PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
APPLICATION No:
02/45075/FUL
APPLICANT:
Orange PCS Ltd
LOCATION:
Oakhill Court Mandley Park Avenue Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Roof top installation of one 55 cub.m equipment cabin together with
associated steelwork, handrailing, cabling and feeder ladders
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Oakhill Court on Mandley Park Avenue. It is proposed to install a 55m3
equipment cabinet and associated steelwork, handrailing, cabling and feeder ladders on the roof top of the
building.
Oakhill Court is a Council-owned residential tower block. The surrounding area is predominantly
residential in character. On the opposite side of Mandley Park Road is a nursing home and to the south of
the site is a park.
The proposed installation is required to replace the existing installation at Hanover Court on Bury New
Road, which is due to be demolished in early 2003.
SITE HISTORY
In 2000, planning permission was granted for the roof top installation of 10-600mm microwave dishes, 12
pole mounted antennae, equipment cabinet and associated equipment.
In 1999, the Council had no objections to the prior notification application for the installation of
telecommunications equipment on the roof.
PUBLICITY
Site notices were displayed both within Oakhill Court on the residents’ notice board and on the surrounding
streets on 3rd December 2002.
The following neighbours were also notified:
Flats 141-146 Oakhill Court
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified
are as follows:
Health concerns
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: SC14 - Telecommunications
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy SC14 states that the Council will normally grant permission for telecommunications development
unless it would have an unacceptable effect on visual and residential amenity.
The objector is concerned about the potential health implications as a result of the proposed
telecommunications equipment. The applicants have submitted a declaration which shows that the
proposed equipment complies with ICNIRP public exposure guidelines. I am therefore satisfied that
sufficient information has been provided to show that there should be no adverse health implications.
I consider that in visual terms this proposal is acceptable. There is already a variety of equipment on the
rooftop, the majority of which is not visible from the surrounding area due to the height of the building.
Given its nature and height, the proposed equipment would not be highly visible either, and as a result I do
not believe that it would be incongruous or intrusive. Given the roof top location, I do not consider that the
proposal would have an unacceptable effect on visual and residential amenity.
The applicants have submitted a declaration which shows that the proposed equipment complies with
ICNIRP public exposure guidelines. I am therefore satisfied that sufficient information has been provided
to show that there should be no adverse health implications. The applicants have demonstrated that other
potential sites have been investigated in the surrounding area. However, none of these are currently
available and Oakhill Court is considered to provide a better technical solution than any of the alternative
sites. In terms of the need for the development, this equipment is required to replace that currently located at
Hanover Court. I am satisfied that this justification meets the criteria of SC14.
Therefore, on balance I consider that the proposal would not significantly harm the visual amenity of the
area or neighbouring occupiers and recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
02/45076/HH
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
APPLICANT:
G W Bidder
LOCATION:
48 Lord Street Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Retention of 2m high fence
WARD:
Blackfriars
6th February 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached property, the front of the property stands on Lords Street and the side
elevation on Kempster Street. The area is predominately residential.
The fence is currently in position and stands approx 2m in height to the front of the property and along the
side boundaries. The fence is a wooden vertical slat fence.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1 and 2 Countess Grove
1, 2 and 4 Kempster Street
16 Earl Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection from the occupier of the neighbouring property in response to the
application publicity. The following issues have been raised:Fence interferes with traffic sight lines
Fence interferes with natural surveilance
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I would agree that the fencing does interfere with highway visibility at the junction of Lord Street and
Kempster Street.
I would also consider the style and height of fencing in such a prominent location to have a detrimental
impact on the street scene.
I have spoken to the applicant and explained that the height and type of fencing does have a detrimental
impact on the street scene, I have also explained that the fencing interferes with highway safety. The
fencing has been erected for security reasons and the applicant expressed that if refused he may re-submit
with a different type of fencing, or fencing and railings.
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The fence interferes with sight lines at the junction of Lord Street and Kempster Street, to the detriment
of highway safety and contrary to Policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
2. The fence, due to the siting, height and design, is a strident feature in the street scene and is detrimental
to the visual amenity of the area, contrary to Policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/45087/COU
APPLICANT:
Britannia Import Export Limited
LOCATION:
Railway Arches And Land At Mancentral Trading Estate East Ordsall
Lane Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Change of use of land and railway arch for storage purposes
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSALThis application relates to railway arches and land to the rear of premises on the Mancentral Industrial
Estate. It is proposed to use the site for the storage of fridge and freezer carcasses prior to destruction. The
applicant has asked for a two year permission.
Access to the site would be from the Trading Estate
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Environment Agency – No response to date
Railtrack – Object to the application
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of a site notice
The following neighbours were notified of the application:-
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
Units B, C and D Mancentral Trading Estate
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:The area is scheduled for substantial regeneration
Not in keeping with surrounding area
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications for planning permission. These factors include the location and nature of the proposed
development and its relationship to existing and proposed land uses, the effect on neighbouring properties
and the visual appearance of the development.
I agree with the objector that the proposed use would not be compatible with the surrounding area and that
it would have a significant detrimental effect on the future regeneration of the area as a result of both the use
itself and the associated vehicle movements.
While the majority of the storage would be within the railway arches this proposal also includes the outside
storage of fridge carcasses. I consider that such outside storage would have a particularly significant
detrimental effect on the surrounding area.
I consider therefore that the proposed use is unacceptable even for a limited time period and is contrary to
policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed use for the storage of fridge and freezer carcasses would have a significant detrimental
effect on the future redevelopment of the area and on the amenity of the area generally contrary to
policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/45094/FUL
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
APPLICANT:
RHF Fans Limited
LOCATION:
Unit 2 Ferrous Way, Northbank Industrial Estate Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Erection of industrial unit and associated offices
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a mounded area of land to the north of the service yard and parking area at the
rear of the existing RHF fans unit on Ferrous Way. The proposal is to excavate the mounded area that is
approximately 4 metres in height and to erect an industrial unit (935m2) with associated offices (146m2).
The footprint of the building would be 55 metres by 25 metres and it would be 6.2 metres in height. The
building would be constructed from brickwork and profiled steel sheets.
The building would house two new laser cutting machines, to be used in conjunction with the existing
business. 11 new car parking spaces will be provided at the site, making 50 spaces available to both units.
The proposal would create jobs for 7 or 8 new staff, in addition to the 34 existing staff.
The site is located on the edge of the Northbank Industrial Estate. To the west and north-west of the site are
residential properties on Monarch Close and Milton Avenue. The application site is separated from these
dwellings by a mounded area of up to 4 metres in height. There is extensive tree planting on this mounded
area.
SITE HISTORY
97/37256/TPDC - Erection of industrial / warehouse unit with associated offices, car parking and service
areas. Approved 4.12.97
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – In order to identify the possible contaminants present in the mound
designated as E058 which will be affected by the proposed development, a contaminated land condition is
recommended. To prevent any noise disturbance from the new unit affecting nearby residents, a condition
relating to the hours that equipment is operated is recommended. In addition, conditions are recommended
relating to the rating level of noise and that there shall be no external plant or equipment or any openings
formed in the elevations.
Northbank Management Company – No comments received.
PUBLICITY
The application has been publicised by means of press and site notices.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:13 – 37 (odds) Milton Avenue
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
1, 2, 3 Anthony Mews
1 – 11 (odds), 14 – 24 (evens) Monarch Close
Matthews Foods Group, Gilchrist Road
Fluorocarbon, Excalibur Way
RTS, Gilchrist Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations or letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
EC13/31 – Sites for Industry and Warehousing
DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors
in determining applications for planning permission, including the location and nature of the proposed
development and its relationship to existing land uses; the amount, design and layout of car parking
provision 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.
The City Council’s car parking standard for a B2 (general industrial) use is 1 space per 70 square metres of
gross floor space. The existing premises provide 2554 square metres of floorspace and the proposed unit
would provide a further 1081 square metres of floorspace. A total of 52 parking spaces should therefore be
provided on site. The plans indicate that 50 parking spaces will be provided at the site. I do not consider that
a shortfall of 2 spaces would result in any significant parking implications.
With regards matters of siting and design, the building would be located approximately 35 metres from the
dwellings on Milton Avenue and Monarch Close. The mounded area within the application would be
completely removed to accommodate the proposed unit, the building would therefore only project
approximately 2 metres above the height of the adjacent mounded area that separates the application site
from the adjacent dwellings. I do not therefore consider that the siting or design of the building would be
detrimental to the visual amenity of neighbouring residents, in particular given the location of the mounded
area and the screening provided by the trees that are planted on this area. The close proximity of the site to
the dwellings does raise some concern in relation to the potential for nuisance from noise and disturbance.
The Director of Environmental Services has recommended a number of conditions relating to the operation
of machinery and noise levels, to ensure that these residents are not adversely affected by the proposal.
Furthermore, I consider that the building itself would provide a barrier against possible noise and
disturbance from the proposed and existing uses at the site. I consider that the design and proposed
materials to be used for the external elevations are acceptable in this location.
I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds and I do not consider that the proposal would be
detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring residents.
RECOMMENDATION:
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls and roof
of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within 6 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
4. 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 within the landscaped mound E058 and shall include an identification and assessment of
the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focussing
primarily on risks to human health and to controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the
implications of ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building
structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including
ecological systems and property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to the start of the site
investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report
shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.
5. Machinery shall not be operated on the premises before 0800 on Mondays to Fridays and 0800 on
Saturdays, nor after 1800 on Mondays to Fridays and 1400 on Saturdays, nor at any time on Sundays,
Bank Holidays or Public Holidays.
6. The rating level of the noise emitted from the site shall not exceed the existing background noise level
by more than 5dB between 0800 and 1800 Monday to Friday or 0800 to 1400 Saturdays. The noise
level shall be measured/determined at nearest noise-sensitive premises. The measurement and
assessment shall be made according to BS 4142:1997: Rating industrial noise affecting mixed
residential and industrial areas.
7. No external plant or equipment shall be permitted, nor shall any additional openings be formed in the
elevations of the roof of the building which directly ventilate towards the residential properties on
Milton Avenue or which discharge from any internal plant or equipment to these elevations, without the
prior written permission of the local planning authority.
8. 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.
9. Vehicle movements and deliveries within the rear service yard other than cars shall not occur between
the hours of 18.30 and 07.00 on Mondays to Saturdays and between 16.00 and 10.00 on Sundays.
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
10. Standard Condition J01F No Open Storage
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
5. To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy EN20 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
6. To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy EN20 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
7. To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy EN20 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
9. To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
10. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Please contact Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) regarding details of
drainage. Separate surface water and foul system required. Maximum discharge to sewers 15l/s.
APPLICATION No:
02/45146/FUL
APPLICANT:
Bupa Group
LOCATION:
BUPA Offices Anchorage Quay Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey extension to staff restaurant
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
This application relates to land adjacent to Erie Basin/ Anchorage Quay and alongside an existing
restaurant and gym facility, located in front of ‘The Anchorage’ offices (approx. 10 storeys) at Salford
Quays, on land owned by City of Salford council.
The proposal is for the erection of a single storey extension to the existing staff restaurant for the private use
of B.U.P.A. employees (presently the primary occupant at ‘The Anchorage’ offices).
The extension would cover approximately 75sq.m. This will involve the removal of existing curtain
walling, new curtain walling, removal of existing stairs to roof balcony (two stairs will remain), new
emergency doors and refuse access doors. Materials will include single ply membrane (grey) for the flat
roof, and rendered masonry (Portland) to match existing exterior walls.
Anchorage Quay is predominantly office/commercial, with new residential flats/ dwellings nearby. Further
up Erie Basin, land-uses include tourism and entertainment (The Lowry Centre) and light industry/
warehousing. Also close by is two metrolink (tram) stops.
SITE HISTORY
In 1996, planning permission was granted for alterations to and fitting out of existing unoccupied building
to form new staff restaurant and gymnasium (96/35956/COU).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections, except that a condition be applied to request a site
investigation report with regard to the potential risk of contaminants.
PUBLICITY
Two site notices were displayed on 16th December 2002.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
T17, Metrolink
EC4; improvements to employment areas
S5; Control of food and drink premises
R2; provision of formal recreation facilities
R10; provision of private recreation facilities
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policies identified above allow the provision of improved private facilities for staff in employment areas.
Policy S5 identifies the need to permit premises for food and drink where there is no adverse impact to
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
surrounding residential amenity and safety of pedestrians. Here I consider the application acceptable due to
sufficient available promenade space and the nearest dwellings being over 125metres away, thereby
reducing detriment to residential amenity.
The Director of Environmental Health has highlighted the previous use of the site for railway sidings and a
grain elevator, thus a risk of contaminants on site and a subsequent need for a site investigation report. In
response to this concern a condition shall be applied that a site investigation report is submitted to the
approval of the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of development.
Primary planning issues include the impact on the walkway along Anchorage Quay. However, there is no
loss of adopted highway and I consider there is sufficient remaining space available for the enjoyment of
pedestrians.
Turning to car-parking issues, the applicant has specified there will be no new staff employed on site, the
site is also conveniently close to a multi-storey car-park (shared by tenants of ‘The Anchorage’) and two
Metrolink (tram) stops. I have no highway objections.
In light of the issues outlined above, particularly in terms of visual amenity, provision of improved facilities
for employment areas, and the control of food & drink premises, I consider this application to be acceptable.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the curtain walling
of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
3. 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 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 Local Planning Authority 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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
3. To identify and reduce risk to site occupants and adjoining businesses from contaminants in respect of
policy DEV7 (Development of Contaminated Land).
APPLICATION No:
02/45170/FUL
APPLICANT:
Peers Hunt And Co
LOCATION:
333 Liverpool Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of fourteen one-bedroomed flats together with associated
alterations to existing access and carparking (re-submission of planning
application 02/44495/FUL)
WARD:
Barton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of the former Talk of the North nightclub. The proposal is to demolish the
existing steel clad building and erect a three-storey ‘L’ shaped building comprising fourteen one-bedroom
flats. The footprint of the building would be 26.2 metres along the Liverpool Road frontage and 14.9
metres along the Eldon Place frontage. The building would be set back a distance of between 1.4 metres and
1 metre from the back of pavement on Liverpool Road and 0.9 metres from the back of pavement on Eldon
Place. A ‘corner feature’ is proposed to link the Liverpool Road and Eldon Place elevations. The proposed
materials comprise facing brickwork, painted render and lead sheeting.
14 car parking spaces would be located at the rear of the site which would be accessed by means of a rear
alley from Eldon Place. Bicycle parking is also proposed within the site.
Uses in the area are mixed. On the Liverpool Road frontage, there are a variety of commercial uses, whilst
to the rear of the site uses are predominantly residential.
SITE HISTORY
02/44495/FUL - Erection of 18 one bedroomed self-contained flats together with associated car parking –
Application Withdrawn.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – The proposed building is located on the A57 Liverpool Road, Eccles,
therefore, road traffic noise is a material consideration. A PPG24, road traffic noise assessment was carried
out on Monday 19th August 2002 and the results indicate that the proposed building falls within Noise
Exposure Category C: “Planning permission should not normally be granted. Where it is considered that
permission should be given, for example because there are no alternative quieter sites available, conditions
should be imposed to ensure a commensurate level of protection against noise”. This Directorate, therefore
has no objection in principle to the granting of planning permission for this development, on the proviso
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
that a noise control (dual glazing) condition is applied in order to protect the amenity of future occupiers.
Advice is also provided regarding bin store ventilation and internal room layouts.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – The Unit have made a number of detailed
comments – a copy of the letter of recommendations has been forwarded to the Applicant. One concern is
that the building should be moved back off the pavement line of Eldon Place.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 12th December 2002
A site notice was displayed on 3rd December 2002
The following neighbours were notified of the application:16 – 22 (evens) Aldred Street
The Presbytery Aldred Street
1 – 11 (odds) Arthur Street
9 – 19 (odds) Eldon Place
2 – 12 (evens) Eldon Place
355 – 369 (odds) Liverpool Road
321 – 331 (odds) Liverpool Road
Church Of The Holy Cross Liverpool Road
1 Tetlow Grove
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
EC14/4 – Improvement Proposals (Patricroft, Barton/Eccles)
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
T13 – Car Parking
EN15 – Environmental Improvement Corridors
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The site is located within, but close to the boundary of Unitary Development Plan policy allocation EC14/4.
This policy states that in addition to the general improvements to industrial and commercial estates as set
out in Policy EC4, the City Council will specifically seek improvements in specified industrial and
commercial areas. In order to complement and extend existing improvements, the City Council will seek to
maintain ICIA status in the Patricroft area for as long as this action is effective. This policy is not site
specific and relates to general improvements in industrial /commercial areas. It refers back to policy EC4,
which is a strategic policy concerning the improvement of employment areas. Neither policy EC14/4 or
policy EC4 specifically relate to residential development.
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
UDP policy DEV1 states that regard should be had to a number of issues when determining applications for
planning permission, including the relationship to existing and proposed land uses; the amount, design and
layout of car parking provision; the visual appearance of the development and the provision of open space.
Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant planning permission, unless it is satisfied
with the quality of design and the appearance of the development. Furthermore, UDP policy DEV4 states
that the City Council will have regard to the detailing of the building, the relationship of car parking to
buildings and the layout of landscaped areas in the design of new development. UDP policy T13 states that
the City Council will ensure that adequate parking provision is made where necessary. The City Council’s
car parking standards for flats with communal parking (1.25 spaces per dwelling) would require a minimum
of 17 car parking spaces to be provided at the site. UDP policy EN15 states that the City Council will
promote environmental improvements along its main road, rail and waterway corridors. The A57,
Liverpool Road, has been identified as an Environmental Improvement Corridor. Within the corridors,
there is an emphasis on the encouragement of high standards of design.
With regards to the siting and design of the building, the Applicant has made a number of amendments to
the proposal. The building has been set back from Eldon Place, which satisfies the concerns of the Police
Architectural Liaison Unit and also provides a separation distance of 13 metres between the building and
the first floor flat at 355/357 Liverpool Road. Furthermore, there is a distance of 14.5 metres separating the
proposed building and the side of 9 Eldon Place. The footprint of the existing night-club building takes up
the whole site and the first floor level projects over the rear alley. The existing building is very dominating
and overbearing on adjacent dwellings, in particular 9 Eldon Place and the first floor flat at 355/357
Liverpool Road. Setting back the proposed building from the road frontages will facilitate the erection of
boundary treatments and will provide an area of defensible space. It will also enable areas of landscaping to
be planted to the Liverpool Road and Eldon Place frontages which will improve the visual appearance of
the site. Areas of landscaping/amenity space are also proposed to the rear of the site.
With reference to the appearance of the proposed development, the design of the building is not a traditional
two-storey terraced development and is therefore in contrast to the existing developments surrounding the
site. I consider, however, that in terms of its scale, massing, and detail, it is not out of proportion to the site
or other development in the locality. The development would be a significant improvement to that of the
existing steel clad building.
With reference to parking at the site, a total of 14 car parking spaces have been identified and although this
is substandard, I consider that this level of provision, i.e. 100% would be adequate for one-bedroom flats in
this location adjacent to the A57.
I have no objections on highway grounds and do not consider that the proposal would have any significant
detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning with the date of
this permission.
2. Standard Condition C01X Landscaping
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
3. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls and roof
of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
4. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use not less than 14 car parking spaces shall
be provided within the curtilage of the site to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services
and such spaces shall be made available at all times the premises are in use.
5. Standard Condition J04X Bin Stores
6. The windows of all habitable rooms facing Liverpool Road and Eldon Place shall be acoustically dual
glazed to the standards of the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (as amended). An alternative would
be to install sealed double glazed units comprising glass of 10mm and laminated 6.4mm with a 12 mm
air gap. The unit shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations to avoid air
gaps when fitting the frames. Alternative means of mechanical ventilation which must be sound
attenuated shall be provided.
7. This permission shall relate to the amended plans received on 23rd January 2003 which show the
building set back 13 metres from the gable of 9 Eldon Place and revised design and car parking details.
8. No development shall be started until full details of the location, design and construction of bicycle
parking facilities have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services. Such approved bicycle parking facilities shall thereafter be constructed and made available
for the use of residents before the development is brought into use.
9. This permission shall relate to the submitted planning application as amended by fax from the Agent
dated 20th January 2003
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance with policy
DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
7. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
8. To ensure that adequate provision is made for the parking of bicycles within the curtilage of the site in
accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
9. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Greater Manchester
Police Architectural Liaison Unit dated 10th December 2002.
2. United Utilities should be consulted regarding details of drainage. It should be noted that a 2100
diameter sewer passes close to the site. Separate foul and surface water required maximum discharge 10
l/s to combined sewer.
3. In order to protect the amenity of occupants in flats above the bin store, it is recommended that the bin
store has adequate natural ventilation to reduce the likelihood of odour nuisance.
4. The bedrooms of three of the apartments adjoin the kitchen of adjacent apartments (ie. Flat 3 & 4).
Therefore it is reasonable to foresee that the design of the apartments may increase the likelihood of
future occupants being disturbed by noise from their neighbours. (BS 8233: 1999 - para 7.6.1.2:
Occupants will usually tolerate higher levels of anonymous noise, such as that from road traffic, than
noise from neighbours, which may trigger complex emotional reactions that are disproportionate to the
noise level). In order to protect the amenity of future occupants it is recommended that the design of the
apartments is such that where practicable, bedrooms shall not adjoin or be sited above or below living
rooms/kitchens of adjoining apartments.
APPLICATION No:
02/45179/FUL
APPLICANT:
Jarvis Construction UK Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By The Bridgewater Canal, Waterslea And Green Lane
Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of special needs high school including provision of high level
footpath and traffic lights
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the northern half of the site of the former Bridgewater Hospital. The site covers
approximately 1.3 hectares and has been vacant for some time. The Bridgewater Canal runs to the west and
a railway embankment marks the northern boundary. To the east the site is bordered by Green Lane and
beyond that, housing while to the south is the new housing development, Waterslea, built on the southern
half of the hospital site.
Outline planning permission was granted in 2001 for the erection of a special needs High School including
access that would be from an existing purpose built junction on Waterslea. As a result of widespread
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
concern regarding traffic issues, during the outline application, it is proposed that this junction should be
controlled by traffic lights.
The Bridgewater Canal is designated as a Site of Biological Importance.
This application has been submitted for the erection of a special needs high school for children with
emotional and behavioural difficulties. The building has a floorspace of 2559 sq.m. with a height of 4.6m to
the ridge. Walls are proposed to be finished in red brick with a profiled metal roof whilst windows are
proposed in pvc with integral shutters. The nearest residential property on Waterslea is 47.5m away whilst
to the nearest property on Green Lane is 26.5m away. The proposal includes the provision of traffic light
controls at the junction of Green Lane and Waterslea, and the provision of a high level footpath on the
Green Lane boundary. Landscaping and a wire mesh fence around the site are proposed.
The school would cater for approximately 80 pupils and the catchment area would be the entire city. Thirty
members of staff would be employed at the site.
The proposed school would be a replacement school for children in Salford who have emotional and
behavioural difficulties who previously went to Northumberland Street School. This school closed in July
1999 and the pupils were transferred to Irwell Park School at Britannia Street off Langley Road South. The
reason that a new school is required is that the existing school is old, too large and unsuitable for pupils with
emotional and behaviour difficulties. Two-thirds of pupils (52 pupils) are expected to travel to and from the
school by taxi and minibus whilst one-third (28 pupils) would travel independently.
SITE HISTORY
In 2001, outline planning permission was granted for a special needs high school (01/41851/DEEM3).
Outline planning permission was granted in September 1992 for the erection of a primary school on this site
(E/29972) and full planning permission granted in August 1995 (94/33314/DEEM3). This primary school
would have accommodated 240 pupils. Members will recall that outline planning permission for the
erection of a special needs high school (exactly the same application as has now been submitted) was
refused on highway grounds at the meeting of the Panel on 21st September 2000.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services: no objections but conditions recommended regarding extraction and
ground condition.
Lancashire Wildlife Trust: The development borders on the Bridgewater Canal which is a Grade B Site of
Biological Importance. It has a well developed and varied emergent and submerged aquatic vegetation and
is notable for the presence of floating water plantain. This species is protected under schedule 8 of the
Wildlife and Countryside act 1981 (as amended). The Trust does not object to the application in principle
but it will be important to protect the canal from any form of pollution, including construction materials,
silt-laden run-off and diesel or other chemical spillages.
Railtrack: have not objected and have sent a copy of their standard schedule of recommendations/comments
in respect to developments at or near to the railway.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer: No objections
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
Community and Social Services Directorate – No objections, considers this to be an excellent facility for
children in Salford.
PUBLICITY
The application has been publicised on site and in the press. The following neighbour addresses have been
notified:20, 32 to 36, 72A and 72 to 80 Green Lane
1 King Edward Street
1 to 65 and 2 to 42 Waterslea
31 and 48 Watson Street
11 Wycliffe Street
16 Police Street
59 Nelson Street
13 Queen Victoria Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a total of 10 letters of objection in response to application publicity. The issues raised are as
follows:Closure of other schools – these should be re-used
No money available for existing schools in the area yet naughty boys are provided with a brand new
school
Detrimental to the surrounding area
Increase in crime
Destruction of a wildlife habitat (particularly bats)
Increase in traffic could cause serious accidents
Parents parking causing accidents
Increase in noise, including football pitch after school hours
Increase in light pollution from floodlights
Devaluation of property
There are enough such establishments in the local area
Increase in pollution from standing traffic
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: SC16/5 Sites for the Provision of Education Facilities.
Other Policies: SC4 Improvement/Replacement of Schools, EN5 Nature Conservation, DEV1
Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The site is specifically allocated in the UDP for the provision of education facilities, the site being originally
reserved for a new primary school but this is no longer required in this location. The outline approval has
granted the principle for use as a special needs high school which would provide facilities in line with
policy SC4.
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
Policy EN5 relates to the Bridgewater Canal and states that the City Council will seek to improve the
environment for nature through the protection of SBIs and that new development should minimise adverse
effects on nature conservation features and enhance existing wildlife habitats.
DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when determining applications
for planning permission. These include the relationship of the proposed development to existing land uses,
the likely scale and type of traffic generation, the potential level of noise, the effect on neighbouring
properties and the layout of the proposed building. DEV2 relates to good design.
Many of the objections relate to the specific children who will attend the school. I do not consider that the
proposed school would necessarily be detrimental to the surrounding area or that there would necessarily be
any significant increase in litter, vandalism, graffiti or crime generally. Indeed the Greater Manchester
Police have raised no objections to the proposal and most of the children are transported to and from the
school by taxi/mini-bus and are dropped off within the school gates at a dedicated dropping off point. The
issue of the area having too many similar establishments has been raised by some objectors. I do not accept
that this is the case as what is proposed is a local authority high school. The use of this site as a Special
Needs High School has been intended for many months by the Directorate of Education and Leisure, as the
2001 outline approval on this site testifies. The value of property is also not a material planning
consideration.
The site itself is currently overgrown and contains many self seeded shrubs. Objectors have raised the issue
of bats as such the presence of bats has been investigated by independent consultants. A report produced in
March 2002 concludes that there are no roosting areas on the site. The applicant proposes to consult with
neighbouring residents regarding the form of landscaping alongside Waterslea should planning permission
be granted. I consider that appropriate landscaping of the site will improve the appearance of the currently
unkempt site adjacent to residential properties and the Bridgewater Canal. I consider the proposal will be in
accordance with policy EN5.
The proposed building, given its low single storey height, sited away from residences and setting within
landscaping will not interfere with the character of the surrounding area or indeed upon the Bridgewater
Canal. The building has a functional and modern design with a metal roof and a local red brick colour
dominating the single storey elevations. Each classroom has a window to allow natural light for the benefit
of the teaching environment and the integrity of relationship of the internal layout and elevations, whilst
integral shutters are proposed providing security without inhibiting the appearance or the internal
functioning of the building. The staff car park and cycle racks are within the site whilst dedicated
drop-off/pick-up points are provided for the children.
Objection has been raised to the level of noise generated from this proposal. Any school will generate an
amount of noise but I do not consider that this would have any significant effect upon the amenity of local
residents and I would anticipate that noise generated by an 80 pupil high school would be less than that
generated by a 240 pupil primary school. The Director of Environmental Health has proposed conditions to
ensure amenity is protected including the restriction of the hours of use of the five-a-side pitch which I
recommend is attached to an approval as this will also limit any light pollution. Other conditions to restrict
noise from the school are proposed, including relating to extractor units, in order to protect residential
amenity.
Objection has been raised to the provision of traffic lights/pedestrian crossing on the grounds that it will
increase noise and pollution. Objection is also raised over the application regarding possibilities of
accidents occurring.
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
Traffic counts indicate that between May 1996 and October 2000 show that over this period traffic growth
of approximately 25% has occurred on Green Lane. The previous permission was for a primary school that
would have catered for 240 pupils. Studies carried out by the Greater Manchester Traffic Unit show that
arrivals by car at existing primary schools across Greater Manchester vary between 16% and 55% with an
average of 35%. This equates to national travel data that shows that 36% of pupils travel to school by car. It
may be assumed that of the 240 pupils at the previously approved primary school approximately 73 would
have arrived by car. In the proposed high school that would cater for up to 80 pupils the pupils are expected
to travel mostly (two-thirds) by taxi/mini-bus. Because of the large catchment area it is likely that fewer
pupils will be dropped off by parents who are on their way to work than would occur at a local primary
school. Public transport facilities are much better in this location than at Irwell Park and it can be expected
that some of the remaining one-third of pupils would arrive by public transport, being dropped off on
Liverpool Road and then walking the short distance to the school. From the above it can be clearly seen that
traffic movements generated by an 80 pupil special needs high school would be significantly fewer that
those generated by a 240 pupil primary school.
The Greater Manchester Traffic unit show, in their March 2002 survey, that with the addition of a signal
controlled junction at Green Lane and Waterslea, with a pedestrian crossing facility to be incorporated into
the lights, that priority for green lights would be for Green lane and this would ensure there would be no
significant impact from traffic levels or upon queuing in the vicinity. The Greater Manchester Traffic unit
do state that a yellow box should be painted on the south bound carriage at the junction with Cromwell
Road for the instance where HGVs are included in a queue at the lights, a yellow box would prevent the
temporary blocking of this junction.
The site does have a purpose built access which conforms to current day standards and although the
junction of Waterslea and Green Lane is also modern it does not at present achieve the desired visibility
splay of 4.5 by 90m. Hence the applicant proposes to alter the site entrance from Waterslea to provide the
aforementioned visibility splay. In order to resolve any road safety issues a high level pedestrian route will
be provided along the site boundary, tying in with the steps adjacent to the railway bridge whilst work will
be undertaken to the existing retaining wall in order to ensure adequate sight lines.
Adequate parking would be provided for the development with 40 secure parking spaces and also cycle
parking provided. The site is also accessible by bus and train with Patricroft Station being close by. I
consider this level of parking and accessibility, in addition to the drop-off/pick-up zone to be in accordance
with UDP/PPG13 standards and appropriate to this site. I do not consider that any noise or dust generated
by cars slowing and stopping at a pedestrian crossing or at traffic lights would be so significant as to be
noticeable. Given the proposed traffic lights and other highway proposals, which are in accordance with the
conditions of the outline consent, I have no highway objections.
I consider that the layout, design, parking provision, visibility splays, intended traffic lights and intended
landscaping of this proposal to be acceptable. I do not consider the proposal will be detrimental to the
character of the surrounding area or to residential amenity by reason of noise, disturbance, litter, crime or
vandalism. I consider this proposal incorporates the recommendations of the earlier outline approval. As
stated above I have no highway objections and recommend approval subject to the conditions set out below.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme, including species to allow food for bats
to thrive, which shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Development Services before
development is started. Such scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls,
fences, boundary and surface treatment and shall be carried out within twelve months; of the
commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
4. The railings and gates 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.
5. Details of the fume extraction system serving the cooking or/and food preperation areas shall be
submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority and shall include details that there will be no
odour or noise nuisance to residential premises. Such approved scheme shall be implemented prior to
the commencement of the development.
6. No external plant or equipment shall be permitted, nor shall any aditional openings be formed in the
elevations or the roof of the building which directly ventilate the south elevation of the building or
which dishcharge from any internal plant or equipment to these elevations, without the prior written
approval of the local planning authority.
7. The five a side football pitch shall only be used by staff and pupils at the school, and shall only be used
between 08:00 and 18:00 Monday to Friday and 09:00 and 18:00 at the weekends.
8. Prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall submit a site investigation report for
the approval of the local planning authority. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and
distribution of contamination and underground gases on the site and its implications on the risk to
human health and controlled water 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 implications of ground conditions on the health and safety of the site workers, on nearby
building structures and services, on landscaping schemes, final users on the site and on wider
environmental receptors including ecological systems and property. The sampling and analytical
strategy shall be approved by the local planning authority prior to the start of the survey, and
recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report shall be implemented by
the developer prior to occupation of site.
9. The occupation of the development hereby approved shall not commence until an appropriate traffic
signal control system with pedestrian crossing facility has been submitted to and approved by the
Director of Development Services. Such approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the
occupation of the school, to allow safe entrance to the site from Green Lane.
10. The occupation of the development hereby approved shall not commence until the retaining wall is
removed and the high level footpath is completed as detailed within the submitted drawing IPH1001G.
This approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of the school, to allow safe
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
entrance to the site from Green Lane.
(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. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
8. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
9. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
10. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
APPLICATION No:
02/45180/FUL
APPLICANT:
Jarvis Construction UK Ltd
LOCATION:
Land South Of Eccles College Chatsworth Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of one building comprising of two special needs high schools
with associated external works
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land at the top of Chatsworth Road close to Eccles College. The site is owned by
the City Council and covers an area of 2.1 hectares. It is bounded by the grounds of Eccles College and
Swinton Park golf course to the north, school playing fields to the east and south. There is one house on
Chatsworth Road adjacent to the site and there are houses opposite. To the immediate north of the site is a
bus lay-by and turning point for Eccles College.
This application proposes to erect two special needs high schools, on the one site, for children with learning
difficulties ranging from moderate to profound and multiple. The application has been submitted in full and
includes the one shared single storey building, car parking, landscaping and the diversion of a public sewer.
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
Outline planning permission was granted for the special high schools approval including details of a new
access located centrally on the Chatsworth Road frontage between two existing trees. This same access is
proposed within this application along with an additional access adjacent to No. 40 Chatsworth Road to
facilitate the pick up and drop off point at the rear of the building.
The proposed building is single storey and would be constructed in red brick with a profiled metal panelled
roof. The height of the ridge is 4.8m, eaves level is at 3m high, whilst the floor area is 6,800 sq.m, with the
nearest residence being 31m away. The building is set back from Chatsworth Road by 48m. The site is
proposed to be enclosed by 2.4m high fencing, simple round railings to Chatsworth Road and adjacent
residential property with wire mesh to other boundaries.
The two schools would share some common facilities including cooking and sports/recreation. The schools
together would cater for up to 250 pupils with the schools having staggered start and finish times. There
would be 109 staff at the site with 73 car parking spaces provided in addition to cycle parking facilities.
SITE HISTORY
In September 2000, planning permission was granted in outline for the erection of a special needs high
school (00/41002/DEEM3).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections - conditions recommended
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer: No objections
Community and Social Services Directorate – No objections, considers this to be an excellent facility for
children in Salford.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised in the press and by way of a site notice.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:Eccles College
1-41 odd & 2-40 even Chatsworth Road
Swinton Park Golf Course, Elans Road
11 Welbeck Road
36 & 45 Westminster Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received five letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Traffic congestion/parking problems already exist from the Eccles College and Wentworth High
Schools
Students from Eccles College park along Chatsworth Road
Safety issues arise from increased volume of traffic
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
Access should be from Salisbury Road
Introduce parking restrictions on Chatsworth Road
Land should be for recreational use
This school could go elsewhere within the City
No architectural merit to the proposal
Site not near to Salford attractions including museum and Lowry
Concern over height of fence adjacent to residences
Safety users of footpath alongside brook and college
Maintenance of paths
Ellesmere Park Residents Association – concern over the design
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: SC16/4 Sites for the provision of Education Facilities
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, SC4 Improvement/Replacement of
Schools.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The site is specifically allocated in the UDP for the provision of education facilities, the site being originally
reserved for a new primary school but this is no longer required in this location. The outline approval has
established the principle for use as a special needs high school which would provide a replacement school
facility in line with policy SC4. This is an important facility for the intended students and it is considered
that sufficient recreation land is provided in the area, indeed recreation pitches are planned to be improved
to the west of the site. The use of this site for educational purposes has been a long term strategy for the City
Council and is deemed appropriate by the Directorate of Education and the individual schools. The school
would still aim to allow pupils opportunity to visit Salford’s attractions including museums and The Lowry.
DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when determining applications
for planning permission. These include the relationship of the proposed development to existing land uses,
the likely scale and type of traffic generation, the potential level of noise, the effect on neighbouring
properties and the layout of the proposed building. DEV2 relates to good design.
The proposed building, given its low single storey height, sited away from residences and setting within
landscaping will not interfere with the character of the surrounding area. The building has a functional and
modern design with a metal roof and a local red brick colour, which along with part rendered sections make
up the single storey elevations. The entrance canopy and feature doors add interest to the Chatsworth Road
elevation. Each classroom has a window to allow natural light for the benefit of the teaching environment
and the integrity of relationship of the internal layout and elevations, whilst integral shutters are proposed
providing security without inhibiting the appearance or the internal functioning of the building. The
building is designed to allow for sensory areas and appropriate classroom space for the benefit of teaching
hence providing a positive educational environment. Access for wheelchair users has been included
throughout the proposal including vehicular access for mini-buses taxis with wheelchair users.
Objection has been raised to the impact of this proposal upon parking, congestion and road safety.
Chatsworth Road and surrounding areas have existing traffic calming measures installed, which the
applicant states, will not interfere with the safe passage to and from school of children with brittle bones.
The Greater Manchester Transport Unit (GMTU) undertook a modelling analysis and assessment of the
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
impact of additional traffic to and from the site in 2002. This assessment concluded that no significant
impact would occur in respect of congestion and queuing on any surrounding highway, including
Chatsworth Road, an average rise of three seconds per car waiting time is envisaged. Staggered start times
and the level of children arriving by mini-bus/taxi help to limit possibilities of congestion. The application
has been amended to retain the waiting/bus lay-by at the top of Chatsworth Road, which will ensure existing
access to the adjacent college site is available for public transport. I consider the layout to be safe with
correct visibility splays identified. The suggested access from Salisbury Road, to the east, would cut across
the Wentworth High School site and other identified and safeguarded recreation areas and would therefore
not be the best option for the access.
I consider that some of the objections relating to on street parking relate to existing parking and surrounding
educational uses where staff and students travel by car. It should be remembered students at this school will
not be driving to school themselves. I consider this development has provided a satisfactory level of car
parking, inline with Government guidance that states one space per two teachers, and that cycle parking on
site will encourage non-car travel by teachers. The staff car park and cycle racks are enclosed within the site
whilst dedicated drop-off/pick-up points are provided for the children. Dedicated footpaths are provided
within the site. I do not consider that additional on-street parking will ensue as a result of this development
however, parking restrictions could be investigated.
The development incorporates and retains mature trees along the Chatsworth Road frontage, which will
help to retain the character of the area. The car park access is between two trees which are to be retained,
and with additional planting the school and the car park in front of the school will be screened from
Chatsworth Road. A small number of trees will be lost for the development however I consider the
character of the area will remain and the replacement planting will help to screen the entire site. Planting
and trees are proposed around the schools which will screen the buildings and help the site fit in with its
surroundings. Proposed fencing has been amended to include simple round railings to the Chatsworth Road
frontage and to the boundary with No. 40 Chatsworth Road in order to maintain the character of the area.
The applicant has agreed to the fencing on the boundary of Chatsworth Road being reduced in height from
2.4m to 2m. Wire mesh fencing at 2.4m in height is to be used to enclose the remainder of the site.
Footpath safety has been raised as an issues however the path around the site would visible from the school
and given the Greater Manchester Police do not object I also have no objections to the development on
security grounds. In order to satisfy drainage and construction issues the diverted sewer should be
implemented prior to building works commencing, should permission be granted, and the height of such
approved building should have a floor level 300mm above ground level. The applicant has confirmed both
of the sewer diversion and floor levels would be undertaken.
I consider that this proposal will provide essential education needs for Salford children in a purpose built
setting designed with access for all in mind. The building works internally for its users and also externally
retains the character of the area with a combination of simple design, appropriate materials and siting away
from residences. Retention of most trees and additional landscaping improves the buildings setting. I
consider that there would be no additional pressure for on-street parking and that a negligible impact will
occur on congestion. I have no objections and recommend approval subject to the conditions set out below.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within twelve months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
4. The railings and gates 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.
5. The boundary railings hereby approved along the Chatsworth Road frontage and the boundary with
number 40 Chatsworth Road shall be simple round railings as per submitted photographs.
6. Details of the fume extraction system serving the cooking or/and food preparation areas shall be
submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority and shall include details that there will be no
odour or noise nuisance to residential premises. Such approved scheme shall be implemented prior to
the commencement of the development.
7. No external plant or equipment shall be permitted, nor shall any aditional openings be formed in the
elevations or the roof of the building which directly ventilate the south elevation of the building closest
to Chilham Road or which discharge from any internal plant or equipment to these elevations, without
the prior written approval of the local planning authority.
8. Prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall submit a site investigation report for
the approval of the local planning authority. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and
distribution of contamination and underground gases on the site and its implications on the risk to
human health and controlled water 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 implications of ground conditions on the health and safety of the site workers, on nearby
building structures and services, on landscaping schemes, final users on the site and on wider
environmental receptors including ecological systems and property. The sampling and analytical
strategy shall be approved by the local planning authority prior to the start of the survey, and
recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report shall be implemented by
the developer prior to occupation of site.
9. Prior to the commencement of the development the sewer shall be diverted as detailed in the submitted
plan NHS-5001A.
10. The railings to the boundary with 40 Chatsworth Road shall be not be higher than 2 metres from ground
level.
11. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use not less than 73 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.
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
12. Standard Condition C07C Replacement of Trees
(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. To protect the amenity of the area in line with Unitary Development Plan Policy DEV1 and for the
avoidance of doubt.
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
8. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
9. In order that the development does not effect the sewer/drainage sytem of the area in accordance with
UDP policy DEV1.
10. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
11. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
12. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/45186/HH
APPLICANT:
A Payne
LOCATION:
416 Walkden Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension, first floor rear extension and
single storey rear extension, together with a pitched roof over existing
garage
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
This application relates to a detached house on the corner of Walkden Road and Kempnough Road to the
side. The proposal is to erect a first floor rear extension over part of an existing single storey rear extension
and erect a pitched roof over the rear of the single storey element. It is also proposed to erect a two-storey
side extension which would project out 3.5m and be the full length of the two storey house. The applicant
also proposes to erect a pitched roof over an existing detached garage, which was built in the late 1970’s,
with the benefit of permitted development.
SITE HISTORY
In 1977, planning permission was granted for a single storey rear extension. (ref. E/4420).
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:412, 418, 319 Walkden Road
1, 2 & 3 Kempnough Hall Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objections in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:The existing garage is very close to the boundary with no. 2 Kempnough Hall Road. The objector is
concerned that the pitched roof would take light off her morning room, which faces the garage, and the
guttering would overhang her path.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – house extensions, SPG – House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 seeks to ensure that planning permission would only be granted where the proposal would not
have an adverse effect on neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance,
loss of privacy or light.
I am mindful that the applicant is wishing to put a pitched roof over the garage which is close to the
boundary with the objector’s house, and this is faced by her morning room window which I would consider
to be a habitable room window. The neighbour herself also a two storey side extension to the front of her
house which obscures the view from this window to some extent. In considering the effect from the
additional roof, I am mindful that the original garage, which did not require planning permission, already
has some overbearing affect on the neighbour’s room. I do not believe that the proposed roof addition
would have a significantly worse effect on the amenity of the neighbour from that already exists. Therefore
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
I do not consider that I could justify refusing this additional roof because of the possible affect on this
neighbour.
I do not consider that the side and rear extensions would constitute an over development of the site, as it is
within large grounds. Equally I do not consider that it would have an adverse effect on the neighbouring
properties in terms of overlooking or loss of light. I would consider that the design of the house extensions
would match in well with the existing house and therefore it would not have an adverse effect 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 roofs 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:
02/45212/OUT
APPLICANT:
M Moylan
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By Phipps Street, Brackley Street And Mountain Street
Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two-four storey buildings comprising 24 apartments
together with associated car parking and alteration to existing
vehicular access
WARD:
Walkden North
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of a vacant depot on land at Mountain Street/Phipps Street/Brackley
Street, Walkden. Residential properties are located on the opposite side of Brackley Street. A three storey
block of apartments is currently under construction on the opposite side of Mountain Street. On the opposite
side of Phipps Street is an operational depot and associated offices. An electricity sub station is located to
the east of the application site, between Mountain Street and Brackley Street. There are a number of trees on
the site at the corner of Mountain Street and Phipps Street; six of these are poplar, two beech and a
sycamore.
The application seeks to demolish the existing building and to erect two four storey blocks comprising a
total of 24 flats. These would back onto Phipps Street, with the car parking area located between the flats
and the existing sub station. It is proposed to provide 24 car parking spaces. Vehicular access would be off
Mountain Street, with pedestrian access off both Mountain Street and Brackley Street. The site would be
enclosed by 1.8m high railings. The buildings would be constructed with brick with stone banding, quoins
and cill details. The application is in outline with landscaping and external appearance reserved for
determination at a later date.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections in principle subject to a site investigation
Coal Authority – no objections
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 19th December 2002
A site notice was displayed on 14th January 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:5, 7, 12, 14, Abbeyfield House, Mountain Street
31 – 49 (O) Brackley Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EC3 – Re-use of Sites and PremisesDEV1 – Development Criteria, DEV2 – Good Design,
DEV4 – Crime and Design, H1, Meeting Housing Needs
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main issue to be addressed in the determination of this application relates to the loss of this industrial
site for residential purposes and the potential impact the proposal may have upon the amenity of the area
and the neighbouring residents.
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
The depot has been vacant for some time and is located in a predominantly residential area. I therefore
consider that the principle of residential development in this location is acceptable. The buildings would
have a smaller footprint that the existing depot and I therefore consider that the proposal would not be
overbearing or have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring residents.
I am satisfied that the provision of 24 car parking spaces is sufficient and I have no objections to the
application on highway grounds. The site would be enclosed by 1.8m high railings which I consider would
enhance the appearance of the development.
The application would result in the removal of several trees located on the corner of Mountain Street and
Phipps Street. It is proposed to fell seven of the nine trees - six poplar and a sycamore. The two beech trees
are to be retained. None of the trees within the site are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. Having
discussed the trees with the Council’s arboricultural officer, I am satisfied that those trees the applicant
proposes to fell are not worthy retention and none of the trees are worthy of protection by a TPO. However,
I do consider that those trees to be felled should be replaced elsewhere within the site, as is proposed.
In conclusion, the application would result in the re-use of a previously developed site within a
predominantly residential area for residential purposes. A vacant unattractive building would be
demolished and replaced by a residential development more in keeping with both the appearance and the
uses of the surrounding area. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been submitted
to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
- the colour and type of facing materials to be used for all external walls and roofs;
- a landscape scheme for the site which shall include details of trees and shrubs to be planted, any
existing trees to be retained, or felled indicating the spread of the branches and trunk positions, walls,
fences, boundary and surface treatment.
3. This permission shall relate to the amended plans received on 13th January 2003 showing the proposed
site layout, and those received on 27th January 2003 showing the proposed boundary treatment.
4. Prior to commencement of the development the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the
approval of the Local Planning Authority. 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.
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the
start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the
approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.
5. Standard Condition C03X Fencing of Trees/no work within spread
6. Prior to the first occupation of any of the apartments hereby approved, the redundant vehicular
crossings shall be made up to footway level to adoptable standards.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
4. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
5. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
6. To provide for safety and convenience of users of the highway.
APPLICATION No:
02/45213/HH
APPLICANT:
I Moynihan
LOCATION:
262 Liverpool Road Cadishead
PROPOSAL:
Erection of double garage at rear of dwelling
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the rear garden of a residential property, the front of the property is on Liverpool
Road and the rear boundary is on Woodbine Avenue, which is an unadopted cul-de-sac. There are two pairs
of semi-detached properties on the other side of Woodbine Avenue.
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
The garage would be set back 0.5m from the rear boundary and would measure 6m X 5.5m with a height of
2.6m. The garage would be of pre-cast construction with a pebble-dash finish.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:260 and 264 Liverpool Road
2 – 12 (evens) Woodbine Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of objection from the residents on Woodbine Avenue in response to the
application publicity. No specific reasons have been given but all the letter writers strongly object.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV8 – House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 states that planning permission will not be granted for extensions that have an unacceptable adverse
impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance loss
of light or privacy.
Supplementary Planning Guidance Note HH4 states that planning permission would not normally be
granted for single storey extensions that do not maintain a minimum distance of 9m between the blank wall
and facing habitable room windows of neighbouring dwellings.
The proposed garage would be 12m from the front elevations of the properties on Woodbine Avenue.
There are two existing garages that stand at the head of the cul-de-sac that have no hardstanding to the front.
The proposed garage would have 0.5m of hardstanding to the front, I would not consider the construction of
the proposed garage to interfere with the free flow of traffic on the cul-de-sac and therefore have no
objections on highway grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
APPLICATION No:
02/45223/COU
APPLICANT:
S Borg
LOCATION:
Stable Block At Rear Of 34 Victoria Crescent Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Change of use of former stable block to private dwelling including the
erection of part single/part two storey side extension, single storey front
extension and single storey side extension
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former stable block at the rear of 34 Victoria Crescent, Ellesmere Park. The
site lies within an established Victorian residential area on the south side of Victoria Crescent, just outside
the Ellesmere Park ‘development control policy area’ and also near the Ellesmere Park Conservation Area.
The adjacent land to the west at 32 Victoria benefits from planning permission for the erection of a
three-storey block of six flats (01/43314/FUL). The adjoined dwelling to the east is divided into
self-contained flats. Within the site, 34 Victoria Crescent consists of self-contained flats, some with
habitable windows overlooking the site subject to this application. To the south are residential properties
that are separated from the site by a 4.5m high wall.
Planning permission is sought for partial rebuilding and extension of this former stable block to
accommodate a self contained residential property. Extensions to the stable block are proposed at ground
floor level to the west, a small toilet extension1.7m wide by 2.5m deep and also a forward extension to the
north and east which would extend the building line by 0.7m toward number 34 Victoria Crescent. At first
floor level extensions and refurbishment is proposed to convert to residential. A pitched roof would also be
proposed that would protrude above the rear wall. Additional windows are proposed at first floor level 2.5m
away from flats at 34 Victoria Crescent, and all windows are proposed to have etched glass.
SITE HISTORY
In 1999, planning permission was granted for the change of use from a single family dwelling to a house of
multi-occupancy at 34 Victoria Crescent (98/38646/COU).
In 2002, planning permission was refused for the change of use of said former stable block to dwelling
house including part single and part two-storey front and side extensions (02/44045/COU).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 11th December 2002.
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application: 41, 43, 39a Half Edge Lane
59-65 (o), 32, 36, 34 Victoria Crescent
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received four (4) representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The
following issues have been raised: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Temporary removal of dividing wall (trespassing)
Lowering of the wall (between no.34 – 36 Victoria Crescent)
Time of operation/ works
Building vibrations
Loss of privacy
Loss of sunlight
Noise & air pollution
Access route to objectors garage restricted (at no.36 Victoria Crescent)
Use of garden inhibited
Lifestyle restricted
Numerous general issues were also received regarding internal alterations and external excavations of the
main building, during a lengthily period prior to the present application and I therefore do not consider these
to be relevant to the existing or proposed stable block dwelling. Objections relating to the removal/
lowering of the boundary wall will be discounted as this is not included in this application.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
H1 - Meeting Housing Needs,
DEV1 - Development Criteria
DEV2 - Good Design
DEV3 – Alterations/ Extensions
DEV4 – Design & Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 relates to development proposals keeping in character with existing and surrounding
buildings and the protection of residential amenity whilst Policy H1 seeks additions to the housing stock.
Although the reuse of the stable would allow the building to be retained and would create an additional
dwelling within the City I do not consider there is sufficient distance between the habitable rooms of this
proposal and the habitable rooms of flats within 34 Victoria Crescent or the proposed flats on land at 32
Victoria Crescent (approved 22nd February 2002).
While there have been no consultee objections there are four public objections. These relate primarily to
negative impact on residential amenity, such as loss of sunlight, privacy, and uninhibited lifestyle.
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
The proposed distance of 4.3m between the proposed dwelling and the nearest habitable room of at 34
Victoria Crescent is very close even though this is at a slight angle. I consider that this proposal would
seriously reduce the existing amenity of flats at both ground and first floor to the rear of 34 Victoria
Crescent by way of loss of privacy. Further to this the applicant has proposed etched glass windows on all
but one (lounge) of the windows in the proposed stable house. However, I do not consider this a satisfactory
solution as it would not be practicably possible to impose and enforce a condition regarding etched glass on
otherwise habitable rooms (including the dining room on rear of the existing property). It would also be
unacceptable to impose a condition (affecting future occupiers) restricting the extent of angle any given
window can be opened, in an attempt to compromise on the distance between the properties.
I have no highway objections but consider the siting of the proposed dwelling in between the back gardens
of several larger properties to be unsatisfactory. In addition to this there is a total lack of a private garden
(normally expected for any house), nor is there any defensible space.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would result in a sub-standard residential environment for the occupiers of
the proposed dwelling, due to the lack of a private garden within the curtilage of the property.
2. The proposed development would by reason of sub standard interface distances between habitable
room windows of the proposed building and adjoining premises at 34 Victoria Crescent and an
adjacent approved residential development (at 32 Victoria Crescent) would result in mutual
overlooking and loss of privacy to existing and future occupiers, contrary to policy Dev1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/45224/FUL
APPLICANT:
Space
LOCATION:
Land Between Trinity Way And St Stephen Street Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Erection of one five-storey block of 33 apartments together with the
creation of new vehicular access
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a prominent site on Trinity Way, close to the junction with Chapel Street. The
site is bounded by Trinity Way to the east, St Stephen Street to the west, a car parking area and a two storey
office block, Trinity Court, to the north and the New Harvest Christian Fellowship Church to the south (the
former Salford Cinema which is a Grade II listed building).
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
The site is 24m deep, has a 23m frontage to Trinity Way and a 35m frontage to St Stephen Street. A small
part of the application site is currently laid out as car parking and is used by the existing office block. The
remainder of the site is currently vacant except for two advertisement hoardings.
It is proposed to construct a five storey building, with four storeys at the interface with the listed building.
A total of 33 apartments is proposed. The number of apartments has been reduced from the original
submission due to the reduction in height of the building, which was considered necessary to ensure that the
proposal would be in keeping with and sympathetic to its surroundings, and in particular to lessen the
impact on the setting of the listed building. The main pedestrian entrance to the building will be from
Trinity Way, with a second entrance from St Stephen Street. It is proposed to provide 12 car parking spaces
located at the lower ground floor level. Vehicular access would be from St Mary’s Street, a narrow
unadopted alley to the rear of the Church, which also serves as access to a car parking area owned by the
Church.
SITE HISTORY
In October 2001 an outline application for a new apartment building and the creation of means of access
from St Stephen Street was approved (01/42793/OUT).
In April 1999 planning permission was refused to use the land as car parking (99/39104/FUL)
In September 1990 planning permission was granted for the erection of a two storey office block (E/26152).
A further permission for a slightly larger development was approved in June 1992 (E/29655).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections in principle, subject to conditions relating to noise
attenuation and site investigations.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – the applicant has produced amended plans to
take into account the comments received. Additional advice has been provided regarding security
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 19th December 2002
A site notice was displayed on 17th December 2002
The following neighbours were notified of the application:196 – 208 (E) Chapel Street
1 – 9 Sackville Street
Trinity Court, St Stephen Street
6 & 8 St Stephen Street
Victory Chapel, Chapel Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:-
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
Loss of car parking
Increase in vehicles during construction
Impact of the proposed building on the adjacent office
Erection of a boundary fence without planning permission
Land ownership
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EC14/1 - Improvement Proposals, CS1 – Trinity
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EC14/1 states that the City Council will seek improvements to the Chapel Street industrial and
commercial area. Policy CS1 states that the City Council will continue its programme of refurbishment and
renewal and that emphasis will be placed on providing enhanced standards of residential accommodation.
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when determining
applications. These factors include the amount of parking provision, noise, the relationship to existing
buildings, the effect on neighbouring properties and the visual appearance of the development.
I will deal with each of the objections in turn. Firstly, I do not consider that the development of this site
would have an unacceptable effect upon the amount of parking that is available for the Church. None of the
land to which this application relates is owned or controlled by the Church. I consider St Mary’s Street to be
an appropriate location for the vehicular entrance to the proposed building. The number of car parking
spaces proposed is appropriate given the location of the site close to Manchester City Centre and the
services therein and in close proximity to public transport.
The existing offices to the north of the application site have benefited in the past from the use of parking
laid out in anticipation of one of the office developments referred to above being implemented. These
office developments have not been implemented. The occupiers of the existing offices were aware that the
additional car parking spaces were not provided for their own sole use. I have no objections to the
application on highway grounds.
In relation to the issue of noise and disturbance caused during construction, this is an inevitable
consequence of any development. However, as this will be for only a relatively short space of time and is
necessary for the redevelopment of the site, I do not consider this to be an issue I can place much weight on.
Turning to the impact of the proposed development on the adjoining properties, I do not consider that the
building would have a detrimental impact on either Trinity Court or harm the setting of Victory Chapel.
Prior to approving the previous outline application, Members visited the site and, based on an indicative
drawing submitted with the application, decided that the lower part of the building should be at the interface
with Trinity Court. However, this application is an entirely different scheme submitted by a different
applicant. I consider the most important factor in the determination of the application to be the impact of the
proposed building on the surrounding properties and in particular on the adjacent listed building. It is
therefore essential that the lower part of the building is located at the interface with the Victory Chapel to
minimise any potential detrimental impact. The redevelopment of this site is of course preferable to the
present situation where the site is vacant, unattractive and detracts from the area. Indeed, I consider that the
redevelopment of the site would greatly enhance the area. In addition, the legal agreement will bring about
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
a variety of improvements to the area, and whilst the details of these improvements have not yet been
agreed, such works will be carried out within the vicinity of the application site.
The letters of objection also raised the issue of fencing which has recently been erected within the site. It is
of varying height, but much is in the region of 2m. This has been erected without planning permission. The
matter has been passed onto the Council’s enforcement team for further investigation and is not therefore a
matter for consideration in the determination of this application.
Finally, issues relating to the ownership of the application site are not matters for consideration in the
determination of a planning application. Notwithstanding this fact, I should point out that the applicant’s
solicitor has provided documentary evidence in the form of title deeds which demonstrate that the
application site is within the ownership of the applicant. I am satisfied with this evidence and at the time of
writing I have not been supplied with documentary evidence to the contrary.
In conclusion, I consider the proposal to be acceptable. The height, scale and massing are all appropriate to
this location and are in keeping with the Chapel Street area and other recent developments therein. I am not
of the opinion that the development would have an adverse impact on any of the surrounding properties. In
particular, I consider it essential that the lower part of the proposed building is located closest to the Chapel,
in order to minimise the impact on this listed building. There are no residential properties in close proximity
to the site. I therefore recommend that, subject to the following conditions, permission be granted.
RECOMMENDATION
a.
that the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under Section
106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure environmental improvements within the Chapel
Street Regeneration Area. The applicant will be required to pay a commuted sum of £33,000.
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 L02G Amended Plans
4. Prior to commencement of the development the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the
approval of the Local Planning Authority. 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 Local Planning Authority prior to the
start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.
5. The developer shall undertake an assessment to determine the external noise levels that the residents
will be subject to (daytime and night). The developer shall detail what steps are to be taken to mitigate
the disturbance from the above. The assessment shall have due regard to the Department of the
Environment Guidance PPG24 - Planning and Noise. The assessment and mitigation measures shall be
submitted and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the
commencement of development and any mitigation measures are to be implemented in full prior to
occupation of any unit.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
3. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
4. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached letter from Greater Manchester Police
APPLICATION No:
02/45226/FUL
APPLICANT:
Ms D T Hilditch
LOCATION:
Land Opposite 8 Glen Avenue Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of one detached dwelling (Amendment to previous application
98/38833/FUL)
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a former garden/garage plot for the existing bungalow, 8 Glen Avenue. The site,
which falls away steeply at the rear to Sindsley Brook, is overgrown and has become quite unsightly. The
adjoining sites to the north and south are two garages with a new pair of semi-detached properties beyond
this to the north.
At the end of 1998 permission was granted for the erection of a detached dwelling on the plot, planning
reference 98/38833/FUL. This application now seeks to amend this original permission by converting the
garage into a study and creating two parking spaces within the curtilage, and increasing the width of the first
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
floor element to provide an enlarged bedroom with an ensuite. Other minor alterations include the
inclusion of a ground floor toilet and removal of a secondary window on the frontage.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No comments received to date.
Environment Agency – no comments received to date.
The Coal Authority – no objections.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 23 December 2002
The following neighbours were notified of the application:2 – 12 (E), 9 and 11 Glen Avenue
3 and 5 Brook Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
Building rubbish will be deposited into Sindsley Brook
Impact upon the streetscene and proximity to property
Damage to Glen Avenue from construction vehicles
Access for emergency services during construction
Bin collection during construction
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV2 Good Design,
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The principle of a detached dwelling on this site has been established with the granting of permission at the
end of 1998. The issues that must be considered for this application therefore relate to the proposed
amendments to this original permission.
In relation to the objections received and in particular to the objection concerning the proximity to the
existing property opposite the site, this application is not seeking to amend the proposed footprint of the
dwelling. This would remain the same which maintains a separation of 15.6m at the ground floor and
almost 18m from the first floor element but these facing windows would be for a study and a bathroom at
the first floor which complies with the City Council’s separation standards.
I do not believe that should this permission be granted it would necessarily result in the dumping of building
rubbish into Sindsley Brook. In fact, I am of the opinion that should this proposal be permitted, the
appearance of the site would be significantly improved and there would be less rubbish deposited into the
brook as there would be less access to it.
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
The loss of the garage would be balanced by the provision of two parking spaces within the curtilage and as
such I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds. Furthermore, the increase in the width of the
first floor element would bring the first floor gable 1.4m closer to the properties on the adjacent-but-one site
to the north but a separation of 14m would still be maintained and there are no main habitable room
windows on the existing dwelling.
The proposed changes to the permission are relatively minor and would not have a significant detrimental
impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring residents or the streetscene. I therefore recommend that
permission be granted for this proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be used
for the walls and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
4. No development shall be started until substantial fencing has been erected along the boundary to
Sindsley Brook, details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing prior to the
commencement of development. This fencing shall remain until the completion of the development.
(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
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
APPLICATION No:
02/45261/COU
APPLICANT:
A Ingrassia
LOCATION:
7 Memorial Road Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from estate agent to shop for the sale of hot food
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a two storey terrace on Memorial Road. The property is currently vacant and
bounded by an Italian take-away and Your Move estate agents. There is a single storey extension at rear of
the property, beyond which is a cobbled alley. The site is within Walkden Town Centre.
The proposal would open until 11.00pm six days a week and 10.30pm on Sundays.
SITE HISTORY
In 1995, planning permission was approved to change of use from retail shop to estates agents showroom
and offices.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections in principle, but requests details of the fume extraction
system.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:3 – 5 & 9 – 17 (odd) Memorial Road
4 – 12 (even) Memorial Road
15 Bridgewater Road
1 – 9 (odd) Longley Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Car Parking
Vehicles stopping close to busy junction
Litter
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
Access to rear of premises
Odours and smells
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
S6/3 Maintenance and Improvement of Town Centres (Walkden)
S5 Control of Food and Drink Premises
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy S5 states that the City Council will only grant planning permission for such uses where it would not
have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents by reason of noise,
disturbance, smells, fumes, litter, vehicular traffic movements, parking or pedestrian traffic. Policy S6
encourages the refurbishment and improvement of town centres.
I have received one letter of objection from the application publicity. I am of the opinion that issues relating
to litter, odours and smells could be controlled through adequate conditions. However, I am of the opinion
that car parking in this particular area is a problem. Therefore I consider that the main planning issues in
this instance is the lack of off street car parking within the curtilage of the property and the likelihood that
this proposal would encourage on-street parking in restricted areas.
It is important in the interests of the free flow of traffic that Memorial Road is kept clear of parked vehicles.
There are parking restrictions along Memorial Road. Some on street car parking provision is available in
nearby Walter Street. Planning permission was granted on appeal for a similar scheme next door in 1998.
However, the main difference between this and the current proposal was the provision of five off street car
parking spaces.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that this proposal, by reason of insufficient off street car parking, would
interfere with the free flow of traffic and should be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The site is situated close to a major traffic light controlled junction in a heavily congested area and by
reason of insufficient off street car parking, the proposed development would interfere with the free
flow of traffic on Memorial Road to the detriment of highway safety contrary to policy T2 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/45267/FUL
APPLICANT:
B Dean
LOCATION:
Site Adjacent To 11 Mather Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing buildings and erection of five terraced dwellings
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
6th February 2003
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing industrial site with a single storey unit and a yard area at the side. The
site has fallen into a level of disrepair. The commercial properties of 190 – 204 Church Street back onto the
site to the south and are separated by an access road, there is a car MOT garage to the rear on Bright Road,
residential dwellings lie to the north and there is another light industrial unit directly opposite the site. The
Bingo Hall is situated on the corner with Church Street and Mather Road.
The proposal is to demolish the existing unit and to erect five terraced dwellings. Each dwelling would
have one car parking space within it’s curtilage and bedroom accommodation would be provided in the roof
with small dormers on the rear elevation.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to a site investigation undertaken.
Environment Agency – no objections.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 3 January 2003.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1 – 7(O), 11 – 17(O), 4B Mather Road
190 – 204, 190A Church Street
1a, 1 – 5(O), Bright Hall, Bright Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Parking is already at a premium – proposal will result in loss of more spaces for local businesses
If site isn’t manned 24hours a day site could be target for local youths
During construction access road to rear of properties on Church Street must be maintained.
Future occupiers of the properties
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H7 Housing Area Improvement and Renewal
Other policies: DEV2 Good Design,
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The application site is situated within a mixed use area but residential dwellings characterise the northern
half of Mather Road and therefore I am satisfied that the principle of residential use is acceptable in this
location. The site also lies within a housing improvement area and therefore the proposal broadly accords
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
with this. The main issues for this proposal therefore relate to the relationship of the proposed properties to
the adjacent properties and uses.
The objector is concerned about the loss of car parking provision for the commercial properties. The site is
currently occupied by an industrial unit with an access along its frontage. Therefore there is only limited
parking currently available along this section of Mather Road. The proposal would provide one parking
space within the curtilage of each dwelling which, in this location just off a bus route and in close proximity
to the town centre, I am satisfied that this proposal is acceptable and in accordance with government
guidance. The industrial unit would have generated a parking demand and therefore I do not consider that
the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact upon Mather Road and I have no objections on
highway grounds.
Other concerns of the objector relate to the management of the site during any construction work. This is a
matter for the applicant but the access road to the rear of Church Street must be maintained at all times,
although there is no real reason why this should be affected. The future occupiers of any proposal is not a
planning consideration.
The proposed dwellings would be over 26m from the unit at the rear which is occupied by a car MOT
garage. I am satisfied that this distance is acceptable, even with the third storey within the roof, and that
there should not be any significant detrimental impact upon the amenity of the future occupiers of the
dwellings. I consider the design to be acceptable for the proposed dwellings and it would be preferable to
see the site developed as opposed to having the existing unit remain vacant. I therefore recommend that this
application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
3. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be used
for the walls and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
4. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the
approval of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and
distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on the 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 safety of site workers, on nearby occupied
building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors
including ecological systems and property.
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority 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 the occupation of the site.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
APPLICATION No:
02/45277/FUL
APPLICANT:
S Camm Builders
LOCATION:
Land Between 3 And 21 Lawnswood Drive Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Amendment of house type (Plot 8 - No. 5 Lawnswood Drive)
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land between 3 and 21 Lawnswood Drive, Swinton. The application seeks an
amendment to the house type at Plot 8 (No. 5 Lawnswood Drive). It is proposed to provide an extension
above the existing garage which will accommodate a fourth bedroom. The eight dwellings on this site are
currently under construction.
SITE HISTORY
Planning permission for the demolition of the existing telephone exchange building and the erection of
eight detached dwellings on land between 3 and 21 Lawnswood Drive was approved in January 2001 (ref:
00/41681/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:71 – 75 (O) Barton Road
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
2 – 8 (E) Lawnswood Park Road
2 – 8 Lawnswood Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Unacceptable impact on residential amenity
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
This application seeks to provide a fourth bedroom above the existing garage at Plot 8, Lawnswood Drive.
Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria against which applications for planning permission will be
assessed, including the effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for neighbouring properties.
The issues raised by the objector relate to the potential detrimental impact on residential amenity as a result
of the proposed development. I consider this to be the main issue in the determination of this application, in
particular the impact on the amenity of the residents of 73 Barton Road. That property is a bungalow and I
consider that the proposed extension to the house at Plot 8 would result in unacceptably overbearing and
loss of outlook of the residents of 73 Barton Road, which has habitable windows in its rear elevation. The
proposed extension would be only 10m from the rear of No. 73, which is 3m less than the Council’s privacy
standard relating to two storey extensions. I therefore consider this to be unacceptable.
On the above basis, I consider that the proposal would, by virtue of its size and siting, have an unacceptable
detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. It would result in loss of privacy for the
residents of 73 Barton Road and would be an overbearing and dominant feature. I therefore consider the
application to be contrary to Policy DEV1 and I recommend refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would, by virtue of its size and siting, seriously injure the amenity of
neighbouring residents, contrary to Policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/45278/FUL
APPLICANT:
A Judge
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
LOCATION:
Land At The Junction Of Kingsley Road And Granville Street
Walkden
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey childrens nursery together with associated car
parking and creation of new vehicular access
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a former housing site adjacent to Walkden Shopping Centre and is currently
vacant. The site is currently bounded by houses to the northern and western boundaries. An approximately
6m high brick wall along the eastern boundary separates the site and Buckingham Bingo. The southern side
consists of pedestrian only access from Granville Street into the shopping centre.
The proposal would provide a single storey nursery for new born to seven year olds. Car parking would be
provided within the site for eleven cars and a separate pick and drop off facility would be provided on
Kingsley Road.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Greater Manchester Police ALO – Advice provided
Director of Social Services – No observations
Salford Early Years – No objections
Coal Authority – No objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 8th January 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:Units 10 and 12 Ellesmere Retail Park
40 – 62 (even) Granville Street
2 – 16 (even) and 1 – 11 (odd) Kingsley Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received ten letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Access and car parking
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV1 Design Principles, DEV2 Good Design, T13 Car Parking
PLANNING APPRAISAL
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
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. DEV2 seeks a high quality of design. 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.
The building would be sited so that the main entrance would front the pedestrian element of Granville
Street, thus encouraging access from the shopping centre. It would maintain a minimum of 15m to the
nearest residential boundary. The building itself would be 8.2m high slopping back from Kingsley Road to
a height of 5m. Car parking and drop off facilities have been provided to the north of the site. I am of the
opinion that the design of the building, subject to adequate conditions, is acceptable in this location.
The proposal seeks to reuse a vacant site adjacent to Walkden Shopping Centre. I have received ten letters
of objection in response to the application publicity. Concerns have been raised by the residents of
Granville Street with regard to access and car parking provision. The Councils Unitary Development Plan
car parking standards would require six car parking spaces for a development with eighteen full time staff
and a safe pick up and drop off facility. The proposal would provide eleven off street car parking spaces
and a pick up and drop off facility within the curtilage of the site. In addition the site is well linked to the
town centre car park.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that the scheme does satisfy the requirements of policies T13 and DEV1 and
should be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within 6 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
3. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 27th January 2003 which shows a revised
pick up and drop off facility.
4. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls and roof
of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
5. The security shutters 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.
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
6. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
7. The use hereby permitted shall NOT be operated on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays and shall
ONLY be operated between the hours of 8.00 am and 6.00 pm on any other day.
8. Prior to the commencement of development a site investigation report should be submitted for approval
of the Director of Development Services. The investigation shall address the position and any remedial
works required in relation to drainage on the site.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
4. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
7. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
8. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
APPLICATION No:
02/45283/FUL
APPLICANT:
Abbeyvale Management Limited
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To 7 Barton Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a two storey block of five apartments with alterations to
existing vehicular access
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
This application relates to land within the Worsley Village Conservation Area. The site is bounded by on
three sides by residential development with commercial shop and office premises to the south. The site
covers an area of 0.86 hectare and currently comprises part of the garden to 5 Barton Road, The Old Nick, a
grade II Listed Building, a small single storey fabric and interior design shop and a former parking area to
the office premises to the south.
It is proposed to replace the small shop premises with a two storey development comprising five
two-bedroomed apartments. The development would provide a frontage to Barton Road that would have
bedrooms in the roofspace on a second floor. The development would then drop in height and would extend
back to the rear of the site. The development would bridge over the vehicular access to the site and would
adjoin 7 Barton Road which is in use as a hairdressers at ground floor with offices above. A total of six car
parking spaces would be provided.
To the north of the site the building would face a small bungalow that has bathroom and bedroom windows
looking directly towards the proposed building. Windows in the proposed building would be 14.5m away.
In addition windows would overlook the private rear garden areas to both this bungalow and The Old Nick.
SITE HISTORY
A similar application for the development of six apartments was withdrawn recently. Thos submission has
resulted from considerable negotiation with officers regarding the layout and design of the development.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Environment Agency – No objections in principle but request that conditions be attached.
Worsley Civic Trust – No response to date
Worsley Village Community Association – No response to date
The Coal Authority – No objections
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1, 1A, 3 to 9 and 10 to 16 Barton Road
4, 9 and 11 Kenwood Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a total of five letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following
issues have been raised:Overbearing
Loss of privacy
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
Loss of light
Loss of view
Loss of character and not in keeping with the Village
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, EN11 Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas,
DEV2 Good Design
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EN11 states that the City Council will seek to preserve or enhance the special character of areas of
architectural and historic interest. In considering any planning application for development within a
conservation area the City Council will consider the extent to which the development is consistent with the
desirability of preserving or enhancing the conservation area. Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will
have regard to a number of factors when considering applications. These factors include the car parking
provision, the relationship to existing buildings, the effect on neighbouring properties and the visual
appearance of the development. Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant planning
permission unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and the visual appearance of the development.
With regard to the objections that have been received I consider that the issues of loss of privacy, the
overbearing nature of the development and overdevelopment of the site are very finely balanced.
Considerable negotiation has taken place with regard to these issues and the scheme has been amended
more than once to try and ameliorate my concerns.
I do not consider that the development will result in any significant loss of light to any neighbouring
property. Nor do I consider that the development would be out of keeping or character with Worsley
Village.
I consider that the main planning issue is whether or not the development represents an overdevelopment of
the site that has a significant detrimental effect on existing residential accommodation as a result of loss of
privacy and the overbearing nature of the development. A model has been made of the development and I
have marked the position of the bedroom window and existing rear garden of the property about which I am
most concerned. The development has been reduced in size and height. It has been design to fit in well with
existing development in this area and I consider that the road frontage in particular will represent a
significant enhancement of the conservation area, replacing as it does the small retail property that currently
exists.
I remain concerned that the first floor bedroom windows in the proposed development look out on to rear
garden areas of adjacent properties and that the separation distances between habitable room windows is
less that the City Council would normally consider acceptable. These factors must be considered against
the benefits that the application brings in terms of replacing the incongruous single storey building
currently on the site and providing a development that is significantly more in keeping with the character of
the Worsley Village Conservation Area.
I consider that the level of parking is appropriate to the development. Part of the site was until recently used
as parking to the adjacent offices but there is no condition attached to any permission that requires this
parking to remain available. In addition Worsley Village benefits from its own small car park opposite the
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
Court House and although this is often full I do not consider that the development of the site results in a
significant loss of parking
Having weighed the arguments for and against the development my recommendation is very finely
balanced but I consider that the amendments that have been made would result in a development that would
not have such an effect on neighbouring property as to warrant refusal of this application.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
3. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls and roofs
of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
4. Standard Condition F05D Provision of Parking
5. No development shall be commenced until a desk study has been undertaken and agreed in writing by
the Director of Development Services to investigate and produce an assessment of the risk of the
potential for on-site contamination. If the desk study identifies potential contamination a detailed site
investigation shall be carried out to establish the degree and nature of the contamination and its
potential to pollute the environment or cause harm to human health. If remediation measures are
necessary they will be implemented in accordance with the assessment and to the satisfaction of the
Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R006A Character - conservation area
4. Standard Reason R014A Parking of vehicles - each dwelling
5. To ensure a safe form of development that poses no unacceptable risk of pollution in accordance with
policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
APPLICATION No:
02/45290/FUL
APPLICANT:
Manchester Central Board For Hebrew Education &Talmud Torah
LOCATION:
Site Of Former Public Convenience Adj To Northumberland Street
And Leicester Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing building and erection of a three storey office
building (Class A2)
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to former toilets at the junction of Northumberland Street and Leicester Road. The
site is owned by the City Council and the toilets have been closed for the last few years. The site has a
frontage to Leicester Road of some 14m and extends back by the same distance. To the north is the car park
of a school and to the south are other office buildings. The junction of Northumberland Street and Leicester
Road is to be altered to a roundabout in the near future.
It is proposed to construct a three storey office building on the site. The building would measure 12m by
11m and would fill the plot. It would be set back from the back of pavement by approximately 3m. A total
of 250sq.m of floorspace would be created. No parking spaces would be provided and the creation of the
roundabout would make any vehicular access from Leicester Road impossible.
There are a total of five trees growing immediately around the existing toilet building. These would be lost
as a result of the development of the site.
The building would be faced in brick and would have 2 sections of full height glazing. The building has
been design to have a sloping roof and curved brickwork to the front elevation.
The applicant has supplied information regarding the use stating that the building would be occupied by just
one full time employee and that the main use of the building is for the storage of records that go back over
122 years. Meetings of the Board are held every quarter and are held in the evening or on Sundays.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No response to date
Broughton Park residents Association – No response to date
Environment Agency – No objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No response to date
PUBLICITY
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:Bnos Yisroel School, The Old Library House Leicester Road
Cherry Trees Nursing Home Mandley Park Avenue
41 to 45 Northumberland Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. Such factors include the nature of the proposed use, the likely scale and type of traffic
generation, car parking provision, the effect on neighbouring properties, the visual appearance of the
development and its impact on trees. Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant
planning permission unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and the visual appearance of the
development.
I have received no objections to the proposed development. The applicant is a charity and only one floor of
the building would be used as offices, the rest being used for the storage of records. The applicant has
attempted to secure off road parking but this has improved impossible beyond an informal agreement. I am
satisfied however, that the particular use by the applicant would not result in any significant parking or
servicing requirements.
I consider that the main planning issue is whether the development of this site is possible at all and if it is
then is this proposed building acceptable.
Firstly I consider that the site could not be developed without the loss of the five trees mentioned above. In
addition, as a result of improvements to the highway, it is impossible to provide on site parking for this site.
If it is considered that either of these two facts take precedence then the site will remain undeveloped.
I am of the opinion that in this particular circumstance the development of this site by this applicant is
acceptable. The likely amount of traffic generation is minimal and an informal agreement to use spaces
adjacent to the building on the school site has been reached. The design of the building is distinctive and
not without merit. It will have no significant detrimental effect on any neighbouring property.
I consider that a personal planning permission should be granted to the applicant only and that the use of the
property should be restricted to similar organisations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
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 six 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. The trees referred to in Condition 2 shall be provided, at a ratio of two new trees for each tree removed,
and at the applicant's expense, in a nearby location to be agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
4. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the elevations of the
development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.
5. This permission shall enure for the benefit of the applicant, The Manchester Board for Hebrew
Education, only.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
5. Standard Reason R022A Inadequate provision for parking
APPLICATION No:
02/45293/FUL
APPLICANT:
Salford RC Diocesan Trustees Registered
LOCATION:
St Marks R C Primary School Queensway Clifton Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of extension to link nursery with main school building
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
This application relates to an established school on the busy Queensway. The proposal is to erect a small
link extension to join the nursery to the school. There is currently a canopy between the school and nursery
and provides one of two access points to the nursery.
This proposal would measure 2.7m (w) X 5.3m and would match the height of the existing flat roofed
structures. The extension would be no higher than the existing canopy and would not be visible from Rake
Lane and would be approximately 55m from the nearest property on Queensway.
SITE HISTORY
In October 2000, planning permission was granted for a 2m high fence around the front of the school and
across the playing fields to the rear (ref. 00/41133/DEEM3).
In February 2001, planning permission was granted for the erection of 2.4m high palisade fence to the north
western site boundary (ref. 00/41595/DEEM3)
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
9 - 27 (odd) Queensway
90 – 120 (even) Rake Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Traffic Congestion
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account
when determining planning applications, these include the visual appearance of the development and its
relationship to its surroundings.
The objection received makes reference to an increase in traffic generation that a new extension would have
on the immediate area. This proposal would only provide a small link from the school to the nursery and
would not create any additional classroom space. Therefore I do not consider that this proposal would
increase traffic generation in the area or have any adverse effect on any of the neighbouring residents.
RECOMMENDATION:
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
59
6th February 2003
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
APPLICATION No:
02/45140/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Westwood Park Community Primary School
LOCATION:
Westwood Park Nursery School Grasmere Crescent Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4m high palisade fencing and gates
WARD:
Winton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a Nursery School in a residential area, the frontage is on Grasmere Crescent. The
playground is to the rear and is adjacent an education centre with a large car park that is also to the rear of
the Nursery School.
The proposal is to replace the existing 1.5m railings with new 2.4m palisade fencing along both side
boundaries and to the rear, the proposal would also include one pedestrian gate at the side of the site. The
palisade fencing would be single pronged and be powder coated Classic Green.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on the 3rd December 2002
The following neighbours were notified of the application:22-28 (evens) and 37 – 47 (odds) Grasmere Crescent
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV4 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 seeks to ensure development fits in with surroundings and does not interfere with residential
amenity. Policy DEV4 encourages measures that will improve security and lead to crime prevention.
Part of the south-east boundary is shared with the side garden of a residential property, the residential
property has 2m wooden fence on the side boundary, I would not consider the additional height of the
fencing to have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring property.
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
The south-west boundary borders a pedestrian path approx. 3m wide with the side boundary of No.24
beyond that, the fencing would be set back 8m from Grasmere Crescent to the rear of the school building, I
would not consider this element to have a detrimental impact on the street scene and would consider it to
improve security at the school.
I have no objections on highway grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The palisade fencing and gates shall be galvanised and polyester powder coated green prior to or within
one month of their installation, and kept as such thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/45262/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Salford Youth Service
LOCATION:
Land Off Kersal Way Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of youth shelter
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land on Kersal Way and seeks the erection of a youth shelter. The shelter would
be located approximately 110m north of Rushley Avenue and west of the walkway along the embankments
of the river Irwell. The shelter would measure 5m in length X 3m wide and 2.5m high and would be sited
on a hard standing measuring 20m X 10m.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published in the Advertiser 9th January 2003
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
Two site notices were displayed on 6th January 2003
Three further site notices, location plans and pictures were displayed within Peninsula Building and
Tilehurst Court and the public footpath, Rushley Avenue
The following neighbours were notified of the application:41 – 51 Rushley Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Anti-social behaviour
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H8/3
Other policies:
DEV1 Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors in determining
applications for planning permission, including the location and nature of the proposed development and
the visual appearance of the development.
The application has been put forward by Salford Youth Services on behalf of a group of young people who
have been actively looking for a suitable site. Funding has already be secured (subject to planning
approval) for the shelter and a repair/maintenance budget for one year.
I have received three letters of objection is response to the application publicity which make reference to
experiences and existing anti social behaviour in the area.
The site is currently allocated for housing improvement and renewal. The granting of any unlimited
planning permission could prejudice the eventual redevelopment of the site. However, I am of the opinion
that should this proposal be approved a condition limiting the time period of the scheme would not conflict
with policy H8/3. I am of the opinion that the main planning issue to consider is the impact on the existing
neighbouring residential uses.
Although I sympathise with the comments raised by the objections, I do not consider that this proposal
would exacerbate the existing anti social behaviour to which they refer. The walkway along the bank of the
river Irwell has recently been improved and a new 2.4m palisade fence has been erected which would act as
a physical barrier between the walkway and the proposed shelter, thus reducing the potential fear of crime
associated to groups of young people. The proposal itself would maintain a distance of 90m to Pennisula
building and 110m to the properties on Rushley Avenue.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that this proposal should be approved subject to the following conditions to
safeguard the eventual redevelopment of the site.
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The use and structure hereby permitted shall cease and all structures removed on or before the
expiration of a period of 12 months from the date of decision unless a further permission is granted by
the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Reason: The site lies in an area which is to be redeveloped for housing purposes and the granting of an
unlimited planning permission would prejudice the eventual redevelopment of the site for these
purposes in accordance with policy H8/3 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/45279/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Development Services Directorate
LOCATION:
Shopping Parade Brookhouse Avenue Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Installation of three wall mounted CCTV cameras and one pole
mounted CCTV camera
WARD:
Barton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the siting of four CCTV cameras at ‘Brookhouse Avenue Shopping Parade’, Peel
Green. This includes three ‘anti-vandal’ static dome cameras 6/7metres high to the front of the building and
one pole mounted (8metres high) ‘PTZ dome’ snowdrop camera at the rear with anti-climb bracket.
The site is in the centre of the Brookhouse estate, a western suburb of Eccles (although separated by the
M60), and predominantly residential with a primary school nearby.
SITE HISTORY
In 2002, planning permission was granted for the installation of new roller shutters to shop fronts and
security fencing and gates to rear service area (02/44560/DEEM3).
In 1998, planning permission was granted for the erection of a detached dwelling adjacent to the rear of the
shops on land previously used for garages (98/38329/FUL).
PUBLICITY
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
A site notice was displayed on 8th January 2003.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1 The Incumbent, St. Gilbert’s Catholic Church
1 to 7 Boddington Road
94, 96, 98a Brookhouse Avenue
83 to 93 (o) Brookhouse Avenue
22 & 24 Cardwell Road
2 Hiley Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV1 – development criteria
DEV4 – design & crime
S4 – Local shopping
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The policies identified above allow for improvements to this local retail centre, with regard to issues of
crime prevention through deterrent as identified in Policy DEV4. This creates opportunity for the shops to
function within a safe secure environment through improvement schemes, in line with Policy S4.
The proposal includes three CCTV snowdrop cameras to be wall-mounted 6/7metres high on the front of
the building. These will not prove to be visually intrusive and I consider this to be acceptable with regard to
surrounding residential amenity.
I conclude that in regarding the need for crime deterrent & public safety, residential privacy and amenity,
this application will conform to policies DEV4 & DEV1 and I therefore consider this application to be
acceptable.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The CCTV cameras hereby approved shall not be directed toward residential properties.
3. The CCTV cameras and pole 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.
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV8 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/45302/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Miss M M Neil
LOCATION:
St Boniface RC Primary School Yew Street Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4m high railings and gates to front elevation and 2.4m
palisade fencing to the side boundary adjacent to the footpath and to
the rear boundary with Great Clowes Street
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing school. The proposal is to erect a 2.4m high fence around part of the
front and side boundary. Across the vehicular entrance on Yew Street, around the school house and along
the Yew Street frontage, it is intended to have a railing design of fence. Along the side boundary with the
footpath and behind the Great Clowes Street boundary, it is proposed to have palisade fencing. It would all
be powder coated.
PUBLICITY
Site notices were displayed on 10 January 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:81 Grecian Street North
7, 10-20 (even),13, 24-44 (even) Yew Street
Builders Yard Yew Street
266 Great Clowes Street
1-36 St. Johns Court, Great Clowes Street
Holly Court Priory Grove
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th February 2003
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV4 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The school is currently experiencing security problems and there is a need for proper fencing to secure the
site. It is proposed to have a railing style fence along the Yew Street frontage, where it faces houses. The
boundary to the footpath has a concrete panel fence which would remain with the palisade fence set back.
Therefore, the existing boundary would provide some screening. Along the boundary with Great Clowes
Street, there is a drop in level from the back of the pavement, and the proposed fence would be set in about
7m from the boundary. Therefore I am satisfied that this fence would not be particularly visible from Great
Clowes Street.
Given the design of the fence on Yew Street, and the screening for the other boundaries, I do not consider
that the fences would have a detrimental effect on either the houses or on the amenity of the street scene in
general.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The fencing hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior to the
commencement of the development by the Director of Development Services.
3. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 9 January 2003 which shows additional
fencing around the side and rear boundary..
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
67
6th February 2003