PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/43564/REM
APPLICANT:
Redrow Homes Northwest Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By Victoria Lane And Moorside Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Details of the siting, design and external appearance of 119 dwellings
together with associated landscaping, car parking and construction of
new vehicular and pedestrian accesses
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a site of approximately 3 hectares. It is bounded by Moorside Road to the west, St
Charles RC Primary School to the north, Beech Farm Playing Fields to the east and residential properties on
Roughlee Avenue and Carden Avenue to the south. It is a fairly flat site comprising vacant land once
occupied by the former Holdsworth and Gibb mill, two infilled reservoirs, a two storey warehouse building
on the corner of Victoria Lane and Moorside Road, the former St Charles Hall , Botraco House. The former
buildings on the site have now been demolished earlier this year.
The site is bisected by Victoria Lane, a poorly surfaced and unadopted public right of way which links
Moorside Road with a footpath network into the playing fields to the east. There are three trees situated to
the rear of 194 Moorside Road (between the former St Charles Hall building and Victoria Lane), which are
protected by TPO Number 222. There are other groups of trees within the site, mainly situated close to the
northern and southern boundaries, which are protected under Tree Preservation Order No.234.
Permission was granted in outline with all matters reserved in November 2000 for the residential
development of the site, planning reference 02/43564/OUT. This application has been submitted to address
the reserved matters. The application was originally submitted for the erection of 106 dwellings but this
has been increased to achieve a greater density on the site in accordance with the requirements of PPG3,
Housing. Therefore this application now proposes to erect 119 dwellings comprising a mix of detached,
semi detached and three storey town houses and there are also two flats. The three storey town houses
would be sited in the northern part of the site, adjacent to the primary school and the pavilion in the park,
with the remainder of the site comprising detached dwellings. Victoria Lane would be closed off from
Moorside Road but would be made up to provide an emergency access to the site. The main access would
be taken off Moorside Road, midway between no.194 Moorside Road and the industrial units to the south.
The site would be landscaped with tree planting around the boundaries, particularly along the boundaries to
the industrial units and the properties of Roughlee Avenue and Carden Avenue.
As part of the application the applicant has submitted a tree survey. This identified the majority of the trees
on the site to be category C and D and “not desirable” to be retained. There were three category B (worthy
of retention) trees identified. The majority of the trees, which are currently protected under TPO 234 along
the southern boundary, would have to be felled as part of the site remediation measures necessary for any
contamination on the site whilst the trees along the northern boundary to the school would be thinned to
retain a screen to the school but also provide an enlarged amenity area for the residents of these dwellings.
One of the category B trees, close to the existing access off Victoria Lane and the site frontage to Moorside
Road would be removed but the remaining two would be retained.
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
There would be no play provision on site but as part of a S106 agreement works would be undertaken to the
adjacent playing fields/park. Following consultation with the local residents this would include the
provision of a toddlers play area and a skate boarding facility for older children. The applicant has also
indicated that refurbishment works would also be undertaken to the pavilion/changing room facility on the
site with parking spaces marked and laid out on the car park.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections in principle although the final site investigation report
has not been received. A noise assessment should be undertaken
Friends of Beech Farm – are concerned about the amount of traffic that is generated from users of the
playing fields and consider that the proposed access to the field through the application site will create
difficulties for both the users of the fields and the future residents. Also, the drainage of the football is
likely to be improved in the near future thus enabling the football pitches to be used throughout the season
and increasing their usage.
Greater Manchester County Fire Service – are satisfied with the fire service access to the site but
recommend that hydrants are installed at the developers expense so that no dwelling is more than 165m
from an adequate supply. A suitable position would be at the first junction in from Moorside Road.
United Utilities – no objections provided that the site is drained on a separate system with only foul
drainage connected into the foul sewer.
Environment Agency – no objections in principle.
The Coal Authority – no objections.
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections in principle but would like the
development built to Secured by Design standards and there must be secure fencing along site boundaries.
City’s Arboricultural Officer – considers that as a group the protected trees on the site contribute to the
amenity of the area and should be retained.
GMPTE – The site is well served by public transport and it should be ensured that the development
maximises from this level of accessibility.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published February 2002.
A site notice was displayed on 31 January 2002.
The following neighbours were notified :
1 –15 Carden Avenue
2 – 16 (E) Roughlee Avenue
14 Dorchester Road
184, 186, 186a-g 200 – 204(E) Moorside Road
The Community Centre
St Charles RC Primary School
Moorside Lodge, Moorside Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received five letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
Loss of trees covered by a tree preservation order
Loss of privacy – site is much higher than properties on Roughlee and Carden Avenue
Loss of wildlife
Loss of outlook – houses instead of trees
Increase in traffic on Moorside Road which is already very congested and busy
What is to happen to the southern boundary treatment
One resident did also state however that it would be preferable to have houses on the site rather than to have
it left derelict.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: EN7 Conservation of Trees, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, H6 and H11
Open Space Provision within New Housing Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The site has been granted an outline permission which has established the principle of residential use on the
site. Therefore I consider the main issues to be addressed for this application relate to the associated
impacts of the proposal, namely the loss of the majority of the trees on the site which are covered by a tree
preservation order and the impact upon the amenity of neighbouring residents, particularly in terms of loss
of privacy. Finally, the traffic impacts must also be considered.
One of the main concerns of all the residents was the loss of the trees which are covered by tree preservation
order No.234. There are two main groups of trees on the site, one along the northern boundary to the school
and a larger group along the southern boundary which also extends in part towards the centre of the site. I
understand that the concerns of the residents relate to the loss of the trees in the southern part of the site.
The tree survey for the application identified that the majority of the trees were not worthy of retention.
However, the City’s Arborist does not fully agree with this. He considers that although some of the trees
may not be particularly good species individually, as a group they do contribute to the amenity of the area
and therefore should be retained.
At the time of the outline application a condition was attached to secure remediation measures to be
undertaken to the site. There were originally two reservoirs on the site which were infilled with a variety of
materials and which have been found to be contaminated. If these materials were left in situ they would
pose a risk to human health. Consequently some of the material will have to be removed requiring
excavations up to a depth of 4m on the site. I have discussed these with both the applicant and the Director
of Environmental Services and if the necessary remediation measures are to be undertaken on the site then
the majority of the trees will not be able to be retained as the works are likely to make the trees unstable.
This being the case, those trees remaining would not have the same amenity value and in fact would be
considerably reduced in value. Having carefully considered all matters and bearing in mind the outline
application which was granted subject to this condition and which is still valid, I consider that the trees will
have to be removed to allow the remediation and any development of the site. To compensate the applicant
should be required to landscape the site to a high standard. I am also aware that these trees are mature with
a limited life and if new trees were planted at the time of the development they would grow and mature
alongside the dwellings. The applicant has indicated that he is willing to undertake this.
Residents of Carden Avenue and Roughlee Avenue were also concerned about the impact of the housing
which would be at a higher level than their own properties and therefore the potential loss of privacy that
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
would be experienced. The site is at a higher level than these properties and when the application was
submitted I would agree that there was an issue of loss of privacy. However, the application has
subsequently been amended with increased separation distances to these properties and also it is proposed
to reduce the ground levels at this same point. I am now satisfied that the development is acceptable in this
respect and that these residents of Carden and Roughlee Avenue will not experience an unacceptable loss of
privacy and amenity. Furthermore, as part of the tree replanting scheme, the applicant has indicated that
trees would be planted along this boundary which would in time contribute to some screening to these
properties. This would also address the concerns about loss of outlook, although I would acknowledge that
for some time the outlook would be very different than existing. However, nobody is entitled to a view.
One resident in particular as well as the Residents of Beech Farm group were concerned about the traffic
implications arising from the proposal on both Moorside Road and access for the users of the football
pitches in the park. In relation to the traffic on Moorside Road, this is busy and can be congested at peak
times. I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds.
The football pitches at the park are well used and especially on a Sunday morning. The residents of Beech
Farm are particularly concerned about the traffic that is generated by users of the pitches who currently park
on Victoria Lane and the likely conflict that will arise with the future residents of the development. It has
been suggested that part of the existing tennis court on the site is used for overflow parking and this is
certainly something that the residents are happy with. However this is not acceptable in terms of the
maintenance of the courts and the likely impact the parking would have upon the courts.
There is currently an unmarked car park at the rear of the pavilion. If this area was utilised to its maximum
with parking spaces marked out, it would provide somewhere in the region of 70 spaces. This level of
provision is sufficient and I would consider it acceptable on highway grounds. It would certainly be an
improvement upon the existing situation.
When considering this proposal it is important to remember that there is an extant outline permission for the
site and that the applicant has been in lengthy discussions about the proposal. Amendments have been
made to the original proposal and I am satisfied that a scheme has resulted that would be beneficial to the
area and would not have a significant detrimental impact upon any of the neighbouring residents. A
toddlers play area and a skate boarding facility would be provided within the park through a Section 106
agreement which would benefit not only any children living on the resulting development but also the local
children from the surrounding roads. I consider that a balance has to be arrived at for any development of
this site; to retain the trees on the site and have less development on it which could be further industrial
usage or to see the site developed for residential purposes with a new planting scheme undertaken which
would establish alongside the development. I consider the scheme is acceptable, complies with government
guidance for new increased density of development and would result in a development that would become
established as new tree planting was undertaken. On this basis, I consider that this application is acceptable
and should be approved.
RECOMMENDATION
a) that the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement to secure the
following:
i)
the provision of a 300 square metre toddlers play area and a skate boarding facility within the
adjacent park subject to specification to be agreed in writing with the Director of Development
Services;
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
ii)
iii)
19th December 2002
the marking out of the car park at the rear of the pavilion to a specification to be agreed in
writing with the Director of Development Services;
a commuted sum not to exceed £45,000 to be used for the management and maintenance of the
toddlers play area and skate boarding facility.
b) that the applicant be informed that the Council is minded to grant planning permission subject to
the conditions stated below on completion of such a legal agreement;
c) that authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application be issued (subject to the
conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above mentioned agreement.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition L02G Amended Plans
2. A fire hydrant shall be installed at the developers expense at the first junction in from Moorside Road.
This hydrant shall be in accordance with British Standard 750 and shall be indicated by a plate
conforming to British Standard 3251.
3. The developer shall undertake an assessment in accordance with planning and noise guidance
document PPG24 to assess the impact of transport related noise on the new housing development.
Noise from the sports pitch/recreational area located on the eastern perimeter of the site shall also be
assessed during both day and night time, in accordance with the World Health Organisation's
"Guidelines for Community Noise".
A scheme shall be submitted prior to commencement of the development and with the approval of the
local planning authority, outlining the results of the assessment and where necessary what mitigation
measures should be implemented. Such mitigation should be provided prior to the occupation of any of
the dwellings hereby approved.
4. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
5. 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.
6. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
2. In the interests of the future residents of the development, in accordance with DEV1 of the UDP.
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
3. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached letter from United Utilities dated 22 July 2002 and the
letter from the Environment Agency dated 16th July 2002 and in particular the section "Informative".
APPLICATION No:
02/44644/COU
APPLICANT:
Benchmark Properties Ltd
LOCATION:
Moorfield Childrens Home 2A Moorside Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from childrens reception centre to day nursery
WARD:
Swinton South
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 a children’s day nursery. 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.
The building would cater for a total of 68 children with a total of 18 full time equivalent staff. The opening
hours would be from 7.30am to 6.30pm Mondays to Fridays.
A total of twelve 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).
In November this year planning permission was granted for the change of use of the property to offices
(02/44645/COU).
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.
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – A noise impact study into the effect of outdoor play on neighbouring
residents has been requested and supplied by the applicant. The noise impact study does demonstrate that
the development would comply with World Health Organisation and BS8233 noise standards. It is
recommended that a number of conditions be attached as set out in the study.
Early Years, Play and Childcare Service – The applicant has not informed the service how the building will
be used and there are therefore a number of concerns. However, the building has potential for full day care,
having good sizes available both inside and outside play areas.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of a press notice
The following neighbours were notified of the application:15 to 59 Ashley Drive
1A to 7A, 2 and 4 Norwood Drive
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 six 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
Noise
It would be better as offices
Increased traffic congestion on Moorside Road
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, EN20 Pollution Control
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.
Policy EN20 states that development will not normally be allowed if it is considered likely to cause an
unacceptable increase in existing noise levels around sensitive uses such as housing.
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. Permission is sought for this new access under application
02/44646/FUL that appears next on this agenda. There is an existing access to this building that is shared
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
with the medical centre. If the housing development was to go ahead, the amount of traffic generated by
this proposal, although more than would be generated by an office would not be so significant as to cause
either a problem at the new junction or significant congestion on Moorside Road. If the housing
development did not proceed then the existing access would be satisfactory. I do not consider that there
would be a significant problem with parking on the highway to pick up and drop off children as there are
many parking spaces within the medical centre that are close to the entrance to the building and much closer
than Moorside Road. With regard to noise the Director of Environmental Services was initially concerned
about the potential noise impact of such a use on neighbouring properties. A noise impact study has been
submitted and this has assumed restrictions in terms of the size and positioning of the outdoor play area, the
number of children that may use it at any one time, its hours of use and its surfacing. The Director of
Environmental Services is satisfied, based on these factors, that the development would not have a
significant detrimental effect on the amenity of neighbouring residents.
I consider that the main planning issue in this instance is the effect of the proposed development on
neighbouring residents. I am particularly mindful of the comments of the Director of Environmental
Services on this issue. In addition the noise impact study was based on a play area measuring
approximately 12m by 6m that was sited 12m from the boundary with the closest house on Ashley Drive. I
consider therefore that subject to the following conditions the proposed change of use would not have a
significant detrimental effect on the amenity of neighbouring residents.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Prior to the nursery being brought into use full details of the proposed outdoor play area including its
size, siting and surfacing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
3. No outdoor areas, other than the play area referred to in condition 2, shall be used children for play or
recreation purposes.
4. No more than 25 children shall be allowed to use the outdoor play area at any time.
5. Outdoor play shall only take place between the hours of 9am and 6pm on any day. There shall be no
outdoor play on Saturdays or Sundays.
6. The boundary walls adjacent to Moorside Cottage and Ashley Drive shall be maintained at their current
heights of 5m and 4m respectively for as long as the premises are in use as a day nursery.
7. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
6. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
7. Standard Reason R013A Use of parking areas
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This decision 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
BACKGROUND
At the meeting of the Panel held on the 21st November 2002 consideration of this application was deferred
for further consideration of the impact of the development on trees on the site. My report has been amended
under the headings of description of site and proposal and planning appraisal.
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
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 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 now proposed to retain twelve of the fourteen fruit trees. A new Tree
Preservation Order will be made on these trees so that as they are lost due to their age and condition they can
be replaced by other fruit trees. Of the TPO trees that are to be removed I have considered each tree
individually as follows
1301 – sycamore – a reasonable tree but its roots are affecting the high former garden wall that
extends into the site. However, it is possible to move the garage block 0.1m to the south and the
northern apartment block 1.6m to the south. The tree canopy would then be only just within the
siting of the northern block. While scaffolding and manoeuvering around this tree during the
construction phase would require some pruning of the tree it is possible for this tree to be retained.
This would mean that the two blocks would be just 21m from each other.
1300 – sycamore – a poor tree. It is located to the north of the access road but very close to the
service strip that runs on this side of the road. The tree would be lost as a result of the construction.
1299 – horse chestnut – this tree is growing reasonably well. It is located directly on the site of the
northern apartment block and would be lost as a result of the construction.
1298 – sycamore – this tree is spindly and contorted and has been suppressed by neighbouring
trees. There is evidence of crown die back. The tree is located within the service strip to the north
side of the access road and is also just 1m from the gable of the northern apartment block. The tree
would be lost as a result of the construction.
1297 – horse chestnut - this is a good tree. It is located just outside the service strip that runs on
the top side of the access road and also on the line of the northern apartment block. The tree would
be lost as a result of the construction.
1296 – sycamore – this is a poor tree that has extensive decay. It is located approximately 1m from
the service strip and 4m from the northern apartment block. This block has been brought closer to
this tree in order to allow a tree to the north to be retained. The tree would be lost as a result of the
construction.
1295 – sycamore – this is a suppressed tree. It is located within the access road and would be lost
as a result of construction.
1289 – sycamore – this is a self seeded tree that has poor form. It is located within the access road
and would be lost as a result of construction.
1286 – holly – this is a good dominant tree. It is located 1m of the access road on its southern side.
Moving the road further to the north would result in the houses being moved closer to the common
boundary with houses on Ashley Drive and closer to the fruit trees that are now being retained.
Moving the road would result in more disadvantages that the advantage of retaining this tree. The
tree would therefore be lost as a result of construction.
1285 – holly – this is a poor tree. It is located right on the edge of the access road and would be lost
as a result of construction.
1287 – holly this is a good dominant tree. It is located within 1m of the access road and would be
lost as a result of construction for the same reasons as tree 1286.
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
Of these eleven trees, five are good, and, as a result of minor amendments to the scheme, one can now be
retained. Seven are poor trees. Of the four trees that are to be lost, altering the layout would result in
disadvantages elsewhere with regard to other trees or to the distances to surrounding residential properties.
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
17 to 31, 8 The Stables, 1 to 15 The Hollies, The Limes, Moorfield Cottage, 10 and 12 Moorside
Road
REPRESENTATIONS
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
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. Indeed, British Standard
5837 ‘Trees in Relation to Construction’ states that a tree preservation order should not normally be a
block to the effective use of a site but is intended to prevent damage to or clearance of trees prior to
planning permission being granted. It allows negotiation whilst providing a means of controlling which
trees can be removed, and a means of enforcing their protection during development work. The eleven
trees protected 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
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
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. The applicant has now
supplied this information. 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.
While it has now been possible to save one more of the protected trees as a result of the Panel’s wishes to
look again at the tree situation and to retain twelve of the fourteen existing fruit trees on the site, the
development would result in the loss of four good trees in addition to those trees that have a somewhat poor
form that area also protected. This must be balanced against the fact that the majority of protected trees on
this site are being retained. This site is classified as previously developed land on which it is the
Government’s aim that 90% of new development in the Salford/Manchester area should be located. BS
5837 ‘Trees in Relation to Construction’ also states that care should be exercised over misplaced tree
preservation. Attempts to retain too many or unsuitable trees on a site are liable to result in excessive
pressure on the trees during development work and subsequent demands for their removal. The end result
is usually fewer and less suitable trees than would be the case if proper planning, selection and
conservation had been applied from the outset.
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.
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
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.
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 have looked particularly
closely at this issue at the Panel’s request and as a result of minor amendments an additional good protected
tree can be retained. I must point out that 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. I am also mindful of the advice contained in the British
Standard 5837. The applicants amended their proposals significantly as a result of pre-application
discussions with officers and have now made further amendments to try and accommodate the Panel’s
wishes with regard to the trees. I am firmly 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.
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
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
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. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
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.
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
10. Standard Reason R025A Intervisibility of users of highway
Note(s) for Applicant
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:
02/44647/FUL
APPLICANT:
Benchmark Properties Ltd
LOCATION:
Bethel Community Centre Station Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing building and erection of two storey residential
care home and single storey store together with associated landscaping,
car parking and alteration to pedestrian access
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant community centre and garden area on the corner of Lees Street and
Station Road and seeks the demolition of the existing vacant building and the erection of a residential care
home. The existing building currently forms the boundary along Lees Street with Swinton Liberal Club
comprising of the northern boundary. The boundary fronting Station Road consists of a lower level brick
wall and hedge. The site also accommodates nine trees of various ages and species.
The area generally comprises of a mixture of uses and is within close proximity to the Bolton Road North
key local centre. To the west of the site, beyond the rear alley, is the car park of Dorma manufacturing,
approximately 3m lower that the application site.
The care home would be located towards the centre of the site, 9.4m from Station Road and 16.4m from
Lees Street. Access to the site would be provided off Lees Street where a car park would accommodate
eight cars. A detached store would also be provided within the site. It would measure 6m X 4m and would
have a hipped roof at a height of 4m. The design would mirror that of the proposed care home. A
recreational all weather pitch would also be provided to the north.
CONSULTATIONS
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
Director of Environmental Services – Advice provided
Coal Authority – Advice Provided
Greater Manchester Police – Advice Provided
Environment Agency – Advice Provided
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 12th September 2002
A site notice was displayed on 28th August and again on 5th September 2002
The following neighbours were notified of the application:7 – 25 (odd) Dumbell Street
4 – 38 (even) Elizabeth Street
Dorma Manufacturing, Lees Street
121 – 139, 141 – 149 and 167 – 175 (odd) Station Road
188 – 204 and 232 (even) Station Road
Sunbeam Sun Bed Centre, Station Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received eleven letters of objection in response to the application publicity and a hundred and sixty
four named petition. The following issues have been raised:Increase in crime
Vandalism, noise and nuisance
Compensation / loss of property value
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, SC1 Provision of Social and
Community Facilities, EN3 Protected Open Space, R1 Protection of Recreation
Land and Facilities, T13 Car Parking
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV1 states that due regard must be paid to a number of factors that include size and density, traffic
generation parking provision, visual appearance, landscaping and open space provision, together with the
effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for neighbouring properties. In addition to which DEV2 relates to
the quality of the design and appearance of the development, particularly in terms of its relationship with
surrounding properties. Policy SC1 Provision of Social and Community Facilities generally supports this
proposal and PPG3 encourages the reuse of vacant land and buildings. EN3 allows for limited infilling.
Finally T13 seeks to ensure that adequate parking provision is made where necessary.
A large number of objections have been received from surrounding residents, and the main issues to
consider with regard to this application relates to; the impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents;
design and loss open space.
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
This proposal would provide residential accommodation for six people. The adjacent club appears to have
no residential elements facing onto the proposed play area and therefore should suffer little disturbance.
The area, generally consists of a mixture of uses. The closest residential properties would be some 30m
away and across a busy road from the proposed building. The outdoor recreation area has been located to
front the bus lay-by to minimise impact.
The scheme would secure the retention of the prominent trees along the frontage of Station Road. Two
trees would have to be removed to accommodate the proposal. These trees would not have a significant
detrimental loss upon the street scene as they are wholly within the site and located behind more prominent
mature species. The proposal would also retain the existing low brick wall and hedge along the boundary of
Station Road, thus minimising and maintaining the outlook of the site.
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 social resource within the community in
accordance with the Council’s own Unitary Development Plan. Therefore I would recommend this
proposal be approved.
The response of the Swinton Community Committee (10th December 2002) will be reported to Panel.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D02X Details of Materials
3. Standard Condition C01X Landscaping
4. Prior to commencement of the development the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the
approval of the LPA. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground
contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to
receptors as defined under the 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. The Developer shall undertake an assessment to determine the external noise levels that the residents in
the development will be subjected to (daytime and night). The developer shall detail what steps are to
be taken to mitigate any disturbances. The assessment shall have due regard to PPG 24 Planning and
Noise. A report shall be submitted for the approval of the Director of Development Services prior to the
commencement of the development and any mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to use.
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
6. The lighting provided in the scheme shall be erected and directed so as to avoid loss of amenity to
residential accommodation in close proximity. The lighting shall be designed to provide a standard
maintained illumination less than 20 LUX measured from the windows of the current surrounding
residential properties.
7. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface
water drainage from hardstanding shall be passed through trapped gullies with an overall capacity
compatible with the site being drained
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. In the interests of the safety of future occupiers of the development, as the site is in close proximity to a
former landfill site in accordance with policy DEV7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5. Standard Reason R027A Amenity and quietude
6. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
7. To prevent the pollution of water in accordance with policy EN20 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan
APPLICATION No:
02/44874/COU
APPLICANT:
R 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.
WARD:
Barton
At a meeting of the Panel held on 21st 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:
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
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
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
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
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
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.
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.
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
(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.
APPLICATION No:
02/44897/HH
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
At a meeting of the Panel held on 21st November 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
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.
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
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
2. Standard Condition D01B Materials to Match
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
02/44917/FUL
APPLICANT:
Orbit Developments (Manchester) Ltd
LOCATION:
Emerson House Albert Street Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a three tier car deck
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The proposal is to erect a 3 tier car park on the site of an existing 72 space surface car park. The multi-storey
car park would provide a total of 194 spaces at ground, first, second and third floor. A further 9 surface
parking spaces would be located to the rear of the structure.
This additional parking is required in order that the applicant is able to attract prospective tenants to the
existing office accommodation at Emerson House and Orbit House on the adjacent site. This proposal
would result in the provision of a total of 290 car parking spaces for the two office developments.
The site is located within Eccles town centre. To the north of the site is the M602 motorway, to the east is a
143 pay and display car park, to the west is Emerson House and Orbit House and to the south is Charles
House.
Members should be aware that planning permission was granted in 2000 for a smaller three tier car park
which would provide for a total of 239 on site car parking spaces (see planning application 00/41448/FUL).
SITE HISTORY
00/41448/FUL – Erection of multi storey car park. Approved 16.11.2000
00/41203/FUL - Erection of extension to existing offices, creation of car park decking and amendments to
parking layout (Amendment to planning permission 00/40676/FUL). 21.9.2000
00/40676/FUL - Erection of extension to existing offices, creation of car park decking, amendments to
parking layout and alteration to existing and construction of new, vehicular access. Approved 18.5.2000
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections.
Railtrack – Standard recommendations/comments.
Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Would like to see ground floor openings into the car park protected with
steel railings/ high security steel mesh, to prevent unauthorised access into the car park.
Eccles Town Centre Manager – No comments received.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 24th October 2002
A site notice was displayed on 22nd October 2002
The following neighbours were notified of the application:Charles House, Orbit House Albert Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations or letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
S6/4 Maintenance of Town Centres (Eccles)
S1 – Town Centres
T13 Car Parking
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors
in determining applications for planning permission including the location and nature of the proposed
development and the visual appearance of the development. Policy T13 states that the City Council will
ensure that car parks are designed to a high standard with particular regard to access arrangements, surface
materials, boundary treatment and security measures.
National planning guidance on Transport is contained within PPG13 – Transport. Paragraph 49 of PPG13
states that reducing the amount of parking in new development (and in the expansion and change of use in
existing development) is essential, as part of a package of planning and transport measures, to promote
sustainable travel choices. Paragraph 51 of PPG13 stipulates that local authorities should ensure that levels
of parking provided in association with development will promote sustainable transport choices.
Furthermore, the shared use of parking, particularly in town centres, should be encouraged. The Applicant
has not demonstrated how the proposed development will promote sustainable transport choices and has
confirmed that no investigation has been made into the possibilities of contract car parking on the pay and
display car park directly opposite the site.
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
Annex D of PPG13 sets out maximum car parking standards for certain types of development. For B1 this is
1 per 30m2, with the threshold from and above which the standard applies being 2500m2. The Applicant has
stated that this proposal seeks to provide a total of 290 car parking spaces on site, equating to approximately
1 space per 30m2 and also states that planning approval 00/41448/FUL would provide a ratio of 1 space per
35m2. PPG13 (paragraph 52) does, however, state that it should not be assumed that where a proposal
accords with the relevant maximum parking standard it is automatically acceptable in terms of achieving
the objectives of the guidance and that applicants for development with significant transport implications
should show the measures they are taking to minimise the need for parking. The application site is located
within Eccles town centre and has good access to public transport, being just a short walk from the Eccles
bus/tram Interchange that has recently been completed. The Applicant has demonstrated that the parking
provision would be in line with PPG13 maximum standards, but no accompanying information has been
submitted with the planning application to demonstrate measures that are or would be taken to minimise the
need for parking.
PPG13 states that in implementing policies on parking, local authorities should take care not to threaten
future levels of investment in town centres. The Applicant has confirmed that this proposal is required in
order to allow the development to be ‘self-sufficient’ and in order to attract new tenants. Whilst the need for
some additional on-site car parking is acknowledged, the Applicant has provided no justification for this
higher level of car parking provision in a location so well served by non-car modes, bearing in mind that
planning permission has already been approved for a car park providing 1 space per 35m2 as opposed to 1
space per 30m2. With regards to the vitality and viability of the town centre, I do not consider that there
would be any significant detrimental effect on the town centre if this proposal were not to go ahead.
There has been a previous approval for a smaller 3 tier car park (00/41448/FUL) and other developments
including additional car parking (00/41203/FUL and 00/40676/FUL). This proposal is, however, for a
significantly larger development. Furthermore, National planning policy guidance relating to transport has
been revised since planning approval was granted for these earlier proposals – PPG 13 was issued in March
2001. The proposal relates to car parking provision for existing office floorspace. No new office floorspace
would be provided as part of the proposal. Accessibility to the town centre by public transport has improved
significantly in recent years, following the completion of the Eccles Interchange.
I have some concerns regarding the scale, design and appearance of the proposed development and the
impact on visual amenity. I do not, however, consider that there is sufficient information to fully consider
the visual impact of the development. In spite of requests, no additional information has been supplied in
relation to the proposed external finishes of the building and the type of materials to be used, it is not for
example clear whether the structure will be composed of brick, concrete, steel etc. As such, I am not in a
position to properly assess its visual impact.
I consider that the site is in a location that is very well served by public transport, being located at such
close proximity to the Eccles Interchange and although the stated parking to floorspace ratio would not
exceed the maximum outlines in PPG13, on balance, I consider that the proposal would be contrary to the
principles of PPG13.
RECOMMENDATION:
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development does not promote sustainable transport choices or reduce the reliance on
the car for work journeys and as such the development would be contrary to the provisions of PPG13
and Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1.
2. Insufficient details relating to the external finishes and materials have been submitted to enable the
visual impact of the proposed development to be assessed, contary to Unitary Development Plan
policies DEV2 and T13.
APPLICATION No:
02/44933/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Downing
LOCATION:
35 Sapling Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of first floor side extension and first floor rear extension
WARD:
Swinton South
At a meeting of the Panel held on 5th December 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 detached house at the end of a row of detached and semi-detached houses. The
immediate neighbour’s property is detached. There are two elements to the proposal. The first element is to
erect a first-floor rear extension above the existing dining room to provide an extension to an existing
bedroom. It would project 2.66m. The second element is to erect a first-floor side extension to provide an
enlargement of a different existing bedroom which would incorporate an en-suite facility. This would
project 2.376m over what would be a breakfast room (the existing garage is being converted into a breakfast
room). The proposed first-floor side extension would be set back 1.453m from the front of the house.
SITE HISTORY
In 1992, planning permission was approved for the erection of a front porch, a single storey side extension
to provide a garage and utility room, and a single storey rear extension to provide a dining room.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:33 and 18 Sapling Road
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
75 and 77 Houghton Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one representation in response to the application publicity. This was from Councillor
Daniels who requested the inclusion of this application at the Planning and Transportation Regulatory
Panel.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Other policies: DEV8 – House extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that planning permission will only be granted where there would be no unacceptably
adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and where an extension would not have
an unacceptably adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, by reason of its siting, height, massing,
design and appearance.
The proposed first floor rear extension is in accordance with Council Policy.
There is an issue with the proposed first-floor side extension. Guidance Note HH13 of the Council’s
Supplementary Planning Guidance - House Extensions clearly states that, “Planning permission for the
erection of a two storey side extension that lies within 1m of the boundary of the dwelling will not normally
be granted unless the first floor element is set back 2m from the front of the house.” The set back proposed
in this application is only 1.453m, and is therefore contrary to this Guidance Note.
The applicants have explained in a letter that the proposed bedroom with en-suite facility is required to
accommodate Mrs Downing’s elderly mother (83 years old) who is set to move in sometime in the future.
They go on to explain that the en-suite facility would allow a certain degree of independence for Mrs
Downing’s mother whilst protecting the privacy of their own immediate family. Supporting the state of
Mrs Downing’s mother’s health is a letter from Doctor G Leach, Monton Medical Centre, who explains that
she suffers from Chronic Obstructive Airways Disease, and will probably be unable to live on her own for
much longer. Furthermore, there is signed declaration from the neighbours (33 and 16 Sapling Road) who
have no objection to the proposal. A similar extension at 70 Thorn Road Swinton has been highlighted
which does not have the first floor element set back 2m. However, this extension was approved in 1983,
prior to the current Terracing Policy.
I am of the opinion that the existing bedroom is sufficiently large enough to accommodate an en-suite
facility whilst concurring with Guidance Note HH13.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. Standard Reason RR35D Creation of Terracing Effect
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44937/HH
APPLICANT:
P Parmar
LOCATION:
256 Worsley Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a single storey rear extension and detached garage at the
rear of the property
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property. The proposal is to erect a single storey rear extension
which would measure out 3m from the rear of the house and would be 3.5m in width. It would be to provide
a downstairs toilet. It is also proposed to erect a detached double garage in the rear garden. It would be
7.35m in width at the front, but the rear would be irregularly shaped in order to fill the bottom of the garden
and follow the boundary lines. The garage would be single storey at the front but because of the fall of the
land it would appear 2 storey on the back elevation.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – The garage would damage the trees to the rear of the site, within the
Council owned land around Deans Brook.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:254A 258 Worsley Road
2 Dales Brow
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:

The proposed garage would have an adverse effect on the neighbours patio area because the
height of the rear of the garage
The applicant does not have a right of vehicular access to the rear of their property, and part of
the garage would be built on land owned by next door
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

19th December 2002
The extension would cause a loss of privacy to the neighbours’ house and approved extension
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – house extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The garage at the rear of this property would indeed be large, and I do agree that there may some
overbearing effect on both of the neighbouring gardens to either side. However, there is a more fundamental
problem with the proposed garage, because a public sewer would run under the garage and it could not be
diverted. Therefore I would have to object to the proposal on behalf of United Utilities. The land to the rear,
which is within Council ownership, has two large trees growing immediately on the other side of the
boundary. If this garage is built as proposed then the trees would be seriously affected, or have to be
removed. Therefore I would consider that this effect on the trees would also be unacceptable.
I have considered the possible effect of the single storey rear extension on either of the neighbours, and I do
not consider that this would have a significantly detrimental effect on either property. I am aware that one
objector was concerned about loss of privacy, given the side facing window. However, given that it is for a
bathroom and the window had been shown as obscured, I do not consider that this would be a particular
problem.
I understand that there is currently a dispute of ownership of part of the land between the applicant and the
neighbours. However, this is a private matter which the parties involved need.
The applicant has been made aware of all of the objections to the garage, but to date the proposal has not
been withdrawn. Therefore I am of the opinion that the application should be determined as submitted.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The garage would be located over a public sewer which cannot be diverted.
2. The proposed garage would result in the loss of trees on an adjoining site, contrary to policy EN7 of the
Unitary Development Plan.
3. The proposed garage would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of an
overbearing nature, contrary to the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan Policy DEV8 and the
Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions.
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44956/FUL
APPLICANT:
Caspian Construction
LOCATION:
66/68 Worsley Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from house (66) and doctors surgery/accommodation
(68) into 16 self contained flats and erection of four storey rear
extension
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to the site of a pair of Victorian semi-detached properties on Worsley Road, situated
to the south of the junction with Hazelhurst Road and to the north of Broadoak Garden Centre. The
properties are large, with a site frontage of 37m and the grounds extend back 90m towards Sindsley Brook.
The trees along the frontage are covered by Tree Preservation Order No.109 with the remainder of the site
recently covered by Tree Preservation Order 231. At the rear of the site there is a small woodland of trees.
No. 68 has previously been in use as a doctors surgery and has a first floor extension which projects out to
within 1m of the boundary, whilst no.66 has remained in residential use. The site is flanked by similar
Victorian semi-detached properties to either side.
This application now being considered would retain both properties and include a four storey extension to
accommodate sixteen self contained flats. The extension would build upon and replace the existing single
storey flat roofed garage which would match the height, shape and style of the existing rear ‘outrigger’.
The applicant has indicated that twenty four car parking spaces would be provided within the site. There
would be three parking spaces at the front of No. 68, the remaining would be located to the rear of both
properties. The remainder of the garden would be used as amenity area for the residents. As part of the
proposal the access into number 66 would be closed with the access at no. 68 widened to 4m. The proposal
would require the removal of a total of four trees which are covered by a tree preservation order (two at the
access and two to provide car parking at the rear).
SITE HISTORY
In September 2000 permission was refused and dismissed on appeal for an outline application for the
demolition of the existing dwellings and the erection of an apartment block for twelve apartments, planning
reference 00/41082/OUT. This was refused on the following grounds:
“The proposed residential flat block is of such a size and scale that it would require the removal of several
trees which are covered by Tree Preservation Order No. 109 and 231 which would have a significant
detrimental impact upon the treescape and the character and amenity of the site and area, contrary to
Policy EN10 of the City of Salford UDP.”
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
In August last year a second application (01/42309/OUT) was refused and dismissed on appeal for an
outline application for the erection of an apartment building and associated car parking. Again the existing
properties would be demolished. This was refused on the following grounds:
“The proposed development would require the removal of several trees on the site covered by TPOs 109
and 231 and the removal of these trees and particularly those at the front of the site, together with removal
of the front hedge which would be required to be removed to ensure adequate sightlines are achieved,
would have a significantly detrimental impact upon the existing treescape, the character of the site and the
character and amenity of the area, contrary to policy EN7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan.”
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections in principle.
City Council’s Arboricultural Officer – does not consider that the proposal should detrimentally affect the
existing treescape.
Coal Authority – no objection.
Worsley Civic Trust – no response to date
PUBLICITY
A press notice has been published in the Advertiser
The following neighbours were notified of the application:58 – 62, 64 & 70 –76 (even) Worsley Road
161 – 171 (odd) Worsley Road
99 – 107 and 21 – 27 (odd) Hazelhurst Road
5 – 19 (odd) Lambton Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received six letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Loss of trees – approximately four covered by TPO
Loss of privacy to all surrounding properties
Loss of light to rear of properties
Increase in noise at rear of properties from parking area
Loss of value
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EN7 Conservation of trees and woodland
Other policies: H3 Maintaining and Improving private sector housing, DEV1 Design Criteria, H5
Dwellings Sub-Divided into Self-Contained Flats or in Multiple Occupancy
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The site is situated within a residential area, and as such I do not consider the proposal to be out of character
with the area. The properties which are currently up for sale are falling into decline with significant works
required if they were to be successfully converted. Any proposal must be assessed carefully in relation to
its impact upon the treescape which contributes to the overall character of the site and the amenity of the
area.
Policy H3 states that the City Council will seek to maintain and improve older private housing by
promoting; ‘the redevelopment of vacant and cleared sites for uses compatible with a residential area.’
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. EN7
encourages the conservation of trees and woodland. Policy DEV1 requires that developments fit in with the
surrounding uses and buildings and that regard is had to the effect upon privacy/sunlight/daylight of
neighbouring property and of the visual impact of the development.
The site is large with a relatively wide frontage on Worsley Road. It is also covered by some very well
established vegetation and trees which are growing at a considerable height.
There would continue to be a distance of approximately 22m to the gable of each adjacent dwelling. The
site is also large extending back almost 100m leaving over 50m for parking and amenity area beyond the
rear of the building. I do not consider therefore that the proposal would result in an overdevelopment of the
site. Reference has also been made to the loss of commercial value which is not a material planning
consideration.
The proposal would have a single access into the site. In association with the access, the hedge along the
frontage would not have to be removed to ensure that the required sight lines are achieved.
I am satisfied that if implemented, this would achieve a safe, acceptable access and sufficient pedestrian and
vehicular visibility splays without the removal of the hedge, I therefore have no objections to the proposal
on highway grounds. It should also be noted that with the existing surgery and residential use a large
number of vehicles could currently enter and leave the site and this is without any alterations to the
accesses.
In relation to the potential increase in noise, if the surgery were occupied doctors and patients could visit the
site throughout the day and by their movements generate a level of noise. I can see no reason why the
occupiers of the proposed flats should generate an unacceptable, significant additional increase in noise
especially as the parking would be a minimum of 8m from either boundary. A degree of noise and
disturbance would be experienced during any construction works, but this would be relatively short-lived.
The main impact is therefore the impact upon the trees. These are all mature trees which have grown to a
considerable height and therefore the loss of any tree would have an impact upon the site and the street
scene. Two horse chestnut trees would have to be removed from the frontage to allow for the new access
but the City’s arborist is of the opinion that these trees are in a poor condition and should be removed.
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
I acknowledge that their removal would have some impact upon the street scene. However the remaining
trees which are protected would remain to retain the treescape along the frontage. A landscaping plan could
also be implemented including replacement trees along the frontage. These would then be able to grow and
become established alongside the development. Two further trees that would have to be removed
(numbered 806 and T6) are situated away from the frontage within the rear of the site and the existing
dwellings. Therefore there should not be a significant detrimental impact upon the character of the area in
the long term.
The City’s arborist is now satisfied that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon the
treescape.
I consider a balance has been achieved for this residential proposal situated within the heart of a residential
area with a proposal that would not have a significant, detrimental impact upon the area or the amenity of
the neighbouring residents. I am also of the opinion that the retention of the building for residential
purposes will retain the character of the area. I therefore recommend that this application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION
1.
That the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement for the
retention and future management of the hedge fronting Worsley Road and give authority for the decision
notice to be issued on completion of the agreement.
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 C03X Fencing of Trees/no work within spread
4. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
5. During the first available planting season following the felling of the protected trees numbered 806,
819, 820 and 841 hereby granted consent, they shall be replaced by eight "heavy standard" trees in
accordance with British Standard 3936:Part 1:1965 (Specification for Nursery Stock Part 1: Trees and
Shrubs) and shall have a clear stem height from the ground of 2.5m, a minimum overall height from the
ground of 4m, a minimum circumference of stem at 1m from the ground of 12cm and the trees shall be
root balled. The species and location of the replacement trees shall be agreed in writing by the Director
of Development Services prior to the felling of the trees.
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
6. Standard Condition J04X Bin Stores
7. The development hereby approved shall not be first occupied until the access to No. 68 has been
improved and the access to No. 66 has been closed as shown of plan number R1037/5. The details of
the closure to No.66 shall have been first submitted to and agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services and shall include the planting of a hedgerow to compliment the existing
hedgerow fronting Worsley Road.
8. This permission does not relate to the indicative parking layout as shown on the amended plan received
on 19th November 2002 and full details of the proposed parking shall be submitted to and approved in
writing prior to the commencement of development.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
7. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
8. In order to safeguard existing trees in accordance with Policy EN7.
APPLICATION No:
02/44967/HH
APPLICANT:
M Stewart
LOCATION:
53 Kingsway Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey side extension
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached property. The proposal is to erect a single storey side extension. It
would be 3.6m wide and be the length of the garden, with a garage and dining room being 10.2m in length
and a flat roof tool and garden shed behind.
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
SITE HISTORY
In September 2002, planning permission was refused for this same extension, because of the effect on the
public sewer that runs through the applicants’ property.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:79-83 (odd) Broadway
50, 51, 52 Kingsway
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a verbal objection from the occupier of 79 Broadway, who wrote and objected to the
previous proposal. Her previous objections were that they were concerned about the affect of light and poor
view from their kitchen windows. They also felt that it would remove most of the space between the
properties and creating more of a terrace.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
United Utilities have confirmed that they do not object to this proposal, subject to the applicants following
their guidance during construction.
When the previous application was considered, it was not refused because of the possible effect on the
neighbours, although this was considered. The neighbours’ kitchen/dining room windows face the
proposed extension, but the property is angled so there is a separation of between 4m and 7.2m. It was
considered that the angle of the relationship between the two would reduce the adverse effect on this
neighbour. As the proposal is the same as previously determined, but the issue of the sewer has been
resolved, I would now recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicants attention is drawn to the attached letter from United Utilities regarding the method of
construction required over the public sewer.
APPLICATION No:
02/44983/COU
APPLICANT:
T Cauchi
LOCATION:
Unit 1A Villiers Street (Cobden Street) Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from steel recyclers to form extension to waste transfer
station and retention of concrete panel fencing
WARD:
Pendleton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a site on the corner of Cobden Street and Laundry Street within the Brindle Heath
industrial estate and is bounded by industrial units to the north and eastern boundaries. Beyond, is a railway
line and approximately 40m from the northern boundary of the site is the line of the Manchester, Bolton and
Bury Canal. The application seeks to change the use of an adjoining use from steel recyclers to expand the
applicant’s existing site.
The operating hours would be the same as the applicants existing site, twenty four hours, seven days a
week.
SITE HISTORY
In 1994 planning permission was granted for the use of land for waste transfer station and retention of
perimeter fencing (94/33055/COU) with restrictive conditions.
In 1998 planning permission was granted for the continued use of land as waste transfer station without
complying with condition 01 on planning permission 94/33055/COU
(temporary planning permission)
Earlier this year planning permission was granted for the continued use as a waste transfer station with
variation of opening hours imposed on planning permission 98/37561/FUL
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
British Waterways – opposes the application on the grounds that it will detrimental to the Canal when it is
restored
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 12th November 2002
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letter of objection in response to the application publicity from Councillor Warmisham
and Hulmes. The following issues have been raised:Would not fit in with the future of the New Deal Area
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
EC14/3 – Improvement Proposals, Pendleton
DEV1 Development Criteria, MW11 Waste Recycling and Bulk Reduction.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
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 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.
Although, one of the consultees, British Waterways, two ward councillors and the New Deal for
Communities team are objecting to the application, I consider that the main issues are whether or not the
development is in conformity with the UDP. This proposal would change the use of a former steel recyclers
to a waste transfer station which would extend the existing waste transfer station (Salford Skips) and
retention of a concrete panel fence.
I am of the opinion that this proposal for the extension of an existing facility within the area is insignificant
(0.9ha) and is afforded general support from policy MW11. The proposal would not obstruct the line of the
Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal and would be screened by an existing two storey warehouse unit and
railway line.
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. The proposal would not obstruct the line of the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal and
would be screened by an existing two storey warehouse unit and railway line. The proposal also seeks the
retention of a 2.4m concrete panel fence for approximately 12m along the western boundary and provides a
substantial barrier between vehicular movements associated with the transfer of waste and the neighbouring
industrial units and car parking court.
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
I do not consider that the development would detract from the environmental quality and appearance of the
area. I have no highway objections and have attached similar conditions to previous approvals for the site
to safeguard the amenity of the area. Therefore I am of the opinion that this proposal should be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. No waste or materials stored on the site shall at any time exceed a height of 2 metres above ground
level.
2. The wheel wash facilities installed on site shall be used to clean the wheels of each vehicle departing
from the site.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/45000/ADV
APPLICANT:
Eccles A R L F C
LOCATION:
Land At Eccles Amateur RLFC Hallsworth Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Retention of two advertisement hoardings
WARD:
Winton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land at Eccles Amateur Rugby League Football Club. The hoardings would be
sited to the immediate south of the cycle track which links Hallsworth Road to the subway under the M60
motorway on the edge of the practice pitch area adjacent to the clubhouse. The signs would be approx. 50m
from the motorway and over 100m from the nearest dwelling.
The proposal is for the display of two non-illuminated 96 sheet advertisement hoardings, the application
would also include a display board for the Club.
SITE HISTORY
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
In 1997, planning permission was refused for the erection of two non-illuminated advertising panels on the
grounds that they would be detrimental to highway safety. There was a subsequent appeal that was
allowed, the Planning Inspector restricted his comments on the grounds of public safety and did not deal
with the issue of public safety.
CONSULTATIONS
Highways Agency PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 22/11/02
REPRESENTATIONS
Councillor Lancaster has verbally commented on his support for the application.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None
PLANNING APPRAISAL
PPG19 “Outdoor Advertisement Control” suggests that public safety and amenity are the key
considerations when considering such applications. I consider that the main issues concern the appearance
of the proposed unit and its impact upon the amenity of the area.
The applicants have indicated that the revenue generated by the advertisements provide essential financial
support for the club.
This application, however, has to be considered in planning terms and
I consider that the site is in a prominent location alongside the M60 motorway. I believe that the position
and design of the proposed free-standing unit, would create a strident feature in the street-scene, in
particular given the long range views from the east and west. There are no other advertisement panels of this
size in the vicinity, I therefore consider this unit to have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed hoardings would seriously injure the amenity of the area because they would be strident
and conspicuous features in the street scene by reason of their size and siting.
APPLICATION No:
02/45005/FUL
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
APPLICANT:
Mr S A Bowes
LOCATION:
Hardies Cottage, Linnyshaw Moss, Moss Lane Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of outbuildings to be used as cattery, kennels and stable block
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the erection of outbuildings at Hardies Cottage, Linnyshaw Moss, Moss Lane,
Walkden, Worsley to be used as a cattery, kennels and stable block. The application site is currently a field
located 43m to the south of the cottage. The building would extend an additional 35m southwards. It would
be approximately 28m wide at the widest point and 3.8m in height. The building would house three stables,
a tack room, six kennels, thirty cat runs, an office and a reception.
The proposed hours of opening are between 8am and 7pm Monday to Saturday and 10am to 5pm on
Sundays. It is proposed to create a new access to Moss Lane by removing three of the existing fir trees and
creating a hardstanding. It is anticipated that four members of staff will be employed on the site and it is
proposed to provide 10 car parking spaces.
SITE HISTORY
In June 2001 an application for the erection of a detached storage unit, retention of 2 lighting columns and
creation of external storage area for trailer and exhibition units was submitted on the same site. This
application was withdrawn in December 2001.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – has no objections to the application provided that, should the
application be approved, conditions are attached requiring site investigations and a noise assessment.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 14th November 2002
The following neighbours were notified of the application:Worsley and Swinton Residents’ Association
1 East Lynn Drive
Linnyshaw Moss Farm, Moss Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
I have received three letters of objection in response to the application publicity and a petition signed by 78
local residents. The following issues have been raised:Loss of the Green Belt
Increase in traffic
Increase in noise
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EN1 – Green Belt, EN2 – Development Within Green Belt
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria, DEV2 – Good Design
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider the main issues in the determination of this application to be the impact of the proposal on the
Green Belt, the potential increase in traffic and noise from the animals. The objectors raise these issues in
their letters and I will deal with each in turn below.
Both Government guidance in the form of Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belt and Policy EN2 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan apply a presumption against inappropriate development in
the Green Belt in an attempt to preserve its character. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful
to the Green Belt. It is therefore necessary to determine whether or not the proposal constitutes
inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Policy EN2 states that the construction of new buildings within the Green Belt will be considered
inappropriate unless they are for, inter alia, essential facilities for outdoor sports and recreation (including
the construction of small stables). Whilst this stance is supported by PPG2, kennels/catteries are not among
the range of uses cited in PPG2 or the UDP as appropriate. Only three stables are proposed and would form
only a small part of the overall development. I therefore consider the application to constitute inappropriate
development in the Green Belt.
In accordance with national policy, inappropriate development should be refused unless very special
circumstances exist which would justify approval. Such circumstances include if the proposed use cannot
take place within an urban area or at a location beyond the Green Belt. In this case, the applicant has not
demonstrated that very special circumstances exist.
It is proposed to site the building 43m from the existing dwelling and this fact, together with the size of the
proposal, would prejudice the openness of the Green Belt and would constitute encroachment. This would
clearly be unacceptable.
The potential noise created by the animals housed would be significant. The number of customers visiting
the proposed premises would result in an increase in vehicles in the area which would in turn result in an
increase in general noise and disturbance. I consider that this would result in an unacceptable detrimental
impact on amenity.
In conclusion, I consider that the application constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The
applicant has not demonstrated the existence of special circumstances which would justify the approval of
this application. The proposal would prejudice the openness of the Green Belt and would result in
significant increases in noise and general disturbance in the area. In accordance with PPG2 and Policy EN2
of the UDP, I recommend that the application be refused.
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The site lies within the Approved Greater Manchester Green Belt. The proposal constitutes
inappropriate development within the Green Belt and, in the absence of any special circumstances to
justify approval, is contrary to Policy EN2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/45026/FUL
APPLICANT:
G Forbes
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To 27 Mill Street Boothstown Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of one pair of semi-detached dwellings and garages and
alterations to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an area of vacant land to the side of 27 Mill Street.
The application is seeking the erection of one pair of semi-detached dwellings and a double garage at the
end of Mill Street.
The siting of the proposed dwellings would be level with the front and rear building line of the existing
terraced properties on Mill Street and would be one metre from the gable of 27 Mill Street. The majority of
the site is level, however, the eastern part of the site falls away by approximately two metres and adjacent
properties on Border Brook Lane are at a lower level of between six and eight metres. A double garage
would also be provided at the end of Mill Street, at a right angle to the properties.
The site has been vacant for some time and has most recently been used for storage of material. The
surrounding uses are predominantly residential.
SITE HISTORY
In 1995, planning permission was granted for the erection of a detached dwelling (95/34124/OUT)
Planning permission was also approved in 2002 for the erection of one-pair semi-detached dwellings and
alterations to the existing vehicular access (01/43297/OUT)
CONSULTATIONS
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
Director of Environmental Services – Recommend condition requiring site investigation for contamination
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – Recommend conditions to ensure gas and contaminant regime
beneath the site is understood
Environment Agency - Recommend condition requiring site investigation for contamination
British Coal – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:7 – 27 (odd) Mill Street
27 – 37 (odd) Border Brook Lane
243A Mosley Common Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received four letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Loss of privacy
Parking
Access
Out of character
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that regard must be had to a number of factors when
determining applications for planning permission including the layout and relationship of existing and
proposed buildings and the effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for neighbouring properties.
With regards to the proposed use of the site for residential development, the principle of residential use on
this site has been established with the approval of two previous outline permissions in 1995 and 2001 (Ref.
95/34124/OUT and 01/43297/OUT) The last application sought permission for siting and access. This
proposal would sit the dwellings in the same position as the previous application with the addition of a
detached double garage.
The property at 31 Border Brook Lane would be directly level with the gable end of the proposed dwellings,
at a distance of approximately 14 metres. The property at 33 Border Brook Lane is located at a distance of
approximately 11 metres to the north east of the proposed footprint of the dwellings. There are principle
windows on the rear of both 31 and 33 Border Brook Lane. The difference in levels between the site of the
proposed dwellings and 31 Border Brook Lane is approximately 8 metres and between 33 Border Brook
Lane is approximately 6 metres. From the site of the proposed dwellings, the change in levels is so
significant that the gardens of 31 and Border Brook Lane cannot be seen. I do not consider that the proposal
would result in any significant loss of privacy given this significant difference in levels, I have attached a
condition to restrict any additional windows within the gable. The addition of a double garage block at the
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
end of the street would ensure sufficient car parking provision is provided within the proposal. The single
storey garage block would maintain approximately 12m to the rear elevation of 29 Border Brook Lane.
The letters of objection received from the application publicity have raised several issues about the
principles of the development. I am of the opinion that the principle of a residential use, and particularly a
semi-detached property has already been established. With regard to character, I am of the opinion that this
proposal has been designed in such a way as to continue the style of the row of terrace with the pitch of the
roof of the end semi rotated through ninety degrees to add and interesting design feature and a natural
punctuation to the street scene.
The proposal would bring a vacant site back into use. I consider that the principle of residential properties
has already been established and that there would not be any significant detrimental impacts upon the
neighbouring residents. I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the
approval of the LPA. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of
contamination and underground gases on site and its implications on the risk to human health and
controlled water receptors as defined under the Environmental protection Act, 1990 Part IIA. The
investigation shall also address the health and safety of the site workers, nearby persons, building
structures and services, landscaping schemes, final users on the site and the environmental pollution in
ground water.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to the start of the survey and
recommendations and remedial works contained within the improved report shall be implemented by
the developer prior to occupation of the site.
3. Prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall submit a site investigation report to
address the stability of the slope on the eastern boundary of the site, the details of which shall be
submitted to and approved by the Director of Development.
4. There shall be no windows inserted on the gable walls of the dwellings.
5. 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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
3. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
4. To protect the amenity of neighbouring residents, in accordance with DEV1 of the Unitary
Development Plan.
5. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the recommendation from the Greater Manchester Geological Unit
with regard to the method to be undertaken for a gas assessment.
APPLICATION No:
02/45027/FUL
APPLICANT:
Dimora Construction Limited
LOCATION:
Plot 3, Land Adjoining St Johns Vicarage Broomfield Pendlebury
Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of detached dormer bungalow and alterations to existing and
construction of new vehicular access
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land adjoining St John’s Vicarage, Broomfield. To the south of the site is St
John’s Church and graveyard and to the east are residential properties. To the west of the application site are
2no two storey detached dwellings which are currently under construction. To the north is 2 Broomfield.
Access would be achieved via an existing entrance to the site from Broomfield, between the vicarage and 2
Broomfield. The proposal is to erect one 4 bedroom dormer bungalow on land to the rear of 2 Broomfield.
SITE HISTORY
In 1978 an outline application for one detached dwelling at the rear of 2 Broomfield was refused
(ref.E/6440). The reasons for refusal were
1. The building of a dwelling behind another without proper road frontage would interfere with the
privacy of neighbouring properties and would create difficulties for collecting and delivery services.
2. The proposed access to the site is unsatisfactory because of its length and proximity to No.2 Broomfield
and would adversely affect the residential amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of that
property.
In 2001 an outline application was approved for three detached dwellings, two 3 bed properties and a
bungalow, to the rear of 2 Broomfield (00/41198/OUT).
In September 2002 a reserved matters application for the erection of two detached dwellings on land
adjoining St John’s Vicarage was approved (02/44332/FUL).
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:2-10 (E), 1-7(O) & St John’s Vicarage, Broomfield
85 & 148 Broomhall Road
375 Worsley Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have been
raised:Loss of privacy
Loss of light
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The site is in a predominantly residential area and the proposed development would therefore be in keeping
with the character of the area. It is located some distance from St John’s Church, a Grade II listed building
and I am therefore satisfied that the proposed dwelling would not have a significant impact on the setting of
the Church.
I consider the main issues in the determination of this application to be the impact of the proposed dwelling
on the existing dwelling at 2 Broomfield. Given that outline consent has already been granted for the
erection of a bungalow on this site, the main issue is whether a dormer bungalow would have a greater
impact on 2 Broomfield than a bungalow such as that already approved in outline.
I have received one letter of objection regarding this application, within which concerns over loss of
privacy and light for the residents of 2 Broomfield are raised. However, it is proposed to site the dwelling in
such a way as to allow adequate separation from the existing dwellings. In particular, there would be 16.7m
from the rear of the existing bungalow at 2 Broomfield to the gable wall of the new dwelling. In considering
all of the information submitted, I am of the opinion that the proposed dwelling would not have an adverse
impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. I therefore recommend that the application is approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 and Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (and any subsequent amending order), there shall be no
development within the curtilage of any dwelling hereby approved as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 2 of
the above Order without the prior grant of planning permission by the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R037A Additional measure of control
APPLICATION No:
02/45038/HH
APPLICANT:
Dr Mahesh Yadav
LOCATION:
2 Bay Tree Avenue Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of conservatory at rear of dwelling
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached property in the Worsley Village conservation area.
The proposal is to erect a conservatory to the side and rear. The proposal would be 8.7m X 3.6m with a
height of 3.1m. The conservatory would project 4.7m from the rear elevation.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:4-9 (incl) Greenside
4 Bay Tree Avenue
1 & 3 Woodstock Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection and one representation in response to the application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Loss of privacy
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
Concern that the applicant might want to increase the height of the conservatory in the future
Proposal is out of proportion with the property
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance
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, over shadowing, dominance,
loss of privacy or light.
The supplementary planning guidance states that permission will not normally be granted for extensions
that do not maintain a minimum of 21m between facing habitable room windows, unless the extension is
only single-storey and there is adequate screening.
The proposal would be a minimum of 11.4m from the rear elevations of the properties on Woodside. These
houses face the long side boundary of the application site. The proposal would be set in 1m from the side
boundary of the application site. On the boundary within the application site there is currently a 4m high
hedge, which I am assured will not be removed. There will also be a condition attached to the permission
that the elevation facing the properties on Wood side would be obscured glazed. Due to the boundary
conditions I would not consider the proposal to have an effect on the privacy of the occupiers of Woodside.
If an application was submitted in the future to increase the height of the conservatory then it would be
looked at on its own merits and the occupiers of Woodside would be notified and any representations taken
into consideration.
The property is a detached property with an existing rear extension and a fairly large rear garden. I would
not consider the proposal to be out of proportion with the existing property.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The south elevation facing the properties on Woodside of the conservatory hereby approved shall be
installed and maintained with obscure glazing,
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/45047/COU
APPLICANT:
T Carr
LOCATION:
37 Rydal Crescent Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from shop to sunbed studio
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the change of use of the ground floor of 37 Rydal Crescent, Walkden, Worsley
from a shop to a sunbed studio. The property is owned by the City Council. The first floor of the premises is
a residential flat. The ground floor of the property is currently vacant and is located within a parade of
shops, some of which are also vacant. The neighbouring shops also have residential flats at first floor.
The proposed hours of operation would be from 9.30am to 8.30pm Mondays to Thursdays, 9.30am to
8.00pm on Fridays, 10am to 7pm on Saturdays and 11am to 4pm on Sundays. It is anticipated that between
two and three members of staff would be employed on the premises.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:31 to 35 & 39 to 43 (O) Rydal Crescent
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any representations to this application
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider that the main issues to be addressed relate to likely traffic generation and impact on the amenity
of neighbouring residents.
The application does not include any provision for customer car parking within the curtilage of the site.
However there is a public parking area on Rydal Crescent which serves the parade of shops and which can
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
accommodate in the region of ten vehicles. 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. I am therefore satisfied that the current car parking arrangements are sufficient.
In conclusion, I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds. The property has been vacant for
some time and 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
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
02/45054/COU
APPLICANT:
S Blythe
LOCATION:
289 Chorley Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from retail (Class A1) to shop for sale of hot food (Class
A3)
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an end terraced unit in a commercial terrace, between Sutherland Street and
Abbey Drive.
The unit is currently vacant. The immediate neighbour is a retail shop with living accommodation above.
This application seeks to change the use from retail use to the sale of hot food with proposed opening hours
until midnight six days a week and 11.00pm of Sundays.
SITE HISTORY
In 2000, planning permission was granted for the retention of roller shutters to the front of the property.
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Objection due to loss of amenity to neighbouring residents.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:273 – 287 & 303 (odd) Chorley Road
224 – 232 (even) Chorley Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of objection and a twenty named petition in response to the application
publicity. The following issues have been raised:Increase noise and general disturbance
Increase in traffic congestion
Increase in litter
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
S5 – Control of Food and Drink Premises
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy S5 states that the City Council will only grant planning permission for such uses where it would not
have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents by reason of noise,
disturbance, smells, fumes, litter, vehicular traffic movements, parking or pedestrian traffic.
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity which makes reference to
generally disturbance issues. The main planning consideration with regard this application is the adjoining
residential properties and the likely impact that this proposal would have on amenity. The immediate
property has residential accommodation on the first floor. There are also several residential properties
directly opposite the proposal.
Therefore, due to the relationship of the proposal to the neighbouring residential accommodation, I am of
the opinion that this proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents
contrary to policy S5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed opening of the business would seriously harm the amenity of neighbouring residents by
reason of noise, vehicular activity and general disturbance. It would therefore conflict with the
Council's Unitary Development Plan Policy S5 - Control of Food and Drink Premises.
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/45089/COU
APPLICANT:
L K Bell
LOCATION:
10 Standfield Shopping Centre, Standfield Drive Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from shop to shop for the sale of hot food
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant retail unit at the Standfield Centre, Boothstown. The proposal is to
change the use of the unit from retail to a hot food take away. The proposed opening hours would be from
11.30am – 1.30pm and 5.30pm – 10.30pm. The use would be closed on Tuesday and only open in the
evening on Sunday.
The proposal site is situated in the middle of an existing row of shops. The Standfield Centre is a Key Local
Centre. The ground floor of the Centre comprises various uses, including, off licence, opticians, dress shop
and two restaurants. The first floor of this element of the Centre predominantly comprises an Italian
restaurant with a residential flat, the exception, above the end unit. A substantial concrete canopy projects
over the ground floor units at first floor level. There is a car park for the Standfield Centre to the rear of
units.
Uses surrounding the Standfield Centre are mixed – residential properties to the north and west, a
community centre and library to the west and a landscaped/seating area forming part of the Standfield
Centre to the west of the application site.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1 – 9 and 11 – 14 Standfield Centre
2 – 12 (even) Leafield Drive
Community Centre, Simpson Road
1 – 7 (odd) Standfield Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. Councillor Kerry Holt has
also requested that the application be determined by Panel. The following issues have been raised:Over provision of hot food uses
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
Vandals would congregate outside
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
S5 – Control of Food and Drink Premises
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider that the main issues concern the impact of the use on neighbouring residential occupiers due to
fumes, odours, noise and disturbance, and highway implications.
Policy S5 states that the Council will normally only permit proposals for A3 uses where they would not
have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenities of surrounding residential properties or significantly
prejudice highway safety. Where an A3 use would directly adjoin a residential unit, it is normally
considered unacceptable as noise, disturbance, fumes and odours adversely affect the occupiers.
The letter of objection makes reference to the number of hot food uses within the area. Currently, there are
two restaurants located within the centre and no take-a-ways. Members may recall a similar application for
a change of use to A3 within the northern row of shops. This application was refused and dismissed on
appeal due to a detrimental impact upon the residential flats directly above the proposal. There are no
residential properties above this proposal, in fact, the Italian restaurant extends above the majority of the
eastern units.
I consider that with a satisfactory fume extraction system, that the smells/odours would not unduly affect
neighbouring residents. The centre as a whole is well serviced by a large car park to the rear of the units. I
have attached a condition restricting hours of opening on Sundays and Bank Holidays to allow residential
amenity.
Consequently, on balance I consider that the use in its current form is acceptable, and can occur without
unduly affecting the highway or local residents. Therefore, I recommend approval subject to restrictive
conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition G09X Extraction of Fumes etc.
3. Standard Condition G05F Hours of Use - Hot Food
4. Piror to the development hereby approved coming into use, the applicant shall provide a litter bin to the
front of the premises. The applicant shall first submit details of the design and position of the litter (in
liaison with the Director of Environmental Services), for the written approval of the Director of
Development Services.
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/45092/FUL
APPLICANT:
C Morris
LOCATION:
Newearth Florist 4 Newearth Road Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey rear extension to form store and alterations to
first floor flat
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates Newearth Florist and is for the erection of a single storey rear extension. The
property is a mid-terrace and is bounded by retail and residential uses.
The extension would project 6.5m along the boundary of 6 Newearth Road. It would be set in 0.2m and
would be 2.5m in height at the boundary. It is proposed to access the first floor flat via an internal staircase.
SITE HISTORY
Members will recall that planning permission for a similar application was refused in July 2002. It was
considered that the extension would injure the amenity of neighbouring residents due to its size and siting,
that it would result in loss of privacy for neighbouring residents and that inadequate provision for car
parking within the curtilage of the site had been proposed.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections provided that, should permission be granted, a
condition is attached requiring sound insulation between the business premises and the first floor flat.
Coal Authority – advice provided
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:-
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
2 and 6 Newearth Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 2 letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Overbearing nature of the extension
Loss of light
Loss of view
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria, SPG6 – House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 seeks to ensure that due regard is given to the size and density of the proposed development
and the effect on privacy of neighbouring residents. Although the proposal is for a retail premises, I am of
the opinion that the Council’s SPG for House Extensions is relevant to this application, in light of the
adjoining residential property.
A retail unit and a residential property bound the application premises. At present, both retail units have a
two storey outrigger on their common boundary, which is on the opposite side to the residential property.
Two letters of objection have been received, relating to the potential loss of light, the overbearing nature of
the proposed extension on the residential property and detrimental impact on views.
A number of amendments have been made since the refusal of a similar scheme earlier this year in an
attempt to address the reasons for refusal. The length of the proposed extension has been reduced by 2m,
from 8.5m to 6.5m. The height at the boundary of 6 Newearth Road has been reduced from 3.3m to 2.5m.
The proposed extension now has a monopitch roof and the access and balustrading to the first floor flat have
been removed. The flat has instead been designed with an internal staircase. The reduction in length of the
proposed extension would allow a single car parking space to be provided within the curtilage of the
premises, although this is not shown on the submitted plans. The provision of a space would address one of
the reasons for refusal.
Despite the amendments made to the proposed development, I remain of the opinion that the extension
would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents due to its size and siting. The objector raises
concerns regarding the overbearing nature of the proposal, and whilst I recognise that the removal of the
balustrading would significantly reduce potential overlooking and loss of privacy, the proposal would have
a dominant impact upon the neighbouring property, despite the reduced length and height. Due to the
adjoining residential property, although there are commercial premises, I consider it pertinent to take the
provisions of the Council’s SPG for House Extensions into account. This guidance seeks to allow
extensions which project a maximum of 2.74m. It is evident that the proposal is way in excess of this
standard, and as a result would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring
residents. On the above basis, I recommend that the application be refused.
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. Standard Reason RR34C Neighbouring Residents - Size/Siting
APPLICATION No:
02/45093/FUL
APPLICANT:
H2 Construction
LOCATION:
Former Top Rank Bingo Club Church Street Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of one five storey block of 19 apartments together with
creation of new vehicular access
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former Bingo Hall on the corner of Church Street and Mather Road. The
building which is some five storeys in height and occupies the full site is now in a near derelict condition
and is situated in an area mixed in character. To the west is a commercial terrace with residential
accommodation above whilst to the east and at a slightly higher level are the flats of Gardner House.
Immediately to the rear (north) of the site is an industrial unit and there are also commercial premises
opposite on Mather Road whilst further up Mather Road are residential dwellings. Opposite the site on
Church Street is an area of open space. The site is within the Eccles Housing Renewal Area and also within
a designated environmental improvement corridor.
The proposal is for the demolition of the hall and for the erection of a new five storey building which would
provide 19, two bed flats. To the rear of the site would be 19 car parking spaces, accessed off Mather Road.
There would be no amenity space within the site. In support of the proposal the applicant has submitted a
design statement. I have outlined the main points below.
1. The existing property is uninspired and “tired”. It is neglected and forms a mass of building which
would be difficult to convert to an alternative use due to lack of windows; ad hoc floor levels; depth
of space and inner space. The building has no architectural merit and overshadows in its depth and
bulk adjacent dwellings and buildings.
2. The proposal would include the replacement of structures on site within a single building with
space to the rear and incorporating architectural detailing, including pitched roofs, dormers,
profiling, modelling and various roof ridge and gutter lines to add interest and architectural quality.
The proposed elevations include band courses, balconies and coyne detailing, incorporating
elements of architecture in keeping with the appearance of adjacent existing buildings and utilising
similar materials.
3. The building has been designed with a predominantly four and a half to five storey appearance to
contribute to a sense of place.
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
4. The dwelling forms would incorporate elements of architecture in keeping with the appearance of
adjacent dwellings/development proposals. The elevational design would be conceived taking
examples of architecture embodied within the adjacent scheme proposals, and utilising similar
materials.
5. The visual impact of the development is limited to the view from Church Street and Mather Road.
6. The removal of the building would be an environmental improvement in the area and encourage
regeneration.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – has concerns regarding road traffic noise on Church Street and the
loss of amenity future residents may suffer. If permission is granted it is recommended that a noise
assessment is undertaken. There is also concern about the layout of the flats which may increase the
likelihood of occupants being disturbed by their neighbours. It is therefore recommended that the layout is
designed so that bedrooms do not adjoin or be sited above or below living rooms/kitchens of adjoining
apartments.
Environment Agency – no objections in principle but requests that if permitted an informative be included
on any decision to the effect that there is no notified landfill site identified within 250m consultation zone
for this development.
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Officer – recommends that unauthorised access is prevented with
the erection of secure boundary railings incorporating secure access and exit controls and also the provision
of a defensible space to ground floor windows in the form of railings to a height of 1.8m.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 28 November 2002.
A site notice was displayed on 21 November 2002.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:190, 190a Church Street
1 – 7 (O), 4 Mather Road
1 – 18 Gardner House
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Loss of on street car parking which is already at a premium
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none.
Other policies: EC3 Re-use of Sites and Premises, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, H7/1
Housing Area Improvement and Renewal, EN15 Environmental Improvement Corridor.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
I consider that the main issues to be considered for this proposal firstly relate to the suitability of residential
use in this location within the housing renewal area and environmental improvement corridor taking into
account policies H7/1 and EN15. Secondly, the detail of the proposal in terms of its design and layout is of
consideration and in this respect policy DEV 2 is important.
The former bingo hall is vacant and is in a poor state of repair. I do not consider therefore that the principle
of residential use would be unacceptable.
To firstly address the concerns of the objector, he is concerned about the impact of the proposal upon car
parking along Mather Road and the impact upon his business which relies on this. The proposal would
provide 100% car parking within the site and at one per flat I am satisfied that this is acceptable in this
location. The site is within walking distance to Eccles town centre and is also along a main bus route. In
accordance with PPG3 and PPG13 and the government’s wish to reduce the reliance on cars, I would
consider this a highly accessible site and therefore this provision would be sufficient for vehicles.
However, there are no disabled parking facilities or facilities for cyclists or motorcyclists. In relation to the
objector he currently enjoys the benefit of on street parking but this is not something that can be
safeguarded forever. I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds.
The proposal would be a replacement building occupying the full frontage of the site; some 23m and
extending back14.5m at its widest point. Although this would be smaller than the existing building which
currently occupies the whole of the site (22m x 32.5m), it would still be a large building within a prominent
location along the main road into Eccles town centre. The replacement building would be approximately
1m lower in height than the existing but standing 16m in height together with its frontage it would be an
extremely prominent building. The applicant has stated that the design has been derived from the
surrounding buildings and the flats would be constructed from similar materials.
Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will only grant planning permission where it is satisfied with the
quality of design and appearance of the development. The building is on the local list and although in a
poor condition, does have some architectural merit and local significance. I do not agree with the applicant
therefore that the building is “uninspired” . It is also in a highly prominent location. Taking this into
consideration any development on the site should be of a high standard in terms of its design and contribute
a strong building frontage to Liverpool Road. I am concerned that the building does not do this and that the
design is inadequate for this location.
To the rear of the building would be the parking provision. In parts this would be less than 1m away from
living room and bedroom windows of one of the ground floor flat. I do not consider this acceptable or that
it would provide a level of amenity that any future residents of the flats could expect to enjoy. Furthermore,
the proposal has provided no usable amenity space within the site. I recognise that PPG3 seeks to
encourage a greater usage and density on sites, especially in such highly accessible locations, however, this
should not be at expense of the design and quality of a proposal. I am of the firm opinion that any proposal
for as many residential units as this should provide some amenity space within the site which residents are
able to use should they wish to. For this reason and coupled with the parking I consider that this proposal
represents an overdevelopment of the site. I therefore recommend that this application be refused on
grounds of overdevelopment and poor design.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
1. The proposed development would provide no usable amenity space for future residents and the parking
provision would be within an unacceptable proximity to the proposed flats and as such would represent
an overdevelopment of the site which would be detrimental to the amenity of the future residents and is
therefore contrary to policy DEV1 of the UDP.
2. The site is highly prominent within an environmental improvement corridor and the proposed
development is of a poor design which does not contribute to the visual appearance of the street scene
and is therefore contrary to policy DEV2 of the UDP.
APPLICATION No:
02/45098/ADV
APPLICANT:
Miss Karen Pheasant
LOCATION:
Sides Medical Centre Moorside Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Display of one externally illuminated and one non-illuminated wall
mounted signs (Re-submission of planning application 02/44796/ADV)
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The proposal is to display: one externally illuminated wall sign (1.2m x 1.7m) on the gable elevation facing Moorside Road
 One non-illuminated wall sign (1.2m x 1.7m) facing Moorside Road To be located on a new wall
at the entrance to the facility.
Adjacent to the site on Moorside Road is the Grade II listed Moorfield Cottage building. To the south of
the site there are a number of terraced flats, and to the west are a number of semi-detached properties.
There are a series of mature trees to the west of the site alongside Moorside Road.
SITE HISTORY
In 1998, planning permission was approved for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a
two storey 10 bedroom children's reception unit, health centre, ancillary offices and pharmacy together with
landscaping, car parking and alteration to the existing vehicular access (98/37586/FUL & 98/37586/FUL).
In 2000, planning permission was approved for the display of an internally illuminated projecting sign and
non-illuminated fascia signs to the pharmacy (00/40340/ADV).
In 2002, planning permission was approved for a change of use of part of the first floor of the Sides Medical
Centre to a ladies only fitness/slimming centre (02/44217/COU).
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
In 2002, planning permission was refused for the display of one externally illuminated wall sign, two
non-illuminated wall signs and one flag pole to advertise the ladies only fitness/slimming centre
(02/44796/ADV)
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
1 to 13 Moorfield close (odd)
12, 15, 17A, 19 to 27 (odd) Moorside Road
Moorfield Cottage
Moorfield House, 2 Moorside Road
2 Whiteacres, Moorside Road
1A, 10, 22 Norwood Drive
Sides Medical Centre
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comment has
been made:
Size and location of the signs are inappropriate and will have a disturbing visual impact on
the residents of the area
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
DEV1 Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The principle of the first floor being used as a ladies only fitness/slimming centre was established by the
above mentioned planning permission. PPG 19 requires that advertisements, including their cumulative
effect, fit in with the character of the neighbourhood where they are displayed.
Only one of the two proposed adverts would be illuminated (on the gable elevation facing Moorside Road),
and the distance to the residential properties that it faces is approx. 38m. The means of illumination is by an
external over head fluorescent fitting shining down onto the sign. I would therefore consider that its visual
impact on the local residents would not be significant. Furthermore, it would be set back 20m from the
highway and so I envisage no significant impact with regard to highway safety.
The non-illuminated sign facing Moorside Road To be located on a new wall at the entrance to the facility
would be displayed within the mixed-use site, and would be 25m from any residential properties. I
envisage, therefore, that this advert would have no significant impact on residents adjacent to the site.
The proposed advertisements are suitably located within the Sides Medical Centre site, and are a significant
distance from any residential properties. I am of the opinion that their sizes are appropriate to the scale of
the Sides Medical Centre building and their siting is acceptable and would not be detrimental to the
character of the area.
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition K01S Standard Advertisement Condition
2. Standard Condition K02E Illumination of Advertisements
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R034 Advert
2. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
62
19th December 2002
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/45008/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Environmental Services Directorate
LOCATION:
Weaste Cemetery Cemetery Road Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Retention of 1.45m palisade fencing to be mounted on the coping stones
of the stone faced wall in the cemetery
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the northern boundary wall to Weaste Cemetery. Planning permission is sought
for the retention of 1.45 metre high palisade fencing, colour-treated green, that has been erected on top of
the existing wall. The outer face of the boundary wall is stone and the inner face, to the cemetery is red
brick.
The Cemetery is included on the Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest. Numerous
elements within the Cemetery are Listed, including the railings, wall, piers and gates on the Cemetery
approach. The boundary wall to which this application relates joins the entrance to the Cemetery.
To the north of the application site is the playing field associated with All Souls Primary School and uses to
the north-east are associated with the industrial uses on Mode Wheel Road South.
SITE HISTORY
None relevant.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections.
Garden History Society – Whilst the Society are sympathetic to the need for security measures to prevent
unauthorised access to the cemetery, they are concerned about the visual impact of the fencing when seen
from within the cemetery and also consider that the vertical fittings attached along the brick face are
intrusive and detract from the wall's attractive appearance. The Society would normally advise against this
type of fence and method of fixing in this situation and would prefer to see a fence of slimmer dimensions
with fixings outside of the registered landscape and independent of the boundary wall. The Society have
advised that the fence should be refixed to the school side of the wall, and/or at least the fence is repainted a
lighter grey/green colour which would be more recessive, with the supports painted to match the colour of
the brick wall.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 21st November 2002
A site notice was displayed on 13th November 2002
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
The following neighbours were notified of the application:All Souls Primary School, Kintyre Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity 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 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account
when determining planning applications, these include the visual appearance of the development and its
relationship to its surroundings. DEV4 states that will have regard to the position and height of fencing and
gates.
Paragraph 2.24 of PPG15 advises that planning authorities should protect registered parks and gardens in
preparing development plans and in determining planning applications. The PPG also confirms that the
effect of proposed development on a registered park or garden or its setting is a material consideration in the
determination of a planning application. The Garden History Society has expressed concerns regarding the
visual impact of the fencing, in particular regarding the design of the fencing and its position.
In response the applicant has agreed to repaint the fence an appropriate colour. It is advised that the
intention of the fence is to protect the wealth of architecture and history that is found within the cemetery
grounds. As a consequence of this security work the Police have informed us of a reduction in crime in the
area.
The wall on which the fencing has been erected is not itself Listed. Furthermore, I do not consider that their
siting or design would affect the setting of the Listed structure on the cemetery approach.
I consider that the proposed fencing will provide increased security for the Cemetery. I do not consider that
the proposal would have any significant detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area or the setting
of the Listed structures subject to a more appropriate colour being used. I have no objections on highway
grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Within 6 months of the date of this permission the fencing hereby approved shall be repainted in a
colour the details of which shall have been first been submitted to agreed in wriiting by the Director of
Development Services. The fencing shall be maintained in such a colour thereafter.
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/45040/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Wharton County Primary School (FAO D Norkus)
LOCATION:
Wharton County Primary School Rothwell Lane Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4m high palisade boundary fence
WARD:
Little Hulton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to an existing primary school in a residential area. The proposal would erect two
styles of fencing around the perimeter at a height of 2.4m. Palisade fencing would be used along the
northern boundary and would turn the corner onto Rothwell Lane for a distance of 45m. The Diamex
fencing (a traditional looking railing) would then continue along the remainder of the Rothwell Lane
frontage. Palisade would be used along the southern boundary and would stop 5m from the junction of
Rothwell Cresent, Diamex would then be used again to turn the corner and continue along the whole
western boundary.
SITE HISTORY
Earlier this year planning permission was granted for the erection of part Palisade, part Crusader.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
340 – 360 (e), 294 & 294 Manchester Road West
62 – 64 (e) Manorial Drive
42 – 44 (e) and 29 Oakfield Drive
1, 2, 24 and 43 Rothwell Crescent
Wharton Manse Rothwell Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV4 Design and Crime
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 requires development to be appropriate to its surroundings and to have a good visual
appearance and DEV4 seeks development that designs out crime. Although the area is mainly residential in
character the security style palisade and crusader style fencing is proposed to stop youths gaining access to
the school playground and buildings. I consider that the proposal would meet the requirements of DEV4.
I consider that the style of railings proposed at the eastern and western boundaries of the school to be in
character with the residential area, an acceptable alternative to Crusader and meet the requirements of
DEV1. I have no highway objections and recommend approval subject to a colour.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D05B Colour treatment
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/45043/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Education And Leisure Services
LOCATION:
Bradshaw Early Years Centre Devonshire Street Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 1.8m high boundary fencing
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the Bradshaw Early Years Centre which is on Devonshire Street, within this
predominantly residential area.
The proposal is to erect a 1.8m high fence around the building and playground to replace the old school
railings that exist at present. The fence would be a railing style and it would be coloured green.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:-
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
1 & 2 Wiltshire Street
2-12, 13 Devonshire Street
44 Rigby Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV 1- Development Criteria
DEV4 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The property currently has a boundary fence in this position, but it is ageing and is approximately 1.4m in
height. Therefore it does not provide security for the nursery. The style of fencing that is proposed would be
a good quality, being a railing design. It would also be coloured. Therefore I do not consider that it would
have an adverse effect on the amenity of the street scene or on the neighbouring residents. I would not have
any highway objections.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
02/45058/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Salford RC Diocesan Trustees
LOCATION:
St George's High School Parsonage Drive Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4m high security fencing and gates
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
19th December 2002
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to St Georges RC High School, Parsonage Drive, Walkden. The application is to
erect 1.2m high security fencing along the school frontage on Parsonage Drive to match existing security
fencing, and 2.4m high security fencing within the curtilage of the school.
SITE HISTORY
In 1999, planning permission was approved for the erection of a single storey extension to provide a music
room, recording room, practice room and stores/office.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1 to 17(odd) Parsonage Drive
11 Hyde Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV4 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 seeks to ensure development fits in with surroundings and does not interfere with residential
amenity. Policy DEV4 encourages measures that will improve security and lead to crime prevention.
Along the school boundary that fronts onto Tynesbank and part of Parsonage Drive is existing 1.2m high
security fencing. The proposal would continue this fencing along the remainder of Parsonage Drive,
replacing plastic coated wire mesh fencing of a similar height. I am of the opinion that the proposal would
improve the amenity of the area for local residents, and improve the security of the school.
Within the school site it is proposed that 2.4m high security fencing be erected to separate the playing fields
of the school from the parking area and school building. As the fencing would be erected within the site I
do not envisage any significant impact on local amenity. Again, the proposal would improve security for
the school.
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The fencing and gates will be galvanised and polyester powder coated black prior to or within one
month of their installation, and kept as such thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/45070/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
St Gilberts R C School (FAO P Hamilton)
LOCATION:
St Gilberts R C Primary School Cambell Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of extension to form a disabled toilet facility
WARD:
Winton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the existing school at the end of Campbell Road. The proposal is to erect a small
single storey extension within the site to create a disabled toilet. It would be 6.2m wide by 2.7m and would
have a flat roof.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 27 November 2002
The following neighbours were notified of the application:18 &19 Portree Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th December 2002
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV5 – Equality of Access
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The application is to provide a disabled toilet facility at the school. Therefore this provision would comply
with policy DEV5 which seeks to promote such facilities. The size of the extension is very small and it is
located within the body of the site. Therefore, I would not consider that it would have an adverse effect
upon any neighbours surrounding the site, or on the amenity of the area generally.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the brickwork of the development shall be the same type, colour and
texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
70