of landfill
gas. Any measures would be expected to conform to the standards contained in the 1990
Building research Establishment Report "Construction of new buildings on gas-contaminated
land"
APPLICATION No:
07/55228/HH
APPLICANT:
D. Wilson
LOCATION:
37 Hindburn Drive Worsley M28 1XY
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a two storey side extension
WARD:
Boothstown And Ellenbrook
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a detached dwelling on Hindburn Drive, Worsley. The area is
characterised by detached residential dwellings and bungalows.
The application proposes a two storey side extension
The proposed two storey side extension would be set back 1m from the existing front elevation, it
would project approximately 2.4m from the side elevation, it would be approximately 6.6m in
depth and it would be flush with the rear of the dwelling. It would have an overall height of 7.1m
with a hipped roof.
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
The two storey side extension would consist of a garage, wc and utility room to the ground floor.
The proposed garage door would be located in the front elevation and it would consist of an up and
over door. There would be an obscure glazed window introduced to the side elevation for the wc
and there would be a door introduced to the rear elevation for the utility room. The first floor of the
proposal would consist of a bedroom and an en suite. The proposed bedroom would be locate in the
front elevation and it would be introducing a window to the front elevation. The proposed en suit
would be introducing a window in the rear elevation.
SITE HISTORY
A previous application 07/54739/HH was made in May 2007 which was similar to this application.
The previous application was for a two storey side extension that would be flush with the existing
front elevation of the dwelling. This application was refused in June 2007 due to the proposal not
complying with Policy HE8 of the House Extensions SPD.
PUBLICITY
The following addresses have been notified:
35,39,42 and 44 Hindburn Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection from the occupiers of 35 Hindburn and I have received an
email from Councillor Garrido, who has requested this application be reported to panel. The
following concerns have been raised:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The scale of the proposed development and its relationship to the surroundings.
The proposal would be out of context with the surrounding dwellings.
Impact the proposal will have on driveway at no.35 Hindburn Drive.
Loss of light to landing window and kitchen window/door at no. 35 Hindburn Drive.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
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
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
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.
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.
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.
As the proposed extension is to the side of the original dwelling, it is visible from the street scene
and visible from the rear gardens of neighbouring properties. It is considered that the proposed
extension would be similar in character to the original property. Furthermore, the proposed scale of
the extension would not be an incongruous feature in this setting. In terms of materials, it is
considered that the extension would complement the existing dwelling subject to their control via
condition. The proposed side extension would have a hipped roof to match the existing roof and it
would be approximately 0.2m lower than the existing roof. It is considered that the proposed
extension would comply with the requirements of Policies DES1 and DES8.
Policy HE8 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted
for a two storey side extension that lies within 1m of the side boundary of the dwelling unless the
first floor element is set back a minimum of 2m from the front main wall of the property or the
ground floor and first floor elements are set back a minimum of 1m from the front main wall of the
property. The proposed ground floor and first floor element would be set back 1m from the existing
front elevation. I would therefore not consider the proposed development would create a serious
terracing effect and it would be in accordance with policies HE8 and DES8.
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 users of other developments.
Policy HE1 of the House Extensions SPD 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 if
applicable. There would be a first floor habitable room window introduced to the front elevation of
the proposal that would be approximately 14.2m from the front boundary of 42 Hindburn Drive and
it would be approximately 21m from the side elevation of no.42. There are no habitable room
windows on no.42 that would be facing the proposal. There would be a first floor en suite window
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
and a ground floor utility window introduced to the rear elevation of the proposal that would be in
excess of 11m from the rear boundary, which there are no neighbouring properties to the rear of the
application site. I would therefore not consider the proposed development would have an
unacceptable impact on neighbouring occupiers in terms of privacy and it would be in accordance
with policies HE1 and DES7.
Policy HE2 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted
for extension that introduce windows or open aspects close to and directly overlooking the gardens
of neighbouring dwellings. The term ‘close to’ refers to 5m, however this can be overcome with
obscure glazing, except to principle habitable room windows. The proposed development would be
introducing a ground floor wc window to the side elevation that would be approximately 2.3m from
the side elevation of no.35 Hindburn Drive, however as stated on the plans this window would be
obscure glazed. A condition would be attached to ensure that this window would be obscure glazed
and retained there after. I would therefore consider the proposed development would be in
accordance with Policy HE2.
Policy HE12 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted
for the erection of a garage with an up and over door unless a hard standing of 5.5m in length and
2.4m in width is kept between the front of the garage and the highway, unless there would be no
impact in highway safety and the free flow of traffic. There would be a hard standing of
approximately 7.2m in length and 2.4m in width between the front of the proposed garage and the
highway. I would therefore not consider the proposed development would have an unacceptable
impact on highway safety and would be in accordance with Policy HE12.
OTHER ISSUES
Impact the proposal will have on driveway at no.35 Hindburn Drive.
The proposed development will be wholly contained within the land owned by the applicant and
there would be a hard standing of approximately 2.48m in width and in excess of 16m in length
from the front of the garage at no.35 to the highway. I would therefore not consider the proposed
development would create an unacceptable impact to the driveway at no.35 Hindburn Drive In
terms of highway safety.
Loss of light to landing window and kitchen window/door at no. 35 Hindburn Drive.
The proposal would be approximately 2.3m from the side elevation of no.35 Hindburn Drive,
which on the side elevation of no.35 is a first floor landing window and a ground floor kitchen
glazed door. As these windows are for non habitable rooms I do not consider this proposal would be
unacceptable in terms of loss of light.
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
CONCLUSION
I am of the opinion that the proposal would not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the
street scene or the occupiers of neighbouring properties. The proposal is in accordance with the
Council's Supplementary Planning Document on house extensions and policies DES1, DES7 and
DES8 of the adopted UDP.
I therefore recommend this application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03
2. Standard Condition D01B
3. Standard Condition B07B
Reason(s)
1. Standard Reason R000
2. Standard Reason R007B
3. Standard Reason R005B
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works. Property specific summary
information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect
the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports
Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
APPLICATION No:
07/55002/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Housing Connection Partnership
LOCATION:
Walkway Adjacent 51 Chomlea Manor Salford M6 8PD
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a 2.2m high gates and fencing to alleyway
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site comprises a walkway which provides access between Rivington Road to the South and the
Chomlea Manor estate to the North. The area is wholly residential with dwellings on Rivington
Road comprising semi-detached dwellings and dwellings on Chomlea Manor comprising
1960/70’s flat/maisonette development. The walkway passes to the east of a small area of
green-space.
Planning permission is sought for 2.2m high fencing and gating which is to be erected to control
access through the walkway. The fencing/gating is to be erected at the southern end of the walkway
adjacent to the end of Rivington Road, and will span a gap of approximately 12.5 metres between
an existing hedge and no.51 Chomlea Manor. The fencing will enclose the existing green-space.
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 25th July 2007
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser on 26th July 2007
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
50-63 Chomlea Manor (odds & evens)
2 Prestwood Road
24 Rivington Road
142 Claremont Road
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter objection and two letters of support have been received in response to the planning
application publicity has been received. The following issues have been raised:Objection
The stopping up of the route would prevent access to bus stops on Eccles Old
Road/Rivington Road .
The existing route through Chomlea Manor offers better surveillance from neighbouring
residences.
The alternatives involve longer distances, and in particular may lead to the use of a
passageway running from Prestwood Road to Cholmondeley Road which whilst is to be
improved may present a threat to personal safety.
The Local Authority have a duty of care to residents and the stopping up of this route will
increase the risk for persons forced to use this dark and dangerous passageway
Stopping youths congregating in one area simply moves the problem on elsewhere
Support
The gate will hopefully prevent properties being broken into, and Chomlea Manor being
used as a get away
The gate will stop people using Rivington Road as a cut through late at night and causing
disruption
The proposal may reduce the amount of litter which is thrown in gardens by school
children who congregate around the area
The gating is welcome would make the location a safer place to live.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
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.
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
The proposed gates and fencing are to be constructed of galvanised steel painted black with gold
finials and will allow passive surveillance between the two areas. The materials and scale of the
proposed development are considered to be appropriate within this location. Although visible from
the adjacent residential properties, it is not considered that the gates or fencing would significantly
affect the amenities of adjacent residents, visual amenities of the locality or would be unduly
obtrusive within 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 main purpose of the proposed alley gates and fencing is to block the walkway as at the moment
it is being used as an escape route for youths committing antisocial behaviour.
In terms of crime prevention measures the fencing and gating is not solid but allows for views
through them. The proposal incorporates vertical single spike fencing with no central horizontal
bars as these would offer footholds to those wishing to climb the gates.
All adjacent properties will have a key to the alley gates with landlords being responsible for
supplying tenants with a key. Any utility company that has equipment on the alleyway will be
entitled to gain access
The alley gates and fencing will clearly define the alleyway linking Rivington Road and Chomlea
Manor. 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 valid planning considerations, however it is
considered that the two alternative routes available between Cholmondeley Road and Eccles Old
Road provide a suitable alternative to the route to be closed. In particular the route via Claremont
Road would not require significant diversion for the user, and it is not considered that the benefits
of the proposed scheme are outweighed by the minor inconvenience that may be experienced by the
users of the existing walkway.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the siting, design and materials of the proposed alley gates and fencing is 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.
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03
2. The gates and railings shall be painted in the approved colour (black with gold finials) within 3
months of their erection, and maintained in such a condition thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000
2. Standard Reason R004B
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This grant of planning permission does not authorise the closure or diversion of the public right
of way as indicated on the approved plan, until the appropriate order has been made.
2. The Engineering Division (Drainage) advises that prior to the installation of the alley gates,
utility easements may be required.
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4th October 2007
50