PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st November 2007
APPLICATION No:
07/55101/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr Z. Lieberman
LOCATION:
74 Wellington Street East Salford M7 4DW
PROPOSAL:
Construction of dormer extension in roof space at front and
rear of dwelling
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to one terrace dwelling on the south side of Wellington Street East in
Salford 7.
The application seeks to construct a dormer extension in the roof space at the front and rear of the
dwelling. The proposed dormer extensions would provide three bedrooms, a w.c and a bathroom.
The rear dormer extension would project a maximum of 9.4m in length, which would be over the
rear main wall of the house and main outrigger of the house. It would measure 5m in width and
2.6m in height with flat roof. The front dormer extensions would project 3.8m m in length, would
be 1.7m in width and 2.4m in height with pitched roofs.
The adjoining property No.72 has an almost identical dormer extension to the rear as the proposal.
SITE HISTORY
There have been no previous applications on this site. However the following addresses have
recently received planning permission for rear dormer extensions.
68 Wellington Street East (07/55103/HH)
70 Wellington Street East (07/54533/HH)
45 Wellington Street East (07/54346/HH)
72 Wellington Street East (05/51870/HH)
33 Wellington Street East (04/47970/HH)
33 Wellington Street East (03/47389/HH)
82 Wellington Street East (03/46532/HH)
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
65, 70, 72, 74 Wellington Street East
45 47, 49, Cardiff Street
REPRESENTATIONS
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st November 2007
I have received a petition with 13 signatures from neighbouring addresses in response to the
planning application publicity.
The following issues have been raised:The proposal is intrusive
Loss of privacy
Object that neighbours were not aware of the proposal
Neighbours were not made aware of similar proposal at No. 72 and 82 Wellington
Street East
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1-Respecting Context
DES7-Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8-Alterations and Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this planning application are: whether there would be an
unacceptable impact on neighbours and residents; the potential impact on the street scene and
whether the development accords with the relevant policies of the UDP and the Council’s SPD on
House Extensions.
UDP Policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its physical context,
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 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 application seeks to construct two dormer extensions in the roof space at the front of the
dwelling. Policy HE10 states that planning permission will not normally be granted for the erection
of dormers on the roof plane facing an adopted highway, on a hipped side roof plane or those that
wrap around two or more different roof slopes unless they can be designed in such a way which
does not have an unacceptable impact on the street scene. In order to be considered acceptable,
dormers will normally need to be: sited below the ridge line, set back from the eaves line, usually
such that the window sill rests on the roof plane and set well in from the eaves line and not built off
any external walls. The proposed front dormer extensions would project 3.8m in length, would be
1.7m in width and 2.4m in height with pitched roofs. They would be sited 0.2m below the ridge line
and 0.7m above the eaves in accordance with Policy HE10. The plans indicate that the materials
would match the colour of the existing roof and a condition has been attached to ensure this. I
therefore consider the dormer extensions have been designed to ensure that they would not harm
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st November 2007
the character of the area and are in accordance with Policies DES1 of the Adopted UDP and HE10
of the SPD.
To the rear of the application property is an alleyway, which is secured at either end by alleygates,
which only the surrounding residents have access to. The proposed rear dormer extension would be
set in from the eaves and sited below the ridge line and as it is at the rear of the property is only
visible from the rear garden of other dwellings, I consider it would not have an unacceptable impact
on the street scene
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 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; Policy HE2 also states that this may be overcome by
obscurely glazing windows. There would be a w.c and bathroom window in the side elevation of
the proposed rear dormer extension 2m from the boundary with No.72 Wellington Street East. A
condition has been attached to ensure the proposed w.c and bathroom windows would be obscure
glazed and therefore complies with Policy HE2 and would not result in any over looking or loss of
privacy to the residents of No 72 Wellington Street East.
Policy HE1 states that planning permission will not normally be granted for extension that do not
maintain a minimum distance of 21m between habitable room windows. There would be one
bedroom window in the rear elevation of the proposed rear dormer extension over the main house
and one bedroom window in the rear elevation of the proposed rear dormer extension over the
outrigger. The proposed window above the outrigger would be approximately 9m from facing
habitable room windows on the property to the rear. There is an existing bedroom window in the
rear elevation of the application property. Given that the proposed bedroom window would not be
closer than the existing window I would not consider it would have additional loss of privacy.
There would be one bedroom window in both front dormer extensions, given that these windows
would project no further than the existing bedroom windows at the front and rear elevations I do not
consider it would result in any loss of privacy to the surrounding neighbours.
Given that there have been a number of recent and earlier planning permissions given for similar
proposals and that the adjoining property No.72 has an almost identical proposal, I would consider
the proposal to be acceptable
Other Issues
Other issues raised by the petition include not being notified of neighbouring extensions. No.72
Wellington Street East received planning permission for a rear dormer extension in January 2006
(05/51870/HH). No’s 45, 47 and 49 Cardiff Street were notified of the application at the time of its
receipt. No representations from neighbours were received. No.82 Wellington Street East received
planning permission for the construction of a rear dormer in November 2003 (03/46532/HH), 57
and 59 Cardiff Street were notified of the application at the time of its receipt. No representations
from neighbouring occupiers were received. I would therefore consider that appropriate
notifications of neighbours was carried out at the time of these application.
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st November 2007
In respect of the current application as above the three neighbouring occupiers to the rear were
notified of the application.
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.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03
2. Standard Condition B07B
3. The facing materials to be used for the front dormer extension shall be the same colour and
texture as those of the existing roof, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000
2. Standard Reason R005B
3. Standard Reason R007B
APPLICATION No:
07/55263/FUL
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st November 2007
APPLICANT:
Abbotsound Developments Ltd
LOCATION:
Former Bus Depot Eccles New Road Salford M50 1FB
PROPOSAL:
Conversion of garages approved under previous application
04/48964/FUL to 11 - one bedroom apartments and alteration to
the mix of units across the site to 104-one bedroom apartments,
92-two bedroom apartments and 16-three bedroom apartments
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site is the former Weaste Bus and Tramway Depot which is situated on the south side of Eccles
New Road (A57) and is bounded by Eccles New Road to the north, Hessel Street to the west,
Humber Street to the east and James Corbett Road to the north. Humber Street comprises a row of
two storey terraced housing. James Corbett Road and Hessel Street are characterised by industrial
uses whilst to the north of the site on Eccles New Road is residential development. The site is
approximately 1 mile to the east of Eccles Town Centre. The Weaste Metrolink tram stop is located
on Eccles New Road in front of the site.
The applicant seeks consent for the conversion of 10 garages approved under previous application
04/48964/FUL to 11 one bedroom apartments and alteration to the mix of units across the site to
104 one bedroom apartments, 92 two bedroom apartments and 16 three bedroom apartments. The
total number of apartments across the site would be 212. Parking across the site would be increased
from 115 spaces to 160 spaces. The apartments would be situated centrally on the ground floor of
block 1 adjacent to Eccles New Road. All windows would face into the development.
SITE HISTORY
04/48964/FUL – Planning permission was approved in December 2004 for the erection of one,
eight storey block and one, six storey block containing 200 apartments incorporating retention of
the facade fronting Eccles New Road and Hessel Street and the clock tower. This is currently under
construction although not yet complete. A Section 106 contribution of £195,530 for public open
space has been signed in respect of this application. Housing Planning Guidance was adopted in
December 2006, policy HOU3 requires that ‘on all sites over 1 hectare, irrespective of the number
of dwellings or in housing developments of 25 or more dwellings, 20% of the total number of
proposed units to be provided in the form of affordable housing.’, this application was approved in
December 2004 and subsequently no provision for affordable housing was sought.
07/54600/FUL – Conversion of garages approved under previous application 04/48964/FUL to 11
apartments – withdrawn.
CONSULTATIONS
GMPTE – The site is well located in relation to public transport being well within walking distance
of Weaste Metrolink stop and bus stops on Eccles New Road. The use of this site for high density
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st November 2007
residential development is supported as it maximises the benefits of the excellent public transport
accessibility. It is encouraging to note the low level of car parking provision. Although the site is
already accessible by public transport, a development of this scale would warrant the production of
a travel plan.
Health & Safety Executive – Do not advise against development.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No objections.
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – Recommend conditions relating to contaminated
land, glazing specifications and mechanical ventilation.
Environment Agency – No objections.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 7th September 2007
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser on 6th September 2007
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 43 (odds) Humber Street
Flat above, 535 Eccles New Road
Crossling Ltd, 571 Eccles New Road
Ground floor, 535 Eccles New Road
Ground floor, 533 Eccles New Road
533 Eccles New Road
1 – 12 Belmont Street
A Plant Hire, James Corbett Road
REPRESENTATIONS
1 letter of objection has been received in response to the application publicity, the following
concerns were raised:
Once the new flats started to go up television reception has been affected and is now
virtually un-watchable.
An email has been received from Councillor Ainsworth. The concerns raised are summarised
below:
1. There is a current complaint from the residents of Humber Street and Borough Road that
the part construction of the development to date appears to have blocked TV reception to
the existing housing. Does this application provide the opportunity to require the
developer to provide a solution to this problem;
2. Small size of units;
3. Car parking on site has been increased leading to a loss of on site greenspace;
4. Can a cycle and pedestrian link to James Corbett Road be incorporated;
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st November 2007
5. Prospect from proposed flat 1 (in the North West corner of block 1) which has habitable
rooms facing a refuse area;
6. The site plan proposes removal of the previously proposed block 1 scheme door from the
Humber Street car park;
7. Matching materials should be used for the turning head on Humber Street;
8. Any approval should be conditioned to the effect of requiring the installation of a drainage
gully and connection at the head of Humber Street;
9. Can a contribution be sought to enable a residents parking permit scheme to be
implemented to the east side of Humber Street.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Policy DP1:
Policy DP3:
Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
H9/9: Sites for New Housing
ST2: Housing Supply
ST11: Location of New Development
ST12: Development Density
DES1: Respecting Context
DES7: Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10: Design and Crime
H1:
Provision of New Housing Development
A2:
Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
A10:
Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1:
Regional Development Principles.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this development are: whether the principle of development is
acceptable; whether the design and appearance is acceptable; the impact on the amenity of local
residents; and highway safety issues.
Principle of Development
Policy H1 of the UDP considers that all new housing development will be required to contribute
towards the mix of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area. Policy H9 allocates the
Former Weaste Tram Depot for housing development in accordance with policy ST2. It is stated
that the site, which is in the Housing Market Renewal Area, has excellent public transport
accessibility, being directly opposite a Metrolink stop, and is considered suitable for residential
development. Development should achieve a minimum density of 50 dwellings per hectare.
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st November 2007
Planning permission has already been granted for 200 apartments on the site, this achieved a
density of 191 dwellings per hectare. If approved, this consent would increase the density to 201
dwellings per hectare. Planning permission has already been granted for 200 apartments on this
site and construction for this is well underway, in light of this extant permission and that the site is
situated immediately adjacent to the Weaste tram stop and a bus corridor as well as employment
areas to both the west and south of the site, it is considered that the density, whilst high is
appropriate in this instance.
Since the granting of the previous consent, the Housing Planning Guidance document has been
adopted. Policy HOU1 of this document states that within Central Salford the majority of
dwellings within new developments should be in the form of houses rather than apartments.
Policy HOU2 of Housing Planning Guidance states that where apartments are proposed, they
should provide a broad mix of dwelling sizes, both in terms of the number of bedrooms and the net
residential floor space of the apartments, the majority of new apartments should have a typical floor
space of 57 square metres or above. Small dwellings (i.e. studios and one bedroom apartments)
should not predominate, and a significant proportion of three bedroom apartments should be
provided wherever practicable.
In terms of floorspace, having examined the size of two bedroom apartments approved as part of
application 04/48964/FUL it can be seen that whilst some have floorspaces slightly smaller than 57
square metres, the majority exceed 57 square metres. The proposed three bedroom apartments
exceed 57 square metres. The majority of apartments across the site have a floorspace exceeding
57 square metres and the size of the apartments is therefore considered to be acceptable.
In terms of mix, the previous consent provided a mix of 102 two bedroom apartments (51%) and 98
one bedroom apartments (49%). This application seeks to alter the mix across the site to 104 one
bedroom apartments (49%), 92 two bedroom apartments (43%) and 16 three bedroom apartments
(8%). Given the alteration to the mix which introduces three bedroom apartments and therefore
represents an improvement to the previously approved scheme, it is considered that the introduction
of a further 12 one bedroom apartments would still represent a balanced mix of dwellings in
accordance with policy H1 and would not have a demonstrable impact on the overall mix of
apartments within the development.
Design and Appearance
Policy DES9 considers that developments will be required to incorporate appropriate hard and soft
landscaping provision.
An additional 45 car parking spaces are proposed across the site, these have been incorporated
largely due to concerns raised by Members. This additional car parking has resulted in the
reduction in green space and usable landscaping areas across the site. The proposed three bedroom
apartments (which are likely to provide family accommodation) are situated within block 2 and a
substantial element of usable landscaping remains to the south of block 2. A reasonable level of
landscaping has been retained at the main vehicular entrance from Hessel Street, here 4 grass-crete
parking spaces have been incorporated to soften the impact of hard surface treatment from this
entrance. Furthermore, a substantial landscaped buffer reaching 6 metres deep in places is
maintained between ground floor properties with block 1 and the car parking areas. A condition
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st November 2007
requiring the submission of a landscaping scheme to incorporate the both hard and soft landscaping
would be attached to any planning consent.
Policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its physical context, respect the
positive character of the local area in which it is situated, and contribute towards local identity and
distinctiveness. Policy DES10 states that development will not be permitted unless it is designed to
discourage crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime. The site would be surrounded by a
secure boundary treatment and the Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit has no
objection to the proposal.
The garage doors would be replaced with windows and doors to match the remainder of the
apartments. The proposed alterations would be internal to the site and would not be visible from
the wider public realm. It is therefore considered that the proposal adopts an appropriate form in
relation to its context and would be appropriate in terms of design. The proposal is therefore in
accordance with policy DES1.
Amenity
Policy DES7 considers that all new development would not be permitted where it would have an
unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.
The proposal represents the conversion of the existing building and therefore no issues with regards
to overshadowing would arise. In terms of overlooking, separation distances would be some 28
metres at their closest point and I am therefore satisfied that the proposed development would not
compromise the amenity of future or existing residents of the area and is in accordance with policy
DES7.
Highway Safety and Parking Issues
With respect to the creation of a cycle and pedestrian link to James Corbett Road. A closure order
for Hessel Street is currently being considered by the Highways Authority. Access to James
Corbett Road for pedestrians and cyclists can be gained 100 metres to the west of Hessel Street and
it is not therefore considered necessary or reasonable to incorporate a condition requiring a further
link. Should the applicant wish to use Hessel Street for car parking this would require planning
permission.
Policy A10 considers that development should not exceed maximum car parking standards.
Residential development with more than 1.5 off-street parking spaces per dwelling or unit of
accommodation is unlikely to be regarded as sustainable.
Application 04/48964/FUL included 115 car parking spaces which represented 57% provision
across the site. The proposal seeks to alter the car parking layout to increase the car parking
provision to 160 spaces which would represent 75% provision across the site. This complies with
the Council’s maximum car parking standards and is therefore considered to be acceptable and in
accordance with policy A10. This application represents the creation of a further 11 apartments and
it is not therefore considered reasonable to seek a contribution for a residents parking permit
scheme.
Contribution
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st November 2007
Policy H8 requires adequate provision of formal and informal open space within housing
development. The Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document sets out the planning
contributions required.
In accordance with the above policy, the applicant has agreed to make a contribution of £37,992
plus a 2.5% administration fee towards public open space in the vicinity of the site; improvements
to the city’s public realm, heritage and infrastructure; the training of local residents in construction
skills; and the offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions. I have attached a condition requiring such a
contribution. A Section 106 contribution of £195,530 for public open space has already been
signed in respect of application 04/48964/FUL. I am therefore satisfied that the residents of the
proposed development would have access to adequate open space and I have no objections to the
application in this regard.
Other Issues
With regards to television reception, it has been demonstrated through consultation that there are
television reception problems in the area that have begun since construction of development on site.
A condition relating to the provision of appropriate mitigation measures is therefore recommended.
CONCLUSION
The proposed development accords with the relevant policies of the adopted Unitary Development
Plan and of the Adopted Regional Spatial Strategy. It is considered that the proposed development
is acceptable in principle and would not give rise to an unacceptable loss of amenity to adjacent
residents or an unsatisfactory level of traffic generation. It is considered that the design of the
proposal is acceptable and it is therefore recommended that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that authority be given for the Strategic Director of Customer and Support
Services to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03
2. Standard Condition D01C
3. Standard Condition C01Y
4. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be started by the undertaking
of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4) (a-d) of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990 until a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority, and the Local Planning
Authority has given its approval in writing. The planning obligation will provide that
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
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st November 2007
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.
5. Habitable rooms with windows with direct line of view of Humber Street and James Corbett
Road must be fitted with glazing systems with an Rw of at least 25dB, such glazing shall be
retained thereafter.
6. Habitable rooms with windows with a direct line of view of Humber Street and James Corbett
road must be fitted with acoustically attenuated mechanical ventilation with an Rw of at least
25dB, such mechanical ventilation shall be retained thereafter.
7. Prior to occupation of the units hereby approved a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to
the Local Planning Authority validating that all works undertaken on site were completed in
accordance with conditions 5 and 6 above.
8. The developer, with regard to television reception, shall provide the Local Planning Authority
with a mechanism to provide appropriate mitigation measures to those affected properties
within 3 months of the date of this permission. Once approved, the measures identified shall be
implemented within one month in accordance with the approved details and maintained
thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000
2. Standard Reason R004B
3. Standard Reason R004B
4. To ensure that the development hereby approved is successful and sustainable and that it 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.
5. Standard Reason R024B
6. Standard Reason R024B
7. To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance with policy
DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
8. To ensure that the development at least maintains the existing level and quality of television
signal reception, as advised in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8: Telecommunications. This is
in accordance with Policy DES7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st November 2007
APPLICATION No:
07/54447/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Burglary Reduction Initiative
LOCATION:
Alleyway To Rear Of
Swinton M27 8TR
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.2m high gates to alleyway
WARD:
Pendlebury
2-78 Park Lane West Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the erection of 3 sets of 2.2 metre high gates to the alleyway to the rear of
numbers 2-78 Park Lane West in Pendlebury. The gates would also include an alleyway which runs
between numbers 46 and 48 Park Lane West. The site is located to the rear of residential terraced
properties beyond which is the railway embankment. The alleyway is approximately five metres
wide along its length.
The proposed gates are to be 2.2 metres in height and are to be constructed from galvanized steel
and shall be painted black with gold finials. The gates are to have horizontal bars only at the very
top and bottom of the gates.
Residents and other parties who require access to the alleyway are to be given keys to the gates.
CONSULTATIONS
Ramblers Association Manchester & High Peak Area
Objection to the application on the grounds that the route provides a useful off-road link to
recreational space and should be developed rather than restricted.
The Open Spaces Society
No comments
The Greater Manchester Pedestrian Assoc.
No comments
Peak and Northern Footpaths Society
No comments
PUBLICITY
A site notice was posted on the 4th April 2007.
The following neighbours were notified:
34-38 Park Lane West (evens)
16-32 Park Lane West (evens)
40-78 Park Lane West (evens)
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st November 2007
2-14 Park Lane West (evens)
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation in relation to the scheme.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10 – Design and Crime
DC18 – Alleygating
ST10 - Recreation Provision
A2 – Cyclists Pedestrians and the Disabled
GS14 – Green Access Corridors
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the gates are in keeping with the
character of the area and suitable for the location they are in, whether the gates would have any
significant impact upon visual or residential amenity and whether the gates would provide a
satisfactory level of security for nearby residents.
Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that all development proposals
should respect the context of the area within which they are set and should not have a negative
impact upon the existing conditions in the locality. I consider that the design of the gates is
acceptable and that they would respect the context of the area.
Policy DES10 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that Development will not be
permitted unless it is designed to discourage crime, anti social behaviour and the fear of crime, and
support personal and property security.
Policy DC18 of the adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Design and Crime’ states that
alley gates should be designed so as to make scaling them difficult and that they should allow
natural surveillance across the site to reduce the number of concealed spaces in which criminal
activity could occur.
I am of the opinion that the colour of the gates is acceptable and would not unduly detract from the
character of the streetscene or the existing visual amenity of the area. I therefore consider that the
development would be in accordance with Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
It is considered that the proposed development would help to protect the private space of immediate
residents from intruders and also remove an area which is concealed and provides potential hiding
spaces. I consider that the proposed alley gates would help to discourage crime in the area and
would help to secure the properties of nearby residents thus reducing the fear of crime. I therefore
consider that the proposed development would be in accordance with Policy DES10 of the Adopted
Unitary Development Plan.
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st November 2007
The gates are designed so that they do not have any central horizontal elements and therefore
scaling them would be difficult. They are also of a railing design and therefore it is still possible to
view the area which is being sealed off.
Policy DC18 also requires that crime prevention measures do not compromise good design and
should not have a fortress like appearance. I do not consider that the design of the gates and fencing
is unacceptable nor would they have a hostile appearance. For these reasons I consider that the
proposed development would be in accordance with Policy DC18 of the Adopted Unitary
Development Plan.
The second issue associated with the development is the closure of a link to recreational space
which forms the basis of the objection submitted by Manchester and High Peak Area Ramblers
Association. The footpath is not identified within the UDP as part of the Countryside Access
Network or in the Greenspace Strategy as a Green Access corridor. Policies A2 and ST10 of the
Adopted Unitary Development Plan promote the provision and improvement of pedestrian
facilities and Policy GS14 of the Greenspace Strategy SPD specifically promotes the improvement
of access between urban areas and the urban fringe, countryside and recreation sites. The footpath
however is not a definitive public right of way and provides an area to the rear of residential
properties where crime could be committed and residents are subjected to fear of crime taking place
along the footpath.
I consider that the alley gates would provide a heightened sense of security for residents of Park
Lane West and would reduce the amount of crime and the fear of crime to these residents. I
consider that the need to secure this area outweighs the closure of part of a longer stretch of
footpath, especially since there is an alternative route for walkers to the front of the properties along
Park Lane West.
I consider that the gates are of a size, type and design which is suitable to the area and would
provide security whilst ensuring that the character of the area is not unduly affected.
CONCLUSION
I consider that the proposed alley gating scheme would benefit the local community and would
reduce the level of crime and the fear of crime in this area significantly. The area beyond the gates
would remain visually permeable and would maintain views along the alleyway in accordance with
the requirements of Policy DC.18 of the Supplementary Planning Document ‘Design and Crime’. It
is considered that a sympathetic design of alley gating has been used and this would not detract
from the street scene or impact detrimentally on visual or residential amenity in accordance with
Policy DES1. It is therefore considered that the development would be in accordance with the
provisions of Policies DES1, DES10 and A2 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan. The
proposal is subsequently recommended for conditional approval.
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st November 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03
2. Standard Condition D06A
3. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until the appropriate order for
closure or diversion of the public right of way affected has been made.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000
2. Standard Reason R004B
3. Standard Reason R004B
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st November 2007
16