PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
APPLICATION No:
01/43086/FUL
APPLICANT:
S Murfin
LOCATION:
Edale Macdonald Road Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Erection of additional kennels and preparation room
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a site known as Edale which is on the north west side of MacDonald Road
between Bowden House and the Health Centre. The site has a residential detached dwelling at the front of
the site with kennels behind on this 215 metre by 25 metre site. Residential properties of Astley Court,
Orchid Close and Zinnia Drive border the site to the north. To the west of the site, beyond Bowden
House, are open fields within the Green Belt. The site subject to this application is not within the Green
Belt.
There are existing kennels at the property which were previously used for the breeding of dogs. Planning
permission is sought for the erection of a further ten dog kennels with preparation room for the purposes
of boarding dogs. The kennels would be constructed in a stable format with each kennel plus the
preparation area measuring 1.8m high by 1.8m wide by 1.8m long, in addition a canopy area of 2m would
protrude from the kennel and an open area with a 3.2m open area. The proposed kennels would take up an
area of 21m by 7m.
SITE HISTORY
In 2002, a Certificate of Lawful Proposed Use was refused for the continued use as boarding kennels
(02/43693/CLUD).
In 2000, planning permission was granted for the erection of a two storey side extension and a single
storey rear extension (00/40753/HH).
In 1997, planning permission was approved for the erection of a two storey side extension to provide a
study/kitchen and porch on the ground floor and a first floor extension (97/37285/HH).
In 1993, planning permission was granted for the erection of a ground and first floor extension
(93/31089/HH).
In 1979, planning permission was granted for the erection of a double garage (E/8103).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Objections on noise grounds
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 2nd October 2001.
The following neighbours were notified :
Bowden House, MacDonald Road
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
Irlam Medical Centre, MacDonald Road
11-40 Zinnia Drive
1 – 55 Astley Court
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 14 letters of objection and one 29 name petition and one 30 name petition in response to
the application publicity. The following comments having been made:
Noise nuisance
Smells
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria; EN20 Pollution Control
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policies DEV1 and EN20 seek, inter alia, to ensure that the location and nature of proposed development
respects existing land uses and also seeks the protection of amenity from noise pollution. The site is well
screened by trees and shrubs to all sides and although the cumulative impact of the kennels would be
visible from some flats at Astleigh Court. I do not consider the visual appearance would detract from the
character of the area.
Following the submission of this application a Certificate of Lawful Proposed Use (reference
02/43693/CLUD) was submitted and refused for the continued use as boarding kennels, as insufficient
information was provided to prove the continued use as a place for dog boarding for ten years or more.
Evidence was submitted to show that dog breeding was well established however I consider that this is a
materially different planning use from dog boarding. Dog breeding establishments have a relatively stable
population of dogs familiar to their surroundings and to each other, with very few comings and goings. In
comparison dog boarding establishments have a transient population unfamiliar to their surroundings;
personnel and other dogs, resulting in more barking, yelping and crying.
The use of the existing premises for the boarding of dogs in this residential area has led to noise
objections from residents on the grounds of noise nuisance arising from the barking of dogs. Noise
complaints have been received by the Environmental Services Directorate. The results of their
investigation confirm that noise emitted from this establishment is giving rise to a statutory noise
nuisance and a noise abatement notice has been served on the owner of the premise under section 80 of
the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This notice requires the abatement and prohibits the recurrence
of noise arising from the barking, whining and yelping of dogs.
Given the level of objections received from nearby residents on the grounds of noise nuisance arising
from the existing use of this site and subsequent enforcement action undertaken by the Directorate of
Environmental Services Directorate, I consider that the proposed erection of additional kennels would
seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents through noise pollution from additional barking
dogs. I do not consider that much material weight can be given to the objections to the smell of dog waste
and I consider that if such problems exist that this would be a matter for investigation by the Director of
Environmental Services.
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
Although I have no highway objections I strongly object to the proposal on the grounds of noise nuisance
and recommend refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development by reason of excessive noise, would be detrimental to the amenity
enjoyed by neighbouring residents and as such the proposal is contrary to policies EN20 and DEV1
of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
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
BACKGROUND
Members will recall that consideration of this application was again deferred at the meeting of the Panel
on 16 May 2002 to allow an investigation to be made into the ownership of the site. I have received
confirmation of ownership and have also investigated other matters that were raised at the Panel meeting.
The body of the report remains the same and my additional observations can be found under the heading
Additional Observations at the end of the report.
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.
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
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 horizontal 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.
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.
English Heritage – These historic and architecturally interesting, albeit dilapidated buildings, make a
positive contribution to the character of the conservation area, however, it is evident on site that there are
significant structural problems relating not only to the Chapel itself but also to the other buildings. An
archaeological assessment should be carried out and submitted as part of the information in support of the
application. With respect to the design there is no objection in principle to the proposed scale and
massing. It is important to ensure that the replacement building is contextually appropriate to
neighbouring domestic scale properties, thereby protecting the character of the conservation area.
Roofing material should be traditional slate and the visual impact of the accommodation contained within
the roofspace should be minimised on both front and rear elevations by replacing the dormer windows
with conservation rooflights.
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
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
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 two 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 delapidated chapel and its environs are an eyesore
The replacement building is too big
Increase in traffic
Loss of light
In addition a bound document was handed out at the first Panel meeting. This made a number of specific
points related to the above. I have addressed the points made in this document in a separate section in
the appraisal.
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
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.
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
English Heritage have visited the site and do not object to the demolition of the buildings and accept the
scale and massing of the replacement building. I have discussed the proposed removal of the dormer
windows with the applicant and his agent. The applicant considers that given that English Heritage
accept the scale of the proposed building the provision of rooflights only in the upper floor of the building
would not provide a satisfactory level of accommodation for future residents. My own view is that the
dormers are not inappropriate and therefore given the reluctance of the applicant to amend his proposals I
do not consider that I can object to the application on this detailed issue of design.
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. 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.. The
applicant 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 affect the whole of the graveyard and the applicant has stated that the part not
required for car parking 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 have given them little weight in
my consideration of the application.
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
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
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 in traffic on Barton Road as a result of this
proposal. I have no objections on highway grounds to the proposal and I consider that the 32 car parking
spaces proposed is an appropriate level of provision.
The building would be 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.
Points raised in the document handed out at the first Panel meeting
1.
Is this a disused graveyard?
The simple answer is yes. ‘Disused’ can have a number of meanings. According to the legal meaning
of the word the definition of a ‘disused graveyard’ is to be found in the Open Spaces Act 1887 and is any
burial ground which is no longer used for internments, whether or not it has been closed for burials under
the provision of any statute or order in Council.
Any common or everyday interpretation of the word ‘disused’ would also apply to this site. The Church
is no longer in use for worship and the last burial was over 30 years ago. Until recently the site was
overgrown. The fact that relatives have always visited the site and can now put flowers on graves does
not mean that the graveyard is not disused.
2.
Ownership of burial land
I have consulted the Head of Law and Administration on this matter. There is no evidence that families
who own burial plots have acquired a legal interest in the land. The usual legal position is that the grant
of an exclusive right of burial does not confer any proprietary rights upon the grantee in respect of the
land itself.
3.
War Graves
The applicant has informed the War Graves Commission of his proposals as he is required to do.
4.
Building Construction
If graves were to be disturbed during construction of the foundations under the Disused Burial Grounds
(Amendment) Act 1981 any human remains must be dealt with in accordance with procedures set down in
law under that act and in accordance with the provisions of the Secretary of State. This would involve
City Council officers. The applicant has placed the necessary notice in a local newspaper in accordance
with advice that he has received from the Home Office.
Drainage would not be required to disturb any graves. There are existing drains in Barton Road and
advice from colleagues in the Main Drainage Section is that there is no reason why drains to the proposed
development would not be from Barton Road.
5.
Public Health Hazard
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
Advice from the Director of Environmental Services indicated that when bodies are exhumed
Environmental Health officers are in attendance to deal with the protection of the public.
6.
Conservation Area
The document presented at Panel refers to the fact this site is within the Barton Upon Irwell Conservation
Area. This conservation area was designated in 1976 and despite having a limited budget with regard to
conservation areas money has been spent within this conservation area. There are no four-storey
buildings within the Conservation Area but there is a ten-storey block of flats on the boundary that has a
significant effect upon the setting and character of the area.
7.
The Importance of the Buildings
English Heritage does not consider that the buildings are worthy of Listing. The Assistant County
Archaeologist has informed me that there are a large number of disused Methodist Chapels in the Greater
Manchester area with graveyards attached that are now disused and which either have been or are
proposed to be re-used for other purposes. I found no evidence that the school rooms were amongst the
first in the country or that the building was instrumental in the start of the inland waterways which led to
the industrial revolution.
In conclusion, my recommendation remains unchanged. Many 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 and while I have sympathy with those objectors whose family graves will be covered by the
parking area I cannot support their views that the application should be refused. 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. Members who attended the meeting on site will recall the
strongly held views of the occupier of the house adjacent to the site who complained about the effect that
this derelict site has had. This proposal represents a significant investment in the Conservation Area and
will regenerate a significant site within the Conservation Area and will enhance the character of the area.
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Firstly I can confirm that the site is owned by Mr Hampson. Proof of title as shown on Land Registry
documents has been submitted.
At the last Panel meeting a number of points were also raised and I deal with these as follows.
The covenant that exists that was referred to at the meeting states that:
“the purchasers for themselves and their successors in title will not effect any change in the user
of such part of the property as is now a disused burial ground without first obtaining at their own
expense all consents or orders necessary to effect such a change…”
As far as my own investigations are concerned I am advised that the City Councils has no knowledge of
any consents other than that carried by the grant of planning permission. In addition I have written to
some of the objectors asking if they have any evidence of any other consents that may be required. The
applicants solicitor has also sent a signed consent on behalf of all the Trustees of the Weaste Full Gospel
Church to the intended change of use from a disused burial ground to a car park.
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
With regard to public access to the site the applicant cannot enter into such a legal agreement as this
would compromise the security of any future occupiers of the flats. Access can only be gained via the
Barton Road and it is the applicants intention that secure access gates would be necessary. These
security measures are not shown on the plans submitted with the application as it was not the applicants
intention that they would be adjacent to the highway or be more than 2m in height and would therefore
not require planning permission. I would also point out that the notice that the applicant published under
the Disused Burial Grounds (Amendment) Act 1981 stated that he intended to render all graves within the
site inaccessible. It is his intention that the land behind the proposed car park be covered in a layer of
soil and turfed. Any vertical gravestones would first be laid flat. It was previously stated by the applicant
said that vertical gravestones would be removed to the perimeter of the site. These actions would not
constitute development and I therefore consider that the existence of the church and the graveyard be
marked by a memorial stone to be located to the front of the site so that it is accessible by the public. I
have attached a condition to this effect.
For reasons of safety and security the applicant does not propose to keep standing any of the vaults that
exist on the site.
I have attached a condition requiring the applicant to inform the Director of Development Services in
writing of the commencement of development and I have amended condition 3 as suggested at the last
Panel meeting.
An additional six letters objecting to the application have been received.
My conclusions and recommendation on this application remain the same.
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 of the
buildings and graveyard 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.
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 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.
8. The developer shall give the Director of Development Services at least two weeks notice in writing of
the date of commencement of development and specifically of the date of any work in connection
with the provision of foundations of any part of the proposed building that may affect graves on the
site.
9. A memorial stone, nature, size, location and wording of which shall first have been submitted to and
agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services, shall be erected at the site within six
months of the commencement of development and shall remain in place and visible to the public at all
times.
(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
8. In order that the development can be adequately monitored in accordance with policy DEV1 of the
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
9. In the interests of local history in accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
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
WARD:
Barton
At a meeting of the Panel held on 21st March 2002 consideration of this application was
deferred for further investigations into the issues raised by objectors.
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.
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
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
English Heritage – These historic and architecturally interesting, albeit dilapidated buildings, make a
positive contribution to the character of the conservation area, however, it is evident that there are
significant structural problems relating not only to the Chapel itself but also to the other buildings. An
archaeological assessment should be carried out and submitted as part of the information in support of the
application. With respect to the design there is no objection in principle to the proposed scale and
massing. It is important to ensure that the replacement building is contextually appropriate to
neighbouring domestic scale properties, thereby protecting the character of the conservation area.
Roofing materials should be traditional slate and the visual impact of the accommodation contained with
the roofspace should be minimised on both front and rear elevations by replacing the dormer windows
with conservation rooflights.
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:
1.
2.
3.
4.
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
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 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 area the City Council will have
regard (amongst other things) to the following:
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 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 of the buildings and graveyard 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:
01/43469/FUL
APPLICANT:
Harlor Homes Ltd
LOCATION:
Land At St Marks Church Hall Edge Fold Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing church hall and erection of one detached
dwelling, two semi-detached dwellings and one three storey building
comprising six flats together with associated car parking and
landscaping.
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
6th June 2002
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former Church Hall on Edge Fold Road, which is now vacant and boarded
up. The proposal is to re-develop this site with the erection of a 3 storey block at the front of the site to
accommodate 6, 2-bed apartments. The forward most part of this building would be 4.2m from the back
of pavement, which would be between 2m and 3m further forward of the garage at the adjoining no. 15
Edge Fold Road. There would be 8 parking spaces at the front of the site in order to provide for this
block.
It is also proposed to build 3 houses, one detached and a pair of semis, to the rear of the site, facing
towards the houses on Maple Grove behind. These houses would be 3 storey, with a large amount of
accommodation in the roof slope and dormers in the front elevation and velux windows in the rear. The
detached house would have an integral garage, with drive in front whilst the pair of semis would have a
detached garage block, sited between the houses and the apartment block. The nearest part of these houses
would be 8m from the rear boundary with 44 Maple Grove.
SITE HISTORY
In September 2001, an application for 3 detached houses and one block for 4 flats was submitted. This
was withdrawn in January 2002. (ref. 01/43107/FUL).
In April 2002, planning permission was refused for one building to accommodate 12 flats, because the
over-development of the site would result in a loss of amenity to the neighbouring residents. (ref.
01/43328/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objection
United Utilities – no objection in principle, but does identify the position of a public sewer along the
eastern boundary.
Council’s Arboricultural Officer – the submitted arboricultural report provides a reasonable assessment of
the condition of the trees. However, the relationship to this proposal is not assessed, as the applicant
produced it to accompany another plan. Therefore it is not possible to determine whether any of the trees
would be affected by the development and associated site works.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
3, 6-26 (even), 15-21 (odd) Edge Fold Road
42-48 Maple Grove
28-40 (even) St. Marks Crescent
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 57 letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
-
6th June 2002
There would be a loss of privacy an increase in overlooking from the proposal
The buildings, particularly the houses would be overshadowing and overbearing to the
existing houses
A loss of trees and hedges, which would in turn lead to a loss of wildlife
An increase in traffic in the area would add to congestion. This problem would be made
worse by the entrance to Worsley College, which faces the site
The surrounding properties have experienced drainage problems in the past and any
development on this site could cause further problems.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Design Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
EN7 – Conservation of Trees
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 outlines a wide number of criteria against which a proposal for development should be
measured. This includes, inter alia,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
size and density;
likely scale and type of traffic generation;
car parking provision;
the layout and relationship of existing and proposed buildings;
the effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for neighbouring properties; and
the visual appearance of the development and its relationship to its surroundings
Policy DEV2 states that planning permission would not normally be granted unless the City Council is
satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance. Such design would require the development to pay
due regard to existing buildings and townscape and to the character of the surrounding area.
I appreciate that the local residents have raised a number of objections to the proposal. I am concerned
that there are a number of issues with this proposal that would mean that the scheme could have an
adverse effect on the amenity area and in particularly on the neighbouring residents.
Firstly the proposed apartment block would be rather prominent within the street scene as it would be
further forward than the houses along the rest of Edge Fold Road. This prominence would be emphasised
by the design and height of the building, being a full 3 storey building, and there is certainly concern that
this building would be over dominant within the street scene. Therefore I would not consider that this
proposed apartment block would relate well to the surrounding properties, in terms of size, siting and
general massing on the site.
The three houses proposed for the rear of the site would be approximately 8m from the rear boundary
with the houses on Maple Grove. These houses to the rear are at a lower level than the application site.
The proposed houses are also three storey. Therefore I would concur with the objectors that there would
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
be a loss of amenity to these neighbours from a loss of privacy, overlooking and overbearing appearance
of these houses at the higher site level.
I am concerned about the proposed layout of the site and in particular about the separation distances
between the two proposed buildings. Although the houses and apartment block would be slightly angled
to each other, there would still be principal windows facing each other across the internal site layout. The
closest distance of separation between the buildings would be 10m and I would not consider that, even
given the angle of relationship, there would be sufficient separation. Therefore I would consider that there
could be a problem of loss of privacy and overlooking between the proposed buildings.
The final issue of concern would be the protected trees on the site, and how the proposed development
might affect them. The proposed layout shows the communal car park area for the flats as well as the
internal access road to the rear houses would be closest to the trees on the side boundary. The applicant
has suggested that a surface called Netpave could be used, which they believe would not cause damage to
the tree roots. The Council’s Arborist is of the opinion that this may be suitable, but he would need to see
further technical details on how this material works before he could agree that it would not have any
detrimental effect on the trees. However, he is concerned that there are no details of the position of any of
the services to the rear houses, and without such details, he would have serious concerns that the
excavations for such services would have a detrimental effect on the trees.
Having considered the proposal, I would consider that the proposal would have a seriously detrimental
effect on the amenity of the neighbours and impact in the street scene.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The housing element of the proposed development would result in a significant loss amenity to the
surrounding neighbouring residents directly by reason of overlooking and loss of privacy and
overbearing nature of the buildings, contrary to Policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
2. The proposed apartment block within this development would be an unduly obtrusive feature in the
street-scene and would seriously injure the visual amenity of the area by reason of its size, scale and
position in relation to the surrounding houses within the street scene, contrary to Policy DEV1 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. The internal layout within the site would not provide adequate separation between the buildings and
therefore it would injure the amenity of future occupiers of the properties, in terms of loss of privacy
and overlooking, contrary to Policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. Insufficient information has been provided to ensure that adequate protection can be provided for the
trees which are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order, and any loss of the trees would be
detrimental to the amenity of the area, contrary to Policy EN7 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/43631/FUL
APPLICANT:
Liverpool And Lancashire Properties Ltd
LOCATION:
Pembroke Hall High Street Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of Pembroke Hall and erection of two storey retail unit
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the Pembroke Hall on High Street in Walkden which adjoins the Ellesmere
Centre. Members may recall that in February of this year permission was granted for the relocation of
the market hall to the rear of the Post Office building and for the erection of an extension to the rear/side
of the cinema to provide community facilities, planning reference 01/42923/FUL. This application
previously included the demolition of the Pembroke Hall but was withdrawn from consideration to allow
discussions regarding design and highway issues. The application now being considered is the result of
these discussions.
The proposal is for the demolition of the Pembroke Hall and the erection of a replacement building which
would comprise two retail units amounting to 6,800 square metres of floor space on two floors. The
building would measure 53m wide and 78m at its deepest point and would extend forward towards High
Street to be level with the building line of Worsley Court, offices to the east. The building would
provide direct access into Victoria Square, within the Ellesmere Centre. It would be constructed from
red facing brick with buff colour banding and have a reconstituted stone fascia with cladding panels
below. The design is of a department store style, with large windows on the ground and first floors.
There would be two main entrances, one on the High Street elevation and one on the elevation to the
service road to the car park. Each would be emphasised by tower structure constructed from the
reconstituted stone. The store would be serviced from the service yard to the rear of Worsley Court. This
service yard would be delineated from the adopted highway by entrance gates and fencing.
There would be alterations to the access from the centre onto High Street which would allow for a filter
lane onto the High Street, and also for minor alterations to the service yard area and Worsley Court. A
section 278 agreement would be entered into.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections in principle subject a site investigation being
undertaken.
Environment Agency – no objections in principle but requests that conditions are attached to any
permission relating to the disposal of foul and surface waters, with all surface water from car park and
service area to be passed through an oil interceptor.
Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections.
Wigan Council – no objections.
Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council – no written comments received.
British Coal – no comments received.
Peak and Northern Pedestrian Society – no comments received to date.
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
Ramblers Association – no comments received to date.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published in April.
A site notice was displayed on 17 April 2002.
The following neighbours were notified :
1 - 31 High Street
Units 28 – 49, 61 –68, 101 – 110,168 – 183 Ellesmere Shopping Centre
49 – 61 (O) Bolton Road
Tesco Stores, Ellesmere Shopping Centre
Kentucky Fried Chicken
McDonalds
29/30 Market Place (on behalf of the market traders)
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: S1 Town Centres
Other policies: S6 Maintenance and Improvement of town centres, DEV2 Good Design,
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy S1 seeks to protect, maintain and improve the town centres and this proposal by providing two
new, relatively large retail units would comply with this. In considering this proposal it is the impact of
the proposal in terms of its design and highway implications that are relevant.
At the time of the previous application, the proposal for the Pembroke Hall was for a warehouse type
structure. This proposal has now designed an urban building which is more appropriate for a town centre
location such as this. With the large ground floor windows, it has a similar character to a traditional
department store and the tower structure provides an entrance to the units but also the rest of the
Ellesmere Centre. I am satisfied that subject to the careful use of materials, this proposal would provide
a building fitting for this town centre location and traffic junction.
In relation to the highway works that would be necessary the applicant has agreed to enter into a Section
278 agreement and I therefore have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds.
The proposal is part of a wider redevelopment scheme for the Ellesmere Centre which would benefit
Walkden town centre and strengthen its vitality and viability. The building proposed to replace the
Pembroke Hall would provide improved facilities for retailers, and present a positive image to the centre
generally.
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
This proposal exceeds 2,500 sq.metres and, therefore, needs to be referred to Government Office.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Government Office be informed that the City Council is minded to approve this proposal subject to
the following:
1. that the City Secretary be authorised to enter into a Section 278 agreement to secure the following:
i.
2.
the necessary highway improvements at the junctions onto High Street from Worsley Court
and the main car parking area.
Approve Subject to the following Conditions:
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
3. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of
foul and surface waters has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a
scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans.
4. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface
water drainage from the car park and service area shall be passed through an oil interceptor designed
and constructed to have a capacity and details compatible with the site being drained. Roof water
shall not pass through the interceptor.
5. Prior to the commencement of the 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 Enviornmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focussing
primarily on risks to 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.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior the start of the site
investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report
shall be implemented by the developer prior to the occupation of the site.
6. The development shall NOT commence until the necessary approval for the footpath/road closure as
required under the necessary legislation has been secured.
7. Full details of the entrance gate and fencing adjacent to Worsley Court and the servicing yard area
shall be submitted to the Director of Development Services and approved in writing prior to the
commencement of development.
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
8. No part of the development shall be first occupied unless and until the highway improvements
secured in the S278 agreement have been implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of
Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
3. To ensure a satisfactory means of drainage.
4. To prevent pollution of the water environment.
5. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
6. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
7. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
8. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
APPLICATION No:
02/43653/OUT
APPLICANT:
Leaway (Manchester) Limited
LOCATION:
Land At Chorlton Fold Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Outline application for the erection of ten detached dwellings
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land at Chorlton Fold which consists of land to the south and west of Folley
Brook and to the north of Chorlton Fold Farm. To the west and east of the site are residential properties
whilst to the south is the Chorlton Fold Farm. The site is covered by rough grassland on a gentle
downward gradient toward Folley Brook. Access to the site is from Chorlton Fold an unadopted private
road that is built up along the southern approach to Rocky lane.
Outline planning permission is sought for ten dwellings, the applicant has amended the scheme so that all
matters including site layout, plans/elevations, colour and type of facing material, means of access and
landscaping are reserved for further approval.
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
SITE HISTORY
In 1993, planning permission was granted for the erection of two detached dwellings (93/30813/FUL).
In 1993, outline planning permission was granted for the erection of seven detached dwellings
(93/30812/OUT).
CONSULTATIONS
United Utilities – No objections
British Coal – No Objections
Environment Agency – No objections
PUBLICITY
A press notice was displayed on the 9th May 2002.
A site notice was displayed on the 3rd may 2002.
The following neighbours were notified :
113 - 133 odd Rocky Lane
125a Rocky Lane
11 – 14 inclusive Brentwood Drive
69 – 70 Bradford Road
Chorlton Fold Farm
Windy Ridge & The Bungalow, Chorlton Fold
Orchard Mount Centre, Chorlton Fold
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received seven letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following
comments having been made:
Safety and vehicular access
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H9/19 Sites for new housing
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, H1 Meeting Housing Needs, H4 Housing Land Allocation
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider that the principle of residential development to be well established given the sites allocation
within the City Of Salford Adopted Unitary Development Plan as land suitable for housing and also the
previous, now expired, planning permissions for housing. I therefore consider the outline scheme to be
consistent with Unitary Development Plan policies.
I have received a number of concerns from members of the public in relation to matters of access and
highway safety, although this application is in outline only the issue of highway safety has been
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
addressed. Objectors have expressed concern over the access along Chorlton Fold both along the northern
and southern route to access Rocky Lane. The northern route joins Rocky Lane on a tight corner with
minimal visibility. Although the southern route is not built to adoptable standards it is metalled unlike
the narrower unmade northern route. The southern route from Rocky Lane serves the Orchard Mount
Centre, the Chorlton Fold Farm and six houses on Rocky Lane with vehicular access at the rear. Chorlton
Fold Farm has outline planning permission for six dwellings (99/39949/OUT).
Members will recall that the same concerns were expressed during the 1993 application. Members will
also recall that following a panel visit planning permission was granted with the recommendation that a
prohibition of driving order be sought by the applicant, and that bollards be positioned at a suitable
location along Chorlton Fold, in order to prevent vehicles using what was considered to be an unsuitable
route for additional traffic. The southern access was considered to be acceptable.
Having undertaken a traffic count on 1st May 2002 during the morning peak of 8:15 to 9:00, when 14
vehicles entered the southern approach and 12 vehicles left onto Rocky Lane I am of the opinion that the
proposed development would not have a significant effect upon this junction. The use of the land for
housing is well established and that I consider the southerly access to be acceptable. As I have no other
highway objections I recommend approval subject to the imposition of the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
2. Standard Condition B01X Reserved Matters
3. No dwelling shall be occupied until such time that a prohibition of driving order has been introduced
and the provision of bollards at a suitable position on Chorlton Fold to ensure that vehicular traffic
utilise the made up section of Chorlton Fold. The cost of the prohibition of driving order and
provision of bollards shall be borne by the developer.
4. A strip of land 8 metres wide adjacent to the top of the banks of all watercourses fronting or crossing
the site must be kept clear of all new buildings and structures (including gates, walls and fences).
Ground levels must not be raised within such a strip of land.
5. No development shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation, of a
surface water regulation system has been approved by the Director of Development Services. The
scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved plans.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. To preserve access to the watercourse for maintenance and improvement.
5. To reduce the risk of flooding.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This permission shall relate to the applicants letter of the 23rd April and also 4th April 2002
amending the application to an outline only application.
2. Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage Byelaws, the prior written
consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures in, under, over
or within 8 metres of the top of the bank of the main river Folly Brook.
3. Details of any proposed new surface water outfalls, which should be constructed entirely within the
bank profile, must be submitted to the Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) for
approval in accordance with the Water Resources Act, 1991.
4. The applicant is advised to discuss details of separate foul and surface water drainage with the
Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section).
APPLICATION No:
02/43754/FUL
APPLICANT:
United Utilities Plc
LOCATION:
College Playing Fields Lancaster Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Raise ground level, creation of permanent and temporary vehicular
accesses off Lancaster Road, erection of control kiosk and retaining
wall in association with sewerage works to the local area
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a small part of the College Playing Fields. The works are in connection with
improvements to the sewerage system in the local area. At the moment, during storm conditions solids
are discharging into the watercourse. As the surrounding area is comparatively built up the only
available location for underground storage tanks is this north-east corner of the playing fields.
Underground works carried out by statutory undertakers are permitted development and therefore much
of the works involved do not require planning permission and therefore this application relates only to the
building up of ground levels by 1.2m, the erection of a small control kiosk and the provision of one
temporary and one permanent vehicular access off Lancaster Road.
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
To the immediate north of the works are residential properties while to the south is the remainder of the
playing field. The proposed works will not compromise the pitches. A 1.2m retaining wall is proposed
to the south side of the proposed works in order to maximise land retained for pitches. Pitches will need
to be remarked but there is the potential to increase the number from four to five as a result.
There are four poplar trees along the north boundary of the site that are covered by a Tree Preservation
Order. An application has already been approved to fell these trees as the trees are in poor condition and
as much space needs to be retained for the sports pitches. This makes it very difficult to move the area
that needs to raised in level away from the trees. In accordance with our policy however, eight
replacement trees will be planted within the playing field.
SITE HISTORY
There is no relevant planning history
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Recommends that a condition be attached regarding noise.
Sport England – Whilst the proposal will result in the slight loss of playing field, the playing field area
will still be able to accommodate the same number of pitches and possibly even an extra one. Whilst we
do not wish to raise an objection to the application it is important that the relocated playing pitches are
marked out prior to the commencement of development.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours have been notified of the application :
1 to 6 Overdale House, Light Oaks Garage, 130 and 132 Lancaster Road
3 to 13 Orient Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one representation in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Concern over security as a result of the raising of the ground levels
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: R1 Protection of Recreation Land and Facilities
PLANNING APPRAISAL
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
Policy R1 states that development on existing recreation land will not normally be allowed unless it is for
recreational or non-commercial purposes related to the recreational use of the land, or an equivalent
replacement site is provided and laid out within the local area to the satisfaction of the City Council.
The proposals have been amended by taking the raised area away from the common boundary to take into
account the concerns of the neighbours. There is clearly a need for the work to be undertaken and the
ground level needs to be raised in order for the work to be successful. I consider that the main issue is
whether to works comply with City Council Policy on recreation areas.
The proposed works have been designed to take up as little of the playing fields as possible and although
this will require pitches to be re-marked it will not result in any loss of pitches and may even through a
more efficient use of the playing fields result in the provision of an additional pitch. I note that Sport
England do not object to the application.
I am satisfied that there will be no detrimental effect on any neighbouring property as a result of the
proposal and therefore recommend that permission be granted subject to the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The rating level of the noise emitted from any fixed plant or machinery from the site shall not exceed
the background level by more than 5dB(A). The noise level shall be measured at the nearest noise
sensitive premises. The measurement and assessment shall be made according to B.S. 4142:1997
"Rating of Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas".
3. The fence and railings shall be painted a colour to be agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services within three months of their erection.
4. No development shall commence until the playing field has been remarked, to provide the same
number of pitches at least as exist at present, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development
Services
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
4. To protect the interests and safety of users of the playing fields in accordance with policy R1 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/43829/FUL
APPLICANT:
Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd
LOCATION:
Sainsburys Regent Road Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a retail unit (Class A1) on part of existing car park
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a part of the existing Sainsbury’s car park on Regent Road. It is proposed to
erect a retail unit in the southeast corner of the existing Sainsbury’s car park. The unit would be located
at the junction of Regent Road and Ordsall Lane. On the other three corners of this junction are the
Campanile Hotel restaurant, the McDonald’s and KFC drive-thrus and the Miranda Court flats. There is
a line of trees along the Regent Road frontage. There are also two existing totem signs for the
Sainsbury’s store and retail park area also present on the junction.
The proposed unit would be directly to the south of the existing Sainsbury’s petrol filling station. The
store entrance would be on to the existing car park. A new internal road layout would allow access to the
petrol filling station and the proposed store off the central access road that runs through the wider site.
The store would measure approximately 35m by 33m and would have a glazed corner feature facing the
road junction. It would provide 1210sq.m of retail floorspace. The unit would be constructed of brick,
mixed metal cladding panels and terracotta tiles.
The site lies within the Regent Road Key Local Centre.
SITE HISTORY
Planning permission was granted in October 1998 for a single storey extension to the store. This has yet
to be implemented but it is expected that work will start on site this year (98/38257/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – The proposed development is within 250m of two former landfill
sites. The proposed service area is located across Oldfield Road from the Campanile Hotel. There is a
potential to cause loss of amenity from nighttime deliveries. The sounds produced from deliveries
(reverse-warning bleepers, operation of tail lifts and powered trucks and clattering from the wheels of
metal pallet trucks) are likely to be of the nature that will disturb sleep. There is no indication whether or
not there will be any extraction/air conditioning systems or other plant that may be expected for such a
development. It is therefore considered that conditions should be attached to address these concerns.
Manchester City Council – no objections
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both press and site notices.
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
The following neighbours were notified of both the original application and the amended plans:
1 to 8 Miranda Court
58 to 65 Imogen Court
Campanile Hotel, Grosvenor Casino, KFC and McDonalds, Regent Road
Unit 36 Regent Retail Park, Ordsall Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: S2 Location of New Retail Development, S3 Key Local Centres, DEV1 Development
Criteria, DEV2 Good Design
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the effect on neighbours, the visual appearance of the development
and the impact on existing trees. Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will normally require all new
retail development to be located in or immediately adjacent to existing shopping centres. Policy S3
states that the City Council will seek to retain, consolidate and improve Salford’s key local centres.
Policy DEV2 states that planning permission will not normally be granted unless the quality of design and
the appearance of the development are satisfactory.
The site lies within the Regent Road key local centre and the application is therefore in accordance with
policies S2 and S3. I have attached conditions as requested by the Director of Environmental Services
and now that amended plans have been received I am satisfied that the design and appearance of the
proposed development is acceptable.
Four trees will be lost but I consider that this will enhance the appearance of the strong corner feature that
is proposed. As there are already a significant number of trees within the Sainsbury’s car park I do not in
this instance consider that it is appropriate to require those trees lost to be replaced. In addition enhanced
landscaping will be provided to the rear of the unit on the Oldfield Road frontage with a new area of
planting to the west of the service yard. In addition, a number of trees will be replaced along the western
boundary of the new access road replacing the existing tree line feature.
I am satisfied that there is sufficient parking on the site to cater for the new store as well as the existing
store and the proposed extension.
I am satisfied that there will be no significant detrimental effect on any neighbouring property as a result
of this development and I consider that the street scene and the character of the area will be enhanced. I
therefore recommend that permission be granted subject to the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the roof and
external elevations of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
3. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a site investigation report for
the approval of the Director of Development Services. 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 the
wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and property. The sampling and
analytical strategy shall be approved by the Director of Development Services prior to the start of the
site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved
report shall be implemented prior to occupation of the site.
4. Deliveries shall not occur outside the following times: Monday to Sunday inclusive 07.00 to 23.00.
5. The rating level or the noise emitted from fixed plant and equipment shall not exceed the existing
background noise level by more than 5dB at any time. The noise level shall be determined at the site
boundary to the Campanile Hotel and the boundary of the nearest residential property off Regent
Road on Miranda Court. The measurement and assessment shall be made according to BS 4142
1997: Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas. The associated
measures enabling the above level to be attained shall be implemented prior to the use of the site.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
3. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
4. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring hotel residents in accordance with policy DEV
8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 8 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This permission shall relate to the amended plans received on 9th May 2002 that show amendments
to the corner feature.
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/43865/FUL
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Roseston
LOCATION:
27 Singleton Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of new dwellinghouse
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a site on Singleton Road, Salford 7. The proposal is to demolish the existing
dormer bungalow and replace it with a four-bed dwelling comprising ground floor with bedrooms within
the roofspace, on the existing building footprint.
The footprint of the proposed dwelling would be 12.3 metres by 11.5 metres. A single storey morning
room to the centre would project 2.1 metres to the rear. The maximum height of the dwelling would be
8.1 metres. Access to the site would be from Singleton Road. Existing and proposed parking would be
to the front of the dwelling.
The principal windows to the dwelling would be located on the front and rear of the dwelling. There
would be four small secondary windows to the lounge and dining area on the west side of the dwelling
and there would be a large staircase window to the east side.
There are a number of trees and shrubs to the Singleton Road boundary and the side boundary with 29
Singleton Close. A sycamore, hawthorn and laburnum trees are protected by Tree Preservation Order No.
4. The rear garden is overgrown and contains a number of fruit trees which are of a poor condition and are
not worthy of protection. There is a fence of approximately 2 metres in height on the 29 Singleton Road
side of the boundary. 29 Singleton Road is at higher level than the application site – the difference in site
levels is approximately 0.7 metres.
The surrounding area is residential. There is a bungalow on each side of the application site at 25 and 29
Singleton Road. To the rear of the site is the garden of 3 Singleton close and to the front of the site is 7
Kersal Crag.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Coal Authority – No objections.
Broughton Park Residents Association – No comments.
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified:
25, 29 Singleton Road
1, 3 Singleton Close
7 Kersal Crag
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Due to the existing height and construction of the present bungalow, the garden of 3 Singleton Close
is not overlooked whatsoever, this would not be the case were a house to be built as per the plans
submitted
concerns regarding how near the proposed house would be to rear perimeter fence, compared to the
distance of the rear of the current bungalow
loss of privacy to 3 Singleton Close
building a house between two bungalows will impact visually and aesthetically on the bungalow at 25
Singleton Road and the surrounding area
the building of a new house will restrict existing light, whereas building a bungalow would not
lifestyles would be disrupted by demolition and building works
the windows on the first floor of the rear of the proposed dwelling will overlook the garden and
dwelling at 1 Singleton Close
the plans are too large for the size of land available
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: DEV10 – Broughton Park Development Control Policy
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV10 states that in considering proposals for residential development,
due regard should be had to matters of siting, design and height of buildings, facing materials, provision
of car parking, the protection of trees, the provision of landscaping and access requirements.
With regards to the objections raised regarding overlooking, loss of privacy and loss of light, I do not
consider that the proposal would cause a significant loss of light or privacy to neighbouring properties.
Amended plans have been received which demonstrate that the proposed dwelling would be positioned on
the same footprint as the existing dwelling and would not project any further forward than the footprint of
the existing bungalow. Part of the proposed morning room at the rear of the dwelling would extend 2.1
metres beyond the existing footprint. This morning room is the only element of the proposed dwelling
that would extend beyond the dimensions of the existing footprint. The footprint shown would lie 28
metres away from the side of 7 Kersal Crag. The proposed dwelling would not directly face 1 and 3
Singleton Close. The front of the dwelling would be 2.6 metres from the boundary with 29 Singleton
Close to the east – the existing dwelling has a garage on this side, which is 1.4 metres from this boundary.
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
Although there are windows proposed to each side of the dwelling, I do not consider that these would
result in any loss of privacy, providing that they are obscure glazed. With regards to the objection raised
in relation to overlooking and loss of privacy to gardens of 1 and 3 Singleton Close, the proposal would
introduce two principle windows within the roofspace which would look out over the gardens. The
gardens to 3 Singleton Close are extensive and the garden to 1 Singleton Close would not be directly
overlooked by the proposed dwelling, for these reasons, I do not consider that the proposal would result in
any significant overlooking or loss of privacy to these gardens.
With reference to the objections relating to the appearance of the dwelling and its height, the Applicant
has amended the proposal to reduce the height of the dwelling by 0.7 metres, resulting in a maximum
height of 8.1 metres, in addition the eaves have been dropped. In comparison, the dwelling at 25
Singleton Road is 6.4 metres in height and 29 Singleton Road is 6.7 metres in height. Furthermore, 29
Singleton Road is at a higher level of approximately 0.7 metre. This difference in site levels would result
in the proposed dwelling and the bungalow at 29 Singleton Road having the same ridge height.
Although the application site is the middle property of a row of three bungalows of similar design, I do
not consider that the surrounding area has any predominant architectural style – there is a mixture of
bungalows and two storey properties along this section of Singleton Road in addition to a mixture of
architectural designs. Consequently, I do not consider that this proposal would look out of character. I
do not believe that the proposal would over develop the site, given that the footprints of the existing and
proposed dwellings are similar.
The proposal would allow for the retention of the protected trees, which would maintain the tree lined
setting of this section of Singleton Road. The City Council’s Arboriculturalist has visited the site and does
not consider that these trees would be affected by the development, providing that the proposed dwelling
does not project any further forward than the footprint of the existing bungalow.
I am satisfied that by maintaining the existing footprint, the dwelling would be in keeping with the
building line along Singleton Road. I consider that the design of the building is such that it compliments
the varied local architecture and streetscene. I have no highway objections to utilising the existing access
and consider that there would be adequate parking provision.
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 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.
3. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
4. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls and roof
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
5. So far as they lie within the site, visibility splays of 2.0m by 2.0m by the drive shall be provided at
the junction of 0.6m with Singleton Road and shall thereafter be maintained free of any obstruction
over 0.6 metres in height above the adjacent carriageway.
6. The windows to each of the side (east and west) elevations of the dwelling, facing the party
boundaries, shall be obscure glazed and shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the
Director of Development Services.
7. This permission shall relate to the amended plans received on 2nd May 2002 showing amendments to
the dwelling height and roof design and 15th May 2002 which shows the footprint of the dwelling set
back in line with the footprint of the existing dwelling.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
4. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
5. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
6. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Possible alterations are required to existing Section 24 public sewer. Drainage details are required.
The Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding details
of drainage.
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/43893/HH
APPLICANT:
D Hales
LOCATION:
16 Ashley Drive Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of first floor side extension and single storey rear extension
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property and is for the erection of a first floor side extension
and single storey rear extension.
The single storey element at the rear of the property would project 2.6m to match the existing single
storey kitchen extension. A pitched roof would then be constructed across both single storey elements at
a maximum height of 3m. The adjoining neighbour has a conservatory adjacent to the common
boundary that projects a similar distance to this proposal.
The first floor side extension would build upon the existing garage. It would be set back 2m from the
front elevation and would have a hipped roof to match and tie into the existing roof. It would continue
along the gable, projecting a further 2.6m beyond the rear elevation at two storey, would also have a
hipped roof that would tie into the main hip.
CONSULTATIONS
Coal Authority – Advice Given
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
14 & 18 and 15 & 17 Ashley Drive
15 & 17 Brooklands Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Future Maintenance
Loss of light
Loss of view
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV8 – House Extensions
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that planning permission will only be granted where there would be no unacceptably
adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and where an extension would not
have an unacceptably adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, by reason of its siting, height,
massing, design and appearance.
The objection received makes reference to three issues:
1. Future maintenance issues which is not a material planning consideration. The objector has also
asked that the proposal be set in 2 feet from the common boundary. I must point out that the objector
has a conservatory adjacent to the common boundary. Therefore I do not feel that an amendment to
the proposal is warranted.
2. Loss of view, this proposal would only restrict a sideways view into the applicants garden.
2. Loss of light – due to the design and location of this proposal I do not consider that it would cause a
loss of light to the adjoining property.
There is sufficient separation between this proposal and those properties at the rear. The scheme has
been amended so that it meets with the Council’s own Consultation Draft Supplementary Planning
Guidance.
Therefore I would recommend that this proposal be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/43934/FUL
APPLICANT:
Persimmon Homes (NW) Limited
LOCATION:
Land To The West Cadishead Way Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 91 dwellings together with associated landscaping, car
parking and construction of new vehicular access
WARD:
Irlam
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to part of the larger housing site located between Ferry Road and Fairhills Road.
This application is for 91 three and four bedroomed houses in a mix of detached, semi-detached and
terraced properties. The site boundaries are the same as for those of the larger development and the same
buffer strip to the old course of the River Irwell is exactly the same as previously approved.
This first phase of development would be from Fairhills Road to the north of Kwiksave.
SITE HISTORY
In August 1990 planning permission was granted in outline for the removal of fill material from the site
between Fairhills Road and Ferry Road, levelling and regrading of land and the development of the site
for residential purposes including the provision of landscaped open space adjacent to the Old River
Course (E/24685). This permission was renewed in 1994 (E/32641).
In April 1999 planning permission was granted for the erection of 346 houses on the site and for the
provision of a recreational facility on land to the north of Ferry Road (97/36894/FUL)
In June 2000 planning permission was granted for the erection of 350 houses on the site with a revised
highway layout that provided a roundabout junction on Cadishead Way (99/40056/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections in principle but has made a
number of detailed comments with regard to security issues in the site.
United Utilities – No objections in principle.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both press and site notices
The following neighbours were notified :
1 to 21 Helston Close
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
55 to 105 Harewood Road
The Boathouse public house, 116 to 126, 116A, 116B and 116C Ferry Road
51 to 59 Boat Lane
94 to 104 and 167 Broadway
21 to 25 and 28 Carr Road
1 to 13 and 11A Exeter Drive
1 to 39 Fairhills Road, Barber Kingsland and Kwiksave Fairhills Road
2 to 40 and 1 to 23 Falmouth Road
49 to 63 and 40 to 70 Highbury Avenue
78 and 80 Riverside Avenue
1 to 19 Winskill Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H9/44 Sites for New Housing
Other Policies: H6 and H11
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Both the principle and the detail of this development have already been approved by the City Council.
The original application generated a great deal of public interest but I have received no representations at
all to this application.
Policies H6 and H11 require that adequate provision and future maintenance of informal space and
children’s play is made. The applicant has agreed to this provision in principle but the exact sum has yet
to be calculated.
The application has been amended to take into account the detailed comments of the Police Architectural
Liaison Officer.
I am satisfied that the layout of the site is acceptable and that there will be no significant detrimental
effect upon any neighbouring occupiers as a result of this application. I have no objections on highway
grounds and therefore recommend that permission be granted subject to the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be used
for the walls and roofs of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
3. 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.
4. The landfill gas monitoring programme shall be carried out in accordance with the details approved
under application 97/36894/FUL
5. The windows of all habitable rooms of all elevations facing Cadishead Way, Kwik Save and Barber
Kingsland shall be acoustically dual glazed to the standards of the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975
(as amended). An alternative would be to install sealed double glazed units comprising glass of
10mm and laminated 8.4mm with a 12mm air gap. The unit shall be installed in accordance with the
manufacturer's recommendations to avoid air gaps when fitting the frames. Alternative means of
ventilation, which must be sound attenuated shall be provided.
6. The landfill gas regime within the site shall be re-assessed by means of a comprehensive and detailed
gas investigation once site levels have been reduced to the proposed ground level, and the results of
this assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services prior to the commencement of development. Any remedial works contained within the
approved report shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development.
7. Details of the proposed foundation gas exclusion measures for the housing shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of construction.
These measures shall take into account the results of the landfill gas assessment of the site, referred to
in Condition 6 and shall be designed in accordance with the guidance given in the BRE report
"Construction of New Buildings on Gas Contaminated Land" that supplements approved document C
of the Building Regulations.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
6. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
7. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
Note(s) for Applicant
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
1. This permission shall relate to the amended plans received on 24th May 2002 that show minor
amendments to the housing layout.
APPLICATION No:
02/43944/HH
APPLICANT:
Miss L Kenny
LOCATION:
47 Drywood Avenue Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey rear extension
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached property and is for the erection of a single storey rear extension. It
would project 8.1m from the rear elevation X 5.1m. It would have a pitched roof at a height of 3.8m and
the side elevation to the adjoining property would be 2.6m. high.
CONSULTATIONS
Coal Authority – Advice Given
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
37, 45 and 49 Drywood Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Overbearing
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV8 – House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that planning permission will only be granted where there would be no unacceptably
adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and where an extension would not
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
have an unacceptably adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, by reason of its siting, height,
massing, design and appearance.
The property at the rear No.45, has had planning permission for a two storey side extension, however
there are no habitable windows within either proposal. The main planning consideration in this case is
the impact upon No.49 Drywood Avenue.
The proposal would project along the majority of the length of the common boundary and would have an
unacceptable impact and loss of light to a room that the objector has informed me is used as a habitable
room. It would also project beyond an acceptable distance as defined within the Council’s own
Consultation Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance and therefore would be contrary to policy.
Therefore I would recommend that this proposal be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. Standard Reason RR34C Neighbouring Residents - Size/Siting
APPLICATION No:
02/43958/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs R Dawson
LOCATION:
40 Hawthorn Avenue Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the erection of a two-storey side extension to a semi-detached property in a
residential area.
The proposal would project 2.1m up to the side boundary. The ground floor would be flush with the
front elevation and be 10.2m in length projecting beyond the original rear elevation by 2m to meet the
existing rear extension, it would be 13.2m from the rear boundary. The first floor element would be
setback 2m from the front elevation and be 6.2m in length coming in line with the original rear elevation.
CONSULTATIONS
BCoal – No objections
PUBLICITY
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
The following neighbours were notified :
23, 25, 38 and 42 Hawthorn Avenue
16 Nelson Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity from the occupiers of the
neighbouring property. The following comments having been made:
Loss of light to kitchen window
May restrict future extending of objectors property
Would the objector’s property need to be access for the construction of the extension
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that planning permission will only be granted where there would be no unacceptably
adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and where an extension would not
have an unacceptably adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, by reason of its siting, height,
massing, design and appearance.
There is a kitchen window the side elevation of No.42, although some light would be lost, it is not
considered as a habitable room. The proposal would be taking place within the curtilage of the dwelling
therefore I see no reason for it restricting future development at the neighbouring property.
The proposal is consistent with the current Consultation Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance for
House Extensions.
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
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
APPLICATION No:
02/43991/HH
APPLICANT:
F Bennett
LOCATION:
3 The Chase Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Retention of 1.8m high wall to front of property
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
6th June 2002
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached property in a residential area.
The proposal is for the retention of a 1.8m wall on the side boundary at the front of the property, which
also forms the rear boundary to the neighbouring propertry. The wall is rendered white to match the
existing dwelling and surrounding area.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
2 The Chase
10 and 11 Lower Brook Lane
6 Stirrup Gate
1 Riding Fold Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
There is a covenant on the property that restricts this type of building
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that the City Council will only grant planning permission where the extension would
not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents, the character and
appearance of the street scene, the character of the dwelling or the appearance of the site.
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
The proposal is in keeping with the area and I have no objections on highway grounds. The grounds on
which the objection has been made is not a planning consideration and should be dealt with as a civil
matter.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve
APPLICATION No:
02/44017/HH
APPLICANT:
E Howarth
LOCATION:
6 Dell Avenue Pendlebury Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of conservatory at rear of dwelling
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a semi-detached house which already has a rear extension. The proposal is now
to erect a rear conservatory, out from the back of the existing ground floor extension. This conservatory
would project out 3.6m and be 4.8m in width to tie in with the width of the existing extension.
SITE HISTORY
In 1989, planning permission was at this property for a large single storey rear extension in order to
provide a ground floor bedroom and bathroom for a disabled person, ref. E/24196. This extension already
projects out 7.4m from the back main wall of the house, and spans most of the width of the house, leaving
a 1.2m gap between the wall of the extension and the boundary fence.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
4 & 8 Dell Avenue
51-55 (odd) Park Lane West
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
Other policies: DEV8 – House extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that the City Council would only grant planning permission for a house extension
where it can be satisfied that the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the
amenity of the neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of
privacy or light.
In considering this proposal, I would primarily be concerned about the possible impact on the adjoining
residents at 8 Dell Avenue, as I feel that they would be most likely to be affected. I would not consider
that it would have a particular affect on any other of the neighbouring properties.
I am mindful that the City Council would not normally grant permission for an extension of the size
already constructed, but consideration was taken of the applicants’ circumstances for disabled facilities.
Therefore it would be fair to say that the amenity of these neighbours would already have been affected
by the size of the existing extension and it is perhaps now a matter of considering whether, in the
circumstances, this new proposal would have more of a detrimental affect. I would consider that the
majority of the conservatory would not be visible from the neighbour’s house, as it would be blocked by
the existing brick extension. I would consider that the existing boundary fence and trees within the
neighbour’s garden would mean that the neighbours would not really see the conservatory.
Given the circumstances I do not consider that this proposed conservatory would have any further adverse
impact on the amenity of the neighbours. And therefore I would not object to the proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
02/44024/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr Dodd
LOCATION:
5 Kenwood Lane Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of conservatory at rear of dwelling
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property in this residential area. The proposal is to erect a rear
conservatory along the party boundary. It would project out 2m from their rear wall, before returning
away from the boundary at 45 degrees. Its overall length would therefore be 3.6m and it would be 4.8m in
width. It would be constructed with a dwarf brick wall, with framed glass above.
SITE HISTORY
In 1978, planning permission was granted for a dining room extension at this property (ref. E/6515). This
extension tied into a lounge extension already constructed at no.7, and projected out a further 700mm.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
3 and 7 Kenwood Lane
12 Dellcot Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a letter of objection from the occupiers of no7. They are concerned that the applicants’
existing extension already casts a shadow over their lounge where it projects out an additional 700mm.
They feel this effect is exacerbated as their garden is north-west facing, so that they do not receive sun
into this room until late in the afternoon. Consequently they object, as the proposed conservatory would
further reduce the sun into their lounge quite considerably, as well as overshadowing their patio,
immediately to the rear of the house. As it would be so close to the party boundary, it would be clearly
visible from their lounge and would be unsightly and overbearing.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that the City Council will only grant planning permission when it can be satisfied that
the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring
residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light.
The City Council would normally grant permission for a rear extension that projects out 2.7m from the
rear of the property. As this proposed conservatory would project out 2m in length along the boundary,
before angling away, the wall facing the objectors would only project out 2.7m from the rear of their
house. Therefore the proposal is no larger in size than is often considered acceptable.
I have considered the objectors’ concerns that this would obscure light from their lounge, particularly
direct sunlight, and it would also affect their patio area. I am mindful that at present there is a low
boundary fence and if the applicants erected a 2m high fence, it would block a lot of the direct sun into
the neighbours lounge. I am also mindful that it is mainly the orientation of the properties that reduces the
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
amount of possible sunlight directly into the objectors’ lounge, and I would not consider that the size of
the proposed conservatory would be any larger than would normally be considered acceptable. Therefore,
I would not consider that the objectors’ concerns would justify the refusal of this proposed conservatory.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition B06A Glazing Element
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
APPLICATION No:
02/44039/FUL
APPLICANT:
Hallmark MSO
LOCATION:
Verdant House Verdant Lane Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Retention of 3m high palisade fencing to front boundary, 3m high
palisade fencing to three other boundaries set in one metre from
existing concrete boundary wall together with enlarged vehicular
accesses to Verdant Lane.
WARD:
Winton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to former Council owned warehouse premises on Verdant Lane off Brookhouse
Avenue. The site is surrounded on three sides by residential development and is opposite Peel Green
cemetery. The site lies approximately 0.5m to 1m lower than residential properties to the rear.
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
The planning application is for the retention of the 3m high palisade fencing within the existing concrete
panel fence that surrounds the site on the three residential sides and to replace the fence on the front
boundary with Verdant Lane. A number of trees that were situated just outside the site on City Council
owned land have been removed in order to erect the fence. The trees had also been used as a means of
getting into the site and the applicant had been advised by the police that the trees compromised the
security of the site. This tree removal has been undertaken with the authority of the City Council as
landowner.
Since the application was submitted the applicant has erected the fencing as a result of the large number
of burglaries that were occurring.
SITE HISTORY
There is no site history relevant to this application.
CONSULTATIONS
No consultations have been necessary on this application although the Director of Environmental Services
has commented on the objection that has been received.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 2nd May 2002
The following neighbours were notified of the application:
1 to 43 and 63 to 71 Senior Road
21 to 35 Brookhouse Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one verbal objection and four copies of a letter of objection in response to the application
publicity. The following comments having been made:
The fencing has been erected prior to approval.
Increase in noise from motorway as a result of loss of trees.
The installation of a diesel generator in the yard area, and the resulting black smoke, fumes and
noise.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that the City council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the effect on neighbouring properties and the impact on trees.
Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant planning permission unless it is satisfied
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
with the quality of design and the appearance of the development. Policy DEV4 states that the City
Council will encourage greater consideration of crime prevention and personal and property security in
the design of new development and in the improvement of existing buildings and land.
With regard to the issue of the applicant erecting the fencing prior to gaining planning approval, the
applicant stated that this was necessary due to extent of vandalism at the site. A letter was sent to the
applicant expressing the Panel’s concern that development had commenced at the site. With regard to
the complaint that has been received regarding the removal of trees, the Director of Environmental
Services has commented that vegetation barriers only marginally attenuate noise and that in this instance
the removal of the trees has resulted in the complainant having an unobstructed view of the motorway that
may contribute to his perception that the noise has increased. I am satisfied that the trees that were
removed by the applicant were not protected, and that the reasons for removing the trees (i.e. to prevent
access over the security fencing) are valid. I am of the opinion that the installation of the generator in the
yard area of the site would require prior planning approval, however, this is not a matter for consideration
as part of this current application, and I am satisfied that the matter is being followed up as a separate
issue.
I therefore consider the main issues to relate to the impact of the fencing on the residential properties
which back onto the site. As a result of the difference in levels I do not consider that the fence would be
prominent when viewed from the rear of residential properties and it is noted that despite the fence having
been erected no complaints have been received. The fence is not prominent and as the property has been
subject to high levels of burglaries and vandalism and the same fencing can be found elsewhere on
Verdant Lane I consider that providing that the fence is painted a suitable colour that in these
circumstances it is acceptable.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D05B Colour treatment
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 8 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/44044/FUL
APPLICANT:
J Howarth
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
LOCATION:
Land To Rear Of 33/35 Cecil Street Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of garage
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land to the rear of the terraced houses on Cecil Street, situated on the other side
of the rear alley. The land is fenced and used for gardens for some of the residents in Cecil Street. The
proposal is to erect a detached concrete sectional garage, which would measure 5m by 2.7m with a
pitched roof.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
33 and 37 Cecil Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The proposal is to erect a detached garage on this rear garden area, which is owned by the City Council.
There are already several other similar garages in this area for other neighbours on the road. Therefore I
would not consider that the proposal would be out of character with the area. I would also consider that
providing the front of the garage is set back 1m from the road to prevent the doors overhanging, then the
proposed garage would not have an adverse effect on the amenity of the area or on the amenity of
neighbouring residents.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition E06E Setting Back of Garage
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
2. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The siting of the garage should ensure an adequate clearance is provided to the adjacent sewer. The
Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding the
detailed position of the sewer.
APPLICATION No:
02/44052/HH
APPLICANT:
S Carter
LOCATION:
12 St Georges Crescent Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing garage and erection of two storey side extension
and single storey rear extension
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the demolition of an existing garage and erection of a two storey side and
single storey rear extension at a semi-detached property, at No.12 Park Road, Salford. The extension
will be constructed in bricks to match existing. To the rear of the property the extension will project
2.7m from the rear wall of the property. To the front elevation the first floor of the side extension will be
set back 2.0m. The extension will be set back a distance of 0.7m from the boundary fence with the
neighbouring property at No. 14. There will be no windows in the gable wall of the proposed extension,
and there are no habitable windows on the side elevation of the neighbouring property. The extension
will provide for the addition of a garage and utility room and an extended kitchen and dining room at the
ground floor level, and provision for an additional en-suite bedroom on the first floor.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
10 + 14 + 25 St Georges Park Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 1 letter of objections in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
Loss of light and obstruction of view to neighbouring property.
Creation of a ‘terracing effect’
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan states that planning permission will only be
granted where there would be no unacceptable adverse impact on the character and appearance of the
streetscene and where an extension would not have an unacceptable adverse effect on the character of the
dwelling by reason of its siting, height, massing, design and appearance.
The letter of objection raises two issues. The first issue is that the proposed extension would result in a
loss of light and obstruction of view to the neighbouring property. I would not consider that the
proposed extension would result in the loss of light or obstruction of view from any habitable windows on
the neighbouring property. The letter of objection lists the windows affected by the proposal as being the
hallway, kitchen and bathroom windows, none of which are habitable rooms. The second issue raised by
the objector relates to the proposed development leading to the creation of a terracing effect, and therefore
being detrimental to the streetscene in the area. The terracing effect refers to the situation where two
storey side extensions extend up to the front wall of the house, and can lead to houses appearing to be a
terrace, rather than a separate pair of dwellings. I am satisfied however, that the applicant is proposing to
set back the first floor of the proposed side extension by 2.0m, which would prevent the appearance of
terracing.
The single storey element of the proposal would not cause any adverse effect on any neighbouring
properties and is in accordance with Council policy.
I am satisfied that the proposed extension is in accordance with Council policy and will not result in
demonstrable harm to any neighbouring properties. I therefore recommend that this application is
approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
52
6th June 2002
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/43616/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Moorside High School (FAO Mrs C Chapman)
LOCATION:
Moorside High School East Lancashire Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4m high palisade fencing and 2.4m high railing fence
WARD:
Swinton South
This application has previously been reported to the Panel, and been subject to a site inspection. The
application was deferred from the Panel on 19 April 2002 in order for the applicants to amend the design
of the proposed fencing.
The applicants have now submitted a revised fencing proposal. It is still intended to erect a 2.4m high
palisade fence along the East Lancashire Road frontage. However, it is now proposed to have a railing
fence along the front boundaries to Broadbent Street and Wentworth Road, as well as to the rear of the
houses on Trevor Road and Thornlea Avenue. All of this railing would be 2.4m in height, except for the
short length along the side boundary with no. 26 Wentworth Road, which would be 2m. All the fencing
would be colour coated.
I have re-notified neighbours. The occupier of no. 26 Wentworth Road has verbally commented that they
now do not object to the proposal. I have not received any letters of objection to this revised design of
fencing.
It has become clear during this application process that some of the boundary trees overhang the boundary
fencing and it may be necessary to prune some of the lower branches, to accommodate the fence up to
2.4m. However, there are 3 trees that would need to be felled to accommodate the fence, because pruning
would remove too much of the trees which would leave them unbalanced and maybe unsafe. The trees in
question are a prunus tree and a young ash tree on the Wentworth Road frontage, together with a young
sycamore tree along the boundary with Deans Brook. I would not consider that the loss of these trees
would justify the refusal of this scheme, in view of the need to provide security for the school. Therefore I
would recommend that a condition be attached to require replacements be planted.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the existing school, which faces the East Lancashire Road and also faces
Wentworth Road and Broadbent Street, and borders houses on Thornlea Ave and Trevor Road. The
proposal is to surround the site with 2.4m high security fencing. It is proposed to have weldmesh fencing
along the Broadbent Street and Wentworth Road frontages and along the boundary with the houses on
Thornlea Ave and Trevor Road. It is proposed to erect palisade fence along the boundaries facing Deans
Brook and the East Lancashire Road. All the fencing would be coloured green.
SITE HISTORY
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
The school has had numerous applications, extensions and alterations in the past. However, none of the
work would be particularly relevant to the current proposal for fencing.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 22 February.
The following neighbours were notified :
1-11 (odd) Broadbent Street
285, 287 East Lancashire Road
40, 42, 43 & 56 Poplar Road
1-7 (odd) Thornlea Avenue
29, 30 Trevor Road
24, 26, 25-59 (odd) Wentworth Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 19 letters and a petition with 21 signatures, objecting to the proposal. The following
comments having been made:
1. The weldmesh fencing would not be very attractive facing houses, being more akin to
industrial areas, particularly as the road is narrow and a more appropriate design would be
railings.
2. The fence next to 26 Wentworth Road would be erected on elevated land so from the
neighbours side of the fence, it would appear 3m in height and be an eyesore. It would mean
that they could not maintain the side of their garage and it may be necessary to prune their
tree.
3. As the fence along Thornlea Ave would stop at the brick wall to the rear of no. 5, they may
well leave them more vulnerable.
I have also received a letter from a neighbour who supports the improved security, but is concerned that
the existing fence supports their rockery, and they wish to ensure that the support is not removed, thus
undermining the soil.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV4 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV4 states that greater consideration of crime prevention and property security will be encouraged.
However, the reasoned justification does say that improved security should not detract from a
development’s appearance.
This application is proposing fencing around the whole of the school’s perimeter in order to provide
increased security. The boundaries which either immediately face or adjoin houses are proposed to be the
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
weldmesh design. I am aware that the objectors do not like this style of fencing and would wish to see a
railing style of fence. I would normally consider that the very open design of the mesh would mean that it
would not be visually intrusive and therefore would not be detrimental to the amenity of those facing and
adjoining houses.
I have considered the concerns of the occupier of 26 Wentworth Road, in respect of the fence being on an
elevated section of land. However, having tried to address this issue it is clear that if the position of the
fence is moved into the site, the school would be left with a small piece of land. Equally if the height of
the fence were to be reduced to take account of the level change then it would certainly provide a length
of fencing which would be climbable, given the step up that the ground level would give. I appreciate the
concerns that the residents have that they would no longer be able to maintain the gable of their garage,
but they cannot maintain it at present without entering the school’s land. As it is proposed to erect
weldmesh along this boundary, I do not consider it would harm local amenity.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The fencing 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.
3. During the first available planting season following the felling of the three tree(s) hereby granted
consent, it shall be replaced by standard tree(s) in accordance with British Standard 3936:Part 1:1965
(Specification for Nursery Stock Part 1: Trees and Shrubs) and which shall have a clear stem height
from the ground of 1.8m, a minimum overall height from the ground of 2.75m, a minimum
circumference of stem at 1m from the ground of 8 cm. The species and location of the replacement
tree(s) shall be agreed in writing 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
APPLICATION No:
02/43959/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Director Of Education And Leisure
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
LOCATION:
St Philips Square Bank Place Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Erection of sculpture
WARD:
Blackfriars
6th June 2002
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the erection of a sculpture at St Philips Square, Bank Place, which is
immediately to the west of St. Phillips Church. The Square has an open aspect and is part of a link
between St. Phillips Church, St. Johns Cathedral and the monument at St. Johns Square. The square is
bounded by sycamore trees. The land is in the ownership of the City Council. Although the application
has been submitted by the Directorate of Education and Leisure the sculpture has been funded by the
North West Development Agency.
The cast iron sculpture has been designed in the form of a pair giant sycamore seeds, the height being 2.2
metres. The width of the sculpture at its highest point is 4.4 metres whilst at the bottom the sculpture has
a width of 1.2 metres. The design of the sculpture was undertaken by local school children with an artist.
SITE HISTORY
In 1990, planning permission was granted for alterations to form a public square with new railings
(E/26114).
In 2002, a Conservation Area tree application to fell five tress was objected to by the City Council
(02/43750/TREECA).
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 14th May 2002.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CS1 Trinity
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, CS8 Cultural Facilities, EN10 Landscape
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV1 relates to the relationship between the development and its surroundings, EN10 relates to
improving the landscape, CS1 relates to improving the local environment in the Trinity area whilst CS8
relates to improving cultural facilities particularly within the Crescent Area.
The sculpture can be considered to be symbolic of previous and future redevelopment in the area. The
sycamore trees in the area provide local reference for the sculpture as does the resemblance to Angel
wings given the proximity to the Angel Centre. I consider that the quality of design and good quality
material of the sculpture would enhance the character and appearance of the area. I also consider that
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
accessibility for all will be maintained through the square. I have no highway objections and recommend
approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
APPLICATION No:
02/44022/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Mrs P Rimmer
LOCATION:
Barton Moss School Trippier Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a 2.4 m high inner security fence
WARD:
Winton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the erection of a 2.4m high inner security fence at Barton Moss Primary School
in Eccles. The school is located adjacent to Eccles C of E High School, with residential properties to the
front and side elevations. The fencing would be erected within the present boundary of the school and
playing field area. At the front elevation, where the site is in closest proximity to residential properties,
the applicant proposes to erect 2.4m railing style fencing. To the side and rear of the school, where the
application site is set back from the highway, and therefore less prominent to residential properties the
applicant proposes to erect 2.4m single pronged palisade. Both styles of fencing would be powder
coated green. There are a number of trees along the boundary of the school site.
SITE HISTORY
In 1997, planning permission was granted for a single storey rear extension at the school. (Ref:
97/36317/DEEM3)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on the 2nd of May 2002
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
The following neighbours were notified :
63 + 75 Northfleet Road
26 – 36 (e) Trippier Road
1-35 (o) Buckthorn Lane
1 Lodgepole Close
15 + 16 Rochford Road
Eccles C of E High School
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: N/A
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV4 – Design and Crime
SC4 – Improvement / Replacement of Schools
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 of the adopted Unitary Development plan states that in considering planning applications
the City Council should pay due regard to a number of issues including, the visual appearance of the
development and its relationship to its surroundings. Policy DEV4 relates to design and crime and states
that the City Council will pay due regard to the position and height of fencing and gates in the interests of
personal property and security, however qualifies this by stressing that security features should not detract
from a developments appearance. Finally, Policy SC4 states that the City Council will endeavour, where
possible, to make good any deficiencies in school facilities.
I have received no objections to the application publicity and therefore would consider the key issues to
be firstly, the need to secure the school site; and secondly, the relationship between the proposed use and
residential properties in the vicinity of the proposal site. The school has been subject to high levels of
crime and vandalism in recent years, and the proposed fencing is considered an essential security
measure. Balanced against the need to secure the school building is the impact of the proposed fencing
on local and residential amenity in the area. The applicant attempted to mitigate the impacts of the
proposed fencing in two ways; firstly, by the application of a powder treatment; and secondly, by opting
for a railing style construction along the most prominent elevation. I would consider the use of the
railing type construction along the Trippier Road frontage to render the scheme more acceptable than
palisade in this location. To the side elevation the site is set back from the highway, and a greater
distance from residential properties, there are also trees and shrubbery which protect residential properties
from view. I have consulted the Senior Aboricultural Officer with regard to the impact of the proposed
development on the trees along the boundary of the school site, and he is satisfied that no trees will be
harmed by the erection of the proposed fence.
On balance, I consider the proposed fencing acceptable, and therefore recommend approval.
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
02/44025/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Director Of Education And Leisure
LOCATION:
Monton Green Primary School Pine Grove Monton Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Replacement of roof covering main school building
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the replacement of part of a roof covering at Monton Green Primary School,
Monton. The proposal is the second phase in a scheme to re-roof the whole school building. This
element proposes to replace the existing tiled roof covering to the main school building with a composite
steel sheet system to be coloured mid-brown (the applicant originally applied for goosewing grey). The
school is located in a predominantly residential area, with properties backing onto the site and playing
fields.
SITE HISTORY
In 2000, planning permission was granted for the replacement of roof coverings on the hall and additional
car parking. (REF: 00/41183/DEEM3)
In 1998, planning permission was granted for alterations to provide a new classroom. (REF:
98/38364/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on the 2nd of May 2002
The following neighbours were notified :
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
39-47(o) – Bradford Road
6-23 (inc) – Maldon Drive
35-75(o) – Pine Grove
7+10 Apperley Grange
2-14(e) Merrydale Avenue
3-10(inc) Tyersall Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 2 letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
(Goosewing Grey) - Inappropriate colour
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: N/R
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Improvement / Replacement of Schools
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 of the adopted Unitary Development plan states that in considering planning applications
the City Council should pay due regard to a number of issues including, the visual appearance of the
development and its relationship to its surroundings. The proposal is in keeping with Policy SC4, which
states that the City Council will endeavour, where possible, to make good any deficiencies in school
facilities.
I have received two objections to the application from adjacent residential householders, on the basis that
the original colour, goosewing grey, was visually instrusive and inappropriate in the vicinity of residential
properties. I am satisfied however, that the applicant has mitigated these objections in the selection of an
alternative, darker colour for the roofing.
This is the second phase in the scheme to re-roof the school building, and the gym roof is already covered
in the proposed material, coloured goosewing grey. I am satisfied that the choice of materials is
therefore appropriate.
I am satisfied that the proposal will not be detrimental to visual or residential amenity in the area and
therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
02/44094/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Irlam Endowed Primary School
LOCATION:
Irlam Endowed Primary School Chapel Road Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Erection of security fencing
WARD:
Irlam
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the provision of security fencing between Irlam Endowed Primary School car
park and 22 Chapel Road, Irlam. There is existing palisade fencing enclosing the school playing field
from the car park. The boundary between the car park and 22 Chapel Road has 1.5m high fencing. The
car park is enclosed to the front by 1.5m high simple steel railings.
The proposal includes palisade fencing at 2.4m in height from the front building line of 22 Chapel Road
which would run along the boundary to the school playing field at the rear. This fencing would join the
existing fencing that encloses the playing fields. The application has been amended since originally being
submitted from 3m high railings to 2.4m high railings along this section. The proposal also involves the
section of the boundary forward of the front building line of 22 Chapel Road where simple steel railings
are proposed at a height of 1.5m.
The application is on City Council land and has been submitted by the Director of Education and Leisure.
SITE HISTORY
In 2001, planning permission was granted for the erection of 2.4m high palisade fencing
(01/43123/DEEM3).
In 1998, planning permission was granted for the demolition and replacement of the existing hall,
together with a new classroom block to the north east with link to new hall and associated car parking for
30 vehicles (98/37249/DEEM3).
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on the 14th may 2002.
The following neighbours were notified :
20 and 22 Chapel Road
33 – 39 odd Chapel Road
REPRESENTATIONS
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th June 2002
I have received one letter of support and one letter of objection in response to the application publicity.
The following comments having been made:
Support as increased security would stop trespass
Object as 3m high railings inappropriate
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV4 Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 requires development to be appropriate to its surroundings and to have a good visual
appearance and DEV4 seeks development that designs out crime. Although the area is mainly residential
in character the security style palisade fencing is proposed to stop youths gaining access to the school
playing field via the rear garden of 22 Chapel Street. I consider that the proposal would meet the
requirements of DEV4 and is inline with the letter of support already received from the occupier of 22
Chapel Road.
The objection received relates to the 3m height of the railing as originally submitted as it was considered
this would detract from the character of the surrounding area. The revised height of the fencing at the
lower height of 2.4m would reduce the impact of the railings. The railings at the side and to the side rear
of 22 Chapel Road would match the existing fencing around the school site, as such I consider this
fencing to be appropriate to the surrounding area. The 1.5m steel railings to the front side of 22 Chapel
Road would match the railings to the front of the school. I consider these railings to be in character with
the residential area and the surrounding school premises. I have no highway objections and recommend
approval subject to conditions being imposed to the colour treatment and for single prong fencing only.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The fencing hereby approved shall be single prong.
3. The railings 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 R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
63
6th June 2002
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
64
6th June 2002