PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
APPLICATION No:
06/52923/FUL
APPLICANT:
Great Places Housing Group
LOCATION:
Land Formerly 25-47 Florence Street Eccles M30 7JN
PROPOSAL:
Erection of part single, part two storey building to provide
supported accommodation including eight self contained flats
together with associated car parking and alteration to existing
vehicular access and construction of new vehicular access
WARD:
Winton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The applicant seeks consent for the erection of a part single, part two-storey building to provide
supported accommodation including 8 no. 2 bedroom self contained flats together with staff rooms
and communal areas. A new vehicular access is proposed and 5 parking spaces including 1
disabled space.
The proposal would be horseshoe shaped. The two-storey element fronting Florence Street has a
width of 27 metres, and the maximum depth would be 42 metres. The first 23 metres extending
away from Florence Street would be two-storeys with the remaining 19 metres dropping to single
storey. The rear element would be entirely single storey in height. 851 square metres of amenity
space is proposed. The north east and south west boundary of the proposed development would be
enclosed by a 2.1 metre brick wall, the car park would be enclosed by a 1.2 metre brick wall and the
south east and north west boundary would be enclosed by a low level wall with railings above.
The purpose of the proposal is to vulnerable Salford women to be integrated back into their own
community. It is proposed that the site be staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by a core team of 6
members of staff.
The application proposes the closure of a public right of way and has been publicised accordingly.
The site is currently vacant. A 3-storey block of flats was recently demolished on the site.
CONSULTATIONS
The Ramblers’ Association (Manchester and High Peak Area) does not oppose the application.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – various comments received. A ‘secure
entry system’ condition to be attached.
Assistant Director for Community Housing supports the application.
The Environment Agency has no objection in principle to the application.
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
The Strategic Director of Environmental Services recommends the attachment of a full
contamination condition.
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – No comments received to date.
Open Spaces Society – No comments received to date.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 6th July 2006 and 21st July 2006.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 24 Florence Street
1 – 22 Winifred Street
24, 21 Winifred Street
33, 35, 35A, 35B Athol Street
Petrol Station, 91 New Lane
93, 95, 99 New Lane
101 – 115 (odds) New Lane
Flat above, 115 New Lane
Flat, 115 New Lane
1 – 25 (odds) Owen Street
22 – 46 (evens) Atherton Street
REPRESENTATIONS
Four letters of objection have been received in response to the application, two of which are from
the same objector. These raise the following concerns:
The proposal would exacerbate the poor environmental conditions for residents in the
surrounding area.
Not a suitable area for more vulnerable residents.
Increase in traffic flow and volume through Florence Street.
Increase in heavy traffic resulting in noise and environmental pollution.
The building site would entice undesirable people.
Highway safety – the junction of Athol Street and South King Street has a blind 90 degree
right hand turn.
Consideration should be given to amending the proposed access perhaps by opening the
end of Florence Street at New Lane and closing off Florence Street at the end of the
terraced houses.
Much better access would be achieved if the main entrance for the development was on
Owen Street.
The area appears to have become a dumping ground for some of Salford’s less desirable
residents.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None.
DP3:
Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None.
DES1: Respecting Context.
DES7: Amenity of Users and Occupiers.
DES10: Design and Crime.
EHC3: Provision and Improvement of Health and Community
Facilities.
A8:
Impact of Development on the Highway Network.
A10: Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments.
EN12: Important Landscape Features.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The key issues to be considered in the determination of this application are; whether the principle of
development is acceptable, whether the design and appearance is acceptable, whether the impact on
trees is acceptable, whether the proposal would be detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring
occupiers; whether the proposal satisfactorily addresses issues of parking and access and any other
issues. I shall deal with each of these in turn.
Principle of development
EHC3 considers that planning permission will be granted for the provision of new health and
community facilities by public, private and voluntary agencies, provided that a number of criteria
are met relating to amenity, environmental quality, accessibility and traffic congestion.
Consultation information for women only supported accommodation has been submitted in support
of the application. This details that ‘the proposal is to develop a scheme of 8 self contained flats for
women only. The scheme will help meet a gap in housing for vulnerable Salford women who need
extra support to live independently and who are currently forced to live out of the area away from
their family and friends. These women may have experienced trauma during their life and may
have low self-esteem and lack of confidence. This scheme will provide a safe, secure and
supportive environment for these women to relearn basic life skills and progress at their own pace
towards moving on to sustained independent living within their own communities with family and
friends.’
Given the above and the previous use of the site for residential purposes, the principle of supported
accommodation is acceptable.
Design and appearance
Policy DES10 relates to design and crime and considers that development will not be permitted
unless it is designed to encourage crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime, and support
personal and property security. The scheme has been amended following comments received from
the Police Architectural Liaison Officer, including the extension of the low wall boundary and
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
railings to the Florence Street boundary to the main entrance door to offer a measure of protection
and the inclusion of high level windows in the north east elevation to prevent an exposed gable wall
to be misused for anti-social behaviour.
Policy DES1 considers that development will be required to respond to its physical context, respect
the positive character of the local area in which it is situated, and contribute towards local identify
and distinctiveness.
The context of the surrounding area is characterised by two-storey terraced properties and 3-storey
blocks of flats. The proposed building would be part single storey, part two-storey and in this
respect, respects the scale and massing of the surrounding area. A varied materials palette is
proposed including brickwork, predominantly in a colour sensitive to the existing housing stock,
and Staffordshire Slate Blue on the corner lift shaft providing a focal feature. Other materials
include timber cladding and render with a slate roof.
A condition would be attached to any planning consent requiring sample materials to be submitted
and approved prior to the commencement of development. I am satisfied that this will ensure that
the materials are of a sufficiently high quality.
Overall, I am of the opinion that the proposed development would have a positive impact upon the
visual amenity of the area as the building will add value and quality to the built environment in
accordance with Policy DES1.
Impact on trees
Policy EN12 relates to important landscape features and considers that where development would
have a detrimental impact on, or result in the loss of, any important landscape feature will not be
permitted. Supplementary Planning Document “Trees and Development” states that in the case of
replacement tree planting the Council will require, wherever practicable, the replacement on the
basis of at least two new trees for each tree lost. Where replacement trees cannot be accommodated
on site, contributions to off-site planting will be sought.
The proposed development would result in the felling of 1 Sycamore, 3 Birch, 2 Acer and 3
Lombardy Poplar trees. A tree survey has been submitted in support of the application. The
condition of the Birch, Acer and Lombardy Poplar are moderate to poor and they provide a low
amenity value. The trees are not of good enough quality to warrant retention either singularly or as
a group. No objection is raised to the felling of these trees.
The Sycamore tree situated to the front of the site adjacent to Florence Street is merited protection.
The applicants have submitted justification for the felling of this tree including that its type and
position on the site make it difficult to implement a scheme which would be of benefit to the area
and it can be an anti-social tree due to the levels of sap produced which is of particular significance
given its location in proximity to the car park and main entrance to the site. The applicants have
indicated a willingness to provide replacement trees in accordance with the Supplementary
Planning Document.
Whilst the Sycamore tree is of high amenity value and a tree worthy of protection, it is considered
that on balance, given the importance of this housing scheme for the City of Salford and the
benefits it would bring to the wider community, provided adequate replacement trees are agreed,
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
the loss of this Sycamore tree would be acceptable in this instance. The Sycamore tree is highly
visible within the Florence Street streetscene and there is limited scope within the site for
replacement trees to offer a similarly high amenity value and subsequently, the provision of off-site
replacement trees should be considered. The exact species and location of the replacement trees
requires careful consideration but an area of Council owned open space exists to the south east of
the site which could provide a potential location for the provision of replacement trees.
It is recommended that a condition be attached to any planning consent requiring the provision of
ten heavy standard replacement trees. This is recommended on the basis that the Birch, Acer and
Lombardy Poplar trees be replaced on a basis of 1 for 1 and the Sycamore tree be replaced on a
basis of 2 for 1.
Amenity
Policy DES7 of the UDP considers that all new development will be required to provide potential
users with a satisfactory level of amenity, in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and
layout. Development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on the
amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.
The proposal would be sited at a distance of 3.3 metres from the side elevation with 23 Florence
Street. The original proposal projected 4.7 metres beyond the rear wall of .23 Florence Street at
two-storey level. 23 Florence Street has a first floor habitable room window in the rear elevation
and subsequently amended plans were sought and the first floor element of the proposal has been
reduced in depth and it is now proposed to project 2.0 metres beyond the rear wall of 23 Florence
Street at first floor level. This is considered acceptable.
The level of separation between the proposed south west, two-storey element of the development
and the existing three storey block of flats is approximately 17.0 metres. This level of separation
between the proposed development and the existing neighbouring block of flats is sufficient,
having regard to the wider community benefits of the scheme, the limited reduction in the
Council’s normal standards and the obscure angle between the buildings. In terms of the impact
towards the north east and south east, there are no windows in the gable ends of 25 Owen Street or
46 Atherton Street and 21 and 24 Winifred Street
I am satisfied that the application would not result in an unacceptable detrimental impact on the
amenity of residents due to overlooking or loss of privacy. The application therefore accords with
Policy DES7.
Parking and access
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists in accordance with the Council’s minimum standards. It also states that the
maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded and parking facilities should be provided
in a manner consistent with the provision and maintenance of adequate standards of safety and
security.
The site would be accessed from Florence Street and five parking spaces are proposed including 1
disabled space and provision for 4 bicycles. The parking would be provided at a 90 degree angle to
Florence Street. Parking arrangements of this type would usually require a parking depth of 4.8
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
metres with 6.0 metres to the rear for adequate manoeuvring space, totally 10.8 metres. A width of
10.0 metres is available and to allow for adequate manoeuvring space, the width of each individual
parking space has been increased from the standard 2.4 metres to 2.6 metres.
In light of the nature of the proposed use, the Council’s maximum car parking standards to
encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, and the sites proximity within reasonable
walking distance of Worsley Road which is a major public transport route, I consider the level of
proposed car parking to be acceptable and in accordance with Policy A10. The proposed areas and
level of traffic generation are considered acceptable in terms of the capacity of surrounding streets.
I therefore have no objections to the application on highway grounds.
In response to objectors concerns relating to construction traffic, it is recommended that a site
operating condition be attached to any planning consent requesting details in relation to provision
of permitted hours for construction works and delivery of materials and delivery and collection of
equipment
The development proposes to close a public right of way and I have
attached a condition requiring the relevant closure order to be
obtained prior to the commencement of development.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Amended plans have been received, incorporating amendments suggested by the Police
Architectural Liaison Officer and reducing the depth of the proposal at first floor adjacent to 23
Florence Street further. A tree survey has been submitted in support of the application as has a
consultation script for women only supported accommodation. Parking provision has been
increased by 1 space.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the proposed development would make efficient use of a previously developed site
within the urban area. Given the previous use of the site, the principle of supported accommodation
is acceptable. The scheme would have significant benefits for the wider community and would not
have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. The design is
such that the proposed building would make a positive contribution to the surrounding area.
Adequate replacement trees would be provided to compensate for the felling of trees on site. The
application accords with the relevant policies of the UDP. I therefore recommend that the
application be approved.
The residents occupying the flats at 49-71 Florence Street have not been notified of the proposal
directly by letter although a site notice has been displayed at the site. Consultation letters have now
been sent but the publicity period will not expire until 17 October 2006. It is recommended that if
the Panel are minded to approve this application that decision is delegated to the Chair plus one
other member of the Panel unless objections are received from local residents. If objections are
received the application will be brought back to the next meeting of the Panel on 19 October 2006
to allow the consideration of any representations received during the publicity period.
RECOMMENDATION:
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the
date of this permission.
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls
and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
3. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit, for the approval of the
Local Planning Authority, a scheme to detail measures to ensure the main entrance is operated
on a secure entry system. Once approved the scheme shall be implemented prior to the
occupation of the supported accommodation hereby approved in accordance with the approved
scheme and the scheme shall be thereafter maintained.
4. No development shall be commenced unless and until a site investigation report (the Report)
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and
ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors
as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks
to human health and controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of
ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building
structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors
including ecological systems and property. The investigation shall where appropriate include a
risk assessment and an options appraisal including the remedial strategy.
The proposed risk assessment, including the sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of the site investigation survey.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Report including its risk
assessment, options appraisal and recommendations for implementation of the remedial
strategy.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall
validate that all works were completed in accordance with those agreed by the Local Planning
Authority.
5. 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 the route for construction traffic, provision of permitted hours for construction works and
delivery of materials and delivery and collection of equipment and no development or activities
related or incidental thereto shall take place on the site in contravention of such site operating
statement.
6. 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 the route for construction traffic, provision of permitted hours for construction works and
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
delivery of materials and delivery and collection of equipment and no development or activities
related or incidental thereto shall take place on the site in contravention of such site operating
statement.
6. The development hereby approved shall not be commenced until the appropriate order for the
closure or diversion of the public right of way affected by the development has been made.
7. During the first available planting season following the felling of the 1 Sycamore, 3 Birch, 2
Acer and 3 Lombardy Poplar trees hereby granted consent, they shall be replaced by ten "heavy
standard" trees in accordance with British Standard 3936:Part 1:1965 (Specification for
Nursery Stock Part 1:Trees and Shrubs) and shall have a clear stem height from the ground of
2.5m, a minimum overall height from the ground of 4.0m, a minimum circumference of stem at
1m from the ground of 12cm and the trees shall be root balled. The species and location of the
ten replacement trees shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the
felling of the trees.
(Reasons)
1. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990.
2. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. To safeguard the security of the area in accordance with policy DES10 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
4. Reason: 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.
5. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy
DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
6. In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy A8 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
7. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
06/52968/COU
APPLICANT:
Urban Box Ventures
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
LOCATION:
53 Tootal Road Salford M5 5EG
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey front/side extension (to include enlarged
shop area on ground floor) and conversion of basement and
first floor into three apartments
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
At a meeting of the Panel held on 21st September 2006 this application was DEFERRED FOR AN
INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The applicant seeks consent for the conversion of the basement into an apartment and the first floor
into two apartments. A two-storey side extension is proposed to include an enlarged shop area on
the ground floor. The two-storey extension would measure 2.55 metres wide and 7.8 metres deep.
The proposal would be flush with the ridge of the main roof. A ramp is proposed to the rear
providing rear access to the shop.
The development will occupy a building that is currently vacant, but was last used as a retail shop at
ground floor level and benefits from class A1 use rights. Currently, one self-contained flat exists at
first floor level. The unit forms 1 on a row of 7 other units, which aside from 67 Tootal Road, all
appear to be vacant. A class A5 use exists opposite the site at 42 Tootal Road. A 2.0 metre wall
bounds the application site. The takeaway element has been removed from this application.
SITE HISTORY
An application (06/52496/COU) for the change of use of shop with living accommodation into
three apartments and shop for the sale of hot food together with two-storey side extension and
external alteration to front elevation was refused planning consent on 24 th May 2006. It was
refused for two reasons, first, by virtue of the hot food takeaway element resulting in noise and
disturbance to the detriment of neighbouring occupiers. Secondly, insufficient evidence had been
submitted to show that adequate outlook and amenity would be provided to the proposed basement
flat.
CONSULTATIONS
The Director of Environmental Services recommends the refusal of planning permission and raises
a number of concerns including noise disturbance, poor escape routes and ventilation.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
36 – 44 (evens) Tootal Road
55, 57, 61 Tootal Road
51 Tootal Road
2 – 12 (evens) Birchleaf Grove
REPRESENTATIONS
3 letters of objection have been received in response to the application publicity and a petition
signed by 12 local residents. The following concerns have been raised:
There is already limited parking.
It is likely that the proposed development would obstruct Birch Leaf Grove.
The proposal would result in youths congregating.
There are already a number of takeaways in the area.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies:
DES1: Respecting Context.
DES7: Amenity of Users and Neighbours.
H5:
Provision of Residential Accommodation within Existing
Buildings.
A8:
Impact of Development on the Highway Network
A10: Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The key issues to be considered in the determination of this application are: whether the design of
the proposed extension is acceptable, whether the proposal would be detrimental to the amenities of
neighbouring occupiers or future occupants and whether the proposal would be detrimental to
highway safety.
Is the design of the proposed extension acceptable?
Policy DES1 considers that development will be required to respond to its physical context, respect
the positive character of the local area in which it is situated, and contribute towards local identity
and distinctiveness.
The proposed extension is situated on the corner of Tootal Road and Birch Leaf Grove and would
extend up to the boundary of the site.
The proposed extension would have a minimum width of 2.55 metres. This part of Tootal Road is
characterised by terraced properties with the application site being an end of terrace property.
Historically a space remained on corner properties within Tootal Road between the flank wall of
the property and the back edge of the pavement. A number of corner properties within Tootal Road
have constructed single storey side extensions and this spaciousness is no longer considered to be
characteristic of the area. It is proposed that all fenestration match that of the existing property both
in terms of style and proportion. All materials would match those of the existing property and a
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
condition would be attached to any planning consent reinforcing this. A 1.0 metre boundary railing
is proposed around the rear lightwell a ramp is proposed providing rear access to the shop, this
would be screened by the existing 2.0 metre boundary wall.
It is not considered that the proposal would appear unduly prominent within the streetscene and the
proposal is acceptable in terms of design.
Would the proposal cause harm to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and future occupants?
Policy DES7 considers that all new development, and 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. Development will not be permitted where it
would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of occupiers or users of other developments.
Policy H5 considers that the sub-division of dwellings into smaller units of accommodation will
only be permitted where the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of
neighbouring properties, or on the character of the surrounding area.
The proposed two-storey side extension would not extend beyond the rear of the existing property it
would be situated some 13.0 metres from the side elevation of 51 Tootal Road. One first floor
window serving a bathroom is proposed to the side elevation. A condition would be attached to any
planning consent ensuring that this window be obscure glazed. The proposed extension would not
be detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring properties either in terms of overlooking or
overshadowing.
The basement flat would include 2 bedroom windows in the front elevation, each measuring 0.9
metres wide and 0.4 metres deep. It is proposed that these be obscure glazed. Whilst these
windows would be small and obscure glazed, these are north facing and the obscure glazing would
prevent loss of privacy from passers by. Amended plans have been received showing an increase in
the rear lightwell (south elevation) which would now measure 2.0 metres wide and 5.0 metres in
length. A fully glazed double door to the lounge is included within this lightwell. A kitchen
window is proposed in the east elevation measuring 1.1 metres high and 1.2 metres wide, this
would be served by the lightwell. It is considered that the living conditions that would be created
for the future occupants of the proposed lower ground floor flat would be adequate. The basement
flat would benefit from its own private amenity space within the proposed lightwell.
The proposal would not be detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring or future occupants.
Would the proposal be detrimental to highway safety?
Policy A10 considers that development will be required to not exceed maximum car parking
standards. Car parking provision in residential developments will be assessed on a case by case
basis, having regard to the type and accommodation of the properties, their location, the availability
of and proximity to public transport, the availability of shared parking facilities and the existing
level of on-street parking.
With regards to the objections raised in relation to parking problems in the area, a number of
on-street parking bays exist to the front of the site and double yellow lines are situated opposite.
The site does not benefit from any off-street parking provision and is situated on a corner plot on
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
the junction of Tootal Road with Birch Leaf Grove. Birch Leaf Grove is not a through road. None
of the adjacent properties within Tootal Road benefit from off-street parking provision.
The property is well served by public transport, close to local facilities and is located within a
terrace of class A1 uses. Census data on car ownership states that 44% of households within the
Weaste and Seedley Ward do not own a car. On balance, it is not considered that the proposal
would exacerbate parking problems to such an extent as to result in material harm to highway
safety or a significant increase in traffic in the locality.
OTHER ISSUES
With regards to the issues raised by the Director of Environmental Services, I have liased with
building control who advise that the issues raised will all be controlled through their regulations.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The plans have been amended to incorporate a larger lightwell to the rear, the lounge window to the
basement flat has been altered to fully glazed double doors and an additional window has been
included in the east elevation of the basement flat serving the kitchen.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it is considered that the principle of development is acceptable, the design and
appearance would not be unduly prominent and the proposal would not cause harm to the amenities
of neighbouring residents or future occupants. The proposal would not compromise the aims and
objectives of the relevant policies contained within the development plan and there are no other
material planning considerations that would justify a refusal of consent.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the
date of this permission.
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same
type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by
the Local Planning Authority.
3. Prior to the approved development being first occupied, the first floor bathroom window in the
east elevation facing 51 Tootal Road shall be obscurely glazed and retained thereafter.
4. Prior to the commencement of development a sound attenuation scheme for the basement and
first floor flats shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the first use of the flats for residential
purposes and shall be retained thereafter.
(Reasons)
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
1. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990.
2. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy
DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy
DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. Reason: 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.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the amended drawing numbers
K231/04 B and K231/05 C dated 23rd August 2006.
APPLICATION No:
06/53066/FUL
APPLICANT:
Seddon Homes Ltd
LOCATION:
72-75 Barton Road Eccles M30 7AE
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing building and erection of a part
two/three/four storey building comprising 16 apartments
together with associated landscaping, car parking and
alteration to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Barton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a site on Barton Road where it is proposed
three vacant retail premises would be demolished and replaced with
sixteen 2 no. bed apartments. The new building would be at its maximum
23m wide by 19m and have in the region of 266.4m2 of garden/amenity
space. There would be two areas of car parking, with ten spaces at
the rear and five at the front. There would also be one disabled space
near the front pedestrian entrance to the building, totalling sixteen
car park spaces. There would also be storage for cycles. To the east
of the site is the Bridgewater Canal, to the north and south are two
storey dwellings and to the west are semi-detached properties on
Shaftsbury Avenue.
The site is within the Barton-upon-Irwell
conservation area.
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
SITE HISTORY
A previous application for a four storey building which comprised
twenty apartments with associated car parking and landscaping
(05/51201/FUL) was withdrawn in October 2005. It was considered the
proposal would result in the overdevelopment of the site and there
was not sufficient justification for the demolition of the buildings
taking into consideration the site is within a conservation area.
CONSULTATIONS
United Utilities – No objections provided the site is drained on a separate system with only foul
drainage connected into the foul sewer.
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No objections. There is a recommended condition
for a noise assessment due to the possible impact from the local road network.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 13th July 2006.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
10 to 32 Brindley Close
17 to 31 Brindley Close
1 to 32 Marantha Court (odd and even), 69 Barton Road
70-71 Barton Road
77, 78, 80, 80A, 83A, 92 Barton Road
17 to 24 (odd and even), Shaftsbury Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:
Too many apartments in the area
Increase in traffic
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DP3 Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
ST11 - Location of New Development
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES1 – Respecting Context
CH3 – Works within Conservation Areas
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
H8 – Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider the main issues in the determination of this application
to be: whether the principle of the proposal is acceptable; whether
the design of the proposed building is acceptable; whether the
proposed building would have a detrimental impact on the protected
trees within the site and whether this would have a detrimental impact
on the amenity of the conservation area; whether there would be a
detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents; and
whether the application accords with the policies of the UDP.
Principle
Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to a balanced mix of dwellings
within the local area and development should provide a high quality residential environment with
an adequate level of amenity space. The site constitutes previously developed land because there
are existing buildings; therefore its redevelopment is acceptable. The immediate vicinity consists
of a mix of two storey dwellings and apartment blocks up to ten storeys in height. The proposal
would contribute to this mix.
Policy ST11 seeks to locate new development in the most sustainable sites, preferably previously
developed land. Sites should be in existing established residential areas, well served by a choice of
means of transport and well related to housing, employment and infrastructure. As mentioned
above the application site is on previously developed land which is bounded by residential
properties. The use of the buildings as commercial units is no longer possible, as the building does
not meet the needs or standards of a modern business. The option of converting the building into
residential units was also researched, however this was also not viable. The proposal to redevelop
the site into apartments is viable as it is located close to good public transport links with high
frequency bus routes on Barton Road, Barton Lane and Peel Green Road. Eccles Town Centre, the
Trafford Centre and other large retail stores are also in relatively close proximity.
The draft Supplementary Planning Document on Housing states that in apartment schemes 50% of
all apartments should be of a minimum of 57sq.m in floor area. In this proposal fifteen of the
sixteen apartments have a floor area greater than this.
The principle of the redevelopment of the site is in accordance with both national planning
guidance and local planning policy. The proposed apartments are also in accordance with both
adopted and emerging local planning policy.
Amenity
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
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 not have any
habitable room windows or balconies on the side elevations, there are no properties on the opposite
side of Barton Road and there are more than 21m from the rear of the new building to the nearest
property on Shaftsbury Avenue (where it is a gable facing the application site). There would
therefore be no loss of privacy to the neighbouring residents or the future occupiers of the
apartments. With regards to the trees at the front of the site, which are to be retained as they have a
TPO, the branches would not affect the windows of the habitable room windows as the height to the
underside of the canopy is above the height of the eaves. There would therefore be sufficient
natural daylight for the bedrooms. A similar scale and massing as the existing buildings would be
maintained with the new building so as not to result in an overbearing impact or loss of light to
neighbouring properties. There would be sufficient secure private amenity space provided on site
for the use of future residents. I am satisfied the proposal complies with the above policy.
Design
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and 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. It is proposed the eaves and ridge height of the new
building would be the similar to the existing building 74-75 Barton Road. The ground floor of the
new building would be dropped in order to fit the three storeys of accommodation within the eaves
height of the existing two storey frontage of the existing commercial building. The fourth storey
would be in the roof space. The new building drops to two storey (where it replaces 72 and 73
Barton Road) in order not to have an overbearing impact on 70-71 Barton Road. Archive
photographs of the existing buildings show they had red brick frontages with buff sand stone
detailing (the existing elevation is currently white). The new building would be of a brick that
matches the original red brick frontages with parts of the elevations rendered white in reference to
the buildings as they are now as well as the properties at 80 to 88 Barton Road. I have attached a
condition for samples of materials to ensure they are of a high quality.
Conservation Area
The site is located in the Barton-upon-Irwell conservation area. The applicant is aware a
conservation area consent application would be required before any demolition could commence.
The justification for the demolition of the existing buildings has been included in this application.
Policy CH3 states development in conservation areas would only be permitted where there is no
unacceptable impact on the area, secures environmental improvements and enhancements and
protects and improves important views within, into and out of the conservation area. Policy CH4
requires demonstration that there could be no viable future use of the buildings and the new
development must be of at least equal design quality to the structure to be demolished. There have
been many unsympathetic structural and elevation alterations both externally and internally. As
previously mentioned the use as a commercial unit is no longer possible, as the building does not
meet the needs or standards of a modern business. The option of converting the building into
residential units was also researched, however this was also not viable. The Council’s
Conservation officer was consulted and is of the opinion that due to the very poor state of the
buildings they are not worthy of retention. As previously mentioned the design of the new building
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
is reflecting the materials and features of the original buildings. I therefore consider the proposal
complies with policies CH3 and CH4.
Car parking
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists and that maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded. There would be
sixteen new spaces created, one would be for disabled use. There would also be cycle storage. The
car parking areas would be sited to both the front and the rear of the site in order to reduce the
expanse of tarmac and also allow residents to park their car or cycle nearer to their own apartment.
There are currently three vehicular access points off Barton Road. Two of these would be retained
and a new pedestrian gate would be formed from Barton Road to the main entrance of the building.
There would also be an entrance at the rear of the building for access from the rear car park. I do
not consider the application would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety or increase the
amount of traffic in the area significantly, and I am therefore of the opinion the application
complies with the above policy.
Trees
There are two mature beech trees and one early-mature sycamore tree located in the northeast
corner of the site near to the boundaries with Barton Road and 70-71 Barton Road. The two beech
trees are subject of a tree preservation order (TPO.48) and so measures will be required during the
construction of the new building in the form of protective fencing and tree inspections during
construction as per Policy TD4 of the SPD on ‘Trees and Development’. The recommendations
included in application’s tree survey state the protection measures would accord with B.S.5837,
which complies with Policy TD4. A condition has been attached to ensure this is carried out. The
proposed apartment building will be 4m further to the west and 2m further to the south from the
trees than the existing building. I do not consider the proposed scheme would have any
unacceptable impact on the trees. The City Council’s aboricultural consultant supports this.
Open Space
Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal open
space within housing developments.
The applicant has agreed to make a contribution towards the provision of open space in the area, in
accordance with the above policy. The contribution in this regard would be £25,920 based on the
number of bed spaces proposed. I am satisfied that this contribution complies with Policy H8.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with Policy H8 of the Adopted UDP, I have attached a condition requiring the
applicant to enter into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
for the payment of a total of £25,920. This would contribute to the provision of open space in the
vicinity.
CONCLUSION
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
In conclusion, I consider the principle of the proposed development to be acceptable. I am satisfied
that the amenity of existing or future residents would not be unacceptably detrimentally affected as
a result of this scheme. Consequently, I am satisfied that the application accords with the relevant
policies of the Adopted UDP. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions and that the Strategic Director of Customer and
Support Services be given authority to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the provision of improved local open space/play
equipment.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the materials for
the external elevations and roof of the buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved materials,
unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface
treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and
thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or
shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority.
4. Standard Condition C06C No work to Trees protected by T.P.O.
5. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
6. Prior to the commencement of any building works on site, an assessment of noise likely to
affect the application site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. This assessment should follow PPG24 guidelines towards assessing the noise from
the surrounding road network including Barton Road it's junction with Peel Green Road. The
assessment shall identify all noise attenuation measures which may be determined appropriate
to reduce the impact of noise on the residential properties on site and achieve the requirements
of BS8233 for internal noise levels. Once agreed, all identified noise control measures shall be
implemented and thereafter retained.
7. The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use unless and until any disused
access points and the existing highway is made good to adoptable footway standards unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
8. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not commence until a Planning
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 has been made and
lodged with the Local Planning Authority, and the Local Planning Authority has given its
approval in writing. The planning obligation will provide that a commuted sum as required by
Policy H8 of the City of Salford Adopted Unitary Development Plan and the Draft Salford
Greenspace Strategy 2006 will be paid to the Local Planning Authority for open space and
recreation space purposes and for local environmental improvements or such purposes as
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
9. No development shall commence until a scheme of recycling facilities for the apartments has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme as is
approved shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
4. Standard Reason R010B Protect TPO trees
5. Standard Reason R010B Protect TPO trees
6. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
7. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
8. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space
for future occupiers in accordance with policies H8 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP.
9. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The Environmental Services Directorate can be contacted on 0161 737 0551 for further
discussions concerning the assessment of noise and subsequent mitigation measures at this site.
Consideration shall also be given to achieving adequate Summer Cooling and Rapid
Ventilation. If deemed necessary, alternative ventilation measures shall be identified and
incorporated into the noise assessment report.
2. Construction works shall not be permitted outside the following hours:
Monday to Friday 08:00 to 18:00
Saturdays
08:00 to 13:00
Construction works shall not be permitted on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays
Access and egress for delivery vehicles shall be restricted to the working hours indicated
above.
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
3. Please refer to United Utilities' letter dated 14th July 2006.
APPLICATION No:
06/53188/LBC
APPLICANT:
Community Health And Social Care Directorate
LOCATION:
Ordsall Hall 322 Ordsall Lane Salford M5 3AN
PROPOSAL:
Listed Building Consent for the refurbishment of hall to include
re-roofing, pointing, rebuilding of gable, demolition of glass
structure, new external fire door and complete internal
overhaul
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site is a Grade I Listed Building situated on the north western side of Ordsall Lane.
The site is bounded to the north east, north west and south west by residential properties and
commercial buildings characterise the opposite side of Ordsall Lane. The site is bounded by 2.0
metre high green metal railings.
The application is related to an application for full permission (reference: 06/53177/DEEM3),
which was approved on 15th September 2006. This application is for listed building consent for the
refurbishment of the hall including re-roofing, pointing, rebuilding of gables, new external fire door
and complete internal overhaul.
The application involves the demolition of a glass structure on the north east elevation and
subsequently must be referred to the Secretary of State.
SITE HISTORY
06/53177/DEEM3 - Refurbishment of Hall including construction of new external fire doors –
Permitted.
93/30950/DEEM3 - Listed Building Consent for internal alterations – Authorised.
97/36338/DEEM3 - Erection of visitor centre and garden maintenance centre together with
reinstatement of moat and creation of period gardens including provision of 3 bridges and other
ancillary garden structures – Permitted.
93/31740/LBC - Listed building consent for the erection of new visitors entrance to East Wing with
various internal repairs and enhancements and completion of permanent boundary treatments –
Permitted.
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
95/34669/DEEM3 - Listed building consent for replacement heating and fire alarm system,
improvements to means of escape and provision of additional flagstones to external means of
access - Referred to Secretary of State
05/51559/LBC - Listed Building Consent for the retention of a wash hand basin and boiler in east
wing – Permitted.
CONSULTATIONS
English Heritage advise that much of this application is uncontentious and mostly involves
welcome repair and restoration to the important fabric of the building. Where significant
interventions in the historic fabric are proposed, by the creation of two new door openings to the
ground floor, creation of a new stair, these are justifiable in terms of improving access and the
future plans for the use of the hall will have limited impact on the special architectural and historic
character of the Hall. English Heritage are pleased to support the application.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 1st August 2006.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 4 Lawler Street
Charles House, 325 Ordsall Lane
NG Bailey & Company, Ordsall Lane
1 – 31 (odds) Warburton Street
2 – 30 (evens) Guy Fawkes Street
37 – 40 Ponoma Crescent
1, 3 Modwen Road
REPRESENTATIONS
No objections have been received in response to this application.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None.
CH1 – Works to, and Demolition of, Listed Buildings.
DES1 – Respecting Context.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy CH1 considers that proposals for the alteration, extension, change of use or demolition of a
listed building will be considered in relation to the importance of the building; the particular
physical features of the building; the buildings setting and contribution to the local scene and the
extent to which the proposed works would bring substantial benefits for the community.
The application site is a museum and the proposal is to refurbish the building and improve access.
This would include the creation of a new door on the south and east elevation. The door on the
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
south elevation would match the existing on the north. An existing door on the east elevation
would be removed and a new opening to match the existing created. A condition is recommended
requiring submission of details of the new doors.
It is proposed that the glass structure to the east of the building be removed. This structure is not an
original feature of the building and is not sympathetic to the style of Ordsall Hall, its removal would
represent an improvement to the visual appearance of the listed building.
The proposal has been considered by the Conservation Officer. He has no objection to the
proposal.
It is considered that the refurbishment work proposed shows a respect for the details of the original
building and would not significantly alter its character. The proposal is in accordance with policy
CH1 of the UDP and it is accordingly recommended that the application be approved.
CONCLUSION
The proposed works represent the refurbishment of this Grade I Listed Building and show respect
for the details of the original building. The demolition of the glass structure would not significantly
alter the character of the building. It is recommended that the application be approved subject to
referral to the Secretary of State.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the
date of this permission.
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of the new doors to be
used in the south and east elevations shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved doors, unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Reason: Required to be imposed by virtue of Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
2. In order to preserve the character of the Listed Building in accordance with policy CH1 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
APPLICATION No:
06/53191/FUL
APPLICANT:
Jayspring Ltd
LOCATION:
12-14 Radford Street Salford M7 4NT
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing dwellings and erection of seven-three
storey town houses together with associated car parking and
alteration to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a site on Radford Street in Salford 7 where
it is proposed two semi-detached dwellings would be demolished and
replaced with seven - five bed townhouses that would be three storeys
in height. Each new dwelling would be in the region of 200m2 in size
and have living accommodation on three floors with a roof terrace.
There would also be a garage and driveway for each new dwelling and
a front and rear garden. To the north of the site is the rear garden
of 12 Kersal Bank, to the east of the site are three detached dwellings
and to the west and south of the site is a SBI, which is also a wildlife
corridor. There are also a number of protected trees in and around
the site.
SITE HISTORY
There have been no previous applications on this site.
CONSULTATIONS
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – No comments to make.
Environment Agency – No comments received.
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No comments received.
Ecology Unit – No comments received.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2,4,6,8,10,10A, 10B and 10C Radford Street
8,10,12 Kersal Bank
14, 14A, 16 and 18 Blackfield Lane
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received four letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:
Increase in traffic on Radford Street
Unacceptable impact on Kersal Dale
Loss of historic buildings
Harm to wildlife
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DP3 Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
ST11 - Location of New Development
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES1 – Respecting Context
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
EN8 – Nature Conservation Sites of Local Importance
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider the main issues in the determination of this application
to be: whether the principle of the proposal is acceptable; whether
the design of the proposed building is acceptable; whether the
proposed building would have a detrimental impact on the protected
trees within and around the site; whether there would be a detrimental
impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents; and whether the
application accords with the policies of the UDP.
Principle
Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to a balanced mix of dwellings
within the local area and development should provide a high quality residential environment with
an adequate level of amenity space. The site constitutes previously developed land because
residential/out buildings are sited on it; therefore its redevelopment is acceptable. The immediate
vicinity consists of a mix of two storey dwellings, large detached dwellings and flats. The proposal
would contribute to this mix.
Policy ST11 seeks to locate new development in the most sustainable sites, preferably previously
developed land. Sites should be in existing established residential areas, well served by a choice of
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
means of transport and well related to housing, employment and infrastructure. As mentioned
above the application site is on previously developed land and it is in an established residential area.
The use of the buildings for residential purposes is no longer possible, as the buildings are in a very
poor condition suffering from structural failure in some areas and water damage in others. The
proposal to redevelop the site into townhouses would be viable as Radford Street is approximately
220m from Bury New Road, which has a number of high frequency bus routes, and the road itself
runs between Prestwich and Manchester City Centre.
The draft Supplementary Planning Document on Housing states in Policy HOU1 that 90% of a new
development should be houses rather than apartments or other dwelling forms. The site is within
Broughton Park where policy HOU2 requires at least 20% of new houses to have five or more
bedrooms wherever possible. In this proposed scheme there would be 100% houses and 100% with
five bedrooms. The scheme therefore accords with the emerging SPD.
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. There would be approximately 27m
from gable of proposed house 7 to the gable of 10C Radford Street which complies with the
council’s minimum separation distances. There are no other buildings at a closer proximity than
this and so there would be no overlooking or loss of privacy to any neighbours or future occupiers.
Each new property would have a front and rear garden as well as a roof terrace, and I am of the
opinion there is satisfactory private amenity space for future occupiers.
Design
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and 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. The design and layout of the proposed townhouses is
contemporary taking inspiration from the size and shape of the site and the levels of the land. The
result is a stepped terrace where the plots are generally linked in pairs with the ground levels carved
away to provide a series of platforms that step down the roadside. The materials largely comprise
rendered surfaces to the elevations, a more traditional pitched tiled roof to the rear of the houses and
timber boarded finishes for the roof terrace areas which would blend in with the ‘woodland’ setting
of the site. I have attached a condition for samples of materials to ensure they are of a high quality.
I am of the opinion that the design is of a high quality that would not have any unacceptable impact
on the street scene or the area.
Car parking
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists and that maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded. Every new house
would have a garage and a driveway which can accommodate two cars. I do not consider the
application would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety or increase the amount of traffic
in the area significantly, and I am therefore of the opinion the application complies with the above
policy.
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
Trees, nature reserve and history of the buildings
As part of the proposal a mature horse chestnut tree would need to be removed from the front
garden of number 12 Radford Street. The Council’s consultant arborist has inspected the site and
considers that as it is immediately next to Kersal Dale and there is a high proportion of woodland in
the immediate vicinity, there is considerable mitigation if the tree is to be removed. There are other
protected trees in the vicinity that would not be affected by the scheme and I have attached a
condition requiring a method statement for the construction duration to ensure there a re protection
measures in place.
An objection has been received from The Friends of Kersal Dale who consider the two existing
properties are worthy of protection by being listed. The Council’s Conservation Officer visited the
site and confirmed that the buildings are in a very poor structural and weatherproof state of repair.
Due to being altered extensively it is not thought they are worthy of protection.
Policy EN8 states development that would adversely affect the nature conservation value of a Site
of Biological Importance (SBI) would only be permitted where the impact on the nature
conservation interest of the site has been minimised as far as possible. Kersal Dale is an SBI which
is located to the northwest, west and south of the application site. The proposed townhouses would
not encroach onto the SBI and as the site will not change from residential use I do not consider the
increase in number of dwellings would have a significant unacceptable detrimental impact on the
SBI.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider the principle of the proposed development and the type of housing
proposed to be acceptable. I am satisfied that the amenity of existing or future residents would not
be unacceptably detrimentally affected as a result of this scheme. I am also satisfied with the
quality of the design and that the protected trees and SBI would not be adversely affected.
Consequently, I am satisfied that the application accords with the relevant policies of the Adopted
UDP. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the materials for
the external elevations and roof of the buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved materials,
unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface
treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and
thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority.
4. Prior to first occupation a footpath shall be constructed along the frontage of the proposed
development.
5. Prior to the commencement of development a method statement detailing the tree protection
measures to be undertaken during construction shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The approved method statement shall be implemented upon
commencement of development.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
4. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
5. Standard Reason R009B Safeguard Existing Trees
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Construction works shall not be permitted outside the following hours:
Monday to Friday 08:00 to 18:00
Saturdays
08:00 to 13:00
Construction works shall not be permitted on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays
Access and egress for delivery vehicles shall be restricted to the working hours indicated
above.
2. For further details regarding the new footpath please contact the Council's Highway Services
on 0161 909 6505.
APPLICATION No:
06/53206/FUL
APPLICANT:
FRASC Group
LOCATION:
Orchard House 318 Ellenbrook Road Worsley M28 1EB
PROPOSAL:
Erection of extension and alterations to existing building and
change of use from offices to form 27 apartments together with
associated car parking and construction of new and alteration
to existing vehicular access
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
WARD:
Boothstown And Ellenbrook
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former Mines Rescue Station on Ellenbrook Road and seeks consent
to convert the building to provide 27 apartments and 28 car parking spaces which would be located
mainly in front of the building although 9 of the spaces would accessed directly off Orchard
Avenue. The conversion would include the erection of effectively three first floor extensions to the
rear of the building. The existing faēade fronting Ellenbrook Road would remain unchanged.
The site is within the Mines Rescue Conservation Area. Development restrictions are also imposed
on the whole of the conservation area by way of an Article 4 directive. The article 4 directive
removes Permitted Development rights regarding driveways, means of enclosure, doors and
windows from the residential properties within the conservation area. The purpose of the directive
is to retain the special architectural and historic character of the conservation area.
The building is currently occupied by an industrial use. Ancillary offices are located at ground
floor behind the former emergency vehicular access doors. Two apartments are also located at first
floor level within the main frontage of the building.
This proposal seeks to convert the existing building to provide apartments. The proposal also
include rear extensions at first floor level to further facilitate the development of the building to
accommodate 27 apartments. There would be a mix of apartments including six - three bedroom
apartments and 21 - two bed apartments. Three apartments would be duplex apartments which
would be located to the rear of the original emergency access doors. These doors would be
retained. A total of 4 entrance points would be provided, 2 from the Orchard Road elevation and 2
on the opposite southern elevation. Amenity space is proposed to the rear of the site. The area
fronting Orchard Avenue which currently provides additional car parking would be landscaped.
The proposal would replicate elements of the buildings design in the proportion of new windows
and would utilise a brick to match that of the existing building. The roof of the extensions on each
side of the building would be constructed utilising zinc and would include a shallow pitch. These
elements would be behind a parapet wall similar to that of the existing single storey construction.
An associated application for Listed Building Consent 06/52008/LBC also appears on this agenda
for a decision.
SITE HISTORY
In 1995, planning permission was approved for change of use to Hat Manufacturers with residential
(95/33943/COU). The associated listed building application was also approved (95/33944/LBC)
In 1997, planning permission was granted to brick up front and rear garage openings creating
window openings at first floor level (front and rear) and doorways at rear ground floor level only
(97/36246/FUL). At the same time listed building consent was granted for the construction of a
mezzanine floor (97/36245/LBC)
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
In 2000, planning permission was granted for the change of use of part of first floor offices to a self
contained flat together with associated landscaping (00/41187/COU). The associated listed
building application was also approved. This consent allowed for internal alterations and creation
of flat at first floor (00/41186/LBC)
A similar scheme (and listed building application) to this current proposal was withdrawn prior to
consideration last year - Erection of part first floor and part second floor extensions above existing
single storey building, alterations to the elevations and change of use to 31 apartments, together
with associated car parking and bin store (05/50987/FUL and 05/50992/LBC)
In April this year, planning permission and listed building consent (06/52015/FUL and
06/52008/LBC) for the erection of first floor extension above existing single storey building,
alterations to elevations and change of use to 27 apartments together with associated car parking
and bin store was refused by this panel. The reason for refusal states:
“The proposed development by reason of its design and materials would seriously injure the
character and appearance of the listed building and conservation area and as such the
proposal is contrary to policies EN11, EN12, EN13 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan and policies CH2 and CH5 of the Draft Replacement Unitary Development
Plan.” (06/52015/FUL)
“The proposed development by reason of its design and materials would seriously injure the
character and appearance of the listed building and as such the proposal is contrary to
policies EN12, EN13 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and policy
CH4 of the Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan.” (06/52008/LBC)
CONSULTATIONS
The Director of Environmental Services – No objection subject to the attachment of condition
relating to site investigation.
Environment Agency – no objection in principle subject to drainage condition
United Utilities – no objection in principle
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – Raises concerns regarding the number of entrance points to
the building and the lack of defensible space.
Worsley Civic Trust – no response
Worsley and Boothstown Residents Association – Generally supports the applications but raises
concerns over the potential to changes to the materials.
English Heritage – “The current application seems to prefer to attempt to extend the listed building
in a complementary, not to say pastiche manner. This seems entirely wrong and will result in a
building whose history will be subsumed within a large extension which will make the new
ensemble confusingly resemble an inter-war urban housing block. It would clearly therefore have
an adverse impact on the listed building. Accordingly I would strongly advise that other options,
sharing more of the contemporary characteristics of the previous application, be considered.
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
We would urge you to address the above issues, and recommend that this application should be
determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your
specialist conservation advice”
20th Century Society offer the following comments “We feel that the proposed extension is very
dense and designed in a heavy handed and poorly detailed way. It is our opinion not beneficial to
mimic the architectural language of the listed building – the result is a deeply unsatisfactory
composition. If an extension is indeed necessary in order to make the scheme viable, a supposition
which ought to be verified by the applicant, we would recommend such an extension to be clearly
separate from the existing building and designed in a contemporary style. There is in our view no
merit in pretending that the extension has always formed part of the listed building”
PUBLICITY
The site has been advertised by way of press and site notice.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 22 (con), 24 – 52 (even) Orchard Avenue
39 – 57 (odd), 308, 310 and 320 Ellenbrook Road
10 Wyre Drive
1 – 5 (con) Miners Mews
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a number of letters of objection from eight neighbouring residents in response to
the application publicity. One letter of support has been received. The following issues have been
raised:
Impact of additional vehicles / parking
Bats
Overlooking
Loss of privacy
Amount of development already in area
Amount of flats in area
Shadows effect upon
Access to property
Character of the area
Scale and Density
Loss of light
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies:
Other policies: None
None
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
CH3 - Works within Conservation Areas
H1 – Provision of New Housing Development, H8 – Open Space Provision
Associated With New Housing Developments, DES1 – Respecting
Context, DES11 – Design and Crime, A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and
Motorcycle Parking in New Development, CH 1 Works to, and Demolition
of, Listed Buildings
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Having regard to the previous decision, the main planning issues relating to this application are:
whether the development would have any negative impact upon the listed building, whether the
development would have any negative impact upon the conservation area; and whether the
proposal complies with the provisions of the relevant policies of the adopted UDP. These issues
will be discussed in turn below.
The Principle of Residential Development
Policy ST11 of the UDP accords with policy DP1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy. The conversion
of the building would accord with the highest priority for bringing forward sites, and represents an
efficient recycling of the existing building. Additionally the reuse of the building itself is
appropriate, especially given that it is in a sound condition and of architectural interest. Therefore,
in terms of accordance with the sequential approach as defined in policy ST11 the proposal is
acceptable in principle.
Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a balanced
mix of dwellings within the local area.
National planning policy guidance is also relevant. PPG3: Housing highlights the need to develop
previously developed brownfield sites and where appropriate higher densities should be
considered. PPG3 also states that, when considering conversions, a more flexible approach is
required with regard to densities, car parking, amenity space and overlooking.
Given that the current proposal also seeks to convert an existing building I am still of the opinion
that the proposal should be considered against criteria 1 of policy ST11 as a site which should be
developed in preference to other ‘brown and green’ field development sites, as such, I still consider
that sequentially, the principle of the redevelopment of this site for residential accommodation to be
acceptable and accords with the thrust of the policies highlighted above.
Moreover, given that the general principle of development was not specified as a reason to refuse
the previous scheme I do not consider that this scheme represents sufficient material changes to
warrant a different view in this particular instance.
However, the principle still has to be balanced against the impact upon the listed building,
conservation area and other material planning considerations.
Loss of Employment
As the site is currently in use for employment purposes. Policy E5 of the plan sets out criteria for
when planning permission will be granted for the reuse or redevelopment of sites or buildings
within an established employment area for non-employment uses.
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
Given the size of the site I do not consider that the loss of this site would result in a material or
unacceptable shortfall in the range of sites and / or premises available for economic development.
Additionally as the site is surrounded by residential properties, the conversion of the building would
represent a rationalisation of uses that would improve the amenity of nearby residents.
Moreover, given that the loss of employment provision was not specified as a reason to refuse the
previous scheme I do not consider that this scheme represents a material change or that there are
any new material considerations to warrant a different view in this particular instance.
Scale, Layout and Siting
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. The Inspector has recommended no changes to this
policy.
Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users
with a satisfactory level of amenity. Development that would have an
unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other
developments will not normally be permitted.
Policy DES10 states that development will not be permitted unless it is designed to discourage
crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime, and support personal and property security.
The neighbouring residents which adjoins the rear of the building on Orchard Avenue have
reiterated their concerns regarding overlooking, the increase in height and the potential shadowing
that would result in the loss of aspect. Loss of view is not a material planning consideration. The
proposal would maintain more that the Council’s normal separation distances. In refusing the
previous scheme members did not consider that the proposal would have a detrimental impact upon
the neighbouring properties due to overlooking or overlooking. The reason for refusal relates to the
design of the proposal within this conservation area, as such I do not consider that the changes to
this proposal justify a reason for refusal in this instance with regard to over looking or
overshadowing.
Moreover, the applicant’s agent has provided a sunlight and shadow study. It shows that the
neighbouring properties to the rear would experience additional shadowing in the morning of the
summer months. There would be no difference in the evenings given that the sun sets in the west.
During the winter months the shadow effect would be in the opposite direction. As such, I am still
satisfied that this study proves that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon the
neighbouring residents by way of shadowing.
Similarly to the previous scheme, the main elevation fronting Ellenbrook Road would be
unchanged. The existing doors which originally would have provided access for the emergency
vehicles have been retained. Duplex apartments would be provided in this location. The first floor
extensions on the existing single storey rear elements of the building have been designed and
positioned so that the existing light wells are retained. These light wells originally provided light
to the corridors adjacent to the training rooms. The central extension is proposed in materials to
match the existing main frontage. The elevation fronting Orchard Avenue would be cleaned and
the original windows at ground floor would be retained as would the chimney. The extensions seek
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
to extend the building in a complementary manner. The outer extensions would introduce windows
to match the proportions, materials and positions of the existing ground floor windows.
Construction of the extension would build upon the existing parapet wall.
The height of the existing building, where it bounds the rear of 50 Orchard Avenue and the side /
rear of 21 Orchard Avenue, is 5.1m and is positioned 12.1m from the rear elevation of 50 Orchard
Avenue and forms the common boundary between the site and 21 Orchard Avenue. The proposal
would introduce a pitched roof of a traditional appearance within the centre of the existing building,
set back from Orchard Avenue. The ridge height of this element would be 9.1m in height (at its
highest point) and would be the same pitch of the same materials as the main element of Orchard
House which fronts Ellenbrook Road. This central element would be constructed upon the existing
building as described above and would slope away from the neighbouring properties. The pitch of
the roof would mean that the highest point of the ridge (9.1m) would be 6.3m from the common
boundary. Moreover, this element does not have any windows in the rear facing those neighbours
identified above.
The element proposed on the southern side of the building would maintain 19m to rear of the
Miners Mews and 38m to the rear of 50 Orchard Avenue. The existing southern elevation is 25m
from the rear of the Miners Mews. This is the same separation as that proposed on the refused
scheme.
The existing height of the single storey element along Orchard Avenue is 3.6m. The inclusion of
the first floor extension closest to Orchard Avenue would increase the ridge height to 6.5 m. A zinc
shallow pitched roof is proposed and would be the same as that proposed previously. However, the
existing parapet wall detail would be replicated at first floor height to effectively screen this portion
of the exension.
The Police Architectural Liaison Officer has considered that the application. He has raised
concerns regarding the number of entrance points to the building and lack of defensible space. I
have forwarded a copy of the advice to the applicant.
In conclusion and given that the Police Architectural Liaison Officer has not objected to the
scheme, I am still satisfied that the proposal accords with the thrust of policy DES10 and that the
issues raised would not normally warrant a refusal on the scheme as they could be dealt with by
way of condition.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the scheme accords with the policies highlighted above
regarding design, layout and siting.
Car Parking
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards. It also states that the
maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
The applicant has indicated that a total of 28 car parking spaces would be provided, I have no
highway objection to the application. I still consider the level of car parking to be appropriate and
in accordance with the Council’s maximum car parking standards. I have no highway objection.
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
Moreover, given that the car parking provision and highway safety implications were not specified
as a reason to refuse the previous scheme I do not consider that this scheme represents sufficient
material changes to warrant a different view in this particular instance.
Open Space
Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal open
space within housing developments.
In accordance with the above policies, the applicant previously agreed to make a contribution
towards the provision and maintenance of open space in the vicinity. Given that the scheme is
recommended for refusal I have not negotiated this particular element. However, I have no reason
to doubt that the applicant would be willing to enter into a similar agreement if planning permission
was granted.
Impact upon the Conservation Area
Adopted policy CH3 states that development in Conservation Areas will only be permitted where it
would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
The character of this particular conservation area has been preserved and enhanced over recent
years through the approval of residential development that relates to other similar individual
buildings within the area. In doing so the design character of the Conservation Area has been
maintained through new development encompassing key design principles of the original
buildings.
I consider that the proposal can be assessed in two parts; firstly the alterations to the area space to
the front and side of the building and secondly the visual appearance of the proposed extensions.
The area in front of the building has changed little since the building was constructed. It currently
provides access and car parking. This proposal would retain the external appearance of the building
which fronts Ellenbrook Road. No alterations are proposed to this elevation. Whilst the existing
flower bed would be reduced to facilitate this scheme, the area in front of the building would
continue to provide car parking albeit in a formal manner. As such I do not consider that the
character of the conservation area would be unduly affected by the proposal in this area.
The southern elevation and private amenity space have limited visibility from inside and outside of
the Conservation Area. The recently approved ‘Miners Mews’ would be the main area from which
this elevation could be viewed. The Council’s minimum separation distance is retained in this area
and is discussed later in this report.
The rear elevation currently comprises of a 5.1m high wall. A new ‘traditional’ style roof is
proposed at this point and would include a ridge which would return towards the two- storey
existing building. Given that this section is set in from each of the outer elevations it would not
result in a significant feature when viewed from Orchard Avenue at street level. The potential
impact of this extension is discussed later in this report. The applicant has provided a street scene
perspective looking east along Orchard Avenue toward Ellenbrook Road and it is this element that
would be most visible to the conservation area.
The designation of a conservation area is at the discretion of the Local Planning Authority unlike
the designation of listed buildings. The designation of a conservation is not dependant upon the
provision of a listed building. However, Orchard House is a key building within this small
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
conservation area and therefore provides a fundamental element of the historical nature and
character of the area.
As discussed within this report I do not consider, nor do English Heritage, the 20th Century Society
and the Council’s own heritage adviser, that this proposal would represent an appropriate extension
to the listed building design. Given that this listed building is a key prominent and historical
building within the conservation area, I consider that the design of the extensions would not
‘preserve or enhance’ the character of the conservation area and thus would be contrary to policy
CH3 of the adopted development plan.
Design and Effect on the Mines Rescue Listed Building
Adopted policy CH1 states that:
“(A) proposals for the alterations, extension, change of use or demolition, whether partial or total,
of a listed building will be considered in relation to the effect on:
The importance of the building;
The particular physical features of the building;
The building’s setting and contribution to the local scene; an
The extent to which the proposed works would bring substantial benefits for the
community.
(B) Proposals involving the alteration, extension, change of use or partial demolition of a listed
building will be permitted only where they would preserve or enhance the character and features of
special architectural interest that contribute to the reasons for its listing.”
Points C and D refer to partial and total demolition of listed buildings.
The Council’s Conservation officer advises that the building is currently suffering from water
damage. Whilst the future of this listed building is not at present under threat and is not a reason
stated by the applicant in support of the scheme, I am mindful that an appropriate and sensitive
scheme would ensure the long term future of this grade II listed building. Advice contained in
Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and Historic Environment advises that consideration
should be given to appropriate conversions. Moreover, the reason for refusal of the previous
scheme was not specific to the principle of converting the building for residential purposes.
Having received two objections from statutory consultees I consider it necessary to appraise both
the internal and external elements of the proposal in conjunction with these formal objections.
Internally, and with the assistance of the Council’s Conservation officer, many of the original
internal walls are to be reinstated. The original features which help define the buildings historic
contribution are also to be retained such as the original emergency doors and light wells. These
internal alterations to the building are the same as those proposed previously. It is many of the
internal elements that demonstrate the buildings historical use. The principle of the proposed use
and the internal alterations are also supported by English Heritage and the 20th Century Society.
Therefore, I consider that the conversion and internal alterations of this proposal would ‘preserve
and enhance’ the historical elements of this listed building. As such, I am satisfied that the internal
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
elements of the scheme would accord with policy CH1 of the development plan and PPG15 and
should be carefully balanced against the implications of a pastiche design.
Externally the extensions to the rear of the building would take the same scale and form of the
previous contemporary design. The reason for refusal related specifically to the design. It did not
relate to scale or impact upon neighbouring residents. Therefore, I do not consider that this
proposal would result in an unacceptable addition to the listed building with regard to it’s scale.
Whilst the Council’s Conservation officer previously considered that the scale of the extensions to
the building to be appropriate, he does not consider that the design of this proposal would be
appropriate for this listed building.
PPG15 provides design advice and guidance for Local Planning Authorities considering
applications for development to listed buildings. Generally the advice places emphasis on
achieving a distinction between the original building and any additions. This enables the original
building and its former use to be distinguished from any conversion and extensions.
This current proposal seeks to simply replicate the design and appearance of the existing ground
floor elevation. This imitation provides a confusing elevation to a prominent part of the
conservation area. Extending the listed building in such a manor will result in the loss of identity of
this former Miners Rescue Station. The historical use of the building forms part of the reason for
listing. Whilst the retention of the frontage will preserve a large proportion of the historical
reference a new first floor extension that copies the design of the original building will change its
appearance and the historical character of the building. It is necessary that this listed building
retains its former identity for the very reason of it’s listed status. Whilst members did not consider
a contemporary design to be appropriate previously, this design principle would enable a clear
distinction of what was original and what is new and thus maintain a clear distinction of past and
present uses and architectural styles.
Listed building status provides additional protection from inappropriate development and
demolition. The advice from English Heritage is that should planning permission be granted for
this scheme, it would be a strong possibility that the building would be de-listed. However, it
should be noted that it would only be a possibility if approved and subsequently constructed that the
building may be de-listed.
As stated earlier policy CH1 requires that development of listed building preserves or enhances the
building. I do not consider that a similar design would, in fact, preserve or enhance the listed
building. Therefore, it is necessary to consider if there are any other material considerations or
additional controls which would outweigh this view.
Whilst, I consider that this design would result in an inappropriate development that would be
harmful to this listed building I do not consider it appropriate to consider other measures which
may offer a similar level of protection for the historic features should the building be de-listed.
As stated earlier the layout of the proposal would retain many of the internal features, walls and
roof lights. It would also retain the main front facade and replace none matching brickwork. I
consider that these are clear benefits of this scheme which are also supported by English Heritage
and the Council’s Conservation Officer. Moreover, it is also possible that the applicant could enter
into a unilateral legal agreement to restrict future development of the buildings historic features
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
which would otherwise not require planning consent in the future. I consider that this would satisfy
the requirements of circular 05/05 with regard to the use of planning obligations and could retain
key historic features of the building.
I am informed that the building is suffering from water damage and is in general need of repair and
maintenance. The applicant has drawn members attention to the cost implication of making good
the current problems with the building and that this scheme would provide the investment
necessary to safeguard the building into the future. However, no evidence has been provided to
suggest that this development should be considered acceptable as it would enable the retention of
this listed building. Moreover, whilst I accept that the building may have some need of repair, I do
not consider that the building is ultimately at risk.
Therefore, having regard to the limited benefits of the scheme and the design implications of the
extensions upon the character of this listed building, I do not consider that the proposals would
enhance or preserve the important character of the listed building and Conservation Area.
This building has been afforded listed building status because of its historical importance. There are
few buildings of this period which have remained sufficiently unchanged to warrant listed status.
There is clear advice that this extension would be harmful to the character of the building and I do
not consider that this scheme is good enough to warrant approval even having regard to other
potential measures of control.
In conclusion, I do not consider that the scheme accords with the policies highlighted above
regarding development of listed buildings.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion I consider that external appearance and design of the extensions would be would
seriously injure the character and appearance of the listed building and conservation area.
Therefore, I recommend that this proposal be refused for the following reasons.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development by reason of its design and materials would seriously injure the
character and appearance of the listed building and conservation area and as such the
proposal is contrary to policies policies CH1 and CH3 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
06/53207/LBC
APPLICANT:
The FRASC Group
LOCATION:
Orchard House 318 Ellenbrook Road Worsley M28 1EB
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
PROPOSAL:
Listed Building Consent for the alteration and extension to
existing building and change of use from offices to 27
apartments
WARD:
Boothstown And Ellenbrook
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former Mines Rescue Station on Ellenbrook Road and seeks listed
building consent to convert the building to provide 27 apartments and 28 car parking spaces which
would be located mainly in front of the building, although 9 of these spaces would accessed directly
off Orchard Avenue. The conversion would include the erection of three first floor extensions to
the rear of the building. The existing facade fronting Ellenbrook Road would remain unchanged.
The site is within the Mines Rescue Conservation Area. Development restrictions are also imposed
on the whole of the conservation area by way of an Article 4 directive. The article 4 directive
removes Permitted Development rights regarding driveway, means of enclosure, doors and
windows from the residential properties within the conservation area. The purpose of the directive
is to retain the special architectural and historic character of the conservation area by adding further
control to the houses.
The building is currently occupied by an industrial use. Ancillary offices are located at ground
floor behind the former emergency vehicular access doors. Two apartments are also located at first
floor level within the main frontage of the building.
This proposal seeks to convert the existing building to provide apartments. The proposal also
include rear extensions at first floor level to further facilitate the development of the building to
accommodate 27 apartments. There would be a mix of apartments including 6 three bedroom
apartments and 21 two bed apartments. Three apartments would be duplex apartments which
would be located to the rear of the original emergency access doors. These doors would be
retained. A total of 4 entrance points would be provided, 2 from the Orchard Road elevation and 2
on the opposite southern elevation. Amenity space is proposed to the rear of the site. The area
fronting Orchard Avenue which currently provides additional car parking would be landscaped.
The proposal would replicate elements of the buildings design in the proportion of new windows
and would utilise a brick to match that of the existing building. The roof of the extensions on each
side of the building would be constructed utilising zinc and would include a shallow pitch. These
elements would be behind a parapet wall similar to that of the existing single storey construction.
An associated full application 06/53206/FUL also appears on this agenda for a decision.
SITE HISTORY
In 1995, planning permission was approved for change of use to Hat Manufacturers with residential
(95/33943/COU). The associated listed building application was also approved (95/33944/LBC)
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
In 1997, planning permission was granted to brick up front and rear garage openings creating
window openings at first floor level (front and rear) and doorways at rear ground floor level only
(97/36246/FUL). At the same time listed building consent was granted for the construction of a
mezzanine floor (97/36245/LBC)
In 2000, planning permission was granted for the change of use of part of first floor offices to a self
contained flat together with associated landscaping (00/41187/COU). The associated listed
building application was also approved. This consent allowed for internal alterations and creation
of flat at first floor (00/41186/LBC)
A similar scheme (and listed building application) to this current proposal was withdrawn prior to
consideration last year - Erection of part first floor and part second floor extensions above existing
single storey building, alterations to the elevations and change of use to 31 apartments, together
with associated car parking and bin store (05/50987/FUL and 05/50992/LBC)
In April this year, planning permission and listed building consent (06/52015/FUL and
06/52008/LBC) for the erection of first floor extension above existing single storey building,
alterations to elevations and change of use to 27 apartments together with associated car parking
and bin store was refused by this panel. The reason for refusal states:
“The proposed development by reason of its design and materials would seriously injure the
character and appearance of the listed building and conservation area and as such the
proposal is contrary to policies EN11, EN12, EN13 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan and policies CH2 and CH5 of the Draft Replacement Unitary Development
Plan.” (06/52015/FUL)
“The proposed development by reason of its design and materials would seriously injure the
character and appearance of the listed building and as such the proposal is contrary to
policies EN12, EN13 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and policy
CH4 of the Draft
CONSULTATIONS
The Director of Environmental Services – No objection subject to the attachment of condition
relating to site investigation.
Environment Agency – no objection in principle subject to drainage condition
United Utilities – no objection in principle
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – Raises concerns regarding the number of entrance points to
the building and the lack of defensible space.
Worsley Civic Trust – no response
Worsley and Boothstown Residents Association – Generally supports the applications but raises
concerns over the potential to changes to the materials.
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
English Heritage – “The current application seems to prefer to attempt to extend the listed building
in a complementary, not to say pastiche manner. This seems entirely wrong and will result in a
building whose history will be subsumed within a large extension which will make the new
ensemble confusingly resemble an inter-war urban housing block. It would clearly therefore have
an adverse impact on the listed building. Accordingly I would strongly advise that other options,
sharing more of the contemporary characteristics of the previous application, be considered.
We would urge you to address the above issues, and recommend that this application should be
determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your
specialist conservation advice”
20th Century Society offer the following comments “We feel that the proposed extension is very
dense and designed in a heavy handed and poorly detailed way. It is our opinion not beneficial to
mimic the architectural language of the listed building – the result is a deeply unsatisfactory
composition. If an extension is indeed necessary in order to make the scheme viable, a supposition
which ought to be verified by the applicant, we would recommend such an extension to be clearly
separate from the existing building and designed in a contemporary style. There is in our view no
merit in pretending that the extension has always formed part of the listed building”
PUBLICITY
The site has been advertised by way of press and site notice.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 22 (con), 24 – 52 (even) Orchard Avenue
39 – 57 (odd), 308, 310 and 320 Ellenbrook Road
10 Wyre Drive
1 – 5 (con) Miners Mews
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a number of letters of objection from eight neighbouring residents in response to
the application publicity for both the Listed Building application and full application. One letter of
support has been received. The following issues have been raised:
Impact of additional vehicles / parking
Bats
Overlooking
Loss of privacy
Amount of development already in area
Amount of flats in area
Shadows effect upon
Access to property
Character of the area
Scale and Density
Loss of light
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies:
Other policies: None
None
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
CH3 - Works within Conservation Areas
CH 1 Works to, and Demolition of, Listed Buildings
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the development would have any
negative impact upon the listed building, and whether the proposal complies with the provisions of
the relevant policies of the adopted Unitary Development Plan. These issues will be discussed in
turn below.
Impact upon the Conservation Area
Adopted policy CH3 states that development in Conservation Areas will only be permitted where it
would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
The character of this particular conservation area has been preserved and enhanced over recent
years through the approval of residential development that relates to other similar individual
buildings within the area. In doing so the design character of the Conservation Area has been
maintained through new development encompassing key design principles of the original
buildings.
I consider that the proposal can be assessed in two parts; firstly the alterations to the space to the
front and side of the building and secondly the visual appearance of the proposed extensions. The
area in front of the building has changed little since the building was constructed. It currently
provides access and car parking. This proposal would retain the external appearance of the building
which fronts Ellenbrook Road. No alterations are proposed to this elevation. Whilst the existing
flower bed would be reduced to facilitate this scheme, the area in front of the building would
continue to provide car parking albeit in a formal manner. As such I do not consider that the
character of the conservation area would be unduly affected by the proposal in this area.
The southern elevation and private amenity space have limited visibility from inside and outside of
the Conservation Area. The recently approved ‘Miners Mews’ would be the main area from which
this elevation could be viewed. The Council’s minimum separation distance is retained in this area
and is discussed later in this report.
The rear elevation currently comprises of a 5.1m high wall. A new ‘traditional’ style roof is
proposed at this point and would include a ridge which would return towards the two- storey
existing building. Given that this section is set in from each of the outer elevations it would not
result in a significant feature when viewed from Orchard Avenue at street level. The potential
impact of this extension is discussed later in this report. The applicant has provided a street scene
perspective looking east along Orchard Avenue toward Ellenbrook Road and it is this element that
would be most visible to the conservation area.
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
The designation of a conservation area is at the discretion of the Local Planning Authority unlike
the designation of listed buildings. The designation of a conservation is not dependant upon the
provision of a listed building. However, Orchard House is a key building within this small
conservation area and therefore provides a fundamental element of the historical nature and
character of the area.
As discussed within this report I do not consider, nor do English Heritage, the 20th Century Society
and the Council’s own heritage adviser, that this proposal would represent an appropriate extension
to the listed building design. Given that this listed building is a key prominent and historical
building within the conservation area, I consider that the design of the extensions would not
‘preserve or enhance’ the character of the conservation area and thus would be contrary to policy
CH3 of the adopted development plan.
Design and Effect on the Mines Rescue Listed Building
Adopted policy CH1 states that:
“(A) proposals for the alterations, extension, change of use or demolition, whether partial or total,
of a listed building will be considered in relation to the effect on:
The importance of the building;
The particular physical features of the building;
The building’s setting and contribution to the local scene; an
The extent to which the proposed works would bring substantial benefits for the
community.
(B) Proposals involving the alteration, extension, change of use or partial demolition of a listed
building will be permitted only where they would preserve or enhance the character and features of
special architectural interest that contribute to the reasons for its listing.”
Points C and D refer to partial and total demolition of listed buildings.
The Council’s Conservation officer advises that the building is currently suffering from water
damage. Whilst the future of this listed building is not at present under threat and is not a reason
stated by the applicant in support of the scheme, I am mindful that an appropriate and sensitive
scheme would ensure the long term future of this grade II listed building. Advice contained in
Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and Historic Environment advises that consideration
should be given to appropriate conversions. Moreover, the reason for refusal of the previous
scheme was not specific to the principle of converting the building for residential purposes.
Having received two objections from statutory consultees I consider it necessary to appraise both
the internal and external elements of the proposal in conjunction with these formal objections.
Internally, and with the assistance of the Council’s Conservation officer, many of the original
internal walls are to be reinstated. The original features which help define the buildings historic
contribution are also to be retained such as the original emergency doors and light wells. These
internal alterations to the building are the same as those proposed previously. It is many of the
internal elements that demonstrate the buildings historical use. The principle of the proposed use
and the internal alterations are also supported by English Heritage and the 20th Century Society.
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
Therefore, I consider that the conversion and internal alterations of this proposal would ‘preserve
and enhance’ the historical elements of this listed building. As such, I am satisfied that the internal
elements of the scheme would accord with policy CH1 of the development plan and PPG15 and
should be carefully balanced against the implications of a pastiche design.
Externally the extensions to the rear of the building would take the same scale and form of the
previous contemporary design. The reason for refusal related specifically to the design. It did not
relate to scale or impact upon neighbouring residents. Therefore, I do not consider that this
proposal would result in an unacceptable addition to the listed building with regard to it’s scale.
Whilst the Council’s Conservation officer previously considered that the scale of the extensions to
the building to be appropriate, he does not consider that the design of this proposal would be
appropriate for this listed building.
PPG15 provides design advice and guidance for Local Planning Authorities considering
applications for development to listed buildings. Generally the advice places emphasis on
achieving a distinction between the original building and any additions. This enables the original
building and its former use to be distinguished from any conversion and extensions.
This current proposal seeks to simply replicate the design and appearance of the existing ground
floor elevation. This imitation provides a confusing elevation to a prominent part of the
conservation area. Extending the listed building in such a manor will result in the loss of identity of
this former Miners Rescue Station. The historical use of the building forms part of the reason for
listing. Whilst the retention of the frontage will preserve a large proportion of the historical
reference a new first floor extension that copies the design of the original building will change its
appearance and the historical character of the building. It is necessary that this listed building
retains its former identity for the very reason of it listed status. Whilst members did not consider a
contemporary design to be appropriate previously, this design principle would enable a clear
distinction of what was original and what is new and thus maintain a clear distinction of past and
present uses and architectural styles.
Listed building status provides additional protection from inappropriate development and
demolition. The advice from English Heritage is that, should planning permission be granted for
this scheme, it would be a strong possibility that the building would be de-listed. However, it
should be noted that it would only be a possibility if approved and subsequently constructed that the
building may be de-listed.
As stated earlier policy CH1 requires that development of listed building preserves or enhances the
building. I do not consider that a similar design would, in fact, preserve or enhance the listed
building. Therefore, it is necessary to consider if there are any other material considerations or
additional controls which would outweigh this view.
Whilst, I consider that this design would result in an inappropriate development that would be
harmful to this listed building I do not consider it appropriate to consider other measures which
may offer a similar level of protection for the historic features should the building be de-listed.
As stated earlier the layout of the proposal would retain many of the internal features, walls and
roof lights. It would also retain the main front facade and replace none matching brickwork. I
consider that these are clear benefits of this scheme which are also supported by English Heritage
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
and the Council’s Conservation Officer. Moreover, it is also possible that the applicant could enter
into a unilateral legal agreement to restrict future development of the buildings historic features
which would otherwise not require planning consent in the future. I consider that this would satisfy
the requirements of circular 05/05 with regard to the use of planning obligations and could retain
key historic features of the building.
I am informed that the building is suffering from water damage and is in general need of repair and
maintenance. The applicant has drawn members attention to the cost implication of making good
the current problems with the building and that this scheme would provide the investment
necessary to safeguard the building into the future. However, no evidence has been provided to
suggest that this development should be considered acceptable as it would enable the retention of
this listed building. Moreover, whilst I accept that the building may have some need of repair, I do
not consider that the building is ultimately at risk.
Therefore, having regard to the limited benefits of the scheme and the design implications of the
extensions upon the character of this listed building, I do not consider that the proposals would
enhance or preserve the important character of the listed building and Conservation Area.
This building has been afforded listed building status because of its historical importance. There
are few buildings of this period which have remained sufficiently unchanged to warrant listed
status. There is clear advice that this extension would be harmful to the character of the building
and I do not consider that this scheme is good enough to warrant approval even having regard to
other potential measures of control.
In conclusion, I do not consider that the scheme accords with the policies highlighted above
regarding development of listed buildings.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion I consider that external appearance and design of the extensions would be would
seriously injure the character and appearance of this listed building. Therefore, I recommend that
this proposal be refused for the following reasons.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development by reason of its design and materials would seriously injure the
character and appearance of the listed building and as such the proposal is contrary to policies
CH1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
06/53240/OUT
APPLICANT:
P & N Construction Ltd
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
LOCATION:
The Royal British Legion Liverpool Road Cadishead M44 5BQ
PROPOSAL:
Demoltion of club and outline planning application for
development of land for residential purposes.
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site is roughly ‘L shaped’ with an approximate area of 0.36 hectares. The site has a frontage
width onto Liverpool Road of 55 metres and maximum width of 100 metres with a depth of 46
metres. The site is currently occupied by the Royal British Legion and associated car parking. The
existing club building would be demolished as a result of the proposal. The wider surrounding area
is residential. The site is bounded to the north east and south west by residential. The Northbank
Industrial Estate bounds the site to the rear.
The application is for outline planning permission for residential development with all matters are
reserved for subsequent consideration/approval. This application is therefore considering the
principle only. An indicative site layout plan and elevation of the frontage have been submitted
with the application. A Noise Impact Assessment has been submitted in support of the application.
SITE HISTORY
95/34491/TPDC - Refurbishment and alterations to elevation and re-laying of car park – Permitted.
96/35987/TPDC - Change of use from storage area with secure parking to temporary plant and
machinery store including ancillary equipment – Permitted.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no comments received to date.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – Does not like the lack of defensible
space on the Liverpool Road frontage.
United Utilities – No objection in principle. A public sewer runs along the northern boundary of
the site and building over it will not be permitted.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 24th August 2006.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
4, 6, 6A, 6B, 8, 8A,10, 10A, 10B, 12, 12A, 14, 14A Liverpool Road
Flat, 10 Liverpool Road
16 – 18 Liverpool Road
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 27A, 29, 29A, 31, 31A, 36, 36A, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 46, 48
Liverpool Road
679, 681,683, 685 Liverpool Road
Ground Floor, 44 Liverpool Road, First Floor Flat, 44 Liverpool Road
658 – 662 Liverpool Road
Flats 1, 2, 3 & 4, 48 Liverpool Road
33 –35 Liverpool Road
Ground Floor & First Floor Flat, 23 Liverpool Road
Flat, 29 Liverpool Road
Flats 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5, 42 Liverpool Road
Abbey Studios, 41 – 43 Liverpool Road
Richard Reynolds Court, Dean Road
Flats 1 – 7, Richard Reynolds Court, Dean Road
Anthony Mews, Ashfield Grove
1 – 3 Anthony Mews, Ashfield Grove
6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 20 Monarch Close
16 Kings Road
2 – 6 (evens) Brereton Grove
2 – 6 (evens) Magenta Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
No responses have been received in response to this application.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None.
DP3 – Quality in New Development.
SD1 – North West Metropolitan Area.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None.
H1 – Provision of New Housing Development.
H8 – Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development.
DES1 – Respecting Context.
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours.
DES10 – Design and Crime.
ST11 – Location of New Development.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed use
is acceptable; whether there would be an appropriate contribution towards public open space; and
whether the proposal would comply with the relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development
Plan. I shall deal with each in turn below.
Principle
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
The existing club building would be demolished as a result of the proposal. This is a one and
two-storey flat roofed structure constructed of brick and does not have any significant architectural
merit, no objection is raised to its demolition.
Adopted Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a
balanced mix of dwellings within the local area. Policy ST11 advocates a sequential approach to
development with sites involving the reuse and conversion of existing buildings being the preferred
location of development, followed by previously developed land with Greenfield sites last.
The wider area surrounding the site is predominantly residential and the site is previously
developed, its development is therefore in accordance with Policy ST11. I do not have any
objections to the principle of residential development in this location.
Design
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.
The application is in outline form and so there are no details yet to consider. There is no reason to
believe that a scheme cannot be devised that would not be detrimental to the form and character of
the area. It is considered that a satisfactory disposition and interrelationship to existing properties
could be achieved. Notwithstanding the above, the details shown within the indicative site layout
and frontage elevation are unlikely to be acceptable and an informative to this effect would be
attached to any planning consent.
Policy DES10 states the Councils encouragement of increased safety and security of people and
their property through the design of new developments. Issues raised regarding the lack of
defensible space on the Liverpool Road frontage received from the Greater Manchester Police
Authority can be dealt with at the reserved matters stage.
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 Noise Impact Assessment concludes that noise from the operations of industrial companies in
North Bank Industrial Park and in Brereton Grove is not an issue for the proposed development.
The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character. The Northbank Industrial Estate
bounds the site to the rear at a distance of approximately 35 metres, immediately to the rear is a
currently vacant, landscaped site. A commercial building within Brereton Grove sits to the south
west of the site.
At this stage there are no details of the development. The plans that have been submitted are
indicative and as currently proposed would not be acceptable.
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
The description of development has been amended to remove reference to a specific number of
units. It is considered that wholly flat development is not appropriate in this location.
Highway/Access Issues
The site has an existing access off Liverpool Street and the site has a significant frontage that is
capable of providing satisfactory access for residential development. The details of any access
would be considered as part of a reserved matters application.
Public Open Space
Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal open
space within housing developments.
As the number of bedspaces created as a result of the proposal is not known, as these details have
not been submitted as part of this application, it is not possible to calculate the amount of public
open space which would need to be provided as a result of this proposal. I have therefore attached
a condition which will require the applicants to provide sufficient public open space by way of a
financial contribution towards open space elsewhere within the vicinity. I am therefore satisfied
that the application accords with the above policies.
CONCLUSION
The application proposes the redevelopment of a previously developed site within the urban area
and is acceptable in principle. I am satisfied that a suitable design can be achieved to retain the
amenity of future residents of the properties and the existing residents of the area. The proposal
would not compromise the aims and objectives of the relevant policies contained within the
development plan and there are no other material planning considerations that would justify a
refusal of consent 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. Application for approval of reserved matters must be made not later than the expiration of three
years beginning with the date of this permission and the development must be begun not later
than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters, or, in the case
of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.
2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
a) access, in relation to reserved matters, means the accessibility to and within the site, for
vehicles, cylces and pedestrians in terms of the positioning and treatment of access and
circulation routes and how these fit into the surrounding access network; where "site" means
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
the site of part of the site in respect of which outline planning permission is granted for such a
permission has been made;
b) appearance; means the aspects of a building or place within the development which
determine the visual impression the building or place makes, including the external built form
of the development, its architecture, material, decoration, lighting, colour and texture;
c) landscaping: in relation to a site or any part of a site for which outline planning permission
has been granted or, as the case may be, in respect of which an application for such permission
has been made, means the treatment of land (other than buildings) for the purpose of enhancing
or protecting the amenities of the site and the area in which it is situated and includes screening
by fences, walls or other means, the planting of trees, hedges, shrubs or grass, the formation of
banks, terraces or other earthworks, the laying out or provisions of gardens, courts or squares,
water features, sculpture, or public art, and the provision of other amenity features;
d) layout; means the way in which buildings, routes and open spaces within the development
are provided, situated and orientated in relation to each other and to buildings and spaces
outside the development;
e) scale, means the height, width and length of each building proposed within the development
in relation to its surroundings.
3. 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, as required by policy H8
of the City of Salford Adopted UDP and the Draft Salford Greenspace Strategy 2006 will be
paid to the Local Planning Authority for open space and recreation space purposes.
4. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a site investigation
report for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation shall address the
nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall
include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the
Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and
controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions
on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and
landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and
property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior
to the start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained
within the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the
site.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be
submitted to the Director of Development Services for approval. The Site Completion Report
shall validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
by the Local Planning Authority
5. Prior to the commencement of the development an assessment of noise likely to affect the
application site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
This assessment should follow PPG24 guidelines towards assessing the noise from the
surrounding road network including Liverpool Road and any other noise sources which are
deemed significant on site. The assessment shall identify all noise attenuation measures and
alternative methods of ventilation to reduce the impact of noise on the residential properties on
site and achieve the requirements of BS8233 for internal noise levels. The approved measures
shall be implemented in full prior to the first occupation and retained thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Reason: The application is for outline permission only and these matters were reserved by the
applicant for subsequent approval.
3. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space
for future occupiers in accordance with policy H8 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP.
4. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached letter from United Utilities.
2. The indicative details shown within the submitted site layout plan and frontage elevation is
unlikely to be acceptable. It is recommended that pre-application advice be sought prior to the
submission of any reserved matters application.
APPLICATION No:
06/53477/FUL
APPLICANT:
Mr P Lau
LOCATION:
177 Liverpool Road Cadishead M44 5XH
PROPOSAL:
Use of premises as a restaurant with variation of condition 4
(hours of use) on planning permission 04/48433/COU to allow
opening between 12:00 noon and 10:00pm Mondays to
Thursday, 12:00 noon and 11:00pm Fridays and Saturdays and
2:00pm to 10:00pm Sundays.
WARD:
Cadishead
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site is situated on Liverpool Road. The neighbouring property 175 is a sandwich
bar and 179a is a tattoo parlour at ground floor level, both have self contained residential units at
first floor level. Nos.171, 173 and 179 are residential. An informal car park exists to the rear of the
site accessed between 173 and 175 Liverpool Road, parking restrictions apply along Liverpool
Road.
The site is currently vacant but could operate under the current permitted opening hours as a not
food takeaway. These allow opening between the hours of 08:30 to 19:00 on Mondays to
Saturdays and 12:00 to 14:30 on Sundays. The applicant is applying to extend the opening hours to
allow opening until 10:00 pm Mondays to Thursday, 11:00 pm Fridays and Saturdays and 10:00
pm on Sundays.
It is confirmed that the upper floors of the application site would be used for purposes ancillary to
the restaurant use.
SITE HISTORY
The property was granted consent for the change of use from shop to shop for the sale of hot food in
2004, (reference: 04/48433/COU). A condition was attached to this permission restricting the
opening hours ‘The use hereby permitted shall NOT be operated on Sundays and Bank Holidays
and shall ONLY be operated between the hours of 08.30 and 19:00 on Mondays to Saturdays
inclusive and between 12:00 and 14:30 hours on Sundays.’ Specific opening hours were not
applied for as part of this application, a letter was received from the agent advising that the working
hours were not currently known and this should be left to the discretion of the case officer.
An application (reference: 06/52641/COU) for the erection of single storey extension to rear of
existing restaurant, construction of external staircase, installation of steel extraction flue,
installation of air conditioning unit and installation of new shop is currently being considered. This
application originally included the extension of opening hours but this aspect was removed
following concerns raised by the case officer.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Objection is raised to the application. The site is close to
existing residential accommodation and is located opposite a new residential development.
Concern is raised that, should the hours of use of this premises be extended, there will be a
detrimental effect on the amenity of local residents, particularly in terms of noise from the
premises. Noise from this type of development is created through both the operation of the
business e.g. cooking, cleaning operations and by clients accessing and egressing the business and
congregating outside the premises. Noise can also be generated by traffic movements brought
about by clients coming and going. Whilst it is accepted that Liverpool Road is a busy area during
the day, the level of noise which this development could create during night time periods could be
damaging to the amenity of nearby residents.
PUBLICITY
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
169 – 175 (odds) Liverpool Road
Flat above, 177 Liverpool Road
Flat, 175 Liverpool Road
179A Liverpool Road
179 – 185 (odds) Liverpool Road
176, 176A, 178, 180A, 180, 184, 184A, 186, 186A, 192A, 192B, 192C, 192D, 192E, 192F,
194 Liverpool Road
Flat above 179 Liverpool Road
5 – 15 (odds) Green Lane
2 School Lane
2 – 10 (evens) Hayes Road
Coach and Horses, Liverpool Road
REPRESENTATIONS
No objections have been received in response to this application.
Councillors Mann, Hudson and Hunt have requested that the application be heard by the Planning
and Transportation Regulatory Panel because they believe that the proposed opening hours are
sensible and reasonable.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None.
None.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None.
S4:
Amusement Centres, Restaurants
Establishments & Hot Food Takeaways.
EN17: Pollution Control.
&
Cafes,
Drinking
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Adopted policy S4 states proposals shall only be permitted that do not have an unacceptably
adverse impact on the amenities of surrounding residential occupiers and would not be seriously
prejudicial to the safety of pedestrians and road users.
A letter has been submitted by the agent in support of the application, this explains that it is their
opinion that a restaurant use is far less intrusive upon residential amenity by way of noise and
nuisance than a hot food takeaway use. Furthermore, the application site lies on a busy main road
in a mixed-use locality which has many of the characteristics associated with a neighbourhood
shopping parade location.
The area is not typified by extensive evening activity. In terms of similar uses in the vicinity, the
Coach and Horses Public House is located approximately 60 metres from the application site and an
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
existing hot food takeaway use exists at No.197 Liverpool Road which is situated some 50 metres
to the south west. The area is predominantly residential in nature with residential flats above the
neighbouring ground floor shop units and residential flats and houses adjacent to the site.
Whilst Liverpool Road is a busy road during the day, it is considered that the evening period in this
area would be quieter than the daytime in the immediate vicinity of the site and also in the
surrounding streets. Therefore, the cumulative effect of noise and disturbance, caused by
customers, entering and leaving the premises, noise and disturbance from vehicles parking and
manoeuvring and noise caused by members of staff working to the rear of the premises, during the
proposed evening hours of operation would be unacceptable.
It is considered that the proposed extension of opening hours would have a detrimental impact on
the neighbouring residential properties. The proposal would be likely to result in significant noise,
disturbance and general activity, (which is usually associated with such establishments) and would
be especially noticeable to both the residents within the self contained flats above neighbouring
shop units and the occupants of residential properties in the surrounding area. It is accordingly
recommended that the application be refused.
CONCLUSION
It is considered that the proposed extension of opening hours would have a detrimental impact on
the neighbouring residential properties by reason of general noise and disturbance given the close
proximity of residential properties and it is accordingly recommended that the application be
refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposal would, by reason of noise, nuisance and disturbance, be unacceptably
detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring residents, contrary to policy S4 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
06/53125/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Housing Services Directorate
LOCATION:
Alleyways To Rear Of 2-114 Newearth Road Worsley M28 7UU
PROPOSAL:
Erection of double gates to alleyways
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application is for the erection of 5 No. 2.2 metre high alley gates, located at the rear of
properties 2 to 114 Newearth Road. They would be situated to the rear of 2 and 114 Newearth Road
and between 16 and 18, 56 and 58, and 84 and 86 Newearth Road.
CONSULTATIONS
Ramblers Association – no response
The Open Spaces Society – no response
The Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association - no response
Peak and Northern Footpaths Society – no response
Public Rights of Way Officer – no response
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 22nd August
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Corner 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40,
42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80, 82, 84,
86, 88, 90, 92, 94, 96, 98, 100, 102, 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, Newearth Road,
Worsley
521, 523 Hilton Lane, Worsley
1, 2, 4 Endsley Avenue, Worlsey
REPRESENTATIONS
Five letters have been received in support of the application
Four letters of objection have also been received. The issues raised are summarised below.
The difficulty in opening and closing the gates as both a pedestrian and a driver
Restrict turning of vehicles and have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
Increasing the fear of crime rather than reducing it
Intruders can still gain access over the disused railway line or allotments
Access for emergency vehicles and bin collections
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site Specific policies: none
Other Policies: none
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
Other policies:
DES 1 – Respecting Context
DES10 – Design and Crime
A2 – Cyclists Pedestrians and the Disabled
SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT
Design and Crime Policy - DC10
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the impact of the proposed gates on the
street scene and the amenity of neighbouring residents and the impact the proposed closures would
have upon crime, the fear of crime and public accessibility. The loss of existing public rights of way
also needs to be considered.
Policy DES1 from the Adopted Unitary Development Plan identifies a number of issues that should
be taken into account when determining planning applications. These include the visual appearance
of the development and its relationship to its surroundings. With respect to DES 1, I am of the
opinion that the design, siting, height of the proposed gates, subject to the imposition of a condition
requiring colour treatment would not form visually obtrusive features in the street scene or have an
unacceptable impact on the Conservation Area.
Policies A2 and DES10 take into account the safety and the accessibility of existing public rights of
way in the planning of new development. Policy A2 also states that development that would result
in the loss of an existing public right of way will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated
that adequate levels of access for the disabled, pedestrians and cyclists will be maintained around or
through the site.
I am satisfied that the proposed alley gates are not going to result in any significant loss of
permeability through the area as pedestrians and cyclists would be able to use other routes which
are safe and secure, such as Newearth Road. The local residents will also be able to gain access
through the alley gates, as they will be issued with the relevant keys. As such I am satisfied that the
proposal meets the criteria of policies DES10 and A2. The proposal would still preserve high level
of accessibility and safety to all users.
With regards to the residents concerns relating to crime and the fear of crime, it is considered that
the proposal will help to reduce crime in the area. It is an approach that has been used elsewhere in
the City. I therefore consider the proposal to be in accordance with Policy DES 10.
Policy DC16 of the ‘Design and Crime’ Supplementary Planning Document states that boundary
treatments should maximise natural surveillance and should be designed to a high standard. I am
satisfied that the height and style of the proposed gating would maximise natural surveillance.
I am also satisfied with the visual appearance of the gating. With regard to the objections received,
relating to parking, the proposal would still allow vehicular access to the rear of the properties, and
I have been no objections to the proposal on highway grounds. Objections regarding bin collection,
opening and access through the gates are a management issue.
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
CONCLUSION
Overall the proposed development would not have a significant impact upon the street scene, or the
residential amenity of neighbouring residents. I consider that the proposed development would
contribute to an improved quality of life by reducing crime. The proposal is in accordance with
policies DES1, DES10 and A2 of the Unitary Development Plan and policy DC16 of the
Supplementary Planning Document ‘Design and Crime’. I recommend that the above proposal be
approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. The development shall not commence until the necessary approval for the closure as required
under the necessary legislation has been served.
3. Full details of the colour of the fencing hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The fences shall be powder coated in the appropriate
colour prior to their installation and maintained in such a condition thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th October 2006
57