PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
APPLICATION No:
01/43153/FUL
APPLICANT:
Abbotsound Ltd
LOCATION:
Barton Wesleyan Methodist Church Barton Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing chapel and erection of four storey building
comprising 32 flats together with associated landscaping, car parking
on the burial ground and alteration to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Barton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former Barton Methodist Chapel and Sunday school and should be read in
conjunction with application number 01/43265/CON later on this agenda. The site lies within but on the
edge of the Barton-Upon-Irwell Conservation Area. The existing buildings are set back from Barton Road
and land in front is a former graveyard that has been landscaped and grassed over. To the rear are two
further graveyards set one behind the other. The graveyards are surrounded by a 1.5m high brick wall. It is
proposed to demolish the existing two storey buildings and erect a four-storey building comprising 32 flats
on a similar footprint. To the rear of the proposed building on part of the former graveyard 32 car parking
spaces would be provided. The elevations have been amended and incorporate the same shape of window
as in the existing chapel.
The site is surrounded by residential development, the multi storey Mee’s Square tower block to the north
and semi-detached housing to the west and south. The Bridgewater Canal is directly opposite on the other
side of Barton Road.
The buildings are in a poor state of repair and until recently the site was overgrown.
The last burial was in 1970. With respect to the works to the car park it is proposed to remove only those
gravestones that are standing, those lying on the ground will be covered with a surfacing system known as
‘Ecoblock’. This system allows the graves and the stones to remain undisturbed but covered so that car
parking is possible.
SITE HISTORY
There is no previous planning history.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections in principle but recommends that a condition be
attached regarding noise insulation.
Environment Agency – No objections in principle.
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No objections and provides advice.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – The former Chapel is entered on the Greater Manchester Sites
and Monuments Record. The Church is a locally distinctive building and every effort should be made to
preserve it within the proposed development through sympathetic conversion and refurbishment as opposed
to demolition and new build. With regard to the graveyard there should be a complete record of the
graveyard before it is covered over.
PUBLICITY
This application has been advertised by means of both site and press notice
The following neighbours were notified:
3 Alexandra Road
70 to 73 Barton Road
1 to 58 Mee’s Square
16 to 32 Nasmyth Road
13, 15 and 16 to 32 Roby Road
17 to 23 Shaftesbury Avenue
11 and 14 Shirley Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a total of 43 letters in response to the application publicity. All but a couple are objecting to
the proposal. The following comments having been made:
Loss of the buildings which are worthy of listing
A graveyard should not be used as a car park
Removal of gravestones
Loss of trees
There are covenants on the site
A proper record should be made of all gravestones
The dilapidated chapel and its environs are an eyesore
The replacement building is too big
Increase in traffic
Loss of light
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EN9 Derelict and Vacant Land, EN11 Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas,
EN13 Works to Listed Buildings and Buildings Within Conservation Areas, DEV1 Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
Policy EN9 states that the City Council will promote and encourage the reclamation of derelict and vacant
land for appropriate uses and that account will be taken of the existing value of the site. Policy EN11 states
that the City Council will seek to preserve or enhance the special character of areas of architectural and
historic interest. The policy sets out a number of criteria that will be encouraged and which include the
retention and improvement of existing buildings, high standards of development and the retention of mature
trees. Policy EN13 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of criteria when considering
applications to demolish buildings within Conservation Areas. These criteria include the importance of the
building both intrinsically and relatively, the condition of the building and the importance of any alternative
use for the site. Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when
considering applications for planning permission. These factors include the amount, design and layout of
car parking provision, the effect upon neighbouring properties, the impact on features of archaeological
importance, the impact on existing trees and any other material consideration.
This application has generated objections from as far afield as New Zealand, Switzerland, the United States
and Yorkshire. Many of those who have written have relatives buried in this graveyard and they are
understandably unhappy about the site being developed. While I understand this concern I do not consider
that the sensibilities raised by this proposal can be considered a material planning consideration. I do think
it right to point out that the graveyard has, for many years been neglected and overgrown. Had the Church
not wanted the site to be developed it would not be selling it. I would also point out that the site is not
consecrated ground.
The applicant has been in contact with the Home Office and has been advised that from the drawings
supplied it does not appear that the buildings them selves will encroach on the burial ground. However,
plans and what actually exist can be inaccurate and the Home Office has advised that if during any
excavation on the site any remains are found then work must stop and an order under the Disused Burial
Grounds (Amendment) Act 1981 must be made. The Home Office has advised that the applicant applies for
an order and if any remains are found then ‘directions’ for exhumation can then be given straight away. The
applicant has done this and has published a notice in the Advertiser in accordance with the Act. The Act
does allow any person with a relative buried in the graveyard to have the gravestone removed from the site
should they so wish.
The proposals do not effect the whole of the graveyard and the applicant has stated that this would be
retained. In addition those standing gravestones would be removed to the perimeter of the site.
With regard to the remaining objections that have been received a structural survey submitted by the
applicant concludes that the buildings are in such a poor state of repair that it is unviable to repair them. I
appreciate that the GMAU would prefer the Chapel to be retained but I consider that the evidence of the
structural survey is compelling. This issue is dealt with in greater detail in the report on the Conservation
Area Consent application. Two large trees to the front of the site are to be removed, these are growing very
close to the existing building. Other mature trees that are closer to the road are to be retained. I have
attached a condition regarding the submission of a landscape scheme.
While covenants that affect the use of land may be a material consideration in the planning process I have
not been provided with any details of any such covenants and therefore can given them little weight in my
consideration of the application.
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
I agree with those who have written saying that the existing appearance of the chapel and school building
detracts from the Conservation Area and consider that the proposed building will improve the appearance
of the site and surrounding area as well as enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area in general.
The replacement building is four storeys but I do not consider that this is inappropriate. The adjacent
building is a multi storey block and although it is outside the Conservation Area is does have a significant
impact upon it. The design of the proposed building is such that it will not present a single flat elevation to
Barton Road. Instead the elevation will be detailed and intricate while retaining a uniformity and clarity of
design achieved through window design and use of materials. I consider therefore that the proposal is in
accordance with UDP policies regarding the preservation or enhancement of the Conservation Area.
I do not consider that there would be a significant increase on traffic on Barton Road as a result of this
proposal. This road is already well trafficked and I have no objections on highway grounds to the proposal.
I consider that the 32 car parking spaces proposed is an appropriate level of provision.
The building is positioned and orientated such that I do not consider that there would be any significant loss
of light or privacy experienced by any neighbours as a result of this proposal.
In conclusion, the main objections relate to the use of the graveyard as a car park. This is more a question of
sensibilities than it is a material planning consideration. The building and graveyard have been derelict for
some considerable time and this has undoubtedly had a detrimental effect on the Conservation Area in
general. This proposal will regenerate a significant site within the Conservation Area and will enhance the
character of the area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services 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 Director of Development Services.
3. No development shall take place until a programme of archaeological survey and analysis has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such programme as is
approved shall be carried out by a recognised specialist and shall be completed prior to any graves
being covered in accordance with the approved details.
4. 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 Director of Development
Services.
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
5. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use not less than 32 car parking spaces shall
be provided within the curtilage of the site to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services
and such spaces shall be made available at all times the premises are in use.
6. No development shall be started until full details of a scheme for acoustic double glazing has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such scheme shall
thereafter be implemented concurrently with the building works to ensure that no apartment is occupied
until such time as the associated acoustic double glazing has been installed to the satisfaction of the
Director of Development Services.
7. No development shall be started until all the trees within (or overhanging) the site, with the exception of
those trees clearly shown to be felled on the submitted plan, have been surrounded by substantial fences
which shall extend to the extreme circumference of the spread of the branches of the trees (or such
positions as may be agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services). Such fences shall be
erected in accordance with a specification to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services and shall remain until all development is completed and no work, including any
form of drainage or storage of materials, earth or topsoil shall take place within the perimeter of such
fencing.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. As the building and graveyard are of local historic interest the survey is required to provide a record
for archive and research purposes.
4. Standard Reason R006A Character - conservation area
5. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
6. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
01/43211/FUL
APPLICANT:
Mesne Lea Primary School (FAO T Barnes - Headteacher)
LOCATION:
Mesne Lea Primary School Henniker Street (Walkden Road) Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Construction of an outdoor play area to include hard surface area,
grassed area, a pergola and lean-to shelter
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
7th March 2002
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to Mesne Lea Primary School, off Henniker Street. The proposal is to create an
outdoor hard surfaces play area for the reception children. This would include a lean-to shelter 29m in
length, along the southern wall of the school, which is adjacent to this play area.
It is also proposed for a metal storage container at the edge of the hard surface in order to provide safe
storage for play equipment. This would measure 2.5m by 3.5m and 2.5m high. This would be sited along
the site boundary, within the row of boundary trees. There would be other site work, including the creation
of raised bed with a wooden pergola, low fencing and seating around the existing mature trees, although
most of this would not require planning permission.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was posted on 21 November 2001.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
268 & 270 Walkden Road
1 Silkhey Grove
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1- Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The proposals are intended to provide better facilities for the reception class, in terms of an outdoor play
area. As the proposed area would be to the rear of the main school building, I do not consider that it would
have an adverse impact on the appearance of the school, even though a footpath flanks the site boundary. I
am aware that the proposal includes the siting of a metal container in order to secure play equipment.
However, I am mindful that this is similar to other such storage facilities that have been approved within the
grounds of other schools, and it would be sited in between the existing row of boundary trees. I would
recommend that a condition be attached requiring this to be coloured, in order to reduce any impact from its
appearance.
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
I do not consider that the proposals works would have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the school
and would therefore recommend that it be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The container hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior to the
commencement of the development by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
01/43265/CON
APPLICANT:
Abbotsound Limited
LOCATION:
Barton Wesleyan Methodist Church Barton Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of existing church and
erection of a four storey building comprising 32 flats with associated
landscaping, car parking on burial ground and alterations to existing
vehicular access
WARD:
Barton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former Wesleyan Methodist chapel and Sunday school buildings located on
the west side of Barton Road, within the Barton-Upon-Irwell Conservation Area. The Chapel faces and is
set back from Barton Road, the space being occupied by a graveyard that was landscaped and planted with
trees some years ago. To the rear of the Chapel are two further graveyards set behind one another. The
graveyards are bounded by a 1.5m high brick wall separating the site from the gardens of the adjacent
dwelling houses. To the north of the chapel is Mees Square, a multi-storey block of flats. To the south is a
two storey Victorian dwelling house.
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
The proposal is or the demolition of the Chapel, Sunday School and ancillary buildings and the erection of
a four storey block of 32 flats with associated landscaping and car parking. The new build would occupy the
site of the demolished buildings. (Application 01/43153/FUL for the replacement building appears
elsewhere on this agenda)
CONSULTATIONS
English Heritage – No observations
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – The former Chapel is entered on the Greater Manchester Sites
and Monuments Record. The Chapel is a locally distinctive building and every effort should be made to
preserve it within the proposed development through sympathetic conversion and refurbishment as opposed
to demolition and new build. With regard to the graveyard there should be a complete record made of it
before it is covered over.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 22nd November 2001
A site notices ware displayed on 11th December 2001
The following neighbours were notified :
3 Alexandra Road,
70 to 73 (inclusive) Barton Road,
1 to 58 (inclusive) Mees Square,
16 to 32 (even) Roby Road,
13 and 15 Roby Road,
17 to 23 (odd) Shaftsbury Avenue,
11 and 14 Shirley Avenue.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 15 letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:




Loss of Chapel and Sunday School.
The provision of a car park on a graveyard.
The removal of gravestones.
Drainage pipes in the car parking area over the graves.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: EN 11: Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
EN 13: Works to Listed Buildings and Buildings in Conservation Areas
PLANNING APPRAISAL
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
The majority of the objections relate to the disturbance of graves, gravestones, the use of the graveyard as a
car park and loss of the former Wesleyan Methodist Chapel, Sunday School and ancillary building that are
regarded by the objectors as worthy of retention. The use of the graveyard as a car park is addressed in the
planning application, 01/43153/FUL.
The buildings are clearly important in the context of the social service they provided in the
Barton-Upon-Irwell area. They were included within the Barton-Upon-Irwell Conservation Area when it
was designated in 1976. The buildings were included in the survey carried out by the Greater Manchester
Archaeological Unit in 1990 which formed part of the County Sites and Monuments Record and were
referred to as:
‘a small chapel, built of brick with a datestone “opened in 1796”. A Sunday school is attached, The chapel
is in a semi-derelict state, it has a graveyard behind it, which is very overgrown, crowded and surrounded
by a wall.’
By virtue of its inclusion in the Sites and Monument Record it is also included in the City of Salford Local
List of Buildings, Structures and Features of Architectural, Archaeological and Historic Interest as Grade C
(of significance in the local historic/vernacular context, including archaeological features). Grade A
Locally Listed buildings are those that are more important and if under threat of demolition may be worthy
of being Spot Listed to be included in the statutory List.
However, as stated in the Greater Manchester Archaeological record, in 1990 it was in a semi-derelict
condition, this was prior to several fires that have occurred since that have virtually destroyed the single
storey building linking the Chapel to the Sunday school.
In considering the demolition of buildings within Conservation Areas it is the duty of the Local Planning
Authority, in accordance with Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the Historic Environment, to
consider the wider effects of the demolition on the building’s surroundings and on the Conservation Area as
a whole. They must also consider, in the case of an unlisted building within a conservation area, whether
reasonable efforts have been made to find viable new uses and that where these have failed the
redevelopment of the site would produce substantial benefits for the community which would decisively
outweigh the loss resulting from the demolition. In the situation where a building makes little or no
contribution to the to the character or appearance of the conservation area then full information about what
is proposed for the site after demolition must be submitted. The Local Authority is entitled to consider the
merits of any proposed development in determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of
an un-listed building in a conservation area.
The structural survey of the buildings included with the application highlights the effects of the several
fires, the loss of structural stability, some original poor workmanship that has resulted in loss of lateral
restraint on important structural areas of brickwork supporting roof structures, general deterioration of the
building materials forming the structure and the effects of the weather on the buildings. The report
concludes these combined effects of some (now unacceptable) building methods, neglect and weather have
seriously damaged the fabric of the building making it un-viable to reinstate to its former condition. This is
a consideration to be addressed in EN 13 : Works to Listed Buildings and Buildings within Conservation
Areas of the Unitary Development Plan.
In considering proposals to demolish buildings within a conservation areas the City Council will have
regard (amongst other things) to the following:
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
..the condition of the building; the cost of repairing and maintaining it to ensure its continued survival
in relation to its importance …
I feel that such justification has been provided and that, in accordance with the provisions in Planning
Policy Guidance 15 and Policy EN13 of the Unitary Development Plan there is reason to conclude that the
redevelopment of the site would produce substantial benefits to the community in lieu of the loss to it of the
current buildings. I recommend the application for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No site works/development shall be undertaken until the implementation of an appropriate programme
of archaeological survey and analysis has been agreed in writing with the local planning authority, to be
carried out by a specialist acceptable to the local planning authority and in accordance with a written
brief.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R038 Section 18
2. As the building and graveyard are of local historic interest the survey is required to provide a record
for archive and research purposes.
APPLICATION No:
01/43297/OUT
APPLICANT:
G Forbes
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To 27 Mill Street Boothstown Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for the erection of one-pair semi-detached
dwellings and alteration to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
At the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel on the 7th February 2002, Members resolved to
approve this planning application. The Decision Notice was not however issued because an objector to the
proposal was not invited to attend the Panel meeting, in accordance with the City of Salford’s policy.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an area of vacant land to the side of 27 Mill Street.
The application is an outline planning application, seeking approval for siting and means of access only.
The siting of the proposed dwellings would be level with the front and rear building line of the existing
terraced properties on Mill Street and would be one metre from the gable of 27 Mill Street. The majority of
the site is level, however, the eastern part of the site falls away by approximately two metres and adjacent
properties on Border Brook Lane are at a lower level of between 6 metres and 8 metres. Proposed access to
the dwellings would be from an extension to the existing Mill Street, an unadopted highway.
The site has been vacant for some time and has most recently been used for storage of materials.
Surrounding uses are predominantly residential.
SITE HISTORY
95/34124/OUT – Outline planning application for erection of dwelling. Approved 16.8.95.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services –
Recommend condition requiring site investigation for
contamination.
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – Recommend conditions to ensure gas and contaminant regime
beneath the site is understood.
British Coal – No objections.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 29th November 2001
The following neighbours were notified :
7 – 27 (odds) Mill Street
27 – 37 (odds) Border Brook Lane
243a Mosley Common Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION




7th March 2002
depreciation of property value
would be loss of privacy for rear bedroom window and garden of 33 Border Brook Lane
would be loss of light to gardens and window of 33 Border Brook Lane
disturbance from noise during construction period
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
none relevant.
DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that regard must be had to a number of factors when
determining applications for planning permission including the layout and relationship of existing and
proposed buildings and the effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for neighbouring properties.
With regards to the proposed use of the site for residential development, the principle of residential use on
this site has been established with the approval of a previous outline planning permission in 1995 (Ref.
95/34124/OUT). The permission reserved all matters. This current application relates to the same site, but
seeks permission for matters of siting and access. The issues to be addressed therefore relate to the proposed
siting, access and whether there has been a material change in circumstances since the previous planning
approval. Since the previous planning approval at the site, construction has been completed on residential
properties on Border Brook Lane, to the east of the site.
The objection received is primarily concerned with the siting of the proposed dwellings in relation to the
potential impacts on properties located on Border Brook Lane. The property at 31 Border Brook Lane
would be directly level with the gable end of the proposed dwelling, at a distance of approximately 14
metres from the proposed dwellings. The property at 33 Border Brook Lane is located at a distance of
approximately 11 metres to the north-east of the proposed footprint of the dwellings and as such would not
directly face the proposed dwellings. There are principle windows on the rear of both 31 and 33 Border
Brook Lane. The difference in levels between the site of the proposed dwellings and 31 Border Brook Lane
is approximately 8 metres and between 33 Border Brook Lane is approximately 6 metres. From the site of
the proposed dwellings, the change in levels is so significant that the gardens of 31 and Border Brook Lane
cannot be seen. I do not consider that the proposal would result in any significant loss of privacy given this
significant difference in levels. Because this is an outline planning application, no details have been
submitted for the design of the property and for example, the position of windows. I am satisfied that
providing careful attention is paid to the design of the properties and that no windows are inserted into the
gable facing properties on Border Brook Lane, there would not be an unacceptable impact upon the
amenities of residents on Border Brook Lane.
With reference to the objection relating to loss of light to 33 Border Brook Lane, I consider that the
orientation of this property and the fact that the first floor rear bedroom has windows to both the rear and
side elevations, would mean no that there should be no significant loss of light for these residents. With
regards to the other objections, depreciation of property value is not a material planning consideration and I
consider that noise during the construction period would only be for a limited period and would not be
unacceptable in the short-term.
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
The proposal would bring a vacant site back into use. I consider that the use of the site for residential
purposes is acceptable in this location and do not consider that there would be any significant detrimental
impacts upon the neighbouring residents. I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
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:
- plans and elevations showing the design of all buildings and other structures;
- the colour and type of facing materials to be used for all external walls and roofs;
- a landscape scheme for the site which shall include details of trees and shrubs to be planted, any
existing trees to be retained, or felled indicating the spread of the branches and trunk positions, walls,
fences, boundary and surface treatment.
3. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the
approval of the LPA. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of
contamination and underground gases on site and its implications on the risk to human health and
controlled water receptors as defined under the Environmental protection Act, 1990 Part IIA. The
investigation shall also address the health and safety of the site workers, nearby persons, building
structures and services, landscaping schemes, final users on the site and the environmental pollution in
ground water.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to the start of the survey and
recommendations and remedial works contained within the improved report shall be implemented by
the developer prior to occupation of the site.
4. Prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall submit a site investigation report to
address the stability of the slope on the eastern boundary of the site, the details of which shall be
submitted to and approved by the Director of Development.
5. There shall be no windows inserted on the gable walls of the dwellings.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
4. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
5. To protect the amenity of neighbouring residents, in accordance with DEV1 of the Unitary
Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Coal Authority.
2. The Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding details
of drainage.
3. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received 30th January 2002, showing a one metre
separation between the proposed development and 27 Mill Street.
APPLICATION No:
01/43453/LBC
APPLICANT:
Mr Jones
LOCATION:
252 Beesley Green Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Listed Building Consent for the erection of conservatory at rear of
dwelling
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to 252 Beesley Green which is situated within the Roe Green/Beesley Green
Conservation Area. The property is at the end of a row of three that was formerly Beesley Hall, a Grade II
Listed Building. Application 01/43454/HH for Householder planning permission appears elsewhere on this
agenda. The application is for the erection of a single storey conservatory constructed of a low wall of
bricks, to match the existing building, that would support a soft wood frame containing glazing to the sides
and roof. The structure would meet the brickwork and roof guttering of the existing building in such a way
that it would not interrupt the facing materials.
SITE HISTORY
In October 2000 a planning application was made for a larger single storey extension but this was
withdrawn because of the impact it would have had on the nearby Silver Birch tree (protected by Tree
Preservation Order No 230). This extension would have required approval under the current Building
Regulations and, therefore, substantial foundations that would have affected the tree roots.
PUBLICITY
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
A press notice was published on 24th January 2002.
A site notice was displayed on 11th January 2002.
The following neighbours were notified :
249, 250 & 251 Beesley Green
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objections in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Out of character with the Listed Building
Would alter the symmetry of the whole building
Would affect the roots of the protected silver birch tree
Would obstruct the right of way (easement) from the middle property across the rear garden of the
application property
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: EN 12 : Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings
EN 11 : Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
PLANNING APPRAISAL
In addressing the objections to the proposal I feel that great care has been taken to ensure that it does not
detract from the character or setting of the Listed Building to which it would be attached. It is also clear that
the design ensures that the proposed conservatory buts against the existing building and does not interrupt
the building details that it contains, or the roofline. Furthermore the majority of the three walls forming the
proposed conservatory are translucent and would not unduly obstruct the rear wall or roof of the original
building. I do not feel that this particular proposal would detract from the symmetry of the rear main wall
and roof of the three dwellings that constitute Beesley Hall as they are, of necessity, already divided on this
elevation by the boundary fences. The front elevation is more important from a symmetrical viewpoint.
There would be only two small areas of brickwork supporting the glass and timber framed walls and roof.
The pitch of the roof, though of glass, would match the pitch of the main house roof. The design of the
conservatory is such that it could , at some time in the future, be removed and the rear elevation seen in its
almost original condition. This is a fundamental technique of conservation, that alterations are reversible.
The three other points contained in the letter of objection are addressed in the accompanying householder
application 01/43454/HH that appears elsewhere on this agenda.
For the reasons outlined in the first paragraph above I feel that the proposal accords with Policies EN11:
Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas, and EN12: Protection and Enhancement of Listed
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
Buildings. Subject to the inclusion of suitable appropriate conditions I recommend the application for
approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D01B Materials to Match
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R038 Section 18
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
01/43454/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr Jones
LOCATION:
252 Beesley Green Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of conservatory at rear of dwelling
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to 252 Beesley Green which is situated within the Roe Green/Beesley Green
Conservation Area. The property is at the end of a row of three that was formerly Beesley Hall, a Grade II
Listed Building. Application 01/43453/LBC for Listed Building Consent appears elsewhere on this agenda.
The application is for the erection of a single storey conservatory of a low wall of bricks, to match the
existing building, that would support a soft wood timber frame containing glazing to the three sides and the
pitched roof. The structure would meet the brickwork and roof guttering of the existing building in such a
way that it would not interrupt the facing materials.
SITE HISTORY
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
In October 2000 a planning application was made for a larger single storey extension but this was
withdrawn because of the impact it would have had on the nearby silver Birch tree (protected by Tree
Preservation Order Number 230). This extension would have required approval under the current Building
Regulations and, therefore, substantial foundations that would have affected the tree roots.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
249, 250 & 251 Beesley Green
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Out of character with the Listed Building.
Would alter the symmetry of the whole building.
Would affect the roots of the protected Silver Birch tree.
Would obstruct the right of way (easement) from the middle property across the
Rear garden of the application property.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: EN 12: Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings
EN11: Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
PLANNING APPRAISAL
In addressing the objections to the proposal I feel that the design and location of the conservatory would not
be seriously detrimental to the character and setting of the Listed Building (Beesley Hall as a whole). The
majority of the three walls that comprise the conservatory would be translucent and therefore would not
completely obscure the rear elevation from view.
The foundation for this proposal differs from the previous withdrawn proposal in that the proposed lighter
structure would not require approval under the Building Regulations and would be constructed on a raft
foundation formed at ground level. Measures referred to in BS5837 (1991) ‘Trees in relation to
construction’, could be adopted to ensure that any tree roots immediately below the surface of the garden
would not be cut, be allowed oxygen and water essential to sustain it. This would be conditional on any
approval.
The obstruction of the right of way is strictly a private matter between the two concerned parties. However,
if it is construed as a material consideration I feel that its relevance has been addressed by the applicant as
follows in a letter dated 8th February 2002 from his solicitor:
The adjacent owner has been offered a paved access around the perimeter of the proposed conservatory.
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
If the above is not acceptable then the applicant is prepared to make keys available to the two sets of
doors shown on the plans spanning across the right of way to enable access to the easement holder at all
times.
It is always within the rights of the easement holder to take out an injunction to prevent the building works
should the Panel be minded to grant permission. However, I feel that the contents of the Solicitor’s letter
sufficiently addresses the issue for the Panel to make a decision.
In view of the forgoing I recommend the proposal for approval, subject to the addition of suitable conditions
relating to the further protection of the Silver Birch tree roots.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The foundation to the conservatory shall be constructed as a reinforced raft, at ground level, on a base
of compacted 40mm graded hardcore with no fines carefully placed around any roots (none of which
must be cut) from the adjacent silver birch tree.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. For the protection of the silver birch tree roots
APPLICATION No:
01/43492/FUL
APPLICANT:
Clifton Properties
LOCATION:
Land To Rear Of Former 53 Manchester Road Clifton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey building comprising four apartments together
with associated car parking and alteration to existing, and construction
of new vehicular access
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant site to the rear of 53 Manchester Road, the former Clifton Car Sales site.
The site of the former car sales garage (located to the west of the application site) has recently received
planning permission for the erection of two three-storey buildings comprising 15 flats (01/42500/FUL) and
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
construction works have now commenced on site. This current planning application constitutes phase two
of the development.
Planning permission is sought for the erection of a two-storey building, 11.7 metres by 11.3 metres by 7.7
metres in height, which would comprise four flats. The building would be positioned towards the northern
boundary of the site and would be between 0.2 metres and 0.8 metres from the boundary with the car repair
garage located to the north.
To the south of the site are residential properties on Billy Lane. The building would be a minimum of 5.9
metres from the boundary with the gardens to the rear of the dwellings on Billy Lane. The Applicant has
indicated that the properties on Billy Lane are currently at a lower level of 0.95 metres, however, the
application site level would be reduced by 0.6 metres by the removal of existing materials, which would
result in a difference of 0.35 metres between the site levels. There would be a maximum separation distance
of 15.8 metres between the properties on Billy Lane and the proposed building and a minimum distance of
14.1 metres.
The main windows of the flats would be inserted into the east and west elevations of the building. There
would be no windows on the north and south elevations. A garden area a minimum of 13 metres in length
would be provided to the eastern boundary of the application site. Four parking spaces would be provided
on the southern boundary of the site. Vehicular access to the site is from an existing access to the rear of 63
to 69 Manchester Road.
SITE HISTORY
01/43118/FUL - Erection of two storey building comprising four apartments together with associated car
parking and alteration to existing, and construction of new, vehicular access. Refused 6.12.01. (Reason:
The proposed apartment block, owing to its size, siting and design would result in a loss of privacy and have
an overbearing and dominating impact upon neighbouring residents and especially those on Billy Lane
owing to the difference in levels and as such would have a significant detrimental impact upon their
amenity. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy DEV1 of the UDP.)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objection subject to contaminated land and sound insulation
conditions.
Environment Agency – No objection in principle.
GM Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections.
Coal Authority – No objections.
United Utilities - No objection in principle. Water mains would need extending.
PUBLICITY
Press notice published 17.1.02
A site notice was displayed on 10th January 2002
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
The following neighbours were notified:
1a, 3a, 5a, 7a Billy Lane
1 – 29 (odds) Billy Lane
63 – 77, 87, 117 Manchester Road
1 – 19 (odds) Harewood Way
36 - 40 (evens) Harewood Way
1 Galloway Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received five representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The
following comments having been made:
object to construction of new vehicular access, back entry already congested
building would be too close to existing properties on Harewood Way
loss of privacy
loss of light
increased traffic on unadopted road
heavy traffic on access road will damage water mains
noise
parking
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
T13 – Car Parking
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that regard must be had to a number of factors when
determining applications for planning permission including the layout and relationship of existing and
proposed buildings and the effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for neighbouring properties; the
amount, design and layout of car parking provision and the likely scale and type of traffic generation.
With regards to the proposed use of the site for residential development, I consider that the principle of
residential development on this site is acceptable, given the predominantly residential nature of surrounding
uses. Planning permission was refused in 2001 (01/43118/FUL ) for a building comprising four flats and of
similar dimensions, but set back towards the eastern boundary of the site. The issues to be addressed
therefore relate to the amendments made to this resubmission and whether there has been a material change
in circumstances since the previous planning refusal.
The objections received are primarily associated with access to the site, increased traffic and impacts on
existing parking provision. With regards to increased traffic, I consider that the development is relatively
small in scale, consisting of just four flats and as such, I do not believe that traffic generation would be
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
significant. With regards to car parking, four spaces have been identified at the site. UDP standards would,
however, require the provision of 5 spaces. With reference to the revised national planning policy guidance
(PPG13 Transport) and the position of the site close to main bus routes on Manchester Road, I consider that
the parking provision identified would be acceptable. I have no objections to the proposal on highway
grounds. I consider that adequate amenity space would be provided to the rear of the proposed building.
A further objection relates to the proximity of the development to 13 Harewood Way and the potential loss
of light and privacy for the residents of this property. The planning submission has been amended so that no
part of the proposed building would directly face this dwelling. In addition, there would be no principal
windows on the northern elevation of the development. For these reasons, I do not consider that there
would be any significant loss in light or privacy for these residents and given that the building would be set
back toward the centre of the site, I do not consider that the development would have an overbearing effect.
With regards to the previous refusal of planning permission, the reason for refusal was stated as "The
proposed apartment block, owing to its size, siting and design would result in a loss of privacy and have an
overbearing and dominating impact upon neighbouring residents and especially those on Billy Lane owing
to the difference in levels and as such would have a significant detrimental impact upon their amenity. The
proposal is therefore contrary to policy DEV1 of the UDP". Following refusal, the proposal has been
amended by bringing the footprint of the building away from the eastern part of the site by approximately
6.8 metres; rotating the footprint of the building by approximately 15 away from the properties on Billy
Lane; increasing the distance between the proposed development and the properties on Billy Lane by
between 0.7 metres and 2.4 metres and lowering the level of the application site by 0.6 metres. By bringing
the building away from the eastern boundary of the site, the impact on dwellings on Harewood Way would
be minimised. In addition, I consider that the combination of rotating the footprint of the building, the
reduction in the site level and the increased distance of the building from the southern site boundary would
make the proposal acceptable in terms of privacy standards in relation to the dwellings on Billy Lane. I
therefore consider that the previous reason for refusal has been addressed.
The proposal would bring a vacant site back into use and I consider that the use of the site for residential
purposes is acceptable in this location. I do not believe that there would be any significant detrimental
impacts upon the neighbouring residents or any loss of privacy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the
approval of the LPA. 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, focussing primarily on
risks to human health and to 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.
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA 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.
3. The developer shall undertake an assessment to determine the external noise levels that the residents in
the apartments will be subjected to (daytime and night). The assessment shall take into consideration
the noise from the nearby Manchester Road. The developer shall detail what steps are to be taken to
mitigate any disturbances. The assessment shall have due regard to the Department of the Environment
Guidance PPG 24 - Planning and Noise. The assessment and mitigation measures shall be submitted for
the approval of Development Services prior to the commencement of development and any mitigation
measures are to be implemented prior to occupation.
4. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services 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 6 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 Director of Development Services.
5. 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 Director of Development
Services.
6. No dwelling shall be occupied until the associated provision for off street parking has been completed
and made available for the use of that dwelling to the satisfaction of the Director of Development
Services. Such spaces shall be available at all times for the parking of a private motor vehicle.
7. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 15th February 2002 which shows the
amended position of the property.
8. Standard Condition J04X Bin Stores
9. There shall be no windows inserted into either of the side (north and south) elevations of the
development.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
3. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
7. To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
9. To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Coal Authority.
2. The Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding details
of drainage.
3. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from United Utilities.
4. Please liase with the Director of Development Services (Highways Maintenance Section) regarding
highway adoption.
APPLICATION No:
02/43550/FUL
APPLICANT:
Mr & Mrs D King
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To 15 Springfield Lane Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling and
detached garage and construction of a new vehicular access
WARD:
Irlam
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This outline application relates to the erection of a detached dwelling and garage, with the construction of a
new vehicular access on land adjacent to number 15 Springfield Lane, Irlam. The proposal site consists of
the former side garden area of number 15 Springfield Road, however was retained upon the sale of this
property by the applicant. The proposal site measures approximately 6.1m at the main access point, and
extends approximately 47.0m, at which point it reaches a width of 11.3m. The proposed access from
Springfield Lane would measure approximately 2.1m.
Springfield lane is a residential road, which is occupied by semi-detached and detached properties.
SITE HISTORY
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
In 1998, outline planning permission was refused for the erection of a two/three bedroomed bungalow at the
site (ref:98/38650/OUT), on the grounds that the proposed development would be an unduly incongruous
feature in the street scene by reason of its scale and siting and would thus have a detrimental impact on the
amenity and character of the area.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
1 Lees End; Lees Close
2 & 4 Russell Drive
18 St John Street
11, 13a, 15, 17, 14-20(e) Springfield Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 8 letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
The strip of land in question is too narrow for such a development – the proposal would result in
‘shoe-horning’ a house onto an unsuitable site.
The development would impose a negative impact upon residential amenity – resulting in a loss of
light, privacy.
The development would be visually detrimental to local amenity.
The proposal will have a negative impact upon the value of properties in the area.
The close proximity to adjacent residential properties.
The property will be out of proportion with the surrounding houses.
The trees in the area are home to nesting birds.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: N/A
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan Policy DEV1 states that in the consideration of planning applications, regard
should be had to a number of issues including the location and nature of the proposed development, the size
and scale of the proposal, the impacts of development upon local and residential amenity, including the
effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for neighbouring properties.
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
The main issue with regards to this application is whether the application site is suitable for accommodating
a single detached dwelling. I have received several objections to the application which highlight
neighbouring concerns relating to a loss of privacy / amenity, and which raise concern over the constrained
size of the application site, the short distance to adjacent properties and the resulting ‘shoe-horning’ of
development onto the site. No trees are highlighted as being removed as a result of the development and I
would not consider loss of property value to be a material consideration.
In terms of the impact of the proposed dwelling on the privacy of adjacent properties, I would not consider
that the proposal would have a detrimental impact, given that there are no habitable windows directly
overlooking the proposal site.
With regard to the size of the site and the scale of the proposed dwelling, I consider that the application
needs to be assessed in terms of the character of the adjacent properties along Springfield road, which are
predominantly large post-war detached and semi-detached in character, with relatively wide spaces
between adjacent properties. Typically properties are spaced to allow for vehicular access between. Given
this context, I have concerns regarding the distance between the proposed dwelling and the gable end of
no.15 Springfield Lane, a substantial detached two –storey property, which would only be approximately
1.5m.
I consider that the proposed development when assessed within this context would appear unduly cramped
and would not reflect the existing scale and spacing of residential properties along Springfield Lane. I
therefore recommend that this outline application is refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
(Reasons)
1. The proposed development would be an unduly incongrous feature in the street scene by reason of its
siting and relationship with neighbouring development and would thus have a detrimental impact on
the amenity and character of the area contrary to policy Dev 2 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/43568/COU
APPLICANT:
Keith Drennan
LOCATION:
484 Liverpool Street Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from shop and flat to offices for sale of professional and
financial services.
WARD:
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
This application relates to a change of use from a former retail unit with residential accommodation to the
first floor level, into a premises for the sale of professional and financial services. The premises are to
house Salford Moneyline, a Community based financial company. The premises is currently vacant, and is
located within the Seedley and Langworthy Regeneration Area, at the junction of Liverpool Street and
Southern Street, a residential road. There are several vacant commercial premises along Liverpool Street,
and vacancy and dereliction is also significant within the residential terraces of Southern Street. While
there are parking restrictions to the Liverpool Street frontage, there is on-street parking available along
Southern Street.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
2-6(e) Southern Street
492, 513, 515 Liverpool Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Salford Moneyline could be located in a more prominent and accessible part of the Community.
There are no parking facilities for staff / customers.
Anti-social behaviour and car crime is high in the area.
The use will attract further anti-social behaviour and would make the few remaining residents of
Southern Street more vulnerable.
The management of the property has not been supportive of residents concerns in the past.
The property is due to be demolished, along with the properties in Southern Street, and residents
fear that the use could slow down the process of regeneration in the area.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: Policy H7 – Housing Area Improvement and Renewal – Private Sector
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
SC2 – Provision of Social and Community Facilities by Private and Voluntary Agencies
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan states that regard will be had to a number of factors
in determining planning applications, including the amount of car parking provision and the impact of the
development on local and residential amenity. Policy H7 relates to the Langworthy and Seedley
improvement area, and states that the City Council is committed to improving both the housing and general
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
environment within the regeneration area. In addition, Policy SC2 underlines the City Council’s
commitment to support the provision of Social and Community facilities by private and voluntary agencies.
With regard to the objections that have been received, I would not consider the suitability of the location of
the Salford Moneyline facility to be a planning consideration, rather an independent decision to be made by
the Moneyline Board. Equally, although I am also aware of local residents concerns regarding the past
management of the property, again I would not consider this to be a planning consideration in determination
of this planning application. In terms of the availability of parking provision, although I am aware that
parking restrictions are in force on Liverpool Street, on-street provision is available on adjacent side streets.
Given the high levels of vacant and derelict housing stock on adjacent residential streets, I would not
consider over spill parking to be detrimental to residential amenity in the area. I am also aware that both car
crime and anti-social behaviour are significant problems within the area, however, I would not consider the
proposed use to contribute significantly to either problem. On balance, I would consider the proposed
development, which will result in returning a presently vacant property into productive use, to be preferable
to the existing situation, where the property is vulnerable to vandalism and crime.
So far as the Seedley and Langworthy Initiative (SALI) is concerned the property is scheduled for
demolition in the future as part of the SRB5 regeneration initiative. This has led to local concerns that the
granting planning permission for this use may prejudice the long-term time-scale for demolition of the
residential properties in this area. The subject premises lies within an area which is to be cleared and
redeveloped as part of the SRB5 initiative, and in my opinion the granting of unlimited planning permission
may prejudice the eventual redevelopment of the site.
On balance, I am satisfied that the proposed use would be acceptable in terms of its impacts on local and
residential amenity, however in order to safeguard the longer-term regeneration of this area, I recommend
that planning permission be granted for a limited period of 12 months only.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning with the date of
this permission.
2. The use hereby permitted shall cease on or before the expiration of a period ending on the 31st of March
2003 unless a further permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. Reason: So as not to prejudice the future redevelopment of the area in accordance with policy H7 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/43574/FUL
APPLICANT:
Lisa Jacobs
LOCATION:
11 Leigh Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Continued use as a hot food shop/cafe with variation of opening hours
on p.p. 01/42270/COU
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a mid-terraced property on the busy A572. There is a self-contained flat above the
ground floor shop. There is a convenience store and a bakers shop within the same terraced block, but the
rest of the row is houses.
The ground floor is currently in use as a hot food shop/café use, which closes at 2.30pm. The proposal is to
extend the opening hours of the A3 use. The applicant wishes to open in the afternoon at 5.30pm and remain
open until 10.30pm, Monday to Wednesday, until 11pm on Thursday, 11.30pm on a Friday and 11.45pm on
a Saturday. The premises are not open on a Sunday.
SITE HISTORY
Planning permission was granted in May 2001 for the retention of the hot food shop/café, with the condition
that it did not open Sundays and Bank Holidays and that it is only open between 7.30am and 2.30pm.
CONSULTATION
Director of Environmental Services – Following a complaint from the occupier of the above flat, visits have
demonstrated the problem of odour and a visible fume in this flat, which could be considered as creating a
Statutory Nuisance. Proceedings are currently being considered. In relation to this application, he reports
that an existing nuisance exists, and further extending the opening hours will not only exacerbate the
existing problem. He also identifies that the proximity to residential properties would be contrary to
planning policy. Therefore he recommends that the application be refused.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
1 -3 Victoria Close
7-11, 15-19 Victoria Street
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
5, 7,11A, 13-19, 12-18 (even), 21-29(odd), 20, 30, surgery, public house Leigh Road
111 Chaddock Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 3 letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The grounds of objection are:





visitors to the existing shop park on the double yellow lines or on the pavement;
the noise and disturbance from customers visiting the property, particularly late at night;
concerns that it would attract youths to collect at night
existing problems of odour from this café already cause a serious problem;
problems of litter already exist along the row of terraces
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: S5 – Control of Food and Drink Premises
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy S5 states that the Council would normally only permit proposals for A3 uses where they would not
have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenities of surrounding residential properties or significantly
prejudice highway safety. Where an A3 use would directly adjoin a residential unit, it is normally
considered unacceptable as noise disturbance, fumes and odours adversely affect the occupants.
On granting the original planning permission in 2001 for the use of this property as a hot food shop/café,
consideration was given to the restriction on daytime opening that were operating and the fact that whilst it
is an A3 use, it seeks to provide a range of sandwiches and hot food, more in line with a lunchtime café
trade. However, a condition was attached requiring the approval and subsequent installation of a suitable
fume extraction system, in order to ensure there would be no detriment to the adjoining residential
properties.
Although some details of a possible system have been submitted, these have not been considered suitable
and therefore this condition has not, to date, been complied with. The compliance of this condition, and the
alleviation of the nuisance currently being caused from fumes is currently being pursued as a separate
matter by my Enforcement Officer and the Director of Environmental Services.
In considering this proposal for the extension of hours on its own merits, I am concerned about the possible
impact on the neighbouring residents from the proposed evening opening, particularly as there are
residential properties adjacent and directly above. Policy S5 seeks to protect residential uses from any A3
use in terms of noise, disturbance, smells fumes, traffic etc. I would consider that any evening opening,
particularly to such late hours as proposed within this application would be detrimental to the neighbouring
residents concerned.
Therefore, although the premises are used as a hot food shop/café during the day, I would consider that this
current proposal for an extension to the approved opening hours would be seriously detrimental to the
neighbouring residents and therefore contrary to Policy S5 of the Unitary development Plan. Consequently,
I would recommend that the application be refused.
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
(Reasons)
1. The proposed extension of hours of opening would be seriously detrimental to neighbouring residents
by reason of smell and fumes, noise, disturbance and general activity and thus would be contrary to
Policy S5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
APPLICATION No:
02/43577/HH
APPLICANT:
N Openshaw
LOCATION:
3 Elvington Crescent Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a pitched roof over existing front flat roof dormer, rear
extension to provide conservatory, single storey covered area and rear
porch and a first floor rear extension together with new pitch roof over
existing extension
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached bungalow within an area of dormer bungalows and is bounded
by a linear walkway. The proposal is for the erection of a front porch, dormer extension at the rear, pitched
roof alterations to existing dormers, single porch extension and covered area and a conservatory and a
detached garage at the rear.
The front porch would project 1.57m X 2.74m (W) and would have a pitched roof that would tie into the
existing roof of the bungalow. The proposed alteration to the existing front dormer would construct a
pitched roof over the existing flat and would match the proposed identical improvement to the neighbouring
property and would tie into the roof below the existing ridge line. (See application 02/43630/HH)
At the rear of the property the applicant has proposed to extend the original dormer across the width of the
property with a pitched roof. The proposal would also provide a porch that would square off the original
staggered rear elevation, projecting 2.1m X 2.6m. A pitched roof would then cover this and the existing
single storey rear extension at a maximum height of 3.75m. A conservatory would then project 2.5m X
4.5m with a pitched roof at a height of 2.5m and would be set in 1.1m from the common boundary.
PUBLICITY
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
The following neighbours were notified :
2 and 4 Elvington Crescent
28 Harbourne Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV 8 House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that proposals will only be granted where issues such as overlooking, overshadowing,
dominance, loss of privacy or light can be satisfied. The policy also states that the proposal must not have
an unacceptable adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene.
I have not received any letters of objection in relation to the application publicity. This application has been
put before the members because the applicant is employed by the City Council.
Due to the orientation of this property and the adjacent property I do not feel that this proposal would cause
a loss of privacy. The alterations to the front dormer and that of the neighbouring property are in keeping
with other alterations within the area. The dormer extension and alteration at the rear would not be
overlooked or scene from the street.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
02/43610/TEL56
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
APPLICANT:
BT Cellnet
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By Richmond Drive East Lancashire Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Prior Notification for the erection of a telecommunications equipment
cabin adjacent to pylon ZQ31.
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a field in the Green Belt to the south of the East Lancashire Road.
The proposal is to site a steel telecommunications equipment cabin 3.7 metres in length by 2.5 metres in
width by 2.8 metres in height adjacent to an existing National Grid pylon. The cabin would be painted grey.
It would be set back approximately 1.6 metres behind an existing 1.2 metre high timber fence to the grass
verge of the East Lancashire Road.
The development would be adjacent to an existing telecommunications equipment cabin. A second
equipment cabin is located between the pylon and the East Lancashire Road. Residential properties are
located on Richmond Drive to the east of the site, at a distance of approximately 55 metres.
SITE HISTORY
97/37468/FUL - Installation of three cross polar antennas each 2.4m in length. Deemed Approval.
00/40386/TEL28 - Prior Notification for installation of three co-polar antennae and one microwave dish on
existing pylon and installation of equipment cabinet at base of pylon surrounded by 2.4m high palisade
fencing. Approved 17.2.00.
PUBLICITY
Site notices were displayed on 6th February 2002
The following neighbours were notified:
62 – 66 (evens) East Lancashire Road
2, 1 – 19 (odds) Richmond Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
1. impact on Green Belt
2. effects of proposed equipment on health
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
7th March 2002
EN22 – Green Belt
EN5i) – Nature Conservation
DEV1 – Development Criteria
EN2 – Development Within Green Belt
SC14 - Telecommunications
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan Policy SC14 states that planning permission will normally be granted for
telecommunications development where such development would not have an unacceptable effect on
visual amenity and residential amenity. The site is also located within the Green Belt and a Wildlife
Corridor and as such, policies EN22, EN2 and EN5 need to be taken into consideration.
The objections to the proposal relate to the impact upon the greenbelt and health issues. With regards to
effects of the proposed development on health, I can confirm that this Prior Notification relates to the
equipment cabin only and it is not for the installation of telecommunications equipment on the pylon. The
equipment to be installed on the pylon falls within permitted development under Class A, Part 24 of the
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) order 1995 and as such the Prior
Notification of the City of Salford is not required. The Applicant has however submitted a certificate
confirming that the development would be compliant with ICNIRP guidelines.
Telecommunication operators have already sited two cabins and associated fencing adjacent to this site.
The Applicant was asked to consider siting the cabin closer to the existing cabins and the pylon, in order to
reduce the visual impact of the development on the Green Belt. This is apparently not possible because a 10
metre distance must be maintained between the pylon and the proposed equipment cabin, however, there is
an existing cabin directly beneath the pylon (i.e. it is within 10 metres of the pylon). No new landscaping
has been proposed which may have assisted in screening the proposed development. The Applicant has not
provided sufficiently detailed elevation drawings to illustrate the appearance of the proposed equipment
cabin, however, I consider that the size and siting of the proposed equipment cabin, in combination with the
two existing equipment cabins would be harmful to the visual amenity of the greenbelt.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
(Reasons)
1. The proposed equipment cabin, by reason of its appearance and siting, would be harmful to the visual
amenity of the greenbelt and is therefore contrary to policy EN2 of the UDP.
APPLICATION No:
02/43630/HH
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
APPLICANT:
D R Sherratt
LOCATION:
4 Elvington Crescent Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Conversion of flat roofs to pitched roofs at front and rear of dwelling
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached bungalow within an area of dormer bungalows and is bounded
by a linear walkway. This proposal is for the construction of pitched roofs over the existing front and rear
flat roof dormers. The front dormer would tie into the proposed identical alteration to the adjoining
property. (Application 02/43577/HH)
Both alterations would tie into the existing roof below the ridge line.
SITE HISTORY
In 1981, planning permission was granted for a detached double garage.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
3 and 5 Elvington Crescent
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV 8 House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that the proposal must not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the character and
appearance of the street scene.
The alterations to both dormers and that proposed in tandem with the neighbouring property are in keeping
with other alterations within the area and street scene.
RECOMMENDATION:
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
35
7th March 2002
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
APPLICATION No:
01/43502/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
St Charles R C Primary School (FAO Mrs M Greaves)
LOCATION:
St Charles R C Primary School Emlyn Street Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4m high palisade fencing and gates
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to St. Charles R.C. School, off Emlyn Street. The proposal is to erect a 2.4m high
palisade fence around the school for security. The fence would surround the school building, and exclude
the adjacent playing field. It would be single spiked top, and be colour coated.
SITE HISTORY
Planning permission was granted in May 2001 for a similar fence, which would have surrounding the
building and the school playing field (ref 01/42202/DEEM3).
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
84 & 84 Blantyre Street
230 – 250 (even) Moorside Lodge
1-13 The Presbytery, Moorside Road
86-100 (even) Wenlock Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV4 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I am aware that planning permission has already been granted for this style of security fence to surround the
school, but previously would have encompassed the adjacent playing field. The school has now applied for
a smaller perimeter fence that would surround the school building itself, primarily because of the cost of the
proposed work. I am mindful that school is seeking fencing in order to improve the security to the building
and as such, I would not object to the need to improve such security. I am of the opinion that the visual
impact of the proposed fence would not be as great as that already approved, because the eastern boundary
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
would be taken further from the adjoining public open space. Therefore I would not consider that this
proposal would have an adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The fence hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior to the
commencement of the development by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/43529/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Mrs G Evans (Headteacher)
LOCATION:
St Mary's C Of E Primary School Buckingham Road Irlam Cadishead
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey portal framed building for use as library
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the erection of a single storey portal framed glazed building for use as a library, at
a primary school in Irlam. The structure will be located within the existing courtyard at the school, which is
central to the existing school buildings and out of direct sight of neighbouring properties fronting the
primary school on Buckingham Road, and backing onto the school from Lancaster Road and Dorset Road.
The building will be of an apex construction and measure approximately 3.6m in height. The roof will be
constructed from steel sheet roof panels with polycarbonate glazing, and the walls will be of a brick
construction. The design incorporates large windows to all elevations.
SITE HISTORY
In 1996 planning permission was granted for the erection of a classroom, staff room and toilet extension.
(ref. no. 96/35625/DEEM3)
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 29th January 2002
The following neighbours were notified:
8,10,26,30 Buckingham Road
5-11 (o) Buckingham Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: N/A
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
SC4 – Improvement/Replacement of Schools
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan Policy DEV1 states that when determining planning applications regard should
be had to the location and nature of the proposed development, including its relationship to existing and
neighbouring uses. Whereas Policy DEV2 relates to the quality of design and appearance of the
development. In addition, Policy SC4 states that the City Council will endeavour to the improve schools,
through the replacement and development of new facilities.
I am satisfied that the provision of a new library facility at the school will improve the facilities available to
staff and pupils. The design of the structure is in keeping with the school building, and seeks to maximise
light into the new facility through the use of glazed roofing panels. I have received no objections to the
application from neighbouring residents, and I am satisfied that the location of the structure, within the
courtyard of the existing school buildings, will minimise the visual impact of the structure. I therefore
recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning with the date of
this permission.
(Reasons)
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
1. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
APPLICATION No:
02/43535/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Housing Services Directorate
LOCATION:
2-8 Vela Walk, 66-80 Riverside 1-13, 27-33 And 51-57 Meadow Road
Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Environmental and security improvements to include new drives,
fencing, tree planting, new roads and re-aligned roads
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to proposed environmental and security improvements in the vicinity of Vela Walk;
Riverside and Meadow Road, a large residential area and part of the Spike Island area. The proposed
improvements will involve the addition of new driveways, fencing and tree planting, with new and
realigned roads.
The existing estate suffers from significant levels of crime and generally has a poor physical environment.
Existing car parking provision is to the rear of houses, situated within exposed courtyards. Car crime is
significant in the area, and the existing arrangements do not provide secure parking for residents.
Fourteen trees, of various maturity and species will be removed as a result of the scheme, with 38 new trees
proposed.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on the 29th of January 2002
The following neighbours were notified :
58-64(e) Riverside
1-17(o) Cygnus Avenue
2-8(e) Vela Walk
66-88(e) Riverside
1-13(o) 27-33(o) 51-57(o) Meadow Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
H2 – Maintaining and Improving Public Sector Housing
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan Policy DEV1 states that in determining planning applications the City Council
should pay due regard to a number of issues, including the visual appearance of a development; the amount,
design and layout of car parking provision, landscaping and open space provision and the impact on trees
within or adjacent to the development site. In addition, Policy H2 states that the City Council will seek to
maintain and improve public sector housing stock through improving security, improving the general
housing environment and through the provision of adequate car parking facilities.
I am satisfied that this development will lead to a significant improvement in the housing environment in
the area. The proposed improvements will improve security for residents, and will also improve car parking
facilities. The development involves the removal of a number of mature and semi-mature trees, however,
following an inspection of these specimens with the City Council’s Aboricultural Officer, I am satisfied that
their replacement with 38 trees will mitigate any negative impacts, subject to the Aboricultural Officers
approval of the replacement specimens.
I am satisfied that the proposed works will improve visual and residential amenity in the area, and serve to
combat crime and vandalism in the housing environment. I therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No trees (other than those clearly shown to be so affected on the submitted plan) shall be topped, lopped
or cut down without the prior written approval of the Director of Development Services and any trees
dying or being removed before or within 5 years of completion of the development hereby permitted
shall be replaced within 12 months of removal or death in accordance with details which shall have
been submitted to and approved in writing beforehand by the Director of Development Services.
3. Prior to the commencement of the development, details of the species and maturity of the replacement
trees shall be forwarded to and approved by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/43543/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Irlam & Cadishead Community High School
LOCATION:
Irlam & Cadishead Community High School Macdonald Road Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Construction of flat roof over existing flat roofs
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to part of the roof of the Irlam and Cadishead Community High School Macdonald
Road, Irlam. The school is situated between an established residential area and open fields.
Planning permission is sought for the erection of an addition to the roof over part of the main school
building. The existing building between the squash courts/sports hall and the gym/staff room/arts theatre is
single storey is 3m high and has a flat roof. The proposal involves the addition of an apex roof to this area,
the eaves would be at a height of 4.6m whilst the apex is to a height of 5.7m. The applicant states that the
proposal is required to combat burglaries and crime at the school.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections however recommend that eaves
overhang increased to 500mm.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
40-46 even Bradburn Road
2-6 even Bradburn Road
1-11 inclusive Cromwell Road
2-4 even Liverpool Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV4 Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
Policy DEV1 seeks, inter alia, to respect the existing buildings visual appearance and the sunlight, daylight
and privacy of neighbours. Policy DEV4 seeks to encourage greater consideration of crime prevention.
The proposal would utilise the existing brick walls and add vertical wall cladding above to a height of 4.6m.
The roof would be constructed out of the same material. I consider that the design and scale of the proposed
extension would match the existing school buildings. I also consider that the proposal would not detract
from the character of the area or reduce existing amenity of neighbouring property.
The increase in height of the external walls from 3m to 4.6m would improve security of the school by
minimising access onto the roof. The Architectural Liaison Unit recommends an overhang of 500mm at
eaves level to further reduce the risk of access onto the roof. The applicant has agreed that an overhang of
500mm would benefit security and agrees that this should be covered through a planning condition. I am
satisfied that this proposal will provide improved security for the school and would not be detrimental to the
existing building or surrounding property. I have no highway objections and recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, plans shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Director of Development Services to increase the eaves overhang to 500mm
unless otherwise agreed in writing.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
APPLICATION No:
02/43572/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Canon Williamson C Of E High School
LOCATION:
Canon Williamson C Of E High School Northfleet Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Construction of pitched roofs over existing flat roofs
WARD:
Winton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
This application relates to a flat to pitched roof conversion on a high school building in Eccles. The existing
school building is presently constructed with a flat roof, and the proposal involves replacing this with a
pitched roof constructed from insulated metal roof sheets coloured to match the existing building.
The school is located within a residential area and is overlooked by residential properties on Northfleet
Road and Foxhill Road.
SITE HISTORY
In 1995, planning permission was granted for the erection of a two storey classroom block with gymnasium
(ref: 95/34609/DEEM3)
In 1996 planning permission was granted for the erection of extensions to a sports centre to provide sports,
art and drama centre for the school (ref:96/34923/DEEM3).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on the 29th January 2002
The following neighbours were notified :
18-36(e) 47-63(o) Northfleet Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: N/A
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
SC4 – Improvement/Replacement of Schools
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan Policy DEV1 states that when determining planning applications regard should
be had to the location and nature of the proposed development, including its relationship to existing and
neighbouring uses. Policy DEV2 relates to the quality of design and appearance of the development. In
addition, Policy SC4 states that the City Council will endeavour to the improve schools across the City.
The existing school building is presently overlooked by a number of residential properties, however is set
back from these properties by car parking to the front of the school and playfields to the side and rear. The
proposed addition of a pitched roof construction will increase the height of the school buildings by between
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th March 2002
0.8m to 2m. Given the scale of the existing school building, I would not consider the impact of this increase
in height to have a negative impact upon neighbouring properties.
In design terms, the proposed alterations are intended to improve the appearance of the school building,
rendering it more visually acceptable. In my consideration the proposed scheme will improve the aesthetic
appearance of the school building and will not prove detrimental to residential amenity in the area. I
therefore consider the proposal acceptable and therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
45
7th March 2002