PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
APPLICATION No:
02/44733/FUL
APPLICANT:
T.B.S. Fabrications Ltd
LOCATION:
T.B.S. Fabrications Ltd Martens Road Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Erection of extension to existing extract ducting from factory unit
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an employment site on Northbank Industrial Estate that is adjacent to residential
properties of Anglers Rest and Atherton Lane. The site itself is bounded by industrial units on Martens
Road to the east and Brinell Drive to the north whilst the railway embankment is to the south. Siemens Road
is to the west of the site with the nearest residential property on Anglers Rest 27 metres away from the
building.
Members will recall that planning permission was approved by the Panel in 2000 for the erection of a
warehouse/office building at this site, with a ridge height of 12 metres, which has been built in accordance
with that approval. However the current use of the building falls within a general industrial classification,
the applicant (TBS) has moved his premises from an adjacent site, and requires separate planning
permission for the operation being undertaken. An application to retain this use also appears on this agenda
(02/45086/COU). The general industrial use, consisting of the lamination of kitchen furniture, has resulted
in noise emitting from the site which has caused nuisance to residents of properties of Anglers Rest and
Atherton Lane. At present six extract ducts are directed toward the properties on Anglers Rest and Atherton
Lane at about half way up the building.
This application is for six stack systems that would take the extract system in closed 600mm diameter
extract ducts up the side of the building to two metres above the ridge height. The applicant has stated these
ducts would be coloured to match the blue and grey of the building.
SITE HISTORY
In 1997, planning permission was granted for the erection of three storey offices with undercroft /
semi-basement car parking (97/37246/TPDC).
In 2000, planning permission was granted for the erection of a building to provide three warehouse/light
industrial units, four-three storey office buildings together with associated car parking and alterations to
vehicular access (99/40045/FUL).
In 2000, planning permission was granted for the erection of a building to provide three warehouse/light
industrial units, four-three storey office buildings together with associated car parking and alterations to
vehicular access (00/40842/FUL).
Also In 2000, planning permission was granted for the erection of a building to provide three
warehouse/office units, four-three storey office buildings together with associated car parking and
alterations to vehicular access (00/41269/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to the imposition of conditions restricting noise
levels, imposition of silencers.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 26th September 2002.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:14, 19, 21 & 27 Anglers Rest
A public meeting was also held on the 6th February 2003 to discuss this and the associated retention of use
application.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received nine letters and a 34 name petition objecting to the application in response to the application
publicity. The following issues have been raised:Original application no mention of industrial use
Noise Levels are excessive and affects sleep and watching TV
Source of noise should be moved to other side of factory
Emissions are a danger to health
Stacks would not look attractive and would devalue properties
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EN20 Pollution Control
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EN20 seeks, to protect residential amenity including the potential level of environmental pollution
including noise nuisance.
With regard to objections on the grounds that the original application did not include general industrial use
I would agree that it did not. The application was processed and approved by members as an
office/warehousing application. The building was then built in accordance with those approved plans
however the subsequent use does not have the benefit of planning permission. Under the Town and Country
Planning Act it is not illegal to undertake a use without planning permission and as an application to retain
and therefore regularise the use also appears on this agenda I consider that the relevant issues to consider are
the noise/emissions and visual appearance of the proposal and effects upon residential amenity.
Complaints have been received by the Directorate of Environmental Services with regard to noise levels at
the site. The Director of Environmental Services has undertaken background noise readings at midnight at
the boundary of the site when TBS were not operating and daytime background noise levels have been
undertaken at the nearest noise sensitive premises. The daytime measurement proves with regard to British
Standards that the noise complaints are justified at present. The Directorate of Environmental Services have
advised me that a noise level of 52dB(A) would be acceptable at the nearest noise sensitive premises.
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
The Director of Environmental Services has advised the applicant to employ a consultant to produce a
report to investigate any mitigation for the noise disturbance. Results of this investigation recommended
that the installation of six discharge attenuators to the six spray booth discharge fans would achieve
52dB(A) at the site boundary. Local residents have suggested that mitigation could come from moving the
fans to the other side of the building. I have requested that the applicant move the fans however for financial
reasons the applicant can not do this. Under the best practicable means method of assessing mitigation the
Directorate of Environmental Services are satisfied that the installation of the six attenuators would provide
an acceptable noise output with respect to residential amenity. I am also of the opinion that this option
would result in an acceptable noise output from the site.
Objection has been raised to emissions from the applicants building being a danger to health. Air quality at
the site has also been assessed by the Director of Environmental Services who advises me that the existing
situation is within the limits as prescribed under the applicants authorisation provided by the Environmental
Protection Act, 1990. In order to increase dispersal the Director of Environmental Services recommends six
stacks to a height of 14m (2m above the ridge height) with a diameter of 600mm. As an additional measure
the Director of Environmental Services has instructed a consultant, Dr McCann, to investigate further the
health fears of local residents. Should any negative findings ensue and be attributed to TBS the Director of
Environmental Services will be able to take action under the Environmental Protection Act, 1990.
The appearance of the stacks has also been raised as a matter of concern for residents. The six stacks would
be situated on the elevation facing the rear of two houses on Anglers Rest and at an angle to other properties
on Anglers Rest and Atherton Lane. This elevation is 76m wide and 12m high to the parapet. Given the size
of the stacks at a height of 14m and diameter of 600mm and relationship to the parent building would not in
my opinion, if colour treated to match the building, result in a detrimental impact upon the appearance of
the building.
It is clear from the objections received that the existing operation causes nearby residents concern from
noise and emissions. As discussed above mitigation has been investigated by the applicant. This mitigation
is considered acceptable by the Director of Environmental Services to ensure appropriate noise levels are
maintained. Also discussed above the operation is within the levels of the authorisation under the
Environmental Protection Act. As such I consider that the proposed mitigation along with the
recommended conditions will result in an operation that sits comfortably with surrounding residential uses.
In order to limit detrimental effects upon residents I recommend that the mitigation measures be imposed
without delay and appropriate conditions to limit noise and protect residential amenity are attached to an
approval of this application.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The noise attenuation measures included in this application shall be installed and be operational within
two months of the date of this permission.
2. The rating level of the noise emitted from any fixed plant and equipment associated with the
development shall not exceed the existing background noise (measured as 47dB LA90 ) by more
than5dB(A). The noise level shall be measured at the nearest noise-sensitive premises. The
measurement and assessment shall be made in accordance to BS4142:1997 'Method for Rating Noise
Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas'.
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
4. The six spray booths situated at Siemens Road façade shall have noise attenuators installed (as per
noise report provided by Allaway Acoustics, March 2002) in order to achieve 52 dB(A) at the site
boundary.
5. The height of the six spray booth stacks shall, as per submitted amended drawing 02/44733/FUL
(received 24.10.2002), terminate 2m above the ridge height with a stack diameter of 600mm.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/45076/HH
APPLICANT:
G W Bidder
LOCATION:
48 Lord Street Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Retention of 2m high fence
WARD:
Blackfriars
This application was considered by the Planning and Regulatory Panel on the 6th February 2003 but
the applicant and objector had not been notified.
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
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
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.
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:
02/45086/COU
APPLICANT:
TBS Fabrications Limited
LOCATION:
T.B.S. Fabrications Ltd Martens Road Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Continued use of premises for B1/B8 uses with additional B2 use
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
20th February 2003
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an employment site on Northbank Industrial Estate that is adjacent to residential
properties of Anglers Rest and Atherton Lane. The site itself is bounded by industrial units on Martens
Road to the east and Brinell Drive to the north whilst the railway embankment is to the south. Siemens Road
is to the west of the site with the nearest residential property on Anglers Rest 27 metres away from the
building.
Members will recall that planning permission was approved by the Panel in 2000 for the erection of a
warehouse/office building at this site, with a ridge height of 12 metres, which has been built in accordance
with that approval. However the current use of the building falls within a general industrial classification,
the applicant (TBS) has moved his premises from an adjacent site, and requires separate planning
permission for the operation being undertaken.
This application is to retain this use within the general industrial use category. The use being undertaken
consists of the lamination of kitchen furniture, which has resulted in noise emitting from the site which has
caused nuisance to residents of properties of Anglers Rest and Atherton Lane. At present six extract ducts
are directed toward the properties on Anglers Rest and Atherton Lane at about half way up the building.
A separate application, 02/44733/FUL also presented for a decision on this agenda, is for six stack systems
that would take the extract system in closed 600mm diameter extract ducts up the side of the building to two
metres above the ridge height.
SITE HISTORY
In 1997, planning permission was granted for the erection of three storey offices with undercroft /
semi-basement car parking (97/37246/TPDC).
In 2000, planning permission was granted for the erection of a building to provide three warehouse/light
industrial units, four-three storey office buildings together with associated car parking and alterations to
vehicular access (99/40045/FUL).
In 2000, planning permission was granted for the erection of a building to provide three warehouse/light
industrial units, four-three storey office buildings together with associated car parking and alterations to
vehicular access (00/40842/FUL).
Also In 2000, planning permission was granted for the erection of a building to provide warehouse/office
units, three-three storey office buildings together with associated car parking and alterations to vehicular
access (00/41269/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to the imposition of conditions restricting noise
levels, imposition of silencers.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 26th September 2002.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:-
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
2 – 14 even & 11 - 21 Anglers Rest
15, 19, 25, 27, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 45, 49 Atherton Lane
A public meeting was also held on the 6th February 2003 to discuss this and the associated retention of use
application.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received fifteen letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues
have been raised:Original application no mention of industrial use
Noise Levels are excessive and affects sleep and watching TV
Source of noise should be moved to other side of factory
Emissions are a danger to health
Stacks would not look attractive and would devalue properties
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EN20 Pollution Control, EC1 A Balanced Portfolio of Sites, EC13/31 Sites for Industry
and Warehousing/Northbank
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EN20 seeks, to protect residential amenity including the potential level of environmental pollution
including noise nuisance on neighbouring properties. Policy EC1 seeks to ensure adequate facilities for
employment including industry where this is compatible with the surrounding area whilst Policy EC13/31
states that Northbank will be acceptable for Industrial uses given the good physical communications in the
area.
With regard to objections on the grounds that the original application did not include general industrial use
I would agree that it did not. The application was processed and approved by members as an
office/warehousing application. The building was then built in accordance with those approved plans
however the subsequent use does not have the benefit of planning permission. Under the Town and Country
Planning Act it is not illegal to undertake a use without planning permission and as this application is to
retain and therefore regularise the use I consider that the relevant issues to consider are the noise/emissions
and visual appearance of the proposal and effects upon residential amenity which will in effect determine
whether this use is acceptable at this location.
Complaints have been received by the Directorate of Environmental Services with regard to noise levels at
the site. The Director of Environmental Services has undertaken background noise readings at midnight at
the boundary of the site when TBS were not operating and daytime background noise levels have been
undertaken at the nearest noise sensitive premises. The daytime measurement proves with regard to British
Standards that the noise complaints are justified at present. The Directorate of Environmental Services have
advised me that a noise level of 52dB(A) would be acceptable at the nearest noise sensitive premises.
The Director of Environmental Services has advised the applicant to employ a consultant to produce a
report to investigate any mitigation for the noise disturbance. Results of this investigation recommended
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
that the installation of six discharge attenuators to the six spray booth discharge fans would achieve
52dB(A) at the site boundary. Local residents have suggested that mitigation could come from moving the
fans to the other side of the building. I have requested that the applicant move the fans however for financial
reasons the applicant can not do this. Under the best practicable means method of assessing mitigation the
Directorate of Environmental Services are satisfied that the installation of the six attenuators would provide
an acceptable noise output with respect to residential amenity. I am also of the opinion that this option
would result in an acceptable noise output from the site.
Objection has been raised to emissions from the applicants building being a danger to health. Air quality at
the site has also been assessed by the Director of Environmental Services who advises me that the existing
situation is within the limits as prescribed under the applicants authorisation provided by the Environmental
Protection Act, 1990. In order to increase dispersal the Director of Environmental Services recommends six
stacks to a height of 14m (2m above the ridge height) with a diameter of 600mm. As an additional measure
the Director of Environmental Services has instructed a consultant, Dr McCann, to investigate further the
health fears of local residents. Should any negative findings ensue and be attributed to TBS the Director of
Environmental Services will be able to take action under the Environmental Protection Act, 1990.
Residents have also raised the issue of wood shavings being blown over the cars and windows form the
operation. The applicant advises me that wood shavings do not leave the building via the vents as wood
cutting is not undertaken in the spray booth area and a filter is placed on the vent. Wood cuttings/shavings
are currently stored in skips at the rear of the site where wind could blow shavings toward residences. In
order to restrict this a condition has been imposed to prevent open storage at the side of the building facing
Anglers Rest.
The appearance of the stacks has also been raised as a matter of concern for residents. The six stacks would
be situated on the elevation facing the rear of two houses on Anglers Rest and at an angle to other properties
on Anglers Rest and Atherton Lane. This elevation is 76m wide and 12m high to the parapet. Given the size
of the stacks at a height of 14m and diameter of 600mm and relationship to the parent building would not in
my opinion, if colour treated to match the building, result in a detrimental impact upon the appearance of
the building.
It is clear from the objections received that the existing operation causes nearby residents concern from
noise and emissions. As discussed above mitigation has been investigated by the applicant. This mitigation
is considered acceptable by the Director of Environmental Services to ensure appropriate noise levels are
ensured. Also discussed above the operation is within the levels of the authorisation under the
Environmental Protection Act. As such I consider that the proposed mitigation along with the
recommended conditions will result in an operation that sits comfortably with surrounding residential uses.
I have no highway objections to this proposal. In order to limit detrimental effects upon residents I
recommend that the mitigation measures be imposed without delay and as such appropriate conditions to
limit noise and protect residential amenity are attached to an approval of this application. If these measures
are implemented then I consider the use would be in accordance with Policy EC1 and EC13/31 as the site
would then continue to provide over 100 jobs including employment for local people. As long as the
mitigation measures are adopted I recommend this use within the general industrial classification is
approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
1. The noise attenuation measures and stack systems included in the application 02/44733/FUL shall be
installed and be operational within two months of the date of this permission and shall thereafter remain
in situ and be maintained to achieve the required attenuation.
2. The rating level of the noise emitted from any fixed plant and equipment associated with the
development shall not exceed the existing background noise (measured as 47dB LA90 ) by more
than5dB(A). The noise level shall be measured at the nearest noise-sensitive premises. The
measurement and assessment shall be made in accordance to BS4142:1997 'Method for Rating Noise
Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas'.
3. No external plant or equipment shall be permitted, nor shall any additional openings be formed in the
elevations or roof of the building which directly ventilate the building or which discharge from any
internal plant or equipment, without the prior written permission of the local planning authority.
4. No outside storage shall take place unless with the prior written approval of the Local Planning
Authority.
5. The use hereby permitted shall NOT be operated on Sundays and Bank Holidays and shall ONLY be
operated between the hours of 06:00 and 22:00 Mondays to Fridays and 06:00 and 12:00 on Saturdays.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/45103/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr Valentine
LOCATION:
9 Lyndhurst Avenue Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension and single storey rear extension
and erection of front porch
WARD:
Irlam
At the meeting of the Panel held on the 16th January 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
My previous observations are set out below:DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property within a residential area. The proposal is for the
erection of a two-storey side extension, a single storey rear extension and a front porch. The side extension
would extend 8.4m back from the front main wall of the property and be 2.2m in width. The second floor
would be set back 2m from the front main wall and be flush with the existing rear main wall. The single
storey rear extension would project approximately 2.2m from the existing rear main of the dwelling and be
flush with the gable wall of the side extension. The front porch would project 1.4m from the front wall of
the property and measure approximately 3m in width. All elements of the proposal would have sloping
roofs. The two-storey side extension would have bedroom windows front and rear, and the rear extension
would have patio doors. There are no houses to the rear of the property.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application;
7,11,2 Lyndhurst Avenue,
58-68(e) The De Traffords.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a written objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have been
raised:Loss of light to the dining room.
Overbearing.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: Dev8
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Dev8 states that permission would be granted if the extension would not have an unacceptable adverse
impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of its overlooking, overshadowing, dominance,
loss of privacy or light.
The objection is based on the loss of light to a room that is on the gable of 7 Lyndhurst Avenue. There are
two light giving windows to this room that is used as a dining room and a 2nd living room. However I
consider there is limited light to this room as it stands due to the position of the window. The extension
would restrict light to the dining room even more and so have a significantly detrimental impact on the
amenity of the neighbours.
The second objection is with regards to the extension being overbearing to the adjacent property. The
Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions, Guidance Note HH3 states that there should be a
distance of 13m between the main habitable room window and a facing blank gable wall of an extension.
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
Although there is currently a distance of 4.8m between the window and the existing gable, to extend
sideways would reduce this to 2.4m resulting in a further unacceptable adverse impact on this window and
therefore be overbearing to the property.
I consider that the loss of light to the dining room would be significantly detrimental to the amenity of the
neighbours due to loss of light to a main habitable room and the overbearing nature of the side extension
and so contrary to Dev8 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan, therefore I recommend the application
for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. Standard Reason RR34C Neighbouring Residents - Size/Siting
APPLICATION No:
02/45104/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr Waller
LOCATION:
22 Clifton Drive Wardley Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension
WARD:
Swinton North
At the meeting of the Panel held on the 16th January 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property on the corner of Clifton Drive and Heys Avenue. All
the houses on this corner are angled diagonally into the junction, rather than square on. The proposal is to
erect a two storey side extension to provide a large kitchen and ground floor shower room, with two
additional bedrooms on the first floor. It would project out 3m from the side of the house, lining up with the
front main wall of the house, and it would be 7.3m in length, so that it would not be the full length of the
house.
SITE HISTORY
In 1976, planning permission was granted for a two storey rear office.
PUBLICITY
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:24, 31, Clifton Drive
15 Heys Avenue
4 Warwick Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a letter of objections from the occupiers of the neighbouring property. The objectors state
that the proposed extension would project forward of the building line so that it would affect sunlight to
their property, they would suffer a loss in property value and that it would affect the whole look of this
corner by projecting forward.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV 8 states that planning permission would normally be granted where an extension does not have
an unacceptably adverse impact on neighbours or on the character and appearance of the street scene. Also
it seeks to ensure that the extension would not have an adverse effect on the house itself by reason of its
siting, height, massing design and appearance.
I have considered the application in relation to the neighbours, and in particular in relation to the objector’s
in the adjoining property. The neighbouring property has its kitchen window which would face in the
direction of the extension. Although the neighbour uses this room a lot of the day, I would not normally
consider that a kitchen is a habitable room that would need protecting in the same way. Also the angling of
the relationship between the two houses would mean that the proposed extension should not totally obscure
the whole view from this kitchen.
However, I am concerned about the appearance of the extension within the street scene. As it is intended to
line the extension along the front elevation, it would mean that this extension would project out further into
the street scene and I would consider that it would be a very dominant feature. Other properties around this
corner that have been extended to the back part of the side, so that the extensions are less prominent in the
street scene. This also has the effect of reducing the dominance of the extensions. I would consider that by
siting this extension to the front of the house, it creates a larger, more dominant effect on the applicants
house itself.
I have given the applicants the opportunity for the extension to be reduced and pushed back. However, they
state that they would have difficulty with the existing garage and therefore ask that the scheme be
determined as submitted.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would be contrary to Policy DEV8 of the City of Salford Unitary
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
Development Plan and City of Salford Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions and an
unduly obtrusive feature in the street-scene and would seriously injure the visual amenity of the area by
reason of size, siting and design.
APPLICATION No:
02/45186/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
At the meeting of the Panel held on the 6th February 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:-
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
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
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
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
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
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
02/45195/HH
APPLICANT:
M Fahey
LOCATION:
12 Nansen Avenue Monton Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey rear extension
WARD:
Eccles
At the meeting of the Panel held on the 16th January 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a semi-detached property. The proposed extension is L-shaped measuring 2.74
metres along the boundary with the neighbouring property. The other element of the extension is set 2.1m
from the boundary and would project 1.87 metres.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:10 and 14 Nansen Avenue
42-44 Canal Bank.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised: 1. Loss of light.
2. Effect on value of property.
3. Spoiled view.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
Other policies: DEV8-House Extensions.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 states that permission would be granted if the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse
impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance,
loss of privacy or light.
The objector sites loss of light as a concern. The extension along the boundary with the adjoining neighbour
projects 2.74m and is within the guidelines detailed in the Supplementary Planning Guidance for House
Extensions. Guidance Note HH9 which states that extensions along the boundary should only project
2.74m. Therefore I do not consider that this element of the extension would be significantly detrimental to
the light of these neighbours.
Furthermore the element of the extension that is set away from the boundary would project less than the
distance from the boundary; therefore I do not consider this element would be significantly detrimental to
the light of these neighbours and would not be visible from the adjacent main habitable rooms of 10 Nansen
Avenue.
The objector is also concerned that the extension would have a detrimental impact on the value of the
property, this is not a planning issue.
Therefore as the extension meets the guidelines within the Supplementary Planning Guidance for House
Extensions, I recommend the application be approved
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the brickwork and roofing of the development shall be the same
type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/45196/HH
APPLICANT:
G Hewitt
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
LOCATION:
32 Roe Green Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey side and rear extension, two storey side and
rear extension and side porch
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
At the meeting of the Panel held on the 16th January 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached cottage within the Conservation Area and has now been amended
from that originally submitted, in order to reduce the size of the extensions still further. The proposal is to
demolish the existing single storey garage to the side of the house. It is then intended to rebuild the garage
and erect a first floor extension over part of the garage. The first floor would be set in between 2.3 m and
3.1m from the boundary with the garden to no. 28. It would have an obscured, en-suite window facing no.
28, and the main window facing forward across Roe Green. It is also proposed to erect a rear dining room,
nearer to no. 28, a kitchen extension behind the garage and a small front porch.
SITE HISTORY
In May 2002, planning permission was refused for a larger 2 storey side and rear extension and a
conservatory, because of the effect on the Conservation Area, the neighbouring properties and on the trees
within the site.
A provisional Tree Preservation Order was made in April 2002 to protect 3 larch trees and 1 oak. Following
an objection and the submission of further structural details, it was agreed that the oak and 1 larch were not
to be protected and the order was amended to protect only 2 larch.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – The proposed extension would not be significantly nearer to the 2
protected trees and therefore would not have any objections.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published
A site notice was displayed on 17 December 2002
The following neighbours were notified of the application:26, 28 & 34 Roe Green
REPRESENTATIONS
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
I have received a letter from the occupier of 28 Roe Green, albeit these comments are based on the
originally submitted scheme, which has been amended and reduced slightly. The comments are as follows:
the building is within an important position in Roe Green and any additions would have an
impact on the immediate area
the character of the area could be eroded if such houses are allowed to over-develop
the size of the extension would be too large and would over dominate their house and garden,
which is set at a lower level
it would affect light into their house and garden
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House extensions
EN11 – Protection and enhancement of Conservation Areas
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EN11 seeks to protect the Conservation Area, by ensuring that have a high standard of development
which are in keeping with the character of the area.
Policy DEV8 seeks to ensure that any house extensions do not affect the amenity of the neighbouring
residents and that of the street scene in general.
The application that is now under consideration has been reduced from the previously refused proposal. The
proposed first floor over the garage has been reduced away from the boundary with the neighbouring
garden and further away from the front boundary. The single storey garage would all have a pitched roof,
and the overall height of the proposed first floor extension would be lower than the existing house. This has
the overall effect of making the two storey extension slightly less of a dominant feature compared to the
existing house.
I have also considered the possible effect on the amenity of the neighbouring properties, and in particular
the occupiers of no. 28 Roe Green, who could be most affected. This proposal has reduced the amount of
first floor extension away from the neighbours cottage. The separation distance would exceed the minimum
9 metres as there would be just over 12m between the neighbour’s bedroom window and the proposed first
floor extension, which would have only a obscured bathroom window. The relationship between the two
walls would be slightly off-set, and therefore I am of the opinion that this would provide an adequate
separation between the two properties.
The amended plans now under consideration has set the first floor element away from the neighbour’s
boundary to between 2.3m and 3.1m. I am of the opinion that this would help reduce the impact of this
additional first floor to the neighbour’s garden, so that there would be less of an overbearing affect on their
garden area.
The applicants are also proposing a single storey dining room, on the side towards no. 28. The design of this
would now include no rear facing window, in order to prevent any possible loss of privacy to the
neighbour’s bedroom window, even though this would have been angled relationship. This extension would
also be partially obscured by a new 2m high fence that has been erected along the boundary.
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
I do not consider that the overall size would now be over development of this building within the
Conservation Area. I would also consider that the proposed extensions would comply with the Council’s
SPG for house extensions, and in doing so would not have a significantly adverse effect on the
neighbouring residents. I am satisfied the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the
Conservation Area.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Since preparing my report, I have received 4 additional letters of objection to the proposal. The grounds of
objection are similar to those already raised, namely over development, detrimental effect on the
neighbouring properties, detrimental effect on the appearance and the character of the Conservation Area.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
3. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)
Order 1995, and any subsequent order, no additional windows may be installed within this property
without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
APPLICATION No:
02/45202/HH
APPLICANT:
R Bromiley
LOCATION:
25 Brackley Road Eccles
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
PROPOSAL:
Erection of double detached garage
WARD:
Eccles
20th February 2003
At the meeting of the Panel held on the 16th January 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:-
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached property. The proposal is for the erection of a double garage with a
hipped roof. The garage would measure 7.6m x 5.5m and be 4.3m to the ridgeline with a roof feature 0.5m
above this. The gable of the garage would be along the boundary with 14 Monton Green. There is currently
a garage sited where the replacement would be erected. There is another application on this agenda that is
for the erection of a double garage with storage space in the roof. The garage sited in the other application
would be located directly opposite the garage in this application along the boundary with 12 Monton Green.
SITE HISTORY
In November 2002, planning permission was refused due to its size and siting. Previous application was
02/44811/HH.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application: 23 and 27 Brackley Road
10-16 Monton Green.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 2 letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised: Overbearing
Loss of light to the neighbouring garden.
Loss of amenity in the neighbouring garden.
Out of character with the area.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV8
PLANNING APPRAISAL
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
DEV8 states that permission would be granted if the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse
impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance,
loss of privacy or light.
An objector cites loss of light to his garden as a concern. The garage would be sited along the boundary with
14 Monton Green and erected in place of one of the existing garages along this boundary. The gable end of
the garage would face the property behind and the garage would measure 2.3m to the eves. I do not consider
that the garage would cause a significant loss of light to the gardens to the rear, as the garage would have the
gable facing these properties.
One objection is that garage would have detrimental impact on the rear ground floor room in the property
behind. The objector has stated there are plans in the near future to convert this to a morning room.
However the room is currently a utility room and this is the basis on which I must consider the application
and so I do not consider this to be a main habitable room in need of protection from loss of light.
The objector also cites that the garage would be overbearing to the property and would create a feeling of
enclosure in the garden, blocking the outlook. I consider, however as there would remain an open aspect
along the boundary with 25 Brackley Road and as the garage walls would measure 2.3m in height before
sloping away to the ridgeline, it would not cause a significantly detrimental impact on the amenity of these
neighbours or the enjoyment of their garden.
A final objection is that the garage would be out of character with the area and would not be in proportion to
25 Brackley Road. I consider that the garage would be in proportion with the property and so do not
consider this to be a significant reason for refusal of the application.
Therefore I do not consider the size or siting of this garage to be significantly detrimental to the amenity of
the neighbours, and so it would be in accordance with the provisions of DEV8 of the Council’s Unitary
Development Plan. I recommend the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the brickwork and roofing. of the development shall be the same
type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
APPLICATION No:
02/45203/HH
APPLICANT:
R Bromiley
LOCATION:
25 Brackley Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of double detached garage with storeroom above
WARD:
Eccles
At the meeting of the Panel held on the 16th January 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached property. The proposal is for the demolition of existing garage and
erection of new garage. The garage would measure 7.7m x 6.4m and be 5.8m to the highest point of the
roof. The garage would be located approximately 8m from the rear main wall of 12 Monton Green and
would stretch 7.7m along this boundary from the adjacent boundary with 27 Brackley Road. There would
be a storeroom in the roof of the garage with a dormer extension facing the rear of 25 Brackley Road. This
other application sites the garage opposite to the garage in this application, along the boundary with 14
Monton Green.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal- No objections.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:23 and 27 Brackley Road
10-16 Monton Green.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised: Loss of light.
Overbearing to property.
Detrimental to the property value.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Dev 8 states that permission would be granted if the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse
impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, over shadowing, dominance,
loss of privacy or light.
The objectors cite loss of amenity and light to the gardens at 10 and 12 Monton Green as a concern. The
garage would stretch 7.7m along boundary with 12 Monton Green, diagonally opposite 10 Monton Green,
and be over 5m in height. I consider the garage would be unacceptably overshadowing and dominating to
the amenity of the neighbours at 12 Monton Green.
The objector is also concerned about the effect that the garage would have on their rear ground floor room.
The objector has stated there are plans in the near future to convert this to a morning room. However the
room is currently a utility room and so I do not consider this to be a main habitable room in need of
protection from loss of light.
One objector is also concerned that the garage would be overbearing to 12 Monton Green. I consider that as
the height of the garage would be 5.8m to the ridge; with the walls being approximately 3.3m in height and
a sloping roof directed away from 12 Monton Green, the garage would be overbearing the property directly
to the rear and dominate the view from the rear garden. Therefore, having a significantly detrimental impact
on the amenity of the neighbours.
One objector also cites that the value of the property would be diminished if the garage would be built. This
is not a planning consideration.
I consider therefore that the garage would be overbearing to the property directly to the rear and so be
significantly detrimental to the light, amenity and enjoyment of the property and so contrary to the
provisions in Dev8 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan. I recommend the application be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. Standard Reason RR34C Neighbouring Residents - Size/Siting
APPLICATION No:
02/45213/HH
APPLICANT:
I Moynihan
LOCATION:
262 Liverpool Road Cadishead
PROPOSAL:
Erection of double garage at rear of dwelling
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
20th February 2003
Cadishead
At the meeting of the Panel held on the 6th February 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:-
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
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.
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.
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
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
APPLICATION No:
02/45233/HH
APPLICANT:
A M Deakin
LOCATION:
14 Longley Drive Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension, single storey side extension and
new roof over existing garage
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached house on the corner of Longley Drive and Broak Oak Road. The
proposal is to erect a 2 storey rear extension into the garden and a single storey side conservatory towards
Broad Oak Road. It is also proposed to construct a pitched roof over the existing flat roof garage which is
attached to the house.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:12, 17 & Longley Drive
7 Cavendish Road
15-19 (odd) Broad Oak Road
REPRESENTATIONS
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
I have received a letter of objection from the occupiers of the neighbouring property who objects that the
applicants are still running their building firm from this property. It is also requested that if permission is
granted there should be a condition attached requiring no evening or weekend building work, to prevent
noise and disturbance. He is concerned that previous weekend work caused them problems as neighbours.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The application site is a large detached house within large grounds. The proposed extensions would still
leave more than adequate separation between the properties and it would comply with the Council’s SPG
for house extensions. I would not consider that the proposed extensions would have an adverse effect on
any of the neighbouring residents or on the street scene.
I have considered the grounds of objection from the neighbours. The issue of whether a business is being
run from the property has been investigated. No breach of planning has been found. In considering the issue
of possible noise and disturbance to residents from any weekend or evening working, I would suggest it
would be more appropriate for Environmental Services to control the problem under their powers.
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.
3. The window to the en-suite at first floor shall be fitted with obscure glazing and shall be maintained
thereafter to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
APPLICATION No:
02/45259/OUT
APPLICANT:
R King
LOCATION:
Land At The Junction Of Clively Avenue And Rake Lane Clifton
Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Outline application for the siting of 11 apartments including means of
access
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land at the junction of Clively Avenue and Rake Lane. The site is made up of two
distinct but contiguous parcels. The first is a cleared rectangular plot measuring approximately 25m by
12m at the junction of the two roads and the second being a run-down triangular-shaped garage court
accessed from Rake Lane and situated to the rear of existing houses on Clively Avenue, Heywood Avenue
and Whitehead Road.
The sites have been vacant and unused for many years. The application is submitted in outline and it is
proposed to erect a part three storey, part two-storey block, comprising seven one-bedroomed apartments,
at the junction of Clively Avenue and Rake Lane and a two-storey block comprising 4 similar apartments
on the garage court.
Approval is sought for the siting and means of access only.
The larger block would be set back 5m from the highway, in line with adjacent dwellings on Rake Lane. It
would be 18.5m from dwellings on the opposite side of Clively Avenue and 1.5m from the adjacent
end-terrace dwelling. The smaller block would be located 17m from the rear of houses on Whitehead Road,
20.5m from houses on Heywood Avenue, 20.5m from houses on Rake Lane and 12.5m from houses on
Clively Avenue. The distances referred to are approximate due to the small scale and nature of the plans
submitted. The site layout shows the provision of 14 car parking spaces.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections but provides advice
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections but provides advice.
The Coal Authority – No objections
Environment Agency – No objections
PUBLICITY
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1 to 5 and 2 to 24 Clively Avenue
232 to 240 and 246 to 250 Rake Lane
1 to 5 and 6 Heywood Avenue
52 to 66 Whitehead Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Loss of access
Noise
Overlooking
Loss of privacy
Loss of value
Loss of light
The type of accommodation is not suitable
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the scale and type of traffic generation, the amount of car parking
provision, noise, the relationship to existing buildings and the effect on neighbouring residents.
With regard to the objections that have been received I do not consider that the development would result in
a physical obstruction to the existing rear access to neighbouring properties.
I do not consider that the proposed development would result in any unacceptable increase in noise levels
and I note the comments of the Director of Environmental Health on this issue.
With regard to issues of privacy and overlooking the scheme is below the City Council’s minimum
standards.
I consider that the main planning issue is whether the site is capable of being developed for this amount of
units and in this particular position.
The submitted plans are of poor quality and do not provide an adequately accurate illustration of the
development proposed. The layout is also considered to be of poor design, providing a large hard surfaced
vehicular surface with an inefficient car parking arrangement that does not relate well to the proposed
dwellings.
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
The deficiencies in space standards whilst relatively minor could be better addressed.
Whilst the applicant has sought considerable advise from officers before submitting his application, I do not
consider that the details provided are adequately expressed nor of sufficient quality in terms of the site
layout, in order to favourably conclude that the site can be developed by 11 apartments.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The submitted plans are inaccurate and to a scale which is not adequate to properly judge the scheme.
2. The proposed buildings would adversley affect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers by reason of the
nearness and siting contrary to policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. The proposed layout provides a poor form of development which is inefficient in its use of the space
available providing as it does large of areas of hard surfacing and car parking which are poorly
related to the dwellings they are intended to serve and no useable amenity space of future residents,
contrary to policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
APPLICATION No:
02/45282/OUT
APPLICANT:
G And J Seddon
LOCATION:
Site Of Builders Yard, Brakesmere Grove, Haysbrook Avenue
Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Renewal of outline planning permission (99/40108/OUT) for the
erection of a residential development
WARD:
Little Hulton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a site currently used by Seddons as a builders yard at Haysbrook Avenue,
Walkden. The site is bounded by residential properties to the east and west. To the north is an office
building, beyond which is Haysbrook Avenue. To the south is open land within the grounds of Woodlands
Hospital.
It is proposed to renew the outline permission received on 20th January 2000 for residential development on
the site.
SITE HISTORY
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
In January 2000, planning permission was granted for the renewal of outline planning permission
96/35560/OUT for the erection of residential development (99/40108/OUT).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 9th January 2003
A site notice was displayed on 8th January 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:15-31 (O) Armitage Avenue
2-6 (E) Brakesmere Grove
Wicheves, Probation Office, 1-3 Haysbrook Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any letters of objection in response to the application publicity
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 – Meeting Housing Needs, H10 – Affordable Housing, H6/H11 – Open Space
Provision within New Housing Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
All detailed matters are reserved for subsequent approval, therefore only the principle of residential
development is to be assessed.
I consider that this renewal of outline permission is acceptable as there have been no significant changes in
the site’s circumstances or planning policy and guidance since it was approved in 1996 and again in 2000.
The proposal is in accordance with PPG3 and UDP policy H1 as the site lies within a predominantly
residential area, which is in close proximity to Little Hulton District Centre and the local shops and services
therein. Although all matters are reserved, the previous application indicated that in the region of 10-15
dwellings would be accommodated on the site. PPG3 emphasises the importance of high density
development, re-using brownfield land and locating new housing developments within existing residential
areas in close proximity to shops, services and public transport links. This proposal complies with the thrust
of PPG3.
I have no highway objections and therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
2. Standard Condition B01X Reserved Matters
3. No development shall take place until a detailed scheme for the provision of equipped children's
playground has been submitted in accordance with the provisions of policies H6 and H11 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. To ensure the provision of adequate play areas within a new housing development, as required by the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/45287/FUL
APPLICANT:
MBT Feb Ltd
LOCATION:
Albany House Swinton Hall Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of extensions at front and rear of existing main building and
erection of unit with silos towers at rear to provide additional
accommodation.
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the FEB site situated on Swinton Hall Road which produces construction
chemicals. The main building is sited on the road frontage with an open yard area to the north and east/rear
which is also used for storage purposes. The Fountains Nursing Home and residential properties of Temple
Drive lie to the south, and Acme Drive, Old Mill Close to the north. There are other industrial uses on the
opposite side of Swinton Hall Road including an additional car park for FEB. St Augustine’s Church, a
Grade I Listed Building bounds the site to the north west.
FEB currently have three sites nationally in Redditch, Newcastle and the site in Salford. However the
business is to be rationalised and the Newcastle site is due to close shortly. It is intended that the operations
currently carried out at Newcastle are brought to the Swinton site. This application therefore is seeking to
provide additional accommodation on site to accommodate the additional works. There are three main
aspects to the proposal.
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
Firstly, the existing tower on the frontage is in the process of being demolished and it is proposed to replace
this with a single storey extension. This would measure 34.5m by 22.5m equating to some 834 square
metres and it would stand 8m to the apex of the roof. It would be constructed from profiled metal cladding
which would be goosewing grey and would be used for the storage of raw materials.
Secondly it is proposed to demolish part of the existing building along the southern boundary to Temple
Drive and to erect a replacement of similar dimensions. This again would be constructed from profiled
metal cladding and would be used for storage purposes.
Finally, it is proposed to erect a new unit in the rear yard area. This has been amended slightly in siting and
size. It would measure 49m by 25m (originally 45m by 25m) and stand 8m to the roof with 18 silos towers
to a maximum height of 15m. The unit would stand almost 3m from the site boundary fencing along the
eastern elevation and 24m from the northern boundary to St Augustine’s Church. Products such as tile
adhesives would be manufactured in this unit. The applicant has also indicated that tree planting would be
undertaken along this boundary to provide additional screening to the church.
The site currently operates between 8 – 4.45pm Monday to Friday although there are no hours restrictions
on the site as such. The site currently employs 152 staff and as a result of the proposal 15 new jobs will be
created in the production facility to the rear yard area with 5 members of staff transferred from the
Newcastle plant and 10 jobs from the local population.
With regard to traffic flow there are currently 10 – 12 vehicle deliveries to site per day comprising
predominantly HGVs. Five shipments of products also leave the site each day. This proposal would
increase the traffic flow to add a further five vehicle deliveries a day, making a total of 15 – 17 and there
will be three further shipments of finished products, increasing the shipment of products to eight vehicles
per day.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to the imposition restricting noise levels.
The Coal Authority – no objections received.
Environment Agency – no objections in principle subject to a condition requiring a desk study to investigate
and produce an assessment of the potential for on-site contamination.
The City Council’s Arborist – considers the trees along the eastern boundary to be worthy of retention and
protection. Any tree within 10m would not withstand the disruption from construction and therefore should
be felled.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 16 January 2003
A site notice was displayed on 9 January 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1 – 4 Acme Drive
2 – 38 Old Mill Close
293 Swinton Hall Road
62, 64, 65- 71 Temple Drive
The Fountains Nursing Home
St Augustine’s Church
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Increase in traffic generated
Increased health and safety issues including explosions
Increase in noise
Visual impact
Loss of light for properties on Old Mill Close
Loss of privacy for properties on Old Mill Close
Shadows cast over the adjacent graveyard
Loss of trees and views of the trees
Loss of wildlife on adjacent land from increased pollution
Church yard is a public area – retrograde step is overlooked by the chemical works
Devaluation of property
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none.
Other policies: EC7 Industry and Commerce in Residential areas, EN20 Pollution Control, DEV1
Development Criteria. EN11 Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas, EN12 Protection and
Enhancement of Listed Buildings.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The site has historically been in industrial use and is situated within an area mixed in character with some
residential surrounding it. Therefore the main issues for this proposal relate to the additional impact upon
the amenity of neighbouring residents particularly in terms of additional traffic generation and noise
pollution as well as visual impact. Policy EN20 states that permission will not normally be granted for any
development that would cause an unacceptable increase in noise or vibration levels particularly around uses
such as housing. As the site adjoins the St Augustine’s Church, a listed building and a conservation area,
the proposal must also be assessed against policy EN12 which states that any development must not detract
from the architectural and historic character of a listed building and policy EN11 which seeks to preserve
and enhance the character of conservation areas.
To address the concerns of the objectors in relation to traffic generation, the applicant has supplied
information about the likely increase in traffic movements and I do not consider these to be unreasonable. It
is an existing industrial site which could increase its traffic movements without any additional building
operations on the site and I do not believe the anticipated increase to be exceptional or unacceptable.
A second concern was in relation to a possible increase in noise generation. The site currently operates
within enclosed buildings with some external storage areas and the proposal does not seek to change any of
the operations on the site which are not currently undertaken or have not been carried out in the past. The
main working hours are similar to a standard working day and the Director of Environmental Services has
recommended that conditions are attached to any permission to restrict the level of noise output. In this
respect I consider the proposal to be acceptable and in accordance with policy EN20.
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
There is currently storage of chemicals and products within the open yard area but this would be reduced if
the proposal were permitted. Health and safety measures would have to be complied with within the
buildings and externally.
The proposal will have a visual impact and in particular the detached unit at the rear. The extensions at the
front and rear to the existing building would replace existing sections and as such I do not consider that they
would have a detrimental impact and their design has been kept within character of the building and the
industrial usage. The new detached unit at the rear would be large and consequently it would be visible
from surrounding sites and premises. However, with its siting in relation to the adjacent residential
dwellings it is approximately 45m from the gable of the closest dwelling In support of this aspect of the
proposal, it would result in less external storage and therefore improve the visual appearance of the
rear/side yard area.
St Augustine’s Church and conservation area bounds the site to the north east and is also at an elevated level
above the application site. The applicant has amended the siting of the unit so that it is as far away as
possible from the church whilst allowing for manoeuvring and working around the yard area. The applicant
has also agreed to undertake planting of trees along the adjoining boundary which when mature could help
screen the site. It should also be taken in consideration that the yard area is currently very visible and there
are also silos on the existing building. It therefore has a very industrial character to it. As such I do not
consider that the proposed unit, which would be of new construction and cladded, screened by tree planting
in time, would have a significant detrimental impact upon the character and setting of the church and also
the conservation area.
There are currently 19 trees growing along the south boundary to the footpath where the new unit would be
sited, 13 of which the arborist advises would not withstand the construction and would therefore be felled.
The City’s arborist considers these trees to be worthy of retention. However, on balance I consider
economic justifications for this proposal outweighs the retention of the 13 trees. The applicant has stated
that additional planting would be undertaken along the boundary to the church and I would recommend that
similar trees are sought to those lost to retain the treescape albeit they would be planted in a different
location.
It is important when assessing this proposal to consider the reasons for why the application has been
submitted. The applicant has clarified that operations are being reduced nationally and if the proposal is not
permitted it may result in the closure of this site, together with the loss of 152 jobs and investment. Taking
all factors into very careful consideration, I am of the opinion that on balance the proposal should be
allowed as the benefits that would accrue would outweigh any negative impacts although these have been
seen to be minimal. I therefore recommend that this application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a desk study has been
undertaken and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority to investigate and produce an
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
assessment of the risk of the potential for on-site contamination. If the desk study identifies potential
contamination a detailed site investigation should be carried out to establish the degree and nature of
the contamination and its potential to pollute the environment or cause harm to human health. If
remediation measures are necessary they will be implemented in accordance with the assessment and to
the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
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.
5. The rating level of the noise emitted from both building A or building C from any fixed plant or
equipment shall not exceed the existing background level at the nearest noise sensitive premises to
either of these buildings (determined to be 42dBL A90) by more than 5dB. The noise level shall be
measured/determined at the nearest noise sensitive premises to either of these buildings. The
measurement and assessment shall be made according to BS 4142:1997 "Rating Industrial Noise
Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas".
6. The rating level of noise emitted from Building B from any fixed plant or equipment shall not exceed
the existing background noise level (determined to be 39dBL A90) by more than 5dB. The noise level
shall be measured/determined at the nearest noise sensitive premises to the building. The measurement
and assessment shall be made according to BS4142:1997 "Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed
Residential and Industrial Areas".
7. There shall be no additional doors for entrance or egress of goods or vehicles in the Temple Drive
elevation of Building A.
8. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
9. Trees shall be planted along the north eastern boundary to St Augustine's Church and adjacent to the
proposed new unit. A planting scheme including the numbers and types of trees to be planted shall be
submitted and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The trees shall be "heavy
standard" trees in accordance with British Standard 3936:Part 1:1965 (Specification for Nursery Stock
Part 1: Trees and Shrubs) and shall have a clear stem height from the ground of 2.5m, a minimum
overall height from the ground of 4m, a minimum circumference of stem at 1m from the ground of
12cm and the trees shall be root balled.
The trees shall be planted in the first available planting season after the commencement of development
and any tree dying or being removed before or within give years of completion of the development shall
be replaced within 12 months of removal or death in accordance with details which have been
submitted previously.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. To ensure a safe form of development that poses no unacceptable risk of pollution.
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
6. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
7. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
8. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
9. To protect the amenity of St Augustine's Church in accordance with policy EN11 of the UDP.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This permission relates to the amended plans received on 29 January 2003 which show unit A increased
in size to 49m by 25m.
APPLICATION No:
02/45307/FUL
APPLICANT:
M Clayton
LOCATION:
62 Upper Park Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of five storey building
comprising 14 flats together with associated landscaping, undercroft
car parking and alterations to existing vehicular access.
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a large derelict semi-detached Victorian property within Broughton Park. The
property has been vacant for many years and is now in a derelict condition. The adjoining property is in use
as a school and the other neighbouring properties are all residential. The site has a frontage of 20m to Upper
Park Road and extends back some 45m. The existing property is set back from the road frontage and has a
very short rear garden. The adjacent dwelling is a modern property set much closer to the road. There a
several mature trees both on the road frontage and along the eastern boundary of the site. Five of these trees
are protected by a Tree Preservation Order.
It is proposed to demolish the existing property and replace it with a three storey detached building with
additional accommodation at basement level and within the roof space. A total of fourteen apartments
would be provided. All would be two-bedroomed with one four-bedroomed apartment. The building
would be faced in similar bricks to the existing property and would have artstone string courses and window
cills and surrounds. The proposed building would have a slate roof. Parking for fourteen cars would be
provided at basement level. Four visitor parking spaces would be provided at the front of the building.
The building has been brought away from the rear boundary and would be approximately level with the
adjacent houses to the east.
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
SITE HISTORY
In September 2000 planning permission was granted for a two storey side extension and the conversion of
the existing building into 14 self-contained flats (00/40685/FUL).
In July 2002 an application for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a three storey
building comprising fourteen flats was withdrawn (01/42855/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Has considerable concerns regarding the basement
flat.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:5 to 9 Oakwell Drive
60, 64, 64A and 31 to 35 Upper Park Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one representation in response to the application publicity. The following issues have been
raised:Loss of light
Effect on the street scene
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV10 Broughton Park Development
Control Policy, EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the size and density of the proposed development, the effect on
neighbours and the 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 appearance of the development.
Policy EN7 states that the City Council will encourage the conservation of trees.
Policy DEV10 states that the City Council will only grant planning permission in the Broughton Park area
where the development satisfies a number of criteria. These criteria include that in the case of
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
redevelopment of existing properties, it can be demonstrated that the existing property cannot be retained
and converted economically.
With regard to the concerns of the neighbour I consider that the redevelopment of the site will result in an
increase in light to his property. With regard to the effect on the street scene I consider that the development
will be an enhancement to the area and will, in the removal of a derelict property, be of benefit to the street
scene.
The proposed building has been the subject of considerable pre-application discussions with officers. It has
been well designed and designed specifically to incorporate features of the existing dwelling, such as the
brickwork, large bay to the front elevation, stone window surrounds as well as other typical Victorian
detailing. The height of the building is just 1.25m higher than the adjoining property. In moving the
building away from the rear boundary I consider that the outlook and effect on dwellings to the rear of the
site has been improved. Although the proposed building comes much closer to Upper Park Road than the
original property it would be set back some 10m from the highway. In addition the design of the building is
such that the main mass of the building would be set back some 20m from the road.
The principle of fourteen apartments on the site has been established by the previous approval on the site.
This previous permission also established the removal of six of the large trees along the common boundary
with the adjacent property. These trees were not in good condition when the original permission was
granted and the City Council’s arboricultural officer agrees that they should be removed as a result of their
poor condition. However, one of the trees was to be retained. The recent tree survey submitted with this
current application considers that the stresses that this tree would be subject to once its neighbours have
been removed would make this tree unstable. The City council’s arboricultural officer agrees with this
view.
Of the five TPO protected trees on the site, three to the front of the site would be retained. Only two would
be lost. Of the total 17 trees on the site, 11 are not worthy of retention due to their poor condition. Of the six
remaining trees three would be retained, these are the trees protected by TPO, of the other three, two would
be replaced by better more appropriate planting and the other is the one referred to above that would be
made unstable by the removal of its neighbours. The applicant has submitted a landscaping scheme that
shows the provision of twelve new trees. I consider that this replacement planting is acceptable and
appropriate in this instance.
A structural survey carried out in January 2002 stated that all structural timbers were beyond repair,
existing internal walls were out of line and affecting structural integrity and that in its condition the building
represented a danger to the public. The report stated that the property could not be economically
refurbished. Since then the condition of the building has deteriorated.
The adjoining building is a school. I do not consider that the redevelopment of this site would, given the
siting of neighbouring properties, result in an inappropriate development. I am satisfied that the proposed
building is of a good design and I consider that it will not have a significant detrimental effect on
neighbouring properties. I have no objections on highway grounds and consider the level of parking
provided to be appropriate.
I therefore recommend that the application be approved subject to the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The landscape scheme hereby approved shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of
development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the
Director of Development Services.
3. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
4. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
5. Standard Condition F03X Surfacing
6. No development shall be started until full details of the design and construction of the bin stores have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such details shall
include measures to ensure minimisation of damage to the roots of protected trees. Such approved bin
stores shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved details and made available for
use before the development is brought into use.
7. Prior to the occupation of any of the flats hereby approved, a scheme for the reinstatement of the
exposed gable of number 60 Upper Park Road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services and the work shall be completed in accordance with the approved
particulars.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
4. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
5. Standard Reason R013A Use of parking areas
6. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
7. In the interests of visual amenity.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This permission shall relate to the amended plans received on 16th January 2003 that show
amendments to the basement flat.
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
APPLICATION No:
02/45330/FUL
APPLICANT:
Haigh And Haigh Property Partnership Limited
LOCATION:
17 Moorside Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a three storey building
comprising ten flats together with associated car parking and creation
of new vehicular access
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of an existing detached property on Moorside Road opposite the Sides
Medical Centre. The existing property dates back some 250 years and was originally a farmhouse that was
extended in the Victorian era and which has had several more recent extensions. It is part three storey and
part two storey. The building is not Listed nor is it on the Local List of Buildings of Architectural,
Archaeological or Historic Interest. The site is five-sided and has a frontage to Moorside Road of 33m and
extends back a maximum of 46m. It is one of the oldest properties in the area and one of the few original
properties on this road. The site is surrounded by other residential property. There are two large mature
beech trees to the front boundary and other trees on the south and east boundaries.
It is proposed to demolish the existing property and erect an apartment building providing 10
two-bedroomed apartments. The building would be three storey and would measure 25.5m by 13m. It
would have a symmetrical frontage and the top floor would be within gables and within the roof space.
There would be four flats on the ground and first floors with two in the roof space. Ten parking spaces
would be provided within the site, three served off the existing access and a further seven served off a new
access into the site from Moorside Road.
The building would have a ridge height of 9.7m. Both the design of the building and its height have been
amended as a result of my concerns. The building would be faced in brick with an artificial slate roof and
with art stone heads, cills and window surrounds.
SITE HISTORY
A similar application for 12 apartments was withdrawn in December last year (02/44953/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections but recommends that a condition be attached regarding
external lighting.
The Coal Authority – No objections
Moorside South Residents Association – Objects to the development. Concern is expressed that a sound
and attractive building that enhances the area is to be demolished and replaced by what can only be
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
described as a building that is totally without character. The Association is not against development but
feels that a more sympathetic approach to design or retention of the existing building would be beneficial in
retaining the character of the area.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections but provide advice.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:18 Brooklands Road
2 to 14 and 22 Clovelly Road
1 to 11 and 2 to 8 Moorfield Close
2 and 4 Moorfield Road
1A, 9 and 10 Norwood Drive
9 to 31, 15A, 17A, 19A, 12, 14, 62, Sides Medical Centre, 8 The Stables, Moorfield Cottage, 2
Whiteacres, 34A, 61, 24, 17B, 52, 56, 57 Moorside Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 39 letters of objection so far in response to the application publicity. The following issues
have been raised:Loss of character
Loss of old building that should be retained
Traffic congestion and loss of highway safety
Loss of trees
Overbearing
Loss of privacy
Overlooking
Overdevelopment of the site
Too much development in the area
Out of character
Lack of car parking
Loss of wildlife
Noise
Loss of light
Poor design
Lack of bin stores
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design
PLANNING APPRAISAL
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the size and density of the development, the likely scale of traffic
generation, the amount, design and layout of car parking provision, the potential for noise nuisance, the
effect on neighbouring residents, the visual appearance of the development and its relationship to its
surroundings and the 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 appearance of the development.
National Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 on Housing advises that Council’s should meet the housing
needs of the whole community; provide wider housing opportunity and choice and a better mix in the size,
type and location of housing than is currently available and seek to create mixed communities; give priority
to re-using previously developed land in preference to the development of Greenfield sites; make more
efficient use of land and promote good design. The Guidance also goes on to say that making a more
efficient use of land should not compromise the quality of the environment. It states that local planning
authorities should develop a shared vision with local communities of the types of residential environments
they with to see in their area. Considerations of design and layout must be informed by the wider context,
having regard not just to any immediate neighbouring buildings but the townscape and the landscape of the
wider locality. It calls on local planning authorities to adopt policies that create places and spaces with the
needs of people in mind, that are attractive, have their own distinctive identity but respect and enhance local
character.
With regard to the objections that have been received I agree that the existing building with its mature trees
does make a significant contribution to the character of the local area. If it is considered that the existing
building is an important local landmark and contributor to local distinctiveness, but is not worthy of any
statutory protection, it would not seem inappropriate to consider that any replacement dwelling should be of
at least equal design merit.
The proposal is for 10 apartments. Government advice as contained in PPG3 with regard to car parking is
that local authorities should revise their parking standards to allow for significantly lower levels of off street
parking provision, particularly in locations where services are readily accessible by walking, cycling or
public transport. I consider that this site is located close to services and to major public transport and that
providing more than one car parking spaces per apartment would be contrary to Government advice. While
the access arrangements are not ideal, visibility splays are more than sufficient and I therefore have no
objections to the application on highway grounds.
Although the footprint of the proposed building is larger than that of the existing building I do not consider
that the development necessarily represents an overdevelopment of the site. However I am concerned that
the development would be overbearing when viewed from adjacent properties. The building is oriented so
that it would be parallel to Moorside Road, this in turn means that it would directly face the rear garden of
the adjoining property to the rear. This garden is already overlooked by windows in another neighbouring
property, a bungalow to the south.
I do not agree with those who have objected on grounds of loss of wildlife, there are a number of trees
within the grounds of this property, the majority of which would remain if this development was to go
ahead. I do not consider that the development would lead to any loss of amenity as a result of increased
noise, nor do I consider that any property would suffer a significant loss of light. I do not consider that the
design of the property is poor, rather that it is not of sufficiently high quality to justify approval of this
application. Although no bin store is shown on the submitted plans I do not consider this grounds for
refusal of the application.
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
Finally I turn to the issue of the trees. The two beech trees to the front of the site are fine specimens that
contribute significantly to the street scene. They are, however, of an age and quality that would question
their long-term viability. Of the 17 trees on the site 4 would be lost as a result of this development. A
temporary Tree Preservation Order has been placed on five of the trees, including those to the road frontage.
Of these five, one would be lost as a result of the development and a detailed inspection of another has
shown major decay. The proposed building would be sited further than the existing building from one of
the beech trees and 9m from the other. However, the canopies of both trees would be within 3m of the new
building and just 1.5m away in the case of the larger tree. In addition the new vehicular entrance to the site
would be between the two trees. I am mindful of the difficulties experienced during the construction of
buildings that are in such proximity to tree canopies.
I consider that the main planning issues in this case is whether the redevelopment of this site would have a
significant detrimental effect on the character of the area and on the amenity of neighbouring residents.
I am mindful that the design and appearance of the development has been significantly improved since the
first submission. This has resulted in the building having less impact on neighbouring residents. However,
on balance, I consider that even though the height of this proposed building has been reduced, the effect of
the massing and the number of windows that there would be in the rear elevation, as well as the two
balconies, would be overbearing when viewed from the adjoining property 17A Moorside Road and result
in a loss of privacy to residents of that property. With regard to the design of the replacement building I do
not consider that the scale, massing and quality of the design is such that it provides a replacement of
building of similar quality to that it replaces. The local distinctiveness of the area would suffer. I consider
that this would be to the detriment of the character of the area. Finally with regard to the trees, on balance,
I am of the opinion that the proposed development would result in the loss of the two beech trees to the front
of the site due to the constraints imposed by the proximity of the trees to the proposed building and the
requirement for sufficient space to enable the building to be constructed. I consider that this would result in
a significant detrimental effect on the street scene and on the character of the area.
I therefore recommend that the application be refused on the following grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would as a result of its siting, size and design be overbearing and result in a
loss of privacy to neighbouring residents contrary to Policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
2. The proposed development would result in the loss of trees protected by Tree Preservation Order that
contribute significantly to the street scene and to the character of the area contrary to Policy EN7 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. The design of the proposed building by reason of its scale, massing and design would have a significant
detrimental effect on the character of the local area contrary to Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 on
Housing and Policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
APPLICATION No:
03/45343/FUL
APPLICANT:
Lyle Cars Ltd
LOCATION:
Lyle Cars 301 Liverpool Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Installation of two storage tanks
WARD:
Barton
20th February 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the rear yard of a private hire taxi office. The proposal is to install two tanks for
the storage of liquid petroleum gas. The tanks would be sited on an area of concrete hardstanding 5 metres
in length by 2 metres in width. The tanks would be used to store liquid petroleum gas (LPG), to be used by
private hire vehicles.
The site currently appears to be used for the parking of vehicles associated with the taxi office - the
applicant has confirmed that the cars currently parked on the site are awaiting repair.
The application site relates to a mid-terraced property. The other uses in this terrace are all Hot Food (A3) at
ground floor and there are a variety of uses, including residential at first floor. To the rear of the site is a 3
storey office building associated with a contractors business.
SITE HISTORY
E/19682 – Change of use from a shop with office to a taxi office. Application approved for a temporary
period, until 31st March 1989.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – There is insufficient detail to properly assess the proposal, such as the
position of any drainage gulleys and where the cars would be parked. There are safety distance
requirements for these which are set out in the relevant guidance. Detailed plans are required to allow
further investigations to be undertaken regarding safety distances.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:288, 295 – 299 (odds) Liverpool Road
Fire Station, Liverpool Road
Singh Bros, Eliza Ann Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issue has been
raised:-
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
the tanks would be close to the building to the rear and would breach safety regulations on the distance
required for any types of tanks to be installed
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
EC14/4 – Improvement Proposals – Patricroft, Barton/Eccles
DEV1 – Development Criteria
EN20 – Pollution Control
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 visual appearance of the development
and its relationship to its surroundings; the amount, design and layout of car parking provision and the level
of any risk or hazard to existing land uses. Unitary Development Plan policy EN20 states that the City
Council will encourage and support measures to reduce air pollution. LPG is a cleaner fuel than diesel and
petrol and the conversion of vehicles to LPG is in accordance with policies to reduce air quality problems in
the urban environment.
Temporary planning permission for the taxi use expired in 1989 and although there are no records to
indicate that a further planning permission has been approved, enforcement action would not now be taken,
providing that the premises have been in continuous use for a period exceeding 10 years.
The objection raised relates to safety regulations for this type of installation and that the location of the
proposed tanks is too close to the property to the rear of the site. The drawing submitted is not to scale and
does not accurately indicate the disposition of existing buildings within and surrounding the application
site, so the relationship between the proposed development and the surrounding properties cannot be
properly assessed. The Director of Environmental Services does not have sufficient information to allow
proper consideration of the proposal.
A further concern relates to the loss of car parking at the site. At present, there is satisfactory space for
approximately five cars to park in the rear yard area. The proposed development and associated barrier and
equipment would occupy a large proportion of the yard area, taking up space currently used for car parking.
Furthermore, I do not consider that there would be sufficient space between the proposed tanks and the
existing outbuildings for vehicles to gain access to the remaining area immediately adjacent to the rear of
the taxi premises, resulting in the loss of this area of car parking. I do not therefore consider that there would
be any scope for car parking within the red line area indicated by the applicant. The applicant has not
indicated where the vehicles using the LPG facility would park and from the information submitted, it
would appear that the only available space for vehicles to wait would be outside the application site
boundary. There are parking restrictions on Liverpool Road and part of Eliza Ann Street and given the
industrial/commercial nature of the area, there is a high demand for on-street car parking. On each of my
two visits to the site, there appeared to be problems with on street parking in the area and there were also a
number of taxis parked on the surrounding streets. I am concerned that the loss of car parking and the
intensification of the use of the rear yard area would be detrimental to highway safety and cause nuisance to
neighbouring uses.
RECOMMENDATION:
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. Insufficient and inaccurate details have been submitted to enable the details of the proposal to be
properly assessed, contrary to Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1.
2. The proposed development would result in the loss of car parking provision to the rear of the site.
Inadequate on-site car parking would be unsatisfactory and detrimental to highway safety, contrary to
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1.
APPLICATION No:
03/45361/FUL
APPLICANT:
Ringwood Marketing Ltd
LOCATION:
Land At Chadwick Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two three-storey blocks comprising 39 two-bedroomed
apartments together with associated carparking
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land on the west side of the junction of Chadwick Road and Monton Lane,
Eccles. The site is opposite the Grade II Listed St Andrews Church. The current use of the site is as a cash
and carry wholesale use which is accessed from Monton Lane. Buildings on the site consist of mainly single
storey (4m high) units located at the rear of the site. There is also a two storey element to the cash and carry
facility. The majority of the site consists of open car parking with some poor quality vegetation along the
boundary of the site with Chadwick Road. Surrounding uses consist of the Church and two storey housing
to the north across Chadwick Road, garage to the west and residential flats to the south and east. The site is
lower than the level of Chadwick Road.
Planning permission is sought for the erection of 39 apartments in two blocks, one L shaped and one
rectangular block. The L shaped block, near the corner of Chadwick Road and Monton Lane is 10m high to
the ridge, and is designed with a corner feature. This block would be 24m away from three storey flats,
Aberdeen House, on Monton Lane and would be 32m away from the open aspect of the flats at Harty House
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
also on Monton Lane. The siting of this proposed block also results in an acute angle and distance of 13m
separating the corner point of Harty House and the gable wall of this proposed development.
The rectangular block is 10m high to the ridge. The block is 37m away from Harty House to the south whilst
it is 24m away from the Church and houses across Chadwick Road to the north. The existing Eccles Wing
and Radiator vehicle garage is one metre from the boundary. There are six windows facing the garage, three
are communal stairwell windows whilst the other three are bathroom windows.
The blocks are three storeys high, each window bearing a consistent design, with cills and headers included,
and glazing bar pattern. Materials are shown as brick walls and tile pitched roofs with gable features.
Landscaped areas are shown to the front and rear of the blocks. Parking would be provided behind the
blocks and would be secured behind electronically controlled vehicle and pedestrian entrance gates from
Chadwick Road. Cycle parking areas are proposed under the stairwells of the blocks.
SITE HISTORY
In 2000, planning permission was granted for the erection of a single storey extension to form a new retail
area (00/40585/FUL).
In 1981, planning permission was refused for the erection of a two storey office building and associated car
parking (E/12727).
In 1985, planning permission was granted for the erection of five light industrial units (E/18537).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
The Coal Authority – No objections
Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections comments received regarding the layout of the car park.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 23rd January 2003
A site notice was displayed on 17th January 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:2 –14 even Chadwick Road
1 Mather Avenue
St Andrews Church, Chadwick Road
St Andrews Medical Centre, Russell Street
1 – 18 Hardy House, Monton Lane
1 –24 Lowry House, Monton Lane
1 – 8 Montrose House, Monton Lane
1 – 8 Aberdeen House, Monton Lane
1 – 12 Dundee House, Monton Lane
Eccles Wing and Radiator, Chadwick Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection/representation in response to the application publicity.
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
The following comments were made:
Not enough car parking result in too much on street parking and knock on effects upon the church
The apartments look attractive
The development may result in noise complaints about the neighbouring garage
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H7/1 Housing Area Improvement and Renewal: Private Sector
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, T13 Car
Parking, EC3 Re-use of Sites and Premises, H1 Meeting Housing Needs.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy H7/1 relates to improving private sector housing in the Eccles/Patricroft area. This proposal would
provide good standard relatively small units, not family accommodation, in the area. The proposal would
also satisfy policy H1 in providing brownfield land for housing use. Policy EC3 relates to the provision of
employment land, given the area is mainly residential and that the applicant states alternative
accommodation for the cash and carry business has been located within the City of Salford.
DEV1 seeks to provide well designed development that fits in with the character of the area, provision of
sufficient parking and effect upon sunlight/daylight and privacy. DEV2 encourages the enhancement of the
environment through good design. DEV4 seeks to limit crime and opportunities for crime whilst T13 relates
to the provision of appropriate car parking.
I consider the proposal does not effect the special architectural or historic character of the Listed St
Andrews Church and that the development will make a positive contribution to the streetscape especially
given the appearance of the site at present.
As stated above the site is at a lower level than Chadwick Road. This coupled with the siting of the blocks
including provision of 24m minimum distance from habitable rooms between this development and
existing flats and houses surrounding the site will I consider ensure privacy and sunlight/daylight are not
effected. Objection has been lodged with concern about the possibility of future occupiers complaining over
noise from the existing adjacent garage. Having consulted with the Director of Environmental Services I am
satisfied that the proposed layout of the development, with bathrooms and communal staircase windows
only facing the garage, will minimise future noise complaints.
Objection has been raised by the Church to an increase in on street parking in the area effecting
churchgoers. The proposed 39 flats are proposed with 39 car parking spaces, including two disabled bays.
Cycle parking is also proposed for the flats. Given the close proximity to Eccles town centre and the railway
station, Metrolink and bus interchange I consider this level of parking to be appropriate given Government
guidance on maximum parking standards. The Police comment they would prefer separate pedestrian
access to the flats from the front of the blocks to limit opportunities for vehicle crime. The applicant states
that separate vehicle and entrance gates, both electronically controlled, will operate to ensure entrance to
the site is controlled by occupiers and given the car park will be overlooked from the proposed flats I
consider the proposal complies with policy DEV4. I am satisfied with the proposed entrance to the site on
Chadwick Road and have no highway objections and as such recommend approval.
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
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 of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
4. Standard Condition F05D Provision of Parking
5. No dwelling shall be occupied until a scheme for the provision for cycle storage has been submitted to
and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services and the scheme shall be completed in
accordance with the approved particulars.
6. The railings hereby approved shall be treated prior to the occupation of any dwellings in a colour which
is to be agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services.
7. In order to establish clearly the noise environment at the proposed development the developer shall
submit an acoustics report detailing the ambient noise levels in the area about the application site
making reference to Planning Policy Guidance Note 24: Planning and Noise. Where appropriate, the
report shall identify any sound attenuation measures necessary to protect the proposed dwelling, and
which will ensure a reduction of indoor noise levels to below 35dB(A) LAeq as set out in the WHO
Guidelines for Community Noise 1999. The report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority
PRIOR to the commencement of the development and all identified sound proofing measures shall be
implemented and retained for the duration of approval.
8. Standard Condition M05 Site investigation
(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 ensure a choice of transport modes for residents in accordance with Unitary Development Plan
Policy DEV1.
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
7. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
8. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The Development Services Directorate (Highways Section) should be consulted regarding the
construction of a footway crossing, the cost of which will be the responsibility of the developer.
APPLICATION No:
03/45363/DEMCON
APPLICANT:
Housing Services Directorate
LOCATION:
120/126 Highfield Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Prior notification for the demolition of existing dwellings
WARD:
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the demolition of four vacant dwellings at 120/126 Highfield Road, Salford 6,
within the Seedley and Langworthy Regeneration area. The properties are under the control of the Housing
Services Directorate. The proposal is to completely remove the dwellings down to ground level, consolidate
cellar space and temporarily grass the site, protected by a timber knee rail. The Director of Development
Services (Building Control Section) would supervise all demolition, to accord with Health and Safety
requirements. The land will form a combined open space with that of previously demolished 128/134
Highfield Road.
The proposal has been submitted as part of the SRB5 Seedley and Langworthy Initiative. The surrounding
area is predominantly residential, including some warehousing units along Fitzwarren Street and
Langworthy Park. Many of the properties in the vicinity are vacant and boarded up. SRB also funds a bin
wagon to operate in the area to clear any rubbish that is dumped on the site.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 16th January 2003.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:49-63(o) Alder Street
3 & 4 Field Street
90 & 92 Fitzwarren Street
REPRESENTATIONS
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
I have received no representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H7/2 – Langworthy & Seedley
Other policies:
H2 – Maintaining and Improving Public Sector Housing
DEV3, DEV4 – Alterations, Design & Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy H2 states that the City Council will seek to maintain and improve public
sector housing by promoting a number of measures including the selective clearance of housing where
appropriate and improving the housing environment through the provision of public open space. Policy
H7/2 states that the City Council will promote the improvement of the Langworthy/ Seedley area, which
has been identified as suffering from a variety of physical, environmental and social problems.
The Department of Environment Circular 10/95 ‘ Planning Controls over Demolition’ provides guidance on
controls over the demolition of buildings. The prior approval of the local planning authority is required for
certain types of demolition. In such cases, a developer must apply to the local planning authority for a
determination of whether their prior approval will be required to the proposed method of demolition and
any proposed restoration of the site.
No objections have been made regarding the visual appearance of the site. However I am satisfied that the
site aftercare, comprising of grassing of the site and the positioning of a knee-rail around its perimeter,
would not be detrimental to the visual amenity of the locality. All properties identified for demolition are
presently vacant.
The properties are in a poor state of repair and I am satisfied that their demolition is in accordance with
Unitary Development plan policies H2 and H7/2.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be levelled, grassed and surrounded by a knee rail fence within four months of the
commencement of development.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/45364/DEMCON
APPLICANT:
Housing Services Directorate
LOCATION:
37/39 Osborne Street Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Prior notification for the demolition of existing dwellings
WARD:
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the demolition of two vacant dwellings at 37/39 Osborne Street, Salford 6, within
the Seedley and Langworthy Regeneration area. The properties are under the control of the Housing
Services Directorate. The proposal is to completely remove the dwellings down to ground level, consolidate
cellar space and temporarily grass the site, protected by a timber knee rail. The Director of Development
Services (Building Control Section) would supervise all demolition, to accord with Health and Safety
requirements. The land will form a combined open space with that of previously demolished 128/134
Highfield Road.
The proposal has been submitted as part of the SRB5 Seedley and Langworthy Initiative. The surrounding
area is entirely residential terracing but with a small area of unused land to the immediate south of the site.
The adjoining Langham Road has been pedestrianised, and many of the properties in the vicinity are vacant
and boarded up. SRB also funds a bin wagon to operate in the area to clear any rubbish that is dumped on
the site.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 16th January 2003.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:38-42(e) Osborne Street
2-6(e) Co-operative Street
19, 4-8(e) Langham Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
Site specific policies: H7/2 – Langworthy & Seedley
Other policies:
H2 – Maintaining and Improving Public Sector Housing
DEV3, DEV4 – Alterations, Design & Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy H2 states that the City Council will seek to maintain and improve public
sector housing by promoting a number of measures including the selective clearance of housing where
appropriate and improving the housing environment through the provision of public open space. Policy
H7/2 states that the City Council will promote the improvement of the Langworthy/ Seedley area, which
has been identified as suffering from a variety of physical, environmental and social problems.
The Department of Environment Circular 10/95 ‘ Planning Controls over Demolition’ provides guidance on
controls over the demolition of buildings. The prior approval of the local planning authority is required for
certain types of demolition. In such cases, a developer must apply to the local planning authority for a
determination of whether their prior approval will be required to the proposed method of demolition and
any proposed restoration of the site.
No objections have been made regarding the visual appearance of the site. However I am satisfied that the
site aftercare, comprising of grassing of the site and the positioning of a knee-rail around its perimeter,
would not be detrimental to the visual amenity of the locality. All properties identified for demolition are
presently vacant.
The properties are in a poor state of repair and I am satisfied that their demolition is in accordance with
Unitary Development plan policies H2 and H7/2.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be levelled, grassed and surrounded by a knee rail fence within four months of the
commencement of development.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/45373/FUL
APPLICANT:
Hedley Homes
LOCATION:
Land To Rear Of 54 Ringlow Park Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of one pair of semi-detached dwellings
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant and overgrown former garage court, which lies to the rear of properties
on Ringlow Park Road and Douglas Road. It is an irregularly shaped parcel of land which forms a
reasonably secluded backland site. To the north, east and south lie residential rear gardens, whilst to the
west is Sindsley Brook. On the site are a number of mature trees and smaller bushes and undergrowth, with
the trees on the northern part of the site protected by a Tree Preservation Order. There are a number of
concrete garage bases, and the site is accessed by a 3.7m wide cobbled alleyway off Ringlow Park Road.
This proposal is for a pair of semi-detached properties consisting of two and three storeys. The dwellings
would both have an integral garage and balcony at first floor level on the front elevation. There would be no
habitable windows located in the gable elevations. The houses would be sited to the south of the site,
accessed from the alley which runs along the back of properties on Ringlow Park Road, and accesses the
road between numbers 46 and 48.
SITE HISTORY
The site was formerly used as a garage court with eight garages. It was sold by the City Council in 1989 to
form a garden area for 54 Ringlow Park Road. A restrictive covenant was placed, which said that the land
could not be used for any purpose other than a garden without prior written consent.
Planning permission was granted on appeal in 1997 for the erection of two dwelling houses,
96/35760/OUT. Planning permission was renewed in 2000 (00/40941/OUT).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Environment Agency – No comments to date
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:-
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
2 – 14 (even) Douglas Road
2 – 6 (even) Lambton Road
2 – 66 (even) Ringlow Park Road
33 – 37 (odd) Ringlow Park Road
2A Ringlow Park Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received five letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Noise and disturbance during construction
Height
Loss of light
Loss of privacy
Loss of trees
Impact on wildlife
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
DEV1 – Development Criteria, DEV2 – Good Design, EN9 - Derelict and Vacant
Land, EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodland, EN10 - Landscape
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV 1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining
applications, including the visual appearance of the development and its relationship to its surroundings.
DEV 2 seeks to ensure high standards of design. Policy EN9 states the Council’s intention to encourage the
reclamation of vacant sites for appropriate uses. This site is a former garage court, and has been vacant for
some time, therefore, it’s re-use for housing is appropriate, as it would develop a site which lies within an
established residential setting. UDP policies EN7 and EN10, assert the Council’s intention to conserve
trees and woodland, to protect and enhance the landscape quality of local areas.
This proposal would involve the removal of two sycamores protected by TPO. A further three trees which
are not subject to a TPO would also be removed as well as two groups of self seeded scrub. The City’s
Arboricultural officer has inspected the trees and is of the opinion that this proposal would affect the
remaining trees on site. However, this proposal is no closer to the trees than the outline proposal approved
by the Planning Inspectorate.
The objections raised from the application publicity also makes reference to the wildlife on the site
including Pipistrelle bats.
The proposal would maintain sufficient separation to the properties on Douglas and Lambton Road. The
site slopes towards the brook and as such the properties on Ringlow Park Road are on an elevated level.
The combination of levels and the staggered increase in the height of the roof provides sufficient separation
away from the rear of Ringlow Park Road. The properties on Ringlow Park Road are not directly opposite
this proposal. Therefore I do not agree that this proposal would be unduly high and have a detrimental
impact upon the neighbouring properties.
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
Both properties would have a balcony at first floor level on the front. The proposed property closest to
No.54 Ringlow Park Road would incorporate a screen wall to safeguard privacy, I have attached a condition
to ensure that this wall is maintain in the future. The western property would maintain more than 21m from
the gable to the properties on Lambton Road. The boundary also consists of mature trees which are subject
to a Tree Preservation Order.
I have no highway objections, and it can reasonably be argued that two houses would create less vehicular
traffic than the previous eight garages. I do not consider two additional houses would significantly increase
traffic flows.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
3. Standard Condition D02X Details of Materials
4. No additional windows shall be inserted into the eastern elevation without the prior written approval of
the Director of Development Services
5. The screening wall along the balcony of the eastern plot as shown on drawing No. 545.p.03(2) shall be
maintained at all times to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services whilst the balcony is
in use
6. During the first available planting season following the felling of the two sycamore tree(s) hereby
granted consent, it shall be replaced by standard tree(s) in accordance with British Standard 3936:Part
1:1965 (Specification for Nursery Stock Part 1: Trees and Shrubs) and which shall have a clear stem
height from the ground of 1.8m, a minimum overall height from the ground of 2.75m, a minimum
circumference of stem at 1m from the ground of 8 cm. The species and location of the replacement
tree(s) shall be agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
3. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/45388/FUL
APPLICANT:
John Sloyan
LOCATION:
Land At The Rear Of 2A Vernon Avenue Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Continued use as a vehicle repair centre
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land in between the rear of 2A Vernon Avenue and the side of 16 Russell Street,
Eccles M30.
The site is entirely surrounded by residential properties (terraced), but with offices to the near south-east.
Russell Street itself it is residential with the exception of a medical centre at the far western end. The land is
approximately 180sq.m of which the existing building covers 133sq.m (not including 2A Vernon Avenue).
SITE HISTORY
In 1997, planning permission was refused for the erection of two dwelling houses together with creation of
a new access and car-parking spaces (97/37001/OUT).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 16th January 2003.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:2 & 4 Vernon Avenue
1–7(o) & 10-16(e) Russell Street
53 Peel Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received four representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The
following issues have been raised: Noise disturbance.
Potential/ gradual loss of character of locality as a residential area.
Vehicles frequently repaired on street; obstruction to pedestrians.
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
Use of street as an ‘overflow car-park’.
Conflict over use of street parking - severe parking problems
Insufficient space for vehicular parking/turning within said property; thus daily reversing
causes safety risk to pedestrians – driveway access often blocked.
Hours of business (often open from 7am till evening).
Arrival & departure of vehicles at all time of day.
Use of street as a pick up/ drop off point with regard to shifts.
Dumping of refuse/litter on street.
Use of chemicals & welding equipment.
Hazardous substances (eg. Waste oil disposal, open storage of old car tyres and oil drums):
public hazard & fire risk.
Concern that adequate disposal facilities may not be present at the property; risk ground &
drains becoming contaminated.
Depreciating market value of residential properties.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
H7/1 – Housing area improvement & renewal – central Eccles.
Other policies:
T13 – car parking standards
EC3 – re-use of sites and premises
EC7 – Industry and commerce in residential areas
DEV1 – development criteria
EN20 – pollution control
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EC7 explains that the council will support employment within residential areas, where they do not
have an adverse impact on the character, environment, or amenity of these areas. While such functions
often provide a valuable source of local employment, policy EC7 applies primarily to B1 uses, thus I do not
consider the present application to benefit from this policy.
The re-use of this otherwise vacant land can however be viewed favourably as identified in policy EC3,
although this must be balanced with the need to respond to housing needs as explained by policy H7/1
(housing, central Eccles), which covers a large area to the west of Eccles town centre. Here, it is important
to consider problems of insufficient public open space, poor vehicular access & circulation, and inadequate
parking facilities, which I consider to be contrary to the proposed application.
With regard to residential amenity, Policy DEV1 (development criteria) identifies the relationship between
the relationship of the proposed development to other existing and proposed land uses, traffic generation,
noise nuisance, fumes, and visual appearance. Given that the immediate vicinity is entirely residential and
the environmental nature of a vehicle repair garage, I consider this location to be unacceptable.
Numerous objections have been received, relating to a range of issues, although some were relating to the
existing use (rather than the proposal); while many issues (such as shift parking of taxis on street) may not
necessarily apply to this application they indicate general problems that may continue to occur should this
application be allowed to proceed.
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
Objections include potential/gradual loss of the locality as a residential area due to expansion of Eccles
town centre. There are particular concerns to noise disturbance and insufficient on-site space for the repair
& storage of vehicles, it should be noted that the planning application received lacked any site plan showing
parking and storage.
Further to the concerns outlined above I consider this application to be un-acceptable, particularly to issues
of amenity.
I recommend that this application be refused for the following reasons and advise the Director of Corporate
Services to take enforcement action against the unlawful use.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would be out of character with the surrounding area and be detrimental to
residential amenity due to the nature and siting of the vehicle repair garage contrary to policies Dev 1
and EN20 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
2. Satisfactory provision has not been made within the curtilage of the site for the parking of vehicles
which would be likely to result in vehicles parking on the highway, detrimental to highway safety,
contrary to policy T13 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/45440/FUL
APPLICANT:
D Salzman
LOCATION:
57/59 Leicester Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of part single/part two storey side and rear extension and first
floor rear extension
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to 57/59 Leicester Road which currently operates as a food store. The shop is
within the Leicester Road Key Local Centre and is bounded along its northern and western boundaries by
residential properties.
This proposal would provide a two storey rear extension and first floor side extension. The ground floor
would provide additional supermarket floor space and the first floor would provide additional storage and
office provision.
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
The site is located on the corner of Leicester Road and Ashbourne Grove and has a small forecourt area
which provides some off street car parking provision. Some on street car parking provision is available
outside the premises on Leicester Road with the corners controlled by parking restrictions.
SITE HISTORY
In 1997, planning permission was granted for erection of canopy at the front of existing retail shop
(97/36705/FUL)
Planning permission was also granted in 1994 for the erection of single storey side extension with external
staircase (94/32118/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:61 Ashbourne Grove
55 and 61 Leicester Road
104 Northumberland Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Parking provision
Refuse collection/storage
Loss of light
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV1 – Development Criteria, T13 – Car Parking, DEV3 Alterations/extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that regard must be had to a number of factors when
determining applications for planning permission including the layout and relationship of existing and
proposed buildings and the effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for neighbouring properties. DEV3
requires that alterations and extensions should respect the general scale, style and proportion of the original
structure and to complement the general character of the surrounding area. Policy T13 seeks to ensure that
adequate servicing provision is provided to meet foreseeable demand created by the development.
The letters received in response to the application publicity make reference to two main areas; the size of
the proposal and issues relating current car parking and servicing difficulties. I agree that these are the main
planning issues with regard to this proposal.
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
The proposed extension would cover the majority of the existing service area/curtilage of both units. This
proposal itself would continue the frontage of the building along Ashbourne Grove and would then follow
the shape of the boundary with 61 Ashbourne Grove and 104 Northumberland Road. The proposal would
result in a two storey blank gable along the whole of the shared boundary. These neighbouring properties
are sited 1.35m and 2.2m from the common boundary respectively.
Based on the Councils own car parking standards for new retail development, this proposal would require
an additional five car parking spaces to be made available for new staff and customers. The proposal would
also build above the existing service and delivery area. The applicant has indicated that between 1 and 3
heavy goods vehicles visit the site in a week and between 3 and 5 other vehicles per day. A new delivery
bay has been indicated as part of the proposal, however, I am of the opinion that this is insufficient and
would result in more vehicles using the highway for deliveries.
I am also of the opinion that this proposal would have an unacceptable detrimental impact upon the
neighbouring properties and garden areas and that the erection of an extension of this size would be an over
development of the site, contrary to policy DEV3 and should be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would not provide adequate accommodation within the curtilage of the site
for the parking, loading and unloading of vehicles in connection with the use of the site contrary to
policy T13 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
2. The proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of
its size and siting contrary to policy DEV3 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/45353/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
The Director Of Development Services
LOCATION:
Civic Centre Site Chorley Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Construction of 2.4m high security fencing with gates
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the rear of the Civic Centre. The proposal is to erect fencing around the rear car
park behind Phase 3 and around the cabins behind the Mayor’s garage. It is proposed to erect 2.4m high
railings around the cabins and to seal off the car park behind Phase 3.This railing will have pedestrian and
vehicular gates which would be locked between the hours of 7pm and 7am. It is then proposed to erect 2.4m
high palisade fencing along the boundary with St Ambrose Barlow’s playing field. The first floor fire
escape from the cabins would be turned from front facing to face the rear.
PUBLICITY
Site notices were displayed on 14 January 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:St Ambrose Barlow School
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objections in response to the application publicity
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV4 Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The proposal for the fencing is intended to secure the rear car park and the cabins out of office hours so that
the proposed gates would be locked between 7pm and 7am. It is intended to have a railing design for the
more visible fencing around phase 3 and the cabins, and the fencing would all be coloured green to match
that of phase 3. Therefore I do not consider that it would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of
the area. It may be necessary to alter the position of the 3 car parking spaces in front of the cabins, which
might result in the loss of one space. I would not consider that the possible loss of one space would justify
the refusal of this security fencing.
RECOMMENDATION:
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The fencing hereby approved shall be coloured green, RAL 6002.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/45356/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Mrs E Hilton
LOCATION:
Walkden High School Birch Road Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4m high Palisade security fencing and 2.4m high Heras
railings.
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Walkden High School on Birch Road, Walkden. The proposal is to erect 2.4m
high Solid Bar Crusader Railings around those boundaries of the school that face onto Laburnum Road,
Birch Road, Hawthorn Avenue and Chestnut Avenue. This element of the proposal would match existing
2.4m high Crusader Railings that have been erected along an 84m stretch of Laburnum Road. Access gates
are included in the proposal along Birch Road, Hawthorn Avenue and Chestnut Avenue. There are
residential properties along Laburnum Road, Birch Road, Hawthorn Avenue and Chestnut Avenue.
In addition, 2.4m high Palisade fencing is proposed along the northern boundary of the school which is
adjacent to a railway embankment, and along a 35m stretch of the school boundary which is adjacent to
vacant land neighbouring 47 Chestnut Avenue.
SITE HISTORY
02/43897/FUL:
Construction of car park and hard play area with seating and erection of 2.4m high
security fence along Laburnum Road. Approved 20/06/02
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 15th January 2003
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:42-82 (e) Birch Road
2-20 (e) Hawthorn Avenue
41-47 (o) Chestnut Avenue
90-96 (e) Devoke Avenue
1-45 (o) Laburnum Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no 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
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that regard will be had to a number of factors in determining
applications for planning permission, including the visual appearance of the development and its
relationship to its surroundings. Unitary Development Plan policy DEV4 states that consideration will be
given to crime prevention, and mentions the position and height of fencing and gates.
The Crusader fencing that has been proposed along the residential highways is attractively designed and
would match existing fencing that was approved on Laburnum Road in June 2002. The palisade fencing
would be erected away from residential properties, and would not, in my opinion represent a visual
intrusion for local residents. Furthermore, the proposal would improve security for the school.
I have no objection to the proposal on the condition that both types of fencing are powder coated blue (ral
5010) prior to their erection.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The 2.4m high Palisade and 2.4m high Solid Bar Crusader Railings shall be powder coated blue (ral
5010) prior to their erection, and shall be maintained as such thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/45382/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Community And Social Services Directorate
LOCATION:
Boothstown Community Centre Standfield Drive Boothstown Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4m high perimeter fencing and gates to side and rear car
park
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the Boothstown Community Centre, on Standfield Drive, facing the Standfield
Centre. The proposal is to erect a 2.4m railing along the rear boundary of the car park and building, and to
erect 2.4m high gates across the car park entrance in line with the front of the building.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 23 January 2002
The following neighbours were notified of the application:Alder Wood, Simpson Road
1 Standfield Drive
14-20 (even) Simpson Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objections in response to the application publicity
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV 4 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The proposal is to erect 2.4m railing style fence and gates around part of this site in order to secure the
property. I would consider that design of the railings would be of a good quality and therefore would not be
visually detrimental in the street scene. I would not consider that it would have an adverse effect on the
amenity of any of the neighbouring residents.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The fence 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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/45391/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Miss M J Baker (Head Teacher)
LOCATION:
Grosvenor Road Infants Parkgate Drive Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4m high security fencing
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Grosvenor Road Community Primary School off Parkgate Drive, Swinton. The
proposal is to erect:
2.4m Crusader railings with gates at the entrance to the school on Parkgate Drive;
2.4m Weld Mesh fencing across the play area to the north of the school including a gate, and across the
play area to the South of the school again including a gate;
2.4m Palisade fencing around the east side of the school including two gates. This fencing would link
up the two stretches of Weld Mesh fencing.
The proposal also includes the felling of six trees close to where the proposed fencing would be erected in
order to remove possible points of entry (by climbing the trees and jumping the fence).
There are residential properties along the western boundary of the school on Parkgate Drive and
Collingwood Drive, and also along Lanswood Park Road. To the north, east and south of the school is open
land. Within the open land to the east of the school are a number of mature and semi-mature trees.
SITE HISTORY
93/30684/DEEM3:
93/31928/DEEM4:
Erection of single storey extension to provide two
additional classrooms. Approved April 1993.
Erection of 3 No. classroom extensions. Approved December 1993.
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services: No objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 20th January 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:13-37 (o) Lawnswood Park Road
4, 6, 21-25 (o), 24-28 (e) and High Meadow Grosvenor Road
15-18 Parkgate Drive
1-25 (o) Collingwood Drive
1a, Norfield Portland Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Visual intrusion;
Fencing too high;
Main entrance gates are of insufficient height to prevent intruders;
Location of fencing (weld mesh) would encourage intruders to use the rear garden of 29 Lanswood
Park Road as an access point to and from the school;
Loss of view;
The Parkgate Drive entrance is not suitable as the main entrance.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV1 - Development Criteria
DEV4 - Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that regard will be had to a number of factors in determining
applications for planning permission, including the visual appearance of the development and its
relationship to its surroundings. Unitary Development Plan policy DEV4 states that consideration will be
given to crime prevention, and mentions the position and height of fencing and gates.
Visual Intrusion: The type of security fencing being proposed at the Parkgate entrance adjacent to
residential properties (Crusader railings) is attractively designed and will not, in my opinion, be visually
intrusive for local residents. It is the style of fencing that has been used in similar circumstances elsewhere
in the City.
Within the curtilage of the school (across the open play areas to the north and south of the school) the
fencing type proposed is weld mesh. Weld mesh fencing provides a high degree of security whilst
maintaining a relatively high degree of transparency. The original submission was for industrial style
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
Palisade fencing in these areas, but a change to weld mesh was reached through negotiation. Therefore, I
feel the current proposal for weld mesh is the most suitable option to improve the security of the school
whilst having minimal impact on the openness of the playing areas.
Along the eastern boundary of the school, set well away from any residential properties (minimum 40m),
the proposed fencing type would be Palisade. Palisade fencing is one of the most secure types of fencing.
This fencing would be erected in a secluded area and would not, in my opinion, be visually intrusive for
local residents.
Fencing too high: 2.4m fencing is viewed by the City Council as a minimum height for improving security.
Lower fencing would not achieve the objective of better security for the school, and therefore cannot be
considered.
Main entrance gates are of insufficient height to prevent intruders: Gate heights would also be 2.4m.
As mentioned, this is a minimum height to achieve better security. Higher gates (and fencing) adjacent to
residential properties may have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the residential area.
Location of fencing (weld mesh) would encourage intruders to use the rear garden of 29 Lanwswood
Park Road as an access point to and from the school: Weld mesh fencing is ‘finger-proof’ making it
very difficult to climb. The proposed fencing would link on to the rear fence of 29 Lawnswood Park Road,
fully enclosing the school. The ‘finger-proof’ nature of the fencing would provide the best deterrent for
such intruders.
Loss of view: This is not a planning consideration.
The Parkgate Drive entrance is not suitable as the main entrance: The application is for the erection of
security fencing. No new entrances to the school will be created.
There is one more issue with this application which relates to the six trees that are to be felled on the site to
remove possible points of entry. The City’s arboricultural officer, has inspected the trees and has indicated
that only four are worthy of retention. There are many mature and semi-mature trees around where the
proposed fellings would take place, and so I feel their loss would not have a serious detrimental impact on
the amenity of the area and agree that the trees should be removed for reasons of security. Furthermore, I
have attached a condition to the recommendation for a total of 12 new trees to be planted within the
boundaries of the school so to offset the loss of trees if the application is approved.
I argue that the fencing types and fence line being proposed are the most suitable option to increase the
security of the school whilst having the least possible impact, in terms of visual intrusion, on local residents.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The 2.4m high Crusader fencing, the 2.4m high Weld Mesh fencing and the 2.4m high Palisade fencing
shall be powder coated Green (ral 6005) prior to their erection, and shall be maintained as such
thereafter.
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
3. During the first available planting season following the felling of the hawthorn, two poplars, lime,
hornbeam and silver birch trees, they shall be replaced by standard trees in accordance with British
Standard 3936:Part 1:1965 (Specification for Nursery Stock Part 1: Trees and Shrubs) and which shall
have a clear stem height from the ground of 1.8m, a minimum overall height from the ground of 2.75m,
a minimum circumference of stem at 1m from the ground of 8 cm. The replacements shall be 4 x oak
species, 4 x lime species and 4 x birch species which shall be planted within the curtilage of the school.
4. If the replacement trees die or are removed within 5 years of planting, they shall be replaced within 12
months of removal or death 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 R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Please contact United Utilities prior to work being carried out as there are two public sewers that cross
the site of Grosvenor Road Community Primary School. The person to ask for is Gary Marsh who can
be contacted on 0161 6080431.
2. The approval relates to the amended plans showing a relocation of the fence line and a change in
fencing type from Palisade to Weld Mesh across the playing areas to the north and south of the school.
These amended plans were received on 5th February 2003.
APPLICATION No:
03/45419/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
St Augustines C E Primary School (FAO Mrs B Kellner)
LOCATION:
St Augustines C E Primary School Bolton Road Pendlebury
PROPOSAL:
Construction of car park and erection of 3.47m high boundary
wall/fencing
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to St Augustines C E Primary school and seeks to construct a car park and erect a
3.47m high wall and railings. The site is within the St Augustines Conservation Area and is bounded by
Bolton Road and Church Street. The site previously housed the local scout group building, which has been
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th February 2003
demolished. This proposal would create a formal car park to accommodate 12 car parking spaces, two of
which would be allocated for disabled parking.
The proposed wall would match the existing wall, railings and piers fronting Bolton Road, adjacent to the
gatehouse (a grade II listed building) The wall would measure 19m along Bolton Road and 17m along the
corner of Church Street, this section would also accommodate the gates to the car park which would match
the style of the railings.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 30th January 2003
A site notice was displayed on 27th January 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:2 to 16 Church Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV1 – Development Criteria, EN11 – Protection and Enhancement of
Conservation Areas
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining
applications, including the visual appearance of the development, its relationship to its surroundings and the
amount, design and layout of car parking provision. EN11 seeks to protect and enhance the special
character of areas of architectural and historic interest by encouraging high standards of development which
are in keeping with the character of the area.
I have not received any representations in response to the application publicity. The school generates a
number of vehicles during the pick up and drop off times associated with the school day and as such Church
Street has experienced problems of congestion. This proposal would provide a car parking provision for the
staff of St Augustine’s and therefore help reduce the pressure on Church Street. The security/boundary
treatments have been proposed to compliment the design and materials of the existing boundary treatment
between this site and the gatehouse and match exactly the boundary treatments to the east of the gatehouse
which have more brick pillars. Access to the site would be provided off Church Street by 4m wide gates to
match the design of the proposed railings.
I am of the opinion that this proposal would enhance the character of the conservation area through the
design of the boundary treatment and improving a vacant site. It would also provide secure off street car
parking facilities which will help reduce the pressure on Church Street during pick up and drop off times. I
have no highway objections. Therefore I would recommend that this proposal be approved.
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R006A Character - conservation area
71
20th February 2003
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
72
20th February 2003