PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44155/COU
APPLICANT:
Connell Bros Limited
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By Manchester Bolton Bury Canal (disused), Holland
Street And Orchard Street Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Change of use of land to demolition contractors yard and recycling
centre
WARD:
Pendleton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a large vacant and cleared former industrial premises on Orchard Street. The site
is bounded to the south-west by railway lines, Holland Street to the north east, Orchard Street to the
north-east and the applicants existing yard to the south-east. The line of the former Manchester, Bolton and
Bury Canal runs within the site alongside the railway. The site is flat and is surrounded by existing
industrial premises with the closest houses being to the north-east on the opposite side of Langley Road
South some 80m from the site. The site covers an area of approximately 3.5hectares. The main access
would be from Orchard Street with an exit from Holland Street.
It is proposed to expand the applicant’s existing site and operation to include the sorting and storage of
construction/demolition waste, including the use of mobile crushing and screening plant.
The operating hours would be the same as the applicants existing site, 8am to 6pm Mondays to Fridays and
8am to 1pm on Saturdays with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
The crushing/screening process would require authorisation under Part 1 of the Environmental Protection
Act 1990. In addition the applicant has submitted a report that summarises the plant and equipment that
would be used on the site, the waste reception and handling procedures that would be used and how dust
would be controlled and monitored. The report also sets out how stockpiles would be managed and how
odour, vermin, mud and litter would be controlled as well as details of traffic management and noise control
measures. The operations would all take place in the open and no buildings are proposed under this
application.
The site would be screened from Orchard Road as the existing operation is currently, by a double height of
containers placed behind the site boundary and painted green.
SITE HISTORY
In February 1996 planning permission was granted for the storage of containers on the site to a maximum
height of 10.5m (E/34766).
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
In August 1998 planning permission was granted to continue the use of the site for the storage and repair of
containers but with a different restriction on the height that stated that within 7m of the Orchard Street
boundary the site should not be stacked more than two containers high but increasing further back to a
maximum height of five containers (98/37892/FUL).
In March 2001 planning permission was granted to the current applicant to use the adjacent site as a
demolition contractors yard and for the erection of a two-storey office building (01/41926/FUL). One of
the several conditions attached to the permission stated that there shall be no storage or processing of
demolition waste or other waste on the site.
Members will be aware that planning permission was granted for a waste and recycling treatment plant on
land off Frederick Road in July 2002 (01/43439/FUL). This site was less than half the size of the
application site and housed noise generating machinery inside a 30,000sq.m building.
CONSULTATIONS
Railtrack – no objections but provide advice
Director of Environmental Services – no objections in principle but asks that a number of conditions be
attached.
Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal Society – opposes the application on the grounds that it will
detrimental to the Canal when it is restored. The proposed scheme takes up land earmarked for the delivery
of the canal scheme benefits and therefore acts against the case for restoration. Such benefits include
massive job creation as well as a host of other benefits whereas the application provides four new jobs.
Having so many recycling facilities will not enhance the canal or its corridor. If the application cannot be
resisted then considerable improvements to the scheme should be sought.
Charlestown and Lower Kersal New Deal for Communities – the site in the past has been used in the past
used as a storage area for shipping containers. Such a use adversely affected the physical appearance of the
area. Removal of this use represents an opportunity to secure a more appropriate and less visually intrusive
use for the site. This in turn would serve to attract further inward investment into the area. The proposal
purports to increase the number of employees on the site by four. This needs to be balanced against the
negative impact that the recycling plant with its production processes and its need to be supplied by up to 55
wagons per day would have on local industry in the area. This negative impact is exacerbated by the recent
permission on the Lissadel Street site. Two recycling facilities within such close proximity would be an
over-proliferation. This site is adjacent to the main gateway into the New Deal area. The NDC Partnership
is about to commission a study, with the primary aim of providing a strategy that will make this strategic
gateway an attractive and inviting entrance into the New Deal area. Should this proposal go ahead it would
fundamentally undermine this aim given its close proximity to the gateway. You will be aware that British
waterways are in the process of drawing up plans to restore the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal. This
site lies immediately adjacent to the canal, and if developed as proposed, would have a negative impact on
the canal corridor in terms of its visual appearance. To conclude, the proposed development is contrary to
what the NDC Partnership is trying to achieve within Charlestown and Lower Kersal. The overall vision
for the NDC area is “to make Lower Kersal and Charlestown a place where people want to live, by building
a community and future that engages everyone”. Central to this vision is the creation of an attractive
environment where existing residents and businesses want to remain and others want to move into. This
proposal, if allowed, will serve only to significantly negate the Partnership’s efforts to realise this vision.
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
The Wildlife Trust – The south west boundary of the site borders the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal
and, although this part of the canal is not included in the Site of Biological Importance it will be important
to protect the canal from pollution. It is recommended that there should be a buffer zone between the site
and the canal.
British Waterways – No response to date.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 7th June 2002.
I have notified the following neighbours of the application:1 to 15 Orchard Street Industrial Estate
The Lowry Public House and 2 to 6 Douglas Green
1 to 39 Langley Road South
Beehive Inn and Bridge Mills Business Park Holland Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EC13/13 Sites for Industry and Warehousing
Other policies: EC1 A Balanced Portfolio of Sites, EC14 Improvement
Proposals, EN27 Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal, DEV2 Good Design, DEV1
Development Criteria, MW11 Waste Recycling and Bulk Reduction.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
The site is allocated for industry and warehousing in the UDP. Policy EC1 does allow, in appropriate
circumstances, for special industrial uses and scrapyards on sites allocated for industry and warehousing,
and therefore the proposal would not represent a departure from the UDP. Policy EC14 states that the City
Council will specifically seek improvements in the Pendleton industrial and commercial area. The
reasoned justification to the policy highlights the need to render the area more attractive to incoming firms.
Policy EN27 seeks to improve the appearance and develop the recreational potential of the canal as well as
protect its line. Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant planning permission
unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and appearance of the development. Policy DEV1 states that
the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering applications. These factors
include the relationship to existing land uses, the potential for environmental pollution and noise, the effect
on neighbouring properties, the visual appearance of the development, landscaping and any other material
consideration. Policy MW11 encourages new or extended waste management sites that recycle or reclaim
waste materials, but only where this is consistent with other policies and proposals of the UDP.
While I am concerned about the effect of such a large proposal on residents I note that the Director of
Environmental Services does not object to the application subject to conditions regarding its operation.
However, two of the consultees, the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal Society and the New Deal for
Communities team are objecting to the application.
I consider therefore that the main issues are whether or not the development is in conformity with the UDP.
In terms of policy EC14 the information supplied with the application leads to the conclusion that the
proposal would detract from the environmental quality and appearance of the area. The previous container
use was a considerable source of nuisance to nearby residents, and the removal of this use represents an
opportunity to secure a better use on the site that would contribute to the success of this employment area
and the regeneration of the broader area. The site is just 80m from residential properties at its nearest point
and I am concerned that a development of this size would have a significant detrimental impact on the
general amenity and appearance of the area that would be inconsistent with both policies MW15 and DEV1.
The proposed use of shipping containers to screen the site, and the storage of materials up to a height of 10m
would also detract from the area, and would be contrary to policies EC14/3, DEV2 and MW15.
While the proposal does protect the line of the Canal Policy EN27 refers to the appearance of the Canal.
The application as submitted does nothing to improve the appearance of the Canal and I consider that the
proposal is contrary to Policy EN27 While policy MW11 does offer some support for the proposal I do not
consider that that the development is consistent with other policies and proposals in the UDP.
I consider that the proposal would also represent an overconcentration of such uses within this part of the
City. The recycling operation on Frederick Road is just approximately 220m from this site and the
applicant already operates a demolition contractors yard from the adjoining site.
The restoration of the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal is looking increasingly likely, with an official
launch of the restoration having been held in May this year. The Canal is one of nine new canal restoration
schemes in the country announced in March this year and is considered to be the most likely to progress in
the next few years. I do not consider that the presence of a large demolition contractors yard would assist in
this process. I do not consider that the proposed use or the use of a double height of containers to screen it
would be compatible with the objectives expressed in policy EC14. I consider that the development would
detract from the environmental quality and appearance of the area.
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
I consider that the application as submitted raises a number of concerns, particularly relating to the impact
on the amenity, appearance and regeneration of the area, and the successful restoration and use of the
Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal. I therefore recommend that the application be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
(Reasons)
1. The proposal would detract from the amenity and appearance of the area by reason of the nature of the
proposed use, the height of materials stored and the proposed method of screening and would be
contrary to policies EC14/3, DEV1, MW15 and DEV2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
2. The proposed use of the site would not be compatible with the aims of the City Council to improve the
appearance and develop the recreational potential of the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal and
would therefore be contrary to policy EN27 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/44540/OUT
APPLICANT:
Ainsworth Estates
LOCATION:
Vacant Site At Memorial Road/ Stanley Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for the erection of a residential
development comprising of 27 two-bedroomed self-contained flats with
associated car parking spaces
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former site of Crossley’s sheds situated on land between Memorial Road,
Stanley Road and Park Road. The railway and its embankment forms the southern boundary to the site.
There are residential terraces to the north on both Memorial Road and Stanley Road separated by an access
road which is actually within the application site whilst opposite on Memorial Road is the IMO garage and
the vets, and opposite on Stanley Road is another car garage and offices. There are currently two single
storey brick built industrial units on the site which are vacant and are falling into a state of disrepair.
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
The proposal which is in outline but with only landscaping reserved, is for the demolition of the existing
buildings on the site and for the erection of 27 apartments within two, three storey blocks. The first block
would be sited along the eastern boundary, parallel to Memorial Road. It would continue the same building
line as the adjacent terraces and measure 23m by 10m at its greatest with three flats on each level.
The second block would be sited parallel to the southern boundary and would be separated from the first
block by an amenity area. This block would measure 36m by 12m with six apartments on each level.
Twenty five parking spaces and two disabled spaces would be provided within the site. The site would be
surrounded by 1.8m high railings and gates at the access points. A noise survey has also been submitted as
part of the application. This recommends that the proposed flats are sound insulated to reduce the external
noise to an acceptable level inside the flats.
SITE HISTORY
There have been several applications on this site and I have outlined the relevant ones below.
In August 2000 permission was granted in outline for the demolition of the buildings on the site and for the
erection of a vets practice with car parking and new vehicular accesses, planning reference 00/40953/OUT.
In May 2001 permission was granted to change the use of the premises to a timber merchants, reference
01/42068/FUL.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – As the site has previously been in industrial use it is recommended
that a contaminated land investigation is undertaken with remedial works as necessary. I have not received
any comments to date regarding the noise survey.
Railtrack – no objections in principle.
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Officer – recommends that there should only be one access road
to reduce escape routes, there should be a barrier at the entrance with Stanley Road, the erection of 1.8m
high railings around the site and the planting of prickly shrubs around the ground floor units to discourage
access .
The Coal Authority – no objections.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published August 2002.
A site notice was displayed on 30 July 2002.
The following neighbours were notified :
71 – 77 (O) Memorial Road
23 – 31, 2 – 6 Stanley Road
Pet Medics, Memorial Road
ATS Depot, Stanley Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 2 letters in response to the application publicity. The following comments having been
made:
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
Overdevelopment – 10 flats only more appropriate
Ensure sufficient parking provision within the development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none.
Other policies: DEV2 Good Design, T13 Car Parking, DEV1 Development
Criteria DEV4 Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
There are three main issues to be considered for this proposal relating to the impact of the proposal upon the
amenity of the neighbouring residents, the visual impact of the proposal upon the street scene, the impact in
terms of traffic generation and highway safety and is it appropriate residential environment given the close
proximity of the railway line.
One of the objectors was concerned that the proposal would result in an overdevelopment of the site. The
applicant has provided a total of 27 parking spaces and there is also an amenity area within the site for the
residents to enjoy. The apartments blocks would both be 3 storey which would be very different from the
existing single storey building. However, this is not to say it would be unacceptable and it is important to
assess this design aspect in relation to the adjacent terraced properties in particular. The land falls away
gradually down both Memorial Road and Stanley Road. The applicant has submitted elevations which
show that the apartments which are on the same building line as the adjacent terraced properties, would be
no more than 0.8m higher and would be separated by 11m. I am satisfied therefore that from a street scene
aspect the apartments would not be overly dominant or detrimental to the character of this vicinity. The
second block would be situated behind this first block and therefore would be screened to a degree when
viewed from Memorial Road. In relation to the street scene aspect on Stanley Road, again the block would
be no higher than the adjacent terraces and would also be separated by 18m.
The second concern by objectors related to concern about insufficient parking provision. Twenty seven
spaces are proposed including two disabled spaces. Government guidance in PPG3 encourages a reduced
provision for parking within any new development, especially within accessible locations. The site is
situated on the edge of Walkden town centre, is on a bus route and is also adjacent to Walkden railway
station and therefore is one such location where reduced provision could be justified. I am therefore
satisfied that the proposal complies with national policy in this respect and have no objections on highway
grounds.
In relation to the comments from the architectural liaison officer I consider that the applicant has addressed
these. 1.8m high railings would be erected around the site increasing to 2.1m along the boundary to the
railway embankment and prickly shrubs could be introduced as part of the general landscaping within the
site. There would also only be one access road into the site.
The proposed apartments would result in a development that would be very different from the existing but
as there are residential dwellings immediately to the north of the site I am satisfied that the principle of the
use is acceptable in this mixed use location. In terms of the density of the development, PPG3 Housing
actively encourages a higher density and usage of sites, together with offering a choice of house types. This
proposal would comply with both these aspects providing apartments to complement the adjacent
dwellinghouses. I am satisfied that subject to the use of local building materials, the development would
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
not have a detrimental impact upon the visual amenity of the street or be detrimental to the amenity of the
neighbouring residents. It would result in the redevelopment of a brownfield site and I therefore
recommend that this application be approved.
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:
- 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 treatments.
3. 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.
4. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the
approval of the LPA. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground
contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to
receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focussing primarily on
risks to human health and to controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of
ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on
services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems
and property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to the start of the site
investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report
shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.
5. Prior to the commencement of the development the developer shall submit a noise and vibration
investigation report for the approval of the LPA. The investigation shall monitor the various sources of
noise and vibration surrounding the site and identify measures to attenuate the level of noise or
vibration, where necessary, to prevent nuisance for future occupiers of the site. The investigation shall
include as a minimum the noise and vibration effects of the Railway Line, the Road Network
surrounding the site, and will account for the likely impact of the Car Wash Facility on Memorial Road
and the Car Valeting Facility on Stanley Road.
The investigation strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to the commencement of the assessment
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
. Any recommendations or works identified within the final report shall be implemented by the
developer prior to occupation of the site. All works implemented shall be maintained thereafter.
6. Full details of the proposed railings surrounding the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing
prior to the commencement of development and to the satisfaction of the Director of Development
Services.
7. The railings hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior to the
commencement of the development by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
7. 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. It is recommended 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.
2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached letter from Railtrack dated 19th September 2002.
3. This permission shall relate to the amended plans received on 6 September 2002 for 27 flats and a
central amenity area.
APPLICATION No:
02/44586/COU
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
APPLICANT:
Galway Developments
LOCATION:
12 Howe Street Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Change of use of dwelling to house in multiple occupation
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a large end terraced property situated within the Cliff Conservation Area. The
area is residential in nature with several houses in multiple occupation within the row of terrace. There is
some provision for car parking within the rear of the site.
It is proposed to convert the property to a house in multiple occupation with 10 bedrooms.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1 – 33 (odd) & 14 – 24 (even) Howe Street
2-10 (even) Howe Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received four representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Too many similar use in the area
Character of the Conservation Area
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H5 Dwellings Sub-Divided into Self-Contained Flats or in Multiple Occupancy
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy H5 states that the City Council will only permit proposals for the provision of dwellings in multiple
occupancy where a number of criteria can be satisfied. These criteria include that the development makes
satisfactory provision for access, parking and servicing and that the proposal would not have an
unacceptably adverse effect on the amenity of neighbouring residents or on the character of the area by
reason of the cumulative effects of the concentration of such uses.
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
Although the property has been vacant for some time I am concerned that there are a significant number of
similar uses in the area. I agree with those local residents who have responded to my notification and
consider that the application would be contrary to policy H5 of the UDP. I therefore recommend that
permission be refused on the following grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
(Reasons)
1. The proposal would by reason of the cumulative effect of the concentration of such uses in the area
have an adverse effect on the amenity of neighbouring residents and on the character of the area
generally and as such would be contrary to Policy H5 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/44643/FUL
APPLICANT:
Abbotsound Ltd
LOCATION:
The Widows Rest PH 433 Eccles New Road Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from public house to fourteen self contained flats and
office and ground floor and retention of railings and gates.
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
At the meeting of the Panel held on the 17th October 2002 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
This application relates to a vacant public house at the junction of Eccles New Road and Cemetery Road.
The building currently comprises lounge and bar areas at ground floor and residential lodgings at first floor.
The proposal is to convert the ground floor, first floor and attic of the property into fourteen one bedroom
self-contained studio flats. Access to the flats would be via a shared access to the front of the building. It is
the Applicant’s intention that the self-contained flats will initially be made available as supported housing
and as such, a small office is proposed at ground floor level to oversee the management of the development
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
and to provide 24 hour on site support staff cover. Each resident would be provided with a minimum 1 hour
support session on a weekly basis, to ensure that the resident’s needs are met and to promote independence.
The Applicant states that the proposal has the support and funding of “Supporting People”, a Government
led housing initiative.
There are no external alterations proposed to the elevations of the building. It is proposed to locate bin
stores in the yard area to the rear of the premises. Car parking for six cars and an area of private amenity
space has been identified in the existing parking area to the front of the premises. Access to the car park is
from Cemetery Road. Permission is also sought for the retention of 2.4 metre high railings and gates which
have been erected around the car park and amenity space.
The surrounding area is predominantly residential. To the rear of the premises, separated by a narrow,
gated, rear alley are terraced properties on Smyrna Street. To the east of the site is an area of open space.
SITE HISTORY
02/44265/COU - Change of use of public house to six residential units. Application Withdrawn.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – The proposed development is located in very close proximity to the
busy Eccles New Road and noise from passing traffic is most likely to cause a loss of amenity should
mitigation measures not be implemented. A noise assessment and mitigation measures condition is
therefore recommended.
Environment Agency – No objection in principle.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Fully support the planning application.
Recommendations regarding automatic/ lockable gates, video controlled pedestrian gates, alarmed fire
exits and lighting to rear. Letter to be forwarded to Applicant for information.
Greater Manchester Police Crime Reduction Office – Has concerns regarding the proposal. Tension is
already extremely high in the local vicinity, with tenants against the proposals concerning the change of use
of the building. This has resulted in a backlash by local youths with numerous incidents occurring. In the
past 3 months there have been 9 incidents which include a vehicle being rammed into the premises and
torched, resulting in a serious arson attack. Men working on the renovations have also been subject to
attacks. A number of questions are posed - How would ‘acceptable behaviour’ be assessed and monitored?
Will these measures be sensitive to the community’s needs and be properly evaluated? In relation to the
implementation of these controls, will full co-operation with the Police be actively encouraged by the
management?
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 5th September 2002
A site notice was displayed on 27th August 2002
The following neighbours were notified:
3 – 7 (odds) Cemetery Road
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
8 – 32 (evens), 84 Cumbrae Gardens
1 – 6 Nelson Street
2 – 32 (evens) Smyrna Street
121 – 143 (odds) Stowell Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations or letters of objections to date in response to the application publicity.
Members should be aware that a 222 name petition was received in respect of the previous planning
application which was withdrawn, but no further petition or letters have been received to date.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV4 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that regard will be had to a number of factors in determining
applications for planning permission, including the location and nature of the proposed development and
the amount, design and layout of car parking provision. DEV4 states that regard will be had to the position
and height of fencing and gates and the provision of security features. UDP policy T13 states that the City
Council will ensure that adequate parking and appropriate car parking and servicing provision is made
where necessary. The City Council’s car parking standards (1.25 spaces per dwelling) would require a
minimum of 21car parking spaces to be provided at the site.
Firstly, with regards to the principal of the proposal, I consider that the change of use to self-contained flats
is an appropriate use in this predominantly residential area. The application has been made for
‘self-contained flats’ and although an element of on-site support has been identified, I consider that the use
would fall within Class C3 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes Order) 1987. With regards to
the relationship to existing uses, the building is located approximately 6 metres from the rear of dwellings
on Smyrna Street. None of the dwellings on Smyrna Street have windows to the rear of their outrigger
extensions and no new windows will be inserted into the proposed development. Given the existing uses of
the property are as a public house at ground floor and residential/living accommodation at first floor and
bearing in mind the position of the windows, I do not consider that the residents of Smyrna Street would
suffer any further loss of privacy. The proposal will bring a vacant building back into use, which is currently
subject to vandalism attacks and will improve the general appearance of the site. I consider that the railings
and gates that have been erected are of a good standard of design and will secure the parking area.
With regards to car parking provision at the site, the parking identified is considerably below UDP
standards. I do have some concerns in relation to car parking, but I believe that the site is located in an
excellent position for access to public transport, being adjacent to the Metrolink line and main bus routes on
Eccles New Road. The Applicant has stated that none of the tenants would own their own vehicle and that at
any one time there would only be two members of staff at the property and as such only two spaces would
be required. The parking area that would be provided is approximately half the size as was associated with
the public house use, this is because an area of private amenity space is required. I consider that as one bed
studio flats, the properties are likely to be single person households only. For these reasons, I believe that
six parking spaces in this location would be acceptable, although below UDP standards.
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
The design of the development is fully supported by the Police Architectural Liaison Unit, however, the
Crime Reduction Officer has raised concerns regarding the nature of the development and the implications
for policing. I consider that although crime and disorder is a material planning consideration, there is not
sufficient evidence to indicate that planning permission should be refused on these grounds. Furthermore, I
do not consider that the occupancy of self-contained flats can be controlled by the planning process.
I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds and I consider that residential use would be in
keeping with the surrounding area.
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Members should be aware that since writing my Report, I have received a fax from the Greater Manchester
Police Crime Reduction Office stating that they have no further comments following the response to their
questions/concerns from the Support Manager of Positive Lifestyles (the organisation that the Applicant
has indicated would manage the property).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS 2)
Members should be aware that I have received a letter of objection from a Tenant Participation Officer, on
behalf of the residents and tenants of Space Housing Association. Residents do not feel that the plans to
convert the property into 14 self-contained flats would be beneficial for the area and they feel that the flats
would have a very negative impact in an already depressed area of Salford. Concerns expressed relate to the
supported nature of the housing and that residents fear they will be unaware of the problems faced by them
and the new inhabitants will not be known to them; that other schemes run by "Positive Lifestyles" have
proved to be of grave concern; and the impact of the proposals on the effectiveness of new security fencing
and the alley gating scheme to the rear alleyways on Smyrna Street, Nelson Street/Kirkham Street. Finally,
Space has recently had an increase in the number of tenants wishing to transfer from the Weaste area, the
reason given is the proposals for the Widows Rest public house.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. This permission shall relate to the submitted planning application as amended by fax from the Agent
dated 20th September 2002, showing the vehicular access gates set back a distance of 13.6 metres from
Eccles New Road.
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
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within 6 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
4. Standard Condition J04X Bin Stores
5. 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 should have due regard to the Department of the
Environment Guidance PPG 24 - Planning and Noise. The assessment and mitigation measures shall
be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the
development. Any approved mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to occupation.
6. 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 R015A Safety-users of highway
3. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
4. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Greater Manchester
Police Architectural Liaison Unit dated 11th September 2002.
2. The Development Services Directorate (Highways Section) should be consulted regarding the
construction of a footway crossing, the cost of which will be the responsibility of the developer.
APPLICATION No:
02/44645/COU
APPLICANT:
Benchmark Properties Ltd
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
LOCATION:
Moorfield Childrens Home 2A Moorside Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from childrens reception centre to offices (B1(a)
Business)
WARD:
Swinton South
At the meeting of the Panel held on the 7th November 2002 consideration of this application was deferred
for an inspection by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel.
My previous observations are set out below:-
BACKGROUND
Members should be aware that the following two consecutively numbered applications are related to each
other, and should be read in conjunction with each other.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the existing Moorfield children’s care home. It is proposed to change the use of
the property to offices. The property would provide approximately 470sq.m of floorspace. The site is
bounded by residential properties to the north and by the Medical Centre to the south. To the rear is the
vacant remainder of the former Moorfield house site.
A new access would be provided off Moorside Road and this aspect of the development is dealt with more
fully under application 02/44646/FUL.
A total of eleven car parking spaces would be provided.
SITE HISTORY
In March 1998 planning permission was granted for the demolition of the existing building and the erection
of a two storey, 10 bedroomed children’s reception unit, health centre, ancillary offices and pharmacy
together with landscaping, car parking and alteration to existing vehicular access (98/37568/FUL).
Members will be aware of the decision that has been taken following an inspection of the home to close the
facility and provide alternative accommodation elsewhere.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:15 to 59 Ashley Drive
1A to 7A, 2 and 4 Norwood Drive
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
17 to 31, 8 The Stables, 1 to 15 The Hollies, The Limes, Moorfield Cottage, 10 and 12 Moorside
Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a total of three representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity
including an objection from the Moorside South Residents Association. The following issues have been
raised:Proposed access would be dangerous
Lack of information
Increased traffic congestion on Moorside Road
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the nature of the proposed development and its relationship to existing
land uses, the likely scale and type of traffic generation and the effect on neighbouring residents.
With regard to the objections that have been raised by local residents I consider that the proposed access has
been sited to maximise available visibility. However, the amount of traffic generated by this proposal
would not be so significant as to cause either a problem at the new junction or significant congestion on
Moorside Road.
With regard to the lack of information the application is speculative. With regard to the number of people
working at the premises the City Council’s car parking standards are based on the floorspace of a building
and not on expected numbers of staff. These standards would normally require a total of 16 car parking
spaces to be provided. However, the property is located close to public transport routes and therefore I do
not consider that this shortfall is significant or likely to lead to problems of congestion or parking on the
highway.
I do not consider that the proposed use would have any significant detrimental effect on any neighbouring
property or on the street scene. I therefore recommend that permission be granted subject to the following
conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
2. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R013A Use of parking areas
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This permission shall relate to the amended plans received on 21st October 2002.
APPLICATION No:
02/44646/FUL
APPLICANT:
Benchmark Properties Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent 2A Moorside Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection four semi-detached houses, two - two storey buildings each
comprising four flats and seven garages together with associated
landscaping, car parking and alteration to vehicular access
WARD:
Swinton South
At the meeting of the Panel held on the 7th November 2002 consideration of this application was deferred
for an inspection by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel.
My previous observations are set out below:BACKGROUND
Members should be aware that the previous report is related and should be read in conjunction with each
other.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the land to the side and rear of the existing Sides Medical Centre. It is proposed
to erect two pairs of semi-detached houses and 8 apartments in two separate two-storey buildings. A total
of six garages would be provided for the flats with an additional two parking spaces. Two of the houses
would have two car parking spaces and the other two would have one. A new access would be provided
onto Moorside Road that would also provide access to the former children’s home. The houses would be
located to the rear of the former children’s home with the flats located to the rear of houses on Ashley Drive
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
with the garage block between the two blocks of apartments. The houses would each have three bedrooms
and the apartments two. The site slopes from front to back and from north to south. The majority of the
trees are located on a slight bank. A topographical survey and arboricultural report have been submitted
with the application.
The site is bounded by residential properties to the north, east and south and by the medical centre and
children’s home to the west. Members will recall that the mature trees on the site are protected by Tree
Preservation Order 255 that was made in February 2002 and confirmed with minor modifications in August
of this year. A total of 54 trees on the site are protected. Trees not included in the order include fourteen
fruit trees as well as eight other trees. Of those trees that are protected by the TPO it is proposed to fell
eleven. Forty-three of the protected trees would be retained. Of the eight other trees on the site, two would
be felled and six retained. It is proposed to remove all the fruit trees.
The application has been amended since it was submitted in a number of respects:- the roofs of all the
buildings which are now hipped rather than gabled; a block of four properties has been split to create two
pairs of semi-detached houses; these houses have been moved away by a further 2m from the common
boundary with the houses to the rear and the internal road has been moved a further 1m away from the trees
that are to be retained.
SITE HISTORY
In March 1998 planning permission was granted for the demolition of the existing building, Moorside
House, and the erection of a two storey, 10 bedroomed children’s reception unit, health centre, ancillary
offices and pharmacy together with landscaping, car parking and alteration to existing vehicular access
(98/37568/FUL).
An application for a revised medical centre was approved in December 1998 (98/38678/FUL).
There have been no previous applications that relate to this piece of land but members will be aware of
recent applications on the medical centre itself for a gym, new entrance and signage.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Environment Agency – No objections
The Coal Authority – No objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Concern is expressed about the lack of a number of
basic security details. These concerns have been passed to the applicant and a condition has bee appended.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbours were notified of both the application and the amended plans:15 to 59 Ashley Drive
1A to 7A, 2 and 4 Norwood Drive
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
17 to 31, 8 The Stables, 1 to 15 The Hollies, The Limes, Moorfield Cottage, 10 and 12 Moorside
Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a total of eighteen letters of objections and two petitions of a total of 172 signatures in
response to the application publicity including an objection from the Moorside South Residents
Association. The following issues have been raised:Loss of protected trees
Proposed access would be dangerous
Substandard turning circle for refuse vehicles
Loss of green space
Other trees removed previously by the applicant have not been replaced
Loss of wildlife
Loss of privacy
Increase in traffic
Internal road is dangerous
Increased traffic congestion on Moorside Road
Noise and disturbance
Loss of outlook
Drainage problems caused by old stream
Development would be out of character
Loss of light
Block of four properties would be overbearing
Development is contrary to Council policy
Councillor Upton has written to say she has received several letters from residents of Moorside Road
objecting to the development and the removal of protected trees.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, EN7 Conservation of Trees and
Woodlands
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the nature of the proposed development and its relationship to existing
land uses, the likely scale and type of traffic generation, the potential for noise nuisance, the visual
appearance of the development, the impact on existing trees and the effect on neighbouring residents.
Policy EN7 states that the City Council will encourage the retention of trees and woodlands.
With regard to the objections that have been raised by local residents the issue raised most relates to the loss
of protected trees. Many refer to the fact that these trees have only recently been protected by TPO. I must
point out that the report that was considered by the Panel when the Order was confirmed stated that the TPO
was made because at the time an application for the development of the land for residential purposes was
imminent which could have lead to a loss of some or all of the trees on the site. The eleven trees protected
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
by TPO that it is proposed to remove are either very close to the line of the access road or are on or very
close to one of the proposed apartment buildings. Members will be aware that the City Council has recently
adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance with regard to trees. This states that a certain level of
information is required with any application that involved the felling of trees. In this instance some of that
information has not been supplied, particularly with regard to the disposition of all drives, sewers, drains
and services as well as finished floor levels. The applicant has been made aware of this and will supply this
information. I do not consider that in this instance the information that has not been supplied has a
significant bearing how many trees would be removed. Members should also be aware that of those trees
that are to be retained, the canopies of two trees lie within the footprint of buildings. In addition, two of the
trees lie within 2m of the proposed access road. The applicant has stated that he proposes to use ‘geoweb’
surfacing to form the access road and that this technique has been used successfully elsewhere with trees
even closer to roads. The City Council’s opinion is that this may be possible in practice but it is dependent
on the quality of workmanship and the care taken when constructing a road such as this.
Some objectors have referred to trees to the road frontage that should have been replaced as a result of
earlier tree removal. The applicant has stated that trees planted previously have been vandalised and stolen
but that replacement trees will be planted. I do not consider that this matter can form part of my
consideration on this current application.
I am of the opinion that a significant majority of the trees on the site are to be retained, just a quarter of the
protected trees would be lost and I consider that the value that this group of trees provides would not be lost
as a result of this development. Significantly, a letter written on behalf of the Moorside Road Residents
Association specifically with regard to the tree issue is in accordance with the applicant’s proposals in all
respects except for one tree (excluding the fruit trees, which are not protected).
The access has been positioned to maximise available visibility and although it does not fully meet with
standard requirements I am satisfied that the access on to Moorside Road is acceptable in terms of highway
safety. I have no objections on highway grounds to the application and do not consider that this will result
in a significant increase in the amount of traffic or congestion on Moorside Road or that the internal access
road is dangerous. The turning head is acceptable for refuse vehicles.
Whilst this area of land is very attractive when viewed from the properties that surround it I must point out
that it is not a public space. I cannot therefore agree with those who have objected to the loss of green
space. With the majority of the trees on the site being retained and new trees being planted I do not consider
that there would be a significant loss of wildlife.
The applicant has moved the proposed houses away from the common boundary with houses on Ashley
Drive so that there is now a distance of 10.5m to the common boundary. There is now a distance of at least
24m to the houses and I consider that this is sufficient to ensure that there is no loss of privacy. The
apartment blocks are positioned so that the gables face the houses, in addition the apartments are in excess
of 20m from these houses, and so again I do not consider that any significant loss of privacy will result from
this development.
The level of development proposed is not significant and I do not therefore consider that neighbouring
residents will suffer from noise and disturbance as a result of this proposal. With regard to loss of outlook
I am of the opinion that the treescape that exists will be seen above the apartment buildings and while
residents views will change I do not consider that the change in outlook will result in a significant loss of
amenity to neighbouring residents.
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
As a result of amendments to the design of the roofs and the creation of two pairs of semi-detached
properties I do not now consider that the proposed development would be out of character with its
surroundings. The apartment buildings are both two storey and surrounding houses are all semi-detached
properties with hipped roofs. I agree with those who considered that the block of four houses originally
proposed would have been overbearing. This has now been amended and I no longer consider that any
aspect of the development would be overbearing to any neighbouring property. Interface distances are such
that there will be no significant loss of light to any neighbouring property. The applicant is aware of the
drainage problems on the site and I consider that these can be satisfactorily addressed.
None of the consultees have objected to the proposal and the concerns of the Architectural Liaison Unit
relate to detailed matters that have been passed to the applicant and would be dealt with by planning
conditions.
I consider that the main planning issue relates to the loss of protected trees. I am satisfied that the TPO was
made not with the intention of retaining every tree on the site but with the intention of giving the City
Council the ability to control the level of development and minimise the tree loss. The applicants have
amended their proposals significantly as a result of pre-application discussions with officers. I am of the
opinion that, on balance, the loss of trees in this instance is not significant in relation to the overall site and
the contribution that the group of trees provides and is therefore not contrary to policies EN7 or DEV1 of
the UDP. The overall effect of the groups of trees will not be lost as a result of this development and I am
therefore confident in recommending that this application be approved subject to the following conditions
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 C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
4. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls and roofs
of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
5. Standard Condition J04X Bin Stores
6. Prior to the commencement of development an arboricultural method statement shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The report shall address the road
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
and building construction, protective fencing, positioning of scaffolding and shall detail those measures
necessary to protect those trees shown to be retained on the approved plan. The development shall be
implemented in accordance with such details as are approved.
7. No development shall commence until full details of finished floor levels have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The development shall be implemented
in accordance with such details as are approved.
8. No development shall commence until details of the disposition of all sewers, drains and services have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The development
shall be implemented in accordance with such details as are approved.
9. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a plan showing security measures
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services and the
development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved particulars in the accordance of
DEV4 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
10. So far as they lie within the site, visibility splays of 2.4m by 60m shall be provided at the junction of
Moorside Road and shall thereafter be maintained free of any obstruction between 600mm and 2m in
height above the adjacent carriageway.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
4. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
6. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
7. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
8. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
9. In order to provide security for the occupiers of this development.
10. Standard Reason R025A Intervisibility of users of highway
Note(s) for Applicant
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
1. The developer is advised to contact the City Council's Main Drainage Section with regard to floor
levels and the potential for flooding.
2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Greater Manchester
Police Architectural Liaison Unit.
3. The access road shall not be adopted beyond the back of pavement.
APPLICATION No:
02/44735/FUL
APPLICANT:
Mr Sinitsky
LOCATION:
39 Leicester Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey extension to the rear of existing shop
WARD:
Broughton
At the meeting of the Panel held on the 17th October 2002 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
This application relates to an existing retail unit within the Leicester Road Key Local Centre and seeks the
erection of a single storey rear extension
This proposal would fill the remaining area of rear yard. Beyond the rear boundary is a access way with
residential properties beyond that.
SITE HISTORY
In February 1991, planning permission was granted for a part single storey, part two storey extension at
37/39 Leicester Road.(ref. E/27683).
In November 1991, planning permission was granted for a full two storey rear extension across the whole of
37/39 Leicester Road. (ref. E/28850).
In March 1995, planning permission was refused for a single storey rear extension, on the grounds that it
would be detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring residents as well as on highway safety grounds on a
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
busy road junction that already suffers congestion.(ref. 94/32938/FUL). This application was dismissed on
appeal.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
37 & 41 Leicester Road
4 – 8 (even) Cleveleys Grove
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 2 letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Increase in commercial activity
General size and siting
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account
when determining applications, including the visual appearance of the development and its relationship to
its surroundings.
I consider that the circumstances surrounding this application have not changed from the previous planning
refusal. Therefore, I am still of the opinion that the property has been extended to its maximum already, and
that any further development would lead to an unacceptable intensification of the business use of the site
which would seriously harm the amenity of the residents of Cleveleys Grove. I recommend therefore that
the application be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
(Reasons)
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
1. The proposed extension by reason of its size and siting would detract from the amenity of occupiers of
neighbouring houses contrary to DEV3 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
2. The proposed development would not provide any off street car parking or servicing provision within
the curtilage of the site contrary to T13 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
3. As the proposed development would not provide any off street car parking or servicing provision within
the curtilage, there would be an increase in the concentration of vehicles close to a busy road junction
in an area with existing traffic congestion problems, to the detriment of highway safety and contrary to
T2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
APPLICATION No:
02/44743/FUL
APPLICANT:
R Sussman
LOCATION:
37 Leicester Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey rear extension
WARD:
Broughton
At the meeting of the Panel held on the 17th October 2002 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
This application relates to an existing commercial property within the Leicester Road Key Local Centre and
seeks the erection of a single storey rear extension. The application should be seen in conjunction with
application 02/44735/FUL for a single storey rear extension at the adjoining no. 39, which appears
elsewhere on this agenda.
SITE HISTORY
In February 1991, planning permission was granted for a part single storey, part two storey extension at
37/39 Leicester Road.(ref. E/27683).
In November 1991, planning permission was granted for a full two storey rear extension across the whole of
37/39 Leicester Road. (ref. E/28850).
In March 1995, planning permission was refused for a single storey rear extension, on the grounds that it
would be detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring residents as well as on highway safety grounds on a
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
busy road junction that already suffers congestion.(ref. 94/32938/FUL). This application was dismissed on
appeal.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
35, 39, 78,80,82 Leicester Road
2-16 (even) Cleveleys Grove
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 2 letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Increase in commercial activity
General size and siting
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account
when determining applications, including the visual appearance of the development and its relationship to
its surroundings.
I consider that the circumstances surrounding this application have not changed from the previous planning
refusal. Therefore, I am still of the opinion that the property has been extended to its maximum already, and
that any further development would lead to an unacceptable intensification of the business use of the site
which would seriously harm the amenity of the reside
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
(Reasons)
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
1. The proposed extension by reason of its size and siting would detract from the amenity of occupiers of
neighbouring houses contrary to DEV3 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
2. The proposed development would increase the concentration of vehicles close to a busy road junction
in an area with existing traffic congestion problems, to the detriment of highway safety and contrary to
DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
APPLICATION No:
02/44831/FUL
APPLICANT:
Clifton Initiative
LOCATION:
Land Off Whitehead Road Clifton Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Construction of skateboard facility including equipment, site furniture,
surfacing, fencing and landscaping (re-submission of planning
application 02/44617/FUL)
WARD:
Pendlebury
At the meeting of the Panel held on the 17th October 2002 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
This application relates to land off Whitehead Road, Clifton known as Silverdale and is a large area of
informal open space, grassed areas, trees and walkways.
Silverdale links The Green in the north and expands south into the Slack Brook Valley. The east of the area
is bounded by the residential properties on Whitehead Road, Silverdale school and the Youth Centre bound
the western side. This proposal would be located along the western boundary adjacent to the playing fields
of Silverdale school.
It would cover an area of 25m by 11m and would provide various equipment such as jumps, ramps, ‘grind
rails’ and seating provision. It would utilise materials from the existing former roller hockey pitch. The
perimeter of the proposal would maintain a minimum distance of 44m to the rear boundaries of the
residential properties on Whitehead Road.
SITE HISTORY
Earlier this year planning permission was sought but subsequently withdrawn to convert the nearby former
roller hockey pitch to form a skate board facility (02/44617/FUL)
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – not yet received
PUBLICITY
Two site notices were displayed on 30th September 2002.
The following neighbours were notified :
Silverdale School
57 – 63 (odd), 25 – 55 (odd) Whitehead Road
55A, 55B, 30 – 66 (even) Whitehead Road
Youth Centre, The Green
1 – 9 (odd), 2 – 10 (even) Dewes Avenue
17 – 35 (odd) Ridgeway
REPRESENTATIONS
I will report any representations at your meeting.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
R11/3 – Provision of Country Parks: Slack Brook
Valley, EN17/23 – Croal Irwell Valley and EN5 - Nature
Conservation
Other policies: DEV1 – Design Criteria, R2 – Provision of Formal
Recreational Facilities, R10 – Private Recreation
Facilities
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan Policy R11/3 Provision of Country Parks: Slack Brook Valley lends general
support to the proposal through its emphasis on the potential for development of the area as a recreational
resource. En17/23 Croal Irwell Valley, can also be viewed as lending general support, stressing the
importance of improving the Valley as a recreation resource. EN5 (Nature Conservation) places emphasis
on the protection of wildlife corridors and habitates, and the resisting of development that would be likely to
impair the continuity of a wildlife corridor. It is considered that as a skate board facility and youth shelter
would largely replace an existing facility.
Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining
applications, including the visual appearance of the development and its relationship to its surroundings.
Policy R2 endeavours to ensure that all areas if the City are adequately provided with formal recreational
facilities. Policy R10 seeks to support the development and improvement of private sector facilities where
appropriate.
It is unlikely this proposal would generate additional traffic as it is envisaged that the scheme will be used
by the local youth and as such would visit the site by walking and public transport.
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
The reference to undesirables attracted to the site and general disturbance, I am of the opinion that the
scheme is now far enough away from local residents. The scheme has been amended from its previous local
to accommodate the concerns raised by local people and as such the proposal would now be some 44m from
the rear boundaries of the nearest residential properties. The costs of the scheme is not a material planning
consideration.
I consider that the main planning issue to consider is whether the proposal would result in an unacceptable
loss of amenity to neighbouring residents. The applicant identified this location for the proposal in view of
the objections received by local residents and environmental health in respect of the previous application.
The previous scheme was located some 20m from the nearest residential properties, this proposal would
increase this minimum distance to 44m to the curtilage of the nearest residential properties.
Having considered all the issues raised by this proposal, I consider that this proposal would not have an
unacceptable effect on the residential amenity and would provide a recreational resource on land allocated
for recreation in accordance with the Council’s own Unitary Development Plan. Therefore I would
recommend this proposal be approved.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Since writing the report I have now received one letter of objection and a thirteen named petition in
response to the application publicity. The following issues have been raised:Nuisance
Noise
Anti-Social Behaviour
Vandalism
Lighting
Adverse impact on wildlife
Impact on people’s health
Misuse of the facility
No need for the facility
Contrary to the Council’s pledges
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44844/FUL
APPLICANT:
Thomas Baynes
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To 99 Hazelhurst Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Retention of fencing fronting Hazelhurst Road
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant plot between 97 and 99 Hazelhurst Road, Worsley. The site is occupied
by mature trees, shrubs and bushes.
Permission is sought for the retention of a section of 1.8m high mesh fencing which has been erected across
part of the site, fronting Hazelhurst Road. Each fencing panel is approximately 4m wide and there is a total
of four fencing panels fronting Hazelhurst Road.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:97, 99, 106 & 108 Hazelhurst Road
1 Cartmel Grove High Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:The fencing is unsightly and unnecessary
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV4 Design and Crime
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main issues to be considered relate to whether the fencing accords with the provisions of Policy DEV1,
in terms of its visual appearance and its impact upon the character of the area and the amenity of the
neighbouring residents. The requirement for the fencing in accordance with Policy DEV4 must also be
examined.
Policy DEV1 requires the location and nature of the proposal, the visual appearance of the development and
its relationship to surrounding properties to be assessed. I am concerned with the impact of the fence upon
the street scene and on the amenity of the residents living opposite and adjacent to the site. The fencing has
not been colour treated and is of a design which is not often associated with residential areas.
Turning to the provisions of Policy DEV4, I do not consider the fencing to be a necessary or effective
security measure. The fencing is capable of being lifted and moved with relative ease and does not
completely surround the site. Further, a large number of trees and shrubs are present on the site which I
consider already act as a deterrent to potential trespassers and as effective, if not more so, as the fencing
now erected.
In conclusion, and for the reasons outlined above, I consider the fencing to have a detrimental impact upon
the amenity of neighbouring residents and the appearance of the area, contrary to Policy DEV1. I do not
consider it an effective or necessary security measure, contrary to Policy DEV4. I therefore recommend that
this application be refused and enforcement action taken to secure the removal of the fence.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
(Reasons)
1. The fence, due its design and appearance, is a strident feature in the street scene and is detrimental to
the visual amenity of the area, contrary to Policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/44874/COU
APPLICANT:
Ryan Wrigley
LOCATION:
194 Peel Green Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Retention of use of former dairy as two flats together with the erection
of a two-storey building to provide two additional flats.
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
21st November 2002
Barton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a former dairy at 194 Peel Green Road. The proposal is to retain the use of the
former dairy building as two self-contained flats and to erect a two-storey building adjacent to the former
dairy to provide a further two self-contained flats. The new building would be attached to the existing dairy
and would create a terrace of three dwellings. The design of the new building would reflect that of the
existing semi-detached properties. Alterations would be made to the existing property to allow access to the
ground and first floor flats from the front. There will be no windows to the side of the new building or to the
outrigger elements to the rear of the new and existing buildings.
Four car parking spaces would be provided to the rear of the site, vehicular access would be adjacent to 196
Peel Green Road. A small area of amenity space would be available to the rear and front of the
development.
The surrounding area is predominantly residential. The site is located opposite the former dairy car park.
SITE HISTORY
02/44582/COU - Change of use of former dairy to two flats together with the erection of a two storey
building to provide two additional flats. Application Withdrawn.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application :13 – 17 (o) Belper Road
186 – 192 (e), 196, 198 Peel Green Road
153 – 161 (o) Peel Green Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one verbal representation in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised :-
concerns regarding additional pressure on the existing water mains supply and sewers
would increase the amount of traffic in the area and affect highway safety
would increase parking problems in the area
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None relevant
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
DEV2 – Good Design
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that regard must be had to a number of factors when
determining applications for planning permission including the layout and relationship of existing and
proposed buildings and the effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for neighbouring properties and the
likely scale of traffic generation.
With reference to the objections raised in relation to increased traffic, I do not consider that the provision of
four flats would result in any significant traffic generation and believe that traffic generation would be less
than that associated with the current use as a dairy. With regards to car parking, I consider that the provision
of four on site car parking spaces is adequate given that the proposal is for four one-bedroom flats. In
relation to the concerns regarding water mains and sewers, I can confirm that new connections will require
the approval of United Utilities. I have attached a Note to Applicant regarding this matter.
There would be a minimum distance of 22 metres between the habitable windows at the rear of the
development and the dwellings on Belper Road. I do not consider that there would be any loss of privacy to
adjacent residential properties. The proposal would be compatible with the predominantly residential nature
of the surrounding area and would bring a vacant site back into use. Adequate amenity space and car
parking has been identified at the site. I have no objections on highway grounds.
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 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 6 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
4. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use not less than four 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.
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
5. So far as they lie within the site, visibility splays of 4.8m by 60m shall be provided at the junction of site
access with Peel Green Road and shall thereafter be maintained free of any obstruction over 0.6m in
height above the adjacent carriageway.
6. A pedestrian - vehicular splay of 2.00m by 2.00m shall be provided at the back of the footway and shall
thereafter be maintained free of any obstruction between 600mm and 2.00m in height.
7. No development shall be started until full details of the location, design and construction of a composite
bin store have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.
Such approved bin store shall thereafter be constructed and made available for use before the
development is brought into use.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Reason: To ensure the development fits in with the existing buildings in the vicinity in accordance with
policy DEV 3 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
5. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
6. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Floor levels must be 300mm above road level due to flooding problems in the area. Please contact the
Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) for further information.
2. Connection to the main sewers will require the prior approval of United Utilities. Please contact United
Utilities for further information.
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
APPLICATION No:
02/44889/HH
APPLICANT:
S J Whittle
LOCATION:
2 Guilford Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension
WARD:
Winton
21st November 2002
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property on a corner plot. There
are houses to the front of the property and a school that lies to the side
and rear. The proposal is for the erection of a two-storey side extension.
The extension would project 3m from the side of the house, be in line with
the front wall of the existing dwelling and would end 2m from the back of
the pavement at the corner. It would project 5.85m to the rear and the ground
floor garage would be fitted with roller shutter doors at the front of the
extension. There would be 5.1m of hard-standing between the garage doors
and the highway. There would be one window in the front of the property
at first floor level and one on the gable wall, toward the rear of the
property. The extension would measure approximately 7.25m at the highest
point. The applicant is an employee of Salford City Council.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:7 and 4 Guilford Road,
32 Hatherop Close,
St Patricks RC High School.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: Dev8-House Extensions.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Dev8 states that permission would be granted if 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.
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
There would be a distance of 5.1m from the garage roller shutter doors to the highway, complying with
Guidance Note HH17 of the Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions (SPG) which states
that there should be a hard-standing of 4.8m maintained between the garage and the highway.
There would be a distance of 2m from the side of the extension to the back of the pavement as detailed in
Guidance Note HH14 of the SPG.
There would be a distance of over 21m to the school at the side of the extension, therefore complying with
Guidance Note HH1 of the SPG that states there should be a distance of over 21m between main habitable
windows. Therefore I do not consider the bedroom window on the gable of the extension would be
significantly detrimental to the privacy or amenity of these neighbours. Also the window in the front of the
extension would be no further forward than the existing windows in the dwelling and there would be over
21m to the properties opposite that have a gable facing the dwelling. Therefore this element of the proposal
would also comply with Guidance Note HH1 of the SPG.
As the extension would comply with all aspects of the Supplementary Planning Guidance for House
Extensions and DEV8 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Salford; I recommend the
application for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition R000 Section 91
2. Standard Condition R004A Amenity-area
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason 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 existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
APPLICATION No:
02/44897/HH
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Eckstein
LOCATION:
5 New Hall Avenue Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey side extension and construction of rear dormer
extension in roofspace
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property. The proposal is to erect a single storey side extension
to the existing kitchen and dining room. This would measure 7.56m in length and would be 1.92m wide. It
is also proposed to erect a rear dormer window, which would be 3.8m wide and 2m high. It would be set
below the ridge and above the gutter.
SITE HISTORY
In 1998, planning permission was granted for a single storey rear extension (ref 97/37445/HH).
In 2001, permission was granted for a two storey side extension (ref. 01/42491/HH). This has not been
implemented.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:3, 7, 14 New Hall Avenue
3-34 (even) New Hall Road
2 Okeover Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 2 letters of objections from the occupiers to the rear. They object on the grounds of
overlooking to their property which will cause loss of privacy into their bedrooms.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: DEV10 – Broughton Park Development Control Policy
Other policies: DEV8 – House extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I have considered the proposed dormer extension and its possible impact on the neighbours to the rear. The
objectors can see the applicants existing roof from their properties and therefore the proposed dormer
would be visible. I would consider the main issue would be the extent to which there would be additional
overlooking and loss of privacy The applicants existing bedroom windows face the objectors and it could be
considered that this causes overlooking. Also the dormer itself would be about 15m from the rear boundary,
and would be over 30m from the main wall of the objectors houses to the rear.
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
Therefore the proposal would ensure that the Council’s SPG for house extensions would be complied with,
by ensuring that there is a minimum separation between the properties. I would also consider that there is
unlikely to be any significant increase in overlooking and loss of privacy to the neighbours to the rear and
therefore I would recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D01B Materials to Match
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
02/44919/COU
APPLICANT:
G McConochie
LOCATION:
76/78 Manchester Road Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from shop to sunbeds, nails and beauty therapy business
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the change of use of the ground floor of 76/78 Manchester Road, Walkden from
a shop to a sunbed, nails and beauty therapy business. The first floor of the premises is a residential flat.
Both the ground and first floors are currently vacant.
The proposed hours of operation would be from 10am to 8pm Mondays to Saturdays and 10am to 6pm on
Sundays. It is anticipated that between two and five members of staff would be employed on the premises.
CONSULTATIONS
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:68 to 74 (E), 81, 41 Manchester Road
2 to 8 (E) Church Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issue has been
raised:Lack of suitable car parking facilities in the vicinity
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1, T13 Car Parking
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider that the main issues to be addressed relate to the impact of the proposal upon the amenity of the
neighbouring residents, particularly in relation to noise, disturbance and likely traffic generation.
The application does not include any provision for customer car parking and there are parking restrictions in
front of the premises on Manchester Road. Notwithstanding this, the property has an established and
historical use as commercial premises. Any commercial use would generate some traffic and therefore car
parking demand, and I am doubtful that this proposal would generate significantly more traffic than a
successful A1 retail use. The objector is concerned that the proposal would lead to increased parking on
Church Road. However, for the reasons above and given the property’s location on a bus route, making it
accessible by public transport, I do not consider this issue to be of particular concern in this instance.
In conclusion, I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds and although there are no dedicated
car parking facilities, the property has an established retail use which would always generate some car
parking requirements. The premises have been vacant for some time and are becoming unsightly. The
re-occupation of these premises would improve their appearance. I do not believe that the proposal would
have a significant detrimental impact upon the amenity of neighbouring residents and on the above basis I
recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
02/44950/TEL56
APPLICANT:
Hutchinson 3G UK
LOCATION:
Grass Verge To The East Of The Site Of The Former Mariner Public
House Liverpool Street Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Prior notification for the installation of a 13.7m high
telecommunications mast, three antennae, one 300mm microwave dish
and an equipment cabin
WARD:
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a grass verge adjacent to the pavement to the south of Liverpool Street. The
proposal is to erect an ultra slimline monopole 13.7 metres in height. The structure would accommodate
three antennas and one 300mm microwave dish. An equipment cabin 1.75 metres in length by 0.85 metres
in width by 1.5 metres in height would be positioned adjacent to the monopole.
The structure would be located between trees on the grass verge. The monopole would project throughout
the canopy of one of the trees, the Applicant has confirmed that no pruning works would be required to
enable the development.
The site is located opposite the playingfield to West Liverpool Street Primary School, the school buildings
are at a distance of approximately 60 metres. Approximately 45 metres to the south of the site are residential
properties on Primrose Close. The Bethany Worship Centre is located adjacent to the site.
The Applicant has submitted a certificate indicating that the proposed equipment and installation would be
ICNIRP compliant. Five alternative sites have been considered, but have been discounted.
CONSULTATIONS
Seedley and Langworthy Partnership – No comments to date.
PUBLICITY
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
A site notice was displayed on 23rd October 2002
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1 – 14 Primrose Close
150 – 154 (e) Fitzwarren Street
The Mariner Public House, Mission Hall, Larkhill Community Primary School, West Liverpool
Street Primary School, Bethany Worship Centre, Liverpool Street.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised :Concerns regarding the close proximity to the school, in the light of previous media publicity and possible
effects on the public. Opposite the application site is the Lark Hill Community Primary School’s Junior
Playing Field, which is used by school children for games and general play.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
SC14
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy SC14 states that the City Council will normally grant planning
permission for telecommunications development where such development would not have an unacceptable
impact on visual amenity. The City Council will also take into account whether there are any satisfactory
alternative sites for telecommunications development available and whether there is any reasonable
possibility of sharing existing telecommunication facilities. Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 (PPG8) –
Telecommunications, sets out national policy in relation to telecommunication development. The
Government's policy is to facilitate the growth of new and existing telecommunications systems whilst
keeping the environmental impact to a minimum. The Government also has responsibility for protecting
public health. The Stewart Report (2000) recommended that the Government adopt ICNIRP (International
Commission on Non-Iodising Radiation Protection) guidelines to limit public exposure from
telecommunication developments.
The objection raised relates to the proximity of the installation to the school and concerns regarding health.
The applicant has, however, provided a Certificate declaring that the proposed installation conforms to
ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines. With regards to the siting and appearance of the proposed
development, I consider that the ultra slimline monopole design is in keeping with street scene, being a
similar height to street lighting columns in the vicinity. The installation has been sited so that it is partially
screened by adjacent trees. In this location, I consider that the development would be at an appropriate
distance to the dwellings and the school, so as not to be visually obtrusive. I am satisfied that alternative
sites have been considered.
RECOMMENDATION:
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st November 2002
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The monopole and associated equipment cabinet 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
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
44
21st November 2002
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
45
21st November 2002