PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
APPLICATION No:
02/45182/FUL
APPLICANT:
Littleton Road Allotment Society
LOCATION:
Allotments Littleton Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey building comprising storeroom and toilets
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the existing allotments on Littleton Road. The proposal is to demolish the
existing toilet building and providing a new building in order to accommodate better toilet facilities,
including provisions for disabled people.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 6 February 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:187-223 (odd) Littleton Road
St Aidan’s Vicarage, Littleton Road
Racecourse Hotel, Littleton Road
13-18 St Aidan’s Grove
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV5 – Equality of access
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The existing toilet building is in a poor state of repair, with no hand washing facilities and they do not
provide disabled access. The proposed building would be in the same position, behind the store rooms close
to the entrance to the allotments. I do not consider that the proposed building would have a detrimental
impact on the street scene, but would greatly improve the facilities for the users of the allotments.
RECOMMENDATION:
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
02/45260/FUL
APPLICANT:
Prestigious Living NW Limited
LOCATION:
Land Adjoining Summerhill Mansion Nursing Home Chaplin Close
Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Erection of entrance gates to approved residential development
WARD:
Claremont
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a new residential development that comprises of 18 dwellings, one - three storey
building comprising 9 flats, together with associated car parking. The development is currently under
construction and located on Chaplin Close adjoining the Summerhill Mansion Nursing Home.
The gates would be erected on an unadopted roadway beyond an adopted road. There would be a vehicular
gate and a pedestrian gate. The pedestrian gate would be situated on the path close to 15 Chaplin Close, the
vehicular gates would be set 5.5m into the development site and would open into the development site, the
two gates would be connected by a 1.8m mild steel fence, with everything being black in colour.
SITE HISTORY
In October 2001 (01/42421/FUL), planning permission was granted for the erection of 16 dwellings, one three storey building comprising 9 flats, and one gatehouse comprising 2 flats, together with associated car
parking (01/42421/FUL)
In November 2002 (02/44701/FUL), planning permission was granted for the erection 18 dwellings and
one three storey building comprising nine apartments (Amendment to planning permission 01/42421/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Greater Manchester Police – No Objections
Greater Manchester Fire Service – Approval should include a notice under Section 63 of the Greater
Manchester Act 1981.
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 09/01/03
The following neighbours were notified of the application:3 – 11 (odds) and 15 Chaplin Close
1 – 9 (odds), 2 - 12 (evens) Keystone Close
Summerhill Mansion Nursing Home, Chaplin Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following issues
have been raised:The gates will restrict amenity to local residents
The gates will restrict access to the nursing home for the public and emergency services
No objections if the gates are left open
The gates serve no useful purpose as a security measure, due to minimal fencing elsewhere in the
development site
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The gates would be on private land with an access road to the proposed housing and existing residential
home, the road is not adopted and there are no plans to adopt the road in the future. The applicant has
advised that the gates are to be left open at all times with the capability of making them electronically
operated in the future.
The gates are an entrance feature demarcating this development from its neighbours and access will be
made available to both the proposed development and existing nursing home for both visitors and the
emergency services.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The entrance gates and railings hereby approved shall be colour treated black prior to their instalment
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Please be aware that adequate fire provision must be available under Section 63 of the Greater
Manchester Act 1981. For further details regarding this please contact Greater Manchester County Fire
Service, west command Headquarters, Moor Lane, Bolton BL3 5DB.
APPLICATION No:
02/45294/COU
APPLICANT:
Innovation In Digital & Electronic Arts (IDEA) Ltd
LOCATION:
Former Brown Brothers Building, Bounded By East Ordsall Lane,
Egerton Street And Trinity Way Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Mixed use conversion and extension of building to provide workspace,
coffee bar, creche/nursery, 16 apartments, retail/gallery space together
with associated car parking
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant warehouse building located between Egerton Street, East Ordsall Lane
and Trinity Way. The main part of the building is three storeys high, with a basement, and has a tower in the
south-eastern corner rising to six storeys. Immediately to the east of the building is a car park with capacity
for 24 vehicles. The application site also includes a vacant site to the south of the building, between
Egerton Street and the railway viaduct. The total site area is one of approximately 0.34ha.
It is proposed to convert the building to provide a mixed use development, including workspaces (2,000m2),
coffee bar (95m2), creche/nursery (90m2), retail/gallery space (95m2), 16 apartments (1112m2) and
associated car parking and landscaping. It is proposed to locate 6 apartments within the existing tower. The
other 10 apartments will be accommodated in a 2 storey rooftop extension. The workspaces will be located
in the basement and on the ground, first and second floor levels. The coffee bar and the creche will both be
located on the ground floor. The provision of the creche has been included in the application in order to
encourage parents to participate in the training courses which will be on offer.
It is proposed to provide a total of 60 car parking spaces with access from the former junction of Egerton
Street and East Ordsall Lane. The car park will be surrounded by 2.1m high railings.
SITE HISTORY
00/41229/COU: change of use of vacant warehouse to provide coffee bar, creche/nursery, study bedrooms,
retail/gallery space together with associated car parking was approved conditionally on 12th October 2000.
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
99/39802/COU: change of use of vacant warehouse to workspace (Class B1), construction of car park,
disabled access provision, and erection of railings; approved conditionally on the 21st October 1999.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to a number of conditions
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – Comments received
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 9th January 2003
A site notice was displayed on 13th January 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:18-44 (E) Rodney Street
247, 253-257 (O) Chapel Street
Speedy Hire, Trinity Row, Irwell Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CS7 – Islington
EC14/1 Improvement Proposals – Chapel Street, Blackfriars
T16/1 Major Road Schemes – A6042 Trinity Way
Other policies:
DEV1 Development Criteria
DEV2 Good Design
DEV3 Alterations/Extensions
EC3 Re-use of Sites and Premises
EN9 Derelict and Vacant Land
T13 Car Parking
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EC3 encourages the re-use of vacant business premises for similar or related uses. I consider that the
proposed use, whilst being of a mixed nature, is nonetheless generally consistent with this policy. The use
would also be consistent with the aims and objectives of the Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy in that it
proposes a development which makes provision for the media, arts and culture within a vacant, but
prominent building.
Policy EN9 promotes the reclamation of derelict land for appropriate uses. The use of the vacant land to the
south of Egerton Street for car parking would assist in the reuse of the vacant Brown Brothers building, and
would remove a negative feature in the area in accordance with Policy CS7.
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
In terms of the design of the alterations to the building and the proposed two-storey extension, I am satisfied
that the application accords with Policies DEV2 and DEV3. It is keeping with the overall character and
appearance of that part of the Chapel Street Regeneration Area and would result in visual improvements to
a currently vacant building. The proposal has also been designed to minimise the occurrence of criminal
activity and anti-social behaviour.
The route of the Inner Relief Route, as identified in the UDP, passes through the site. However, the route
has now been modified and I do not consider that the proposal would prejudice the construction of this new
road.
Turning to the issues of car parking, a development of the nature proposed would require the provision of in
excess of 80 spaces. Notwithstanding that the submitted site layout drawing provides for only 60 spaces,
there are a number of other factors that suggest to me that this shortfall is not unduly problematic in this
location. Firstly, the site is located only 10-15 minutes walk from Manchester City Centre and there are
therefore many local services are within easy reach. The site is also well served by both bus and train
services, with Salford station being located only a few minutes walk to the east.
The proposal would provide an innovative and employment generating use for a prominent building within
the Chapel Street Corridor. This would assist in furthering the aims of the Regeneration Strategy for this
area of the City, and would be consistent with the relevant policies of the UDP.
RECOMMENDATION
1.
that the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under Section
106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the payment of a commuted sum for, and
implementation of, environmental improvements in the local area to the value of £16,000;
2.
that the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded to grant planning permission, subject
to the conditions stated below, on completion of such legal agreement;
3.
that authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application be issued, (subject to the
conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned legal agreement,
4.
that authority be given to refuse the application if the applicant fails to complete the S106
agreement within a reasonable period on the grounds that the proposals do not support the aim and
objectives of the Chapel Street Regeneration Project.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
3. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
4. Prior to the commencement of the development, the colour to be applied to the elevations of the
building that are to be rendered shall be agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services.
5. The creche hereby permitted shall NOT be operated on Sundays and Bank Holidays and shall ONLY be
operated between the hours of 7.00am and 7.00pm Monday to Friday.
6. The gallery/retail unit hereby permitted shall ONLY be operated between the hours of 7.00am and
midnight Monday to Saturday and 10.00am and 8.00pm on Sundays.
7. The coffee bar hereby permitted shall ONLY be operated between the hours of 7.00am and 11.00pm
Sunday to Thursday and 7.00am and midnight Fridays and Saturdays.
8. Access and deliveries to the site by HGV shall be restricted to 7.00am to 7.00pm Monday to Friday,
10.00am to 6.00pm on Saturdays and 10.00am to 4.00pm on Sundays.
9. The details of the fume extraction system serving the cooking and/or food preparation areas to the
coffee shop shall be designed such that there will be no odour or noise nuisance to residential premises
and shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the development taking place.
10. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the developer shall agree with the
Local Planning Authority the position of the proposed boundary fence to the external play/landscaped
area leading to Trinity Way/Irwell Street.
11. The developer shall undertake a noise assessment to determine the external noise levels that the
residents will be subject to (daytime and night-time). The developer shall detail what steps are to be
taken to mitigate the disturbance from the above. The assessment shall have due regard to the
Department of the Environment Guidance PPG24 - Planning and Noise. The assessment and mitigation
measures shall be submitted for the approval of the Director of Development Services prior to the
commencement of the development and any approved mitigation measures are to be implemented prior
to the occupation of any part of the residential accommodation. The assessment shall take into
consideration the noise from Chapel Street, Trinity Way/Irwell Street, East Ordsall Lane, the Inner
Relief Route, Egerton Street and the railway.
12. This permission shall relate to the amended plans received on 17th February which show the 2.1m high
boundary fence to Trinity Way, drop down bollards, the revised entrance to the coffee bar and the
inclusion of a reception area to the creche/nursery.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
6. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
7. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
8. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
9. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
10. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
11. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
12. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is advised to contact the Council's Highway Maintenance Section on 0161 793 3893
regarding the closure of Egerton Street.
2. The applicant is advised to contact United Utilities (0161 609 7512) regarding the possible diversion of
the existing sewer along Egerton Street and in order to obtain approval for any new connections to a
public sewer.
APPLICATION No:
02/45299/FUL
APPLICANT:
Wilson Connelly (Lancs)
LOCATION:
26 Ellesmere Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a residential development comprising of eighteen dwellings
together with creation of new access and associated landscaping
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the erection of a residential development at 26 Ellesmere Road, comprising 18
(eighteen) dwellings together with creation of amended access and associated landscaping. The application
site is presently occupied by a vacant three-storey Victorian nursing home. The site is at the junction of
Ellesmere Road and Stafford Road and is bounded to the north-west by another similar residential
development comprising 18 flats and to the north, west and south by more recent 2 storey residential
properties.
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
The site has an Ellesmere Road frontage of 39m and is 54m deep. The existing building is sited centrally on
the site, set back 18m from the highway and comprises the three storey Victorian building and a large
double storey pitch-roofed extension. The site is bounded by mature trees on all sides, where there are
protected trees.
The site lies outside of both the Ellesmere Park Conservation Area and the ‘Victorian Core’, but within the
Ellemere Park Development Control policy area (DEV9).
The proposal has been significantly amended as a result of my concerns regarding the application as
originally submitted. Information submitted includes an economic report (reference 525/2/B).
SITE HISTORY
In January 2000 planning permission was granted for the erection of 4 storey rear extension, single storey
side extension, alterations to elevations and extension of car park. (99/39887/FUL).
In September 1989 planning permission was granted for the erection of a three-storey rear extension to
provide 18 additional bedrooms together with associated landscaping, and 6 additional car parking spaces
with the construction of a new vehicular access (89/25127).
In 1984 planning permission was granted for the conversion of a lower ground floor section to form a self
contained flat for resident matron (84/17238).
In 1982 planning permission was granted for the ‘change of use’ from dwelling house to nursing home
(82/14109).
CONSULTATIONS






Director of Environmental Services – No objections except that internal layout be amended to
account for noise disturbance between habitable rooms of adjoining flats.
Ellesmere Park Residents Association – objection on grounds of architectural merit,
over-development, risk of precedent.
British Coal – No objection but notes ground movement from past coal workings ‘should by now
have ceased’
Environment Agency – no objection
Architectural Liaison Officer – no comments received
Greater Manchester Police – no objections but advice put forward regarding defensible space and
site security.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 16th January 2003.
A site notice was displayed on 8th January 2003.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:
1-4 Allington Drive
47-51(o) Stafford Road
30a-36(e) Stafford Road
16-24 & 30-40(e) Ellesmere Road
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
13, 15, 23-37(o) Ellesmere Road
17 Ellesmere Road (flats 1-9)
28 Ellesmere Road (flats 1-18)
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 25 (twenty-five) representations/letters of objections in response to the application
publicity. The following issues have been raised:
Plans show transgression of building line – radical alteration to aspect of Stafford Road –
detrimental to amenity of locality
Existing property in perfectly good condition – no demolition required
Loss of Victorian character/heritage of Ellesmere Park – loss of fine buildings and extensive
gardens – preservation preferred
Conversion to multiple occupancy much preferred (perhaps with minor extensions)
Height/ overbearing – lack of sunlight – something smaller preferred
Over-development of said site from ‘1 unit’ to 18 units (high density)
Too many flats in Ellesmere Park – concern that previous flats development at 28 Ellesmere Road
would set a proven precedent
Development will further over-stretch capacity of drainage, sewer, and general infrastructure.
Increased traffic & parking problems – potentially compounded by future residential development
within the locality
Increasing shortage of retirement homes
Loss of privacy – overlooking bedroom windows
Population density too high
Narrow gaps between proposed building and existing neighbouring residential properties
Under-provision of parking spaces – cars likely to be parked on street
Creation of new access would increase congestion on Stafford Road
Chaos likely to be caused by site staff with their vehicles
Potential depreciation of value to some properties
‘underhand’ way the proposal was described as 3 ½ storeys instead of 4-storeys.
Delivery vehicles
Poor TV signal
It should be noted that Cllr Sheehy has requested this application should go to panel.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Ellesmere Park Design Guide
Other policies:
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV3 – Alterations/Extensions
DEV4 – Design & Crime
DEV5 – Equality of Access
DEV9 – Ellesmere Park Control Policy
H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Economic Analysis
With regard to the objectors concerns over the demolition of the existing building Members will be aware
of the existing Ellesmere Park Development Control Policy which states the Council will only grant
planning permission where a number of criteria, as detailed above, are met. Criteria point ‘iii’ states that
planning permission will only be granted if it can be demonstrated that the existing property cannot be
retained and converted economically for an acceptable alternative use appropriate to the residential
character of the area. To address this the applicant has submitted an economic evaluation of four options;
upgrading the nursing home to comply with health care regulations, converting the existing premises into a
single dwelling, converting the existing dwelling into flats and demolishing the existing building and
rebuilding with flats. An assumption, by the applicant, has been made that only a residential type use is
acceptable to the residential character of the area. I agree that only a residential use would be acceptable at
this site.
The economic report details the cost and explains profit/loss levels of the four options. Upgrading the
existing nursing home would cost £750,000 to make the building comply with current standards.
Conversion to one dwelling would cost £665,000 against a sale value of £400,000. Converting the existing
building to flats would result in a profit of £57,510 (4.5% of revenue) however the report details that a
contingency fund of over £57,510 (5% of revenue) would be required thereby, it follows that this option
would return a loss and this it is stated is as a result of the extensive work required and damage to the
structure. The demolition of the existing building is estimated to provide a profit of £214,234. In summary
the economic report provided by the applicant explains states that the only residential use that is
economically viable at the site is for the demolition and construction of a new build apartment development
given that the costs are prohibitive to retaining the existing building. Having studied the report and its
appendices I am of the opinion that the findings are acceptable given the costs stated and revenues
anticipated.
Given that the building is not on the Statutory List or within a Conservation Area there are no other policy
controls over the demolition of the existing building. Although the building has merit in its architectural
form and is an older building within the area I do not consider that the existing building is worthy of being
placed on the Statutory List. Therefore as the applicant has demonstrated that the only economically viable
option is for demolition and rebuild I consider that the demolition accords with section ‘iii’ of Policy DEV9.
Redevelopment
Policy DEV9 covers a number of issues and states that planning permission will only be granted where a
number of criteria have been followed. These criteria include that the development would maintain the
predominantly residential character of the area and that due regard has been had to matters of siting, design
and height of buildings, facing materials, provision of car parking and the protection of trees. Policy states
that outside the Victorian core, unless the nature of the site and its surroundings dictate otherwise, the City
Council would normally expect new residential development to be in the form of two storey houses. In this
instance I consider it appropriate to achieve a design which is consistent with existing Victorian Villas.
Trees
There are protected trees on site (including, T63, G54 of TPO No. 13, 1974) which are to be protected
during construction by a line of tree protection fencing to be 2.4metres high chestnut paling fencing. The
south-east building alignment has been amended to increase the distance to the nearest tree, which is
included within G54, a 16 metre tall Sycamore Tree, with regards rainfall and interior sunlight. I consider
this to be acceptable in connection with BS5837.
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
Design
I note that the ‘Ellemere Park Residents Association’ (EPRA) strongly objects the proposals. With regard to
objections raised by residents I would comment as follows. The proposed building is set back 16.6m from
the road frontage, is set in by 8m from the Stafford Road side boundary and by 13.2m from rear properties
(10.2m to the rear boundary). All protected trees on the site are to be retained and areas of open space
around the building are provided for. At a ridge height of 12.7m it is just 2.5m higher than the existing
Victorian property on the site. In view of the above information I do not consider that this development
represents an over-development of the site or that it will result in a loss of sunlight to any neighbouring
property.
Loss of privacy is an important consideration on this site and the original plans have been amended as a
result of my concerns. To the rear of the site there are three kitchen-dinning windows that will now have
obscure glazing and the distance to the rear boundary has been increased. The proposed building is
obscured by mature trees along all boundaries, thereby reducing the visual impact on surrounding
properties. Four kitchen windows along the north-west side have also been amended to incorporate obscure
glazing, as well as removal of four bedroom windows on this elevation, thereby improving privacy with
regards the flats at 28 Ellesmere Road. I therefore consider that all concerns with regards privacy and
overbearing have been acceptably amended in relation to neighbouring properties and are in accordance
with Policy DEV1 & DEV9.
With regards to environmental heath concerns to internal layout (potential detrimental noise between
adjoining habitable rooms of separate flats and the lift) the applicant has confirmed their intention to
propose ’10 newton blockwork’ full cavity insulation. I consider this to be acceptable.
Appearance
The area is characterised by large elegant Victorian properties set within spacious grounds and set back
from the road frontage.
I consider the general appearance to be acceptable as this has been designed to be closer to the style of
building that will be replaced and I do not consider that the development is out of character with the area.
Such architectural features include bay windows, a chimney, turret windows, and a suitable glazing pattern.
Side elevations submitted also show the lift equipment enclosed within an acceptable building feature.
With regard to the objection that there are too many flats already I do not consider that it would be
appropriate to replace large Victorian properties with small detached houses. Non residential uses are not
encouraged within Ellesmere Park and therefore the most appropriate form of development will often be
flats.
Amendments include relocation of refuse bins to a location more convenient to collection alongside the
vehicular entrance; these will also be lockable to prevent safety risk. The Gates have also been repositioned
5.5metres from the highway to allow greater freeflow of traffic coming on/off Ellesmere Road and will be
wrought iron key coded to improve site security and prevent unauthorised access.
Traffic
There have been numerous objections on grounds of potential increase in traffic generation, parking on
street, and a new access. It should be noted that no new access points are proposed although the existing
access is to be amended as discussed above. Parking provision is at 100% which I consider to be acceptable
in light of the size of units, provision of cycle parking, and proximity to public transport.
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
Amendments are included to show disabled provision of two parking spaces, and a footpath provided
around the north-west building elevation, separating traffic from pedestrians thus improving safety. Secure
parking spaces are all provided within parking bays overlooked by habitable windows, and compliments
policy DEV4.
I do not consider that the traffic generated by this development would be significant in context of existing
traffic in the area and devaluation is not a planning matter that can be taken into account in the consideration
of applications.
Conclusion
I consider that the main planning issue is whether the proposed development would have an unacceptable
effect upon neighbouring properties with particular regard to policies DEV9(iii), DEV1, and DEV2. The
proposals have been amended significantly and the alignment of the building improved. While it can be
argued the proposed building is simply a mock 19th century flats, I consider the general style to complement
that of the adjacent Victorian core.
The economic report submitted by the applicant shows that the viable option is demolition followed by new
build. Having studied the report and its appendices I am of the opinion that the findings are acceptable given
the costs stated and revenues anticipated. Although the proposal is still for eighteen flats sufficient distances
have been achieved from neighbouring properties to ensure, that there will be no significant detrimental
effect upon neighbouring properties. On balance, I therefore recommend that permission be approved
subject to the conditions set out below.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within six months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
3. Standard Condition C03X Fencing of Trees/no work within spread
4. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the roof and
exterior walls of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
5. Standard Condition F03X Surfacing
6. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
(Reasons)
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
4. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
5. Standard Reason R013A Use of parking areas
6. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding details
of drainage.
2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Coal Authority.
APPLICATION No:
02/45309/FUL
APPLICANT:
J Eckstein And A S Egan
LOCATION:
427 Bury New Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4m high palisade fence and gates at rear of property
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a terraced property on Bury New Road, which is a shop on the ground floor and
two self-contained flats on the first and second floors. The proposal is to erect 2.4m high palisade fencing
and gates around the back yard to make it secure.
SITE HISTORY
In 1999, planning permission was granted for the first and second floors to change from living
accommodation to 2 self-contained flats (ref. 99/39264/COU).
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 12 February 2003.
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:429, 429b Bury New Road
13 & 20 Curzon Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a verbal objection to the proposal. The following issues have been raised:The rear yard is full of tipped material. It is supposed to be available to provide 2 parking spaces in
connection with the previous approval, although this has never been done
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV4 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The applicant is wishing to fence the rear of his yard in order to provide security, to prevent any fly tipping
and to prevent miscreants congregating. The fencing would allow for security at the rear of the property,
whilst still allowing some natural surveillance of the area that would not be achieved by a brick wall.
The neighbour’s objections have been raised with the applicant, about the need to provide parking spaces
and the state of the yard that has a considerable amount of tipped material in it. The current applicant was
not the original owner of the property when the planning permission was granted. However, he has assured
me that it is intention to clear all the tipped material. He has submitted an amended plan to show the
provision of 2 parking spaces and folding gates in order to allow access into the site. I am satisfied that it
will be possible to ensure the compliance of the condition on the previous planning approval and therefore it
should remove these concerns of the objector.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The fence hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior to the
commencement of the development by the Director of Development Services.
3. The application hereby approved shall relate to the amended plan received on 17 February 2003 which
shows an amended gate detail and 2 car parking spaces. Such spaces shall be available at all times for
the parking of a private motor vehicle.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
APPLICATION No:
02/45315/FUL
APPLICANT:
Harlor Homes Limited
LOCATION:
Site Of Former Caledonian Motors Manchester Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of part three/part four storey block of 22 apartments together
with associated car parking and alterations to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a former car showroom, the last premises on the northbound side of Manchester
Road before the greenbelt when travelling towards Walkden. The single storey showroom is now vacant
and boarded up. Adjacent to the site to the east is the Morning Star pub, with residential dwellings to the
north and south. The greenbelt adjoins the site to the west.
The proposal which has been amended from the original submission is for the demolition of the existing
showroom and for the erection of 22 apartments (previously 24 units) within a building which would be part
four/part three storey. The central section would stand 13m high with a central access archway with three
storeys of accommodation above and there would be three storey accommodation to either side. The
section closest to the greenbelt would stand 9m to the ridge of the roof and utilise the roof space whilst the
section closest to the Morning Star pub would provide third storey accommodation and utilise dormer
windows. This section would stand 10m high. There would be a central tower feature which would provide
access to the building and each floor. At the rear twenty two car parking spaces would be provided with
two disabled spaces which would be accessed through an archway off-centre along the frontage. The
existing accesses would be closed. There would also be a small formal garden area immediately to the rear
of the apartments adjacent to the western boundary and a landscape buffer would be planted along the north
and eastern rear boundaries.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Environment Agency – no objections subject to the imposition of a condition requesting an assessment of
the risk of the potential for on-site contamination.
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Officer – no comments received.
The Coal Authority – no comments received.
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
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:555, 569 – 579 Manchester Road
1, 2 and 3 Tamarin Close
Eckersley Joinery , Bagot Street
Wardley Campus off Grasmere Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 3 letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Loss of privacy
Loss of view
Restriction of sunlight
Devaluation of properties
Four storeys is too high
Parking at the rear with headlights shining into properties at rear
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:none.
Other policies: EN2 Green Belt, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Crime and Design
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The site is situated on the edge of the greenbelt and therefore any proposal must consider its impact upon
the visual amenity of the greenbelt in order to retain its character in accordance with policy EN2. The
impact of the proposed apartments upon the amenity of the residents to the rear, must also be considered in
accordance with DEV1.
The neighbouring residents are concerned that the proposal is too high at four storeys, and would result in
a subsequent loss of privacy for them and also sunlight. There would be some 26m between the rear main
wall of the proposed apartments and the properties directly to the rear of the site which is an acceptable
separation to mitigate any significant detrimental impact upon privacy. There are also properties
approximately 8m to the east of the site and to the rear of the Morning Star pub but I am satisfied that owing
to the acute angle and relationship of these to the proposed apartment block that these residents should not
experience a significant detrimental impact in terms of loss of privacy or that the apartments would appear
overbearing. Again, owing to the separation to these properties I am satisfied that any loss of sunlight
would be minimal.
There was also concern that the parking was at the rear of the site and that the existing residents would
experience car headlights shining into their properties. The applicant has indicated that there would be a
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
landscape buffer along the rear boundaries which could be planted with shrubs which would reduce this
occurring.
The proposal would provide twenty two car parking spaces at the rear of the site. PPG13 is seeking to
encourage reduced reliance upon cars through reducing parking provision in locations which are well
served by public transport. I consider this one such location. I am therefore satisfied that 22 spaces is
acceptable and the applicant has also provided a cycle store within the proposal for the future residents.
Subject to a right hand turn facility provided within Manchester Road, which the applicant has indicated he
is willing to undertake, I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds.
The applicant has amended the proposal to reduce its scale and massing, especially within the central
section and has also amended the roofline closest to the greenbelt. Additional design details have been
incorporated including bay and dormer windows and the front and rear elevations have been stepped
slightly to incorporate depth and interest. I am satisfied that with these amendments the appearance and
impact upon the greenbelt has been considerably improved and that the visual amenity of the greenbelt
would not be detrimentally affected.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be used
for the walls and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
3. Standard Condition C01X Landscaping
4. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the
approval of the LPA. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground
contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of hte risk to
receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focussing primarily on
risks to human health and to controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of
ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on
services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems
and property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior the start of the site
investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report
shall be implemented by the developer prior to the occupation of the site.
5. The developer shall undertake an assessment in accordance with the Department of the Environment
Planning and Noise Guidance Document, PPG24, to determine the noise levels that the residents in the
apartments will be subjected to (daytime and night-time). The assessment shall take into account the
impact of transport related noise, including noise from traffic on Manchester Road and the M60.
The assessment and mitigation measures shall be submitted for the approval of the LPA and any
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
approved mitigation measures are to be implemented prior to occupation.
6. The apartments hereby approved shall not be occupied until a right hand turn facility has been provided
on Manchester Road, in accordance with a scheme to be approved by the Director of Development
Services before development commences.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
6. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This permission shall relate to the amended plans received 13 February 2003 which shows a reduction
in the central roof height and design alterations to front and rear.
APPLICATION No:
02/45322/COU
APPLICANT:
Morston Western Regional Property
LOCATION:
1 Morston Close Ellenbrook Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Use of Unit 1 for hot food takeaway (Class A3)
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant unit at Morston Close, off Ellenbrook Road, Ellenbrook, Worsley. The
unit is located within a recently constructed mixed-use development which includes retail units, flats, a
surgery and a pharmacy. The site is located close to the junction of Ellenbrook Road and Bridgewater Road.
The property is one of four retail units within the site. Only one of the other retail units is occupied at
present. This is unit 1, which is currently a Late Shop. Forty-six car parking spaces are provided to cater for
the whole development.
SITE HISTORY
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
In October 2000, planning permission was granted for the erection of mixed use development comprising
two storey nursery, single storey medical centre, dental surgery and shop and two storey building
comprising four retail units and seven self contained flats together with associated car parking and
landscaping (ref: 00/41137/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – objects to the application due to problems with noise and odour from
the proposed development
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:Flats 1-7, Units 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14 Morston Close
5, 7, 14-20 Mallowdale
41-45, 50 Hindburn Drive
Red Lion Public House, St Mary’s Church, Greater Manchester County Fire Service Depot, 111,
113, 481 Ellenbrook Road
Boundary Stone Public House, Bridgewater Road
5, 8 &10, Gatemere Close
1 Lightwood
37-41, 34-40 Oriole Drive
Rowlands Solicitors, Chorley Road Swinton
3 Thornway
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 2 letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Youths gathering in the area
Litter
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: Policy S7/4 Sites for New Retail Development
Other policies: Policy S5 Control of Food and Drink Premises
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The site is allocated in the UDP as a site for new retail development. This allocation has been achieved with
the approval and subsequent implementation of the mixed use development scheme, of which this retail unit
forms a part. The development was considered necessary to serve the surrounding area of housing growth.
In relation to the objections raised regarding an increase in litter as a result of the proposed development,
litter bins are already provided within the development. However, as this has been raised as a concern by
local residents, I feel it appropriate to attach a condition requiring the provision of a litter bin prior to the
occupation of this unit by an A3 user. I consider that this will adequately address residents’ concerns.
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
Whilst the Council does not ordinarily permit A3 uses beneath residential accommodation, I feel there are a
number of mitigating circumstances which justify the approval of this development and which overcome
the objection from the Director of Environmental Services. I consider that as the development as a whole
performs the role of a local centre and that A3 uses are acceptable in such locations. Residents living in such
locations or above retail properties do not expect the same level of amenity as residents who do not live
within such areas, as they are aware of the mixture of uses and the associated issues when moving in. I
consider it reasonable in planning terms to allow an A3 use below a residential property in such
circumstances and do not consider that there are sufficient reasons for refusal. The main issues surrounding
A3 uses relate to fumes and odour and noise and disturbance. However, it is possible to deal with both of
these issues by condition to ensure that no detrimental impact on amenity will result. Firstly, the unit has
been constructed with an internal flue and I do not therefore consider that there will be an impact on
amenity as a result of fumes and odours. Secondly, there are already other premises in the immediate
vicinity which operate into the evenings, including the Late Shop which occupies unit 4. The opening hours
of this unit are Mondays to Saturdays 7am-10pm and Sundays 8am-10pm. There are also a number of
public houses in the vicinity which are open until a similar time in the evening. I do not therefore consider
that there will be a greater detrimental impact than at present in terms of noise and disturbance as a result of
the proposed development. A condition is attached which restricts the hours of opening.
On the above basis, I consider the proposed use to be appropriate in this location and the restricted hours of
opening and the internal flue will ensure that there is no detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring
residents as a result. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Prior to the development hereby approved coming into use, the applicant shall provide a litter bin to the
front of the premises. The applicant shall first submit details of the design and position of the litter bin
(in liaison with the Director of Environmental Services), for the written approval of the Director of
Development Services.
3. The use hereby permitted shall NOT be operated on Sundays and Bank Holidays and shall ONLY be
operated between the hours of 8.00 am and 11.00 pm on any other day.
4. Details of the fume extraction system serving the cooking or/and food preparation areas shall be
designed such that there will be no odour or noise nuisance to nearby premises and shall be approved by
the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
APPLICATION No:
02/45323/COU
APPLICANT:
M & D Properties
LOCATION:
36 Elleray Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Change of use of one single dwelling house into two flats
WARD:
Claremont
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an end terraced dwelling. The proposal is to convert the property into a
one-bedroom ground floor flat and a two-bedroom flat at first and second floors.
No external alterations are proposed to the elevations. There is presently no off-street car parking and no car
parking provision has been identified at the site.
The site is located in a residential area predominantly comprising terraced properties. To the rear of the site
there are three-storey flats at Irlam Square.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 28th January 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:33, 34, 35, 42 Elleray Road
37 – 48 Irlam Square
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:increased risk of fire
is an inappropriate area for bedsit land as all properties in the road are private residential houses for
families and it is not a commercial enterprise zone
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
concerned about the security risk of having a high turnover of tenants and not knowing who lives
next door
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H5 – Conversion of dwellings
T13 – Car Parking
PLANNING APPRAISAL
With regards to the objection raised in relation to fire safety, I can confirm that the Building Regulations
will apply to the conversion of a single dwelling into flats and as such, the change of use of the building
must comply with specified requirements, which include means of escape and other fire precautions. The
second concern raised relates to the appropriateness of the proposed development. The surrounding area is
residential in nature and I therefore consider that the principle of the sub-division of the dwelling into two
flats for residential use is acceptable. With regards to the final objection raised, I do not consider that the
tenure of the flats or future occupiers is a material planning consideration.
I consider that the remaining issues for consideration relate to the provision of amenity space and car
parking. With regards to amenity space, there is a small rear yard area and area to the front of the property,
which I consider to be satisfactory. No new car parking provision has been identified as part of the proposal
and there is no existing on-site car parking. The Government’s policies on housing are set out in Planning
Policy Guidance (PPG) Note 3: Housing (March 2000). Paragraph 61 of PPG3 states that local authorities
should revise their parking standards to allow for significantly lower levels of off-street parking provision,
particularly for developments in locations where services are readily accessible by walking, cycling or
public transport. The parking standard identified for a C3 Use in the UDP First Deposit Draft Plan is a
maximum of 1.5 spaces per dwelling. Paragraph 14 of PPG13 (Transport) states that local authorities, in
assessing the suitability of sites for housing development should consider their location and accessibility to
jobs, shops and services by modes other than the car. The application site is located approximately 50
metres from Bolton Road and the Irlam O’ Th’ Heights Key Local Centre. Whilst I do have some concerns
in relation to the lack of on-site car parking, there is on-street car parking available to the front and side of
the property and I believe that the site is located in a good position for access to local services and public
transport, being at such close proximity to the Irlam O’ Th’ Height Key Local Centre and Bolton Road.
I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds and I consider that residential use would be in
keeping with the surrounding area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
APPLICATION No:
02/45326/FUL
APPLICANT:
Eurosonic Limited
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By Trafalgar Street, Bramley Street And Ramsgate
Street Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of warehouse together with associated service yard and car
parking
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a previously developed 0.8ha site along the northern boundary of the Cambridge
Industrial Area. The CWS textile factory was previously sited on this site, but it has been cleared for a
number of years.
Adjoining the site to the north, is Ramsgate House, which provides day care facilities and residential
accommodation. This boundary consists of a 2.4m paladin fencing. Beyond Bramley Street is residential
accommodation with some clearance recently undertaken. To the east is a site within Manchester City
Council and is currently cleared. Storage and light industrial uses on Choir Street make up the southern
boundary beyond Trafalgar Street.
This proposal would provide 2335 sq m of warehouse space located in the middle of the site. Access and
servicing would be provided off Ramsgate Street. Ten car parking spaces would be provided within the
site. The applicant has also indicated a potential second phase to the site for additional warehouse and
office space although it does not form part of this application.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections.
Manchester City Council – No response
Police Authority – Advice provided
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 23rd January 2003
A site notice was displayed on 15th January 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:Units 2 –22 (even) Choir Street
13 – 28 Choral Grove
Unit 1 Trafalgar Business Park, Ellis Street
24 – 54 (even) & 27 – 47 (odd) Melbourne Street
Ramsgate House, Ramsgate Street
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one representation in response to the application publicity. The following issues have been
raised:Generally in favour of scheme, would resist any road closure
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None adopted. E3/1 - Sites for Employment Development, Deposit Draft
DEV1 – Development Criteria, DEV4 - Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV1 seeks to ensure good quality developments that respect surrounding uses/buildings with regards to
design and also privacy/sunlight/daylight. Policy DEV4 seeks to deter vandalism and other criminal
activity. Policy E3/1, of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan, Sites for Employment Development,
allocates this particular site for offices and light industry, in the interests of residential amenity.
I have received one letter of support in relation to the application publicity. The police architectural liaison
officer has provided advice with regard to crime reduction, I will pass this information on to the applicant’s
agent.
The main planning issue with regard with application is the effect that the proposal would have on the
adjoining land uses. As stated earlier this site is adjacent to the Cambridge Industrial Area and as such
would be a continuation of this area. However, consideration must be given to the adjoining use to the
north, Ramsgate House and in particular the separate two storey associated residential accommodation.
This proposal would be sited adjacent to the car park of Ramsgate House, which is itself off set to this
proposal and does not provide residential accommodation. The main activity associated with this proposal
would emanate from the comings and goings of the delivery vehicles. The loading area is located to the east
of the site some 50m from the residential accommodation. The building itself would also provide an
acoustic barrier to the residential element and as such this proposal would not have a detrimental impact
upon residential amenity.
Adjacent to the proposed loading area is the car park and landscaping of
Ramsgate House. The application originally sought consent for unrestricted hours of operation. However,
the applicants agent has agreed to restrict the hours of delivery to 7am – 7pm Monday to Friday and 8am –
6pm on Saturdays and no operations on Sunday to further protect residential amenity, I have attached an
appropriate condition.
The access to the site into the surrounding road system would be obtained via Ramsgate Street and has two
access points onto Bury New Road. Ramsgate Street has been closed north of Willerby Road. I have no
highway objections. Therefore, subject to an appropriate landscaping condition that encompasses the
whole site, I am of the opinion that this proposal would not have any detrimental impact upon the
neighbouring residential uses.
RECOMMENDATION:
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme for the whole of the site and shall also
include a 5m strip along Bramley Street which shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of
Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall include full details of trees
and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and shall be carried out within
12 month of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of
the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced
to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
3. Standard Condition D02X Details of Materials
4. No development shall take place until full details of the water tanks have been approved in writing from
the Director of Development Services
5. There shall be no storage of any goods, plant, equipment or other materials outside the confines of the
building at any time.
6. No external operation/servicing or manoeuvring of vehicles shall take place on the premises on
Sundays and Bank Holidays nor between the hours of 19.00 - 7.00 Monday to Saturday.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the response from the Police Authority with regard to crime
reduction measures
APPLICATION No:
03/45399/FUL
APPLICANT:
North West Domestics
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
LOCATION:
355/363 Liverpool Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey rear extension
WARD:
Barton
6th March 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land at the rear of 355-363 Liverpool Road, Eccles (total site area is approx.
600sq.m), which is presently comprises four terrace shops combined into one store, for sale of
furniture/domestic goods. There are four flats upstairs and parking for up to 3 cars/LGV’s.
The proposal is for a single storey rear extension of approx. 152sq.m to connect to the existing shop.
Materials proposed include profile roof sheets and brick, while all but one (loading bay) parking space will
be removed as a result of this proposal.
The site is located in between Peel Green and Patricroft (not within a specified district centre), along
Liverpool Road, which is predominantly retail but with many adjoining residential streets, and two
churches opposite.
SITE HISTORY
In 2001 planning permission was granted for the erection of a single storey extension at the rear of the
existing (combined) shop (01/42093/FUL).
In 1998 planning permission was granted for the erection of a single storey rear extension to provide sales
and storage area (98/38038/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 24th January 2003.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:
333 & 365-375(o) Liverpool Road
9-23(o) Eldon Place
4-12(e) Eldon Place
1 Woodfield Grove
Church of the Holy Cross
The Church of Jesus Christ of Laterday Saints
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one (1) letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues
have been raised:
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
Loss of residential amenity
Materials not acceptable
No shutters should be allowed
No fence should be erected
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
EC7 – industry & commerce in residential areas
T3 - highways
T9 - equality of access
T13 – car parking
DEV1 – development criteria
DEV2 – good design
DEV3 - alterations/extensions
DEV4 – design & crime
DEV5 – equality of access
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The site is located on a significant transport artery and the immediate residential streets have parking
restrictions. Policy T13 specifies that adequate parking provision must be made within the curtilage of the
site, such as for the provision of company vehicles, staff parking, an unknown number of visitors, and for
residents in upper floor flats. It should be noted that although the application form states that one new space
will be created, while two spaces remain, however there are no spaces indicated in the submitted plan.
The proposed servicing arrangements are limited to a 6m by 3m area off Eldon Place with poor sight lines
and inadequate radii.
Although the City Council supports the provision of opportunities for employment I do not consider this
proposal to be acceptable to this locality with particular regard to parking provision and servicing .
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development without the provision of off street parking would result in on street parking
to the serious detriment of residential amenity and highway safety contrary to Policy T13 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan
2. The layout and position of the servicing arrangements would result in conditions prejudicial to highway
safety particularly on Eldon Place contrary to policy T13 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
APPLICATION No:
03/45408/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Halton
LOCATION:
2 Arkholme Ellenbrook Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension
WARD:
Walkden South
6th March 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
A first floor element would be at the front of the property and be flush with
the front main wall, above the existing garage. The two-storey element would be at the
back and be flush with the rear main wall. It would be 1m to the boundary of the
property.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No objections.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:3,4,5 Arkholme
2, 4 Lightwood
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 2 letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:
Loss of light to gardens.
Detrimental impact upon outlook.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Dev8 states that planning permission would be granted if the extension would not have an unacceptably
adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, loss of
privacy or light.
The extension would be 13.5m away from the closest main habitable windows. This complies with the
guidelines of the Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions for separation distances. I do
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
not, therefore consider there would be a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of these neighbours
as a result of the extension.
Both objectors are concerned that there would be a loss of light caused to the rear gardens at their properties.
Whilst there would be some loss of light to one of the gardens of the properties particularly later in the
evening, the intervening separation (13.5m) is considered sufficient to minimise any serious
overshadowing.
I consider that the design of the extension is in keeping with the dwelling.
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:
03/45423/FUL
APPLICANT:
Peel Investments (North) Ltd
LOCATION:
Bridgewater Park Playing Fields, Land Off Godmondhall Drive/
Amberhill Way Boothstown Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a football changing facility
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land at Bridgewater Park Playing Fields, Godmondhall Drive/Amberhill Way,
Boothstown. The application is for the erection of a football changing facility associated with the
previously approved sports and recreational facilities on the same site, including two senior grass football
pitches, two mini soccer pitches and a car park. That permission has yet to be implemented. The whole
scheme forms part of the adjacent housing development which approved in 1993. It is proposed to open the
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
pavilion between 7pm and 9.30pm Monday to Friday, 12 noon to 10pm on Saturdays and 10am to 4pm on
Sundays. The proposed pavilion will be 318 sq m.
The site for the recreation facilities comprises generally flat land, extending to some 7 hectares. It is
bounded by Amberhill Way to the north, the Bridgewater Canal to the south, Moss House Lane to the east
and open land to the west. It is proposed to site the pavilion adjacent to the previously approved car park,
approximately 50m from Amberhill Way.
SITE HISTORY
In 1993, outline planning permission was granted for a residential estate including physical, social, and
environmental infrastructure and the provision of recreational facilities including the construction of a
synthetic sports pitch (with floodlights), a football pitch, cricket square, associated building, car parking
and children’s play area (reference 91/28171/OUT). That included the site on which the proposed pavilion
is to be located.
The Section 106 agreement required the provision of:
An all weather hockey/soccer pitch constructed in synthetic material with mesh ball fencing and
floodlighting
A grass football pitch and a grass cricket pitch.
A sports pavilion.
A 30 space car park.
Landscaping.
The applicant was required to commence the works once a certain housing phase was implemented.
Following several meetings and discussions, it was resolved to approve a different mix of uses to include:
Two, grass sports pitches suitable for football and rugby respectively.
A cricket square and outfield
An agora space sports area.
Equipped children’s play area.
A sports pavilion
30 space car park
Open space and landscaping.
A full planning application for a sports and recreational facility including 2 senior football pitches, 3 mini
soccer pitches, a pavilion/changing rooms/community room, 45 space car park and landscaping was
submitted in August 1999. This proposal was dependent on a successful submission for Sports Lottery
Funding and a bid was made on behalf of the applicants, Boothstown Project/Peel Investments, by the City
Council. Before the application was determined the City Council was informed in January 2000 that the
application for lottery funding had not succeeded. The applicant agreed to withdraw the planning
application on the basis that a revised scheme utilising the original resource arrangements was proposed.
In April 2000, the applicants resubmitted the application for sports and recreational facilities. That
application was approved in September 2000 (ref: 00/40644/FUL).
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
In May 2001, an application for the enlargement of the approved car park (60 spaces) to provide an
additional 30 spaces was approved (ref: 01/42235/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to conditions
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application (including those making representations
previously):4 Abbeydale Gardens (Ashton Field Drive)
3 Redwater Close
1 Birchfield Drive
3 Reddington Close
101-111 (O), 112, 113, 115, 110-130 (E) 1-5 (O) Holmepark Gardens
Boothshall Way
1, 5 Thorns Villa Gardens
30 Brookfield Road
2-46 (E), 1-7 (O), 41-47 (O) Amberhill Way
23 Clandon Avenue
1-11 (O), 15, 17, 2-12 (E) Cringlebarrow Close
45 Drywood Avenue
1-11 (O), 15-23 (O), 2-16 (E) The Chaddock
20 Edenfield Lane
Level
37 Ellesmere Road
1-9 (O), 2-28 (E) Kepplecove Meadow
8 Ellesmere Street
29 Crosslands Road
18 Farm Lane
8 Rose Acre
6 Fir Tree Avenue
1-7 (O), 2-10 (E) Bleesefell Chase
3 Glendale Road
1-8 Cleabarrow Drive
2 Greenleaf Close
1-11 (O), 15-25 (O) Ploughfields
122 Grosvenor Street
15 Edenvale
15 Grovehill
5 Thornway
139 Hilton Lane
2 Hindburn Drive
4, 13 Kempnough Hall Road
1 Averhill
8 Ladybridge Avenue
7 Spindlepoint Drive
14 Longley Drive
10 Habergham Close
13 Meadowgate
22 Cornlea Drive
60 Memorial Road
1-7 (O), 2-16 (E) Grey Knotts
1 Mortlake Close
1-7 (O) The Borrans
2 Mulgrave Road
1-11 (O), 15-21(O), 45-55 (O) 57-93 (O), 26-80
41,57 Rands Clough Drive
(E) Highclove Lane
100 Ringlow Park Road
1-11 (O) 15-39 (O), 2-28 (E) Godmond Hall
40 Shearwater Drive
Drive
73 Standfield Drive
1-11 (O), 15, 17, 2-24 (E) Millcrest Close
5 Stetchworth Drive
1-9 (O), 2-8 (E) Fellfoot Close
135 Vicars Hall Gardens
5 West Meade
3 Waterbridge (Worsley Rd)
5 Windlehurst Drive
24 Waverley Road
72, 76, 108 Wyre Drive
123 Mosley Common Road
5 Crombouke Fold
5,7 Springburn Close
12 Landrace Drive
21 Boothstown Drive
9 Langtree Close
33 Firfield Grove
4 Quarry Pond Road
4 Linkfield Drive
29, 39 Brett Road
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
21 Linden Road
17 Ridgmont Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 11 letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:The size of the proposed pavilion
Discrepancies between the description of the development and the actual proposal
Excessive opening hours
Insufficient car parking
Possible use of floodlights
In addition, I have received a letter from the Boothstown Residents Association in support of the
application.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: R12/14
Other policies: DEV1
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The principle of a pavilion associated with the approved sports and recreational facility has already been
established by way of the previous approved application, which included the construction of a pavilion as
part of the overall scheme.
Several issues have been raised by objectors and I will deal with each in turn. Firstly there are queries over
the size of the proposed pavilion, particularly as it larger than that already approved. I do not however
consider that the pavilion is too large, as stated by some objectors. It will be in the region of 70m from the
closest residential property on Amberhill Drive and I do not consider that any detrimental impact on the
amenity of nearby residents will occur as a result of the proposed development, either in terms of loss of
privacy or due to its scale and massing because of this distance.
Two objectors highlight inconsistencies between the application form and the plans. Specifically, they are
referring to the fact that the kitchen and the coaching/education room within the proposed pavilion are not
explicitly mentioned on the application form. Whilst the objectors are correct in stating that these elements
have been omitted from the description, it is not necessary to state the uses of all the rooms within a
proposed building. The kitchen area for example is ancillary to the main use of the building as a changing
pavilion. This does not constitute a reason for refusal.
I propose to apply hours restriction to match those of the permission for the use of the land for sports and
recreation facilities.
In terms of the objection on the grounds of insufficient car parking, it should be noted that the car park has
already been enlarged from that previously approved, from 60 to 90 spaces. I consider this provision to be
entirely sufficient. The car parking proposed by the previous application was to cater for the entire
development, including a pavilion, and there is therefore no need to provide additional car parking as part of
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
this application. Traffic generation was considered at the time of the previous application for the
development of the whole site and there were no objections to the scheme on highway grounds.
Finally, the issue of floodlights has been raised by several objectors. Floodlights are not proposed as part of
this application. Indeed the previous permission for the development of this area for sports and recreational
facilities includes a condition preventing the use of floodlights without the permission of the Local
Planning Authority. Whilst I accept that the applicant may choose to submit a further planning application
to erect floodlighting at a later date, this is not an issue for consideration at this stage and should have no
bearing on the decision made in respect of this application.
On the above basis, I therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The pavilion hereby approved shall only be used between the hours of 9.00 am and 10.00pm Monday to
Friday, 9.00 am and 9.00pm on Saturdays.
3. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls and roof
of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
4. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a site investigation report
for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and
distribution of ground gases on site and shall address whether gas protection measures are necessary
within the building structure. The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Local
Planning Authority prior to the start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial
works contained within the approved report shall be implemented in full by the developer prior
occupation of the site. A written verification report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority
for approval identifying any measures which have been incorporated either into the structure of the
building, or any external works as recommended by the report prior to the occupation of the site.
5. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of
foul and surface waters has been submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Such a scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
3. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
4. In the interests of the future users of the site.
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
5. To ensure satisfactory means of drainage.
APPLICATION No:
03/45428/FUL
APPLICANT:
R Singh
LOCATION:
1 Salisbury House St Stephen Street Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Alterations to front elevation and construction of new roof over rear
yard
WARD:
Pendleton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant unit in Salisbury House off St Stephen Street, Salford 3.
The application is to alter the front elevation by inserting double doors with a window on either side. To the
rear of the property it is proposed to provide a roof over what is the existing yard. The existing gate into the
rear yard is to repositioned. The area created to the rear of the property will form a new storeroom.
Salisbury House is a purpose built development of eight shop units with flats above. Adjacent uses include
a video shop, hairdressers, newsagents and an off-licence. Surrounding uses are however predominantly
residential.
SITE HISTORY
00/41559/COU – planning permission refused on 7th December 2000 for the change of use of the property
to a hot food takeaway
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No response to date
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:18, 20 & 21 Tysoe Gardens
15 – 29 (O) Bevill Square
50-60 (E) Bevill Square
2 Salisbury House
REPRESENTATIONS
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:The applicant would be in breach of his lease by undertaking alterations to the premises
The property could become a hot food takeaway
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CS1 – Central Salford - Trinity
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy CS1 relates to the programme of renewal and refurbishment of the Trinity Housing Estate and
improving the adjacent commercial areas. I do not consider that this application prejudices the aims of this
policy.
In relation to the objections received, the details of the applicant’s lease is not a material consideration in
the determination of this planning application. Whilst the owners of the property state that they would not
permit the applicant to undertake the alterations applied for, this is not sufficient to justify the refusal of this
application on planning grounds.
In terms of the use, there have been suggestions that the applicant intends to use the premises as a shop for
the sale of hot food without the benefit of planning permission. An application to change the use of the
property from a bakery to a shop for the sale of hot food was refused in December 2000. It was considered
that the proposed development would be seriously detrimental to neighbouring residents and would injure
the character and amenity of the area by reason of smell and fumes, noise and disturbance and general
activity, contrary to Policy S5. In addition, the means of extraction of fumes were considered likely to
seriously injure the visual amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of its size and siting, contrary to
Policy DEV1. Circumstance have not changed since that refusal and it is therefore likely that should an
application to use the premises as a hot food takeaway at a later date, it would be refused for the same
reasons. In order to clarify the situation, the applicant’s agent has confirmed in writing that although the
property is currently vacant, the applicant intends to re-open it in the near future as an A1 premises and not
A3. I am satisfied that this addresses this matter.
In light of this written confirmation, I do not consider that the issue of the use of the property should carry
any weight in the determination of this application. This application has to be considered on its merits and
on the basis of the supporting information provided. The proposed works are relatively minor in nature and
accord with the relevant policies. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
03/45438/FUL
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Kaufman
LOCATION:
Land To Rear Of 10 New Hall Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of detached dwelling with integral garage and creation of new
vehicular access
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land at the rear of 10 New Hall Road. The site is bounded by Legh Street and
within a predominantly residential area of the city. The application is to erect a detached dwelling with
access off Legh Road.
This proposal would be set back from the highway a minimum of 3.7m due to the position of the road.
There would be a minimum separation of 21m between this and 10 New Hall Road, it would also maintain
a driveway length of 4.8m and would have a roller shutter style garage door.
The area slopes north to south and has a mixture of semi and detached properties similar in scale to this
proposal.
SITE HISTORY
Planning permission was granted in May of last year for a similar house type (02/43800/FUL)
An outline application has also been approved for a pair of semi-detached properties (02/43876/OUT) on
land at the rear of the neighbouring property, No. 8 New Hall Road.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Broughton Park Residents Association – No comments received
PUBLICITY
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
The following neighbours were notified :
6 and 8 New Hall Road
12 and 14 New Hall Road
4 Legh Road
Synagogue Legh Road
Broughton Park School Legh Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Loss of privacy
Height of the proposal
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
DEV 10 – Broughton Park Development Control Policy
DEV 1 Development Criteria, DEV 2 Good Design, SPG House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider that the main issues concern the nature, size and design of the proposal in relation to DEV 2, its
highway implications and the impact upon the neighbouring properties.
The design and size of this property is appropriate within Legh Road and in accordance with Policy DEV
10.
The proposed access and driveway to this proposal is from Legh Road. The driveway length is also in
accordance with the Council’s car parking standards and I have attached a condition ensuring that the type
of garage door is appropriate to the drive length.
I have received one letter of objection in relation to this proposal. Members will recall a similar scheme for
this site in May of last year. This application is similar to that which already has the benefit of a planning
approval. The difference between that application and this current application is the inclusion of a rear
dormer to utilise the roof space and an increase in the footprint of the dwelling by 1m towards Legh Road.
There are two trees which are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order in the within neighbouring garden.
The closest of which is 6m from the common boundary, therefore the siting of this building and the
construction of the driveway would not have any detrimental impact upon those trees.
The agent has provided a sectional drawing showing the separation to be 21m and the finish floor levels to
be 1.5m lower that the property to the rear.
I am of the opinion that the increase in the size of the footprint and the use of the roof would not have any
detrimental impact on the adjoining properties.
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D02X Details of Materials
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
APPLICATION No:
03/45439/COU
APPLICANT:
Gemini Estates
LOCATION:
542 Liverpool Road Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from estate agents (A2) to hot food takeaway (A3)
WARD:
Irlam
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the change of use from estate agents (A2) to hot food takeaway (A3), at 542
Liverpool Road, Lower Irlam, in a key local centre. Neighbouring properties are predominantly retail, with
upper floor flats. The proposed hours of use are unspecified but that the applicant has confirmed a
willingness to restrict hours to 6pm closing time.
The application site is sited between the Ship Hotel and a vacant property (last used as a gift & card shop).
There is no on-site parking provision but to the front of this row of shops and the pub is a parking area
shared between the pub and row of four shops.
CONSULTATIONS
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
Director of Environmental Services – proposal is contrary to ‘Hot Food Take Away Policy’.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 4th February 2003.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:The Ship Hotel
544-548(e) Liverpool Road
533-539(o) Liverpool Road
1-4 Dixon Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received four representations/ letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:
Too many take away shops
Cars parking on pavement and double yellow lines – traffic & pedestrian hazard
Litter & Cleaning problems
Wardens not present during evenings
Inconvenience to neighbouring residents
Noise & smells – difficult to tolerate if have windows open
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
S5 – Control of Food & Drink Premises
DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The panel is informed that the primary concern is the relationship of the proposal site to neighbouring
residential dwellings, with regard to Policy S5 (control of food & drink premises) and Policy DEV1
(development criteria). This states that such proposals must not have an acceptably adverse impact on
surrounding residential amenity, or be significantly prejudicial to the safety of pedestrians and road users.
With regard to policy S5, the property most affected is the adjacent flat above 544 Liverpool Road (to the
west). To the east is the Ship Hotel (a large detached property with parking provision). Although the flat
above no.544 Liverpool Road is presently vacant it could be used as residential in future.
The applicant has indicated a willingness to restrict hours of use to 6pm (day time working hours only) if
this means the application can be approved.
Objectors have commented on parking problems with drivers parking on the shared pavement. The
Assistant Director (Engineering) has recommended refusal on the grounds that due to parking restrictions
on Liverpool Road, traffic will be forced on to Dixon Street and Caroline Street (part of a one way loop) and
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
he is concerned about the impact on highway safety on these residential streets. This concern would remain
even if the hours of use were restricted.
Many objectors have stated the overprovision of hot food outlets within this locality. The ‘Retail Activity
Research Paper 98/13a’ shows Lower Irlam (a key local centre) has experienced a decline (between
1989-97) of A2 uses whilst A3 (including hot food) has been more stable. Research shows that in 1989
there were six A3 uses compared to seven in 1997, which I consider to be stable and this application
therefore does not present any significant change to the character of lower Irlam key local centre.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed use would give rise to noise, nuisance, smells and disturbance to the detriment of
residential properties contrary to Policy S5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
2. The proposed use would give rise to traffic and parking being generated on the adjoining residential
streets to the detriment of both highway safety and the residential amenity, contrary to Policy S5 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/45443/ADV
APPLICANT:
Miss Karen Pheasant
LOCATION:
Sides Medical Centre Moorside Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Display of one externally illuminated wall mounted sign on the front
elevation and one non-illuminated frame mounted sign at the entrance
(re-submission of 02/44796/ADV and 02/45098/ADV)
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The proposal is to display:one externally illuminated wall sign (1.2m x 0.8m) on the gable elevation facing Moorside Road
One non-illuminated frame mounted sign (1.7m x 1.2m) facing Moorside Road to be located at the entrance
to the facility.
To the south of the site there are a number of terraced flats, and to the west are a number of semi-detached
properties. There are a series of mature trees to the west of the site alongside Moorside Road.
SITE HISTORY
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
In 1998, planning permission was approved for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a
two storey 10 bedroom children's reception unit, health centre, ancillary offices and pharmacy together with
landscaping, car parking and alteration to the existing vehicular access (98/37586/FUL & 98/37586/FUL).
In 2000, planning permission was approved for the display of an internally illuminated projecting sign and
non-illuminated fascia signs to the pharmacy (00/40340/ADV).
In 2002, planning permission was approved for a change of use of part of the first floor of the Sides Medical
Centre to a ladies only fitness/slimming centre (02/44217/COU).
In 2002, planning permission was refused for the display of one externally illuminated wall sign, two
non-illuminated wall signs and one flag pole to advertise the ladies only fitness/slimming centre
(02/44796/ADV)
In 2002, planning permission was refused for the display of one externally illuminated wall sign, and one
non-illuminated wall sign to advertise the ladies only fitness/slimming centre (02/45098/ADV –
resubmission of 02/44796/ADV)
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 30th January 2003
The following neighbours were notified :
1 to 13 Moorfield close (odd)
12, 15, 17A, 19 to 27 (odd) Moorside Road
Moorfield Cottage
Moorfield House, 2 Moorside Road
2 Whiteacres, Moorside Road
1A, 10, 22 Norwood Drive
Sides Medical Centre
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 5 letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Illuminated sign will have a disturbing impact on the residents of the area;
Both signs too large.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
The principle of the first floor being used as a ladies only fitness/slimming centre was established by the
above mentioned planning permission. PPG 19 requires that advertisements, including their cumulative
effect, fit in with the character of the neighbourhood where they are displayed.
Only one of the two proposed adverts would be illuminated (on the gable elevation facing Moorside Road),
and the distance to the residential properties that it faces is approx. 38m. This sign is identical in design and
location, but is significantly smaller (reduction from 1.2m x 1.7m to 0.8m x 1.2m) to the one that was
refused in application 02/45098/ADV. This reduction in size follows in part the recommendation of the
Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel on 19th December 2002. The means of illumination is by an
external over head fluorescent fitting shining down onto the sign. I would therefore consider that its visual
impact on the local residents would not be significant. Furthermore, it would be set back 20m from the
highway and so I envisage no significant impact with regard to highway safety. Objectors have raised
concerns over the times when this sign would be illuminated. For this reason I have attached a condition to
restrict the use of the illuminated sign to when the ladies fitness centre is open.
The non-illuminated frame mounted sign facing Moorside Road to be located at the entrance to the facility
would be displayed within the mixed-use site, and would be 25m from any residential properties. I
envisage, therefore, that this advert would have no significant impact on residents adjacent to the site.
The proposed advertisements are suitably located within the Sides Medical Centre site, and are a significant
distance from any residential properties. I am of the opinion that their sizes are appropriate to the scale of
the Sides Medical Centre building and their siting is acceptable and would not be detrimental to the
character of the area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition K01S Standard Advertisement Condition
2. Standard Condition K02E Ilumination of Advertisements
3. The illuminated sign on the gable elevation of the Sides Medical Centre facing Moorside Road shall
only be lit when the ladies fitness centre is in use.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R034 Advert
2. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/45446/DEMCON
APPLICANT:
Housing Services Directorate
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
LOCATION:
72-78 Duchy 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 eight terraced dwellings/ existing shops 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 and temporarily grass the site,
protected by a barrier/ knee rail. The Director of Development Services (Building Control Section) would
supervise all demolition, to accord with Health and Safety requirements. Subsequent site treatment will be
the subject of a separate planning application.
The proposal has been submitted as part of the SRB5 Seedley and Langworthy Initiative. The surrounding
area is predominantly residential. Many of the properties in the vicinity are vacant and boarded up.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 3rd February 2003.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:
67, 70 & 90 Duchy Street
14 & 25 Langham Street
184 – 190(e) Langworthy Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H2 – Maintaining and Improving Public Sector Housing
Other policies: Dev4 –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.
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
03/45452/OUT
APPLICANT:
R Buckley
LOCATION:
91 Wellington Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for the erection of a three storey side
extension to form three self-contained flats together with associated
alteration to an existing access to a highway
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a site at the junction of Wellington Road with Monton Road and Half Edge Lane.
Outline planning permission is sought for the siting of a side extension and means of access. Proposed
elevations have been provided for information purposes.
The extension would extend some 8.8 metres from the side of the property towards the Monton Road/ Half
Edge Lane junction and would be 9.1 metres wide. The extension would provide three self-contained flats.
The existing property comprises a self-contained flat at basement level with a three-storey dwelling above.
In total, there would be 5 residential units at the site. Vehicular access would be from Wellington Road,
close to its junction with Monton Road/ Half Edge Lane. Six car parking spaces would be provided at the
rear of the site. The proposed extension would be built over the vehicular access to the parking area and as
such, the ground floor flat would be a small one-bedroom unit and there would be two larger two-bedroom
units at first and second floor.
Two garages located on the rear boundary of the application site would be demolished to enable car-parking
provision. A former vehicle repair garage located to the north of the site would also be demolished to make
way for the extension.
There are numerous mature trees surrounding the site, in particular to the north and north-west, the majority
of which are protected by Tree Preservation Order No. 13.
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
Uses in the surrounding area are predominantly residential. To the north-west of the site is Annesley Court,
a three-storey development of 18 self-contained flats. There is a difference in levels between the application
site and adjacent land – the site is at a higher level to the adjacent Annesley Court building of up to 1.5
metres.
The site is not located within the Ellesmere Park Conservation Area and falls just outside the boundary of
the Ellesmere Park Development Control Policy area.
SITE HISTORY
02/44088/COU - Change of use to two separate dwellings by converting existing basement. Approved
24.6.02.
98/38793/COU - Change of use of flats nos. 1 and 2 to offices. Approved 4.3.99.
E/11530/OUT – 91a Wellington Road - Erection of detached dwelling. Refused 17.12.80.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Acoustic dual glazing condition and also internal layout to comply
with Building Regulations Code E and internal arrangement to comply with British Standards.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1 – 18 Annesley Court
81- 89 (odds) Wellington Road
Flats 1 – 16 94 Wellington Road
2 Glenart
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity and an 18 name petition.
The following issues have been raised:proposals will have negative impact on Annesley Court flats and its landscaped grounds
1. will result in loss of daylight to at least 9 flats
loss of light will affect living conditions and market value
extension will overlook some of flat windows to Annesley Court and invade privacy
residents fear that the removal of garages and brick walls to the rear of Annesley Court will be
detrimental to views. Wall should be retained and improved
construction will be dangerous risk to pedestrians
new extension will provide an obstruction to drivers turning left onto Monton Road
concern regarding noise levels – car park will be situated a matter of yards from the windows of
flats at Annesley Court, also concerns in relation to air pollution
any removal of mature trees and shrubbery will affect wildlife
entrance to the flats is near a busy junction, causing traffic problems
strongly recommend that Members visit the site
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None.
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV3 – Alterations /Extensions
DEV4 – Design and Crime
EN7 – Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
T15 – Car Parking
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that regard should be had to a number of issues when
determining applications for planning permission, including the relationship to existing and proposed land
uses; the amount, design and layout of car parking provision; the visual appearance of the development and
the provision of open space. Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant planning
permission, unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance of the development.
Furthermore, UDP policy DEV4 states that the City Council will have regard to the detailing of the building
in the design of new development. UDP policy T13 states that the City Council will ensure that adequate
parking provision is made where necessary. The City Council’s car parking standards for flats with
communal parking (1.25 spaces per dwelling) would require a minimum of 6.25 car parking spaces to be
provided at the site. UDP policy EN7 states that the City Council will encourage the conservation of trees
and their protection and enhancement.
With regards to the objections raised, the principal areas of concern relate to loss of light and privacy to the
Annesley Court flats, traffic and car parking and the loss of trees. The proposed extension would be a
minimum distance of 13 metres from the side of Annesley Court and would not directly face it. There are
two narrow windows at each level to the side of Annesley Court which would appear to be secondary
windows. Given that the extension would be offset and at a minimum distance of 13 metres, I do not
consider that there would be any loss of privacy or that the extension would be overbearing.
Local residents have also raised concerns regarding the position of the car parking, vehicular access to the
site and traffic. With regards to car parking provision, the amount of car parking identified is in accordance
with adopted UDP standards. Whilst I acknowledge that the residents of Annesley Court have concerns
regarding the removal of the garages to the rear of the site and the use of this area for car parking, I consider
that the provision of replacement boundary treatment would provide an effective screen – the details of
which would be considered at the reserved matters planning stage. I do, however, have concerns in relation
to the parking layout and the intensification of the use of the vehicular access. The proposal represents a
significant intensification above the existing use of the property. The use of the car parking area for six cars,
using the existing single access point is not acceptable on highway safety grounds. The intensification of
this access will create vehicular conflicts within the junction of Wellington Road and Half Edge
Lane/Monton Road and pedestrian/vehicular conflicts at the access point. Furthermore, the car park layout
is not acceptable due to insufficient manoeuvring areas and will lead to vehicles having to reverse out into
the junction, creating further vehicular conflicts.
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
A further objection relates to the loss of trees at the site. I do not consider that the impact of the proposed
development on the trees can be properly assessed without the submission of additional information. The
applicant was asked to submit a detailed tree survey, but only submitted a faxed drawing, indicating
approximate positions of trees and inaccurate tree canopies. My concern relates to the distance of the
proposed extension to the trees/ tree canopies and that these trees may be lost given their close proximity to
the development and pressure from future occupants of the property for their removal.
I have a number of concerns regarding the size and siting of the proposed extension, in particular, I consider
that its size and siting would be out of keeping with the existing semi-detached properties on Wellington
Road. Furthermore, the gable end of the extension would front Half Edge Lane/ Monton Road and would be
set back just 0.8 metres from the back of the pavement. Other buildings on this side of the road, for example
Annesley Court and 94 Wellington Road are set back at lest 7 metres from the back of pavement. I consider
that the proposed siting is unacceptable in this prominent location, where there are open views on approach
from both Half Edge Lane and Monton Road.
Although matters of design and external appearance have been reserved, the applicant has submitted front
and rear elevation drawings. I consider that the design of the proposed extension is very poor and would be
out of keeping with the existing property, for example the position, height and design of windows do not
bear any resemblance to that of the existing building. The entrance to the ground floor flat would be within
a ‘tunnel’ area created by the upper floors being built over the vehicular access. There are no windows
overlooking this concealed area and therefore there is very limited natural surveillance.
No private amenity space has been identified as part of the development. The majority of the existing
curtilage of the property would be used for access and car parking and I am therefore concerned that there
would be insufficient usable private amenity space within the curtilage of the property.
I consider that the size and siting of the proposed extension is incongruous with the surrounding area and
that it would cause demonstrable harm within the street scene. Furthermore, the car parking layout
combined with the intensification of the access would be detrimental to highway safety.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would be an unduly obtrusive feature in the street-scene and would
seriously injure the visual amenity of the area by reason of its size and siting and as such, would be
contrary to Unitary Development Plan policy DEV3.
2. The proposed development would not allow sufficient space for the manoeuvring of vehicles to enable
vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear and this, combined with the intensification of the
vehicular access point, will be detrimental to highway safety and as such is contrary to Unitary
Development Plan policy T13.
3. Insufficient details have been submitted to enable the relationship between the proposed development
and adjacent trees, protected by Tree Preservation Order no.13, to be properly assessed, contrary to
Unitary Development Plan policies EN7 and DEV1.
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/45487/DEMCON
APPLICANT:
Langworthy Cornerstone
LOCATION:
2 Brown Street And 1-27 West Towers Street Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Prior notification of the demolition of existing dwellings
WARD:
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the demolition of fifteen terraced dwellings 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 and temporarily grass the site, protected by a
barrier/ knee rail. The Director of Development Services (Building Control Section) would supervise all
demolition, to accord with Health and Safety requirements.
The proposal has been submitted as part of the SRB5 Seedley and Langworthy Initiative. The surrounding
area is predominantly residential. Many of the properties in the vicinity are vacant and boarded up.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 3rd February 2003.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:52-76(e) West Tower Street
5 & 4 Brown Street
3-19(o) Glilbert Street
2 &4 Woodheys Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity, raising concerns about:recent demolition shaking the foundations;
houses being demolished all around resulting in isolation and vulnerability;
request for re-housing.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
Other policies: H2 – Maintaining and Improving Public Sector Housing
Other policies: 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.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
03/45507/OUT
APPLICANT:
MaST LIFT
LOCATION:
Site To The East Of Hankinson Way And North Of Churchill Way
Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Outline application for use of land for new primary health and social
care facility and ancillary accommodation
WARD:
Pendleton
BACKGROUND
In July 2000 the government published the NHS plan, a ten year plan for the modernising and reforming the
NHS. It identified the urgent need to improve primary care premises in England as a key constraint to the
development of the services. The plan states that the priority for investment will be those parts of the
country where primary care facilities are most in need of improvement.
The government has provided the NHS a vehicle for improving and developing primary and community
care facilities – NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT). The local LIFT will be a joint venture
between the Department of Health, the local healthcare community and the private sector; to develop and
encourage a significant increase in investment in primary care and community based facilities.
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
There are 6 primary care trusts (PCT) in the area including Salford, which is co-terminus with the City
Council. Each of the PCT areas have growing communities which will need more and better health and
social care facilities for the foreseeable future.
The initial focus of the NHS LIFT will be on investment in those parts of the country, such as inner cities,
where primary care services are in most need of expansion. The Manchester, Salford and Trafford area has
been identified as the first wave LIFT and this application has been submitted in this respect.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the existing car park, library and police station based at the junction of Hankinson
Way and Churchill Way. The shopping precinct is directly opposite the site across Hankinson Way to the
west whilst there are residential flats of Mulberry Court and Holm Court to the east.
The proposal is in outline only to establish the principle of primary health and social care facilities the site.
Activities are likely to include a range of health care services such as GP surgeries, health visitor clinics,
health promotion and specialist services and other public facilities such as libraries, community meeting
rooms, local Council offices and information centres. The facilities may be open seven days a week with
some services potentially available 24 hours a day. A preliminary traffic and parking study has been
submitted with the application although it is recognised that a comprehensive transport assessment would
be required at the reserved matters stage. The applicant has also indicated that the proposal would amount
to between 4000 and 5000 square metres over two floors. No other information has been submitted.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections in principle subject to the imposition of a contaminated
land condition if the existing car park is to be developed.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 7 February 2003.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:13 – 18, 33 – 46 Hankinson Way
Market Hall, Market Way
53/55 Fitzgerald Way
1 – 61 Lime Court, Lime Close
1 – 166 Mulberry Court
1 – 99 Holm Court
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Height of structure
Existing buildings are in good condition
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: SC9 Health Care Facilities, SC1 Provision of Social and Community Facilities, SC2
Provision of Social and Community Facilities by Private and Voluntary Agencies
PLANNING APPRAISAL
As the proposal is in outline it is simply seeking to establish the principle of the use on this site. The
proposal would provide new primary health and social care facilities and is therefore in broad accordance
with policies SC1, SC2 and SC9 which are all seeking to improve, maintain and support provision of social
and community facilities within the city. PPG13 also states that new intermediate health facilities should,
where possible, be located in town, district or local centres where they will be highly accessible by non car
modes of transport and where the facilities can reinforce the range of services provided by these centres.
One of the concerns of the objector is in relation to the height of the building and the possibility of it being
5 storeys high. No final design details have been submitted for the proposal but the applicant has indicated
that it would be two storeys and the final design would be addressed at the reserved matters application
stage.
I would acknowledge that the library and the police station are in good condition, however it is necessary to
balance the advantages of the proposal against the loss of these buildings. I consider that the proposal
would outweigh the loss of the buildings and it is also likely that the proposal would also incorporate
replacement facilities for the library.
The applicant has been in extensive discussions during the last six months regarding traffic and highway
issues and a traffic statement has also been submitted as part of this application which has been undertaken
by an independent traffic consultant. As such I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds
subject to a full traffic assessment undertaken at the reserved matters stage, the retention of the access to
Mulberry Court and the retention of the existing public parking provision. I have appended conditions to
this effect which should be attached if permission is granted.
I consider that the proposal would be of considerable benefit to the residents of Salford and therefore
recommend that this application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
2. Standard Condition B01X Reserved Matters
3. If the present day parking area is to be developed, prior to the commencement of development the
developer shall submit a site investigation report for the approval of the LPA. The investigation shall
address the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall
include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental
Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focussing primarily on risks to human health and safety of site workers,
on nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider
environmental receptors including ecological systems and property.
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to the start of the site
investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the report shall be
implemented by the developer prior to the occupation of the site.
4. The applicant shall submit a full transport assessment and green travel plan which shall be submitted
with the first reserved matters application and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services. Any highway works identified in the transport assessment shall be carried out prior to the
first occupation of the site and maintained thereafter.
5. The existing level of provision of public parking which shall be demonstrated with the first reserved
matters application shall be included within the development hereby approved and shall be made
available for use at all times by the public.
6. A secure staff operational car park shall be provided within the site in accordance with a scheme and
details to be approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. This car park shall be made
available from the first occupation of the building and shall be available at all times that the facilities
are open.
7. Unobstructed pedestrian and vehicular access to Mulberry Court shall be incorporated into the design
of the site which shall be maintained at all times and to the satisfaction of the Director of Development
Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
4. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
5. To ensure the retention of the existing public car parking provision within the area in accordance with
policy T13 of the UDP.
6. To ensure provision is made for employees of the proposed facilities in accordance with policy T13 of
the UDP.
7. To safeguard the access to Mulberry Court for residents and visitors in accordance with policy DEV1
of the UDP.
APPLICATION No:
03/45508/OUT
APPLICANT:
MaST LIFT
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
LOCATION:
Lancastrian Hall Chorley Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Outline application for the use of site for new primary health and social
care facility and ancillary accommodation
WARD:
Pendlebury
BACKGROUND
In July 2000 the government published the NHS plan, a ten year plan for the modernising and reforming the
NHS. It identified the urgent need to improve primary care premises in England as a key constraint to the
development of the services. The plan states that the priority for investment will be those parts of the
country where primary care facilities are most in need of improvement.
The government has provided the NHS a vehicle for improving and developing primary and community
care facilities – NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT). The local LIFT will be a joint venture
between the Department of Health, the local healthcare community and the private sector; to develop and
encourage a significant increase in investment in primary care and community based facilities.
There are 6 primary care trusts (PCT) in the area including Salford, which is co-terminus with the City
Council. Each of the PCT areas have growing communities which will need more and better health and
social care facilities for the foreseeable future
The initial focus of the NHS LIFT will be on investment in those parts of the country, such as inner cities,
where primary care services are in most need of expansion. The Manchester, Salford and Trafford area has
been identified as the first wave LIFT and this application has been submitted in this respect.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of the Lancastrian Hall. The proposal is in outline only to establish the
principle of primary health and social care facilities the site. Activities are likely to include a range of
health care services such as GP surgeries, health visitor clinics, health promotion and specialist services and
other public facilities such as libraries, community meeting rooms, local Council offices and information
centres. The facilities may be open seven days a week with some services potentially available 24 hours a
day. A preliminary traffic and parking study has been submitted with the application although it is
recognised that a comprehensive transport assessment would be required at the reserved matters stage. The
applicant has also indicated that the proposal would amount to between 4500 and 6000 square metres over
four or five floors. Provision for a dedicated car park would be made nearby to the site. No other
information has been submitted.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Architectural Liaison Officer – no comments received.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 7 February 2003.
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:2 – 30 The Parade
151 – 173 Chorley Road
11 – 23 Chadwick Walk
8, 1- 19 Station Road
The Bulls Head, 199 Chorley Road
St Peters Church, Partington Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies: SC9 Health Care Facilities, SC1 Provision of Social and Community Facilities, SC2
Provision of Social and Community Facilities by Private and Voluntary Agencies
PLANNING APPRAISAL
As the proposal is in outline it is simply seeking to establish the principle of the use on this site. The
proposal would provide new primary health and social care facilities and is therefore in broad accordance
with policies SC1, SC2 and SC9 which are all seeking to improve, maintain and support provision of social
and community facilities within the city. PPG13 also states that new intermediate health facilities should,
where possible, be located in town, district or local centres where they will be highly accessible by non car
modes of transport and where the facilities can reinforce the range of services provided by these centres.
The applicant has been in extensive discussions during the last six months regarding traffic and highway
issues and a traffic statement has also been submitted as part of this application which has been undertaken
by an independent traffic consultant. As such I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds
subject to the provision of an operational car park for employees of the facilities. I have appended a
condition to this effect which should be attached if permission is granted.
I consider that the proposal would be of considerable benefit to the residents of Salford. It accords with
both national and local policies and I therefore recommend that this application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
2. Standard Condition B01X Reserved Matters
3. The applicant shall submit a full transport assessment and green travel plan which shall be submitted
with the first reserved matters application and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services. Any highway works identified in the transport assessment shall be carried out prior to the
first occupation of the site and maintained thereafter.
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
4. The proposed facilities shall not be occupied until any shortfall identified in the operational parking
provision in the Transport Assessment has been provided in accordance with a scheme and details
submitted and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. This provision shall be
available for use at all times and maintained thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
4. To ensure an adequate provision of parking for employees in accordance with policy T13 of the UDP.
APPLICATION No:
03/45509/OUT
APPLICANT:
MaST LIFT
LOCATION:
Land To The East Of Corporation Road And To The North Of Barton
Lane Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Outline application for use of site for new primary health and social
care facility and ancilliary accommodation
WARD:
Barton
BACKGROUND
In July 2000 the government published the NHS plan, a ten year plan for the modernising and reforming the
NHS. It identified the urgent need to improve primary care premises in England as a key constraint to the
development of the services. The plan states that the priority for investment will be those parts of the
country where primary care facilities are most in need of improvement.
The government has provided the NHS a vehicle for improving and developing primary and community
care facilities – NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT). The local LIFT will be a joint venture
between the Department of Health, the local healthcare community and the private sector; to develop and
encourage a significant increase in investment in primary care and community based facilities.
There are 6 primary care trusts (PCT) in the area including Salford, which is co-terminus with the City
Council. Each of the PCT areas have growing communities which will need more and better health and
social care facilities for the foreseeable future.
The initial focus of the NHS LIFT will be on investment in those parts of the country, such as inner cities,
where primary care services are in most need of expansion. The Manchester, Salford and Trafford area has
been identified as the first wave LIFT and this application has been submitted in this respect.
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of the Eccles health centre and the adjacent social services building on the
corner of Barton Lane and Corporation Road. The Market Hall lies directly to the north of the site with the
library to the east and the sports centre to the south on the opposite side of Barton Lane. Residential
dwellings face the site on the opposite side of Corporation Road. There are five trees, two London Planes
and three limes growing along the boundary of the site.
The proposal is in outline to establish the principle of primary health and social care facilities on the site.
Activities are likely to include a range of health care services such as GP surgeries, health visitor clinics,
health promotion and specialist services and other public facilities such as libraries, community meeting
rooms, local Council offices and information centres. The facilities may be open seven days a week with
some services potentially available 24 hours a day. A preliminary traffic and parking study has been
submitted with the application although it is recognised that a comprehensive transport assessment would
be required at the reserved matters stage. The applicant has also indicated that the proposal would amount
to between 4000 and 5000 square metres over three floors. No other information has been submitted.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No comments received.
Architectural Liaison Officer – no comments received.
Eccles Town Centre Manager – no comments received.
City Council’s Arboricultural Officer – considers the five trees contribute to the amenity of the area and
advises that they are worthy of retention.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 7 February 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:2 – 32 Corporation Road
167 Church Street
1 – 5(O), 36, Barton Lane
The Royal Oak Pub, Barton Lane
Market Traders Association, Market Hall, Church Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: S6 Maintenance and Improvement of Town Centres
Other policies: SC9 Health Care Facilities, SC1 Provision of Social and Community Facilities, SC2
Provision of Social and Community Facilities by Private and Voluntary Agencies
PLANNING APPRAISAL
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
As the proposal is in outline it is simply seeking to establish the principle of the use on this site. The
proposal would provide new primary health and social care facilities and is therefore in broad accordance
with policies SC1, SC2 and SC9 which are all seeking to improve, maintain and support provision of social
and community facilities within the city. PPG13 also states that new intermediate health facilities should,
where possible, be located in town, district or local centres where they will be highly accessible by non car
modes of transport and where the facilities can reinforce the range of services provided by these centres.
The applicant has been in extensive discussions during the last six months regarding traffic and highway
issues and a traffic statement has also been submitted as part of this application which has been undertaken
by an independent traffic consultant. As such I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds
subject to a full traffic assessment undertaken at the reserved matters stage. I have appended a condition to
this effect which should be attached if permission is granted.
I am also aware of the five trees on the site which the arborist advises are worthy of protection. Although no
siting and layout details have been submitted for the site I would wish to seek to ensure that these trees are
retained and have therefore recommended a condition be attached to secure fencing around these during
construction works.
I consider that the proposal would be of considerable benefit to the residents of Salford and is in accordance
with both national and local policies. I therefore recommend that this application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
2. Standard Condition B01X Reserved Matters
3. The applicant shall submit a full transport assessment and green travel plan which shall be submitted
with the first reserved matters application and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services. Any highway works identified in the transport assessment shall be carried out prior to the
first occupation of the site and maintained thereafter.
4. Standard Condition C03X Fencing of Trees/no work within spread
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
4. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/45520/OUT
APPLICANT:
MaST LIFT
LOCATION:
Site Of 1/22 Cloverfield, 1/26 Fitchfield Walk To The North Of Smith
Street And East Of Bolton Road Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Outline application for use of land for new primary health and social
care facility and ancillary accommodation
WARD:
Walkden North
BACKGROUND
In July 2000 the government published the NHS plan, a ten year plan for the modernising and reforming the
NHS. It identified the urgent need to improve primary care premises in England as a key constraint to the
development of the services. The plan states that the priority for investment will be those parts of the
country where primary care facilities are most in need of improvement.
The government has provided the NHS a vehicle for improving and developing primary and community
care facilities – NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT). The local LIFT will be a joint venture
between the Department of Health, the local healthcare community and the private sector; to develop and
encourage a significant increase in investment in primary care and community based facilities.
There are 6 primary care trusts (PCT) in the area including Salford, which is co-terminus with the City
Council. Each of the PCT areas have growing communities which will need more and better health and
social care facilities for the foreseeable future.
The initial focus of the NHS LIFT will be on investment in those parts of the country, such as inner cities,
where primary care services are in most need of expansion. The Manchester, Salford and Trafford area has
been identified as the first wave LIFT and this application has been submitted in this respect.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a site which was formerly the residential flats of Cloverfield Walk and Fitchfield
Walk but is currently being demolished. Walkden Congregational Church bounds the site to the south, the
residential dwellings of Emlyn Street and Malvern Grove lie to the east and Ninian Gardens to the north
whilst the Ellesmere Shopping Centre is on the opposite side of Bolton Road to the west.
The proposal is in outline only to establish the principle of primary health and social care facilities the site.
Activities are likely to include a range of health care services such as GP surgeries, health visitor clinics,
health promotion and specialist services and other public facilities such as libraries, community meeting
rooms, local Council offices and information centres. The facilities may be open seven days a week with
some services potentially available 24 hours a day. A preliminary traffic and parking study has been
submitted with the application although it is recognised that a comprehensive transport assessment would
be required at the reserved matters stage. The applicant has also indicated that the proposal would amount
to between 3000 and 4000 square metres over two floors or three floors. No other information has been
submitted.
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections in principle subject to undertake a contaminated land
investigation and a PPG24 noise assessment. If lighting is proposed it is recommended that it is maintained
between 5 and 20 LUX.
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections.
The Coal Authority – no objections.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 7 February 2003.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1 – 61 Bolton Road
1 – 52 Ninian Gardens
1 – 11(O) 2 – 16 (E) Emlyn Street
30 – 34(E) Alfred Street
Walkden Congregational Church
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none.
Other policies: SC9 Health Care Facilities, SC1 Provision of Social and Community Facilities, SC2
Provision of Social and Community Facilities by Private and Voluntary Agencies
PLANNING APPRAISAL
As the proposal is in outline it is simply seeking to establish the principle of the use on this site. The
proposal would provide new primary health and social care facilities and is therefore in broad accordance
with policies SC1, SC2 and SC9 which are all seeking to improve, maintain and support provision of social
and community facilities within the city. PPG13 also states that new intermediate health facilities should,
where possible, be located in town, district or local centres where they will be highly accessible by non car
modes of transport and where the facilities can reinforce the range of services provided by these centres.
The applicant has been in extensive discussions during the last six months regarding traffic and highway
issues and a traffic statement has also been submitted as part of this application which has been undertaken
by an independent traffic consultant. As such I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds
subject to a full traffic assessment undertaken at the reserved matters stage. I have appended a condition to
this effect which should be attached if permission is granted. I would also recommend that a second
assessment is undertaken after 6 months in order to assess the impact of the proposal upon the local
residents.
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
I consider that the proposal would be of considerable benefit to the residents of Salford and the principle of
the use is acceptable in this location in accordance with national and local policy. I therefore recommend
that this application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
2. Standard Condition B01X Reserved Matters
3. The applicant shall submit a full transport assessment and green travel plan which shall be submitted
with the first reserved matters application and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services. Any highway works identified in the transport assessment shall be carried out prior to the
first occupation of the site and maintained thereafter.
4. A second transport assessment shall be undertaken and submitted to and approved by the Director of
Development Services, six months after full occupation of the facilities to assess the traffic impact upon
adjoining properties and any recommendations shall be implemented within 6 months of the approval
by the Director of Development Services.
5. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the
written approval of the LPA. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of
ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the
risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focussing primarily
on risks to human health and to controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications
of ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures,
on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological
systems and property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved in writing by the LPA prior to the start of the
site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report
shall be implemented by the developer and a verification report shall be submitted for written approval
prior to occupation of the site.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
5. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
Note(s) for Applicant
1. It may be advisable to carry out a noise assessment which assesses the level of noise from the road
infrastructure along with any other local noise sources, along the lines of PPG24 -Planning and Noise,
with special regard to Annex 1 - Other Noise Sensitive Development. BS8233:1997 and other
guidance, which indicate suitable noise climates for more specialist acoustic needs for purposes
medical or educational purposes. Assessment of vibration may be also be advisable for this location.
Recommendations should be included as part of any assessment to provide solutions to any
noise/vibration issues which the site may suffer from.
2. The lighting provided in the scheme shall be erected and directed so as to avoid nuisance to residential
accommodation in close proximity. The lighting shall provide a standard maintained illumination
(LUX) of between 5 and 20 LUX with the lower level being the preferable one.
APPLICATION No:
03/45521/OUT
APPLICANT:
MaST LIFT
LOCATION:
Site Of St Aidans Church Hall And Vicarage Littleton Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Outline application for use of land for new primary health and social
care facility and ancillary accommodation
WARD:
Kersal
BACKGROUND
In July 2000 the government published the NHS plan, a ten year plan for the modernising and reforming the
NHS. It identified the urgent need to improve primary care premises in England as a key constraint to the
development of the services. The plan states that the priority for investment will be those parts of the
country where primary care facilities are most in need of improvement.
The government has provided the NHS a vehicle for improving and developing primary and community
care facilities – NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT). The local LIFT will be a joint venture
between the Department of Health, the local healthcare community and the private sector; to develop and
encourage a significant increase in investment in primary care and community based facilities.
There are 6 primary care trusts (PCT) in the area including Salford, which is co-terminus with the City
Council. Each of the PCT areas have growing communities which will need more and better health and
social care facilities for the foreseeable future.
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
The initial focus of the NHS LIFT will be on investment in those parts of the country, such as inner cities,
where primary care services are in most need of expansion. The Manchester, Salford and Trafford area has
been identified as the first wave LIFT and this application has been submitted in this respect.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the church hall and the vicarage which is situated on the corner with St Aiden’s
Grove. The area is predominantly residential with Lower Kersal Primary School to the north east and
allotments to the south. The site is within the Lower Kersal and Charlestown New Deal for Communities
area.
The proposal is in outline to establish the principle of primary health and social care facilities the site.
Activities are likely to include a range of health care services such as GP surgeries, health visitor clinics,
health promotion and specialist services and other public facilities such as libraries, community meeting
rooms, local Council offices and information centres. The facilities may be open seven days a week with
some services potentially available 24 hours a day. A preliminary traffic and parking study has been
submitted with the application although it is recognised that a comprehensive transport assessment would
be required at the reserved matters stage. The applicant has also indicated that the proposal would amount
to between 750 and 1000 square metres over two floors. No other information has been submitted.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections in principle.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 7 February 2003.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1, 2 – 23 St Aidan’s Grove
108, 197 – 251, 253(O) Littleton Road
Littleton Road Allotment Society
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues were
raised:
Entrance to St Aidan’s Grove already suffer traffic problems, another building would increase this.
Further up Littleton Road are shops which are part derelict and an eyesore – these would be a better
location
Vicarage and church hall serve the community
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies: SC9 Health Care Facilities, SC1 Provision of Social and Community Facilities, SC2
Provision of Social and Community Facilities by Private and Voluntary Agencies
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
PLANNING APPRAISAL
As the proposal is in outline it is simply seeking to establish the principle of the use on this site. The
proposal would provide new primary health and social care facilities and is therefore in broad accordance
with policies SC1, SC2 and SC9 which are all seeking to improve, maintain and support provision of social
and community facilities within the city. SC9 in particular recognises the importance of maintaining and
improving comprehensive health care provision in areas where social deprivation is concentrated. PPG13
also states that new intermediate health facilities should, where possible, be located in town, district or local
centres where they will be highly accessible by non car modes of transport and where the facilities can
reinforce the range of services provided by these centres.
The objector is concerned about the increase in traffic in the area as a result of the proposal. In this respect
the applicant has been in extensive discussions during the last six months regarding traffic and highway
issues and a traffic statement has also been submitted as part of this submission. It has also been recognised
that a full traffic assessment shall be required at the detailed application stage which would also include any
mitigation measures. Furthermore, the site is within an accessible location and therefore in accordance
with the broad aims of PPG13. I am satisfied that the proposal should not have a significant detrimental
impact upon the existing traffic situation. I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds.
There is also concern about the loss of the vicarage and church hall which currently serve the community.
The proposal is likely to incorporate additional facilities which would replace the hall and the vicarage and
which would also be of benefit to the community.
I consider that the proposal would be of benefit to the residents of Salford. There are a number of other
community facilities within the area and the proposal would enhance these existing facilities. I therefore
recommend that this application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
2. Standard Condition B01X Reserved Matters
3. The applicant shall submit a full transport assessment and green travel plan which shall be submitted
with the first reserved matters application and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services. Any highway works identified in the transport assessment shall be carried out prior to the
first occupation of the site and maintained thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/45523/OUT
APPLICANT:
MaST LIFT
LOCATION:
Site Adjacent To St Sebastians Parish Hall Between Concorde Place
And Douglas Green Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Outline application for use of site for new primary health and social
care facility and ancillary accommodation
WARD:
Pendleton
BACKGROUND
In July 2000 the government published the NHS plan, a ten year plan for the modernising and reforming the
NHS. It identified the urgent need to improve primary care premises in England as a key constraint to the
development of the services. The plan states that the priority for investment will be those parts of the
country where primary care facilities are most in need of improvement.
The government has provided the NHS a vehicle for improving and developing primary and community
care facilities – NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT). The local LIFT will be a joint venture
between the Department of Health, the local healthcare community and the private sector; to develop and
encourage a significant increase in investment in primary care and community based facilities.
There are 6 primary care trusts (PCT) in the area including Salford, which is co-terminus with the City
Council. Each of the PCT areas have growing communities which will need more and better health and
social care facilities for the foreseeable future.
The initial focus of the NHS LIFT will be on investment in those parts of the country, such as inner cities,
where primary care services are in most need of expansion. The Manchester, Salford and Trafford area has
been identified as the first wave LIFT and this application has been submitted in this respect.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
This application site is bounded by St Sebastian’s Parish Hall to the south west and the commercial and
residential properties of Concord Place to the north east. The site itself includes a grassed area adjacent to
the parish hall and a service road which runs to the rear of Concord Place. There are residential dwellings
on the opposite side of Douglas Green and St George’s Primary School lies to the west. There are
significant level differences on the site between the hall and Concord Place. The site is within the New Deal
for Communities area.
The proposal is in outline only to establish the principle of primary health and social care facilities the site.
Activities are likely to include a range of health care services such as GP surgeries, health visitor clinics,
health promotion and specialist services and other public facilities such as libraries, community meeting
rooms, local Council offices and information centres. The facilities may be open seven days a week with
some services potentially available 24 hours a day. A preliminary traffic and parking study has been
submitted with the application although it is recognised that a comprehensive transport assessment would
be required at the reserved matters stage. The applicant has also indicated that the proposal would amount
to between 700 and 1000 square metres over two floors. No other information has been submitted.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections in principle.
The Coal Authority – no objections.
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Officer – considers the site to be too small to include a secure car
park for the medical staff and therefore is not able to support the proposal.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 7 February 2003.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1 – 12 Concord Place
2 – 22 Douglas Green
St Sebastian’s Parish Hall
The Lowry Public House
St George’s, Concord Place
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection on behalf of the residents at Concord Place in response to the
application publicity. The following issues were raised:
Loss of stairs, yards and bin stores at rear of premises on Concord Plan
Loss of parking area at rear of properties
Removal of fence that has just been erected
Building will be over public footpath
Blocking off of entrance to library and parish hall
Proposed building will be two stories and result in loss of sunlight to kitchens
Fire hazard if stairs to premises are removed
Possibility of roundabout to put incorporated
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
Site specific policies: none.
Other policies: SC9 Health Care Facilities, SC1 Provision of Social and Community Facilities, SC2
Provision of Social and Community Facilities by Private and Voluntary Agencies
PLANNING APPRAISAL
As the proposal is in outline it is simply seeking to establish the principle of the use on this site. The
proposal would provide new primary health and social care facilities and is therefore in broad accordance
with policies SC1, SC2 and SC9 which are all seeking to improve, maintain and support provision of social
and community facilities within the city. SC9 also recognises the importance of maintaining and
improving comprehensive health care provision for its residents in areas where social deprivation is
concentrated. PPG13 also states that new intermediate health facilities should, where possible, be located
in town, district or local centres where they will be highly accessible by non car modes of transport and
where the facilities can reinforce the range of services provided by these centres.
The objections that have been received, whilst valid, are concerned about the specific details of the proposal
such as the loss of rear yards, access stairs, loss of sunlight the entrance to the library and hall etc, but these
are details that shall be submitted and addressed at the reserved matters application stage. The objectors do
not appear to have any objection to the principle of the use on the site.
In relation to the concerns of the Architectural Liaison Officer about parking no details have been submitted
with the application and this matter is something that would be addressed at the reserved matters stage.
Parking could still be provided on site or alternatively if the site was too small the possibility of additional
provision could be investigated off site.
The applicant has been in extensive discussions during the last six months regarding traffic and highway
issues and a traffic statement has also been submitted as part of this application which has been undertaken
by an independent traffic consultant. As such I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds
subject to a full traffic assessment undertaken at the reserved matters stage. I have appended a condition to
this effect which should be attached if permission is granted.
I consider that the proposal would be of considerable benefit to the residents of Salford. There are a number
of community facilities within the area and the proposal would enhance these existing facilities. I therefore
recommend that this application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
2. Standard Condition B01X Reserved Matters
3. The applicant shall submit a full transport assessment and green travel plan which shall be submitted
with the first reserved matters application and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services. Any highway works identified in the transport assessment shall be carried out prior to the
first occupation of the site and maintained thereafter.
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
4. The detailed layout scheme shall include full provision for pedestrian access to the maisonettes at 1 - 12
Concord Place to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
5. Full details of the existing and proposed site levels and the proposed finished floor levels shall be
submitted and approved by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
4. To protect the amenity of the residents of 1 - 12 Concord Place in accordance with policy DEV1 of the
UDP.
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/45529/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
North Grecian Street Primary Street
LOCATION:
Grecian Street North Primary School Grecian Street North Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Remove existing dwarf wall and fencing along main entrance and
replace with 2.4m high heras fencing incorporating three gates
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Grecian Street North primary school and seeks the removal of an existing dwarf
wall and fencing along the frontage of Grecian Street North and the erection of 2.4m fencing. The school is
within the Cliff Conservation Area and is fronted by residential properties. To the south of the main school
building is the School House which is currently vacant.
The proposed fencing would be a traditional style of railing, ‘Heras Crusader’ and would be powder coated
in black. The line of the fencing would be from the corner of the School House to Grecian Street North,
then return along its frontage to the rear gable of the school, approximately 48m in total. It would also
provide pedestrian and vehicular access gates in the same style of railing.
CONSULTATIONS
Cliff Residents Association
Cliffside Homewatch & Residents Group
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 20th February 2003
A site notice was displayed on 11th February 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:41-43 (odd) Grecian Street North
38 Oak Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV1 – Development Criteria, DEV4 – Design and Crime, EN11 – Protection and
Enhancement of Conservation Areas
PLANNING APPRAISAL
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
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. DEV4 seeks to encourage greater consideration of
crime prevention and security in the design and improvement of existing buildings. 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. I am of the opinion that this
proposal would enhance the character of the conservation area through the proposed style of railings and is
in accordance with the UDP policies outlined above. I have no highway objections. Therefore I would
recommend that this proposal be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
03/45539/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Education And Leisure Directorate
LOCATION:
Broadwalk Primary School Belvedere Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Creation of new vehicular access off Whitebeam Close to rear carpark
and provision of ten additional parking spaces
WARD:
Pendleton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former Broadwalk Primary School. The proposal is to create a new entrance
for the car park onto Whitebeam Close, with gates into the boundary fencing. It is also proposed to provide
10 additional parking spaces to replace spaces that will need to be lost in creating the access.
SITE HISTORY
In May 2001, planning permission was granted for a 2.4m high palisade fence around the site (ref.
01/42202/DEEM3).
In August 2001 planning permission was granted fro the creation of the car park (ref. 01/42376/DEEM3).
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th March 2003
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 12 February 2003.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:Belverdere Nursery Centre, Whitebeam Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The proposal is to create a new entrance to the car park for the Broadwalk Centre, because at present there is
a conflict within the site, with vehicles mixing with the play area for the pupil referral unit which is also
located on this site. The proposal would provide gates through the existing perimeter fencing on Whitebeam
Close, with a ramp into the car park from the road. The spaces that would be lost because of the entrance
ramp would be provided elsewhere on the site.
I do not consider that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the visual appearance of the site. I do not
have any highway objections to the new vehicular access onto Whitebeam Close.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
72
6th March 2003