PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/45445/FUL
APPLICANT:
Whispers Developments
LOCATION:
Beechfield House Fourth Avenue Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Conversion of existing building into six self-contained apartments and
erection of new two storey building comprising of six new
self-contained apartments together with fifteen car parking spaces
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application refers to Beechfield House and its grounds. The application seeks to convert the existing
two storey, former Council office accommodation into six self-contained apartments, utilising the roof
space, and to erect a new two storey building, also comprising six self-contained apartments, together with
car parking provision for fifteen cars, including three disabled spaces.
The building is currently vacant, unused and in need of repair. The western elevation of the existing
Beechfield House is located 2.6m from the rear boundary of 108 Folly Lane.
It is proposed to add two small ground floor extension to the existing building each measuring 2.6m X
2.2m. These would be located on the western elevation. The conversion of Beechfield would also provide
a single balcony on the northern elevation at first floor level, with a 1.8m screening wall to protect privacy.
It is proposed to fell four mature trees on the northern boundary of the site. None of the trees are the subject
of a Tree Preservation Order. To the east of the building there is car parking. This area would be the site of
the new two-storey building and associated car-parking provision.
The new building would measure 17m by 7m with a rear element that would measure 6m by 7m and which
would extend to within 1.5m of the boundary with houses on Beechfield Road. The building has been
designed to reflect the general design features of Beechfield House, although the ridge height would be
lower, at 7.5m than that of Beechfield, which has a ridge height of some 9m. The front elevation
incorporates a bay window to match that of the original. The rear elevation is plain in comparison.
The applicant’s agent has amended the number and type of rooms of the new build element to provide the
minimum separation distance between the neighbouring properties at the rear. This building has also been
rotated in an attempt to reduce the impact.
The site is relatively compact and restricted due to the relationship of the surrounding residential properties.
The only amenity spaces provided with this application are to the rear of the proposed new building and to
the rear of Beechfield House. The main rear aspect of the proposed new building has been designed so that
there are no habitable rooms facing the existing properties on Beechfield Road. The distance between this
part of the proposal and those properties is approximately 18m, an equal distance on either side of the
common boundary. However, there is an element that extends closer to the common boundary, which
measures 7m in length, approximately one third of the boundary. There are no windows within this
element. It would maintain only 1.4m to the common boundary, 11.4m at its closest to the properties at the
rear.
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
The site as a whole is surrounded by residential properties with boundaries comprising a mixture of
traditional garden fencing and privet hedges. Adjacent to Beechfield House is a Council owned garage
complex although it does not form part of this application.
At present pedestrian access to the site can be obtained from Folly Lane with vehicular access via Leigh
Avenue, Beechfield Road and Fourth Avenue.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections.
Coal Authority – Advice Provided
Greater Manchester Police – Recommends a number of security measures be added including gating and
secure access controls to a gate to the pedestrian access to Folly Lane. The advice has been forwarded to the
applicant.
Greater Manchester County Fire Service – Advice provided
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 30th January 2003
A site notice was displayed 27th January 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:98-116 (even) Folly Lane
1-15 (odd) & 2-4 (even) Fourth Avenue
31-55 (odd) & 18-66 (even) Beechfield Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received ten letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Loss of privacy
Loss of light
Overlooking
Proximity/separation distances
Outlook
Over development of site
Access
Volume of traffic
Parking provision
Emergency vehicles
Ownership/tenure of the proposed development
Effect on property value
Construction work/noise
Future of the Council garages
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
17th April 2003
None
DEV1 – Development Criteria, DEV2 – Good Design, T13 Car Parking
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
none
DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES4 Relationship
of Development to Public Space, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, A10
Provision of car, cycle and motorcycle in new developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining
applications, including the visual appearance of the development, its relationship to its surroundings and the
amount, design and layout of car parking provision. Policy DEV2 seeks quality through good design. T13
seeks to ensure adequate and appropriate car parking and servicing.
The replacement plan policies are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
National planning policy guidance is also relevant. PPG3: Housing highlights the need to develop
previously developed brownfield sites and where appropriate higher densities should be considered. PPG3
also states that, when considering conversions, a more flexible approach is required with regard to densities,
car parking, amenity space and overlooking. Therefore the principle of a residential flatted infill
development in this location is acceptable and conforms to the general emphasis of PPG3. However, the
principle of PPG3 must be balanced against the merits of the application and relationship to existing
neighbouring uses.
Beechfield House can be characterised by its large bay windows at ground and first floor levels. I accept
that its previous use as an office would have provided some loss of privacy, particularly to those properties
on Folly Lane and the principles of PPG3. However, if converted as proposed these large bay windows
would provide habitable windows which, in my opinion, would result in a far greater loss of privacy to the
properties on Folly Lane and their enjoyment of their gardens.
The applicant’s agent has amended the windows along western elevation to include some form of obscure
glazing. I would agree that this would reduce the privacy issue, but the detail and the degree of obscurity
would have to be assessed to safeguard the enjoyment of any future occupiers. The concerns of the Police
Architectural Liaison Unit have been incorporated into the amended plans.
A total of seventeen letters of objection have been received in response to the application publicity. The
majority of the letters received are from the adjoining neighbouring residents, particularly those who bound
that part of the site proposed for the new two-storey element. Few concerns have been raised with regard
the conversion of Beechfield House itself.
The main habitable windows of the new build would look out upon the proposed car parking area.
Therefore, it is important to provide sufficient amenity space elsewhere within the site. The design of the
scheme would provide two separate areas for amenity space to the rear of the new build, I am of the opinion
that this space is not well placed to provide meaningful and usable space for the enjoyment of the future
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
occupiers. The amenity space adjacent Beechfield House is dominated by mature trees and similarly does
not provide significant meaningful and useful open space for future residents.
It is unlikely that this scheme would result in more vehicles using the site than when it was an office. It is
more likely that the use of the site for residential purposes would even the flow of traffic over a longer
period, rather than the activity around nine and five associated with the previous office use. PPG13 seeks to
encourage more sustainable development through lower levels of car parking provision where the site can
be easily accessed by alternative means of transport. I am of the opinion that a 125% car parking provision
is supported by the guidance contained within PPG13.
With regard to the representations received issues such as the future ownership/tenure of the proposed
development, property values and construction noise are not material planning considerations. However
with regard to loss of privacy, overlooking, over development of the site, proximity and separation
distances and outlook I consider that despite the advice contained in PPG3 the proposals are substandard
and would result in a loss of amenity to neighbouring residents. I have no objections on highway grounds
and therefore I do share the concerns of local residents with regard to access, volume of traffic, parking
provision and emergency vehicles. t. The adjoining garage complex does not form part of this proposal and
I have been informed that the garages will be retained by the City Council as they are well used with no
current vacancies.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the principle of a residential use on this site is appropriate. However,
the proximity of this proposal to the common boundaries and surrounding residential properties, would in
my opinion, have a detrimental impact that upon the privacy of neighbouring properties and the ability of
residents to enjoy their private garden area. I therefore consider that this application be refused on the
following grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed new build element of the development would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring
residents by reason of its size and siting contrary to policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan
2. The site is too restricted in size to allow adequate amenity space about the proposed new building to the
detriment of the future occupiers contrary to policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan
3. The proposed conversion would result in overlooking of and loss of privacy to neighbouring residents
on Folly Lane contrary to policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
APPLICATION No:
03/45454/FUL
APPLICANT:
H2 Construction
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
LOCATION:
Former Top Rank Bingo Club Church Street Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of one 5 storey block of 19 two bedroomed apartments with
creation of new vehicular access (re-submission of planning application
02/45093/FUL)
WARD:
Eccles
At a meeting of the Panel held on 20th March 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR
AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL and also
to assess whether the building which is currently on the local list is worthy of listing.
I have now undertaken my assessment of the building. There are only two elevations of any merit (fronting
Church Street and Mather Road) and the inside is derelict, not accessible because of dangerous conditions
and is not in its original condition. Some of the building to the rear was demolished several years ago and
there are bricked up doorways at first and second floor levels above the remaining yard elevation. I am
therefore of the opinion that the building in its entirety is not worthy of listing.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former Bingo Hall on the corner of Church Street and Mather Road. The
building which is on the local list, is some five storeys in height and occupies the full site. It is now in a
near derelict condition and is situated in an area mixed in character. To the west is a commercial terrace
with residential accommodation above whilst to the east and at a slightly higher level are the flats of
Gardner House. Immediately to the rear (north) of the site is an industrial unit and there are also
commercial premises opposite on Mather Road whilst further up Mather Road are residential dwellings.
Opposite the site on Church Street is an area of open space. The site is within the Eccles Housing Renewal
Area and also within a designated environmental improvement corridor.
In December last year application reference 02/45093/FUL was withdrawn for a similar scheme for 19
apartments following concerns about the design and lack of amenity space resulting in an overdevelopment
of the site. This application has now been submitted to address these concerns.
The proposal is for the demolition of the hall and for the erection of a new five storey building which would
provide 19, two bed flats. It would be constructed from reconstituted slate and brick with contrasting brick
band details and black timber panelling. The roof, which would use reconstituted slate, has been lowered in
parts with dormer windows incorporated to reduce the overall massing of the block.
The applicant has also reduced the car parking provision to 13 spaces and provided a small area of grassed
amenity space. In support of the proposal the applicant has submitted a design statement . I have outlined
the main points below.
The existing property is uninspired and “tired”. It is neglected and forms a mass of building which
would be difficult to convert to an alternative use due to lack of windows; ad hoc floor levels; depth
of space and inner space. The building has no architectural merit and overshadows in its depth and
bulk adjacent dwellings and buildings.
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
The proposal would include the replacement of structures on site within a single building with
space to the rear and incorporating architectural detailing, including pitched roofs, dormers,
profiling, modelling and various roof ridge and gutter lines to add interest and architectural quality.
The proposed elevations include band courses, balconies and coyne detailing, incorporating
elements of architecture in keeping with the appearance of adjacent existing buildings and utilising
similar materials.
The building has been designed with a predominantly four and a half to five storey appearance to
contribute to a sense of place.
The dwelling forms would incorporate elements of architecture in keeping with the appearance of
adjacent dwellings/development proposals. The elevational design would be conceived taking
examples of architecture embodied within the adjacent scheme proposals, and utilising similar
materials.
The visual impact of the development is limited to the view from Church Street and Mather Road.
The removal of the building would be an environmental improvement in the area and encourage
regeneration.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No comments received.
Environment Agency – no objections in principle subject to a condition for surface water to be passed
through trapped gullies.
Architectural Liaison Officer – recommends that boundary railings are erected around the site and that the
entrance doors should be turned through 90 degrees so that they face Mather Road.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 30 January 2003.
A site notice was displayed on 5 February 2003.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:190, 190A Church Street
1 – 7(O) 4 Mather Road
1 – 18 Gardner House
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection, one from a local residents group in response to the application
publicity. The following issues have been raised:Loss of existing on-street parking spaces which is already at a premium
Loss of parking spaces for customers of commercial premises on Church Street
Height of building
Site is likely to become target for crime if not guarded on 24 hour basis
Entrance on Mather Road could become meeting place resulting in increased noise
Future occupiers of the properties
Rats are present on the premises – how will this be treated?
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
Service road opposite the site should not be blocked by construction vehicles.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none.
Other policies: EC3 Re-use of Sites and Premises, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, H7/1
Housing Area Improvement and Renewal, EN15 Environmental Improvement Corridor.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider that the main issues to be considered for this proposal firstly relate to the suitability of residential
use in this location within the housing renewal area and environmental improvement corridor taking into
account policies H7/1 and EN15. Secondly, the detail of the proposal in terms of its design and layout is of
consideration and in this respect policy DEV 2 is important.
The former bingo hall is vacant and is in a poor state of repair. I do not consider therefore that the principle
of residential use would be unacceptable.
To firstly address the concerns of the objectors they are concerned about the impact of the proposal upon car
parking along Mather Road and the impact upon local businesses which rely on on-street parking. The
proposal would provide 13 car parking spaces within the site and the applicant has indicated that six of the
residents would be blind and it would also be a tenant controlled housing scheme. Notwithstanding this, the
site is within walking distance to Eccles town centre and is also along a main bus route. In accordance with
PPG3 and PPG13 and the government’s wish to reduce the reliance on cars, I would consider this a highly
accessible site and therefore this provision would be sufficient.
The access road at the rear of the properties on Church Street must not be blocked by construction vehicles
but this should not happen. I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds.
In relation to the concerns about the height of the proposed apartments, the existing building is higher than
the proposed apartment block and as such has established the principle of development of such a height
along this stretch of Church Street. However, it is not just the height that is important but also the overall
design, scale and massing of the apartments, the overall scheme that must be considered fully.
The entrance to the apartments is at the rear of the site adjacent to Mather Road and the objectors are
concerned about an increase in noise as a result. I do not foresee that the proposal should necessarily
encourage residents to gather outside the entrance, however it is also important to take into consideration
the location of the site on a main road within a mixed commercial and residential area, and I am of the
opinion that local residents expect a degree of noise. I do not consider that this would increase sufficiently
from the scheme.
The proposal would be a replacement building occupying the full frontage of the site; some 23m and
extending back 14.5m at its widest point. The existing building is on the local list and does have some
architectural merit. Following the withdrawal of the previous application the applicant has improved the
design of the apartment block incorporating a reduced roofline and additional design details throughout.
The scale and massing of the building has been reduced slightly and the overall design has become more
impressive. I consider that it is now a more appropriate design for this prominent site location on the route
into Eccles. A small amenity area has been incorporated into the site.
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
The proposal would result in the redevelopment of the site with an imposing five storey development which
reflects the importance of this main arterial route into Eccles. I do not consider that it would have a
significant detrimental impact upon the amenity of any neighbouring residents and therefore recommend
that this application be approved.
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. Standard Condition D02X Details of Materials
4. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface
water drainage from hardstanding area shall be passed through trapped gullies with an overall capacity
compatible with the site being drained.
5. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
6. The amenity space shown on the approved plans with surrounding landscaping shall be maintained and
made available for use at all times by residents of the apartments.
7. In order to establish clearly the noise environment to be at the proposed development the developer
shall submit an acoustics report detailing the ambient noise levels in the area about the application site
making reference to Planning Policy Guidance Note 24: Panning and Noise. Where appropriate, the
report shall identify any sound attenuation measures necessary to protect the proposed dwelling, and
which will ensure a reduction of indoor noise levels to below 35dB(A) LAeq as set out in the WHO
Guidelines for Community Noise 1999. The report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority
PRIOR to the commencement of the development and all identified sound proofing measures shall be
implemented and retained for the duration of approval.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with policy DEV1 of the UDP.
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
5. Standard Reason R014A Parking of vehicles - each dwelling
6. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
7. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This permission relates to the amended plans received on 31 January 2003 with revised elevational
details and 12 February 2003, which shows a landscaped amenity area at the rear.
2. Historical maps indicate that the site is adjacent to a former clay pit and cotton mill, therefore it is
possible that contamination found its way on to the site as a result of these uses. Therefore once any
earthworks commence, should operatives discover any adverse ground conditions and suspect it to be
contaminated then they should report to the site Manager. Works in that location should cease and the
problem area should be roped off until representative soil amples are sent for analysis and the results
assessed by my officer who can advise on the appropriate action.
APPLICATION No:
03/45484/FUL
APPLICANT:
E Burke
LOCATION:
488 Worsley Road Winton Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of extensions to front and rear of shop premises and canopy to
side elevation
WARD:
Winton
At a meeting of the Panel held on 3rd April 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR
AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
Planning permission is sought for a single storey rear extension which would wrap around the side of the
semi-detached property. The extension would be 5.0 metres in length. The extension would be the full
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
width of the property and approximately 0.5 metres of the extension would be located to the rear of the
adjoining property, 490 Worsley Road and 1.0 metre would project over onto Forest Street. A double
entrance door and fire exit would be provided on the Forest Street elevation. The extension is to be used as
a salon.
A new shop front projecting 0.8m from the front of the property is also proposed. Roller shutters would be
installed to the shopfront, side entrance and fire exit. A canopy roof projecting 1.0 metre over Forest Street
would be attached to the side of the property. The windows at first floor level to the front of the building
would be bricked up and painted.
8 parking spaces have been identified, 3 to the rear of the proposed extension and 5 to the side (4 of which
would be at right-angles to the building). The yard area currently provides 4 parking spaces. The proposed
hours of operation are 10am to 9pm. Two to three new staff would be employed as a result of the proposal,
in addition there are four existing staff employed at the premises.
The property is located within a predominantly residential area. The adjoining semi-detached property (490
Worsley Road) is at a lower level of approximately 0.2 metres.
SITE HISTORY
97/37298/COU - Change of use from retail to Chinese traditional health centre. Approved December 1997.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections. Informative recommended regarding lightning levels.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 4th February 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:459, 461, 486, 490 Worsley Road
37 Cambrai Crescent
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one representation/ letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:-
-
Size and scale of the rear extension will totally dominate rear garden of 490 Worsley Road. Length
is almost half length of garden. Overall height is increased by 20/25cms because ground level of
application site is higher. Light and sunshine to garden and rear of house would be reduced for a
good part of the day. Loss of amenity to garden area.
Such a building is not appropriate alongside a residential garden
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
-
17th April 2003
Part of extension may encroach onto land at 490 Worsley Road – objector is making further
investigations
Front extension would have adverse affect on light and sunshine to front bay window of 490
Worsley Road. This will be exacerbated by shutter.
Front extension will dwarf and overshadow front garden and door to 490 Worsley Road
Position of supporting wall is not clear – is it inside existing front dividing wall?
Car parking is already existing
Forest Street is well used by pedestrians. Vehicles will create hazards to pedestrians.
Vehicles emerging from Forest Street will create problems on Worsley Road
Proposal will have effect on future value and saleability of 490 Worsley Road
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
T13 – Car Parking
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV2 seeks to ensure a high standard of design in new developments and
policy DEV1 states that regard will be had to a number of factors in determining applications for planning
permission including the amount, design and layout of car parking provision and the effect on sunlight,
daylight and privacy for neighbouring properties. UDP policy T13 states that the City Council will ensure
that adequate and appropriate car parking is provided.
With regards to the objections raised, I consider that the main areas of concern relate to the siting of the
extension and its effect on the residents living in the adjoining property and car parking and highway safety
issues. The proposed rear extension would extend 5 metres along the boundary with 490 Worsley Road.
The garden area of 490 Worsley Road extends 12.8 metres from the outrigger. There is a timber fence of 1.8
to 1.9 metres in height on the common boundary. The ridge height of the proposed extension would be 3.8
metres, but the roof would slope down towards the adjoining property and as such it would be
approximately 0.7 metres above the height of the boundary fence. There are no windows to the outrigger of
490 Worsley Road at ground floor level. Given the height and position of the proposed extension, I do not
consider that there would be any significant loss of light or sunshine to the rear of the adjoining dwelling
and garden.
The Applicant has been asked to submit additional information to enable the proposal to be properly
assessed. The red line indicated on the site location plan is incorrect as it does not include all areas where
development is proposed. It is also not clear whether the proposal extends onto land outside the control of
the Applicant. The residents of the adjoining semi-detached property are concerned that the extension to the
front, in particular the roller shutter, would affect light entering their lounge window. I do not consider that
the front extension itself would significantly affect light to the adjoining property, however, the plans
submitted do not indicate the extent that the roller shutter box would project, so I do not consider that this
matter can be properly assessed.
I consider that the design of the proposed development and the proposed materials to match the existing
would be appropriate. I do, however, have some reservations regarding the bricking up and painting over of
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
the two first floor windows and consider that further detail would be required to assess the visual impact of
this element of the proposal.
I have a number of concerns in relation to car parking and highway issues. The Applicant has been asked to
clarify the use of the property, in order that the necessary car parking standards can be determined. This
information has not yet been provided. The plans indicate that part of the proposed extension would project
over onto the unadopted highway of Forest Street, furthermore, car parking bays 1 to 5 are also located on
the highway. These elements of the proposal would require a formal order to stop up the highway. No such
order appears to have been sought. Regardless of any stopping up of the highway being authorised, parking
bays 1 to 5 are not acceptable because there would be a distance of just 4.5 metres between the back of the
bays and the edge of the highway, this does not allow sufficient manoeuvring space and would also impede
access to the passageway providing vehicular access to the rear of 440 to 486 Worsley Road.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Since writing my Report, I have received additional information and amended plans from the Agent.
A revised 1:1250 site location plan has been submitted. The red line indicates that the application site
boundary extends to the centre of Forest Street, although this does not appear to be particularly accurate. It
has, however, been confirmed that all of the land within the application site is within the ownership of the
Applicant. An amended elevation plan has been submitted to show the position of the proposed roller
shutters. The shutters would be perforated plastic coated steel, colour treated dark green and would not
project beyond the guttering at the edge of the roof to the shopfront. I do not therefore consider that the
shutters would affect the light entering the windows of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.
With regards to the existing and proposed uses of the premises, the Applicant has indicated that the existing
use at ground floor is a beauty treatment salon and at first floor is a sun bed studio. The proposed extension
would provide a hairdressing salon. Having considered the planning history to the site, I do not consider
that this is the authorised use of the property and believe that planning permission for a change of use would
therefore be required. The ground floor of the premises had been used as a shop, with residential use at first
floor. In 1997, planning permission was approved for a Chinese health centre, but it is not clear whether this
use was implemented or when the salon/sun bed use commenced.
I am now satisfied that sufficient details have been provided in order to properly assess the planning
application. My concerns regarding the restriction of vehicular access and insufficient manoeuvring space
remain.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The necessary car parking arrangements would impede vehicular access and interfere with the free
flow of traffic on Forest Street to the detriment of highway safety, contrary to Unitary Development
Plan policy DEV1.
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/45495/FUL
APPLICANT:
Nuttall Construction
LOCATION:
Land Between 87 AND 137 Higher Croft Barton Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 18 dwellings together with associated car parking and
construction of new vehicular and pedestrian accesses
WARD:
Barton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site lies on the west of Higher Croft, between numbers 87 and 137 Higher Croft, within this residential
area. The site is surrounded by residential properties to the north, east and south on Highecroft and by
properties on Bakewell Road and Calver Avenue to the west. Definitive Footpath Eccles Number 5 runs
around the edge of the site between the site and the rear gardens of Bakewell Road and Calver Avenue. The
site is cleared at present with around fifteen trees throughout the site following the previous demolition of
the four blocks of flats.
Planning permission is sought for the erection of eighteen three bedroom houses, each with one car parking
space and private amenity space, with front and rear gardens. Each house has a ridge height of 7.4m. The
houses are split into four pairs of semis, two terraces of three and a terrace of four. The houses are designed
with piked gables to the front, window headers and cills and front porch/canopies. The application also
includes the closure of part of the definitive footpath, a diversion has been shown by the applicant.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objection
Architectural Liaison Unit – No objection subject to rear fences being 2.1m high.
Peak and Northern Footpath Society – No comments received
Open Space Society – Verbal objection received
Greater Manchester Pedestrians Association – No comments received
Ramblers Association – Object to any part of the Definitive Footpath being closed
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on the 11th February 2003
A press notice was displayed, advertising the effect upon Eccles Footpath No. 5 on the 20th March 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
77 – 87 odd, 30 – 78 even, 137 – 141 odd Higher Croft
78A, 78B, 78C, 78D & 78E Higher Croft
38 – 60 even Bakewell Road
1 – 6 Calver Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received four letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified
are as follows:
Objection to a Housing Association Development but not to private dwellings
Passageways should be blocked off due to possibilities to crime
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, H6 & H11
Open Space Provision
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES7 Amenity of Users and
Neighbours, DES13 Design Statement, H1 New Housing Development, H2 Location of New Housing
Development, DEV5 Planning Conditions and Obligations, A2 Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The footpath societies object to the proposed closure of part of the footpath, Eccles No. 5. Policies A2 and
T10 allow for the diversion of the existing right of way as long as access is maintained for pedestrians, the
disabled and cyclists through the site and that safety is ensured. This proposal has been amended to ensure
that access for all will be maintained through a no less commodious route. The blocking of 44m of the
definitive right of way is proposed. A deviation of some 38m back onto Higher Croft would result which I
find acceptable. The blocking of the footpath here would improve security for the proposed housing and
also for the existing housing on Bakewell Road. Vehicular access for three houses from Bakwell Road is to
be retained as part of this application. The rear boundary fences of the properties being 2.1m high ensures
that the developments are in line with policy DEV4 and design and crime.
Amendments to the application have also been sought to ensure the City Councils minimum distances
between houses are ensured. In addition the parking has been amended to adhere to maximum parking
standards within the First Deposit Draft UDP. The design of the development with its gable features,
decorative cills and headers and also banding would provide a good quality appearance of development. I
consider the design and scale of the development to be appropriate to this residential area and to be in
accordance with policies DEV1, DEV2, DES1, DES2 and DES7 of the two UDPs.
Objection to the application over the future tenure. Policies within the plan require a mix of dwelling type
however tenure is not included within the plan. Policies H1 and H2 relate to the meeting of housing needs
and to the re-use of brownfield land for housing at densities over 30 per hectare, which this proposal is. I
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
consider the re-use of this site for residential would be supported by the aforementioned policies and also
H6 and H11 given the developer is minded to enter into a legal agreement with regard to a financial
contribution for open space and environmental improvements. Although some existing trees will be lost I
consider these offer limited amenity value and that a condition for landscaping will ensure appropriate trees
are planted as part of the development.
The vacant site is at present an eyesore and the proposed development will be appropriate to the residential
character of the area, whether the units would be rental or for private sale. I also consider that the design and
layout of the development is in accordance with Council Policies. I have no highway objections and
recommend approval subject to the following conditions and signing of a legal agreement.
RECOMMENDATION
that the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under Section
106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the payment of a commuted sum for off
site contributions to play space and environmental improvements in the local area.
that the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded to grant planning permission, subject
to the conditions stated below, on completion of such legal agreement;
that authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application be issued, (subject to the
conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned legal agreement,
that authority be given to refuse the application if the applicant fails to complete the S106
agreement within a reasonable period on the grounds that the proposals do not support the aim and
objectives of policies H6 & H11 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and
Policy H8 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan City of Salford.
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 twelve 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 D03X Samples of Materials
4. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a desk study has been
undertaken and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority to investigate and produce an
assessment of the risk of the potential for on-site contamination. If the desk study identifies potential
contamination a detailed site investigation should be carried out to establish the degree and nature of
the contamination and its potential to pollute the environment or cause harm to human health. If
remediation measures are necessary they will be implemented in accordance with the assessment and to
the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
5. This permission shall relate to the amended plan, applicants reference M2194.01E.
6. No development shall commence until the partial closure of footpath Eccles No.5 has been confirmed
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
4. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
6. In the interests of pedestrian movement in the area.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under Section 106
of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, prior to the granting of planning permission.
2. The developer shall consult the Greater Manchester Police Architectural Unit with regard to achieving
secure by design standards.
3. This grant of planning permission does not authorise the closure or diversion of the public right of way
as indicated on the approved plan, until the appropriate order has been made.
APPLICATION No:
03/45506/HH
APPLICANT:
R Aspinall
LOCATION:
6 Francis Avenue Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey rear extension
WARD:
Walkden South
At a meeting of the Panel held on 20th March 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR
AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property in a residential area. The property has an existing
single-storey rear extension that projects 1.7m.
The proposal is to erect a single storey rear extension. The proposal would project a further 1.54m (3.3m in
total) and be the same width as the existing extension with a height of 3.7m with a hipped roof.
CONSULTATIONS
The Coal Authority – No Objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:4 and 8 Francis Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity from the occupier of the
adjoining semi-detached property. The following issues have been raised:Loss of light
Overbearing
Loss of view
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies: DEV8 -House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 states that planning permission will not be granted for extensions that have an unacceptable adverse
impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance loss
of light or privacy.
Policy HH9 states that single-storey rear extensions will not normally be acceptable if they exceed more
than 2.74m measured externally from the rear elevation of the adjoining property.
No. 8 has a bay window on the rear elevation that projects 0.6m. The bay has windows on either side and on
the rear elevation of the bay. The proposal would project 2.74m from the bay window, I would not consider
the projection to have an unacceptable loss of light to the bay window nor would it be overbearing.
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
Loss of view is not a planning consideration.
HH9 is in place to protect light to habitable room windows from single-storey rear extensions. The
proposal extends a total of 3.3m beyond the adjoining rear elevation however on the rear they have a bay
window that projects 0.6m. The proposal would project 2.74m beyond the bay window. Due to bay
windows having glass on the side elevations, the proposal would have less impact than on a normal window
and would not consider it to have an unacceptably adverse impact on the residents of the neighbouring
property.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Please note this approval relates to the amended plan received on the 20th February 2003 which shows
a reduction in projection
APPLICATION No:
03/45519/FUL
APPLICANT:
MS Property Group
LOCATION:
32/34 Duncan Street Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Alterations and retention of five roller shutters to front elevation
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site is a large industrial building surrounded by commercial and industrial buildings on
Duncan Street.
The proposal is for the retention of five roller shutter doors to the front elevation. Three of the roller
shutters have internal boxes and two roller shutters have external boxes. The roller shutters would be
untreated.
PUBLICITY
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
A site notice was displayed on 5th March 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
Duncan Street Enterprises, Duncan street
Creative Logistics, Duncan Street
Elite Foam Converters, Duncan Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received four letters of objection in response to the application publicity from the occupiers of two
neighbouring properties. The main issues identified are as follows:
There are five roller shutters to be retained not the installation of two roller shutters
No planning permission has be granted for alterations to the south elevation
According to Land registry records the property is not owned by the applicant
The property is registered for warehousing yet an industrial process is being carried out without
planning permission
Access is required over the public footpath which would increase the risk to pedestrians
The work looks shabby
No building regulations have been granted for the alterations on the south elevations and the work
appears unsafe
The western gable wall is dangerous
A cement works is occupies part of the building and has not been licensed by Environmental Health
Fork lift trucks regularly are seen entering and leaving the building and mounting the highway
Various rubbish and street waste is left on the highway by the occupiers
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV4 – Crime and Design
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES8 – Alterations and Extensions
DES11 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV1 states that appropriate consideration will be given to applications for planning with regards to the
visual appearance of the development and its relationship to its surroundings.
DEV4 states that the City Council will encourage greater consideration of crime prevention and personal
and property security in the improvement of existing buildings.
DES8 states that planning permission will only be granted for alterations that complement the general
character of the surrounding area.
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
DES11 states development will not be permitted unless it is designed to discourage crime, ant social
behaviour and the fear of crime, and support personal and property security
Originally the application was for the alterations and installation of two roller shutter doors the application
has since been amended and is now for the retention of five roller shutter doors. The work has already been
carried out.
The applicant has signed Certificate A in relation to this planning application, there is currently no evidence
to suggest that the applicant does not have an interest in the whole building. With regards to planning
procedures and requirements the applicant has therefore fulfilled these. In the event of any further evidence
being provided to dispute the ownership then this would be dealt with at that time.
The current use of the property is for B2, general industrial, the process that are being carried out within the
building are within the B2 class, hence planning permission is not required for the use / activity in the
premises.
There is existing access to the roller shuttered areas, and to the front of these areas there isn’t a public
footpath. I have no objections on highway grounds.
At the time the objection letter was written the work was incomplete, the works have now been completed.
There are several examples of untreated roller shutters in the area including the building opposite I would
not consider the proposal to have a detrimental impact to the street scene.
The remaining objections do not relate directly to this planning application and the planning process but are
being dealt with by other departments.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve
APPLICATION No:
03/45568/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Cook
LOCATION:
5 Hardy Grove Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Construction of dormer extensions in roofspace at front and at both
sides of dwelling
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
The application site is a dormer bungalow in a residential area. The houses on either side of the application
site are also bungalows. The street consists of various house types including bungalows and two storey
properties. The property currently has a hipped roof with a large box dormer to the front and rear of the
property.
The proposal would be to change the roof from hipped to gable and to construct a smaller dormer window to
the front of the property. The total height of the proposed roof would be 6m.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
3, 7, 8, 10 and 12 Hardy Grove
75-83 Folly Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one representations of support in response to the application publicity from the occupiers of
the neighbouring property (No.3). The main issues identified are as follows:
The proposal would improve the outlook from the dining room window
The proposal would improve the street scene
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES8 – Alterations and Extensions (Draft UDP)
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 states that planning permission will not be granted for extensions that have an unacceptable adverse
impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance loss
of light or privacy.
HH3 of the supplementary planning guidance states planning permission will not normally be permitted for
first floor extensions that do not maintain a minimum distance of 13m from a blank gable end and a
habitable room window.
DES8 states that the design of alterations and extensions must ensure that the resultant building appears as
an attractive and coherent whole.
The proposal would be approx. 8m from a dining room window on the side elevation of No.3. The dining
room window is currently mostly obscured by the existing building and large rear box dormer. The
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
occupier of No.3 considers that although there may be a slight loss of natural light to this window the
general outlook would be greatly improved as the existing rear dormer would be removed.
The occupier of No.3 also consider that the proposal would improve the street scene. There is a large box
dormer on the front slope roof the proposal would replace this with a dormer window approximately half
the size of the original with a pitched roof. I would consider the proposal to improve the existing street
scene. There are other dormers in the vicinity and the majority are not large box dormers but smaller
dormer windows with pitched roofs.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
03/45571/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr A Pownall
LOCATION:
1 Newlands Avenue Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of part two storey/part single storey side extension and single
storey rear extension
WARD:
Winton
At a meeting of the Panel held on 20th March 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR
AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
The application relates to an end semi-detached property in a residential area. The side elevation of the
property overlooks the rear elevations of properties on Liverpool Road.
The proposal is for a part single part two-storey side extension. There would be a single storey projection
in front of the front elevation by 0.88m. The two-storey element would be flush with the front elevation and
run close to the common boundary with houses fronting Liverpool Road. The two storey element would be
6.5m long with a single storey behind it set in 1.5m along the common boundary. This single storey
element would project 3.7m beyond the rear elevation.. The total height of the proposal would be 6.4m with
a hipped roof.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:2 and 3 Newlands Avenue
784 – 792 (evens) Liverpool Road
REPRESENTATIONS
Councillor Lancaster has requested that the application is determined by the Planning and Transportation
Regulatory Panel. No other comments have been received.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 states that planning permission will not be granted for extensions that have an unacceptable adverse
impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance loss
of light or privacy.
HH3 of the Supplementary Planning Guidance states that planning permission will not normally be granted
for two storey / first floor extensions that do not maintain a minimum distance of 13m between its blank
wall gable and facing ground floor habitable room windows of neighbouring dwellings. The application
property “sides on” to the rear elevation of houses fronting Liverpool Road.
The proposed two-storey side extension would be approx. 11.8m from the habitable ground floor window
of 786 Liverpool Road. I would therefore consider the proposal to have an unacceptably overbearing
impact on the property and result in an unacceptable loss of light.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would be detrimental to the amenity of the neighbouring occupier in that it
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
would not maintain a minimum distance of 13m between the proposed two-storey side extension and the
rear elevation No 786 Liverpool Road contrary to the HH3 of the Council's Supplementary Planning
Guidance for House Extensions and Policy DEV8 of the City of Salford's Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/45572/COU
APPLICANT:
Sweetcharm Ltd
LOCATION:
Howard House Fitzwarren Street Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from offices buildings to 28 apartments including the
construction of a third floor
WARD:
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
Howard House is an existing two storey, 7m high, flat roofed 1960’s office block which has been vacant for
some time. Access to the site is from Fitzwarren Street and hardstanding for parking surrounds the building
to the front and rear. Residential properties surround the site to the east, south and west whilst land to the
north is vacant. Residential tower blocks are close to the site across Fitzwarren Street.
Planning permission is sought for the change of use to 28 dwellings and for the addition of a storey and a
pitched roof with hipped ends. The ridge height would be 12m whilst the eaves height would be 9.2m.
Elevational alterations are also proposed to the building including the blocking up of a recessed entrance
area and addition of a canopy. Twelve parking spaces would be retained to the front of the development
whilst landscaped amenity area would be provide at the rear of the site. The existing vehicular access is to
be retained, with additional railings provided.
SITE HISTORY
In 1985, planning permission was granted for the change of use from offices to a snooker centre (E/18239).
In 1995, planning permission was granted to erect three strands of razor tape above the existing fencing
(95/33740/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Langworthy Cornerstone – Object to the detail of the proposal and to the size of the units
GM Police – Recommend alterations to the layout
The Coal Authority – No objections
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
Director of Housing Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on the 20th February 2003
A press notice was displayed on the 27th February 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
92, 96 –106 and Vicarage Fitzwarren Street
117 – 125 Fitzwarren Street
Brass Handles Public House, Edgehill Close
2 & 4 Edgehill Close
16, 17 Chartwell Close
135 – 145 odd Highfield Road
104 – 114 even, 120 – 134 even & 152 Highfield Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection, from Councillor Salmon in response to the application publicity.
The main issues identified are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Too many properties from one entrance
No proposals for landscaping
Not enough done to make the building attractive
Apartments are too small
No evidence it would contribute to the regeneration of the area
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, H1 Housing
Needs, H5 Dwellings subdivided into self contained flats or multiple occupancy, EC3 Re-use of sites and
Premises.
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES7 Amenity of Users and
Neighbours, DES13 Design Statement, H1 New Housing Development, H2 Location of New Housing
Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EC3 requires that where buildings are vacant they are brought back into use with an acceptable
alternative use. Given that the existing building is vacant and in a poor state of repair the retention of a
commercial use would I consider be at odds with the utilisation of the existing building in an acceptable use.
Policies H1 and H2 relate to the meeting of housing needs and to the re-use of brownfield land for housing
at densities over 30 per hectare, which this proposal is. I consider the re-use of this site for residential would
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
be supported by the aforementioned policies. With regard to the regeneration of the area the re-use of the
building will contribute to this subject to the appearance of the building being improved.
Following the initial submission the application has been amended to improve the appearance and reduce
the number of units from 30 to 28. The ground floor would be finished in brick whilst the first and second
floors would be finished with a painted cement render finish. Each floor would be punctuated with new
windows in a pattern appropriate to the development. The recessed entrance has been removed to provide
for better security. A central section above the entrance is finished in glazing. Angled side windows, to the
ground and first floors are proposed to the south elevation. I consider that the proposal will significantly
improve the appearance of the building and would not impinge upon the regeneration of the area.
The size of the units has been subject to objection however I consider that the one bedroom units although
small will fulfil a demand at the lower end of the market. The Director of Housing Services considers that
the size of the units are appropriate to the lower end of the housing market for either private or social
rent/purchase. The proposal includes outside amenity space, parking and internally each unit would be self
contained having its own living, bedroom, kitchen and bathroom. I consider the proposed units to be
acceptable in size and to be acceptable with regard to policy H5.
Entrance gates and railings are to be erected as part of the development to ensure opportunities for crime are
minimised. The development is also to be built to the secure by design standards including video
entry-phone. I propose to ensure the final detail of the landscaped area through a standard landscaping
condition however the revised layout showing outside amenity space is acceptable. I have no highway
objections and recommend approval.
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 twelve 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 D03X Samples of Materials
4. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use not less than twelve 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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The developer shall take into account the attached letter of the 28th Match 2003 from the Greater
Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit with regard to implementing this permission in
accordance with Secure by Design Standards.
APPLICATION No:
03/45580/FUL
APPLICANT:
Charlestown/Lower Kersal NDC
LOCATION:
Land To Rear Of Brunswick House Upper Gloucester Street Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Creation and installation of a multi sports pitch to include 3 and 4
metre high fencing
WARD:
Pendleton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land on Upper Gloucester Street adjacent and to the rear of Brunswick House, a
Grade II Listed Building. It is proposed to provide safety surfacing to provide a multi-sports pitch and to
fence the pitch with 3m and 4m high mesh fencing. The fencing would be powder coated racing green with
navy blue posts. The pitch would measure 23m by 14m.
The site is directly opposite a small car parking area but is also close to housing on either side of the car
park.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Is concerned about noise from the multi-sports pitch causing
detriment to the amenity of nearby houses. The National Playing Fields Association recommends a
separation between such a usage and housing of 30m between the boundary of the nearest property in order
to prevent noise and disturbance from the children’s activities affecting nearby residents. In this case the
separation distance is 10m. It is therefore recommend that the application be refused on the grounds of the
possible detriment to the amenity of nearby neighbours die to noise and disturbance from the activities on
the pitch.
New Deal for Communities Team – Strongly supports the application. One of their key objectives is to
improve the provision of services and facilities for local children and young people. The Gloucester Street
area has been identified as a priority for the provision of a children’s play area. The area is bordered by
major roads and a railway and contains a large number of families. The proposal will utilise a piece of
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
derelict land and is fully supported by the residents who will be involved in managing the upkeep and use of
the facilities once installed. It is understood that objections have been received but if these objections are
upheld then it will effectively mean that no play provision can be provided close to residential properties
even where this is clearly against the wishes of both adults and young people that live there and the overall
objectives of the regeneration scheme.
Sport England – Supports the application.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised as affecting the setting of a listed building.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
2 to 20 and 15 Upper Gloucester Street
20 to 34 Gardner Street
50 to 60, 66 to 72 and 72A Broad Street
1 to 11 Higham View
2 to 12 Gloucester Place
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a 60 signature petition in support in response to the application publicity. The main issues
identified are as follows:
This will provide somewhere for children to play off street.
I have also received written support for the application from Councillors Warmisham and Hulmes.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
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 residents and the visual appearance of the
development. Policy DES7 states that development will not be permitted where it has an unacceptable
impact on the amenity of neighbours.
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
The application provides for the resurfacing on an existing unused piece of ground and the erection of new
fencing only. The development has the support of the local community and no objections have been
received.
Whilst I am mindful of the comments of the Director of Environmental Services I consider that in this
instance, in the absence of any objections to the application and the support of the local community for the
scheme, a permission is justified.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
03/45589/FUL
APPLICANT:
Kalfman And Broad
LOCATION:
Land Off Magenta Avenue Cadishead
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 16 dwellings together with associated car parking and
alteration to existing, and construction of new vehicular access
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a piece of land which formed part of a larger site which was granted permission in
1992 for the erection of 55 dwellings, reference E/29402. Part of this permission was implemented where
the properties of Magenta Avenue, Quill Court and Sienna Close now stand to the east of the application
site. The land of this application was not developed although it was previously shown to accommodate 18
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
dwellings. Irlam Industrial Estate adjoins the site to the north and the former Nobel Inks Factory to the west
(which is now cleared). Permission has been granted in December 2000 in outline with all matters reserved
for the residential development of the Nobel Inks site, ref 00/41510/OUT.
This application is now seeking permission for the erection of 16, two storey dwellings within a slightly
revised layout comprising two pairs of semis and four terraces of three. Twelve of the dwellings would be
accessed off a private driveway with four off Magenta Avenue itself. Access would be retained to the
Nobel Inks Site. The dwellings would be of a relatively simple design, constructed from brick. As part of
the proposal Magenta Avenue would be made up to adoptable standards.
SITE HISTORY
In May 1992 permission was granted on land which included the site of this application for the erection of
55 dwellings, planning reference E/29402.
In February and December 2000 two permissions were granted, both in outline with all matters reserved, for
the residential development of the Nobel Inks site to the west of the application site, planning references
99/39868/OUT and 00/41510/OUT.
CONSULTATIONS
The Environment Agency – no objection in principle subject to the imposition of a condition requesting a
desk study assessing the risk of on-site contamination.
Greater Manchester Geological Unit - the site is currently occupied by demolition waste and fill materials
and therefore it is recommended that a condition is attached to ensure that a site investigation is undertaken
with any necessary mitigation measures implemented.
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Officer – recommends that the dwellings are constructed to
Secure by Design standards. It is also recommended that lockable gates and 1.8m or 2.1m high fencing is
erected
Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to a contaminated site investigation to be
submitted.
Railtrack – no comments received.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was displayed on 17 February 2003.
A site notice was displayed on 27 February 2003.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:2 – 20 Magenta Avenue
2 – 10 Quill Court
2 – 8, 1 – 15 Sienna Court
26 – 56 Dean Road
Units 1 – 10 Irlam Industrial Estate
REPRESENTATIONS
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
I have received one letter of representation from a resident who has no objections to the proposal in
principle but is concerned that the plans have not been drawn accurately and that his daughter’s plot,
adjacent to but outside of the application site, is not accurately represented.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none.
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, H1 Meeting Housing Needs, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4
Crime and Design,
DRAFT UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site Specific Policies:
Other Policies: H1 Provision of New Housing Development, DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation
and Movement, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES11 Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The principle of residential use has already been established on the site with the granting of permission
E/29402 and this permission remains extant. The main issues to be considered for this application therefore
relate to the proposed changes to the layout and design and the impact upon the amenity of any of the
existing neighbouring residents in particular in accordance with policy DEV1.
The objector is concerned that the boundaries to the existing dwellings (that are outside of this application)
have not been accurately represented on the plans. The objector’s plans correlate to the original permission
granted in 1992. If the boundaries of the plot that the objector is concerned about have changed then this is
a civil matter to be resolved privately. However, I am satisfied that the boundary to the application site has
been accurately represented.
The proposed layout for the sixteen dwellings is very similar to the original scheme. Adequate separation
distances have been achieved between the existing and proposed dwellings and additional planting would
be undertaken along the site boundary to the industrial units of Irlam Industrial Estate, providing a
screening element.
The Nobel Inks site to the rear has an extant permission in outline for residential use, ref 00/41510/OUT
with access to the site off Magenta Avenue. The applicant has indicated that access would be maintained
but provided 7m further along the boundary to the south-west from that approved under E/29402. I do not
consider that this re-siting of the access would have any detrimental impact subject to the extension of
Magenta Avenue up to the boundary.
I have no objections on highway grounds to the proposal subject to Magenta Avenue brought up to
adoptable standards and I have therefore appended a condition to this effect. The proposal would result in
the development of a piece of brownfield land which is currently unused and rather unattractive. It would
not have a detrimental impact upon the neighbouring residents and I therefore recommend that this
application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
1. Full details of the proposed drainage layout including separate foul and surface water systems shall be
submitted and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the
commencement of development.
2. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of 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.
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. Development shall not commence until a desk study has been submitted which identifies the history of
the site and any possible contamination which may exist on the site and cause a potential risk of harm to
site users, controlled waters and the environment as a whole. The desk study should include a
conceptual model which identifies potential risks to identified receptors. If the desk study identifies the
potential for on site contamination then an intrusive ground investigation should be carried out in
accordance with current best practice guidance and upon approval of the LPA. This investigation
should consider contamination and gas levels associated with the sites previous use and samples should
cover the site in both in depth and area. If levels of potentially harmful substances are found then a risk
assessment should be carried out and remedial design proposals submitted to the LPA for approval.
Any remediation scheme should be validated and the approval of the LPA should be sought prior to the
development commencing.
4. No dwelling shall be occupied until Magenta Avenue has been made up to adoptable standards to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
5. Full details of the proposed drainage layout including separate foul and surface water systems shall be
submitted and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the
commencement of development and this layout shall then be implemented.
6. No dwelling shall be occupied until Magenta Avenue has been made up to adoptable standards and this
shall extend up to and including the western boundary to the currently vacant site to the west, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services and in accordance with policy DEV1 of the
Unitary Development Plan.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
6. To safeguard the future development of the site to the west in accordance with policy DEV1 of the
Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant shall contact the City's Highway Maintenance Section regarding the construction details
to bring Magenta Avenue up to adoptable standards.
2. The applicant shall contact United Utilities regarding requirements to bring the existing sewer up to
adoptable standards, connecting new sewers to the existing public sewer in Liverpool Road. United
Utilities may ask for a limiting discharge plus on site storage.
3. This permission shall relate to the amended plans which show access into the former Nobel Inks site to
the rear received on 7 April 2003 by fax.
APPLICATION No:
03/45617/FUL
APPLICANT:
Edward Nevins
LOCATION:
Richmond Hill Blackfriars Road Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of former residential care home and erection of a four
storey building, with five storey elements, comprising 39 self-contained
apartments to include carparking together with associated landscaping.
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a former City Council care home. The site fronts Blackfriars Road and is
surrounded by St Stephen Street and Richmond Place. To the north west the site is bordered by an old
three-storey pub that has been converted into living accommodation. To the south-west beyond St Stephen
Street is a large electricity sub-station and new housing development while to the south are local authority
three storey flats. The existing building is two-storey and is surrounded by a total of 21 semi-mature trees
many of which are in closer proximity to the existing building.
It is proposed to demolish the existing building and erect a mostly four-storey development. The basement
storey would be used to provide a total of 29 car parking spaces
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
SITE HISTORY
A previous application for the conversion of the existing building into apartments was withdrawn last year.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – The proposed development is situated close to busy Blackfriars Road
and also to St Stephen Street. Residents will suffer a loss of amenity from traffic noise should noise
mitigation measures not be implemented. Advice is also provided with regard to ground contamination
Environment Agency – No objections in principle
Coal Authority – No objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Provides advice regarding video entrance controls
and enclosing the fire escapes and fitting doors that have key only entry fire escape locks. In addition they
do not like the deck access design as it gives no defensible space to the windows on the deck side and makes
them vulnerable to attack.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – No comments to make
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
2 to 8 and 3 Greengate West
153 Blackfriars Road
7 Richmond Street
8 to 11, 19 to 22 and 30 to 33 Westminster House Cannon Green Drive
1 to 6 Wadlow Close
2 to 8 Satinwood Walk
68 to 92 St Simon Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CS1 Trinity
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments.
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The site lies within the Trinity area of Central Salford where the City Council is generally seeking to
improve the local environment. Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of
factors when considering applications. These factors include the amount of parking provision, the effect on
neighbouring properties, the visual appearance of the development and the impact on existing trees. Policy
DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant planning permission unless it is satisfied with the
quality of design and the visual appearance of the development.
The replacement plan does not include a policy for this part of the City but its policies are generally similar
to those of the adopted plan in respect to this development. I have, however, attached a condition with
regard to disabled, cycle and motorcycle parking provision.
With regard to the advice and concerns of the Architectural Liaison Unit a number of the matters that they
raise are detailed security matters that can be addressed by the applicant. With regard to the design
principles of the scheme I consider that the access arrangements, while discredited by their use on larger
developments in the sixties and seventies, can work successfully on smaller developments where security is
built in to the design from the outset.
The development includes a mix of one, two and three bedroomed apartments. The ratio of larger
apartments has been increased following my advice. In addition the design of the development has been
amended following my advice to include a fifth storey at each end of the site. I consider that this benefits
both the scheme and the appearance of the development. I am satisfied that the design is acceptable and the
architect has demonstrated that while unusual, this design has been very successfully used elsewhere.
I have assessed the scheme in terms of its impact on neighbours and am satisfied that even with the
additional storey that there would be no significant loss of amenity to any neighbouring property.
The existing trees on the site are very close to the existing building. The only way that the majority of the
trees could be retained would be if the existing building was to be retained. The existing building does not
benefit the area. Redevelopment of this site adjacent to the main road and close to Broughton would both
benefit the local area and signal that the redevelopment that has been seen closer to the regional centre is
spreading out into the Lower Broughton area. I do not therefore, in this instance feel that the site can be
successfully developed without the removal of the majority of the trees. The applicant has submitted a
scheme that shows replacement tree planting at a ratio of two trees planted for every one removed. I am
satisfied that on this site close to the regional centre but also close to the Lower Broughton area, in an area
of significant change and improvement that the retention of the existing trees and the constraints that would
then follow would not be appropriate.
I have no objections on highway grounds and therefore recommend that the application be approved subject
to the following.
RECOMMENDATION
-
that the City Secretary be authorised to enter into a legal agreement to secure the following:
a) the provision of the sum of £39,000 to be used for environmental improvements in the
immediate local area.
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
-
that the applicant be informed that the Council is minded to grant planning permission subject to
the conditions stated below on completion of such a legal agreement,
-
that authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application to be issued (subject to the
conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned agreement,
-
that authority be delegated to the Director of Development Services to refuse the application should
the legal agreement not be entered into by the applicant within a reasonable time scale.
Conditions:
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall undertake an assessment to determine
the noise levels that the residents will be subjected to (daytime and nightime). The developer shall
detail what steps are to be taken to mitigate the disturbance from the above. The assessment shall have
due regard to Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 'Planning and Noise'. The assessment and proposed
mitigation measures shall be submitted for the approval of the Director of Development Services and
any such measures as are approved shall be implemented in full prior to any occupation of the
apartments. The assessment shall address the noise from Blackfriars Road and St Stephen Street.
3. No development shall commence until a scheme for disabled car parking, cycle and motorcycle parking
provision has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.
Such details as are approved shall be implemented in full and made available at all times prior to the
occupation of any apartment.
4. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within 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.
5. Replacement tree parking shall be at the rate of two replacement trees (a total of 42 trees) for every tree
removed from the site.
6. No development shall be started until samples of all new facing materials to be used for the
development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
3. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Historical maps show that prior to the existing development the north west of the site was previously
occupied by unknown buildings. The degree and type of remediation that took place over the areas
where the previous buildings were demolished prior to levelling is not known. A variety of materials
may have been used for backfilling cellars and voids at the time of demolition and hence it cannot be
discounted that potentially contaminated materials could have been brought onto the site for this
purpose. Once earthworks commence, should operatives discover any adverse ground conditions and
suspect it to be contaminated, then they should report this to the Site Manager. Works in that location
should cease and the problem area should be roped off until representative soil samples from the area
sent for analysis and the results assessed by the Director of Environmental Services, who can advise on
appropriate action.
2. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under Section 106
of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, prior to the granting of planning permission.
3. The attention of the applicant is drawn to the attached letter from the Greater Manchester Police
Architectural Liaison Unit.
APPLICATION No:
03/45620/FUL
APPLICANT:
Nuttall Construction Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By Eccles New Road And Weaste Road Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a part three/part four/part five storey building comprising
72, two and three bedroomed self-contained apartments together with
associated creation of new access and alterations to an existing access.
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to vacant land 0.65 hectares in size on the corner of Eccles New Road and Weaste
Road, immediately to the rear of the Weaste metro stop. It has a frontage of approximately 100m and
extends back approximately 60m at its deepest. The residential terraced dwellings of Belmont Street back
onto the eastern boundary of the site and the flats of Hyndman Court are situated to the west on the opposite
side of Weaste Road. The railway line runs parallel to the northern boundary and there is also a single
property 10 Foster Street which stands adjacent to the northern boundary.
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
The proposal is to erect 72 apartments within a part three, part four storey block. This would include 36 two
bed apartments, and 16 three bed, four two bed and 8, three bed duplexes, 4 two beds with bed deck and 4,
three bed with bed decks. The block would extend across the frontage of the site by 88m and return around
each corner by 48m parallel to Weaste Road and 43m parallel to the eastern boundary and the properties of
Belmont Street. The majority of the block fronting Eccles New Road and Weaste Road would be four
storey (approximately 13m high) with some accommodation within the roof and reducing to three storey
(approximately 11m high) towards Belmont Street. This section would stand between 21 – 25.4m from the
properties on Belmont Street whilst the section parallel to Weaste Road would stand 28 – 34m from the
properties of Hyndman Court. There would be a detached smaller block at the rear of the site and adjacent
to the access point to Foster Street which would be three storey with fourth storey accommodation within
the roof. Access to the site would be off Foster Street. A total of 60 parking spaces including 6 disabled
spaces would be provided with three cycle stores.
The site is currently in Council ownership but as part of the sale of the land the applicant has agreed to
provide £30,000 which would be used to improve the play facilities within the local area.
In support of the application the applicant has submitted the following statement.
“The design decision was to create a high density urban residential development where the site is
dominated by buildings, and hard landscaping within the courtyard yet softened by grassed areas and trees
to the frontages of Eccles New Road and Weaste Road forming a buffer from the Metrolink.
The layout has been designed to maximise the frontages of Eccles New Road and Weaste Road and returned
at the eastern end of the site to reflect the linear street pattern of existing properties along Belmont Street.
The primarily four storey development reduced to three storey towards the eastern boundary to respect the
2 storey dwellings fronting onto Belmont Street. The setting out of buildings on the site takes into account
minimum overlooking distances from existing residential properties.
The continuous elevations are broken with set backs, varying eaves and contrasting brickwork providing a
traditional looking development with contemporary detailing and proportions.
Car parking is positioned within the courtyard area and evenly distributed throughout the site. The low car
space/flat ratio reflects the proximity of the Metrolink station and other available public transport links to
the site.”
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – recommends that a noise survey and site investigation are undertaken
prior to the commencement of development.
Greater Manchester Country Fire Service – hydrants should be provided at the developers expense to
ensure that no property is further than 165m from the nearest hydrant.
Environment Agency – no objections in principle but request a condition be attached to any permission for
a desk study to assess the risk of on-site contamination.
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Officer – recommends that the site is defined by the erection of
boundary treatment and that recessed entrances are removed or reduced.
Railtrack – no comments received.
The Coal Authority –
GMPTE – no comments received.
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published at the start of March.
A site notice was displayed on 27 February 2003.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
1 – 28 Belmont Street
1 – 29 Hyndman Court Eccles New Road
10 Foster Street
22 and 27 Thornfield Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified
are as follows:
Size of site not large enough for the number of units proposed.
Aesthetic consideration and visual impact of four storey development
Inadequate parking provision
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H9/9 Sites for New Housing
Other policies: DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, H6 and H11 Open Space provision within
new housing developments
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site Specific policies: H9/23 Sites for New Housing
Other policies: DES1 Respecting context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES7 Amenity of users and
neighbours, DES11 Design and Crime, DES13 Design Statements, H8 Open Space Provision Associated
with New Housing Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The site is allocated for housing under policy H9 of both the adopted and the draft UDP and it is considered
that the redevelopment of this site for housing will “help to consolidate the residential character of the
surrounding area”. I am therefore satisfied that the principle of residential on this site is acceptable and it is
the detailed issues in particular relating to the impact upon the adjacent residents that are an important
consideration for this proposal.
I have received one letter of objection from a resident who is concerned about the size of the site in relation
to the number of units proposed. In response to this issue, central government are encouraging a greater
usage of brownfield sites and also an increased density on sites. If all aspects of the proposal can be
satisfied relating to separation distances and parking provision for example, it could be considered that the
site is of sufficient size. It is the proposal as a whole that must be considered and that would determine if the
size of the site is acceptable.
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
Another concern, and related to the above, is the level of parking provision which they consider to be
inadequate. Sixty spaces have been provided on the site for the 72 apartments. In PPG13 government
advocate a maximum level of provision of an average of 1.5 spaces per dwelling but also accept and
advocate that in highly accessible locations this figure can be reduced. This site is situated immediately to
the rear of the Weaste Metrolink stop and Eccles New Road is also a main arterial route into Eccles with
several bus services operating along it. The applicant has also amended the plans to include disabled
parking provision and cycle store provision. I therefore consider this site to be one such site that is highly
accessible and consequently the reduced provision of 60 spaces is acceptable and in accordance with
government guidance.
Finally, the objector is concerned about the visual impact of a four storey development. This section of
Eccles New Road is characterised by a mix of buildings and heights; there are the existing three storey flats
to the west, and the former depot building on the opposite side of Eccles New Road. The applicant has also
submitted level details and a street scape which demonstrates that the proposed development would be 3m
higher than the adjacent flats of Hyndman Court. The block has been broken up along the site frontage with
set backs and varying roof heights and interest has been introduced through the use of different bricks to
accentuate different aspects of the design. The block would also be set back between 5 – 8m from the
frontage. With all these design details, although the building would be large and prominent I am satisfied
that the proposal is acceptable and would not have a significant detrimental impact up the street scene or the
neighbouring residents. Development further along Eccles New Road to the east is also four storey and
therefore it would not be out of context with the wider area.
The site is heavily contaminated and the developer has proposed 72 dwellings on the site in part to justify
the necessary remediation costs involved. Notwithstanding this, I consider that a development has been
proposed that would result in a high quality development which would provide a landmark along Eccles
New Road. The apartment blocks have been set back from the road frontage and the area is characterised by
a variety of property types and heights. It would not have a significant detrimental impact upon the amenity
of neighbouring residents as it has been designed with acceptable separation distances and I consider that it
would be a significant improvement upon the current vacant and somewhat overgrown site.
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 roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
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. Standard Condition M03 Contaminated land
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
5. The developer shall undertake an assessment to determine the external noise levels that the residents
will be submitted to (daytime and night). The developer shall detail what steps are to be taken to
mitigate the disturbance from the above. The assessment should have due regard to Department of the
Environment Guidance PPG24 - Planning and Noise and BS4142 - Rating industrial noise affecting
mixed residential and industrial areas. The assessment and mitigation measures shall be submitted for
the approval of the Development Services prior to the approval of the application. Any approved
mitigation measures are to be implemented prior to occupation. The assessment shall address the noise
from the nearby roads (Eccles New Road, Weaste Road and M602), railway and industrial units.
(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
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached letters from the Greater Manchester Fire Service dated
13th March 2003 and the Environment Agency dated 19 March 2003.
2. The permission relates to the amended plans received on the 3 April 2003 which shows the removal of
a lounge window on the block on the corner of Eccles New Road and to the rear of the properties on
Belmont Street in the south eastern corner of the site.
APPLICATION No:
03/45647/FUL
APPLICANT:
Space
LOCATION:
Land Between Trinity Way And St Stephen Street Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Erection of one part four/part five storey building with basement
comprising 28 flats together with associated car parking and
construction of new vehicular access
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
This application relates to a prominent site on Trinity Way, close to the junction with Chapel Street. The
site is bounded by Trinity Way to the east, St Stephen Street to the west, a car parking area and a two storey
office block, Trinity Court, to the north and the New Harvest Christian Fellowship Church to the south (the
former Salford Cinema which is a Grade II listed building).
The site is 24m deep, has a 23m frontage to Trinity Way and a 35m frontage to St Stephen Street. A small
part of the application site is currently laid out as car parking and is used by the existing office block. The
remainder of the site is currently vacant except for two advertisement hoardings.
It is proposed to construct a part four/part five storey building, with four storeys at the interface with the
former Salford Cinema in order to lessen the impact on the setting of the listed building. A total of 28
apartments is proposed. The main pedestrian entrance to the building will be from Trinity Way, with a
second entrance from St Stephen Street. It is proposed to provide a total of 10 car parking spaces located at
the lower ground floor level. Vehicular access would be from St Mary’s Street, a narrow unadopted alley to
the rear of the Church, which also serves as access to a car parking area owned by the Church.
SITE HISTORY
In February 2003 an application for the erection of a five storey block of 33 apartments together with the
creation of new vehicular access was refused (02/45224/FUL). The reasons for refusal were as follows:
‘The proposed development would, by virtue of its scale and massing, have an unacceptable
detrimental impact on the adjacent properties and as such is contrary to Policy DEV1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.’
‘Insufficient provision is made for the parking of vehicles within the curtilage of the site. As such,
the proposal is contrary to Policy T13 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.’
In October 2001 an outline application for a new apartment building and the creation of means of access
from St Stephen Street was approved (01/42793/OUT).
In April 1999 planning permission was refused to use the land as car parking (99/39104/FUL)
In September 1990 planning permission was granted for the erection of a two storey office block (E/26152).
A further permission for a slightly larger development was approved in June 1992 (E/29655).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections in principle, subject to conditions relating to noise
attenuation and site investigations.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – advice provided
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 6th March 2003
A site notice was displayed on 12th March 2003
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:
New Harvest Christian Fellowship, 196 – 208 (E) Chapel Street
1 – 9 Sackville Street
Depot, Edmund Street
6 & 8 Trinity Court, St Stephen Street
6 & 8 St Stephen Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received four letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:
Loss of car parking for the adjacent church and office building
Increase in vehicles during construction
Increase in traffic in the area
Impact of the proposed building on the adjacent office
Insufficient car parking
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EC14/1 - Improvement Proposals
CS1 – Trinity
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV4 – Design and Crime
T13 – Car Parking
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY:
Site specific policies: MX1/2 – Development in Mixed Use Areas (Chapel Street West)
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES11 – Design and Crime
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EC14/1 states that the City Council will seek improvements to the Chapel Street industrial and
commercial area.
Policy CS1 states that the City Council will continue its programme of refurbishment and renewal and that
emphasis will be placed on providing enhanced standards of residential accommodation.
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when determining
applications. These factors include the amount of parking provision, noise, the relationship to existing
buildings, the effect on neighbouring properties and the visual appearance of the development.
Policy T13 requires the provision of adequate and appropriate car parking to meet the needs of new
development.
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
Policy MX1 of the First Deposit UDP identifies a number of locations to be developed as vibrant mixed use
areas with a broad range of uses and activities. The application site is located within the Chapel Street West
area for the purposes of this policy. Housing is identified as an appropriate use within such areas. The policy
continues to state that regard will be had to a number of factors, including the use on adjoining sites and the
extent to which the proposed development would support the objective of maintaining a mix and balance of
uses throughout the area.
Policy DES1 of the First Deposit UDP requires development to respond to its physical context and outlines
a number of factors to which regard should be had when assessing whether applications for planning
permission comply with this policy. These include the relationship to existing buildings and the scale of the
proposed development in relation to its surroundings.
Policy DES11 of the First Deposit UDP states that development will not be permitted unless it is designed
to discourage crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime and support personal and property security.
Policy A10 of the First Deposit UDP states that developments should not exceed the maximum car parking
standards set out in Appendix 3 of the UDP.
I will deal with each of the objections in turn. Firstly, I do not consider that the development of this site
would have an unacceptable effect upon the amount of parking that is available for the Church. None of the
land to which this application relates is owned or controlled by the Church. I consider St Mary’s Street to be
an appropriate location for the vehicular entrance to the proposed building. The existing offices to the north
of the application site have benefitted in the past from the use of parking laid out in anticipation of one of
the office developments referred to above being implemented. These office developments have not been
implemented. The occupiers of the existing offices were aware that the additional car parking spaces were
not provided for their own sole use. I have no objections to the application on highway grounds.
In relation to the issue of noise and disturbance caused during construction, this is an inevitable
consequence of any development. However, as this will be for only a relatively short space of time and is
necessary for the redevelopment of the site, I do not consider this to be an issue on which I can place much
weight.
In terms of concerns relating to the increase in traffic in the area, I consider this to be an inevitable
consequence of the majority of new developments. However, in this instance, the increase will only be
relatively slight and would not be detrimental to the surrounding area. There are parking restrictions on the
streets surrounding the application site and an appropriate level of parking would be provided as part of the
proposed development. I do not therefore consider that on street parking will increase as a result if this
application.
The main issue to be addressed in the determination of this application relates to whether the applicant has
addressed the reasons for refusal of the previous application in February 2003, namely the impact on the
adjacent properties and car parking provision. Clearly both reasons must be adequately addressed in order
for the application to be approved. I will deal with each in turn below.
In relation to the impact of the proposed development on the adjoining properties, I do not consider that the
building would have a detrimental impact on either Trinity Court or would harm the setting of Victory
Chapel by virtue of its scale or massing. Prior to approving an earlier outline application for residential
development on the site in October 2001, Members visited the site and, based on an indicative drawing
submitted with the application, decided that the lower part of the building should be at the interface with
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
Trinity Court. However, this application is an entirely different scheme submitted by a different applicant.
It is essential that the lower part of the building is located at the interface with the Victory Chapel to
minimise any potential detrimental impact. It is important to note that Trinity Court is an office building and
not residential accommodation. Occupiers of office space cannot reasonably or realistically expect the same
level of amenity as residential occupiers who undoubtedly require, and should be afforded, a certain level of
privacy and amenity and I consider that this has been achieved by this proposal.
Since the refusal of the earlier application in February 2003, the applicant has made a number of
amendments to the scheme to address this reason for refusal. The total number of apartments has been
reduced from 33 to 28. These apartments have been omitted at every floor on the interface with Trinity
Court. The height of the proposed building at the interface with Trinity Court has been reduced from 18m to
16.5m.
Turning to car parking provision, Members will no doubt be aware of the Government’s aim to reduce
reliance on the car and to reduce car parking provision within new developments. Planning Policy Guidance
Note 13: Transport, issued in 2000, outlines the Government’s advice on car parking. It states that local
authorities should not require developers to provide more car parking spaces than they themselves wish,
other than in exceptional circumstances, for example where there would be significant road safety issues.
Members will also be aware of the replacement Regional Planning Guidance for the North West, RPG13,
produced earlier this month, Appendix 4 of which encourages local authorities to adopt lower car parking
standards for residential development within urban conurbation areas.
The Council’s car parking standards of 1.25 spaces per apartment are currently being updated to reflect
PPG13 as part of the revision of the UDP. I therefore consider the standards within PPG13 and the First
Deposit UDP to be more appropriate to this application. The First Deposit UDP requires a maximum of
1.25 spaces per dwelling and Policy A10 of the First Deposit UDP states that developments must not exceed
this standard. The number of car parking spaces proposed is now 10, which is a similar ratio to that
previously refused. Given the location of the site in close proximity to public transport links and to
Manchester City Centre and the facilities therein, I consider the proposed level of car parking to be entirely
appropriate and in accordance with both national, regional and local planning policy. I consider that this
therefore addresses the second reason for refusal of the previous application.
In conclusion, I consider the proposal to be acceptable. The height, scale and massing are all appropriate to
this location and are in keeping with the Chapel Street area and other recent developments therein. I am not
of the opinion that the development would have an adverse impact on any of the surrounding properties. In
particular, I consider it essential that the lower part of the proposed building is located closest to the Chapel,
in order to minimise the impact on this listed building. There are no residential properties in close proximity
to the site. I consider that the reduction in height of the proposed building and the increase in car parking
spaces have addressed both reasons for refusal of the previous application. The redevelopment of this site is
of course preferable to the present situation where the site is vacant, unattractive and detracts from the area.
Indeed, I consider that the redevelopment of the site would greatly enhance the area. In addition, the legal
agreement will bring about a variety of improvements to the area, and whilst the details of these
improvements have not yet been agreed, such works will be carried out within the vicinity of the application
site.
The application accords with all relevant aspects of national, regional and local planning policy and I
therefore recommend that, subject to the following conditions, permission be granted.
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
RECOMMENDATION
-
that the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under Section
106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the payment of a commuted sum for, and
implementation of, environmental improvements in the local area to the value of £28,000;
-
that the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded to grant planning permission, subject
to the conditions stated below, on completion of such legal agreement;
-
that authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application be issued, (subject to the
conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned legal agreement,
-
that authority be given to refuse the application if the applicant fails to complete the S106
agreement within a reasonable period on the grounds that the proposals do not support the aim and
objectives of the Chapel Street Regeneration Project.
Conditions:
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
3. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 19th March 2003 which shows windows
in the west elevation.
4. The developer shall undertake an assessment to determine the external noise levels that the residents
will be subject to (daytime and night). The developer shall detail what steps are to be taken to mitigate
the disturbance from the above. The assessment shall have due regard to the Department of the
Environment Guidance PPG24 - Planning and Noise. The assessment and mitigation measures shall be
submitted and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the
commencement of development and any mitigation measures are to be implemented in full prior to
occupation of any unit.
5. The Developer shall undertake an assessment to determine the external noise levels that the residents
will be subjected to (daytime and night). The developer shall detail what steps are to be taken to
mitigate the disturbance from the above. The assessment should have due regard to Department of the
Environment Guidance PPG 24 - Planning and Noise. The assessment and mitigation measures shall
be submitted for the approval of Development Services prior to the approval of the application. Any
approved mitigation measures are to be implemented prior to occupation. The assessment shall address
the noise from the nearby roads (Trinity Way, Chapel Street, and Saint Stephen Street/Browning
Street).
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
3. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
4. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under Section 106
of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, prior to the granting of planning permission.
APPLICATION No:
03/45651/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 three detached
dwellings and one detached bungalow together with alteration to
existing vehicular access
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land at St Mark’s Church Hall, Edge Fold Road, Worsley. The site is bounded by
Edge Fold Road to the north, a footpath to the west with residential properties beyond and residential
properties to the south and east. The church hall has been vacant for some time and is beginning to detract
from the appearance of the surrounding area.
It is proposed to demolish the church hall and erect three detached properties fronting Edge Fold Road and
a bungalow at the rear of the site. Alterations will also be made to the existing vehicular access. Access to
the bungalow would be achieved via a driveway to the east of the dwelling at plot three, which would run
along the eastern boundary of the site.
Since submitting the application, a number of fundamental and important amendments have been made to
the scheme in order to address both my concerns and the concerns of local residents. The application
originally proposed three no. three storey dwellings fronting Edge Fold Road, each with a dormer window
at the rear, as well as a bungalow at the rear of the site. It was felt however that as these would be
significantly higher than the existing church hall and surrounding residential properties, the dwellings
would be overbearing and out of character with the surrounding area. The three dwellings have therefore
been reduced to two storeys. A fourth bedroom and a bathroom will be accommodated within the roof
space, with roof lights on the rear roof slope of each of the three properties.
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
The eaves and ridge height of the three dwellings would be 5m and 8.7m respectively compared to 5.2m and
8.2m respectively for 15 Edge Fold Road, adjacent to the application site. The ridge height of the dwellings
now proposed is 0.2m higher than the existing church hall.
The bungalow proposed to the rear of the site would be 6m closer to the rear of 44 Maple Grove than the
existing church hall. However, there remains a distance of 22.8m between the facing habitable windows of
the proposed bungalow and No. 44. The ridge height of the proposed bungalow would be 0.4m lower than
the ridge height of 44 Maple Grove.
It is proposed to erect a 1.8m high close boarded fence with timber posts at the boundary of the site with the
adjacent footpath. The boundaries between the plots would formed by 0.9m high facing brickwork walls.
A number of trees on the eastern and southern boundaries of the site are protected by a Tree Preservation
Order. It is proposed to fell a total of three trees, two limes and an elder. However, the trees to be felled are
not covered by the TPO and are not in good condition.
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).
The applicants appealed the decision, but the appeal was dismissed in
In June 2002, planning permission was refused for the erection of one detached dwelling, two
semi-detached dwellings and one three storey building comprising six flats together with associated car
parking and landscaping (ref: 01/43469/FUL).
In May 2002 an application for the erection of two storey building comprising 12 flats with associated car
parking was submitted. This was withdrawn in July 2002 (ref: 02/44168/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
6 Ainsley Grove
51 Bickershaw Drive
29, 57, 60, 78 Broadway
59 East Lancs Road
3 Shaving Lane
1, 3, 2-26 (E), 15-27 (O), 8A, 36, 37, 50, 52, Edge Fold Road
2, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 29, 34-38 (E), 37-41 (O), 18-26 (E), 40-58 (E) Maple Grove
2-40 (E) St Mark’s Crescent
24 Grange Road
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
11 Valdene Drive
206, 248, 131, 133, 159, 127, 109, 111, 153, 218 Walkden Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a total of fourteen letters of objection in response to the application as first submitted. The
main issues identified are as follows:
The proposal would be over-development
Three of the proposed dwellings would be three storeys in height and higher than surrounding
properties
The design of the dwellings would not be in keeping with the appearance of the area
The development would result in loss of privacy for neighbouring residents
The adjacent footpath will become darker as a result of the proposed development
Residents have been notified of amended plans and any further representations will be reported verbally.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
EN7 – Conservation of Trees and Woodland
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY:
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
EN10 – Protected Trees
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 of the adopted UDP outlines a number of criteria under which applications for planning
permission are assessed. Of relevance to this application are the location of the proposed development,
including its relationship to existing and proposed land uses, the size and density of the proposed
development, the layout and relationship of existing and proposed buildings and the effect on sunlight,
daylight and privacy for neighbouring properties.
Policy DEV2 relates to good design and states that when granting permission, the Council must be satisfied
with the quality of design and the appearance of the development. Developments should have regard to the
character of the surrounding area.
Policy EN7 encourages the retention of trees, particularly those which are mature or semi-mature.
Policy DES1 of the First Deposit UDP requires development to respond to its physical context. It also sets
out a number of factors to which regard should be had in assessing whether applications comply with this
policy, including the relationship to existing buildings and the scale of the proposed development in
relationship to its surroundings.
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
Policy EN10 states that development which would result in the unacceptable loss of, or damage to,
protected trees will not be permitted.
As the application has been significantly amended to address the concerns of local residents, the majority of
the letters of objection I have received are no longer applicable, as they relate to the erection of three storey
properties on the Edge Fold Road frontage and it is now proposed to erect three two storey dwellings
instead. I consider the heights of the proposed dwellings to be consistent with the heights of existing
properties and believe them to be acceptable and appropriate given the location.
I do not consider that the proposed development would constitute over-development of the site. Following
amendments to the internal layout of the proposed bungalow, there is now sufficient distance between the
proposed two storey dwellings and the bungalow to the rear and between the proposed dwellings and
existing neighbouring properties to ensure that the amenity of both existing and future residents would not
be harmed as a result of this application. The distance between the bungalow and the rear of 44 Maple
Grove is 22.8m, which is in excess of the Council’s adopted standard of 21m. I therefore consider this to be
acceptable and that the proposal would not result in loss of privacy or overlooking. I have however attached
conditions to remove permitted development rights from each of the proposed dwellings in order to ensure
that this remains the case.
I acknowledge that the design of the dwellings originally proposed would not have been in keeping with the
surrounding area, by virtue of their height and general appearance. However, following the amendments, I
consider that the design of the dwellings now proposed is entirely appropriate to this location and respects
the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
In respect of the adjacent footpath, it has been brought to my attention by a local resident that although there
is already lighting in place, it could be improved. It is reasonable to assume that use of the footpath may
increase as a result of the application and, in light of concerns raised by local residents, the applicant has
agreed to provide additional lighting on the footpath. The lighting scheme is to be agreed with the Council’s
street lighting section and implemented prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings. I have attached a
condition to this effect.
It is proposed to fell three trees, two limes and an elder. Whilst the majority of the trees on the site are
TPO’d, the trees which the applicant proposes to fell are not protected. I have visited the site with the
Council’s arboricultural officer, who does not consider the trees to be worthy of protection or indeed
retention. They have been pollarded in the past and are in a relatively poor condition, contributing little to
the amenity or appearance of the area. I therefore have no objection to the felling of these trees. The
Council’s arboricultural officer is also satisfied that there is sufficient distance between the proposed
dwellings and the trees and with the proposed driveway, as it will be ‘no dig’.
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the amendments made to the original submission address my concerns and
those of neighbouring residents. The proposed dwellings would not constitute over-development of the site
and are of a similar height to surrounding properties. Their design is sympathetic to and in keeping with the
appearance of neighbouring dwellings. The application accords with the relevant policies of the
development plan and I therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
3. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
4. Standard Condition C05C No topping etc to Trees protected by TPO
5. Standard Condition C01X Landscaping
6. Notwithstanding the details submitted with the application, full details of the proposed car parking and
driveway including methods of construction and surface treatment shall be submitted to, and agreed in
writing by, the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of development. The
works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
7. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the height and design of the boundary
wall/fence proposed along the western boundary, adjacent to the public footpath shall be submitted to,
and approved in writing by, the Director of Development Services. The wall/fence shall be erected in
accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of any dwelling.
8. Prior to commencement of development, full details of the proposed drainage systems for both surface
water and foul water shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
9. Prior to the commencement of developement a full survey of the building shall be undertaken to
establish whether or not it is being used as a hibernation site, roost or breeding site by bats (Chiroptera).
Should the presence of bats be confirmed no development shall commence until the appropriate licence
has been made to and granted by English Nature for the relocation of the bats.
10. Prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved, the applicant shall submit a scheme for
the lighting of the adjacent footpath to the Director of Development Services. The approved scheme
shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings.
11. Standard Condition M01 Removal of Permitted Development Rights
12. The glazing for the windows on the west elevation of the dwelling at plot 1 shall be obscured, and shall
be maintained thereafter 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. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
4. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. To provide adequate protection for the roots of the surrounding trees, in order to safeguard the amenity
of the area in accordance with Policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
8. To ensure that there is an adequate drainage system provided, in the interests of the amenity of the
future occupiers and neighbouring residents.
9. To safeguard a protected species.
10. To safeguard the amenity of existing and future residents, in accordance with Policy DEV1 of the City
of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
11. Standard Reason R037A Additional measure of control
12. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is advised to contact United Utilities regarding connection to the exiting sewer.
2. The applicant is advised that floor levels below road level will be vulnerable to flooding.
3. The lighting provided in the scheme should be erected and directed so as to avoid nuisance to
residential accommodation in close proximity. Guidance can be obtained from the Institute of Lighting
Engineers which relates to these matters (Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution). I
would recommend the lighting be designed to provide a standard maintained illumination (LUX) of
between 5 and 20 LUX with the lower level being the preferable one.
APPLICATION No:
03/45652/LBC
APPLICANT:
Start In Salford Arts Project
LOCATION:
Brunswick House Broad Street Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Listed Building Consent for internal alterations and minor elevational
changes
WARD:
Pendleton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
This application relates to Brunswick House, Broad Street, Salford 6. The property was used as offices by
TPAS (Tenant Participation Advisory Service) until May 2002 and has been vacant since. The building is
Grade II listed and some areas are currently in a poor state of repair.
It is proposed to change the use of the property from offices to an arts facility with multi-media studios,
workshops and offices. The application also involves a number of external alterations. On the west
elevation, it is proposed to remove the existing ground floor roller shutter and door, block up the entrance
and render to match the existing stone. A new window is to be installed with a cast stone cill to match the
existing. On the ground floor of the east elevation, it is proposed to repair the areas of damaged brickwork
and render to match the existing stone. Due to the poor condition of part of the external wall, it is proposed
to re-build the central part of this elevation as block cavity wall and again render to match the existing stone.
It is proposed to install three new windows and a double door in this elevation with cast stone cills to match
the existing. On the north elevation it is proposed to install a canopy and roller shutter above the door along
with a disabled access ramp and landing.
The applicant, Start in Salford, is an organisation which offers relief through arts-based activity for people
in the Salford area who suffer from, or are at risk of suffering from, mental health problems, as well as other
members of the general community. The applicant’s current premises at Gloucester Mill, Gloucester Street,
Pendleton are no longer suitable to sustain its activities. The City Council has therefore agreed to purchase
Brunswick House on its behalf as part of the New Deal for Communities Initiative. The proposed hours of
opening are 9am to 10pm seven days per week. It is anticipated that a total of nine members of staff will be
employed, with seven being transferred from Gloucester Mill, along with two new members. There is an
existing car park accessed off Higham View. An application for planning permission has also been
submitted and appears elsewhere on this agenda.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was posted on 19th March 2003
A press notice was published on 6th March 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
50-60 (E), 62-72 (E), 72A Broad Street
1-11 (O) Higham View
20-34 (E) Gardener Street
15, 2-20 (E) Upper Gloucester Street
2-12 (E) Gloucester Place
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter in response to application publicity from Walk the Plank, an arts organisation
based on Broad Street, offering support for the application.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
Other policies: EN12 – Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY:
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: CH2 – Works to Listed Buildings
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EN12 states that the Council will not normally permit any development which would detract from
the architectural and historic character of a listed building. It also seeks to ensure that any alterations are in
keeping with the character of the building and encouraging new uses for buildings.
Policy CH2 of the First Deposit UDP states that proposals involving the alteration or change of use of a
listed building will only be permitted where they would preserve or enhance the character and features of
the building. Changes of use will only be permitted where the original use is no longer feasible or where a
new use is required to secure the long-term future of the building.
I consider the main issues in the determination of this application to be the appropriateness of the proposed
external alterations. These are intended to restore the building and to improve security and access. The east
elevation is currently in an extremely poor condition and detracts from the appearance of the listed building.
At some time in the past, the ground floor external wall has been demolished and reconstructed using brick,
which is not in keeping with the remainder of the building and is an incongruous feature. The proposed
works to this elevation would result in its repair and would improve its appearance by matching the colour
of the render to the existing stone. The applicant has indicated that once the facility is up and running, it will
wish to extend the building from the east and therefore the rendering treatment should be seen only as a
temporary measure. Whilst I accept that this cannot be afforded significant weight in the determination of
this application, I feel it is an important point to note. All the new windows will have cast stone cills to
match the existing windows, and I therefore consider these to be appropriate. The disabled access ramp and
landing are required to allow adequate access for those staff and visitors of limited mobility. The proposed
roller shutter would improve security and as it is not located on the main elevation of the building, and as
the application would result in the re-use of the building, I consider it to be acceptable in this instance. I
have attached a condition requiring the colour of the proposed to be agreed in order to ensure that it respects
the character and appearance of the listed building.
In conclusion, the proposal would bring the building back into use. Necessary repairs would be undertaken
and the application would result in improvements to the appearance and the security of the listed building.
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 repairs to the east elevation of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing
by the Director of Development Services.
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
3. Standard Condition D05B Colour treatment
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R038 Section 18
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
03/45654/COU
APPLICANT:
Start In Salford Arts Project
LOCATION:
Brunswick House Broad Street Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from offices to arts facility with multi-media studios,
workshops and offices
WARD:
Pendleton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Brunswick House, Broad Street, Salford 6. The property was used as offices by
TPAS (Tenant Participation Advisory Service) until May 2002 and has been vacant since. The building is
Grade II listed and some areas are currently in a poor state of repair.
It is proposed to change the use of the property from offices to an arts facility with multi-media studios,
workshops and offices. The application also involves a number of external alterations. On the west
elevation, it is proposed to remove the existing ground floor roller shutter and door, block up the entrance
and render to match the existing stone. A new window is to be installed with a cast stone cill to match the
existing. On the ground floor of the east elevation, it is proposed to repair the areas of damaged brickwork
and render to match the existing stone. Due to the poor condition of part of the external wall, it is proposed
to re-build the central part of this elevation as block cavity wall and again render to match the existing stone.
It is proposed to install three new windows and a double door in this elevation with cast stone cills to match
the existing. On the north elevation it is proposed to install a canopy and roller shutter above the door along
with a disabled access ramp and landing.
The applicant, Start in Salford, is an organisation which offers relief through arts-based activity for people
in the Salford area who suffer from, or are at risk of suffering from, mental health problems, as well as other
members of the general community. The applicant’s current premises at Gloucester Mill, Gloucester Street,
Pendleton are no longer suitable to sustain its activities. The City Council has therefore agreed to purchase
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
Brunswick House on its behalf as part of the New Deal for Communities Initiative. The proposed hours of
opening are 9am to 10pm seven days per week. It is anticipated that a total of nine members of staff will be
employed, with seven being transferred from Gloucester Mill, along with two new members. There is an
existing car park accessed off Higham View. An application for Listed Building Consent has also been
submitted and appears elsewhere on this agenda.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
50-60 (E), 62-72 (E), 72A Broad Street
1-11 (O) Higham View
20-34 (E) Gardener Street
15, 2-20 (E) Upper Gloucester Street
2-12 (E) Gloucester Place
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter in response to application publicity from Walk the Plank, an arts organisation
based on Broad Street, offering support for the application.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
EN12 – Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY:
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
CH2 – Works to Listed Buildings
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria against which applications are assessed. Of most relevance to
this application is the visual appearance of the proposed development.
Policy EN12 states that the Council will not normally permit any development which would detract from
the architectural and historic character of a listed building. It also seeks to ensure that any alterations are in
keeping with the character of the building and encouraging new uses for buildings.
Policy DES1 of the First Deposit UDP requires development to respond to its physical context. It states that
where there is no discernable or well-developed local character or distinctiveness, developments are
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
required to adopt high standards of design which ensure that the proposed development is appropriate to the
nature, setting, culture and community of the local area.
Policy CH2 of the First Deposit UDP states that proposals involving the alteration or change of use of a
listed building will only be permitted where they would preserve or enhance the character and features of
the building. Changes of use will only be permitted where the original use is no longer feasible or where a
new use is required to secure the long-term future of the building.
I consider the main issues in the determination of this application to be the appropriateness of the proposed
use and proposed external alterations. In terms of the use, I consider this to be appropriate. The property has
been vacant for almost a year and has become dilapidated in parts. This application would ensure the
ongoing occupation and maintenance of the listed building and would be of direct benefit to members of the
local community. Sufficient car parking is already in place and I have no objections to the application on
highway grounds. I therefore consider that this satisfies the relevant policies of both the adopted and first
deposit UDPs.
The proposed external alterations are intended to restore the building and to improve security and access.
The east elevation is currently in an extremely poor condition and detracts from the appearance of the listed
building. At some time in the past, the ground floor external wall has been demolished and reconstructed
using brick, which is not in keeping with the remainder of the building and is an incongruous feature. The
proposed works to this elevation would result in its repair and would improve its appearance by matching
the colour of the render to the existing stone. The applicant has indicated that once the facility is up and
running, it will wish to extend the building from the east and therefore the rendering treatment should be
seen only as a temporary measure. Whilst I accept that this cannot be afforded significant weight in the
determination of this application, I feel it is an important point to note. All the new windows will have cast
stone cills to match the existing windows, and I therefore consider these to be appropriate. The disabled
access ramp and landing are required to allow adequate access for those staff and visitors with mobility
problems. The proposed roller shutter would improve security and as it is not located on the main elevation
of the building, and as the application would result in the re-use of the building, I consider it to be
acceptable in this instance. I have attached a condition requiring the colour of the proposed to be agreed in
order to ensure that it respects the character and appearance of the listed building.
In conclusion, the proposal would bring the building back into use. Necessary repairs would be undertaken
and the application would result in improvements to the appearance and the security of the listed building.
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 repairs to the east elevation of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing
by the Director of Development Services.
3. The roller shutter 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.
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
03/45658/FUL
APPLICANT:
Swinton Moorside Cricket Club
LOCATION:
Swinton Moorside Cricket Club Moorside Park Deansway Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4m high boundary fencing
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the Swinton Moorside Cricket Club, that is located within Moorside Park. The
proposal is to erect security fencing around the northern and western boundaries. The Club are proposing
2.4m high weld mesh along the northern boundary where it is alongside the footpath through the park. It is
proposed to erect 2.4m high palisade fencing on the western boundary where there is a row of trees inside
the ground and landscaping outside the ground, within the park itself. Both sections of fencing would be
colour treated.
SITE HISTORY
In 1999, planning permission was granted for a new changing room for the Club(ref. 99/39183/FUL).
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 21 March 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
1-7 (odd), 17 & 19 Deansway
22, 24, 33 & 35 Heywood Street
1-7 (odd) Minstrel Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 1 letter in support of the proposal.
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV4 – Design and Crime
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES11 – Crime and Design
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV4 seeks to encourage greater consideration of crime prevention and security and the Council would
have regard to the position and height of fencing. The Deposit Draft Replacement UDP states that crime
prevention measures should not be at the expense of the overall design quality.
The existing fence around the cricket ground is a chain link fence in a poor state of repair so the Club wish
to replace it with a more secure form of boundary fencing. The more visible boundary is the northern
boundary and it is proposed to erect the weld mesh fencing here. I am satisfied that this would be of a
suitable quality of design and would not be detrimental to the visual appearance of the park.
It is proposed to erect palisade fencing along the western boundary, in order to provide greater security. I
have considered the land that surrounds this boundary, in order to ensure that the proposed palisade fence is
not visually detrimental. The inside of the cricket ground has a row of trees close to this fence which would
reduce the impact of the boundary when viewed across the ground. These trees are set in over 1m from the
boundary fence and would be able to be retained on the site. Immediately outside the fence line there is a
whole landscaped area which varies between approximately 1m and 3m depth and is made up of mature
shrubs, bushes and trees. Therefore I would consider that the proposed palisade fence would be very well
screened when viewed from the park and as a consequence I would not consider that it would be detrimental
to the visual appearance of the area.
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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/45659/FUL
APPLICANT:
Wyre Housing Association
LOCATION:
Beechfield House Cutnook Lane Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing care home and erection of a replacement
residential care home together with associated alterations to an existing
access and landscaping
WARD:
Irlam
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Beechfield House which is a single storey elderly persons home on Cutnook
Lane. The existing building is 2.6m high to the eaves and is 6.4m high to the ridge. The building is
constructed of grey bricks with a sloping concrete tile roof. The building is almost a square shape located
centrally within the site apart from one wing that projects to within 8m of Cutnook Lane. Around the
building there are lawned gardens with a number of trees dotted around the site whilst a row of 25 mature
beech trees line the boundary with Cutnook Lane.
Two storey residential properties surround the site to the southeast and northeast, a two storey
Prestbury/Church and school playing fields bound the site to the northwest whilst to the southwest across
Cutnook Lane is a bungalow and two storey residential properties. Most of these surrounding properties
fronting Cutnook Lane are finished in red bricks.
Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing nursing home and replacement with a two
storey building with pitched roof. The proposal would include sixty bedrooms all of which would be
en-suite. Eaves height varies between 4.4m and 6m whilst the maximum ridge height would be 9.2m. There
is some variation of the line of all elevations. Access would be available from all sides to a central internal
quadrangle/garden.
The application has been amended to allow for twenty parking spaces including five disabled spaces.
Amendments also include the retention of the existing vehicular access instead of the creation of a new
vehicular access.
SITE HISTORY
In 1993, Planning permission was granted for alterations to form short stay/day care unit to part of existing
elderley peoples home including new entrance and access ramp and new railings (93/31852/DEEM3).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Environment Agency – No Objections
Social Services – Supports the application
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 13th March 2003
A press notice was published on 20th March 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
1 to 35 odd The De Traffords
22 – 32 even, 27 – 47 odd, 47 A, 47 B, 49 – 59 odd Cutnook Lane
Prestbury, St Joseph the Worker, Cutnook Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 3 letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified are
as follows:
-
Concern over the welfare of the existing residents and their families;
Concern over a two storey building – design and massing,
Concern of the brick and tile colour
Concern over evacuation of residents at first floor level if there is a fire
Concern that a single storey structure was not considered as oppose to a two storey development.
Concern that amenity area is planned but this would not useable by residents therefore a single
storey building could be developed instead.
Concern over the proposed nursing home being nearer to Cutnook Lane than the existing nursing
home.
Concerns over there being inadequate parking and servicing over the existing and proposed
development
Concerns over the loss of trees
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, SC12 Residential Care Homes and
Nursing Homes, SC9 Health Care Facilities
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EHC1 Provision and Improvement of Education, Health and Community Facilities, DES1
Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES4 Relationship of Development to Public
Space, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy SC12 seeks to ensure new residential care facilities are within residential areas, are accessible, have
adequate servicing/parking, provide for amenity space and do not impinge on neighbouring residential
amenity. Policy SC12, DEV1 and DEV2 all require development to respect relationships to surrounding
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
buildings including by its appearance. Policy SC9 seeks an improvement to health care provision within the
City. Policies within the deposit draft replacement plan require the same issues as identified already.
Objection has been raised to the two storey nature of the building. Objection is based upon the belief that
the nursing care home can be expanded and whilst retaining its single storey element. Objection has also
been raised to the expansion of the service by such a degree and of the fact the quadrangle would not be
used by the residents. The applicant has informed me that a single storey replacement or alterations to the
existing building were not put forward because of reasons of costs, in addition to the need for the requested
number of rooms which all needed to be in accordance with the latest healthcare standards which includes
en-suite facilities. I am satisfied that the operation of this improved elderly persons facility by a not for
profit organisation would be in accordance with the aims and thrusts of Policies SC9 and SC12. I am also
satisfied that the provision of lawns surrounding the proposed development and the inner quadrangle will
provide for outside amenity space for residents.
The two storey replacement nursing home would be 24m from the nearest residential property on The De
Traffords, whilst it would be 36m from properties on the opposite side of Cutnook Lane. The minimum
standard distance of the City Council for such development where habitable room windows face other
habitable room windows is 21m, therefore the development is well within the City Councils standards. The
majority of the surrounding properties are two storey and I consider this development to be of an
appropriate scale and mass given its location within the centre of the site. Indeed the proposed nursing home
would be further from Cutnook Lane than at present. The proposed nursing home would be 21m away from
the carriageway of Cutnook Lane rather than the 13m distance at present at its closest point, therefore the
forward building line of the building would be set back. Variation in the building line and roof line help to
give the development character. The applicant intends to use bricks and roof tiles that will blend in with
colours of surroundings buildings, I intend to deal with this matter by way of a condition. A 0.9m high
timber fence would be erected at the Cutnook Lane frontage whilst a 1.8m high timber fence would enclose
the rest of the site. I consider the design, scale and mass of the building to be in keeping with the character
of the surrounding area.
As stated above the application has been amended to retain the existing access thereby retaining the three
large Beech trees that would otherwise be lost. All the Beech trees that form the impressive row of 25 Beech
trees along the frontage of the site with Cutnook Lane will be retained. Three other trees are to be lost as
part of the development, however I am satisfied with this as long as two for one replacements are ensured, I
have attached a condition to this effect. An increased level of parking is to be provided as part of the
development, I am satisfied that the twenty spaces is in accordance with parking standards. He applicant has
advised that all staff and visitors will be encouraged to utilise these parking spaces or alternatively utilise
public transport. I am satisfied with the level of parking provided and I have no highway objections to the
existing entrance being utilised. There are no proposals to update the appearance of the existing sub-station,
as it is in the ownership of united Utilities, however the applicant has requested that this be updated in
keeping with the proposed building.
With regard to the objection on the grounds of welfare to residents I have passed these comments onto the
Director of Social Services who assures me that welfare of residents is of primary importance. I consider
this proposal provides an essential and modern facility for the elderly of the City. I also consider that the
siting, size and design are appropriate to the site and surrounding buildings and uses. I do not consider that
nearby residential amenity will be detrimentally affected by this proposal. I have no highway objections and
as I consider the proposal accords with the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and the first deposit draft
replacement plan I recommend approval.
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
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 walls and roofs
of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
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 twelve 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. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use not less than twenty 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.
5. For each of the trees to be felled, two replacements shall be planted and shall be incorporated into the
landscape scheme as required within condition two above.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/45664/FUL
APPLICANT:
Wyre Housing Association
LOCATION:
Birchfold House Pemberton Street Little Hulton Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing care home and erection of a new two storey
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
residential care home together with associated car parking and
construction of new vehicular access
WARD:
Walkden North
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Birchfold House which is a mixture of two and single storey elderly persons
home on Pemberton Street. The height of the existing building is 9.2m at ridge level of the two storey
elements and 6.6m to the ridge of the single storey elements. The main frontage of the existing building is
40m from Pemberton Street. Around the building there are lawned gardens with a number of trees dotted
around the site.
The site is surrounded by a mixture of uses and structures. The north of the site is bounded by residential
bungalows, with none aspect gables adjoining the common boundary. The eastern side is bounded by an un
adopted alley, which provides the existing access, beyond which is are two storey terrace properties. The
southern boundary consists of terrace properties and a garage on Manchester Road. The majority of
Pemberton Street consists of terrace properties with some single storey elements around the junction of
Blair Avenue.
Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing nursing home and replacement with a two
storey building with pitched roof. The proposal would include sixty bedrooms all of which would be
en-suite. Ridge heights vary between 4.6m and 9.4m. There is some variation of the line of all elevations.
The proposal would provide a private inner court yard accessed from within the proposal.
The application has been amended to allow for twenty parking spaces including five disabled spaces. The
existing access from the un adopted alleyway to the rear of Bridgewater Street would be closed. A new
access would be provided off Pemberton Street.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Environment Agency – No objections
Social Services – Supports the application
PUBLICITY
A press notice was displayed in the Manchester Evening News 5th April 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
1 – 18 Birchfold Close
1 – 8 Blair Avenue
4 – 41 (odd) Bridgewater Street
208 –244 (even) Manchester Road East
2A, 1 – 21 (odd) and 31 – 39 (odd) Pemberton Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received four letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified
are as follows:
Concern over a two storey building – design and massing
Over looking and loss of privacy
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
Loss of light
Concerns over the loss of trees
Retention of a Beech hedge
Site security during construction
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, SC12 Residential Care Homes and
Nursing Homes, SC9 Health Care Facilities
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EHC1 Provision and Improvement of Education, Health and Community Facilities, DES1
Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES4 Relationship of Development to Public
Space, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy SC12 seeks to ensure new residential care facilities are within residential areas, are accessible, have
adequate servicing/parking, provide for amenity space and do not impinge on neighbouring residential
amenity. Policy SC12, DEV1 and DEV2 all require development to respect relationships to surrounding
buildings including by its appearance. Policy SC9 seeks an improvement to health care provision within the
City. Policies within the deposit draft replacement plan require the same issues as identified already.
Objection has been received to the two storey nature of the building and position and relationship to the
existing residential uses. The two storey replacement nursing home would be 16m from the none aspect
gable of the closest bungalow. All other surrounding residential elements which directly front the proposal
would provide in excess of the required 21m separation distance. In fact the properties on Pemberton Street
would maintain a separation distance of 25.4m and 32m to the rear of the properties on Bridgewater Street.
This proposal would condense the footprint of the nursing home into a location central within the site.
Therefore, I do not consider that the proposal would have any detrimental impact upon neighbouring
properties by reason of massing, light or privacy.
Variation in the building line and roof line help to give the development character. The applicant intends to
use bricks and roof tiles that will blend in with colours of surroundings buildings, I intend to deal with this
matter by way of a condition. A 0.9m high timber fence would be erected at the Pemberton Street frontage
whilst a 1.8m high timber fence would enclose the rest of the site. I consider the design, scale and mass of
the building to be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area.
As stated earlier the site has several trees dotted around the site. A total of fifty five trees have been
surveyed on site. Thirty trees would be retained, the majority of which are located along the frontage of
Pemberton Street and the eastern and southern boundaries. Two have been recommended for felling due to
arboricultural reasons. Twenty two would have to be removed to accommodate the proposal an associate
car parking, however I am satisfied with this as long as two for one replacements are ensured, I have
attached a condition to this effect. An increased level of parking is to be provided as part of the
development, I am satisfied that the twenty spaces is in accordance with parking standards. The applicant
has advised that all staff and visitors will be encouraged to utilise these parking spaces or alternatively
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
utilise public transport. I am satisfied with the level of parking provided and I have no highway objections
to the new entrance off Pemberton Street.
I am satisfied that the operation of this improved elderly persons facility by a not for profit organisation
would be in accordance with the aims and thrusts of Policies SC9 and SC12. I am also satisfied that the
provision of lawns surrounding the proposed development and the inner quadrangle will provide for outside
amenity space for residents.
I consider this proposal provides an essential and modern facility for the
elderly of the City. I also consider that the siting, size and design are appropriate to the site and surrounding
buildings and uses. I do not consider that nearby residential amenity will be detrimentally affected by this
proposal. I have no highway objections and as I consider the proposal accords with the Adopted Unitary
Development Plan and the first deposit draft replacement plan I recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
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 walls and roofs
of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
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 twelve 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. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use not less than twenty 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.
5. For each of the trees to be felled, two replacements shall be planted and shall be incorporated into the
landscape scheme as required within condition two above.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/45688/FUL
APPLICANT:
L S Cordwell
LOCATION:
Land To Side Of 24 Half Edge Lane Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of one detached dwelling together with the creation of new
vehicular access
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land (240sq.m) at the side/rear of 24 Half Edge Lane, Eccles. The locality
consists predominantly of large Victorian properties, particularly to the immediate north (Ellesmere Park
Conservation Area), although many have since been converted to nursing homes or flats, and Eccles
telephone exchange (two storeys) adjacent to the west.
The proposal is for the erection of one detached dwelling (two storeys plus attic) together with the creation
of a new vehicular access. The front of the building is set back 9.3metres from the highway and includes
two parking spaces; the applicant has stated that the existing trees will not be affected. The rear of the
building is set back 8.5metres from the neighbours garden, and 23metres from the nearest habitable
window.
SITE HISTORY
In 2002, Outline planning permission was granted for the erection of a detached dwelling (02/44011/OUT).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services
– No objections but recommend a glazing condition
Ellesmere Park Residents Association – No objections subject to highway safety
British Coal
– No comments received
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 6th February 2003.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
17-27(o) Albert Road
5A, 5B Half Edge Lane
1-9(o) Half Edge Lane
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
Eccles Telephone Exchange
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main
issues identified are as follows:
-
Property will overlook neighbours garden
View of trees replaced with bricks & mortar
Proposed building is too overbearing
Loss of pavement
Vehicular movements may cause accidents
New access is too close to British Telecom entrance and a nearby major junction safety risk in
addition to previous accidents
Developers are only interested in monetary matters
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
T13 – Car Parking
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
H2 – Location of New Housing Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy Dev1 provides a range of factors to be considered in determining any application, such as visual
appearance, layout, effect on neighbouring occupants and local environment. Policy Dev2 identifies the
need to ensure the development fits in with the character of the surrounding area and is of an acceptable
quality design. Although it could be said the development is not entirely Victorian in appearance, overall I
consider the proposal to satisfy these policies in terms of scale and general appearance.
The submitted plan shows a conflict between the area to be used for parking and vehicular turning. In this
location it is crucial to ensure that vehicles can enter and leave the site in forward gear. I also consider that
a dropped kerb along the frontage of Half Edge Lane is preferable to kerbed access as proposed, with
particular regard to pedestrian footway access.
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
Objections received relate to privacy/overlooking, scale of the proposed dwelling, and traffic problems
causing compromise to highway safety. The site plan submitted shows the distance as 23metres apart at an
angle, between the rear habitable window of the proposed dwelling and the nearest habitable window at
no.25 Albert Road. No.27 Albert Road has no habitable windows overlooking the proposed dwelling, thus
I consider the issue of privacy to be minimal. I also consider the general size of the building to be
acceptable, given that all surrounding buildings also have similar ridge heights and are two storeys, many
with attics.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. Standard Reason RR14B Insufficient Manoeuvring Space
APPLICATION No:
03/45699/DEMCON
APPLICANT:
Housing Services Directorate
LOCATION:
40-54 Shawcross Street And 17-53 Derg Street Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Prior Notification for the demolition of existing dwellings
WARD:
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This proposal is one of eight applications pending within the Seedley and Langworthy Regeneration Area.
It should be noted that one property remains occupied.
This application relates to the demolition of twenty-six terraced dwellings. All but four properties are under
the control of the ‘Langworthy Cornerstone Regeneration Partnership’. The proposal is to completely
remove the dwellings down to ground level and temporarily grass the site, protected by a barrier/ knee rail.
My Building Control Section would supervise all demolition, to accord with Health and Safety
requirements.
The proposal has been submitted as part of the SRB5 Seedley and Langworthy Initiative. The surrounding
area is entirely residential, and pre-dominantly terraced (early 1900’s). Many of the properties in the
vicinity are vacant and boarded up.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 14th March 2003.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
15, 55 Derg Street
56, 16-54(e) Derg Street
56, 18-38(e) Shawcross Street
27-31(o) Shawcross Street
4 Woodheys Street
REPRESENTATIONS
No objections/ representations.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
H2 – Maintaining and Improving Public Sector Housing
Dev1 – Development Criteria
Dev3, Dev4 – Alterations, Design & Crime
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
ST1 – Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods
ST2 – Housing Supply
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES11 – Design & Crime
H3 – Housing Improvement
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy H2 states that the City Council will seek to maintain and improve public
sector housing by promoting a number of measures including the selective clearance of housing where
appropriate and improving the housing environment through the provision of public open space. The
Seedley & Langworthy Regeneration Partnership proposes the improvement of the Langworthy/ Seedley
area, which has been identified as suffering from a variety of physical, environmental and social problems.
The Department of Environment Circular 10/95 ‘ Planning Controls over Demolition’ provides guidance on
controls over the demolition of buildings. The prior approval of the local planning authority is required for
certain types of demolition. In such cases, a developer must apply to the local planning authority for a
determination of whether their prior approval will be required to the proposed method of demolition and
any proposed restoration of the site.
Demolition of this site will reduce risk of arson, a serious hazard to remaining residents, as well as making
the area more open and reducing risk of crime, which I consider to compliment policy Dev4. No objections
have been made regarding the visual appearance of the site. However I am satisfied that the site aftercare,
comprising of grassing of the site and the positioning of a knee-rail around its perimeter, would not be
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
detrimental to the visual amenity of the locality. All properties identified for demolition are presently
vacant except no.50 Shawcross Street.
The properties are in a poor state of repair and I am satisfied that their demolition is in accordance with
Unitary Development plan policies H2, Dev1 and Dev4.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions:
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be levelled, grassed and surrounded by a knee rail fence within six months of the
commencement of development.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/45705/REM
APPLICANT:
Moylan Homes
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By Phipps Street, Brackley Street And Mountain Street
Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Details of the external appearance of two - four storey buildings
comprising 24 flats together with associated landscaping
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application seeks approval for the external appearance of two four storey buildings comprising twenty
four apartments together with associated landscaping on the site of a vacant depot on land at Mountain
Street/Phipps Street/Brackley Street, Walkden. The surrounding area is predominantly residential, with a
three storey apartment block currently under construction on the opposite side of Mountain Street. There is
an electricity sub station to the east of the site and a depot on the opposite side of Phipps Street.
The outline application for the siting and design of the buildings and the means of access was approved at
the Panel meeting on 6th February 2003 (ref: 02/45212/OUT). It is proposed to demolish the existing
building and to erect two four storey apartment blocks. These would back onto Phipps Street, with the car
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
parking area located between the flats and the existing sub station. It is proposed to provide twenty six car
parking spaces, with vehicular access off Mountain Street and pedestrian access off both Mountain Street
and Brackley Street.
The site is to be enclosed by 1.8m high railings. The buildings would be constructed with red rustic facing
brick with contrasting buff banding, quoins and flat arches. It is proposed to use white PVCu double glazed
windows and concrete slate with red ridge tiles for the roof. The car parking area is to be tarmac, with
concrete block paviors for the amenity and pedestrian circulation areas. The area between the two buildings
and around their perimeter will be gravel. Grass is to be planted over the easement. It is proposed to plant
three rowan trees and three birch trees within the site.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections
Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was posted on 12th March 2003
A press notice published on 13th March 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
31-49 (O) Brackley Street
12, 14, 5, 7 & Abbeyfield House, Mountain Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY:
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria against which applications are assessed. Of most relevance to
this application are the visual appearance of the proposed development and landscaping and open space
provision.
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
Policy DEV2 relates to good design and states that when granting permission, the Council must be satisfied
with the quality of design and the appearance of the development. Developments should have regard to the
character of the surrounding area.
Policy DES1 of the First Deposit UDP requires development to respond to its physical context. It states that
where there is no discernable or well-developed local character or distinctiveness, developments are
required to adopt high standards of design which ensure that the proposed development is appropriate to the
nature, setting, culture and community of the local area.
The principle of residential development on the site has already been established by the approval of the
outline application. The main issues in the determination of this application therefore relate to the
appropriateness of the design and landscaping proposed. The proposed contrasting banding, quoins and flat
arches would add interest to the appearance of the development by introducing a variation in the colour of
the materials of the buildings. The site would be enclosed by 1.8m high railings, which I consider would
enhance the development generally and would not detract from its overall appearance. I consider the level
of landscaping proposed to be adequate given the size and nature of the development.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The lighting provided in the scheme should be erected and directed so as to avoid nuisance to
residential accommodation in close proximity. Guidance can be obtained from the Institute of Lighting
Engineers which relates to these matters (Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution). It is
recommend that the lighting be designed to provide a standard maintained illumination (LUX) of
between 5 and 20 LUX with the lower level being the preferable one.
APPLICATION No:
03/45706/OUT
APPLICANT:
Moylan Homes
LOCATION:
Site B, Land On Fereday Street Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for the erection of one part three/part
four storey building comprising 11 flats together with associated car
parking and construction of new vehicular access
74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
17th April 2003
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land at Fereday Street, Worsley. The site is currently a vacant, grassed piece of
land. An application for a similar development to the north of this site, appears elsewhere on this agenda.
The application site is bounded by Fereday Street to the west, Walkden district centre to the south and
residential properties to the east. On the opposite side of Brackley Street are residential properties,
including some three storey properties at Wesley Court on Brackley Street. The surrounding area is
predominantly residential in character, although there is an electricity sub station on the opposite side of
Brackley Street.
It is proposed to erect a part three/part four storey building comprising eleven flats, with associated car
parking and the construction of a new vehicular access onto the site from Fereday Street. The three storey
element of the proposed building would be to the east, closest to the properties on Bolton Road whilst the
four storey element would be to the west towards Fereday Street. The application is in outline with external
appearance and landscaping reserved for determination at a later date. It is proposed to provide twelve car
parking spaces in a parking area to the north of the proposed building. The site will be enclosed by 1.8m
high fencing. Although landscaping is reserved for later determination, the plans submitted show that
amenity space would be provided around the perimeter of the proposed building.
SITE HISTORY
In October 2002, an outline application for the erection of two buildings comprising 24 flats together with
associated car parking and new vehicular access was refused (ref: 02/44545).
In June 2002, an outline application for two blocks of three storey flats comprising a total of 28 flats was
submitted and subsequently withdrawn in July 2002 (ref: 02/43905).
In April 2001, an outline application for nine dwellings including 3 three storey properties fronting
Brackley Street, together with car parking and access was approved (ref: 01/41728).
In November 1999, an outline application for eleven dwellings, associated car parking and alteration to the
existing access was submitted and subsequently withdrawn in December 1999.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections
PUBLICITY
A Site Notice was posted on 12th March 2003
Press Notice published on 13th March 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
173-213 (O) Bolton Road
31-41 (O), 1-14 Wesley Court
75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
31-41 (O) Brackley Street
2-30 (E) Dagmar Street
25-31 (O) Fereday Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection and a petition signed by seventeen local residents in response to
application publicity. The main issues identified as follows:
The proposal would devalue existing properties
Loss of light
Loss of privacy
The proposed building would be prominent in the streetscape
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
T13 – Car Parking
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY:
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES11 – Design and Crime
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria against which applications are assessed. Of most relevance to
this application are the location and nature of the proposed development, including its relationship to
existing and proposed land uses, the size and density of the proposed development, the amount, layout and
design of car parking, the effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for neighbouring properties and the visual
appearance of the proposed development.
Policy DEV2 relates to good design and states that when granting permission, the Council must be satisfied
with the quality of design and the appearance of the development. Developments should have regard to the
character of the surrounding area.
Policy DEV4 encourages greater consideration of crime prevention and security in the design of new
development, including external finishes and the layout of hard and soft landscaping features.
Policy T13 requires the provision of adequate and appropriate car parking to meet the needs of new
development.
Policy DES1 of the First Deposit UDP requires development to respond to its physical context. It states that
where there is no discernable or well-developed local character or distinctiveness, developments are
76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
required to adopt high standards of design which ensure that the proposed development is appropriate to the
nature, setting, culture and community of the local area.
Policy DES11of the First Deposit UDP states that development will not be permitted unless it is designed to
discourage crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime and support personal and property security.
Policy A10 of the First Deposit UDP states that developments should not exceed the maximum car parking
standards set out in Appendix 3 of the UDP.
property values are not a planning consideration and this is therefore not an issue on which I can place any
weight in the consideration of this application.
The principle of residential development on the site has already been established with the granting of
planning permission in 2001 for the erection of dwellings on the site. The main issues in the determination
if this application therefore relate to the principle of a part three/part four storey apartment block on the site
and the impact on neighbouring residents and on the streetscape. The development of the site for apartments
would accord with the provisions of Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing, which emphasises the
re-use of previously developed land and advocates high densities. I consider this to be a highly appropriate
location for development of this nature, given the site’s close proximity to public transport links and to
Walkden district centre and the facilities therein. Furthermore, the development of this site would result in
visual improvements to the area, as the site is becoming overgrown and unsightly and detracts from the
appearance of the surrounding area.
In terms of the height of the proposed building, the proposal has been formulated to reduce the impact on
neighbouring residents by siting the three storey element closest to the properties on Bolton Road and the
four storey element towards Fereday Street. The height to the ridge of the proposed building would be 11m
for the three storey element and 13.8m for the four storey element. There would be approximately 16m
between the proposed building and the original rear elevations of properties on Bolton Road. I do not
consider that there would be a loss of privacy nor an overbearing relationship to these properties.
I do not consider that a part three/part four storey would be unduly prominent in the streetscape. The
properties at Wesley Court are three storey and therefore this proposal would not be out of context with the
surrounding area. Variations in the heights of buildings are acceptable within urban areas, adding interest
and variety to the streetscape.
I consider the level of car parking proposed to be appropriate given the location of the site close to Walkden
district centre and public transport links.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been submitted
to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
- the colour and type of facing materials to be used for all external walls and roofs;
77
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
- a landscape scheme for the site which shall include details of trees and shrubs to be planted, any
existing trees to be retained, or felled indicating the spread of the branches and trunk positions, walls,
fences, boundary and surface treatment.
3. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 31st March 2003 which shows
amendments to the Fereday Street elevation.
4. Prior to commencement of the development the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the
written approval of the LPA. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of
ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the
risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focussing primarily
on risks to human health and to controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications
of ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures,
on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological
systems and property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved in writing by the LPA prior to the start of the
site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report
shall be implemented by the developer and a verification report shall be submitted for written approval
prior to occupation of the site.
5. That no dwelling shall be occupied until the car park for 12 spaces has ben laid and and made available
for use by residents, and the car park shall thereafter be made available for such use at all times.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
4. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
5. Standard Reason R013A Use of parking areas
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The lighting provided in the scheme should be erected and directed so as to avoid nuisance to
residential accommodation in close proximity. Guidance can be obtained from the Institute of Lighting
Engineers which relates to these matters (Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution). I
would recommend the lighting be designed to provide a standard maintained illumination (LUX) of
between 5 and 20 LUX with the lower level being the preferable one.
78
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/45707/OUT
APPLICANT:
Moylan Homes
LOCATION:
Site A, Land On Fereday Street Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for the erection of one part three/part
four storey building comprising 11 flats together with associated car
parking and construction of new vehicular access
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates land at Fereday Street, Worsley. The site is currently a vacant, grassed piece of
land. An application for a similar development on land to the south of this site, appears elsewhere on this
agenda.
The application site is bounded by Brackley Street to the north, Fereday Street to the west, and residential
properties to the east. On the opposite side of both Fereday Street and Brackley Street are residential
properties, including some three storey properties at Wesley Court on Brackley Street. The surrounding
area is predominantly residential in character, although there is an electricity sub station on the opposite
side of Brackley Street. The site is located in close proximity to Walkden district centre.
It is proposed to erect a part three/part four storey building comprising eleven flats, with associated car
parking and the construction of a new vehicular access onto the site from Fereday Street. The three storey
element of the proposed building would be to the east, closest to the properties on Bolton Road whilst the
four storey element would be to the west towards Fereday Street. The application is in outline with external
appearance and landscaping reserved for determination at a later date. It is proposed to provide twelve car
parking spaces in a parking area to the south of the proposed building. The site will be enclosed by 1.8m
high fencing. Although landscaping is reserved for later determination, the plans submitted show that
amenity space would be provided around the perimeter of the proposed building.
SITE HISTORY
In October 2002, an outline application for the erection of two buildings comprising 24 flats together with
associated car parking and new vehicular access was refused (ref: 02/44545).
In June 2002, an outline application for two blocks of three storey flats comprising a total of 28 flats was
submitted and subsequently withdrawn in July 2002 (ref: 02/43905).
In April 2001, an outline application for nine dwellings including 3 three storey properties fronting
Brackley Street, together with car parking and access was approved (ref: 01/41728).
In November 1999, an outline application for eleven dwellings, associated car parking and alteration to the
existing access was submitted and subsequently withdrawn in December 1999.
CONSULTATIONS
79
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
Director of Environmental Services – no objections
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections
PUBLICITY
A Site Notice was posted on 12th March 2003
Press Notice published on 13th March 2003
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
173-213 (O) Bolton Road
31-41 (O), 1-14 Wesley Court
31-41 (O) Brackley Street
2-30 (E) Dagmar Street
25-31 (O) Fereday Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received of two letters of objection and a petition signed by seventeen local residents in response to
application publicity. The main issues identified as follows:
The proposal would devalue existing properties
Loss of light
Loss of privacy
The proposed building would be prominent in the streetscape
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
T13 – Car Parking
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES11 – Design and Crime
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria against which applications are assessed. Of most relevance to
this application are the location and nature of the proposed development, including its relationship to
existing and proposed land uses, the size and density of the proposed development, the amount, layout and
design of car parking, the effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for neighbouring properties and the visual
appearance of the proposed development.
80
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
Policy DEV2 relates to good design and states that when granting permission, the Council must be satisfied
with the quality of design and the appearance of the development. Developments should have regard to the
character of the surrounding area.
Policy DEV4 encourages greater consideration of crime prevention and security in the design of new
development, including external finishes and the layout of hard and soft landscaping features.
Policy T13 requires the provision of adequate and appropriate car parking to meet the needs of new
development.
Policy DES1 of the First Deposit UDP requires development to respond to its physical context. It states that
where there is no discernable or well-developed local character or distinctiveness, developments are
required to adopt high standards of design which ensure that the proposed development is appropriate to the
nature, setting, culture and community of the local area.
Policy DES11of the First Deposit UDP states that development will not be permitted unless it is designed to
discourage crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime and support personal and property security.
Policy A10 of the First Deposit UDP states that developments should not exceed the maximum car parking
standards set out in Appendix 3 of the UDP.
Property values are not a planning consideration and this is therefore not an issue on which I can place any
weight in the consideration of this application.
The principle of residential development on the site has already been established with the granting of
planning permission in 2001 for the erection of dwellings on the site. The main issues in the determination
if this application therefore relate to the principle of a part three/part four storey apartment block on the site
and the impact on neighbouring residents and on the streetscape. The development of the site for apartments
would accord with the provisions of Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing, which emphasises the
re-use of previously developed land and advocates high densities. I consider this to be a highly appropriate
location for development of this nature, given the site’s close proximity to public transport links and to
Walkden district centre and the facilities therein. Furthermore, the development of this site would result in
visual improvements to the area, as the site is becoming overgrown and unsightly and detracts from the
appearance of the surrounding area.
In terms of the height of the proposed building, the proposal has been formulated to reduce the impact on
neighbouring residents by siting the three storey element closest to the properties on Bolton Road and the
four storey element towards Fereday Street. The height to the ridge of the proposed building would be 11m
for the three storey element and 13.8m for the four storey element. However, the site level would be 1m
lower than the road level so the height of the proposed building from the street level to the ridge would
therefore be reduced by 1m. There would be approximately 20m between the east elevation of the proposed
building and the rear of 209 and 211 Bolton Road. As the windows on this elevation are kitchen windows, I
do not consider that there would be a loss of privacy as a result of the proposed development.
I do not consider that a part three/part four storey would be unduly prominent in the streetscape. The
properties at Wesley Court are three storey and therefore this proposal would not be out of context with the
surrounding area. Variations in the heights of buildings are acceptable within urban areas, adding interest
and variety to the streetscape.
81
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
I consider the level of car parking proposed to be appropriate given the location of the site close to Walkden
district centre and public transport links.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been submitted
to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
- the colour and type of facing materials to be used for all external walls and roofs;
- a landscape scheme for the site which shall include details of trees and shrubs to be planted, any
existing trees to be retained, or felled indicating the spread of the branches and trunk positions, walls,
fences, boundary and surface treatment.
3. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 31st March 2003 which shows
amendments to the Fereday Street elevation.
4. Prior to commencement of the development the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the
written approval of the LPA. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of
ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the
risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focussing primarily
on risks to human health and to controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications
of ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures,
on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological
systems and property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved in writing by the LPA prior to the start of the
site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report
shall be implemented by the developer and a verification report shall be submitted for written approval
prior to occupation of the site.
5. That no dwelling shall be occupied until the car park for 12 spaces is provided and made available for
use by residents at all times.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.
4. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
82
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
5. Standard Reason R013A Use of parking areas
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The lighting provided in the scheme should be erected and directed so as to avoid nuisance to
residential accommodation in close proximity. Guidance can be obtained from the Institute of Lighting
Engineers which relates to these matters (Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution). I
would recommend the lighting be designed to provide a standard maintained illumination (LUX) of
between 5 and 20 LUX with the lower level being the preferable one.
APPLICATION No:
03/45711/OUT
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Shatwell
LOCATION:
Land To Rear Of 5/7 Daisy Bank Avenue Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for the erection of one pair semi-detached
dwellings and construction of new vehicular access
WARD:
Claremont
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land to the rear of 5/7 Daisy Bank Avenue, Swinton. The land is currently forms
part of the garden area to 4 Delamere Avenue. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in
character. The site is bounded to the north by Daisy Bank Avenue. To the west are 5 and 7 Daisy Bank
Avenue, with St John’s Primary School to the south west. To the south, the site is bounded by the gardens of
6 and 8 Delamere Avenue.
It is proposed to construct one pair of semi detached dwellings with a new vehicular access from Daisy
Bank Avenue. The application is in outline with approval sought for the siting of the proposed dwellings
and means of access. Design, external appearance and landscaping are reserved for consideration at a later
date. The application has been amended from the scheme originally proposed in an attempt to address my
concerns and the concerns of local residents. The garages of both the proposed dwellings are now omitted.
SITE HISTORY
In 1992, planning permission was granted for the continued use of the site as a garden area and erection of
boundary fencing/gates and construction of new vehicular access onto Daisy Bank Avenue (ref: E/28804).
83
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections subject to conditions
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
5, 7 Daisy Bank Avenue
St Johns School, 4B, 6A, 6-10 (E) Delamere Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received five letters of objection in response to application publicity. The main issues identified as
follows:
Three storey houses would not be in keeping with the area
The proposal would result in disturbance to underground utilities
The application site was sold on the basis that it would only be used as a garden and should
therefore remain as a garden
The application would reduce light and privacy
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 of the adopted UDP outlines a number of criteria under which applications for planning
permission are assessed. Of relevance to this application are the location of the proposed development,
including its relationship to existing and proposed land uses, the size and density of the proposed
development, the layout and relationship of existing and proposed buildings and the effect on sunlight,
daylight and privacy for neighbouring properties.
Policy DES1 of the First Deposit UDP requires development to respond to its physical context. It also sets
out a number of factors to which regard should be had in assessing whether applications comply with this
policy, including the relationship to existing buildings and the scale of the proposed development in
relationship to its surroundings.
Policy DES7 of the First Deposit UDP requires all new development to provide potential users with a
satisfactory level of amenity, in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout. It states that
84
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of occupiers or users of other
developments will not be permitted.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing, issued in 2000, emphasises the need to make efficient use of
land without compromising the quality of the environment.
In terms of the objections received, it is important to note that this application is in outline and seeks
approval for siting and means of access only. Issues relating to the design of the proposed dwellings,
including their height, are not therefore matters for consideration at this stage. In relation to objections
regarding underground utilities, it should be noted that the Council’s drainage section has no objections to
the application, recommending that should the application be approved, the applicant should contact United
Utilities regarding the sewer connection located at the side of 5 Daisy Bank Avenue.
A number of objectors claim that the Council has previously refused an application for the construction of
garages and fencing on the site on the basis that the land is to be retained for garden use only. I have
investigated the history of the site and there has been only one previous application, which was for the
continued use of the site as a garden area, the erection of boundary fencing/gates and construction of new
vehicular access onto Daisy Bank Avenue. That application was approved in 1992.
Turning to the principle of the development of the site for one pair of semi detached dwellings, whilst I
acknowledge PPG3’s emphasis on the need to make efficient use of land and the encouragement of high
density development, I also note the need to ensure that environmental quality is not compromised. I
consider that this application would compromise environmental quality and would have an unacceptable
detrimental effect on the quality of life of existing and future residents. The proposal, by virtue of its size
and siting, would seriously harm the amenity of neighbouring residents, as well as the amenity of the future
residents of the proposed dwellings, due particularly to the size and location of the proposed garden areas
and would constitute over-development of what is a relatively small site. I do not consider that the omission
of the garages satisfactorily addresses my concerns. I therefore consider the application to be contrary to
Policy DEV1 of the adopted UDP and DES7 of the First Deposit UDP.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would, by virtue of its size and siting, constitute over development of the site
and would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of future residents of the proposed dwellings. The
proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/45713/DEMCON
APPLICANT:
Housing Services Directorate
LOCATION:
23-53 Blodwell Street And 16-54 Derg Street Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Prior Notification for the demolition of existing dwellings
85
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
17th April 2003
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This proposal is one of eight applications pending within the Seedley and Langworthy Regeneration Area.
It should be noted that one property remains occupied.
This application relates to the demolition of thirty-six terraced dwellings. All but three properties are under
the control of the ‘Langworthy Cornerstone Regeneration Partnership’. The proposal is to completely
remove the dwellings down to ground level and temporarily grass the site, protected by a barrier/ knee rail.
My Building Control Section would supervise all demolition, to accord with Health and Safety
requirements.
The proposal has been submitted as part of the SRB5 Seedley and Langworthy Initiative. The surrounding
area is predominantly residential terraced (early 1900’s), a community centre, Church of St. Ambrose, and
some new build flats at St. Ambrose Gardens. Many of the properties in the vicinity are vacant and boarded
up.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 14th March 2003.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
56, 2-14(e) Derg Street
55, 1-53(o) Derg Street
3-9(o), 15-21(o) Blodwell Street
28 St. Ambrose Gardens
Chimney Pots Community Centre
REPRESENTATIONS
No objections/ representations.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
H2 – Maintaining and Improving Public Sector Housing
Dev1 – Development Criteria
Dev3, Dev4 – Alterations, Design & Crime
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
86
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
ST1 – Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods
ST2 – Housing Supply
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES11 – Design & Crime
H3 – Housing Improvement
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy H2 states that the City Council will seek to maintain and improve public
sector housing by promoting a number of measures including the selective clearance of housing where
appropriate and improving the housing environment through the provision of public open space. The
Seedley & Langworthy Regeneration Partnership proposes the improvement of the Langworthy/ Seedley
area, which has been identified as suffering from a variety of physical, environmental and social problems.
The Department of Environment Circular 10/95 ‘ Planning Controls over Demolition’ provides guidance on
controls over the demolition of buildings. The prior approval of the local planning authority is required for
certain types of demolition. In such cases, a developer must apply to the local planning authority for a
determination of whether their prior approval will be required to the proposed method of demolition and
any proposed restoration of the site.
Demolition of this site will reduce risk of arson, a serious hazard to remaining residents, as well as making
the area more open and reducing risk of crime, which I consider to compliment policy Dev4. No objections
have been made regarding the visual appearance of the site. However I am satisfied that the site aftercare,
comprising of grassing of the site and the positioning of a knee-rail around its perimeter, would not be
detrimental to the visual amenity of the locality. All properties identified for demolition are presently
vacant except no.40 Derg Street.
The properties are in a poor state of repair and I am satisfied that their demolition is in accordance with
Unitary Development plan policies H2, Dev1 and Dev4.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be levelled, grassed and surrounded by a knee rail fence within six months of the
commencement of development.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
87
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/45714/DEMCON
APPLICANT:
Housing Services Directorate
LOCATION:
4 Brown Street And 52-76 West Towers Street Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Prior Notification for the demolition of existing dwellings
WARD:
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This proposal is one of eight applications pending within the Seedley and Langworthy Regeneration Area.
All properties concerned are vacant.
This application relates to the demolition of fourteen terraced dwellings. Nine properties are under the
control of the ‘Langworthy Cornerstone Regeneration Partnership’. The proposal is to completely remove
the dwellings down to ground level and temporarily grass the site, protected by a barrier/ knee rail. My
Building Control Section would supervise all demolition, to accord with Health and Safety requirements.
The proposal has been submitted as part of the SRB5 Seedley and Langworthy Initiative. The surrounding
area is predominantly residential terraced (early 1900’s), with two terraces to the immediate north and south
already demolished/ being demolished. Many of the properties in the vicinity are vacant and boarded up.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 14th March 2003.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
5-21(o) Brown Street
8 Brown Street
54, 56-80(e) Shawcross Street
2, 4 Woodheys Street
19 Gilbert Street
58 West Towers Street
REPRESENTATIONS
No objections/ representations.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
88
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
H2 – Maintaining and Improving Public Sector Housing
Dev1 – Development Criteria
Dev3, Dev4 – Alterations, Design & Crime
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
ST1 – Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods
ST2 – Housing Supply
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES11 – Design & Crime
H3 – Housing Improvement
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy H2 states that the City Council will seek to maintain and improve public
sector housing by promoting a number of measures including the selective clearance of housing where
appropriate and improving the housing environment through the provision of public open space. The
Seedley & Langworthy Regeneration Partnership proposes the improvement of the Langworthy/ Seedley
area, which has been identified as suffering from a variety of physical, environmental and social problems.
The Department of Environment Circular 10/95 ‘ Planning Controls over Demolition’ provides guidance on
controls over the demolition of buildings. The prior approval of the local planning authority is required for
certain types of demolition. In such cases, a developer must apply to the local planning authority for a
determination of whether their prior approval will be required to the proposed method of demolition and
any proposed restoration of the site.
Demolition of this site will reduce risk of arson, a serious hazard to remaining residents, as well as making
the area more open and reducing risk of crime, which I consider to compliment policy Dev4. No objections
have been made regarding the visual appearance of the site. However I am satisfied that the site aftercare,
comprising of grassing of the site and the positioning of a knee-rail around its perimeter, would not be
detrimental to the visual amenity of the locality. All properties identified for demolition are presently
vacant.
The properties are in a poor state of repair and I am satisfied that their demolition is in accordance with
Unitary Development plan policies H2, Dev1 and Dev4.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be levelled, grassed and surrounded by a knee rail fence within six months of the
commencement of development.
89
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/45715/DEMCON
APPLICANT:
Housing Services Directorate
LOCATION:
3-19 And 2-14 Gilbert Street Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Prior Notification for the demolition of existing dwellings
WARD:
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This proposal is one of eight applications pending within the Seedley and Langworthy Regeneration Area.
All properties concerned are vacant.
This application relates to the demolition of sixteen terraced dwellings. All properties are under the control
of the ‘Langworthy Cornerstone Regeneration Partnership’. The proposal is to completely remove the
dwellings down to ground level and temporarily grass the site, protected by a barrier/ knee rail. My
Building Control Section would supervise all demolition, to accord with Health and Safety requirements.
The proposal has been submitted as part of the SRB5 Seedley and Langworthy Initiative. The surrounding
area is predominantly residential terraced (early 1900’s), with the M602 motorway and railway to the south.
Many of the properties in the vicinity are vacant and boarded up.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 14th March 2003.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
1-9(o) West Towers Street
16-22(e) Gilbert Street
1-23(o) Royle Street
2 Woodheys Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The
following issue has been raised:
90
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
-
17th April 2003
Demolition may affect foundations of neighbouring occupied dwellings.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
H2 – Maintaining and Improving Public Sector Housing
Dev1 – Development Criteria
Dev3, Dev4 – Alterations, Design & Crime
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
ST1 – Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods
ST2 – Housing Supply
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES11 – Design & Crime
H3 – Housing Improvement
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy H2 states that the City Council will seek to maintain and improve public
sector housing by promoting a number of measures including the selective clearance of housing where
appropriate and improving the housing environment through the provision of public open space. The
Seedley & Langworthy Regeneration Partnership proposes the improvement of the Langworthy/ Seedley
area, which has been identified as suffering from a variety of physical, environmental and social problems.
The Department of Environment Circular 10/95 ‘ Planning Controls over Demolition’ provides guidance on
controls over the demolition of buildings. The prior approval of the local planning authority is required for
certain types of demolition. In such cases, a developer must apply to the local planning authority for a
determination of whether their prior approval will be required to the proposed method of demolition and
any proposed restoration of the site. Further to this I have forwarded to the applicant the objection received
with regards the foundations.
Demolition of this site will reduce risk of arson, a serious hazard to remaining residents, as well as making
the area more open and reducing risk of crime, which I consider to compliment policy Dev4. No objections
have been made regarding the visual appearance of the site. However I am satisfied that the site aftercare,
comprising of grassing of the site and the positioning of a knee-rail around its perimeter, would not be
detrimental to the visual amenity of the locality. All properties identified for demolition are presently
vacant.
The properties are in a poor state of repair and I am satisfied that their demolition is in accordance with
Unitary Development plan policies H2, Dev1 and Dev4.
91
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be levelled, grassed and surrounded by a knee rail fence within six months of the
commencement of development.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/45716/DEMCON
APPLICANT:
Housing Services Directorate
LOCATION:
2-14 Langshaw Street Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Prior Notification for the demolition of existing dwellings
WARD:
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This proposal is one of eight applications pending within the Seedley and Langworthy Regeneration Area.
All properties concerned are vacant.
This application relates to the demolition of seven terraced dwellings. All properties are under the control of
the ‘Langworthy Cornerstone Regeneration Partnership’. The proposal is to completely remove the
dwellings down to ground level and temporarily grass the site, protected by a barrier/ knee rail. My
Building Control Section would supervise all demolition, to accord with Health and Safety requirements.
The proposal has been submitted as part of the SRB5 Seedley and Langworthy Initiative. The surrounding
area is predominantly residential terraced (early 1900’s), with the M602 motorway and railway to the south.
Several of the properties in the vicinity are vacant and boarded up.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 14th March 2003.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
92
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
13-16 Barnfield Close
1-17(o) Langshaw Street
16 Langshaw Street
REPRESENTATIONS
No objections/ representations.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
H2 – Maintaining and Improving Public Sector Housing
Dev1 – Development Criteria
Dev3, Dev4 – Alterations, Design & Crime
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
ST1 – Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods
ST2 – Housing Supply
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES11 – Design & Crime
H3 – Housing Improvement
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy H2 states that the City Council will seek to maintain and improve public
sector housing by promoting a number of measures including the selective clearance of housing where
appropriate and improving the housing environment through the provision of public open space. The
Seedley & Langworthy Regeneration Partnership proposes the improvement of the Langworthy/ Seedley
area, which has been identified as suffering from a variety of physical, environmental and social problems.
The Department of Environment Circular 10/95 ‘ Planning Controls over Demolition’ provides guidance on
controls over the demolition of buildings. The prior approval of the local planning authority is required for
certain types of demolition. In such cases, a developer must apply to the local planning authority for a
determination of whether their prior approval will be required to the proposed method of demolition and
any proposed restoration of the site.
Demolition of this site will reduce risk of arson, a serious hazard to remaining residents, as well as making
the area more open and reducing risk of crime, which I consider to compliment policy Dev4. No objections
have been made regarding the visual appearance of the site. However I am satisfied that the site aftercare,
comprising of grassing of the site and the positioning of a knee-rail around its perimeter, would not be
detrimental to the visual amenity of the locality. All properties identified for demolition are presently
vacant.
93
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
The properties are in a poor state of repair and I am satisfied that their demolition is in accordance with
Unitary Development plan policies H2, Dev1 and Dev4.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be levelled, grassed and surrounded by a knee rail fence within six months of the
commencement of development.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/45717/DEMCON
APPLICANT:
Housing Services Directorate
LOCATION:
2-10 West Towers Street And 26-30 And 19-25 Langshaw Street
Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Prior Notification for the demolition of existing dwellings
WARD:
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This proposal is one of eight applications pending within the Seedley and Langworthy Regeneration Area.
All properties concerned are vacant.
This application relates to the demolition of twelve terraced dwellings. All properties are under the control
of the ‘Langworthy Cornerstone Regeneration Partnership’. The proposal is to completely remove the
dwellings down to ground level and temporarily grass the site, protected by a barrier/ knee rail. My
Building Control Section would supervise all demolition, to accord with Health and Safety requirements.
The proposal has been submitted as part of the SRB5 Seedley and Langworthy Initiative. The surrounding
area is predominantly residential terraced (early 1900’s). Many of the properties in the vicinity are vacant
and boarded up.
94
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 14th March 2003.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
1-11 Athole Street
1-13(o) Shawcross Street
12, 14 West Towers Street
18-24 Royle Street
17 Langshaw Street
22, 24 Langshaw Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The
following issue has been raised:
-
Possible disruption/ disconnection of water supply.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
H2 – Maintaining and Improving Public Sector Housing
Dev1 – Development Criteria
Dev3, Dev4 – Alterations, Design & Crime
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
ST1 – Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods
ST2 – Housing Supply
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES11 – Design & Crime
H3 – Housing Improvement
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy H2 states that the City Council will seek to maintain and improve public
sector housing by promoting a number of measures including the selective clearance of housing where
appropriate and improving the housing environment through the provision of public open space. The
Seedley & Langworthy Regeneration Partnership proposes the improvement of the Langworthy/ Seedley
area, which has been identified as suffering from a variety of physical, environmental and social problems.
95
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
The Department of Environment Circular 10/95 ‘ Planning Controls over Demolition’ provides guidance on
controls over the demolition of buildings. The prior approval of the local planning authority is required for
certain types of demolition. In such cases, a developer must apply to the local planning authority for a
determination of whether their prior approval will be required to the proposed method of demolition and
any proposed restoration of the site. Further to this I have forwarded to the applicant the objection received
with regards the water supply.
Demolition of this site will reduce risk of arson, a serious hazard to remaining residents, as well as making
the area more open and reducing risk of crime, which I consider to compliment policy Dev4. No objections
have been made regarding the visual appearance of the site. However I am satisfied that the site aftercare,
comprising of grassing of the site and the positioning of a knee-rail around its perimeter, would not be
detrimental to the visual amenity of the locality. All properties identified for demolition are presently
vacant.
The properties are in a poor state of repair and I am satisfied that their demolition is in accordance with
Unitary Development plan policies H2, Dev1 and Dev4.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be levelled, grassed and surrounded by a knee rail fence within six months of the
commencement of development.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/45718/DEMCON
APPLICANT:
Housing Services Directorate
LOCATION:
20-30 West Towers Street Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Prior Notification for the demolition of existing dwellings
WARD:
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
96
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
This proposal is one of eight applications pending within the Seedley and Langworthy Regeneration Area.
All properties concerned are vacant.
This application relates to the demolition of six terraced dwellings. All properties are under the control of
the ‘Langworthy Cornerstone Regeneration Partnership’. The proposal is to completely remove the
dwellings down to ground level and temporarily grass the site, protected by a barrier/ knee rail. My
Building Control Section would supervise all demolition, to accord with Health and Safety requirements.
The proposal has been submitted as part of the SRB5 Seedley and Langworthy Initiative. The surrounding
area is predominantly residential terraced (early 1900’s), with some post-war semi’s to the immediate west.
Many of the properties in the vicinity are vacant and boarded up.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 14th March 2003.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
26-36(e) Shawcross Street
19, 21, 27 Shawcross Street
16, 18 West Towers Street
2 Woodheys Street
23, 24 Royle Street
19, 22 Gilbert Street
REPRESENTATIONS
No objections/ representations.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
H2 – Maintaining and Improving Public Sector Housing
Dev1 – Development Criteria
Dev3, Dev4 – Alterations, Design & Crime
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
ST1 – Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods
ST2 – Housing Supply
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES11 – Design & Crime
H3 – Housing Improvement
97
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy H2 states that the City Council will seek to maintain and improve public
sector housing by promoting a number of measures including the selective clearance of housing where
appropriate and improving the housing environment through the provision of public open space. The
Seedley & Langworthy Regeneration Partnership proposes the improvement of the Langworthy/ Seedley
area, which has been identified as suffering from a variety of physical, environmental and social problems.
The Department of Environment Circular 10/95 ‘ Planning Controls over Demolition’ provides guidance on
controls over the demolition of buildings. The prior approval of the local planning authority is required for
certain types of demolition. In such cases, a developer must apply to the local planning authority for a
determination of whether their prior approval will be required to the proposed method of demolition and
any proposed restoration of the site.
Demolition of this site will reduce risk of arson, a serious hazard to remaining residents, as well as making
the area more open and reducing risk of crime, which I consider to compliment policy Dev4. No objections
have been made regarding the visual appearance of the site. However I am satisfied that the site aftercare,
comprising of grassing of the site and the positioning of a knee-rail around its perimeter, would not be
detrimental to the visual amenity of the locality. All properties identified for demolition are presently
vacant.
The properties are in a poor state of repair and I am satisfied that their demolition is in accordance with
Unitary Development plan policies H2, Dev1 and Dev4.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be levelled, grassed and surrounded by a knee rail fence within six months of the
commencement of development.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
98
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/45719/DEMCON
APPLICANT:
Housing Services Directorate
LOCATION:
6-16 Shawcross Street Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Prior Notification for the demolition of existing dwellings
WARD:
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This proposal is one of eight applications pending within the Seedley and Langworthy Regeneration Area.
All properties concerned are vacant.
This application relates to the demolition of six terraced dwellings. All properties are under the control of
the ‘Langworthy Cornerstone Regeneration Partnership’. The proposal is to completely remove the
dwellings down to ground level and temporarily grass the site, protected by a barrier/ knee rail. My
Building Control Section would supervise all demolition, to accord with Health and Safety requirements.
The proposal has been submitted as part of the SRB5 Seedley and Langworthy Initiative. The surrounding
area is entirely residential terraced (early 1900’s), with a site of previously demolished terraced dwellings
to the east. Many of the properties in the vicinity are vacant and boarded up.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 14th March 2003.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
48-58(e) Langshaw Street
1-17(o) Derg Street
18-22(e) Shawcross Street
1-21(o) Shawcross Street
REPRESENTATIONS
No objections/ representations.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
H2 – Maintaining and Improving Public Sector Housing
Dev1 – Development Criteria
Dev3, Dev4 – Alterations, Design & Crime
99
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
ST1 – Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods
ST2 – Housing Supply
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES11 – Design & Crime
H3 – Housing Improvement
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy H2 states that the City Council will seek to maintain and improve public
sector housing by promoting a number of measures including the selective clearance of housing where
appropriate and improving the housing environment through the provision of public open space. The
Seedley & Langworthy Regeneration Partnership proposes the improvement of the Langworthy/ Seedley
area, which has been identified as suffering from a variety of physical, environmental and social problems.
The Department of Environment Circular 10/95 ‘ Planning Controls over Demolition’ provides guidance on
controls over the demolition of buildings. The prior approval of the local planning authority is required for
certain types of demolition. In such cases, a developer must apply to the local planning authority for a
determination of whether their prior approval will be required to the proposed method of demolition and
any proposed restoration of the site.
Demolition of this site will reduce risk of arson, a serious hazard to remaining residents, as well as making
the area more open and reducing risk of crime, which I consider to compliment policy Dev4. No objections
have been made regarding the visual appearance of the site. However I am satisfied that the site aftercare,
comprising of grassing of the site and the positioning of a knee-rail around its perimeter, would not be
detrimental to the visual amenity of the locality. All properties identified for demolition are presently
vacant.
The properties are in a poor state of repair and I am satisfied that their demolition is in accordance with
Unitary Development plan policies H2, Dev1 and Dev4.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be levelled, grassed and surrounded by a knee rail fence within six months of the
commencement of development.
(Reasons)
100
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/45728/COU
APPLICANT:
Mr M Khalil
LOCATION:
176 Oaklands Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from a shop into a dwelling and the construction of bay
window, porch on the front elevation and retention of 1.35m high
palisade fence at the front of the property
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant detached shop which is in a poor state of repair. The property is one of
three detached dwellings. The adjacent properties are residential to the east and a shop to the west. The
wider area consists predominantly of residential semi and terrace properties. The site would provide a rear
garden of 21m in length and a front paved area of 8m.
The porch would be located on the right hand side of the front elevation and would project 1.2m X 2.2m and
would have a pitched roof at a height of 3.3m. The bay window would project 0.7m and would match the
height and design of the porch.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
80 – 84 (even) Castlewood Road
7 – 9 (odd) Kersal Hall Avenue
166 – 174, 178 – 186 (even) and 171 – 185 (odd) Oaklands Road
16 – 20 (even) South Mesnefield Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified
are as follows:
101
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
The appearance of the fencing
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
H8/6 Housing Improvement and Renewal – Private Sector
DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of users and neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy H8/6 promotes the improvement of public sector housing. Policy DEV1 and DEV2 both require
development to respect relationships to surrounding buildings including by its appearance. Policy DES1 of
the replacement plan seeks to ensure that development respects the positive character of the local area.
Policy DES7 also seeks to provide a satisfactory level of amenity, in terms of space, sunlight, daylight,
privacy, aspect and layout.
I have received one letter of objection from the application publicity. The letter does not object to the
principle of residential, but refers to the style of fencing already erected.
I am of the opinion that the reuse of this property for residential purposes is acceptable and in keeping with
the character of the wider area. The rear garden area has previously housed a garage of some form, and as
such is suitable to provide off street car parking. The design and scale of the alterations to the front
elevation are in proportion and in keeping with the scale of the property. With regard to the fencing, I do not
agree that the style of fencing is out of keeping with a residential area. However, I am of the opinion that
the impact upon the street scene would be reduced should the fencing be treated in appropriate colour, I
have attached a condition to this end.
I do not consider that nearby residential amenity will be detrimentally affected by this proposal. I have no
highway objections and as I consider the proposal accords with the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and
the first deposit draft replacement plan I recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The fence hereby approved shall be treated within one month from the date of decision in a colour
which is to be agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
102
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/45732/HH
APPLICANT:
R Bromiley
LOCATION:
25 Brackley Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing garage and erection of detached double garage at
rear of dwelling
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached property. The proposal is for the erection of a double garage with a
hipped roof. The garage would measure 7.6m x 5.6m x 3.95m to the ridge, with a 0.75m roof feature. The
gable of the garage would be along the boundary with 14 Monton Green and would slope away to the eaves
at 2.6m A garage has recently been demolished at this point and the new garage would sit in the footprint of
the demolished garage.
SITE HISTORY
In November 2002, planning permission was refused due to its size and siting. The application number was
02/44811/HH. A further application was refused in February 2003, ref 02/45202/HH due to its size and
siting.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
23 and 27 Brackley Road
10-16 Monton Green.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations or objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV 8 – House Extensions
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
103
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:DES7 – Amenity of users and neighbours.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV 8 of the Unitary Development Plan states that permission would not be granted if the extension would
have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents by reason of
overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light.
the garage would comply with the guidelines in the Supplementary Planning Guidance for House
Extensions that state a minimum of 9m should be maintained between a single storey extension and the
closest main habitable window of an adjacent property.
The garage would be sited along the boundary with 14 Monton Green and erected on the footprint of the
recently demolished garage. The gable end of the roof, facing the property to the rear would slope away
from the boundary at 2.6m and would measure a further 1.3m to the ridge. I do not consider there would be
a significantly detrimental impact on the amenity of these neighbours or that the garage would be
overbearing or create a feeling of enclosure or loss of light in the gardens of the properties to the rear.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the brickwork and roofing of the development shall be the same
type, colour and texture as those of the dwelling unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/45747/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr & Mrs Fearnhead
104
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
LOCATION:
54 Ellesmere Street Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Retention of a single storey side extension
WARD:
Swinton North
17th April 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi detached house on Ellesmere Street which is on the corner of Carden
Avenue. The application is for a single storey side extension to provide a dining room and enlarged kitchen.
It is 2.95m in width and be the full length of the house at 7.5m long. The applicant had started construction,
thinking that the extension would have the benefit of permitted development, so that most of the external
work has now been completed. I understand that work has now ceased.
The ward Councillor, Cllr Antrobus, has requested that this application be determined by Panel.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
52, 56, 67, 69, 71 & 73 Ellesmere Street
16 Dryden Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 – Amenity of users and neighbours
DES8 – Alterations and extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV 8 of the UDP states that
The City Council will only grant planning permission for proposals relating to the extension of a dwelling,
including its roof, where the following criteria can be satisfied:

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 extension would not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the character of the street scene;
105
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

17th April 2003
-the 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 Draft Deposit Replacement Plan have two policies, DES7 & DES8, which seek to ensure that
extensions do not have an adverse impact on the occupiers of neighbouring properties, and to ensure that
extensions respect the general scale, proportions, materials etc of the original structure and that they
complement the general character of the area.
Both these policies are now supported by specific guidance within the Council’s SPG for house extensions.
Guidance Note HH14 would be the relevant note for consideration to this specific proposal. This Guidance
Note states:
Planning permission for a single storey or two storey extension to dwellings on corner plots will not
normally be granted unless a minimum distance of 2m is maintained between the boundary or back of
service strip and the nearest part of the extension.
This particular part of the street is identified by a line of semis along Ellesmere Street and at this junction
with Carden Avenue the houses are all set back nearly 4m from the kerb edge, which gives the visual
impression of a wide junction. Side extensions have recently been built at both 56 Ellesmere Street, across
Carden Avenue, and at 16 Dryden Avenue to the rear. Both of these have maintained a 2m distance to the
side boundary and therefore they have reduced their impact into the street scene.
The applicant’s extension is set back only 1m from the boundary with the highway. It also spans the full
length of the house. Therefore I would consider that this would be a prominent extension within the street
scene, particularly when viewed along Ellesmere Street from the easterly direction. I would consider that
this prominence is at present emphasised by the colour of the brick, which when viewed against the original
house are a much redder colour and would take a few years to weather to a better match.
I am mindful that the applicants have mentioned other properties within the area that have been built.
However, these appear to have been approved prior to the adoption of the SPG and therefore were solely
considered on the individual merits of the individual scheme at the time. In determining this application, I
would consider that regard must be had to the SPG as well as the individual merits of the scheme. The
application is contrary to Guidance Note HH14 of the SPG as it does not maintain 2m from the edge of the
highway. In this particular location, the other properties along Carden Avenue are set back from the road
which I consider emphasises the prominence of this extension. Although this is a single storey extension, I
would still consider that this is a prominent extension which ahs a detrimental impact on the appearance of
the street scene.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The garage is only set back 1m from the boundary with Carden Avenue and as such has a significant
detrimental impact upon the amenity and character of the area and is contrary to policy DEV8 of the
Unitary Development Plan and HH14 of the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance - House
Extensions.
2. The garage, owing to it's size, siting and the construction materials used is an overly prominent feature
106
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
within the street scene and as such has a significant detrimental impact upon the general amenity and
character of the area and the amenity of neighbouring residents, contrary to policy DEV8 of the UDP.
APPLICATION No:
03/45752/FUL
APPLICANT:
United Utilities PLC
LOCATION:
Pavement Outside 15/16 Zyburn Court Park Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Construction of control kiosk to serve an underground pumping station
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the pavement area outside 15/16 Zyburn Court, Park Road Salford 6. It is
proposed to construct a control kiosk to serve an underground pumping station. The surrounding area is
predominantly residential.
The kiosk will be 1.5m high, 2.25m wide and 0.45m deep and will have a pitched roof. The applicant,
United Utilities, proposes to paint it green. The kiosk is required to house control equipment for the
pumping station.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
13-18 Zyburn Court
8, 9 – 13 Park Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of objection and a petition signed by nine local residents in response to
application publicity. The main issues identified are as follows:
Noise from the pumping station
The proposed kiosk will cause an obstruction
The kiosk will attract youths
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT RAPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
107
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria against which applications for planning permission are to be
assessed. The most relevant to this application are the location of the proposed development and its
relationship to other land uses and the visual appearance of the proposed development.
Policy DES1 requires development to respond to its physical context and outlines a number of factors to
which regard should be had when assessing whether applications for planning permission comply with this
policy. These include the scale of the proposed development in relation to its surroundings.
In terms of the issues raised by objectors, it is important to note that this application relates to the
construction of a kiosk, and not the pumping station, which is permitted development. The pumping station
has not yet been constructed as United Utilities is awaiting the determination of this application before
proceeding with the pumping station. The pumping station is to be installed to alleviate flooding problems
in the Park Road area. I am informed by the applicant that the location of the pumping station is determined
by the properties which flood, namely 8, 10, 12 and 14 Park Road, and the closest manhole to Number 8,
which is outside Zyburn Court. The kiosk needs to be located as close to the pumping station as possible in
order to reduce disruption during construction. To site the kiosk away from the pumping station would
require additional lengths of electricity and telemetry cables to be laid which would mean more extensive
road and footpath closures. I consider the applicant’s justification for the siting of the proposed kiosk to be
sufficient and am satisfied that this is the most appropriate location. The applicant has also confirmed that
the kiosk will not be a source of noise and I do not therefore consider this to be an issue in the determination
of this application.
The other matter of concern raised by the objectors relates to the fact that the kiosk will be an obstruction.
However, given the size of the proposed kiosk, I do not consider this to be an issue.
I have also had the issue of youths gathering around such kiosks brought to my attention. Local residents,
particularly those elderly residents living in Zyburn Court, are concerned that such kiosks attract young
people who then loiter in the area. To address this concern, the applicant proposes to construct the kiosk
with a pitched roof to specifically prevent people sitting on it. I have discussed the issue of relocating the
proposed kiosk with the applicant. However, due to the need to locate the kiosk in close proximity to the
pumping station in order to avoid road closures, the applicant considers this location to be the most
appropriate. Whilst I acknowledge that the issue of youths gathering around the proposed kiosk may be a
concern of local residents, I consider that this has been adequately addressed by the amendments made to
the application and do not consider this to constitute a reason for refusal.
In conclusion, I consider the size, appearance and location of the proposed kiosk to be acceptable and in
accordance with Policy DEV1 of the UDP. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
108
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
03/45766/COU
APPLICANT:
M Ishaque
LOCATION:
68 Edward Avenue Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from retail (Class A1) to shop for the sale of hot food
(Class A3)
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The property is at 68 Edward Avenue, alongside a Public House (the Weaste Hotel) and adjoining a
mini-supermarket at 66 Edward Avenue, also under the same ownership. The locality is otherwise entirely
inter-war residential with two schools and a cricket ground nearby.
This application is for the change of use from retail (A1) to shop for the sale of hot food (A3). Proposed
hours are 5pm to midnight on Monday-Friday, and 12noon to midnight on Saturday.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – recommends conditions on fume extraction & working hours
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 14th March 2003.
The following neighbour addresses have been notifiedWeaste Hotel (PH)
60-64(e) Edward Avenue
55-69(o) Edward Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main
issues identified are as follows:
-
Noise & litter
No cleaning done
109
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
-
17th April 2003
Driveways blocked by cars and small groups of people
Increase in traffic
Late closing time
Do not need another takeaway
Shop should be a chemist
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
S5 – Control of Food & Drink Premises
DEV1 – Development Criteria
T10 - Pedestrians
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
S1 – Provision of New Retail and Leisure Development
S4 – Amusement Centres and Food & Drink Uses
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The panel is informed that the primary concern is the relationship of the proposal site to neighbouring
residential dwellings, with regard to Policy S5 (control of food & drink premises) and Policy DEV1
(development criteria). This states that such proposals must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on
surrounding residential amenity, or be significantly prejudicial to the safety of pedestrians and road users.
Of those policies outlined in the Draft Deposit UDP the most important are S1 and S4; these relate to the
appropriate provision and aspect of new retail development and also the impact on the surrounding
environment and other retail centres.
With regard to policy S5, those dwellings affected include the row opposite at 55-69(o) and also 60-64(e)
Edward Avenue. While there will be some intensification of economic activity I do not consider this to be
significant and will also provide a greater range of uses towards the vitality and sustainability of the area.
There are no adjacent dwellings to the sides or rear; adjacent properties include a pub, mini-supermarket,
and an area of vacant land. Given that these are existing adjacent properties, I therefore consider the wider
impact on the locality to be minimal. Further to this I recommend a condition to ensure the opening hours
are similar to those of the adjacent public house. Thus I do not consider this proposal to be detrimental to the
amenity of this locality.
Objectors have commented on the likely impact of the proposal in terms of pollution such as litter, and
noise. Thus I recommend the use of a litter-bin condition and hours of use restricted to 11pm, which is
similar to the adjacent pub, and supported by Environmental Services.
I have also received comments referring to the likely increase in traffic and parked cars as a result of this
development. Following a site visit I conclude that there is sufficient parking available within an off-street
110
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
parking bay and consider Edward Road itself to be generally free of congestion. Overall I do not anticipate
a major increase in traffic and have no objection on highway grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The use hereby permitted shall NOT be operated on Sundays and Bank Holidays and shall ONLY be
operated between the hours of 1600-2300 Monday to Friday and 1200-2300 on Saturday
3. Prior to the development hereby approved coming into use, the applicant shall provide a litter bin to the
front of the premises. The applicant shall first submit details of the design and position of the litter bin
(in liaison with the Director of Environment Services), for the written approval of the Director of
Development Services.
4. Details of the fume extraction system serving the cooking and/or food preparation areas shall be
designed such that there will be no odour or noise nuisance to residential premises and shall be
submitted for the approval of the Department of Development Services prior to the development taking
place. The approved system shall be installed and operational prior to use.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The fume extraction system (as referred in Condition no.4) must include the following:
The termination of the flue must be at least one metre above roof ridge height
The efflux velocity at the discharge point must be at least 8 metres per second
The final discharge must be vertically upwards and be unimpeded by flu terminals
The Filtration system must include grease filtration plus another method of reducing odours from
the effluvia.
APPLICATION No:
03/45769/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr G Hymanson
111
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
LOCATION:
9 Vernon Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of detached garage with store above at the rear.
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing residential property. At the rear of its garden there is currently a
detached garage, which is accessed from an alley off Singleton Road. The proposal is to demolish the
garage and to build a two storey building, with a garage on the ground floor and a domestic store room on
the first floor. The building would be 10.4m long, 4.4m wide and it would be 5.8m high to the top of the
ridged roof. The first floor sore would have 4 skylights in the roof.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
5, 7, 11, 13, 15 Vernon Road
484, 490, 492, 490a, 490b, 490c, Bury New Road
8-16a (even) Cavendish Road
5-8 Jacobite Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received six letters of objection, from the occupiers of 10 households in total The main issues
identified are as follows:






it would be intrusive and unreasonably large and would overlook other houses
it would block light from surrounding gardens and houses
out of keeping with this residential neighbourhood, especially as all other garages are single
storey
do not consider that this is for domestic storage. Instead there is concern that it would be for an
industrial or commercial use and there is concern about the type of goods stored in the building
the size of the storage area would generate an increase in the level of traffic along the
unadopted access road which is very narrow and in a poor state of repair
the possible increase in traffic could be harmful to children who play in the area safely
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV 8 – House extensions
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
112
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
Other policies: DES7 – Amenity of users and neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy Dev1 of the UDP requires that consideration be had, inter alia, to the location and nature of the
proposed development in relation to existing land uses, the effect on sunlight and privacy for neighbouring
properties as well as visual appearance of the development.
Policy DES7 of the Deposit Draft Replacement Plan requires that all development to provide potential users
with a satisfactory level of amenity in terms of space daylight, privacy etc whilst ensuring that it would not
have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of users of other development.
This proposal is for a large garage and store. I am aware that on objection from the local residents is that it
is unlikely to be domestic only but is more likely to be commercial and there are concerns about the possible
materials stored. The application has been submitted as domestic and I have been informed that it is not the
intention for a commercial use. Therefore I have to consider the application as submitted and indeed any
commercial use would require a new planning application.
The objectors are concerned that the size of this building would be obtrusive and unreasonably large which
would overlook houses and block light from surrounding gardens and houses. The proposal shows that the
only windows into the building would be skylights so that there would be no possibility of overlooking or
loss of privacy. It would be two storey and therefore would be visible from the surrounding properties and
would be larger that the other single storey garages to the rear of the houses. However, I do not consider this
would necessarily make the proposal unacceptable. The proposed garage would be approximately 35m
away from the applicants property and the closest facing properties on Bury New Road. This distance
increases for the majority of properties on Vernon Road, Cavendish Road and Singleton Road. Given that
the City Council would normally require a minimum of 21 metres separation between properties with
facing sets of habitable windows, this proposed building could be considered to provide more than adequate
separation to the surrounding residential properties. I would consider that the immediate impact on
surrounding land would be to private road and to the garages to the rear of the neighbours’ garden, so that its
impact on the main garden area for the neighbours would be a lesser impact.
I am aware also of the residents concerns about the possible impact on the level of traffic along the private
road, and the possible effect of children within the area. Given that this proposal would be for domestic use,
I do not consider that there should be any more impact on traffic levels than the applicants existing garage
which is to be replaced.
I have balanced the issues, in terms of the siting and size of this proposed garage and store against the
concerns of the residents. Notwithstanding the objections, I do not consider that the impact of the proposed
building would have a seriously detrimental impact in terms of loss of light, visual intrusion or loss of
privacy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
113
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
114
17th April 2003
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/45721/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Mrs C Ward
LOCATION:
James Brindley Primary School Parrfold Avenue Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Construction of extension to existing car parking area to provide ten
additional spaces
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing primary school within a predominantly residential area. The proposal
is to construct a formal extension to the school car park to provide an additional 10 spaces. The area in
question has a rough stone surface on it and is already being used for parking.
SITE HISTORY
In 1999, planning permission was granted for a rear extension that would enclose the existing courtyard and
to create a covered play area (ref. 99/39666/DEEM3).
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
2 & 4 Rochester Avenue
26, 23-27 (odd) Parr Fold Avenue
2 Bedford Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 2 letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified are
as follows:

the rough car park was constructed approximately 2 years ago, when material was also
deposited around this part of the site. This work has caused serious problems with the drainage
to the area, particularly on Rochester Road itself which is an unmade road.

the residents have had to continually repair the road surface because of the drainage problems
cause run-off onto Rochester Road, and the school have ignored requests to resolve the
problem.

more than adequate car parking could be provided on the Council owned site close by off
Bedford Avenue, which would encourage environmentally friendly walking and could give the
facility for parents to park which would avoid dangerous parking at drop-off/pick-up times.
115
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

17th April 2003
The residents have complained for the last two years about the unauthorised car park and they
believe that if they hadn’t continued the school would still not have submitted a planning
application and would not have addressed any of their concerns.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting context
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV 1 requires that regard would be had to the location and nature of the proposed development,
including its relationship to existing and proposed land uses.
In determining this application, I would consider that there are 2 aspect of its possible impact on the
neighbouring residents that should be addressed. Firstly the physical impact of 10 additional parking spaces
in this location and secondly is the concerns of the residents on Rochester Road about the alteration to their
drainage.
I understand that the school have used this as a car park for some time, since this part of the school ground
was used as a temporary compound in association with the school’s extension. This proposal would ensure
that this land is properly surfaced and formally laid out, rather than remaining as a rough surface. This piece
of land is adjacent to the existing driveway and there would still be at least 5m of grassed land with trees to
the school’s boundary. Therefore I do not consider that the use of this part of the school grounds as an
extension to the school car park would have a detrimental affect on the amenity of the neighbouring
residents.
I am mindful that the occupiers of Rochester Avenue are seriously concerned about drainage problems that
they are experiencing. They state that since the school used this part of the site as a compound, the drainage
in the area has changed and now the water does not drain into the school land as it used to but instead it
flows down Rochester Avenue which is damaging the surface. Whilst the school and the residents should
really address the issue of any changes to the area’s drainage as a separate matter, I am of the opinion that
regard should be had to this concern to ensure that the situation is not exacerbated and if possible to take the
opportunity of improving the situation whilst any work is carried out in this part of the site. Therefore I
would consider that a drainage scheme for the car park be approved and installed before the parking area is
surfaced and I recommend a condition is attached to require the approval of such a scheme.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
116
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Prior to the surfacing of the car park, a drainage scheme for the car park shall be submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the Director of Development Services. The approved scheme shall be installed
on site prior to the car park being surfaced.
3. Prior to the surfacing of the car park hereby approved, details of the materials to be used shall be
submitted to, and approved 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:
03/45737/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
St Boniface RC Primary School (Miss M M Neil - Acting Head)
LOCATION:
St Boniface RC Primary School Yew Street Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 3m high railings
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing school on Yew Street. The rear boundary with Laburnum Court was
previously a brick wall. However, its condition had deteriorated so that it was dangerous and had to be
demolished recently. The school now wish to erect a 3m fence of a railing style along this boundary. It
would be coloured a dark green.
SITE HISTORY
In February 2003, planning permission was granted for some of the existing boundary fencing to be
replaced with a mixture of railings and palisade.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
6 Priory Grove
Laburnum Court, Holly Court Priory Grove
REPRESENTATIONS
117
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
I have received no letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV4 – Design and Crime
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT RPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – respecting context
DES11 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV4 seeks to encourage greater consideration of crime prevention and security and the Council would
have regard to the position and height of fencing. The Deposit Draft Replacement UDP states that crime
prevention measures should not be at the expense of the overall design quality.
The boundary with Laburnum Court currently has temporary fencing as the wall had to be demolished.
Laburnum Court, which is a care home, is set over 1.5m higher than the school. Therefore the proposal is
for 3m high railings in order to provide security along this section of the boundary. I would consider that the
design of the railings would be a good quality and therefore it would unlikely to have a detrimental on the
amenity of the neighbouring home.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. 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 R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/45799/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Clifton Country Primary School (FAO R McGall(
118
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
LOCATION:
Clifton County Primary School Wroe Street Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of infill extension to form additional classroom
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Clifton County Primary School, Wroe Street, Swinton. The school is bound to
the north, east and south by residential properties, and to the west by green belt.
The proposal is to erect an infill extension on the south facing elevation. It would project 3.7m and would
be 6.8m in width. The infill extension would provide space for a music room.
SITE HISTORY
1999 (99/39728/DEEM3) 2000 (00/40580/DEEM3) -
Planning permission was approved for the demolition of temporary
classrooms and the erection of two new classrooms and an entrance foyer.
Planning permission was approved for the erection of new computer room
and two classrooms
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
6 to 26 (even) Wroe Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
SC4 – Improvement/Replacement of Schools
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
EHC1 – Provision and Improvement of Education, Health and Community
Facilities
PLANNING APPRAISAL
119
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th April 2003
Policy SC4 states that the Council will endeavour to make good any deficiencies in school facilities, and
makes reference to the improvement of old schools. Policy EHC1 explains that planning permission for the
improvement of education facilities will be granted on the condition that residential, environmental and
public amenity is not compromised.
The proposed infill extension would be a distance of 32m from the residential properties on Wroe Street,
and would not project beyond the existing south facing wall of the school. Therefore, I am of the opinion
that extension would not lead to a loss of amenity for the local residents. The design of the existing school
would be maintained.
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 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
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Coal Authority.
120
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
121
17th April 2003