PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
APPLICATION No:
01/43511/FUL
APPLICANT:
The Coal Authority
LOCATION:
Land At Worsley Delph And Carrs Meadow, Together With
Underground Pipeline Between The Two Sites Worsley Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Construction of barrier wall, footbridge and pumping station at the
Delph, 1km of underground transfer pipeline,5.6 hectares minewater
treatment site with inlet cascade building,wetland ponds, pumping
station,outlet to canal and landscaping
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FOR THIS PANEL MEETING
At the meeting of the Panel held on 18th July 2002 consideration of this application was deferred to allow an
investigation into alternative access to the minewater treatment site, using the existing works compounds to
the M62 motorway and existing farm access tracks on the north side of the motorway.
The Coal Authority’s Agent, Parkman, has investigated this alternative, and agreement in principal on its
adoption has been reached with the Highways Agency (responsible for the M62 motorway) and local
landowners. The Agent has now submitted a detailed report identifying the proposed temporary access to
the treatment site during the construction period.
The alternative temporary construction access route would pass from the M62 motorway, immediately to
the west of the M60/M62 interchange, via the ‘on’/‘off’ slip roads to an existing motorway works
compound and then by means of existing farm tracks to Grange Farm. The Highways Agency has agreed in
principle to the use of this route for construction traffic, subject to certain conditions, as follows:
Entry to and exit from the Works Unit shall be via the eastbound carriageway only;
Temporary traffic management will be required to facilitate the movement of in-bound site traffic leaving
the eastbound carriageway of the motorway;
Improvement works will be required at the eastern ‘on’ slip road from the works compound, together with
temporary traffic management measures, to ensure that outbound construction vehicles can exit the site
and safely rejoin the eastbound carriageway of the M62.
The access is to be used only for the bulk import/export of materials for earthworks during a specified
period of the construction works, together with the movement of any abnormal loads. This condition is
required because it is almost impossible to manage safely the number and variety of personnel and services
requiring access for general construction operations (e.g. concrete works, building, pipelines, etc). The
location of this access in traffic terms is such that its use must be restricted to only that which significantly
reduces the accident risks in Grange Road and which allows drivers involved to be suitably trained for
temporary exit from and entry to the motorway.
A traffic management scheme will be implemented and manual control at both entry and exit is to be
provided. Temporary traffic orders will be required to cover the use of the improved exit back onto the
eastbound carriageway of the M62.
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
All suppliers’ vehicles will be required to be fitted with signs and warning lights, as required by the
Highways Agency, and all drivers attend an induction briefing relating to entry and exit to the site from the
live motorway.
Out-bound lorries shall exit the site joining the eastbound carriageway of the M62, then travelling
eastbound on the M62, clockwise on M60 to Junction 13, using this junction to facilitate passage to their
off-site destination, irrespective of which further route they wish to take.
Use of the M62 access route will not be available for operational/maintenance traffic requiring routine
access to the treatment site, post scheme commissioning.
The existing farm tracks from the M62 to Grange Farm will require upgrading to bring them to a condition
suitable for the passage of construction traffic.
On the basis of the conditions outlined above, the Highways Agency is prepared to grant a major concession
for construction access to the treatment site to pass from the M62 motorway, through the existing works
compound but only for the passage of vehicles involved in the transport of bulk earthworks materials and
abnormal loads. As a consequence it will be necessary for traffic engaged in the delivery of materials for
general construction activities to access the site by means of the route originally proposed, involving the use
of Grange Road. Also long-term maintenance access to the site will be via Grange Road.
The distribution of ‘one-way’ construction traffic movements would be broadly as follows:
Bulk earthworks (imported fill and exported surplus excavated materials) from/to the M62
motorway:
Average
Peak
96 per week (192 total = inbound and outbound)
370 per week (equivalent to 6 per hour) (740 total)
General construction traffic, via Grange Road:
Site operatives:
Variable
Construction materials: Average
Peak
4 - 20 per day (8-40)
5 per week (10)
12 per week (24)
On the basis of these figures the use of the M62 access would substantially reduce the number of heavy
construction vehicle movements on Grange Road.
The applicant’s agent has also been asked to supply more detailed information on the vehicle movements
associated with the long- term maintenance of the treatment site. These are as follows:
Routine attendance at the treatment site-2 visits by small van per week (104 annually);
Landscape maintenance- 2 times per annum. Each time duration of 3 days each with daily visits by
small van/pickup truck;
De-sludging of settlement pond only- one way vehicle movements of 9 to11 over a 4 week period.
Vehicle movements 2/3 per week. Such works would occur in years 4,6,8,9,11,13,14 and16.
De-sludging of wetland ponds- one way vehicle movements of 137 to 267 over a period of 9 weeks,
with a peak of 40 vehicle movements per week (= 1 per hr). Such works would occur at year 20 (ie
a one off 20 year occurrence). There would be an overlap when de-sludging would occur in both
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
the settlement pond and the wetland ponds although the number of vehicles movements and peaks
would not alter significantly.
All vehicle movements would pass along Grange Road.
Since the Panel meeting on 18th July 2002, I have received a further 26 letters of representation to the
proposal, in addition to a letter of objection from the Worsley Civic Trust and Amenity Society. The main
objection raised relates to the fact that since alternative access to the site has been found for the heavy
traffic, why cannot all the traffic associated with the development use the same route? The following is a
summary of the points raised:
-
the traffic generated by the proposal will have a negative effect upon the quality of life of people
living in Grange Road and Worsley Road
there are no guarantees that this proposal will not set a precedent for future access to the land to the
west of the M60 via Grange Road
Grange Road is a narrow residential road with barely enough access for domestic traffic
proposal will take place during the school holiday period and it is totally unacceptable that children
should be put in any further danger
any increase in traffic will result in an increase in accident risk
damage to trees on Grange Road
damage to surface of Grange Road
how will the use of Grange Road be policed?
Specific issues have been raised by a representative of the tenant farmer at Grange Farm:
-
-
the farm track to be used for access to the treatment site is only capable of sustaining agricultural
equipment - any damage to this track rendering it incapable of use at any time during the proposed
period of construction will seriously impinge on business at Grange Farm
construction period will be during the busiest farming period in the calendar year – farm operations
may be severely retarded
will be a massive amount of noise, dust and smells generated
security will be seriously affected
Human Rights will be seriously affected by the proposals
The following issues have been raised following the deferral of the application in July and before I
re-consulted residents on the report submitted by Parkman’s:
-
alternative schemes and other technical issues have been raised
concerns that the siting of the treatment site may jeopardise any possible future widening of the
motorway
the canal should be used for transportation of removed sludge
further concerns reiterated regarding the notification process
In response to the use of Grange Road by ‘other vehicles’ the Highways Agency has made it clear under
what conditions the motorway access can be used. Its use is restricted to the initial construction period only.
This represents a major concession to the normal policy of the Agency to prohibit the use of motorway
depots or other accesses for development proposals. The use of Grange Road during the construction period
by heavy vehicles would be very limited. The majority of heavy vehicles would now have to use the
motorway access. Similarly the vehicle movements associated with the maintenance of the treatment site
would be limited and infrequent. The only exception to this would be year 20 when the wetlands ponds
would have to be de-sludged and replanted. This would involve the need to import new growing medium
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
and export the old material. This would be for a limited period and would still involve considerably less
heavy vehicle movements than the initial construction phase (when Grange Road was being considered as
the only access point).
In terms of the impact on the tenant farmer, the applicant will have to improve the existing route from the
depot to the site before any earthworks can commence. The works can be programmed to lessen the impact
on the normal operations of the farm and the duration of the vehicle movements is short lived.
With regards to the comments made regarding technical matters and alternative schemes, Members have
already agreed to the principle of the scheme and a decision on the planning application was deferred for
further consideration of site access issues only. I can also confirm that the treatment site would be set back
approximately 30 metres from the foot of the motorway embankment, furthermore, the Highways Agency
have been consulted on this proposal and have raised no objections in relation to the siting of the minewater
treatment area. With reference to the notification process, the publicity for the planning application is
detailed in the ‘Publicity’ section of this report (please see below).
I have appended additional conditions to ensure the vehicle movements described above are adhered to and
further details are submitted regarding the works to upgrade the farm tracks.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FOR THE PANEL MEETING OF 18TH JULY 2002
At the meeting of the Panel held on 4th July 2002 consideration of this application was deferred to allow an
investigation into alternatives access points, in particular access from the M62, to facilitate the construction
of the reedbeds.
Current Position
The following access options have been considered:
1. The slip road off Junction 13.
2. Access via Boothstown utilising Boothshall Way, Moss House Lane and Vicars hall Lane and local
farm tracks.
3. Access via the Bridgewater Canal.
4. Access via the M62 works depot and local farm tracks
Investigations and meetings have taken place with the Highways Agency, Peel Investments, Manchester
Ship Canal Company and Oldham MBC to consider these options. The current position following this
discussion is as follows:
Option 1: The Highways Agency have confirmed that this would result in the construction of an access
directly off the trunk road network which is contrary to their policy. It also raises serious highway
safety implications. Such an access would also result in extensive accommodation works to facilitate
access given the significant change in levels.
Option 2: These 3 access points would all involve the passage of the vehicles past residential properties
and in the case of Vicars Hall Lane past St Andrews Primary School. The bridges across the
Bridgewater Canal would have to be rebuilt and /or strengthened to accommodate the weight of the
vehicles (ie up to 40 tonnes). The routes to the reedbeds would utilise existing farm tracks, which would
have to be upgraded to allow vehicles to pass, as well as other works to protect culverts, a gas main and
the Thirlmere Aqueduct. Peel Investments have raised no objections in principle to the use of the farm
tracks subject to detailed consideration and the gaining of the relevant consents. The required works to
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
facilitate such access would be substantial (new bridges) and would most likely require a new planning
application and further consultations.
Option 3: The limited water depth of the canal would significantly restrict possible barge loads to 20
tonnes; slow loading and unloading and restricted travel speed would result in long cycle times for
barges and would significantly extend the period of earthworks construction on site; plant, for example
a grab crane and conveyors would be required to facilitate loading and unloading and would necessitate
the closure of the canal towpath. Consequently, the earthworks operation would be likely to extend over
a period of between 50 and 60 weeks. In addition an appropriate location would have to be found to
facilitate the loading of the barges from the incoming vehicles and the applicant would have to
demonstrate to the Ship Canal Company that off and on loading would not have any impact on the
structural integrity of the canal embankment.
Option 4: The Highways Agency has confirmed that it has now looked across the UK and cannot find a
single example of where it has relaxed the issue of principle - of not allowing the use of depots such as
that on the M62 for development construction traffic. The Agency would have to be convinced that no
other access is available and even then it cannot guarantee a favourable response. The use of this access
would also involve additional costs associated with upgrading the existing farm tracks (general
widening; local realignment; strengthened track construction; protection of sewers and the Thirlmere
aqueduct) and traffic management arrangements (restrictions on routing and timing of inbound and
outbound traffic). An objection has also been received form the tenant farmer at Grange Farm on the
following grounds: a similar request to use the same access for the purposes of ‘carting and leading
harvested carrots’ and other produce to and from the farm was denied on the grounds of safety. Why is
it now safe to use the access? Also the use of the internal farm tracks would result in a) interference with
farming activity and possibly affect profitability due to delays and problems caused by heavy usage of
the farm tracks and b) the passage of such vehicles will result in serious damage to the farm tracks
making passage of farm vehicles and normal farming activity extremely difficult and costly. Who will
repair the damage? Any repairs will also result in delays and inconvenience to the farmer affecting
profitability.
A response has been received from Oldham MBC. They clarify that the Highways Agency owns the
access and as such there response is as a consultee. They require that access to its land is not impeded or
interrupted and that the access is kept swept clan and tidy. Any specific use of their compound would
require their consent.
Discussions with the Coal Authority have also revealed that should Grange Road be used for vehicle access
to the reedbed treatment site it may be possible to vary the contract to construct the reed bed system. Such
variations include the weight of the vehicles and payload; the frequency; the times of the day; the overall
length of the contract and so on, with a view to avoiding the more sensitive times of the day (school start
and finish, weekends etc). The applicant is prepared to accept a condition that requires him to submit a
scheme for approval, which would involve consultation with local residents. Such a condition could read:
Prior to the commencement of any development associated with the construction of the treatment site the
applicant shall have submitted for the written approval by the Director of Development Services, a scheme
detailing the movement of all heavy plant and machinery and all heavy vehicles associated with the
importation of material used in the construction of the treatment site. Such a scheme shall include details of
vehicle type and weight, payload weights, days, times and frequency of vehicle movement and duration of
the contract; management of the contract including measures to ensure the agreed details is adhered to.
The construction of the treatment site shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the agreed scheme.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS MADE FOR PANEL MEETING ON 4TH JULY 2002
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
Following an inspection of the Panel on 26th June 2002, I have the following additional observations to
make. Since writing my report, I have received additional letters of objection. There have now been a total
of 61 letters of objection received in relation to the proposals, in addition to an objection from the Worsley
Civic Trust. The main concerns raised relate to the use of Grange Road for access to the proposed treatment
site and the consideration of alternative routes to this site, in addition to concerns regarding reed bed
technology.
In relation to access to the treatment site, alternatives are currently under further investigation. With regards
to reed bed technology, the Applicant has provided responses to some of the concerns raised by residents.
The Coal Authority has completed 20 minewater treatment schemes over the period 1996 to 2002. The
schemes installed by the Coal Authority include a number of sizeable reedbeds, extending up to some 3
hectares (for example, the Taff Methyr Scheme). The total area of the lagoons in the Worsley Scheme is
2.25 hectares (the whole application site is approximately 6 hectares and the whole treatment site is
approximately 4.6 hectares) but, allowing for the initial settlement lagoons, the combined area of the
reedbeds is only 1.5 hectares.
The Coal Authority has stated that this scheme has been designed on the basis of fundamental parameters,
established from both research investigations and operating experience of earlier schemes in the UK and
USA, as set out in its design recommendations. As such, the Coal Authority is confident that, coupled with
the operational flexibility incorporated in the scheme design (eg. lagoon water depths, retention periods,
desludging intervals), the scheme will provide satisfactory reduction in iron concentrations without adverse
environmental effects, for example, odour problems.
The Coal Authority is not aware of any odour difficulties in relation to other schemes that they have
previously installed. In this scheme, the majority of the ochrous sludge would be deposited in the initial
settlement lagoons, rather than the reedbeds, which to a degree would act as 'polishing' units. Thus the Coal
Authority confirm that most of the sludge (and certainly that which would be removed most frequently, at
intervals of 5 to 8 years for any one lagoon) would not include a significant proportion of organic matter,
this being the component which is most likely to cause odours. The Coal Authority are not aware of any
odour problems occurring in the vicinity of Worsley Delph and the adjacent Bridgewater Canal, despite the
accumulation over many years of ochrous sludge on the bed.
Concerns have also been raised in relation to 'dry sludge' being blown by the wind. The Coal Authority has
stated that the sludge would be removed from the lagoons or reedbeds in a relatively wet state, with a
moisture content of approximately 98% by weight. De-watering (eg. using a centrifuge) would reduce the
moisture content to the order of 40%, at which the sludge would have a moist cake consistency, suitable for
transport by road to a licensed tip.
A further issue raised by residents relates to the consideration of alternatives to the treatment site proposal,
for example, the possible transfer of minewater to the Davyhulme Sewage Treatment Works. This
alternative has been considered by the Coal Authority who do not consider that it would present an
appropriate alternative as it would result in the diversion of a significant water resource away from the
Bridgewater Canal and such a proposal could, under certain circumstances, cause loss of water depth in the
Canal, with attendant difficulties for the maintenance of navigation. Furthermore, the Applicant believes
that the discharge of minewater into the public sewers would introduce appreciable maintenance difficulties
for United Utilities, due to the deposition and accretion of ochre in the pipes and related loss of hydraulic
capacity.
Finally, I recommend that condition 17) is amended in relation to details that have already been submitted
regarding the fencing of trees.
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
ORIGINAL REPORT FOR THE PANEL MEETING OF THE 20TH JUNE 2002
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a large elongated site of approximately 6 hectares. There are three main elements
to the site, namely land at Worsley Delph, land at Carrs Meadow and the area between the two sites.
Worsley Delph is a Scheduled Ancient Monument situated within the Worsley Village Conservation Area.
Carrs Meadow is presently rough pasture and lies within the Green Belt.
The proposal is to construct a pumping station, barrier wall and replacement footbridge at Worsley Delph
and to lay approximately 1 km of underground pipeline to link to a treatment site of approximately 5
hectares at Carrs Meadow. The treatment site would briefly comprise settlement lagoons, wetland ponds, an
inlet cascade building and outlet to the canal and landscaping. The purpose of the scheme is to remove the
iron ochre content of the water at Worsley Delph and the surrounding stretch of the Bridgewater Canal.
Discharge of minewater into Worsley Delph presently results in the orange discoloration of the Delph and
canal and the deposition of iron ochre sludge. This ochreous discharge is affecting water quality and
suppresses the aquatic flora and fauna.
Works at the Delph would comprise the construction of a barrier wall and footbridge across the eastern
tunnel, to capture water, whilst providing pedestrian access to the wharf area. An underground pumping
station is proposed at the foot of the steps leading up to the footbridge. A platform area above the pumping
station would be formed and paved with stone with two cast iron access covers to allow maintenance access
to the pumping station. The creation of a level ‘bench’ would necessitate the construction of a small
reinforced concrete wall with stone facings. It would be a maximum height of 1.7 metres and would be
erected to the north and east of the pumping station. A small GRP control kiosk would be located on land
adjacent to School Brow to allow for maintenance. The existing sluicegate in the western channel would be
repaired to prevent future minewater discharge from this source.
A buried pipeline to transfer water to the treatment site would run from Worsley Delph down School Brow
and onto Worsley Road, where it would run westwards and cross the M60 roundabout and skirt the western
boundary of the Courthouse car park. The pipeline would be laid underneath the existing woodland footpath
from the car park to the northern bank of the Bridgewater Canal. The pipeline would cross underneath the
canal to the rear of 33 Woodgarth Lane and would run along the southern towpath to the proposed treatment
site.
The treatment site would be set back approximately 30 metres from the foot of the embankment to the M60
motorway and would be approximately 250 metres in length by 185 metres in width. Vehicular access to the
site would be via Grange Road over the motorway and via an existing track to a gas regulator station. From
here a new access would be created running parallel to the M60 motorway embankment. The treatment site
would comprise three settlement lagoons and six wetland ponds (reed beds), surrounded by earth bunded
structures. A cascade building would be erected at the south-east of the site. The building would be 6.5
metres in length by 5.0 metres in width by 4.7 metres in height and would have a pitched roof. It would be
constructed in fair face blockwork and timber boarding. There would also be an underground pumping
station in order to return treated water to the canal at the north of the site. The access track would extend
into the site to enable maintenance. A concrete hardstanding of approximately 20 metres by 55 metres
would be constructed between the settlement lagoons and the motorway embankment. Part of this area
would be used for the drying of sludge. A combination of two metre high green weld-mesh fencing (mainly
to the southern boundary) and timber post rail would be erected around the perimeter of the site. Extensive
landscaping in the form of tree and shrub planting would be provided within the site and on the boundaries
of the treatment site.
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
The principal feature of the treatment site will be formed by the construction of earth bunds and
embankments raised above existing ground levels, following the removal of topsoil. The bases of the ponds
and lagoons will be formed by excavation below existing levels, but due to the shallow depth of
groundwater levels and the nature of the sub soil (clay) the extent to which the ponds can be sunk is limited.
Generally the bunds/embankments will be in the order of 1.2m in height save for the south- west corner
where they will be 2.5m high. The perimeter bunds will be heavily landscaped and graded where possible.
Whilst a large part of the treatment site would be constructed using in situ materials, some 31,500 m³ of
material would be imported for the bunds. The only vehicle access to the site is via Grange Road. The
applicant estimates that over a 14 week period it would take 4 No. 18 tonne lorries per hour to transport the
material on site with an operating period of a 10 hour day (ie 08:00 to 18:00) over a six day week. Once
operational the applicant estimates that the settlement ponds will require de- sludging at intervals of five to
eight years, while for the wetland ponds the operation is expected to be on a 15 to 20 year basis. Desludging would take between 4 to 10 weeks to complete and vehicle requirements are 3 to 5 per week. In
terms of volume one settlement pond would produce some 130m³ (= 168 tonnes).
An arboricultural impact assessment has been undertaken to identify trees requiring removal to
accommodate the development, trees that are undesirable to be retained due to defects and measures
required to preserve other trees at risk. In total, seven trees would be felled and crown lifting would be
required for a number of other specimens. Surveys have been undertaken to establish the presence of
protected species at the site, namely Great Crested Newts and bats. These surveys conclude that there are no
great crested Newts or bats in the vicinity of the site and as such no mitigation requirements.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services (Parks and Countryside) – Concerns relating to damage to tree roots,
however these have now been addressed. Environmental improvements of the scheme far outweigh the
disadvantages.
Director of Environmental Services (Pollution Control) - No objection in principle. Some concerns
regarding noise and vibration of construction works and pumps. Recommend conditions and informatives
with regards noise, vibration and dust.
English Heritage – No objection to the proposals.
English Nature – In favour of the scheme in principle, owing to the potential environmental gains, however
initially raised concerns regarding the methodologies employed when assessing the presence of protected
species and the practicality of some of the habitat creation schemes. Further to the production of the updated
surveys and changes to the scheme English Nature consider the applicant has now addressed their initial
concerns.
Environment Agency – No objection in principle to the proposal. Recommend condition regarding details
of overflow culvert in order to assess impacts on flood defence and land drainage. Also recommend
informatives regarding need for Water Abstraction Licence and Discharge consents. Great Crested Newts
surveys must be undertaken in addition to consideration of subsequent colonisation of treatment site by
Great Created Newts.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – The scheme will greatly enhance the setting of the Scheduled
Ancient Monument at Worsley Delph and the Bridgewater Canal. Recommend an Archaeological
Watching Brief for the construction of the minewater scheme and that full archaeological records are made
of all structures involved in the works.
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – Overall the scheme will have a number of positive environmental
benefits, including ecological benefits from remediation of minewater pollution at the Delph and the
Bridgewater Canal. Many initial concerns have been satisfied by amendments to the proposal. Some
concerns were raised regarding the bat survey and disturbance to nesting birds. A management plan should
be provided – see attached condition.
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – In general the proposal would have major benefits for Salford’ s
environment. However a number of issues were raised regarding the lack of some details to properly assess
the scheme. These details have now been submitted and are considered satisfactory.
Highways Agency – No objection in principle to the proposals. Require clarification regarding access track
and excavations.
Manchester Ship Canal Company – No objections to the proposal. Developer would need to obtain their
formal approval of the Method Statements, Risk Assessments and detailed engineering drawings and plans.
Steam, Coal and Canal – Fully in support of the proposals.
United Utilities – No objections to the proposal in principle. The pipeline would cross the lines of public
sewers – these should be identified and protected during construction. Any necessary disconnection or
diversion of United Utilities’ mains will be at developer’s expense. Letter attached for further information.
Worsley Civic Trust – The Trust observed that within their organisation some members felt the iron ochre
enhances the character of Worsley whilst others see it as pollution. The treatment site may be too close to
the motorway to allow future modifications to be made.
Worsley Village Community Association – None received
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 7th February 2002
Site notices were displayed on 1st February 2002 and 8th May 2002
The following neighbours were notified:
64 Farm Lane
2, 3 School Brow
The School House, School Brow
3, 5, 2, 4, 6 Worsley Road
The Courthouse, Library, Rock House, Barton Road
2 – 8 (evens) Barton Road
1, 1a, 3, 5, 6a Barton Road
Novotel Hotel, Worsley Brow
14 – 20 Dellcot Lane
33 Woodgarth Lane
Grange Farm, Grange Road
2- 42 (evens) Grange Road
1 – 33 (odds) Grange Road
493 – 495 (odds) Worsley Road
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of support and fifteen letters of objection to date in response to the application
publicity on the following grounds:
Use of Grange Road as the main construction access and serious effect on lifestyle, including noise
pollution and general aggravation. It is a narrow tree lined residential road and is completely inappropriate
for heavily laden lorries;
Danger to children and the elderly who use Grange Road from heavy vehicles;
Local residents will not be able to park on Grange Road due to the heavy traffic.
Grange Road will become worn and pot- holed. Vibrations from the lorries will undermine the house
foundations and drainage.
The service road running alongside the motorway is not wide enough to allow passing traffic, which may
result in further damage to fencing, dykes and potentially crops;
Would be a serious impact on residents at Grange Farm as a result of noise and dust;
Impact on financial aspects of Grange Farm;
Local residents should not suffer any loss due to potential damage caused by the lorries;
Local residents were informed that Grange Road would not be used as an access to Salford Forest Park.
However now this proposal which was included in the Salford Forest Park application proposes to use
Grange Road as the only available access;
If this proposal is accepted, there is a danger that a precedent is set for future development on the other side
of the motorway from Grange Road, with Grange Road being accepted as the main access. Schemes to
develop the land on the other side of the motorway should address the issue of access with more thought;
Wet sludge could be a recipe for disaster in terms of dirty roads;
The sludge is toxic and will be transported past houses;
Would create another odour problem in the area;
Is no reference to other options, which might have been considered;
Proposal breaches Green Belt principles;
Extra traffic will result in congestion and delays;
There is a lack of information and analysis on the effectiveness of the treatment site.
No analysis has been undertaken on the effect on tourism and history of removing the iron ochre;
The colour of the water in the Delph and the Bridgewater Canal gives it special character;
The treatment site will result in the loss of Grade I agricultural land.
There are omissions in the proposal, including no reference to the Thirlmere Aqueduct and how will the
applicant stop the water from draining out of the new ponds?
The minimal distribution of notification letters to residents is in this case entirely inappropriate;
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
EN25 – Worsley Greenway
EN22 - Green Belt
EN24 – Conservation of the Mosslands
EN20 – Pollution Control
EN2 – Development Within Green Belt
EN4 – Agriculture
EN5 – Nature Conservation
EN6 – Conservation of the Mosslands
EN7 - Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
EN11 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
EN14 – Archaeology and Ancient Monuments
EN18 – Worsley Greenway
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
TR5 – Protection of Existing and Potential Assets
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
PLANNING APPRAISAL
This proposal must be considered against a number of Unitary Development Plan policies. Policy EN20Pollution Control states that the City Council will encourage and support measures to reduce water
pollution. The proposed minewater treatment site is located on Grade 3a pasture land within the green belt
and partially within the Mosslands area and as such regard should be had to national planning guidance
contained within PPG2 (Green Belts) and PPG7 (The Countryside and Rural Economy) and UDP policies
EN2, EN4 and EN6. Worsley Delph is a Scheduled Ancient Monument and is also located within the
Worsley Village Conservation Area and Worsley Greenway, as such regard should be had to EN14, EN11
and EN18. The proposed pipeline route should also be considered in relation to these policies, in addition to
EN7.
Firstly, with regards to policy EN20, the construction of a minewater treatment site and associated
facilities to prevent the ingress of iron ochre into the canal would enable improvements to water quality
and the development of flora and fauna - this is fully in accordance with this UDP policy. Policy EN11 Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas says that in seeking to preserve or enhance
conservation areas, the City Council will have regard to the need to promote environmental improvements
and enhancement programmes, and will encourage high standards of development which are in keeping
with the character of the area. The development is an environmental improvement and is therefore in
accordance with this policy. The design of the proposed works at the Delph is of a high standard. The
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit has stated that the scheme would greatly enhance the setting of
the Scheduled Ancient Monument. The proposed works at the Delph would be in accordance with policy
TR5 that states that the City Council will protect tourism assets from unsympathetic development.
Policies EN18 & EN25 (Worsley Greenway) state that the City Council will seek to preserve the open
character of the Worsley Greenway and will seek to improve the appearance and use of the Greenway for
amenity, wildlife, conservation, agriculture and recreational purposes. The development is not contrary to
these policies, as the environmental improvement of the canal will improve the environment of the canal for
wildlife, amenity, and recreation purposes. The policy also emphasises the protection, enhancement and
promotion of sites and structures of archaeological importance and ancient monuments.
With regards to Policy EN6 & 24 (Conservation of the Mosslands) which seek to protect and enhance the
Mosslands, and policy EN6 which states that planning permission will not normally be granted for
proposals which would be detrimental to the wildlife of the Mosslands. The Applicant has indicated that the
proposed minewater treatment site is species-poor grassland, and that the proposed landscaping at the site
would enhance the areas wildlife rather than be detrimental to the Mosslands. The Applicant, in addition to
bat surveys has undertaken ecological surveys and a biodiversity assessment and great crested newt
surveys. No bats or great crested newts were found during these surveys.
Policy EN2 (Development Within Green Belt) states that the character of the Green Belt will be preserved
by maintaining a general presumption against inappropriate development within it, and protecting its visual
amenity by resisting proposals for development within or conspicuous from the Green Belt which, although
they would not prejudice the purposes of including land in the Green Belt, might be visually detrimental by
reasons of their siting, materials, or design. EN2 and PPG2 Para. 3.4 also state that the construction of new
buildings within the Green Belt will be considered to be inappropriate unless they are for a number of
purposes, including essential facilities for uses that preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not
conflict with the purposes of including land within it. PPG2 further advises that engineering and other
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
operations, and the making of material changes in the use of land are inappropriate development unless they
maintain openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt.
The proposed treatment site consists of a material change of use of the land and building and engineering
works including the creation of ponds and lagoons, the construction of an access track and the erection of a
cascade building and perimeter fencing. I consider that the lagoons and ponds would preserve the openness
of the Green Belt, and would not detract from the purposes of including land within the Green Belt, so are
essentially compatible with policy EN2 and PPG2. The treatment site area would be landscaped and
surrounded by landscaping. The main above ground element of the proposal would be a small building that
would house the cascade. I consider that this building is necessary as an essential part of the treatment site
proposal in that it would conceal the inlet cascade at the end of the termination of the pipeline. This building
would be partially screened by the proposed landscaping and bunds at the site, furthermore, the building
would be constructed with materials that would be in keeping with the visual amenity of the area. Trees
would be planted adjacent to the site security fencing which would reduce its visual impact.
In the Supporting Statement, the Applicant has indicated that there are an absence of suitable alternative
sites for the treatment works and that the benefits brought about by the removal of ocherous discharge from
the canal amount to ‘very special circumstances’ which would allow for the development of this proposal in
the Green Belt. They further justify the proposal by indicating that the built elements will be designed to be
compatible with the rural nature of the site, and with the ponds/ lagoons being essentially earth bunded
structures and the site including substantial landscaping and ecological/ habitat improvement works, the
overall form of the site on completion should remain compatible with the Green Belt designation of the
area. The limited scale and size of the built and above ground elements of the proposed development and its
particular characteristics would not in my view result in inappropriate development and would preserve the
openness of the Green Belt. Furthermore I do not consider the proposal would be at odds with the five
purposes of including land in the Green Belt and therefore conclude that the proposed development is
appropriate development in the Green Belt.
The land at the proposed treatment site has been surveyed by DEFRA and has been given a Grade3a rating
of agricultural land. PPG7 – The Countryside and the Rural Economy and UDP policy EN4 provide
guidance on the development of agricultural land. PPG7 para. 2.17 states that development of greenfield
land, including the best and most versatile (defined as land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land
Classification), should not be permitted unless opportunities have been addressed for accommodating
development on previously-developed sites and on land within the boundaries of existing urban areas.
Where development of agricultural land is unavoidable, local planning authorities should seek to use areas
of poorer quality land in preference to higher quality, except where other sustainability considerations
suggest otherwise. Furthermore, policy EN4 states that the City Council will safeguard the best and most
versatile agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a) and that planning permission for non-agricultural use of land
will not normally be granted if the development would be likely to result in the loss of the land in the longer
term as a high quality agricultural resource. Where less versatile land becomes surplus to agricultural
requirements there will be a presumption in favour of proposals which safeguard the open character of the
land and are of recreation, landscape or nature conservation value.
The Applicant has stated that alternative options for the treatment site have been considered, but rejected.
The five options considered were an underground site within the tunnels (rejected due to inadequate space
and ventilation difficulties), within the Delph Apron area (potential Scheduled Ancient Monument
implications), under Worsley Road Bridge (rejected due to inadequate space), land to the north of the canal
between the M60 motorway and the Worsley slip road (possible wildlife constraints) and finally land to the
north of the canal, immediately west of the M60 slip road (rejected – land allocated to alternative
development by land owner, with resultant acquisition difficulties). This site to the south of the canal was
selected as it provided sufficient area for passive treatment and was as close as possible to the source of the
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
discharge to the canal, to minimise the distance for pumping the untreated water and associated long term
energy consumption. Options closer to the source would have involved chemical treatment together with
the use of electrical and mechanical plant, which was not considered to be compatible with the conservation
nature of Worsley Village and the Scheduled Ancient Monument at the Delph.
The Applicant has also considered the possibility of locating the treatment site on areas of lower grade
agricultural land. This option would require minewater discharges to be pumped over an additional distance
of 3 km, involving significantly higher energy consumption than the current proposal over the life of the
scheme. In addition, this option would mean that the treatment site would be remote from the canal to which
the treated water would be returned. With regards to the life span and potential end date for the programme,
the Applicant has indicated that it is not possible to be specific on this matter – the scheme will be required
to operate as long as iron continues to be discharged in significant concentrations from the former
underground mines. It is expected that the system will need to operate for many years to come and the Coal
Authority has secured a long term lease from the site owners. In the event that the scheme does become
redundant at some point in the future, the Applicant believes that it would be possible to dismantle the
treatment facilities and reinstate the land for agricultural purposes. The treatment site will result in the loss
of Grade 3a agricultural land, however the proposal is part of an environmental improvement scheme that
will safeguard the open character of the area, in addition to bringing biodiversity and landscape
improvements. In the long term, it is possible that the site could be reverted to agricultural land if and when
the iron ochre discharge ceases. The use of the land would therefore be reversible and the Grade 3a land
may not be permanently lost. For these reasons, I do not consider that the proposal would be contrary to
policy EN4.
With regards to policy EN7, it will be necessary to remove seven trees, crown lift 12 trees and remove a
dead limb from another tree. The tree loss would be in two areas - one in the area of woodland to the south
of Worsley car park and one close to where the pipeline would cross the canal. The tree loss is necessary to
allow excavation driving and receptor pits which are required to enable the installation of the pipeline
where there are major changes in direction. The trees that would be crown lifted are all located to the south
of the canal, adjacent to the tow path. These works are necessary to allow a 5.5 metre clearance over the tow
path. A temporary haul route will be laid on top of the existing path through the woods to facilitate access
for pipeline laying. In order to minimise damage to tree routes through vehicle compaction, a temporary
road surface comprising a biaxial geogrid overlaid with road stone will be constructed. Pipeline laying will,
wherever possible, be by trenchless techniques, i.e. directional drilling. On the canal towpath and in
wooded areas, the pipeline would be installed by manual methods. These techniques should allow for
minimal disturbance, in particular to tree roots. The Applicant proposes the planting of fifteen replacement
trees to mitigate against the tree loss. In addition, extensive tree planting is proposed at the treatment site.
With regards to the objections raised, two principal areas of concern relate to traffic generation and the use
of Grange Road as the vehicular access to the site. The access to the treatment site would be taken from the
gas regulator adjacent to the M60 Motorway, which itself is accessed via Grange Road. Farm vehicles and
members of the nearby shooting clubs also use this access. The Applicant has stated that the most intensive
access requirements for site vehicles would occur during the period of the main earthworks at the treatment
site - these operations are expected to be confined to a period of 14 weeks. It is estimated that on average
this would in involve the passage to the site of 4 to 5 18 tonne lorries per hour and daily movements to and
from the site of the contractor’s operatives cars. There would be other intermittent movements from the
delivery and removal of plant items and the delivery of materials, for example, mixed concrete to the site –
there would be approximately 4 deliveries per week over the 31 week construction period. Grange Road is
essentially a residential road, but also provides access to the land and farms on the other side of the M60
motorway and as such the passage of some commercial vehicles. I do however consider that these predicted
traffic movements will undoubtedly lead to a change in the normal traffic conditions of Grange Road. With
regards to possible damage to the surface of Grange Road, this is adopted highway and as such the City
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
Council is responsible for its maintenance. Prior to the commencement of works, the Applicant will be
required to inspect and record the condition of the road and any subsequent damage to the road attributable
to the contractor’s operations would be made good to the satisfaction of the City Council. The operation of
the minewater treatment scheme would result in the accumulation of iron ochre sludge which will
periodically require removal and disposal. It has been estimated that operations to remove this sludge would
be required at intervals of two or more years and would extend over a period of between four and ten weeks
at a time. This would necessitate 3 to 5 lorry movements per week to remove the dewatered sludge to a
licensed tip. The Applicant has confirmed that although the sludge would contain relatively high
concentrations of iron, together with some organic residues due to the breakdown of vegetation, the ochrous
sludge would not be toxic.
Alternative access routes have been considered by the Applicant, these comprise the Bridgewater Canal
itself and roads and tracks to the west of the M60 motorway. Use of the Bridgewater Canal to transport 30
000m3 of materials has been investigated and a number of constraints were identified. The limited water
depth of the canal would significantly restrict possible barge loads to 20 tonnes; slow loading and unloading
and restricted travel speed would result in long cycle times for barges and would significantly extend the
period of earthworks construction on site; plant, for example a grab crane and conveyors would be required
to facilitate loading and unloading and would necessitate the closure of the canal towpath. Consequently,
the earthworks operation would be likely to extend over a period of between 50 and 60 weeks. A
consideration of alternative access from roads and tracks to the west of the M60 revealed that these
essentially comprise narrow and in parts unmade farm tracks which would therefore be unsuitable for the
passage of construction traffic of the size and volume predicted. It is therefore concluded that the only
suitable access route to the treatment site would be via Grange Road. Reference has been made in the
written representations to the Salford Forest Park proposal and any other future development of land to the
west of the M60 motorway. The Salford Forest Park proposal is a current planning application with two
main proposed access points from junction 13 of the M60 and from A580 in Wigan. Consideration of this
planning application is a separate matter, which will be considered on its own merits.
With regards to the potential impacts of the use of Grange Road and the impact on residential amenity, all
but two of the dwellings on Grange Road are set back a distance of approximately 10 metres from the
highway. Two properties that are particularly close to the highway are those at the junction of Grange Road
with Barton Road, however, at this point traffic would be travelling very slowly on approach to the junction
and again disturbance to residents can be expected. I acknowledge that there would be a significant increase
in the volume of traffic, in particular HGVs using Grange Road during the construction period and I
consider that this would have some significant detrimental impacts on residents in the short term. This
would however be for a 14 week period only and I believe that this temporary short term inconvenience for
residents would not outweigh the long term benefits of the minewater treatment scheme as a whole. I do not
consider that the proposed traffic generation during the operational use of the scheme would be
significantly detrimental to the amenity of residents on Grange Road.
A further objection relates to the necessity to remove the orange discolourant from the Delph and the canal
and the effect of this on tourism in Worsley. Pollution from minewater discharges is not unique to Worsley.
Many former coal mining areas in the country have been affected by similar iron ochre discoloration. The
Coal Authority, in close consultation with the Environment Agency, has prioritised the polluting minewater
discharges in England and Wales and a programme of remedial schemes has been initiated by the Coal
Authority. There are currently 15 schemes in operation, with a further three schemes currently under
construction. As already discussed, the Delph is a Scheduled Ancient Monument and played an important
part in Salford’s history. The Worsley Delph forms the termination of an extensive system of underground
canals which historically served the Duke of Bridgewater’s coal mines. Coal would be loaded onto barges
underground and transported via the Bridgewater Canal to the markets of Manchester. The underground
canal network also provides a means of draining the former coal workings and as a result of mine
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
abandonment, a significant flow of ocherous minewater emerges from the tunnels at Worsley Delph. This
ocherous minewater discharge results in the orange discoloration of the water and results in the deposit of
iron ochre sludge in the surrounding areas of water. The result of this is that the aquatic flora and fauna is
suppressed and the visual amenity value of the canal is poor. The proposal would prevent the ingress of iron
into the canal and would result in the significant reduction in visual pollution, improvements to water
quality, the enhancement of aquatic flora and fauna and the inevitable enhancement of the public amenity of
the canal. I consider that these positive benefits would enhance the Scheduled Ancient Monument and will
promote tourism in Worsley, rather than adversely affecting it.
Local residents have also raised concerns regarding the effectiveness of the proposed treatment site, what
measures would be taken to stop the ponds leaking and the presence of the Thirlmere aqueduct. With
reference to the Thirlmere aqueduct, I can confirm that this does not cross the site. With regards to the
design of the settlement lagoons and wetlands, the Applicant has confirmed that the size and configuration
have been based on current practice for the treatment of minewater. Calculations have also been undertaken
and the designs are supported by the monitoring of minewater discharges at the Delph over a period of a
year and a programme of sampling/ analysis to ascertain iron concentrations. In relation to the potential for
the ponds to leak, measures would be taken to prevent damage to the impermeable lining of the settlement
ponds during de-sludging operations. Tapes would be placed over the material that encapsulates the
membrane to provide advance warning that de-sludging is approaching the membrane zone. With regards to
odours, existing conditions at the Delph demonstrate that there is no problem of odour associated with the
minewater. It is however recognised that some organic material is likely to become trapped within the
sludge during the operation of the system – there may therefore be some release of odours during the
de-sludging of the wetlands, but this is expected to be slight. The wetland ponds would be de-sludged at
intervals of typically 15 to 20 years, depending on requirements, any resulting odours would be expected to
occur only during this short infrequent period.
The final objection raised relates to the level of public consultation. As with all applications for planning
permission, statutory procedures were followed. The application was advertised in the local press,
numerous site notices were displayed around the application site and at Grange Road and individual
neighbour notification letters were sent to residents. Furthermore, the Coal Authority held a public
consultation meeting in February 2002, to which local residents were invited to attend.
In conclusion, with regards to traffic generation, I consider that there would be a significant short-term
impact on the residents of Grange Road during the construction phase of the works. I do however believe
that this would be for a short period only and that the amenity and recreation/ tourism benefits that would
result from the removal of iron from the canal coupled with the absence of other potentially suitable
treatment sites within the urban area would outweigh this temporary disadvantage. With regards to the
effect of the proposal on the amenity of residents, the treatment site is fairly remote from any neighbouring
housing and as such I do not consider the proposed use would not have an unacceptable impact in terms of
visual amenity, noise, dust, smell, or other nuisance. Furthermore, I do not consider that residents living in
properties close to the Delph would be unduly affected by the proposed works at the Delph, providing that
the condition relating to noise is complied with. I consider that the works at the Delph would enhance the
Scheduled Ancient Monument and the tourism potential of the locality. Additionally, the provision of
significant landscaping in conjunction with the minewater treatment site would help to ameliorate any
potential harm to the Green Belt and Mosslands that this development could cause. The scheme would
enable improvements to water quality, development of flora and fauna, improve visual appearance of the
canal and Delph area by removing the orange discolourant, would allow public access to the Delph/ wharf
area.
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
Since writing my Report, I have received a further eleven letters of objection to the proposal. Comments
additional to those already outlined above are as follows:
-
construction traffic could be brought in via the motorway works access points
there is already a problem with access to Grange Road from Worsley Road
pollution from the construction, regardless of the traffic
I have also now received the following comments from the Worsley Civic Trust and Amenity Society:
-
are in agreement with the nature of the purification system and the method of transport of the sludge
water from the Delph, however are concerned with aspects of the scheme and its implementation
concerns relating to the consultation process
noise levels should not be exceeded at any time during pumping at the Delph in proximity to the homes
there
Worsley Civic Trust owns a ‘starvationer’ (original mine barge) in water in the Delph area – a condition
is recommended that there should be no interference or removal unless the permission of the Trust
concerned that pipeline is not taking the optimal route – would appear a ridiculous route across the
traffic island when it could take a route within the canal banks
with the likely motorway works undertaken in the next years as a result of the M60JETTS study, there
may be disruption and resiting of the pipeline
Grange Road is unsuitable as a n access road
declared vehicle movements are wholly unacceptable
the use of Grange Road will create a dangerous precedent in the issue of the Salford Forest Park
proposal
I have received comments from the Applicant regarding the practicality of two of the proposed conditions
and as such, I have made amendments to conditions 2) and 8).
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The landscape scheme hereby approved 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. During the first available planting season following the felling of the seven trees hereby granted
consent, they shall be replaced by 3 no. Fagus sylvatica, 3 no. Tilia cordata, 6 no. Quercus robur and 3
no. Aesculus hippocastanum. The location of the replacement trees shall be agreed in writing by the
Director of Development Services prior to the felling of the trees. This condition shall not be considered
to have been complied with until the replacement trees have been established to the satisfaction of the
Director of Development Services.
4. No development of the treatment site shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing
materials to be used for the cascade building of the development have been submitted to and approved
in writing by the Director of Development Services.
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
5. No development at the Delph shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials
to be used for the footbridge, retaining wall and hardstanding of the development have been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.
6. No development shall be started until full details of the height, colour and type of fencing to be used at
the treatment site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
7. No development shall be started until full details of the proposed GRP kiosk at The Delph (Including
dimensions and details of materials) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
8. Prior to the commencement of operation of the minewater treatment scheme, details of the size, route,
condition and capacity of the proposed overflow culvert shall be submitted to and approved by the
Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the
approved details.
9. All vehicles and mechanical plant used for the purposes of the works shall be fitted with effective
exhaust silencers and shall be maintained in good and efficient working order.
10. All compressors used on site shall be 'sound reduced' models fitted with properly lined and sealed
acoustic covers which must be kept closed whenever the machines are in use.
11. All ancillary pneumatic percussive tools shall be fitted with mufflers or silencers of the type
recommended by the equipment manufacturers. Percussive tools shall be fitted with dampened bits.
12. Any machinery which is in intermittent or occasional use shall be shut down in periods between use, or
throttled back to a minimum level.
13. No Blasting shall be permitted.
14. The Sound Level at any point one metre from the façade of any occupied building outside the boundary
of the site due to the noise levels arising from the contractor's operations shall not exceed the following
levels:Day
Monday
to Saturday
Hours
0800-1900
No Hours Noise LAeq dB Peak Noise dB(A)
11
1900-0800
Sunday
0800-1900
1900-0800
75
13
11
13
85
Night Ambient +5
55
Night Ambient +5
55
Night Ambient +5
55
15. All stockpiles of fine materials which may be subject to wind whipping shall be dampened down in
accordance with a scheme that shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services prior to the commencement of development on a regular basis as required to
prevent dust nuisance and dust migration off site.
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
16. Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, a detailed ecological management plan shall
be produced to provide details of the proposed long-term maintenance of the scheme. The scope of this
plan shall be agreed by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of the work.
The scheme shall then proceed in strict accordance with the maintenance measures identified within the
approved plan.
17. No development shall be started until the trees as identified in the survey received 2nd May 2002 have
been surrounded by substantial fences which shall extend in accordance with the protected areas
detailed in Appendix 1 of the survey (or such positions as may be agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services). Such fences shall be erected in accordance with the specification submitted
and shall remain until all development is completed and no work other than that approved by this
planning permission, including any storage of materials, shall take place within the perimeter of such
fencing.
18. Replacement trees shall be planted in the period from November to March, following the felling of the
trees identified in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment. This condition shall not be considered to have
been complied with until the replacement tree(s) have been established to the satisfaction of the
Director of Development Services.
19. Prior to the commencement of development the Applicant shall secure the implementation of an
archaeological watching brief for those areas in the vicinity of the control kiosk, pipeline, areas
adjacent to the canal, dam and footbridge. The archaeological watching brief shall be drawn up by the
Applicant and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The development shall be
carried out in accordance with the archaeological watching brief.
20. This permission shall relate to the following amended plans:
19943/OA/501D - received 29th April 2002
19943/OA502B - received 27th March 2002
19943/OA/503B - received 27th March 2002
19943/OA/505C - received 29th April 2002
19943/OA/506C - received 29th April 2002
19943/OA/507B - received 27th March 2002
19943/OA/508B - received 27th March 2002
19943/OA/511B - received 27th March 2002
19943/OA/512B - received 29th April 2002
19943/OA/513A - received 27th March 2002
P812/07 - received 3rd May 2002
P812/08 - received 3rd May 2002
21. This permission shall relate to the submitted planning application as amended by fax from the Agent
dated 11th June 2002 which states the depth of the pipeline in the woodland areas and the methods of
pipeline laying in this area i.e. directional drilling techniques.
22. During the construction period of the treatment site (from commencement to completion) all vehicles
used for the import and export of materials for bulk earthworks and the movement of any abnormal
loads, shall be via (both inbound and outbound) the M62 Motorway Works Unit ONLY.
23. Prior to the commencement of development on the treatment site full details of the works to upgrade the
farm tracks between the M62 Motorway Works Unit and Grange Farm shall be submitted to and
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The approved works shall be completed
prior to the commencement of earthworks on the treatment site.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
8. To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the effects of the proposed development on flood
defence/ land drainage.
9. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
10. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
11. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
12. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
13. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
14. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
15. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
16. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
17. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
18. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
19. To ensure that if remains of archaeological significance are disturbed in the course of the work, they
can be recorded and if necessary, emergency salvage undertaken, in accordance with EN14.
20. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
21. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
22. To protect the amenity of residents on Grange Road in accordance with Policy DEV1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan
23. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Pipelines/ structures should be designed in accordance with adoptable standards.
2. The Director of Development Services (Bridges and Structures Section - 0161 793 3834) should be
consulted regarding installation at Worsley Road bridge.
3. The Director of Development Services (Highways Maintenance Section - 0161 793 3876) should be
consulted regarding the approvals required for laying pipeline in adopted highway and details of
re-instatement of car park and highway surfaces.
4. Access to the canal tow path from the Worsley car park shall be maintained at all times.
5. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letters from United Utilities dated 13th
February 2002 and 30th May 2002..
6. Please contact the Environment Agency regarding an abstraction licence, in accordance with Section 24
of the Water Resources Act 1991 (please see attached letter).
7. Please contact the Manchester Ship Canal Company regarding the need to obtain formal approval of
Method Statements, Risk Assessments and detailed engineering drawings and plans (please see
attached letter).
8. Please note that Scheduled Ancient Monument consent must be secured prior to the commencement of
development.
9. All stationary plant shall be screened where possible to minimise the transmission of noise from site
operations.
10. A readily available supply of water shall be maintained on site for the purposes of dampening down any
dust or fine materials likely to be blown off site.
11. The Contractor should aim wherever possible to delay any noisy activities from occurring on site until
at least 9am. This should reduce the likelihood of complaints occurring due to the construction works.
12. Please see attached letter from the Environment Agency dated 27th May 2002.
13. Please see attached letter from the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit dated 27th May 2002.
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
Please note that all birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, while nesting. It is
important that no tree works take place while birds are nesting.
Contractors should be aware of their legal obligation to stop work immediately if any bats are found and
to seek advice from a licensed bat worker.
14. Please see attached Memorandum from the Director of Development Services (Highways Maintenance
Section) dated 6th June 2002.
15. The applicant must liase with trhe Highways Agency regarding the works to the M62 Motorway Works
Unit and conditions of use.
APPLICATION No:
02/44552/CLUD
APPLICANT:
Lancashire Pub Co Limited
LOCATION:
The Oaks Oakwood Drive Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Certificate of lawfulness for the proposed siting of a marquee to be used
for wedding functions on upto 12 occasions per year and restricted to
the hours of 9.00am and 11.00pm.
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the Oaks on Oakwood Drive. The proposal is for a certificate of lawfulness for
the proposed siting of a marquee within the grounds of the property on a temporary basis for up to 12
functions a year. This differs from applying for a full planning permission as the applicants are seeking a
formal decision from the City Council whether the siting of the marquee is or is not development. The City
Council is not able to assess the appropriateness of the proposal within this location, nor is it possible to
consider conditions to control any such proposal.
The applicant has confirmed that the Certificate is sought for the use of the marquee until 11.00pm
consistent with the hours of operation restrictions on the existing planning approval.
SITE HISTORY
In 1987, planning permission was granted for the change of use of the property from a social club to a
licensed premises with restaurant and social functions facilities. (ref: E/20379). This permission restricted
the hours of use, by condition, to between 9.00am and 11.00pm.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – has serious concerns about the potential for noise and disturbance to
local residents, and would at the very least like to attach conditions to control the use. However, he
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
appreciates that as the proposal is for the certificate of lawfulness, conditions may not be attached and if any
problems arise from the site then they would have to be addressed under other legislation.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified:
377, 377a, & 379 Manchester Road
1-20 Oakwood Drive
Oakwood Lodge, Oakwood Drive
28-68 (even) Old Clough Lane
11a, 15, 17, 19 Woodside Ave
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 7 letters of objections and 2 petitions in response to the application publicity. The following
comments having been made:

Residents already suffer considerable noise intrusion from functions at the premises,
particularly in the summer and the marquee would make matters worse;

The noise and disturbance that is experienced by the residents is due, at least in part, by not
complying with the conditions on their existing permission for the property which relate to
hours of operation and the need for keeping sound insulated doors and windows closed at any
time amplified music is played;

The residents on Oakwood Drive already experience problems with the volume of traffic that
visit the site. Any increase in function space would generate extra traffic problems.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The issue to be considered is confined to assessing whether or not the siting of a marquee constitutes
development as defined within the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. If the proposal does not
constitute an operational development or a change of use, then planning permission would not be required.
Hence not withstanding the concerns of the residents the decision must be based on Planning Law and not
the merits of the proposal.
Previous appeal decisions and enforcement cases have tested the definition of whether the temporary siting
of a marquee within licensed premises constitute an operational development. In an enforcement case in
Wokingham D.C. (29/9/1999, the Planning Inspector concluded that a marquee erected in the grounds at
weekends would be described as a chattel which had a lack of permanence and physical attachment to the
land. As such it would not be a building operation, and therefore it could be erected and dismantled without
permission.
The Head of Law and Administration has advised that, consistent with the above, that the proposal does not
amount to development requiring planning permission.
RECOMMENDATION:
That a Certificate be granted:.
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed marquee would not constitute a building operation or permanent structure and would be
in the nature of a temporary use which is ancillary to the existing use on the site.
APPLICATION No:
02/44987/HH
APPLICANT:
G Tonge
LOCATION:
21 Wrenswood Drive Ellenbrook Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of first floor side extension
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached property and is for the erection of a first floor side extension. This
application follows two similar submissions (02/43930/HH, 02/44529/HH) for an identical side extension
which were both refused. The previous applications, however, included the erection of a detached garage
whereas this application has deleted that element of the proposal.
The first floor side extension would provide additional bedroom space. It would be designed to maintain
the current hipped roof style of property. The new gable would measure 5.1m and would increase the
overall height of the main roof to 8.4m. The relationship to 91 Ellerbeck Crescent is such that almost the
whole length of the side elevation extends beyond the rear elevation to No. 91. This is currently a single
storey construction.
With regard to application 02/43930/HH, it was refused because of the impact of the side extension on the
neighbours at 91 Ellerbeck Crescent by means of size and siting. With regard to the second application that
was submitted (02/44529/HH), it was refused on the grounds that the proposed detached garage, by reason
of its prominent siting, would adversely affect the street scene. There was no reason for refusal that related
to the side extension in the second application.
SITE HISTORY
02/43930/HH: May 2002. Planning permission was refused.
02/44529/HH: October 2002. Planning permission was refused.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:12 to 14 (E) and 19 Wrenswood Drive
91 Ellerbeck Crescent
REPRESENTATIONS
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
There have been no objections to this proposal.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV 8 – House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance – 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 side extension is contrary to Guidance Note HH11 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning
Guidance – House Extensions, in that it would project beyond a 45 degree line drawn from the mid-point of
the neighbour’s (91 Ellerbeck Crescent) bedroom window.
Although the proposal is contrary to policy, the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel visited the
site on 10th October 2002 (to form an opinion regarding application 02/44529/HH) and were of the opinion
that the proposed side extension would be acceptable in terms of its limited impact neighbours and the
limited impact on the street scene.
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.
3. The window into the bathroom shall be obscure glazed and kept as such at all time.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
APPLICATION No:
02/45048/COU
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
APPLICANT:
Mr Khan
LOCATION:
551 Bolton Road Pendlebury
PROPOSAL:
Continued use as shop for the sale of hot food
WARD:
Pendlebury
16 January 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to 551 Bolton Road, Pendlebury. The proposal is for the continued use of the
property as a hot food take away. The proposed hours of opening are between 5pm and midnight seven days
a week.
The application site is situated in the middle of an existing row of shops. 555-553 operates as a restaurant.
549 is currently a hot food takeaway. 543-547 is a furniture shop. There are also commercial properties on
the opposite side of Bolton Road. To the rear of the premises are residential properties.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to conditions
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 14th November 2002.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:543, 549, 552 to 560 (E) Bolton Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Lack of car parking
Fumes
An increase in the number of rodents
Litter
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: S5 – Control of Food and Drink Premises
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider the main issues to be the impact of the use on neighbouring residential occupiers due to fumes,
odours, noise and disturbance, and highway implications.
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
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. In this
instance, there are no residential properties adjoining the site.
The letter of objection makes reference to fumes from the property, as well as parking problems. I consider
that with a satisfactory fume extraction system, the smells/odours would not unduly affect neighbouring
residents. I have attached a condition requiring the details of such a system to be designed so as not to cause
odour or noise problems to neighbouring residents. Turning to the issue of car parking, there are no parking
restrictions on either Bolton Road or Slack Lane to the west of the property. It would therefore be possible
for visitors to the premises to park in either of these locations. I do not therefore consider car parking to be
an issue in this case.
The objector also states that there is a problem with rodents in the area as a result of the hot food shop. The
Director of Environmental Services has no objections to the application and I do not therefore consider this
to be an issue.
Consequently, I consider that the use is acceptable, and can occur without unduly affecting the highway or
the amenity of local residents. I therefore recommend approval subject to restrictive conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Details of the fume extraction system serving the cooking or/and food preparation areas shall be
designed such that there will be no odour or noise nuisance to residential premises and shall be
approved by the Local Planning Authority within three months of the date of this permission. The
extraction system approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be installed within mone month of
the approval of the system.
2. The use hereby permitted shall only be operated between the hours of 9.00 am and Midnight on any
day.
3. Standard Condition G12F Provision of bin
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/45055/FUL
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
APPLICANT:
Persimmon Homes (NW) Ltd
LOCATION:
Former Little Moss Farm Little Moss Lane Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a residential development comprising of 3 blocks of 2 storey
flats (12 flats in total) together with 18 new carparking spaces
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former Little Moss Farm, a triangular shaped plot of land situated at the
western end of Little Moss Lane. The greenbelt lies directly to the north and west of the site with the former
Bridgewater Mill site which is nearing completion (planning reference 98/36927/OUT and
99/38385/REM). A definitive right of way runs between the site and former Bridgewater Mill site and there
is a wildlife corridor which runs along the northern boundary.
It is proposed to erect three, two storey blocks to provide 12 flats, as an extension to the Bridgewater Mill
development. It would be accessed off what is now Hinchley Way, the main road through the larger
development, and would provide 18 car parking spaces. The three blocks would be sited towards the
eastern half of the site and there would be a landscaped area. This landscaped area would be managed and
maintained by a management company and would be available for use by residents. The right of way would
be maintained and surfaced.
SITE HISTORY
In 1999, planning permission was granted in outline for the erection of 11 dwellings, planning reference
99/40262/FUL. This was subject to a S106 agreement securing monies for open space/play provision.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
City Council’s Arboriculturalist – recommends that the trees are not worthy of a protection order and
should be replaced so that new trees are established alongside the proposal.
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Officer – recommends that there should be strong perimeter
fencing at least 2.1m high.
Environment Agency – no objections on principle but recommend that a condition be attached to any
permission to ensure that any surface water is passed through trapped gullies.
Coal Authority – no objections.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published in November 2002.
A site notice was displayed on 18 November 2002.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:41 – 63(O) 44 – 54(E) Hinchley Way
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
1 – 11(O) Ealinger Way
1 – 11, 2 – 14 Chendre Close
1 Rosehill Road
28 – 110 Wyndham Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EN5 Nature Conservation
Other policies: Dev2 Good Design, H6 and H11 Open Space Provision within New Housing
Developments, EN1 Green Belt, EN2 Development within Greenbelt.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
An outline permission was granted in 1999 for the residential development of the site which has established
the principle of residential use. It is therefore the impact of this proposal that must be assessed, particularly
in terms of its impact upon the visual amenity of the greenbelt in accordance with EN2.
The outline scheme granted in 1999 was for 11, three bed family dwellings and therefore monies were
required to provide some play provision in accordance with policies H6 and H11. This proposal now being
considered is for 12, two bed flats which I do not consider to be family accommodation. On this basis
policies H6 and H11 do not apply and no monies are required to be secured. The proposal does however
incorporate an area of landscaping on the western half of the site which would be available for residents to
use.
There is a line of trees/sparse scrub/hedge along the northern boundary which has been inspected by the
City’s Arborist. He does not consider this worthy of retention and recommends that a new landscaping
scheme is planted alongside the development. However, it does provide a degree of screening along this
boundary to the greenbelt and is also part of the wildlife corridor. For these reasons, I recommend that
should permission be granted, the existing landscaping is maintained but additional planting is undertaken
to enhance and supplement the existing which would then allow the existing to be removed in due course.
Each block is set away from the northern boundary and with the landscaping along here, I consider that the
proposal would not have a significant visual impact. It is also worthy of note that this was originally the site
of a farm and therefore there has been development and farm buildings on this site previously.
Eighteen communal parking spaces would be provided within the site and with the three flat blocks would
be accessed off a private drive. The existing right of way would be maintained and as such I have no
objections to the proposal on highway grounds. I consider the design of the proposed flats to be acceptable
and therefore recommend that this application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be used
for the walls and roofs of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
Director of Development Services.
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
4. Full details of the proposed landscaping works including management and maintenance to the
landscaped area in the western half of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing prior to the
commencement of development by the Director of Development Services. The approved scheme shall
be implemented in all respects during the first planting season following the occupation of any of the
dwellings hereby approved.
5. Prior to water being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system all
surface water drainage from impermeable parking areas and hardstanding for vehicles 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 R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
5. To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with policy DEV1 of the UDP.
APPLICATION No:
02/45081/HH
APPLICANT:
H Gorton
LOCATION:
25 Avon Close Little Hulton Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey rear extension
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property. The proposal is for a single storey rear extension
across most of the rear of the house and would project out 3.9m from the rear of the house.
PUBLICITY
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:24 & 26 Avon Close
8 & 10 Weaver Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a letter of objections in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Too large/close the neighbours patio door
Loss of light
Loss of value to neighbours property.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV 8 – House extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 seeks to ensure that house extensions do not have a detrimental effect on neighbouring
properties. This policy is supported by the Council’s SPG for house extensions and within that Guidance
Note HH9 states that planning permission would not normally be granted for single storey extensions along
the common boundary that exceed 2.74m. This proposed extension does exceed this amount by a
considerable amount as they are seeking a length of 3.9m.
The neighbouring property has a habitable room window close to the boundary. Therefore I would consider
this size of extension would have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring property, in terms of an
overbearing appearance and loss of light to their room.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of
its length along the party boundary with no. 24, contrary to the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan Policy DEV8 and the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions.
APPLICATION No:
02/45082/OUT
APPLICANT:
C Doherty
LOCATION:
Land To The Rear Of Brackley Club Hazelhurst Road Worsley
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
PROPOSAL:
Outline application for the erection of modular day nursery
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This outline application relates to land at the rear of the Brackley Conservative Club, Hazelhurst Road and
seeks consent for siting and means of access for four low level buildings for use as a nursery. The site is
triangular in shape and currently vacant. The northern boundary consists of a 1.2m concrete panel fence,
bushes and self seeded trees beyond which are residential properties.
To the west of the site is the bowling green associated with the club. Hazelhurst Fold is unadopted and in a
poor state of repair.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Reservations due to potential for noise nuisance
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:2 – 14 (even) Hazelhurst Fold
Brackley Conservative Club, Hazelhurst Fold
32 – 50 (even) Hazelhurst Road
2 – 10 (even) Lawson Close
2 – 10 (even) and 5 & 7 Partington Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received twelve letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues
have been raised:Out of character with the area
Traffic generation
Visual impact
Insufficient car parking provision
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV1 Development Criteria
T13 Car Parking
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV 1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining
applications, including the visual appearance of the development and its relationship to its surroundings.
I have received twelve letters of objection and a request from Councillor Kerry Holt that this application be
determined by the Panel. The issue of traffic generation and car parking provision is consistently raised.
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
The immediate area around the club is residential and is has been raised that this proposal would be out of
character with the area.
Turning to the issues of car parking, a development of the nature proposed would require the provision of
approximately 10 spaces. Notwithstanding that the submitted site layout drawing does not provide any car
parking provision within the curtilage, there are a number of other factors that suggest to me that this
proposal would be problematic in the location. Firstly, the site is located only 11m from the properties on
Hazelhurst Fold and from the information submitted it is unclear as to whether the site will be accessed
from the front of the Brackley Club or Hazelhurst Fold.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that this proposal does not have the necessary information to make an
informed decision. However, I am also of the opinion that this proposal on this site would be problematic.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. Standard Reason RR43C Insufficient Details
2. Standard Reason RR12B Inadequate Curtilage Parking/Servicing
3. Standard Reason RR34C Neighbouring Residents - Size/Siting
APPLICATION No:
02/45099/FUL
APPLICANT:
A Booth
LOCATION:
24 Russell Street Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing building and erection of a four storey block
comprising of 16 apartments with associated car parking
(re-submission of planning application 02/44605/FUL)
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former St Andrews Vicarage at 24 Russell Street which is currently used as a
residential care home. The property is fronted by a large brick wall that is broken to allow combined vehicle
and pedestrian access giving access to the rear car park. To the front of the property a lawned garden exists
with the three storey plus basement property standing toward the rear of the site. The existing building has
intricate detailing along with a grand appearance including ornate chimneys a double height stained glass
window, as such the building has recently been placed on the local list of buildings, structures and features
of architectural, archaeological or historic interest. Surrounding uses consist of two storey houses to the east
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
and south, doctors surgery to the west and railway line/M602 motorway to the north. The existing footprint
of the building is 182 sq.m. whilst the existing height of the three storey building is 8m to the eaves and 12m
to the ridge.
Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing three storey building and the replacement
with a four storey block containing sixteen apartments. Vehicular and pedestrian entrances would be
widened from the existing situation whilst sixteen car parking spaces would replace the existing lawned
area. The floor area is 294sq.m. whilst the proposed height is 14.1m. The new building would be 2.6m
nearer to the western boundary with the medical centre. The proposal would be 11.6m from the medical
centre with the nearest window of the new block being 13m from the medical centre. The eastern side of the
development would be 19.6m from the existing two storey houses on Vernon Avenue. The entrance to the
proposed apartments would be to the east side of the plot. Each apartment has either a balcony or French
doors to the north or south of the block. The block is proposed to be finished in red brick with a grey slate
roof.
The applicant has employed consultants who have provided a statement declaring that the existing building
contributes little to the character of the surrounding area, the proposed building would have a neutral effect
upon the street scene, the proposed front elevation would complement the original gable features of the
existing building and the proposal does not harm residential amenity.
SITE HISTORY
In 1984, planning permission was granted for the change of use of a single residence to a residential home
(E/17916).
In 1982, planning permission was refused for the change of use from residential to offices at ground floor
and 2 flats on the first floor (E/14653).
In 1981, planning permission was refused for the change of use of vicarage to offices (E/13186).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to a noise assessment being undertaken.
Environment Agency – No objections
Greater Manchester Police – Object to the position of the car park and flats. Consider it would be better if
the positions were reversed so that the cars were behind the building and visiting strangers did not have
direct access to them. Also object to the entrance to the flats being tucked away where it is not visible from
the street.
Coal Authority – No objections
Railtrack – No objections but require developer to forward full details of loadings and foundations and the
impact upon the cutting slope.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on the 28th November 2002.
A site notice was displayed on the 22nd November 2002.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:16 to 28 even Lower Monton Road
1 to 17 odd, 18 to 22 even and 30 the Medical Centre Russell Street
1 to 5 odd Vernon Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
I have received five letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Overbearing/result in shadowing of adjacent residential property
Loss of privacy to residential properties
Loss of privacy to medical centre
Loss of valuable building in the street scene
Little aesthetic merit in the proposal
Over development
Inadequate parking provision
Bats living in the roof
Preference for the existing building being converted
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H7/1 Housing Area Improvement and Renewal – Private Sector
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria
DEV2 Good Design
DEV4 Design and Crime
T11 Cycling
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy H7/1 relates to the improvement of the areas of terraced housing and highlights the lack of open
space/playspace poor vehicle access and inadequate parking. DEV1 seeks, inter alia, to ensure good quality
developments that respect surrounding uses/buildings with regards to design and also
privacy/sunlight/daylight. DEV2 requires all development to be of good quality design/appearance. Policy
DEV4 seeks to deter vandalism and other criminal activity.
I consider that in line with policy H7/1 the use of this site for self contained flats would in principle be
acceptable. There are however a number of issues relating to policies DEV1, DEV2 and DEV4 that need to
be assessed with regard to this proposal.
Objectors have raised the issue that the existing building should be retained and be converted into flats
given the architectural and historic merit of the existing building. I would agree that the existing building
displays fine examples of Victorian architectural features with intricate stone carvings covering the former
Vicarage including on the prominent chimney stacks. The steep roof pitch is also unique within the area as
is the large double height stained glass window both of which provide links to the St Andrews Church
which is next door but one along Russell Street. The combination of the architectural merit of the building,
which can be viewed from the length of Wellington Road to the north as well as from Russell Street itself,
and the historic interest has led to the building being placed on the local list of buildings, structures and
features of architectural, archaeological or historic interest. I consider a material consideration is the
existing buildings contribution to streetscene and I consider the building should be retained. I also consider
that any application that proposes demolition of such a building should be accompanied with evidence to
show that the conversion of the existing building can not be undertaken. It may be possible to reconfigure
the internal areas of the building to form self contained flats without the need for the demolition of the
existing building.
Representations also state opposition to the proposal due to overshadowing and loss of privacy. I would
agree that the proposed building, which is larger both in footprint and height than the existing building, will
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
have a greater adverse impact in respect of privacy to the medical centre and would also increase
overlooking to the adjacent property on Russell Street and to those on Vernon Avenue. I also consider the
increase in height and massing will increase the sense of enclosure and impact negatively upon
sunlight/daylight upon nearby properties on Vernon Avenue. The proposed obscured glazing to the top
floor east elevation helps to reduce the negative privacy impact upon properties on Vernon Avenue
however this does not decrease the size and scale of the building.
The proposed development is designed with little regard to the existing high level of detail of the existing
building. Furthermore the proposed elevations have little interest. Attempt has been made to break up the
very large and bland elevations with a mix of brick and glass on the north and south elevations. This does
not however compensate for the large residential block that would dominate the surrounding area without
adding quality design or a building that respects the character of the surrounding area as intended within
policy DEV2. The balconies that face southwards are designed in a haphazard formation in addition to
allowing the infringement of privacy to the rear windows and gardens of 20 and 22 Russell Street. The
bland elevations increases the poor quality design offered at this important site and I consider the proposal
to be contrary to DEV1 and DEV2.
The Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit object to the layout of the development.
Amongst the comments received include the problem of visitors having access to vehicles between the
development and the street and the entrance to the blocks being tucked away on the side elevations with no
overlooking from the street thereby restricting safety. I would concur with the GM Police assessment of the
layout with regard to security and consider the layout to be contrary to policy DEV4. These are issues
important security issues which should be addressed prior to such a scheme being considered favourably.
The proposal includes 100% parking (16 spaces or one space per flat) and slightly revised access. I consider
that this level of parking and proximity to public transport links including Eccles Train Station, the
Metrolink and to the Eccles Bus Interchange and nearby bus stops is acceptable and is in line with the City
Councils and Governments parking standards. I would however recommend secure covered cycle parking
is provided to complement the good availability of public transport in line with policy DEV1 and T11. The
proposal also should have a vehicular visibility splay of 2.5m by 33.0m and a pedestrian visibility splay of
2.0m by 2.0m to ensure safety in accordance with policy DEV1.
I consider the detailed design of this planning application to be unsatisfactory. I also consider the height and
massing of development proposed to be inappropriate to the location. In addition the occupiers of nearby
property would be subject to a considerable loss of acceptable levels of amenity in terms of privacy or
sunlight and daylight. Although I consider the site to be acceptable for housing development I consider this
scheme to be over-development and of poor quality design in addition to the loss of a building of
architectural and historic value as such I recommend refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The massing and lack of quality in the detailed design would be out of character with the surrounding
area and would therefore, be contrary to Policies DEV1 and DEV2 of the Adopted City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
2. Standard Reason RR57E Insuff. Reasons to Justify Demolition
3. The proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
its size, siting and detrimental effects upon sunlight/daylight and privacy. As such the development
would be contrary to Policy DEV1 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. The layout of the proposed development does not adequately address crime prevention and as such is
contrary to Policy DEV4 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5. The proposed access to the site, because of insufficient visibility splays is inadequate and below the
minimum standard necessary to ensure the safety of pedestrians and drivers.
APPLICATION No:
02/45103/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr Valentine
LOCATION:
9 Lyndhurst Avenue Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension and single storey rear extension
and erection of front porch
WARD:
Irlam
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property within a residential area. The proposal is for the
erection of a two-storey side extension, a single storey rear extension and a front porch. The side extension
would extend 8.4m back from the front main wall of the property and be 2.2m in width. The second floor
would be set back 2m from the front main wall and be flush with the existing rear main wall. The single
storey rear extension would project approximately 2.2m from the existing rear main of the dwelling and be
flush with the gable wall of the side extension. The front porch would project 1.4m from the front wall of
the property and measure approximately 3m in width. All elements of the proposal would have sloping
roofs. The two-storey side extension would have bedroom windows front and rear, and the rear extension
would have patio doors. There are no houses to the rear of the property.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application;
7,11,2 Lyndhurst Avenue,
58-68(e) The De Traffords.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a written objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have been
raised:Loss of light to the dining room.
Overbearing.
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: Dev8
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Dev8 states that permission would be granted if the extension would not have an unacceptable adverse
impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of its overlooking, overshadowing, dominance,
loss of privacy or light.
The objection is based on the loss of light to a room that is on the gable of 7 Lyndhurst Avenue. There are
two light giving windows to this room that is used as a dining room and a 2 nd living room. However I
consider there is limited light to this room as it stands due to the position of the window. The extension
would restrict light to the dining room even more and so have a significantly detrimental impact on the
amenity of the neighbours.
The second objection is with regards to the extension being overbearing to the adjacent property. The
Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions, Guidance Note HH3 states that there should be a
distance of 13m between the main habitable room window and a facing blank gable wall of an extension.
Although there is currently a distance of 4.8m between the window and the existing gable, to extend
sideways would reduce this to 2.4m resulting in a further unacceptable adverse impact on this window and
therefore be overbearing to the property.
I consider that the loss of light to the dining room would be significantly detrimental to the amenity of the
neighbours due to loss of light to a main habitable room and the overbearing nature of the side extension
and so contrary to Dev8 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan, therefore I recommend the application
for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. Standard Reason RR34C Neighbouring Residents - Size/Siting
APPLICATION No:
02/45104/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr Waller
LOCATION:
22 Clifton Drive Wardley Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension
WARD:
Swinton North
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property on the corner of Clifton Drive and Heys Avenue. All
the houses on this corner are angled diagonally into the junction, rather than square on. The proposal is to
erect a two storey side extension to provide a large kitchen and ground floor shower room, with two
additional bedrooms on the first floor. It would project out 3m from the side of the house, lining up with the
front main wall of the house, and it would be 7.3m in length, so that it would not be the full length of the
house.
SITE HISTORY
In 1976, planning permission was granted for a two storey rear office.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:24, 31, Clifton Drive
15 Heys Avenue
4 Warwick Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a letter of objections from the occupiers of the neighbouring property. The objectors state
that the proposed extension would project forward of the building line so that it would affect sunlight to
their property, they would suffer a loss in property value and that it would affect the whole look of this
corner by projecting forward.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV 8 states that planning permission would normally be granted where an extension does not have
an unacceptably adverse impact on neighbours or on the character and appearance of the street scene. Also
it seeks to ensure that the extension would not have an adverse effect on the house itself by reason of its
siting, height, massing design and appearance.
I have considered the application in relation to the neighbours, and in particular in relation to the objector’s
in the adjoining property. The neighbouring property has its kitchen window which would face in the
direction of the extension. Although the neighbour uses this room a lot of the day, I would not normally
consider that a kitchen is a habitable room that would need protecting in the same way. Also the angling of
the relationship between the two houses would mean that the proposed extension should not totally obscure
the whole view from this kitchen.
However, I am concerned about the appearance of the extension within the street scene. As it is intended to
line the extension along the front elevation, it would mean that this extension would project out further into
the street scene and I would consider that it would be a very dominant feature. Other properties around this
corner that have been extended to the back part of the side, so that the extensions are less prominent in the
street scene. This also has the effect of reducing the dominance of the extensions. I would consider that by
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
siting this extension to the front of the house, it creates a larger, more dominant effect on the applicants
house itself.
I have given the applicants the opportunity for the extension to be reduced and pushed back. However, they
state that they would have difficulty with the existing garage and therefore ask that the scheme be
determined as submitted.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse for the following reason(s):
The proposed development would be contrary to Policy DEV8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan and City of Salford Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions and an unduly obtrusive
feature in the street-scene and would seriously injure the visual amenity of the area by reason of size, siting
and design.
APPLICATION No:
02/45118/HH
APPLICANT:
M Hussey
LOCATION:
1 Lorton Close Boothstown Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Retention of 1.85m side boundary fencing
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a corner property in a residential area.
The proposal is for the retention of panel fencing along the side boundary, adjacent to the highway.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:2, 5-11 (odds) Haile Drive
2 and 3 Lorton Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity from the occupier of the
property facing the proposal. The following issues have been raised:Spoiling the view
Fencing too high
Out of character with area
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
With regards to the first two points, the proposed development would be approx. 16m from the facing
properties. To the rear of the fencing are several large conifer trees approximately 4m in height. I would
not consider the addition of the fence to spoil the outlook of the properties opposite nor do I consider it to
high in relation to the surrounding area. There are several other fences in the vicinity including a fence that
is slightly smaller in height at the side of the property opposite (No. 2 Lorton Close), I do not consider the
fence to be out of character with the residential area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve
APPLICATION No:
02/45150/FUL
APPLICANT:
Servlite UK Limited
LOCATION:
Land At Nasmyth Business Centre Green Lane Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey warehouse unit
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The proposal is to erect a single storey unit to be used for warehousing. The unit would provide 1410m2 of
floor space. The footprint of the building would be 47 metres by 30 metres and would be 8 metres in height
to the ridge. The building would also comprise a 12 metre square office and toilet facilities. 12 car parking
spaces are proposed. Separate in and out accesses would be provided for goods vehicles to accommodate
side offloading/loading. A canopy 17 metres by 24 metres would be constructed over the yard area. The
building would be constructed from steel cladding and brickwork.
The premises will provide additional storage space for the existing Servlite business on Nasmyth Business
Centre. Two new staff would be employed as a result of the proposal.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – A historical map search indicates that this site was formerly occupied
by a Royal Ordnance factory. It is possible that ground contamination has occurred as a result of this use,
and a contaminated land condition is therefore recommended.
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
Coal Authority – Search records provided.
PUBLICITY
The proposal has been publicised byway of press and site notices and the following neighbours were
notified of the application:Lynx, Nasmyth Business Centre, Green Lane
Pressure Hoses, Nasmyth Business Centre, Green Lane
Walkden Warehousing, Nasmyth Business Centre, Green Lane
Linton Brick, Nasmyth Business Centre, Green Lane
Turner Access, Nasmyth Business Centre, Green Lane
Range Roofing, Nasmyth Business Centre, Green Lane
Marley, Nasmyth Business Centre, Green Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations or letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
EC12/7 - Sites for Business and Hi-Tech Uses
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
T13 – Car Parking
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy EC 12/7 relates to the allocation of the business park for business and
hi-tech uses. 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; the amount, design and layout of car parking provision; the arrangements for servicing and
access and the visual appearance of the development. Policy T13 states that the City Council will ensure
that adequate parking and servicing is provided to meet the needs of new development, in accordance with
the City Council’s adopted standards.
With regards to the siting and design of the building, I consider that the design and proposed materials to be
used for the external elevations are acceptable in this location in the centre of the Business Centre. I do not
consider that the building would detract from the amenity of the area.
The City Council’s car parking standard for a B8 use is 1 space per 100 square metres of gross floor space.
A total of 14 parking spaces should therefore be provided on site. The applicant has amended the original
planning application to provide 12 on site car parking spaces. I consider that a shortfall of 2 parking spaces
is acceptable and have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. 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.
3. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls, roof and
canopy of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
4. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within 6 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
5. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use not less than 12 car parking spaces shall
be provided within the curtilage of the site to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services
and such spaces shall be made available at all times the premises are in use.
6. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 7th January 2003 which shows the
location of 12 car parking spaces within the curtilage of the site.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
3. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R011A Parking, turning etc within curtilage
6. Standard Reason R011A Parking, turning etc within curtilage
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Drainage details are required. Connection to public sewer requires United Utilities approval. Maximum
discharge to public sewer is 15 l/sec.
2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Coal Authority.
APPLICATION No:
02/45152/HH
APPLICANT:
M Evans
LOCATION:
The Old Station Cottage 131 Worsley Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side/rear extension and two storey side extension
(Amendment to planning permission 02/43973/HH - increased ridge
height to side extension and amendment to dormer)
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached house on Worsley Road which is on the corner of Hollyhurst and it
faces the end of Green leach Lane. Planning permission has been granted under delegation for two
extensions to the house, which are currently under construction (ref. 02/43973/HH). One extension was a
two storey extension around the rear and the side nearest to the linear walkway. The second extension is a
double garage and dormer bedroom to the side closest to Hollyhurst, and this element would come closer to
the Worsley Road frontage.
This proposal is to amend the garage and dormer extension. It is proposed to change the angle of the roof to
a steeper pitch. This would mean that the wall height would be lower but the overall height of the ridge
would be raised by 300mm. It would be proposed to slightly increase the size of the two dormers on the
front elevation facing Worsley Road and to increase the rear facing dormers into one larger linked dormer,
but still with pitched roofs to reflect the house design.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:40, 44, 135 Worsley Road
2 Hollyhurst
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received an objection from Cllr Boyd who is concerned about over development, the overbearing
nature of the development and the detrimental effect on the street scene.
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
I have received an objection from a local resident who was concerned that she was not notified about the
previous approval and as she believes that a building of this size is out of keeping on Worsley Road and it
should not have been embarked on in the first place.
I have also received an objection from the occupier of 2 Hollyhurst to the rear who comments that the
approved extension, although it is not yet complete, is already affecting the daylight to his principal
windows. Therefore he believes that any increase would exacerbate the situation.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – house extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I would consider that by making the pitch of the roof steeper, it reduces the amount of brickwork and
therefore could lessen the impact in the street scene. I have considered the possible further effect on the
occupier of the adjoining property. The proposed alterations would be to the part of the house at the front of
the site and furthest away from the neighbouring house. Therefore I do not consider that the proposed
alterations to the design would increase the impact on neighbouring properties. I also do not consider that
there would be a significant increase in the impact on the street scene. Therefore I would recommend that
this application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D01B Materials to Match
3. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
APPLICATION No:
02/45153/HH
APPLICANT:
H C Wolstencroft
LOCATION:
9 Mayhill Drive Worsley
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
PROPOSAL:
Erection of first floor side extension, first floor rear extension and rear
conservatory
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property located at the end of a row and adjacent to a main road.
The proposal is for the erection of a first floor side extension built over the existing garage that would be
flush with the front and rear main walls. There would be a bedroom window facing the road in the side of
the extension and a bedroom window in the front elevation.
The proposal is also for a 1st floor rear extension along the boundary with 7 Mayhill Drive that would
project 2.74m along the common boundary above an existing extension. There would be a window on the
north elevation facing the main road.
There is also a conservatory proposed at the rear of the property along the boundary with 7 Mayhill Drive.
There is already a single storey extension along the common boundary at 7 Mayhill Drive. The
conservatory would project 2.74m.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application: 8, 10, 12 Lyndene Avenue.
7 Mayhill Drive.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have been
raised: 1. Restricted light through rear bedroom window of 7 Mayhill Drive.
2. Loss of privacy from conservatory along the boundary.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8-House Extensions.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 states that permission would be granted if the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse
impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, over shadowing, dominance,
loss of privacy and light.
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
The first floor side extension would not cause a creation of a terracing effect, as the property is the end of a
row and next to a main road. Therefore the first floor can be built flush with the existing front main wall of
the dwelling and the window in the North elevation would not be significantly detrimental to any
neighbours.
The first floor rear extension complies with the guidelines in the Supplementary Guidance for House
Extensions as there is already a single storey rear extension at 7 Mayhill Drive and the extension projects
2.74m. There would be no additional main habitable windows in the rear elevation of the extension facing
the properties to the rear. Therefore I do not consider there are not any privacy or light issues to be dealt
with regards to this element of the proposal.
The conservatory projects 2.74m from the rear extended wall of 7 Mayhill Drive and the applicant has
agreed to obscure glaze the panel along the boundary and the first angled return to the boundary to protect
privacy of the neighbours at 7 Mayhill Drive. This complies with the Supplementary Planning Guidance for
House Extensions.
The proposal meets with the requirements detailed in the Supplementary Guidelines for House Extensions
and I do not consider that it would not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of the
neighbours as stated in DEV8 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan. I recommend the application be
approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The glazing for the element of the conservatory along the boundary with 7 Mayhill Drive and the first
angled return to the boundary shall be obscured, and maintained to the satisfaction of the Director or
Development Services.
2. The facing materials to be used for the brickwork and roofing of the development shall be the same
type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
3. The glazing for the element of the conservatory facing the party boundary and the adjacent panel angled
away from the boundary shall be obscured, and shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the
Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
APPLICATION No:
02/45171/ADV
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
APPLICANT:
Rainbows Nursery
LOCATION:
Steel Post Corner Of Stamford Street And Pendlebury Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Display of one non-illuminated directional sign
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The proposal is to attach a directional sign to an existing steel post that stands approx. 2.5m in height. The
proposed sign would measure 0.3m X 0.8m and would direct to Rainbows Nursery.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on the post on 3rd December 2002
The following neighbours were notified of the application:219 and 221 Pendlebury Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Sign may be a target for children to throw stones at
Sign is unnecessary
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None
PLANNING APPRAISAL
PPG19 “Outdoor Advertisement Control” suggests that highway safety and amenity are the key
considerations when considering such applications. I consider that the main issues concern the appearance
of the advertisement and its impact upon the amenity of the area and neighbouring residents.
I am satisfied that the proposed sign would not unduly harm visual amenity owing to its size and siting.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition K01S Standard Advertisement Condition
(Reasons)
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
1. Standard Reason R034 Advert
APPLICATION No:
02/45195/HH
APPLICANT:
M Fahey
LOCATION:
12 Nansen Avenue Monton Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey rear extension
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a semi-detached property. The proposed extension is L-shaped measuring 2.74
metres along the boundary with the neighbouring property. The other element of the extension is set 2.1m
from the boundary and would project 1.87 metres.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:10 and 14 Nansen Avenue
42-44 Canal Bank.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised: 


Loss of light.
Effect on value of property.
Spoiled view.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8-House Extensions.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
DEV8 states that permission would be granted if the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse
impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance,
loss of privacy or light.
The objector sites loss of light as a concern. The extension along the boundary with the adjoining neighbour
projects 2.74m and is within the guidelines detailed in the Supplementary Planning Guidance for House
Extensions. Guidance Note HH9 which states that extensions along the boundary should only project
2.74m. Therefore I do not consider that this element of the extension would be significantly detrimental to
the light of these neighbours.
Furthermore the element of the extension that is set away from the boundary would project less than the
distance from the boundary; therefore I do not consider this element would be significantly detrimental to
the light of these neighbours and would not be visible from the adjacent main habitable rooms of 10 Nansen
Avenue.
The objector is also concerned that the extension would have a detrimental impact on the value of the
property, this is not a planning issue.
Therefore as the extension meets the guidelines within the Supplementary Planning Guidance for House
Extensions, I recommend 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 brickwork and roofing of the development shall be the same
type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/45196/HH
APPLICANT:
G Hewitt
LOCATION:
32 Roe Green Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey side and rear extension, two storey side and
rear extension and side porch
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
16 January 2003
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached cottage within the Conservation Area and has now been amended
from that originally submitted, in order to reduce the size of the extensions still further. The proposal is to
demolish the existing single storey garage to the side of the house. It is then intended to rebuild the garage
and erect a first floor extension over part of the garage. The first floor would be set in between 2.3 m and
3.1m from the boundary with the garden to no. 28. It would have an obscured, en-suite window facing no.
28, and the main window facing forward across Roe Green. It is also proposed to erect a rear dining room,
nearer to no. 28, a kitchen extension behind the garage and a small front porch.
SITE HISTORY
In May 2002, planning permission was refused for a larger 2 storey side and rear extension and a
conservatory, because of the effect on the Conservation Area, the neighbouring properties and on the trees
within the site.
A provisional Tree Preservation Order was made in April 2002 to protect 3 larch trees and 1 oak. Following
an objection and the submission of further structural details, it was agreed that the oak and 1 larch were not
to be protected and the order was amended to protect only 2 larch.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – The proposed extension would not be significantly nearer to the 2
protected trees and therefore would not have any objections.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published
A site notice was displayed on 17 December 2002
The following neighbours were notified of the application:26, 28 & 34 Roe Green
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a letter from the occupier of 28 Roe Green, albeit these comments are based on the
originally submitted scheme, which has been amended and reduced slightly. The comments are as follows:




the building is within an important position in Roe Green and any additions would have an
impact on the immediate area
the character of the area could be eroded if such houses are allowed to over-develop
the size of the extension would be too large and would over dominate their house and garden,
which is set at a lower level
it would affect light into their house and garden
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House extensions
EN11 – Protection and enhancement of Conservation Areas
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EN11 seeks to protect the Conservation Area, by ensuring that have a high standard of development
which are in keeping with the character of the area.
Policy DEV8 seeks to ensure that any house extensions do not affect the amenity of the neighbouring
residents and that of the street scene in general.
The application that is now under consideration has been reduced from the previously refused proposal. The
proposed first floor over the garage has been reduced away from the boundary with the neighbouring
garden and further away from the front boundary. The single storey garage would all have a pitched roof,
and the overall height of the proposed first floor extension would be lower than the existing house. This has
the overall effect of making the two storey extension slightly less of a dominant feature compared to the
existing house.
I have also considered the possible effect on the amenity of the neighbouring properties, and in particular
the occupiers of no. 28 Roe Green, who could be most affected. This proposal has reduced the amount of
first floor extension away from the neighbours cottage. The separation distance would exceed the minimum
9 metres as there would be just over 12m between the neighbour’s bedroom window and the proposed first
floor extension, which would have only a obscured bathroom window. The relationship between the two
walls would be slightly off-set, and therefore I am of the opinion that this would provide an adequate
separation between the two properties.
The amended plans now under consideration has set the first floor element away from the neighbour’s
boundary to between 2.3m and 3.1m. I am of the opinion that this would help reduce the impact of this
additional first floor to the neighbour’s garden, so that there would be less of an overbearing affect on their
garden area.
The applicants are also proposing a single storey dining room, on the side towards no. 28. The design of this
would now include no rear facing window, in order to prevent any possible loss of privacy to the
neighbour’s bedroom window, even though this would have been angled relationship. This extension would
also be partially obscured by a new 2m high fence that has been erected along the boundary.
I do not consider that the overall size would now be over development of this building within the
Conservation Area. I would also consider that the proposed extensions would comply with the Council’s
SPG for house extensions, and in doing so would not have a significantly adverse effect on the
neighbouring residents. I am satisfied the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the
Conservation Area.
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
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
3. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)
Order 1995, and any subsequent order, no additional windows may be installed within this property
without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
APPLICATION No:
02/45197/FUL
APPLICANT:
Clifton Properties
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To 200 Anson Street Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of four storey apartment block including partial undercroft
parking at ground floor level
WARD:
Winton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land adjacent to 200 Anson Street which has been used as a haulage depot. The
site has a combination of low quality single storey shed buildings, a two storey house with most of the site
has been used as storage for haulage units. The site is at the junction of Verdun Road and Anson Street and
also backs onto the Bridgewater Canal close to the Parrin Lane bridge over the canal. The area is
predominantly residential.
Planning permission is sought for the erection of an L shape four storey block which contains 37 one and
two bed flats. The height of the block would be 12m and would be some 17.6m to the nearest residential
houses property on Parrin Lane whilst the nearest 3 storey flats, Old Fold, would be 13m away. The nearest
property on Verdun Lane would be less than 10m away from the flats. The proposed flats are to be finished
in brick with some sections of powder coated cladding and aluminium. The proposal includes 100% car
parking with 37 off street spaces provided.
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
SITE HISTORY
No previous planning history.
CONSULTATIONS
The Coal Authority – No objections
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published
A site notice was displayed on 18th December 2002.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:188 to 200 even Anson Street
73 to 91 odd Anson Street
1 to 12 Old Fold, Parrin Lane
8A, 10A, 16A, 18A, 18B, 18C and 20 to 26 even Parrin Lane
1 to 11 odd and 2 to 20 even Verdun Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Overbearing
Loss of privacy
Security
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: A wildlife corridor runs alongside the Bridgewater Canal
Other policies:
DEV1 Development Criteria
DEV2 Good Design
DEV4 Design and Crime
H1 Meeting Housing Needs
EC3 Re-Use of Sites and Premises
EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodland
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy H1 relates to the adequate supply of housing. I consider that the intended use conforms to this policy
and also to Governments guidance for higher density sites and the re-use of previously developed land. The
site at present is occupied by a haulage depot, that detracts from the character of the area, thus appropriate
residential redevelopment in accordance with other policies in the plan should be encouraged. DEV1 seeks,
inter alia, to ensure good quality developments that respect surrounding uses/buildings with regards to
design and also privacy/sunlight/daylight. DEV2 requires all development to be of good quality
design/appearance. Policy DEV4 seeks to deter vandalism and other criminal activity. EN7 requires a high
priority is placed upon the protection and enhancement of trees.
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
The proposal seeks to maximize the site and includes 37 flats over mostly four floors with high roof space
atop. I consider that the proposal would infringe on privacy at present enjoyed by occupiers of surrounding
dwellings as habitable rooms would look out over distances of less than 20m from the proposed four storey
flats onto existing residential units. The close proximity to neighbouring dwellings would also result in a
sense of enclosure prevailing on nearby properties especially number 2 Verdun Avenue. Given this I
consider the proposal to be contrary to policy DEV1.
I consider there are design related issues. The elevations have little detailed interest and whilst an attempt
has been made to break up the very large and bland elevations with a mix of brick and render the addition of
feature vertical window bands with semi-circular pediment features increase the poor quality design offered
at this important site. This attempt does not however compensate for the enormous residential blocks that
would dominate the surrounding area without adding quality design or a building that respects the character
of the surrounding area as intended within policy DEV2.
The proposal includes 100% parking (37 spaces one per flat) and revised access. I consider that this level of
parking and proximity to public transport links is acceptable and is in line with the City Councils and
Governments parking standards. The applicant has not submitted a tree report however the Councils own
Arborist has assessed the application and informs me that if this development were built a tree the subject of
a TPO would most probably die, as such I consider the proposal to be contrary to policy EN7.
Although the redevelopment as housing of this site would be desirable with respect of the current bad
neighbour use located here, this proposal is not in my opinion acceptable in amenity terms. I consider the
detailed design of this planning application to be unsatisfactory. I also consider the height and massing of
development proposed to be inappropriate to the location. In addition the occupiers of nearby property
would be subject to a considerable loss of acceptable levels of amenity in terms of privacy or sunlight and
daylight. The proposal would also result in the loss of a tree the subject of a TPO. Although I consider the
site to be acceptable for housing development I consider this scheme to be over-development and of poor
quality design and therefore I recommend refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. Standard Reason RR34C Neighbouring Residents - Size/Siting
2. Standard Reason RR37C Amenity/Effect on T.P.O.
3. The proposed development would be an unduly obtrusive feature in the street-scene and would
seriously injure the visual amenity of the area by reason of its over dominance within the street scene.
Furthermore the massing and lack of quality in the detailed design would be out of character with the
surrounding area. The proposal would therefore, be contrary to Policies DEV1 and DEV2 of the
Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/45202/HH
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
APPLICANT:
R Bromiley
LOCATION:
25 Brackley Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of double detached garage
WARD:
Eccles
16 January 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached property. The proposal is for the erection of a double garage with a
hipped roof. The garage would measure 7.6m x 5.5m and be 4.3m to the ridgeline with a roof feature 0.5m
above this. The gable of the garage would be along the boundary with 14 Monton Green. There is currently
a garage sited where the replacement would be erected. There is another application on this agenda that is
for the erection of a double garage with storage space in the roof. The garage sited in the other application
would be located directly opposite the garage in this application along the boundary with 12 Monton Green.
SITE HISTORY
In November 2002, planning permission was refused due to its size and siting. Previous application was
02/44811/HH.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application: 23 and 27 Brackley Road
10-16 Monton Green.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised: Overbearing
Loss of light to the neighbouring garden.
Loss of amenity in the neighbouring garden.
Out of character with the area.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV8
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 states that permission would be granted if the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse
impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance,
loss of privacy or light.
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
An objector cites loss of light to his garden as a concern. The garage would be sited along the boundary with
14 Monton Green and erected in place of one of the existing garages along this boundary. The gable end of
the garage would face the property behind and the garage would measure 2.3m to the eves. I do not consider
that the garage would cause a significant loss of light to the gardens to the rear, as the garage would have the
gable facing these properties.
One objection is that garage would have detrimental impact on the rear ground floor room in the property
behind. The objector has stated there are plans in the near future to convert this to a morning room.
However the room is currently a utility room and this is the basis on which I must consider the application
and so I do not consider this to be a main habitable room in need of protection from loss of light.
The objector also cites that the garage would be overbearing to the property and would create a feeling of
enclosure in the garden, blocking the outlook. I consider, however as there would remain an open aspect
along the boundary with 25 Brackley Road and as the garage walls would measure 2.3m in height before
sloping away to the ridgeline, it would not cause a significantly detrimental impact on the amenity of these
neighbours or the enjoyment of their garden.
A final objection is that the garage would be out of character with the area and would not be in proportion to
25 Brackley Road. I consider that the garage would be in proportion with the property and so do not
consider this to be a significant reason for refusal of the application.
Therefore I do not consider the size or siting of this garage to be significantly detrimental to the amenity of
the neighbours, and so it would be in accordance with the provisions of DEV8 of the Council’s Unitary
Development Plan. I recommend 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 brickwork and roofing. of the development shall be the same
type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/45203/HH
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
APPLICANT:
R Bromiley
LOCATION:
25 Brackley Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of double detached garage with storeroom above
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached property. The proposal is for the demolition of existing garage and
erection of new garage. The garage would measure 7.7m x 6.4m and be 5.8m to the highest point of the
roof. The garage would be located approximately 8m from the rear main wall of 12 Monton Green and
would stretch 7.7m along this boundary from the adjacent boundary with 27 Brackley Road. There would
be a storeroom in the roof of the garage with a dormer extension facing the rear of 25 Brackley Road. This
other application sites the garage opposite to the garage in this application, along the boundary with 14
Monton Green.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal- No objections.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:23 and 27 Brackley Road
10-16 Monton Green.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised: Loss of light.
Overbearing to property.
Detrimental to the property value.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Dev 8 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 objectors cite loss of amenity and light to the gardens at 10 and 12 Monton Green as a concern. The
garage would stretch 7.7m along boundary with 12 Monton Green, diagonally opposite 10 Monton Green,
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
and be over 5m in height. I consider the garage would be unacceptably overshadowing and dominating to
the amenity of the neighbours at 12 Monton Green.
The objector is also concerned about the effect that the garage would have on their rear ground floor room.
The objector has stated there are plans in the near future to convert this to a morning room. However the
room is currently a utility room and so I do not consider this to be a main habitable room in need of
protection from loss of light.
One objector is also concerned that the garage would be overbearing to 12 Monton Green. I consider that as
the height of the garage would be 5.8m to the ridge; with the walls being approximately 3.3m in height and
a sloping roof directed away from 12 Monton Green, the garage would be overbearing the property directly
to the rear and dominate the view from the rear garden. Therefore, having a significantly detrimental impact
on the amenity of the neighbours.
One objector also cites that the value of the property would be diminished if the garage would be built. This
is not a planning consideration.
I consider therefore that the garage would be overbearing to the property directly to the rear and so be
significantly detrimental to the light, amenity and enjoyment of the property and so contrary to the
provisions in Dev8 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan. I recommend the application be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. Standard Reason RR34C Neighbouring Residents - Size/Siting
APPLICATION No:
02/45204/FUL
APPLICANT:
Portico Housing Association
LOCATION:
Site Of 40 - 50 Murray Street Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing residential properties and erection of two pairs
of semi-detached bungalows and one block of four bungalows
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site is currently occupied by six large terraced residential properties which were previously in multiple
occupation, but which are now vacant. The application site also includes the area of vacant land to the north
of 50 Murray Street. The site is bounded by Bowker Street to the north, Hill Street to the south, Murray
Street to the west and an alley to the east. Both 42 and 46 Murray Street are owned by the Council.
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
The proposal is to demolish the existing residential properties and erect two pairs of semi-detached
bungalows and one block of four bungalows. It is proposed to provide eight car parking spaces. The
properties will be occupied by local residents requiring single storey accommodation to full mobility
standards. Due to the topography of the site, the proposed properties will front Bowker Street and Hill
Street in order to provide level access.
SITE HISTORY
In 1993, outline planning permission was granted for the erection of residential development on land
adjoining 50 Murray Street (ref: 93/31263/DEEM4).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:12 & 14 Bowker Street
1 – 4 Maysmith Mews
56, 38, 31 – 53 (O) Murray Street
1 – 6 Pyramid Court
37 Rock Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy H1 aims to ensure that the housing stock is capable of meeting the housing requirements of all
groups within the City, including, inter alia, the provision of accommodation specifically designed for
disabled people.
In the determination of this application, I consider the main issues to be the siting of the proposed properties
and the loss of the existing trees within the site.
In terms of the siting of the properties, I consider the proposed arrangement to be the most acceptable and
appropriate option. Due to the type of accommodation, level access is required. This can only be achieved
by fronting the properties onto Bowker Street and Hill Street. The existing properties are currently vacant
and have been for some time. They are boarded up, look unsightly and detract from the area. The
redevelopment of the site would result in improvements to the appearance of the area and would result in
the removal of properties which are becoming an eyesore. It is also proposed to incorporate a more
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
sympathetic boundary treatment to Murray Street in the form of walls and railings to compensate for the
fact that the properties do not have frontages to Murray Street.
Turning to the issue of trees, there are currently four trees within the site. None of the trees are protected by
a Tree Preservation Order and as they are currently in a poor condition, I do not consider them worthy of
protection. The applicant proposes to plant six trees as part of the redevelopment of the site. I consider this
an appropriate solution. The proposal will result in the provision of a greater number of trees which will be
in a better condition than those currently on the site and which will enhance the general environment of the
area.
On balance, and taking all of the above issues into account, I consider the application to represent an
effective use of the site in question and which is in accordance with Policy H1. Given the benefits which
will be derived as a result of the proposed development, I recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be used
for the walls and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
3. Standard Condition C01X Landscaping
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/45225/FUL
APPLICANT:
Little Hulton Early Years Centre
LOCATION:
Little Hulton Early Years Centre Longshaw Drive Little Hulton
Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Installation of roller shutter door over main entrance.
WARD:
Little Hulton
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the Little Hulton Early Years Centre on Longshaw Drive. The proposal is to
install a roller shutter door across the front entrance door and windows. It would be externally mounted and
would be colour treated.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 11 December 2002
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objections in response to the application publicity
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV4 – Design and crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The proposal is to install a roller shutter door over the front entrance for greater security. This entrance is
slightly recessed within the body of the building and therefore could be a security weak spot. I do not
consider that the roller shutter would have an adverse effect on the appearance of the building and I do not
consider that it would harm the street scene.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The roller shutter hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior to
the commencement of the development by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/45243/HH
APPLICANT:
M Klarberg
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
LOCATION:
123 Leicester Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension
WARD:
Kersal
16 January 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property on Leicester Road. The application site is a corner
property and therefore at an angle to the neighbouring property.
The proposal is for the erection of a two-storey side extension. The proposal would project 4.05m X 11.7m,
part of the extension has a hipped roof and part has a flat roof. Permission has been given for part of the
proposal the additional, is situated to the rear of the property.
SITE HISTORY
In March 2002 (02/43734/HH) permission was granted for the erection of a part single, part two-storey side
extension. The proposal projected 4.05m with a total length of 9.2m.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1 and 8 Castlefield Avenue
121, 140 – 148 (evens) Leicester Road
REPRESENTATIONS
Councillor Connor has requested that the proposal be determined before the Planning and Transport
Regulatory Panel
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: Dev8 – House Extension
Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 states that permission would be granted if the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse
impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance,
loss of privacy or light.
Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions (Policy HH3) states that planning permission will
not normally be granted for a two storey/first floor extension that does not maintain a minimum distance of
13m between its blank wall gable end wall and facing habitable room windows of neighbouring dwellings.
The proposal would be 4.4m from a morning room window on the side elevation of the neighbouring
property, the window is considered to be a habitable room, I therefore would consider the proposal to have
an overbearing impact on this window.
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would not maintain a minimum distance of 13m between the proposed blank
gable wall and morning room window of 121 Leicester Road contrary to the Council's Supplementary
Planning Guidance for House Extensions Policy HH3
APPLICATION No:
02/45244/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs King
LOCATION:
7 Thornway Ellenbrook Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of first floor side and rear extensions and erection of extension
to front of garage
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached house. The first element of the proposal is to erect a first-floor side
extension above the existing garage to provide a bedroom with en-suite facility and a second en-suite
facility for an existing bedroom. This element would measure 7.19m in length and 3m in width. The
second element of the proposal is to erect a first-floor extension to the rear above the existing dining room
to provide a bedroom. This element would measure 3.3m in length and 4.2m in width. The third and final
element of the proposal is to extend the garage forward 1.8m and to provide a porch with WC to the side of
the extended garage.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:5, 9, 16 and 18 Thornway
1 and 3 Edenvale
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issue has been
raised:Loss of light
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
none
DEV8 – House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that planning permission will only be granted where there would be no unacceptably
adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and where an extension would not have
an unacceptably adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, by reason of its siting, height, massing,
design and appearance.
Loss of light. The proposed first-floor rear extension would project 1.8m past the rear of 9 Thornway and
would be in accordance with Guidance Note HH9 of Supplementary Planning Guidance – House
Extensions. I am therefore of the opinion that this element of the proposal would not have a significant
impact on neighbours in terms of loss of light.
There is one window in the gable elevation of 5 Thornway that leads into a kitchen with a breakfast bar (see
photographs on file). Currently there is a distance of 3m from this window to the gable wall of the existing
garage of the applicant. Due to the proposal being for a first-floor extension this relationship would not
change. Furthermore, due to the predominant use of this room being a kitchen I am of the opinion that a loss
of light into it is not an issue that can be considered.
The proposal is in accordance with Council Policy and so I see no reason for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
02/45255/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr & Mrs V Schwartz
LOCATION:
11 Marston Road Salford 7
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side/rear extension, single storey rear extension
and construction of dormer extension in roof space
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property. The proposal is to erect a two-storey side and rear
extension to provide extensions to the kitchen and one existing bedroom. In addition this extension would
provide a new utility, breakfast room and WC at ground floor level, and a study, bathroom and two WCs at
first floor level. This element of the proposal would be 2.4m wide along the side of the house and 5.1m
wide at the rear of the house and would extend back along the adjacent boundary 11.8m at ground floor
level and 9.8m at first floor level (first floor is set back 2m from the front of the house).
The proposal also includes the erection of a succah (single-storey) at the rear of the property, and the
construction of a dormer in the rear roof space of the house. The succah would project 2.74m along the
adjoining boundary and would extend back and attach onto the proposed kitchen extension. The dormer,
which would be 3.6m wide and 1.5m high, would be set below the ridge and above the gutter.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:9 and 13 Marston Road
19 Stanley Road
28 Waterpark Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Building astride the property boundary
Damage to boundary fence during the development phase
Loss of light
Loss of View
A similar extension was refused at 7 Marston Road
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: DEV10 – Broughton Park Development Control 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. Policy DEV10 states that any development must maintain the predominantly
residential nature of the area and must give due regard to size, siting, design and the presence of trees in the
area.
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
i.
Building astride the property boundary. Following discussions with the architect and
having taken site measurements no element of the proposal would cross over the property
boundary into the gardens of neighbouring houses.
ii.
Damage to boundary fence during the development phase.
consideration.
iii.
Loss of light. The proposed succah extension would project 2.74m along the adjoining
boundary in accordance with Guidance Note HH9 of Supplementary Planning Guidance on
house extensions. Therefore, I would not envisage a significant impact on the adjoining
neighbour in terms of loss of light.
This is not a planning
The adjacent neighbour has a secondary window into the kitchen of their house on the gable elevation. As
there is a second window into this room, and as it is a non-main habitable room, it is my opinion that loss of
light for this neighbour would not be significant.
Loss of View. This is not a planning consideration.
A similar extension was refused at 7 Marston Road (95/34090/HH). This two-storey side and rear
extension was refused in September 1995 as it was deemed it, ‘by reason of its size and siting would be
detrimental to the amenity of the occupiers of adjacent properties.’ The proposal at 7 Marston Road was
for a two-storey extension across the entire width of the house, projecting a distance of 3.05m along the
adjoining boundary. The proposal in the case of this application is very different and would be part
single/part two-storey at the rear that projects 2.74m along the adjoining boundary in accordance with
Guidance Note HH9 of Supplementary Planning Guidance on house extensions. Therefore, I am of the
opinion that a direct comparison cannot be made.
Although the proposal represents a substantial development, all of its elements are in accordance with
Council Policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Reason: To ensure the development fits in with the existing building in accordance with policy DEV3 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
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
At a meeting held on 19th 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
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.”
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
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
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
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
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.
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.
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
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.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Since writing my report I have received an additional eight letters of objection. I have also received a
detailed response from the neighbouring property which raise several expanded points.
The first point makes reference to risk of damage to trees and hedgerows. The applicant has agreed to enter
into a Section 106 agreement to retain and manage the future of the hedge which fronts Worsley Road. The
applicant’s agent has prepared an additional plan which identifies the trees and the TPO tag numbers to
which they relate. The City’s arboricultural office has inspected the trees on site and is of the opinion that
the two Horse Chestnut trees on each side of the access to No. 68 Worsley Road (No.820 and No.819) are of
a poor quality and not worthy of retention. This opinion would also improve and provide adequate
pedestrian and vehicular visibility splays. The applicant has also indicated that tree No.806 (Birch) would
be removed to provide car parking at the rear of the site. The final car parking layout would be submitted
and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of the scheme
through the control of a condition. No car parking would be supported along the common boundary with
No.70 Worsley Road to safeguard the existing trees. The applicant should also consider a scheme that
would also ensure the safety of tree T6.
The city’s highway engineers are of the opinion that the removal of the Horse Chestnut trees along the
frontage would provide the necessary pedestrian and vehicular visibility splays.
The final details of the bin store will also be approved prior to the commencement of the development and
controlled through the use of a condition. I am still of the opinion that this site can accommodate this
scheme and the proposed car parking provision without having a significant detrimental impact upon the
neighbouring residents. Finally, details of environmental issues and consultations will be verbally reported
to panel.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.
Approve Subject to the following Conditions:
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
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.
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 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.
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
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
16 January 2003
At a meeting of the Panel held on 19th 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 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
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
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16 January 2003
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
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th January 2003
APPLICATION No:
02/45083/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Director Of Development Services
LOCATION:
Highway Services Depot Swinton Hall Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Reserved matters application for the design and external appearance of
two storey modular office building
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the Council’s own storage depot on Swinton Hall Road and seeks the reserved
matters for the design and external appearance of a two storey modular building and car park. Members
will recall that outline consent was approved in September of last year for the siting of the building, car park
and fencing.
The majority of the site is bounded by light industrial uses. The south of the site, along Swinton Hall Road,
comprises a mixture of residential, a public house and the Kingdom Hall. Planning permission has recently
granted for eighteen apartments on the site of Haligan’s P.H.
This proposal would be situated at the corner of Swinton Hall Road and Dawson Street. It would provide
approximately 300m2 of office space and would retain the 2m brick boundary wall along the Swinton Hall
frontage. New 2.2m palisade fencing would be provided along the boundary of Dawson Street. Car
parking provision would be provided on the adjacent site with access via Dawson Street and would also be
bounded by 2.2m three prong palisade fencing which would be powder coated green. The fencing would be
set back from the back of the footpath approaching the sharp right hand bend on Swinton Hall Road to aid
vehicular visibility.
SITE HISTORY
Outline permission was granted in September of last year for the siting of the modular office building,
associated car and boundary fencing.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
Two site notices were displayed on 19th December 2002
The following neighbours were notified :
228 Swinton Hall Road
Kingdom Hall, Swinton Hall Road
Fountains Nursing Home
95 – 109 (odd) & 90 - 106 (even) Park Street
74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th January 2003
FEB Swinton Hall Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV1 – Development Criteria; T13 Car Parking
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 requires that regard should be had to the likely scale and type of traffic generation; the
amount, design and layout of car parking provision. Policy T13 ensures that adequate and appropriate car
parking and servicing provision is made where necessary.
The main external walls and roof of the office building would consist of Plastisol coated steel, colour
Moorland green, the fasica, corner and base trims would also be coated steel and painted Olive green. The
external doors would be coloured Aztec Yellow.
The car park would accommodate 50 spaces within the adjoining site with access via Dawson Street. The
fencing would be three prong palisade which would be power coated and would be set in from the back of
the footpath and would cut across the corner of the site, similar to the line of the existing 2m concrete panel
fencing to ensure vehicular visibility. I have no highway objections and therefore consider the proposal to
be acceptable.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th January 2003
APPLICATION No:
02/45137/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Planning And Development Services Committee
LOCATION:
Ordsall Neighbourhood Office 2 Robert Hall Street Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from offices to offices with library and community
facilities and erection of single storey side extension
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land within the grounds of Ordsall Neighbourhood Office, Ordsall.
The locality is predominantly residential council housing with a day nursery, youth centre, and public house
close by.
The proposal is for the ‘change of use’ from offices, to offices with library and community facilities and
erection of single storey side extension. This includes an outdoor play-ground, linked to the side extension
and separated by the car-park by a small fence. There will also be a fence dividing the staff car-park and
public car-park; this will be of same height and similar design.
SITE HISTORY
In 1997, planning permission was granted for the display of one non-illuminated development sign board at
the junction of Oldfield Road and Robert Hall Street.
In 1995, planning permission was granted for the siting of a portacabin, on land to the North West of Robert
Hall Street and Oldfield Road Robert Hall Street.
In 1989, planning permission was granted for the construction of a single storey building to provide a
neighbourhood office.
In 1989, planning permission was granted for the erection of a single storey temporary office building and
construction of a permanent car-park
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 29/11/02
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1 & 2 Whimbery Close
Welcome Inn PH on Whimberry Close
1 Carmel Avenue
1 Carmel Close
15 to 37 (o) Carmel Close
25 to 55 (o) Woden’s Avenue
76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th January 2003
1 to 31 (o) St. Bartholomew’s Drive
1 to 17 (o) Freya Grove
2 Wooler’s Avenue
1 to 33 Mount Carmel Court
18 & 19 Queen Alexandria Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
H8/2
Other policies:
SC1 – Provision of Social & Community Facilities
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV3 – Alterations/ Extensions
DEV4 – Design & Crime
DEV5 – Equality of Access
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy H8/2 highlights the importance of improving the Ordsall Estate in response to a variety of physical,
environmental, and social problems. This will run parallel with community development initiatives
including the promotion of new employment and training opportunities. In particular, the Ordsall
Neighbourhood Office was set up to co-ordinate improvement activity.
Policy SC1 refers to improving the quality and distribution of social and community facilities, thus
contributing to the overall process of urban regeneration.
Policy DEV1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 specify the importance of design to fit in with the surroundings, compliment the
amenity of the area, enhance crime prevention, and improve equal access for all.
Significant concerns include the loss of parking provision as a result of the playground construction over a
section of the existing car-park. However, given that the area is characterised by low car ownership and
high public transport use as well as being a neighbourhood centre in itself serving primarily the local
community, overall I do not consider it necessary to meet minimum car parking standards.
Further to this the separation of public and staff parking by the erection of a fence will enhance security
against any intruders, thus contributing to policy on design & crime. However, as the details of this have yet
to be confirmed a condition shall be applied that details of design specifications and colour of the fencing is
to be submitted and approved prior to development.
Other issues relate to the loss of trees and shrubbery as a result of the side extension, and boundary
adjustment. Removal is to include three self-seeded trees, and possible lopping of a fourth tree just beyond
77
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th January 2003
the area for the extension. For this reason a condition shall be applied that a landscape scheme should be
submitted and approved prior to development.
I consider this proposal to be acceptable.
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 one month 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. Details of design, specification and colour of the fencing and gate hereby approved dividing the staff
and public car-parking areas, shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Director of Development
Services prior to commencement of development. The fence should be erected in accordance with the
approved details.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/45154/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
St Thomas Of Canterbury R C Primary School
LOCATION:
St Thomas Of Canterbury R C Primary School Hadfield Street Salford
7
PROPOSAL:
Enclosure of open space within school grounds by the erection of 2.5m
high mesh fencing, erection of mesh panels on existing boundary wall to
an overall height of 2.5m
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
78
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th January 2003
This application relates to a primary school. The proposal is for the enclosure of an open space within the
North East Corner of the school grounds by the erection of a 2.5m high mesh fence, and the erection of
mesh panels on the existing Southern boundary wall to an overall height of 2.5m. These panels would
match into the existing boundary. The perimeter of the enclosure would measure approximately 75m and
the mesh panels would be located behind a row of terrace houses, no 56-72 St James Road. The school is
currently surrounded by 2.5m mesh fencing, as is the adjacent school Marlborough Road Junior School.
The mesh panels would be treated to match existing.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 11th Dec 2002
The following neighbours were notified of the application:2-14 Pennon Close,
5 and 7 Milan Street,
56-72 St James Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations or letters of objection for the proposal.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: Dev 4 Design and Crime.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Dev 4 states that the City Council will encourage greater consideration of crime prevention and personal
and property security in the design of new development and in the improvement of existing buildings and
land. The justification of this is to deter vandalism, theft and other criminal activity in the interest of
personal and property security.
I consider that the mesh fencing located behind Marlborough Road Junior School would not have a
significant detrimental impact on the amenity of the area or the neighbours. It would tie in with the
appearance of the remainder of the fencing on the site and would be of the same colour and appearance.
The fencing would enclose a small open space which is currently waste land and therefore improve the
appearance significantly.
The mesh panels located behind the row of terraced houses would fit in with the surrounding panels as they
would measure 2.5m high and they would allow the site to become more secure with a fence around the
entire perimeter. They too would be the same colour and appearance as the existing mesh fencing.
Therefore I do not consider the mesh panels would be significantly detrimental to the amenity of the area or
neighbours, or the appearance of the street scene.
There are no objections from highways.
I have no objections to the application and recommend it for approval.
79
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th January 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the mesh fencing and mesh panels of the development shall be the
same type, colour and texture as those of the existing fencing, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/45190/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Development Services Directorate
LOCATION:
Crompton House Chorley Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2m high boundary fence
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the rear of Crompton House, next to St Peter’s CE Primary School. The proposal
is to erect an 8m length of fencing to secure off the rear of this building. The fence would be 2m high and
would be the railing style fence and would be coloured black with a gold top.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:2-16 (even) Crompton Street
St Peter’s CE Primary School
The Vicarage, Vicarage Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
80
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th January 2003
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV4 – Design and crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The application is proposing a fence to secure the rear of Crompton House by removing a route through. I
am satisfied that the quality of the design of the fence would be good and therefore it would not have an
adverse effect on the street scene or on the setting of the listed St Peter’s Church.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The fencing hereby approved shall be coloured black and maintained thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/45192/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
New Prospect Housing Limited
LOCATION:
Floral Court Hilton Street North Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4m high security fence and provision of secured parking
area
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a site adjacent to the Council-owned Floral Court, a residential tower block. The
site was previously occupied by eleven bungalows, which were demolished earlier this year and the site is
now vacant, occupied only by trees and a sub station. The proposal is to construct a secure car park for the
residents of Floral Court. It would utilise the existing site access and make provision for 34 spaces.
The car park would be surrounded by 2.4m high railings, which would be colour treated. The layout of the
car park would mean the removal of a single tree. However, the remainder of the trees are to be retained and
it is proposed to undertake additional replacement planting outside the area of the security railings along the
Bury New Road frontage.
81
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th January 2003
SITE HISTORY
In September 2001, planning permission was granted for the demolition of eleven bungalows and the
construction of a car park with surrounding 2.4m high security fence and alterations to the existing
vehicular access. That application provided 51 car parking spaces.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 19th December 2002.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:Church Inn Public House, 45 – 67 (odd) Hilton Street
2 – 8 (even) Fuschia Grove
1 – 3 Genista Grove
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: T13 – Car parking
DEV4 – Design and crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy T13 states that the City Council will ensure that adequate and appropriate car parking is provided
where possible. This application intends to provide a better car parking provision for an established block of
flats, and as such I consider that the proposal accords with this Policy. Indeed, I am of the opinion that it
would be of benefit to this area if additional off-road car parking could be provided for the flats, as it would
ensure that there is a reduction of vehicles parked on Hilton Street North.
I am satisfied that the proposed 2.4m high security fence surrounding the site would ensure that the car park
is secure in accordance with Policy DEV4.
The application only involves the removal of a single tree. I consider this loss to be acceptable given the
benefits that would be derived from the proposal, in terms of a reduction in on-street parking and the
proposed replacement planting on the Bury New Road frontage. This application is a significant
improvement on the scheme approved in 2001, where it was proposed to remove several mature trees. I
therefore recommend that the proposal be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
82
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th January 2003
2. Standard Condition D05B Colour treatment
3. Standard Condition C12X Standard Size Replacement
4. Standard Condition C03X Fencing of Trees/no work within spread
5. Prior to the construction of the car park hereby approved an arboricultural method statement shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The statement shall
demonstrate the methods to be employed to retain the trees shown on drawing SC 4536/30. The
development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved particulars.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
5. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
APPLICATION No:
02/45248/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Mrs M Dolan
LOCATION:
St Marys RC Primary School Milner Street Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4m high railing type fence to Milner Street elevation and
erection of 2.4m high weldmesh panel fencing to other three elevations
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The primary school is situated within a residential area between Milner Street, Sandy Grove, Cherry Drive
and Pendlebury Road. The frontage is on Milner Street with the play ground to the rear and playing field to
the east to Cherry Drive.
The proposal is to replace a 78m stretch of the existing 1.4m high railings with new 2.4m high railings along
the Milner Street frontage (to just beyond the school buildings and adjacent to the playing fields) and to
replace all of the boundary railings along the south and west boundaries with 2.4m high weldmesh fencing.
A 2.4m weldmesh fence would also be erected along the eastern elevation to the main buildings on site
between the school buildings and the playing field.
83
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th January 2003
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 23 December 2002
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1 – 19, 47 Milner Street
2 – 20 Cherry Drive
28 – 60 (E) Pendlebury Road
37 – 47, 62 Bingham Street
Clifton Properties, 43 Stafford Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter in response to the application publicity. They have no objection to the proposal.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none.
Other policies: DEV4 Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The proposed fencing would replace existing lower railings to improve the security of the school and is
thereby in direct accord with policy DEV4 which seeks to improve property security. Railings are proposed
along the school frontage to Milner Street with a mesh fencing type along the remaining boundaries and all
would be colour treated although the colour has yet to be agreed. I am satisfied that this colour treatment
would improve its visual impact and that the new fencing at an increased height would not have a
significant detrimental impact upon the amenity of any of the neighbouring residents. I have no objections
on highway grounds and recommend that this application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The fencing and railings hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing
prior to the commencement of the development by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
84
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
85
16th January 2003