PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 2007
APPLICATION No:
07/55321/FUL
APPLICANT:
Manchester Ship Canal Company
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To The Locks, Forebay Drive Off Cadishead
Way Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a four storey building comprising 16 apartments
with roof top garden, associated landscaping and car parking
and improvements to adjacent cycleway/footpath
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant site on the south-eastern edge of the Cadishead Way/Towngate
Way roundabout on the Cadishead Way bypass. The applicant has stated that the site was
originally part of the operational land associated with the adjacent Irlam Locks system on the
Manchester Ship Canal. More recently the site has been used as a building compound and sales
office for the adjacent McInerney Homes development. The site is approximately 0.15ha in size
and is fenced and has a temporary surface. The site lies adjacent to designated wildlife corridor and
a strategic recreation route.
The site is bounded to the north by the vehicular access to Irlam Locks and the McInerney
development; to the east by the operational Ship Canal land beyond which are the Locks and the
Canal; to the south by the landscaping to Cadishead Way and to the west by Cadishead Way itself
beyond which is a three storey apartment building.
Consent is sought for a four-storey building comprising 16 two-bedroom apartments together with
associated car parking and landscaping as well as improvements to the adjacent cycleway and
footpath. The apartments would be located centrally on the site and would be four storeys in height.
The external materials would include reconstituted stone to the ground floor with red brick and
render to the upper storeys with pitched roofs. The design incorporates a tower element that
mirrors the existing operational hydraulic tower located to the north of the McInerney
development.
As part of this scheme, improvements are proposed to the existing cycleway/footpath that is located
along the eastern edge of the application site and that continues behind the adjacent McInerney
Homes development and behind the hydraulic tower to link with the pathway running alongside
Cadishead Way. In total the footpath will be improved over a length of 231m. The footpath would
be widened and surfaced.
The number of car parking spaces has been increased from sixteen to eighteen, including two
disabled spaces. The development represents a density of 109 dwellings per hectare.
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 2007
The application has been amended since it was submitted as a result of my concerns regarding the
siting of the building close to the highway. The building has been moved approximately 6m into
the site and now sits approximately 12m from the highway.
SITE HISTORY
There is no application history relevant to the current application although when planning
application 04/49716/FUL for the McInerney development to the north of this site was submitted it
was considered that that site was brownfield as there was a fence that separated that site from this
current application site. The view was taken at the time that the above application was considered,
and in subsequent pre-application discussions on this application site, that this site was greenfield.
An aerial photograph taken in 2003 showed the site to have significant tree cover. On the balance
of evidence I remain of the view that this site is greenfield. This issue is discussed further under the
Planning Appraisal section of this report.
When permission was granted for the McInerney development the decision notice contained a
condition that states:
Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a scheme, for the
approval of the local planning authority, to detail pedestrian and bicycle access through
the site from Cadishead Way to the footbridge across the Manchester Ship Canal. Once
approved the pedestrian and bicycle access arrangements shall be implemented prior to
the occupation of any residential unit hereby approved.
The footpath provided in compliance with this condition did not achieve a satisfactory width and
whilst this is a different applicant the requirement for a footpath of satisfactory width would be
resolved by the implementation of this development.
CONSULTATIONS
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – The site is adjacent to the Cadishead Way and the
Manchester Ship Canal and will be affected by noise from road traffic and from ships
passing through the lock system on the Ship Canal. Whilst I do not consider that noise in
the vicinity of the site will preclude development I am concerned that future residents
may experience some loss of amenity unless noise mitigation measures are implemented
to control external and internal noise levels. For this reason a noise condition should be
attached to any permission. It is also necessary to attach a condition regarding
contaminated land.
United Utilities – No objection and provide the applicant with additional information regarding the
discharge of surface water.
Environment Agency – No objection in principle but would like to make the following
recommendations:
The developer must be aware that the Manchester Ship Canal (MSC) is now classified as a course
fishery under the EC Freshwater Fish Directive. We wish to see water quality standards in the
MSC reaching those outlined in the EC Directive.
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 2007
In the light of this, there is an ideal opportunity to protect local freshwater resources (like the MSC)
from the effects of pollutants, and enhance biodiversity in urban areas by altering the design of
drainage systems. We are now promoting, with the help of unitary authorities and councils,
Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). These include a range of structures with a flexible
series of options (i.e. retention ponds, swales, porous pavements, green roofs, etc) to reduce the
damage upon our aquatic resources. The developer should assess the feasibility of incorporating
SUDS within the scheme.
The applicant should incorporate a landscaping scheme composed of solely native species. If there
are distinct local varieties where the local gene pool should be maintained, then stocks of local
provenance should be used. British forms tend to be more resistant to frost and damp than their
European counterparts, and flower and fruit at times more appropriate to the British wildlife that
depend on them.
Police Architectural Liaison Advisor – No objections
National Grid – There is a medium pressure gas main that runs parallel to the site in the public
highway. It cannot be established if this will be affected by the proposed development. Once
clearly defined proposals and details have been defined it is recommended that National Grid be
contacted so that a more detailed assessment can be carried out.
PUBLICITY
The site has been advertised by both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 46 (incl) Townsgate Way
all apartments in The Locks, Forebay Drive
21 to 31 and 28 to 44 and apartments 66 to 92 Lock House, Rixtonleys Drive
1 to 23 Woodseaves Close
all apartments in Quay House, Bankquay Court
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters in response to the planning application publicity. The following issues
have been raised:Lack of pedestrian crossing facilities
Lack of public transport facilities
Lack of education and health services
Poor access and queues of traffic on Liverpool Road
Liverpool Road shops need a facelift
Too many apartments in the area already
Affordable housing is needed
Not enough parking – the 16 spaces includes 2 disabled spaces
Increase in crime
Leave the site undeveloped if it cannot be developed for affordable housing
The landscaped strip in front of the McInerney development is not maintained
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 2007
The development is out of context with surrounding buildings
The building is too big and too close to the road
The Design and Access Statement leads to the conclusion that the site should be landscaped
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, H1
Provision of New Housing Development, H2 Managing the Supply of
Housing, H8 Open Space Provision Within New Housing
Developments, ST11 Location of New Development, A1 Transport
Assessments and Travel Plans, A8 Impact of Development on the
Highway Network, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle
Parking in New Development, EN14 Pollution Control, DES7
Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DEV5 Planning Conditions and
Obligations, EN9 Wildlife Corridors, R5 Countryside Access
Network
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1
– Regional Development Principles
L4
Regional Housing Provision
MCR2 - 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 principle of the
proposed development is acceptable, whether the design, layout and mix of the proposal is
acceptable given the amendments to the scheme; whether there would be a detrimental impact on
residential amenity; whether the proposal would have any impact upon highway safety; and
whether the proposed level of parking is acceptable and whether the proposal would accord with
the Council’s SPD on Planning Obligations, Green Space Strategy, Housing Planning Guidance,
SPD on Design and Crime. These issues will be discussed in turn below.
The Principle of Residential Development
Policy SD1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy states that development should be focused within the
North-West Metropolitan Area, which includes Salford.
The draft RSS has been through the examination in Public and the Panel has
recommended that Salford's proposed housing provision figure should be 1600 dwellings per
annum, significant weight should be given to draft RSS in this regard. Whilst this is a significant
increase from 530 per annum it is not considered necessary for this site to be developed purely in
terms of the city council meeting its housing requirement in draft RSS.
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 2007
PPS3 is also relevant. It states that good design is fundamental to the development of high quality
new housing and that a number of matters should be considered when assessing design quality.
These include:
how accessible the site is
whether it enables access to open space as well as private outdoor space
how well integrated it is with neighbouring dwellings and the local area more generally
in terms of scale, density, layout and access
PPS3 also states that the Government’s policy is to ensure that housing is developed in suitable
locations that offer a range of community facilities and with good access to jobs, key services and
infrastructure. This is to be achieved by making effective use of land and that the priority for
development should be previously developed land. PPS3 is no longer prescriptive about density
but states that a minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare is necessary.
Policy ST11 states that sites for development will be brought forward in a sequential order. The
sequential order is defined below:
1
2
3
4
The re use and conversion of existing buildings
Previously-developed land in locations that:
(i) are, or as part of any development would be made to be, well-served by a choice
of means of transport; and
(ii) are well related to housing, employment, services and infrastructure
Previously-developed land in other locations, provided that adequate levels of
accessibility and infrastructure provision could be provided
Green field locations
(i) are, or as part of any development would be made to be, well-served by a choice
of means of transport; and
(ii) are well related to housing, employment, services and infrastructure
The applicant states that the land was part of the operational locks and is therefore brownfield.
Photographic evidence suggests that if this ever was the case the site was so far from land that was
used in connection with the locks that it became a greenfield site. It is fair to say that the issue of
whether the site is brownfield or not is blurred, although the City Council considers that on the
weight of evidence the site is greenfield. Whilst therefore the development does not accord with
policy ST11 it is considered that there are material considerations, outlined below, that on balance,
justify an exception being made to policy ST11 in this instance.
Housing Mix
Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a balanced
mix of dwellings within the local area. Criterion 1 of this policy states that all new housing
development will be required to contribute towards the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings
within the local area in terms of size, type, tenure and affordability. The policy goes on to state that
in determining whether the proposed mix and density of dwellings on a site is appropriate and
acceptable regard will be had to a number of factors that include the size and physical
characteristics of the site and the mix of dwellings in the surrounding area.
Policy H2 is also relevant to the consideration of the scale of the proposal. Whilst seeking to ensure
that an adequate supply of new housing is provided across the city in accordance with that set out in
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 2007
RSS, this policy seeks to restrict housing development in areas where there is evidence of an
“unacceptable actual or potential oversupply of housing”. At the current time there is no clear
evidence of an oversupply of housing in this area. It is also important to take into consideration
evidence from all levels (national, regional and local), which suggests that household growth is
likely to continue and that in acknowledgement of this, the draft RSS is proposing to significantly
increase annual housing provision for Salford.
Policy HOU1 of the Housing Planning Guidance states that within West Salford the large majority
of dwellings within new developments should be in the form of houses rather than apartments, in
order to protect the existing character of the areas and reflects the generally lower levels of
accessibility compared to other parts of the city. The document goes on to say that West Salford
has some of Greater Manchester’s most popular and successful residential neighbourhoods and that
the popularity and success of these residential areas is partly based on their mainly suburban
character, with predominantly low-rise development. It is this special character that is considered
worthy of protection and for that reason that houses should be the predominant residential building
form.
Policy HOU2 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 floorspace of the
apartments. One bedroom apartments should not predominate and a significant proportion of three
bedroom apartments should be provided wherever practicable. The Guidance goes on to state that
the majority of new apartments should normally have two or three bedrooms with a floorspace of
57 square metres or above.
The scheme as proposed would provide sixteen two-bedroomed apartments. 25% would be 57sq.m
in size and 50% would be 54.4sq.m in size with the remaining 25% being under 50sq.m in size.
I consider that the wider surrounding area is characterised predominantly by traditional housing.
This contrasts with the immediate surrounding area where three and four storey apartment
buildings are found on sites immediately adjacent to the roundabout. I consider therefore that the
provision of sixteen apartments would contribute towards a balanced mix of dwellings within the
local area and that the proposed development is not contrary to policy H1 of the UDP. Policy
HOU1 of the Housing Planning Guidance does not rule out the provision of a low level of
apartments in West Salford and I am satisfied that sixteen apartments is acceptable in this context
albeit that the proposed development is contrary to policy HOU1. With regard to policy HOU2, the
development provides 25% of apartments at the required size and another 50% that fall slightly
short of the required size. However, all apartments would have two bedrooms. I consider that
while not strictly in accordance with policy HOU2 the proposed development is acceptable with
regard to apartment size.
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
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 2007
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.
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.
The design of the scheme has clearly been developed specifically for this site and includes a tower
element that appropriately mirrors the existing hydraulic tower to the north of the McInerney
development. The building would be of traditional design with brick being the main facing
material but with elements of render on a reconstituted stone base. Windows are generously sized
and are articulated with stone headers and cills. The roofscape is detailed and includes a number of
small pike gables.
The provision of a four storey pitched roof apartment building on this site would round off the
group of buildings that front the roundabout and be of benefit to the existing street scene.
I consider that the design and proposed materials for the scheme are appropriate and of good quality
within the immediate setting of the site. The siting of the building has been amended to push it
back from the boundary with Cadishead Way. I consider that the proposal accords with the design
policies of the UDP.
Car Parking, Access and the Footpath
Policy A10, in line with Government guidance, seeks maximum parking standards for all
developments. Within the emerging planning framework and in line with central government
advice there is no policy requirement for a minimum level of parking.
Policy R5 states that new development that is proposed on a site needed for the provision of a new
route or link as part of the Countryside Access Network will be required to incorporate that
route/link as part of the development.
Policy A2 states that development proposals will be required to make adequate provision for safe
and convenient access by the disabled, other people with limited or impaired mobility, pedestrians
and cyclists.
With regard to parking I am satisfied that the provision of sixteen parking spaces plus the two
disabled bays is acceptable and in accordance with national and local policy.
With regard to access and the effect on the highway network I have no objections on highway
grounds.
With regard to policy R5 the proposed development provides a 2m wide footpath adjacent to the
operational Ship Canal land.
Importantly the development includes the widening of the footpath that currently runs alongside the
McInerney development. This current footpath is of very restricted width, less than 1m in some
places. The proposals would increase the width of the footpath to 2m and provide appropriate
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 2007
surfacing. I consider the benefits of the increase in the width of the existing footpath are
significant.
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.
The proposal would maintain the Council’s normal separation distances both internally and to
existing properties.
The GMGU have assessed the proposal with regard to noise and is satisfied that the development is
acceptable subject to a suitable condition. I have attached conditions to ensure that the noise from
Cadishead Way and the Ship Canal does not detrimentally impact upon the amenity of future
occupiers of the development.
As such, I am of the opinion the scheme accords with the policy DES7.
Planning Obligations
Adopted Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal
open space within housing developments.
Adopted Policy DEV5 provides the policy framework for the use of planning obligations and
obligations. The Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document sets out the planning
contributions required.
In accordance with the above policies, the applicant has agreed to make a contribution of £61,184
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.
Wildlife
Policy EN9 states that development that would affect any land that functions as a wildlife corridor,
or that provides an important link or stepping stone between habitats, will not be permitted where it
would unacceptably impair the movement of flora and fauna.
I have attached a condition to secure the enhancement of the value of the site to flora and fauna.
Design and Crime
Policy DES10 development will not be permitted unless it is designed to discourage crime,
anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime.
The Police Architectural Liaison Officer has no objections to the proposed development and I am
of the opinion that the proposal is acceptable in design and crime terms and would therefore satisfy
policy DES10 and the Council’s adopted SPD for Crime.
Affordable Housing
Policy H4 requires that in areas where there is a demonstrable lack of affordable housing to meet
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 2007
local needs, developers will be required, by negotiation with the Council, to provide affordable
housing of appropriate types.
Policy HOU3 of the Councils Housing Planning Guidance requires 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 dwellings.
There is therefore no requirement for affordable housing on this site.
Objections Raised by Neighbours
Lack of crossing facilities – the proposed dwellings would be located on the roundabout
making the provision of a pedestrian crossing that would be likely to be used by residents
impracticable. Dropped pedestrian crossings exist at the roundabout that easily enable
pedestrians to cross a single land of traffic at a time. It is considered that this offers safer
pedestrian crossing facilities than a dedicated facility that would need to be located some
way from the roundabout itself for highway safety reasons
Lack of public transport facilities - the proposed development is not located conveniently
for existing public transport. The development though relates to just sixteen dwellings
and I consider that there are other issues that outweigh this objection to the proposal.
Lack of education and health facilities – the scheme relates to just sixteen dwellings. The
City Council does not require any contribution to be made towards the provision of
education and health facilities and I am satisfied that these facilities are best provided by
the appropriate mechanisms that lie outside of planning control.
Poor access and queues of traffic on Liverpool Road – the scheme relates to just sixteen
dwellings and the amount of additional traffic that would be generated by this
development would be negligible in comparison to other schemes that have been granted
permission or the existing volumes of traffic using Liverpool Road.
Liverpool Road needs a facelift – this is not relevant to this particular application.
Affordable housing is needed – the City Council has established a threshold of 25 units,
below which an element of affordable housing is not required. I cannot therefore require
affordable housing to be provided in this instance.
Not enough parking – the number of spaces has been increased to 18. I am satisfied that
this level of parking provision is appropriate.
Increase in Crime – the Police Architectural Liaison Unit has assessed the proposals and
has no objections to the scheme.
Leave the site undeveloped if it cannot be developed for affordable housing – affordable
housing is provided through an established mechanism that does not require any to be
provided on this site and there are sound streetscape and design reasons why development
of the site is appropriate.
The landscaped strip in front of the McInerney development is not maintained – this
application does not relate to the McInerney scheme save to improve the existing footpath
that runs to the rear of the development.
The development is out of context with surrounding buildings – the buildings adjacent to
the proposed development on the other quadrants of the roundabout are all three or four
storey apartment buildings. One of the reasons why the development is acceptable is that
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 2007
it specifically does fit in with its context. I accept that beyond these neighbouring
dwellings though that the area is characterised by family housing but this in turn assists in
the acceptability of the proposal in terms of providing a mix of dwelling types.
The building is too big and too close to the road – the building is four storeys, the same as
the two McInerney apartment buildings, and I am satisfied that it is not too big. I agree
that the submitted siting brought the building too close to the road though and the
amended plans have moved the building an additional 6m away from Cadishead Way. I
consider that this significantly improves the siting and the streetscene.
The Design and Access Statement leads to the conclusion that the site should be
landscaped – I do not agree with point of view for the reasons outlined above.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with policies H8 and DEV5 of the Adopted UDP and the adopted SPD for Planning
Obligations the applicant has agreed to enter into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 for the payment of a total of £61,184 (plus a 2.5% administration fee).
This would contribute to the provision of public open in the vicinity 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. In addition
the development would secure significant improvements to the adjacent footpath that would
otherwise have been impossible to achieve.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am satisfied, on balance, that although the scheme does not accord with a number
of the policies of the development plan, particularly with regard to the policy ST11 and the Housing
Planning Guidance, there are sound reasons why the application should be approved that include
provision of a mix of dwelling types, the provision of a building that rounds off the development on
this quadrant of the roundabout and the significant improvement of a major part of a strategic
recreation route that would otherwise have been impossible to achieve. I therefore recommend
that, subject to the following conditions and legal agreement 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 and that the Strategic Director of Customer and
Support Services be given authority to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the provision of improved local open space/play
equipment, improvement to public open space, infrastructure, heritage, construction training and
sustainability.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03
2. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall undertake a Preliminary
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 2007
Risk Assessment report, that must include a conceptual model and a site walkover, to enable an
assessment of the potential risk of land contamination. This report shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of
development. Should a potential risk be identified then:
i) a Site Investigation report shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning
Authority. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of land
contamination on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors
focusing primarily on risks to human health and the wider environment; and
ii) if required, proposed remedial works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. Where applicable the remedial works shall be incorporated by the
developer during the course of construction but prior to the occupation of the development; and
iii) a Verification Report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The Verification Report shall validate that all remedial works undertaken on site
were completed in accordance with those agreed by the Local Planning Authority.
If, during any works on site, contamination is suspected or found, or contamniation is caused,
the Local Planning Authority shall be notified immediately. Where required, a suitable risk
assessment shall be carried out and/or any remedial action shall be carried out in accordance to
an agreed process and within agreed timescales in agreement with the Local Planning
Authority.
3. Prior to the commencement of development, an assessment that determines the external noise
levels from surrounding roads and all other noise sources that the proposed residential elements
will be subjected to (day time and night time) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The developer shall detail what steps have to be taken to
mitigate the disturbance from the above. Once agreed, all identified noise control measures
shall be implemented prior to first occupation and thereafter retained at all times unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
4. Standard Condition C01Y
5. Standard Condition B08A
6. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of
all external elevations of the development hereby approved have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved samples.
7. Standard Condition F04D
8. No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until the Local
Planning Authority has received and approved in writing a site operating statement in relation
to provision of street sweeping, permitted hours for construction works, delivery of materials
and delivery and collection of equipment and the provision and use of on-site parking for
contractors' and workpeople's vehicles and no development or activities related or incidental
thereto shall take place on the site in contravention of such site operating statement unless
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 2007
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
9. Within 12 months of the commencement of the development a lighting scheme for the site and
footpath shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development and
retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
10. The development shall not be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing the following
matters; sustainable construction techniques; natural ventilation techniques; sustainable urban
drainage systems; techniques to reduce solar heat gain and use of renewable energy sources;
and all energy efficiency and sustainability issues has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling the
approved scheme shall be installed and shall thereafter be retained and maintained unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
11. Notwithstanding the details submitted with the application, no development shall commence
until details of a scheme to protect and enhance the riverside habitat value of the site for flora
and fauna has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Such scheme as is approved shall be implemented in full within six months of the first
occupation of the development or commensurate with the provision of the landscaping,
whichever is the later.
12. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans and prior to the commencement of
the development hereby approved, a scheme for the provision of waste storage and recycling
facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any dwelling and shall be
maintained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
13. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme demonstrating, as a minimum, a Code
for Sustainable Homes 'three star' rating shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the
approved scheme unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000
2. Standard Reason R028B
3. Standard Reason R024B
4. Standard Reason R004B
5. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space
for future occupiers in accordance with policies H8 and R2 of the Adopted UDP.
6. Standard Reason R008B
7. Standard Reason R012B
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 2007
8. Standard Reason R005B
9. Standard Reason R004B
10. In order to address recycling and sustainability issues in accordance with policy EN22 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
11. To enhance the value of the riverside environment for flora and fauna in accordance with
policy EN9 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
12. In accordance with policy EN22 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
13. To ensure that the development accords with sustainability principles in accordance with
Unitary Development Plan policy EN22.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached letter from National Grid.
2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment
Agency.
3. 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.
4. This permission shall relate to the following plans:
Amended site layout 6177 (PL)01 revision D
Location Plan 6177
Front elevation 6177:08
Side elevation 6177:09
Rear elevation 6177:10
Side elevation 6177:11
Ground and first floor plan 6177:12
Second and third floor plan 6177:13
Roof plan 6177:14
Boundary treatment details 6177:16, 17 and 18
APPLICATION No:
07/55350/HH
APPLICANT:
D Lea
LOCATION:
52 Lambton Road Worsley M28 2ST
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 2007
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a part single/part two storey side extension
WARD:
Worsley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a semi-detached residential property fronting Lambton Road, Worsley.
The applicant’s property is boarded, on all sides, by residential properties. The dominant housing
style within the immediate area is semi-detached.
Permission is sought for the erection of a part single / part two storey side extension. The proposed
extension would sit flush with the front elevation of the original property. It would project
approximately 3m towards 50 Lambton Road, before extending by 8.7m towards the rear of the
property. The height of the proposed extension, to the ridge, would be 1m less than the height of
the original dwelling.
SITE HISTORY
There has been one previous application in regards to this site.
Planning permission was granted on 19th October 2004 for the erection of a sun lounge to the side
and rear of the property (application number: 04/48866/HH)
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
50, 54, 61 and 63 Lambton Road, Worsley
33, 37 and 39 Douglas Road, Worsley
REPRESENTATIONS
I have had a request from Cllr Compton that this application be reported to Panel for the following
reasons:
The extension would not be 13m from the adjacent property (54 Lambton Road)
The extension would result in severe light loss to the living room at no.54
The occupant of no.54 is a professional artist who needs the light for his work.
Consequently, the proposed extension may result in a severe loss of income.
I have also received one objection from the occupant(s) of the adjacent property (54 Lambton
Road). The following issues have been raised:
The extension would be overbearing and obtrusive
Loss of light
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 2007
The primary light source to the living room is received through the two windows that
would directly face the proposed extension. There combined area of glass is two and a half
square feet more than that of the window to the rear elevation.
The two windows mentioned above distribute light equally to both side of the room, where
as the rear window only distributes light to the rear half of the room.
All windows in the house have been in the same position for the last 45 years.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific Policies: None
Other Policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 – Alteration and Extension
A8 – Impact of the Development on the Highway
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; impact
on highway safety 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.
Lambton Road mostly consists of semi-detached properties. A number of these properties have
already built similar two storey side extensions. Consequently, it is considered that the
development is in keeping with the immediate area. Furthermore, the applicant has incorporated a
pitched roof, with an overall height of approximately 1m less than the original dwelling. Therefore,
the applicant has both respected the architectural detail of the original property and successfully
proposed an extension that would appear subordinate. It is therefore considered that the extension
has been designed in a way that would be in keeping with the immediate neighbours and would not
look out of place or have a significant effect on the character of the area or be an incongruous
feature in this setting. The application accounts that materials would match the existing dwelling
and a condition would be attached to ensure this. In respect of this, it is considered that the
proposed would comply with policies DES1 and DES8.
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
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 2007
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.
The first floor element of the proposed extension is set back 2m. It is therefore considered that the
proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the street scene, by way of terracing, in
accordance with Policy 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 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 incoporate a ground floor garage door and a
first floor bedroom window. The nearest property to the front (taken from the 2m first floor set
back) would maintain a distance of 22m. The rear elevation would incoporate a ground floor
garage window and door and first floor bedroom window. The nearest property to the rear would
maintain a distance of approximatly 24.5m. In respect of this, it is considered that no unacceptable
loss of privacy would result to the occupant(s) of the properties to the front or rear, in accordance
with Policy HE1.
Policy HE3 states planning permission will not normally be granted for a two storey or first floor
extension that does not maintain a minimum distance of 13m between its blank gable end wall and
facing ground floor principal windows of habitable rooms of neighbouring dwellings.
The side elevation of the proposed extension would be blank. The facing side elevation of 54
Lambton Road includes four ground floor habitable room windows, two of which serve a dining
room at the rear of the property and two of which serve a living room at the front of the property.
The distance that would be maintained between the two elevations would be approximately 3.8m
(previously 6.6m). In this instance, the four habitable room windows are considered to be
secondary. There is a further window on the rear elevation serving the dining room and there is a
further window on the front elevation serving the living room. In both cases, the windows to the
front and rear elevation are larger than any of the side windows, and therefore these two windows
are considered to be the principal sources of light/outlook. Taking into account that it is not
considered necessary to protect light to secondary windows of habitable rooms, it is my opinion
that there would be no unacceptable loss of light / overbearing to the occupant(s) of no.54.
Policy HE4 states that planning permission will not normally be granted for a single storey
extension that does not maintain a minimum distance of 9m between its blank gable end wall and
facing ground floor principal windows of habitable rooms of neighbouring dwellings.
The side elevation of no.54 also includes a first floor bedroom window, there is another window
serving this bedroom on the rear elevation. Again, the window on the rear elevation is the larger of
the two windows. Consequently, it is considered to be the principal light source/outlook. It is
therefore considered that there would be no unacceptable loss of light / overbearing to the
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 2007
occupant(s) of no.54.
The proposed extension would not be visible from the adjoining property ( 50 Lambton Road). It is
therefore considered that no unacceptable loss of amenity to the occupant(s) of no.50
Policy HE12 states that planning permission will not normally be granted for the erection of a
garage with an up and over garage door unless a hardstanding of 5.5m in length and 3m in width is
maintained between the front of the garage and the highway, unless it can be clearly demonstrated
that there would be no unacceptable impact on highway safety and free flow of traffic.
In this case, the hardstanding at the front of the garage would measure 5m my 2.8m. It is therefore
considered that this would result in an unacceptable effect on highway safety. However, the
applicant has agreed to include a roller shutter door, therefore, it is considered that the proposal
would not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety, in accordance with Policy HE12.
FURTHER OBSERVATIONS
The occupant of no.54 is a professional artist who needs the light for his work. It has been asserted
that the proposed extension may result in a severe loss of income.
54 Lambton Road is a residential property and it is considered that the proposed development
would not result in an unacceptable loss of light required for the need of such a use.
Whilst the neighbours concerns have been taken into account and understood, nevertheless, it is
concluded that it would be unreasonable not to grant planning permission for a legitimate extension
which complies fully with policy, in circumstances where a neighbour may be using his or her
lounge or dining room for work purposes.
CONCLUSION
I am of the opinion that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on street scene;
highway safety or occupiers of neighbouring properties. The proposal is in accordance with
Policies DES1, DES7, DES8 and A8 of the UDP and also the relevant policies of the House
Extensions SPD.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03
2. Standard Condition D01C
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 2007
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000
2. Standard Reason R007B
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works. Property specific summary
information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect
the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports
Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
2. The applicant is advised that their site lies within 250m of a former landfill site. In the event
that landfill gas is migrating, suitable precautions need to be undertaken to avoid the ingress of
landfill gas into the new extension or existing house. It is strongly advised that the detailed
design specification incorporates suitable measures to mitigate against the ingress of landfill
gas. Any measures would be expected to conform to the standards contained in the 1990
Building research Establishment Report "Construction of new buildings on gas-contaminated
land"
APPLICATION No:
07/55480/HH
APPLICANT:
M Jones
LOCATION:
44 Tellson Crescent Salford M6 7LL
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a part single/part two storey side extension
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
This application relates to a semi detached property on the south side of Tellson Crescent close to a
bend. The application site is surrounded by residential properties. The application property has an
existing single storey rear extension across the full width of the property. There is an existing
attached garage that would be demolished and replaced by the extension.
The applicant is an employee of Salford City Council.
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 2007
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
Consent is sought for a part single / part two storey side extension. The proposed ground floor
element would be flush with the existing front elevation. The first floor element would be set back
0.7m from the main front elevation. It would project 2.6m from the existing side elevation with a
length of 6.1m. It would be flush with the main rear elevation, the property has an existing single
storey rear extension. It would have a height to the eaves the same as the existing (5.2m) and be
slightly lower than the existing ridge height (7.3m) with a hipped rood to match the existing. The
proposal would accommodate a garage and utility room on the ground floor and a bedroom,
cloakroom and w.c. on the first floor.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
42, 46m 59 and 61 Tellson Crescent
8 Barclays Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1-Respecting Context
DES7-Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8-Alterations and Extensions
A8 – Impact of the Development on the Highway Network
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; impact
on highway safety 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.
Design
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.
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 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 incorporates a hipped roof, thus matching the original dwelling, and therefore
appearing to be in keeping with the original dwelling and the surrounding area. It is considered that
the extension has been designed in a way that would be in keeping with the immediate neighbours
and would not look out of place or have a significant effect on the character of the area or be an
incongruous feature in this setting. The application states that materials would match the existing
dwelling and a condition would be attached to ensure this. In respect of this, it is considered that the
proposed would comply with policies DES1 and DES8.
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. The side boundary of the application site is set on an
angle and so is the neighbouring property (No.42). The first 2.5m would be in excess of 1m from
the side boundary. I would therefore consider that the proposal would not cause a potential
terracing effect in accordance with HE8 and the above policies.
Amenity
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 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 principal window of any
habitable room of the proposed extension and the common boundary with the facing property if
applicable. The proposal would introduce a bedroom window to the front elevation. This window
would be set back 0.7m from the main front elevation where existing habitable room windows
exist. The property facing would be approximately 18.5m from this window. Given that there are
existing habitable room windows on the front elevation I would therefore not consider the proposal
to have an unacceptable impact on the occupiers of the property facing in terms of privacy in
accordance with DES7.
Policy HE2 of the House Extensions SPD states 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 to principal habitable room windows. The non habitable room windows on
the proposed rear elevation would be 11m from the rear boundary. I would therefore not consider
the proposal to have an unacceptable impact on the occupiers of the property facing in terms of
privacy in accordance with HE2 and DES7.
There are no habitable room windows on the side elevation of No.42. I would therefore not
consider that the proposal would have an overbearing impact or loss of light on these occupiers in
accordance with DES7.
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 2007
Other Issues
Policy A8 states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable
impact on highway safety.
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 hardstanding 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 on highway safety and the free flow of traffic. Where a roller shutter door is proposed it
may be possible to reduce this width to 4.8m. There would be a 5m hardstanding retained to the
front of the garage. I have therefore agreed with the applicant that the garage shall be installed with
a roller shutter door and a condition has been attached to ensure this. I would therefore not consider
the proposal to have an unacceptable impact on highway safety in accordance with HE12 and A8.
There are two trees close to the boundary of the application site in the neighbouring garden
(no.420). The Arboricultural Consultant has inspected the trees and does not consider them to be
worthy of protection.
CONCLUSION
I am of the opinion that the proposal would not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the
street scene; highway safety 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, DES8 and A8 of the adopted UDP.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03
2. Standard Condition D01C
3. The garage hereby approved shall be installed with a roller shutter door which shall be
maintained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000
2. Standard Reason R007B
3. Standard Reason R026B
Note(s) for Applicant
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 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:
07/55489/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr Grynhaus/Mr Gurwitz
LOCATION:
4 And 6 Castleton Road Salford M7 4GU
PROPOSAL:
Conversion of roof type from hip to gable with increase in ridge
height to create living space and construction of rear dormers to
4 and 6 Castleton Road and erection of a part single/part two
storey side extension and part three storey/second floor rear
extension to 4 Castleton Road
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a pair of semi-detached residential properties on the northern side of
Castleton Road, Salford. The application proposes a number of alterations, including:
The conversion of roof type from hip to gable with an increase in ridge height to create
living space.
Constriction of rear dormers at both 4 and 6 Castleton Road,
The erection of a part single / part two storey side extension at 4 Castleton Road.
The erection of a part three storey / second floor rear extension to 4 Castleton Road.
The following provides a brief description of the alterations documented above.
The proposed roof alterations would raise the ridge of both 4 and 6 Castleton Road. The
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 2007
overall height of the property would therefore increase by 0.80m to 8.4m. In addition to
this, a further front gable would be added to the front elevation to accommodate further
living space. The ridge of this front gable would be the same height as the increased
ridgeline.
The dormer windows would be sited to the rear of both 4 and 6 Castleton Road, adjacent to
the common boundary with each other. The dormers would incorporate flat roofs and they
would be 4m in height and approximately 5m in length.
The proposed part single / part two storey side extension would sit flush with the front
elevation of 4 Castleton Road. It would project by 2.5m from the side elevation of the
original property towards 2 Castleton Road, before extending 0.9m to the rear at single
storey, and then to the rear elevation of the existing outrigger at two storey.
The proposed third floor / second floor rear extension would be situated above the rear of
the proposed part single / part two storey side extension and the existing two storey
outrigger of 4 Castleton Road. This element would be flat roofed and the overall height
would be approximately 7.7m. Consequently, it would be approximately 0.5m lower than
the raised ridgeline described earlier.
SITE HISTORY
There has been one previous application of relevance in regards to this site.
Planning permission was granted 11th June 2007 (application reference: 07/54286/HH), for the
following:
The conversion of roof type from hip to gable with an increase in ridge height to create
living space.
Constriction of rear dormers at both 4 and 6 Castleton Road,
The erection of a part single / part two storey side extension
Consequently, much of the proposed development has already received permission. Further
approval is sought in relation to the erection of a part three storey / second floor rear extension to 4
Castleton Road, and alterations to the approved part single / part two storey side extension. In
respect of the latter, the permitted application indicated that the part single storey element would
extend to the rear by 2m. The current application indicates that the part single storey element
would extend to the rear by 1m.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Flats 14 – 34 Lincoln Court, Stanley Road, Salford
1, 2, 3, 5 and 8 Castleton Road, Salford
REPRESENTATIONS
Councillor Wilson and Councillor Conner have requested that the application is determined at
Panel, for the following reason:
The proposed extension is required to fulfil the needs of the families of 4 and 6 Castleton
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 2007
Road.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific Policies: None
Other Policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 – Alteration and Extension
A8 – Impact of the Development on the Highway
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; impact
on highway safety 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 roof alteration would result in a raised ridgeline and a front gable to both 4 and 6 Castleton
Road. As the alterations are to both properties, it is considered that it would appear to be a holistic
development that would not have an unacceptable impact on the character of the area.
The proposed dormer extensions to the rear of to both 4 and 6 Castleton Road would be set below
the ridge and set back in from the eaves. Given that the proposed dormers are to the rear of the
property and would not be visible from the street scene, I am satisfied that they would not have an
unacceptable impact on the street or the character of the area.
The proposed third floor / second floor rear extension to the rear of 4 Castleton Road would and not
be visible from the street. It is therefore considered that no unacceptable impact would result to the
character of the street scene. Nevertheless, the extension would incorporate a flat roof, and by
doing so it would be lower than the raised ridge and match the height of the flat roofed dormer. As
a consequence, I would not consider the extension to be over dominating.
Taking the above observations into account, it is considered that the extension has been designed in
a way that would be in keeping with the immediate neighbours and would not look out of place or
have a significant effect on the character of the area or be an incongruous feature in this setting.
The application does not account that materials would match the existing dwelling, therefore, a
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 2007
condition would be attached to ensure this. In respect of this, it is considered that the above would
comply with policies DES1 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 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.
There would be new habitable room windows introduced to the front of both properties and these
would be within 21m of habitable room windows opposite. However, although the requirements of
Policy HE1 cannot be met for the proposed front windows, I am satisfied that the proposed
development would not lead to an unacceptable loss of privacy for neighbouring residents, given
that the new windows would not be any closer to neighbouring residents than existing habitable
room windows on the front elevation.
The rear elevation of both properties would introduce new habitable room windows. Facing the
proposed rear extension is a block of apartments (Lincoln Court). The distance maintained
between the new habitable rooms and the apartment block would be well in excess of 21m. The
proposed windows would however be within 10.5m of the common boundary with Lincoln Court.
I am satisfied that this would not restrict the ability of the facing properties to extend, given that it is
unlikely that there would be any extensions to apartments and there are already habitable room
windows within 10.5m of the common boundary.
Policy HE2 states that permission will not normally be granted for extensions that introduce
windows close to and directly overlooking the gardens of neighbouring dwellings. For the
purposes of this policy ‘close’ refers to a window within 5m of the boundary.
There would be windows in the side elevation of the proposed extension at 4 Castleton Road that
would be close to the common boundary with 2 Castleton Road and would result in loss of privacy.
However, the windows serve non-habitable rooms, therefore, as agreed with the applicant, a
condition to obscure glaze the windows would be attached.
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.
In order to asses the effect of the third floor / second floor rear extension on the occupant(s) of 2
Castleton Road, I will apply to principles of Policy HE7. In order to do this I have drawn a
45-degree line from the corner of 2 Castleton Road. The proposed development would not project
beyond this line. Furthermore, the extension only projects 0.5m beyond the rear elevation of 2
Castleton Road and the distance from the extension to the nearest part of no.2 would be 0.5m.
With this in mind and taking into account that the extension incorporates a flat roof, and therefore
has a overall height that is approximately the same as if it was to be two storey with a gabled roof. I
am satisfied that no unacceptable loss of light / overbearing would result to the occupant(s) of no.2.
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 2007
Policy HE11 of the states that planning permission will not normally be granted for extensions that
do not maintain a hardstanding of 4.8m in length and 2.4m in width to accommodate at least one car
clear of the highway.
The hardstanding at the front of the property would maintain a length of 4.8m and a width of 2.4m.
It is therefore considered that no unacceptable effect on highway safety would result, in accordance
with Policy HE11.
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.
The proposed part single / part two storey side extension to 4 Castleton Road would match the
height of the raised ridge. Furthermore, it would introduce a canopy above ground floor door that
would match the existing canopy present above the front door. The previous application indicated
that the proposed part single / part two storey extension would be set back 2m at first floor. The
current extension would only be set back 0.9m at first floor. It is therefore considered that the
proposal would result in an unacceptable effect on street scene, by way of terracing.
FURTHER OBSERVATIONS
The applicant has not submitted any details regarding their special circumstances at this time.
The SPD on housing extensions states personal circumstances, such as a disability, or the specific
requirements of minority groups may make it difficult to provide the necessary facilities within the
standards set out within this document. The Council may interpret these standards flexibly in such
circumstances, but proposals that significantly deviate from them are still unlikely to be
appropriate. Consideration of personal circumstances will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Standards may be relaxed where an extension would provide basic facilities that are lacking from a
house such as a bathroom.
The main point of contention relates to the part single/part two-storey side extension to 4 Castleton
Road. As documented, the submitted plans indicate that the extension would only be set back
0.9m, which is contrary to Policy HE8. However, discussions with the applicant have resolved that
they feel that they need the extra 1.1m to accommodate the needs of their family. It is considered
however that the proposed development could provide the basic facilities needed for the applicant’s
family and comply with Policy HE8.
As documented earlier planning permission has already been granted for much of the proposed
development. A previous application (reference: 07/54286/HH) received approval for a two-storey
side extension. The approved application was set back 2m at first floor, therefore complying with
Policy HE8. Internally, at first floor, the extension would accommodate two bedrooms a toilet and
bathroom (including a toilet). The proposed front bedroom of the extant permission would measure
2.1m in width by 3.7m in length.
The current proposal seeks to set the first floor back by 0.9m in order to increase the size of the first
floor bedroom. As a result, the application no longer complies with Policy HE8.
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 2007
Internally, the proposed application would accommodate the same rooms at first floor as the extent
planning permission. However, by not complying with Policy HE8 the front bedroom would
increase in size to 2.1m in width by 2.6m in length. Directly behind this bedroom would be a toilet,
behind this a bathroom (including a toilet) and then another bedroom. It has been identified that if
the first floor toilet was omitted then a larger bedroom could be provided and the applicant could
still comply with Policy HE8.
In essence, the applicant’s house has been developed to the limits of acceptability. The result
clearly constitutes a significant amount of living space. It is therefore considered that by fulfilling
the requirements of Policy HE8 that applicant would still have an ample amount of living space.
CONCLUSION
I am of the opinion that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety or
occupiers of neighbouring properties. However, I consider that the proposed extension would have
an unacceptable effect on the street scene, by way of terracing. The applicant’s personal
circumstances may justify the need for extra living space. However, I am of the opinion that such
needs would be met even if Policy HE8 were compiled with. I therefore recommend the proposal
for refusal
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed two storey side extension would, in conjunction with a similar extension to the
neighbouring house, seriously injure the amenity of the area because it would result in the
creation of a 'terraced' effect which would be out of character with the general street scene.
This would be contrary to the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan policies DES1 and
DES8 and the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions.
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 2007
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th November 2007
29