PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
APPLICATION No:
02/44733/FUL
APPLICANT:
T.B.S. Fabrications Ltd
LOCATION:
T.B.S. Fabrications Ltd Martens Road Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Erection of extension to existing extract ducting from factory unit
WARD:
Cadishead
At the meeting of the Panel held on 20th February 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an employment site on Northbank Industrial Estate that is adjacent to residential
properties of Anglers Rest and Atherton Lane. The site itself is bounded by industrial units on Martens
Road to the east and Brinell Drive to the north whilst the railway embankment is to the south. Siemens Road
is to the west of the site with the nearest residential property on Anglers Rest 27 metres away from the
building.
Members will recall that planning permission was approved by the Panel in 2000 for the erection of a
warehouse/office building at this site, with a ridge height of 12 metres, which has been built in accordance
with that approval. However the current use of the building falls within a general industrial classification,
the applicant (TBS) has moved his premises from an adjacent site, and requires separate planning
permission for the operation being undertaken. An application to retain this use also appears on this agenda
(02/45086/COU). The general industrial use, consisting of the lamination of kitchen furniture, has resulted
in noise emitting from the site which has caused nuisance to residents of properties of Anglers Rest and
Atherton Lane. At present six extract ducts are directed toward the properties on Anglers Rest and Atherton
Lane at about half way up the building.
This application is for six stack systems that would take the extract system in closed 600mm diameter
extract ducts up the side of the building to two metres above the ridge height. The applicant has stated these
ducts would be coloured to match the blue and grey of the building.
SITE HISTORY
In 1997, planning permission was granted for the erection of three storey offices with undercroft /
semi-basement car parking (97/37246/TPDC).
In 2000, planning permission was granted for the erection of a building to provide three warehouse/light
industrial units, four-three storey office buildings together with associated car parking and alterations to
vehicular access (99/40045/FUL).
In 2000, planning permission was granted for the erection of a building to provide three warehouse/light
industrial units, four-three storey office buildings together with associated car parking and alterations to
vehicular access (00/40842/FUL).
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
Also In 2000, planning permission was granted for the erection of a building to provide three
warehouse/office units, four-three storey office buildings together with associated car parking and
alterations to vehicular access (00/41269/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to the imposition of conditions restricting noise
levels, imposition of silencers.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 26th September 2002.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:14, 19, 21 & 27 Anglers Rest
A public meeting was also held on the 6th February 2003 to discuss this and the associated retention of use
application.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received nine letters and a 34 name petition objecting to the application in response to the application
publicity. The following issues have been raised:Original application no mention of industrial use
Noise Levels are excessive and affects sleep and watching TV
Source of noise should be moved to other side of factory
Emissions are a danger to health
Stacks would not look attractive and would devalue properties
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EN20 Pollution Control
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EN20 seeks, to protect residential amenity including the potential level of environmental pollution
including noise nuisance.
With regard to objections on the grounds that the original application did not include general industrial use
I would agree that it did not. The application was processed and approved by members as an
office/warehousing application. The building was then built in accordance with those approved plans
however the subsequent use does not have the benefit of planning permission. Under the Town and Country
Planning Act it is not illegal to undertake a use without planning permission and as an application to retain
and therefore regularise the use also appears on this agenda I consider that the relevant issues to consider are
the noise/emissions and visual appearance of the proposal and effects upon residential amenity.
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
Complaints have been received by the Directorate of Environmental Services with regard to noise levels at
the site. The Director of Environmental Services has undertaken background noise readings at midnight at
the boundary of the site when TBS were not operating and daytime background noise levels have been
undertaken at the nearest noise sensitive premises. The daytime measurement proves with regard to British
Standards that the noise complaints are justified at present. The Directorate of Environmental Services have
advised me that a noise level of 52dB(A) would be acceptable at the nearest noise sensitive premises.
The Director of Environmental Services has advised the applicant to employ a consultant to produce a
report to investigate any mitigation for the noise disturbance. Results of this investigation recommended
that the installation of six discharge attenuators to the six spray booth discharge fans would achieve
52dB(A) at the site boundary. Local residents have suggested that mitigation could come from moving the
fans to the other side of the building. I have requested that the applicant move the fans however for financial
reasons the applicant can not do this. Under the best practicable means method of assessing mitigation the
Directorate of Environmental Services are satisfied that the installation of the six attenuators would provide
an acceptable noise output with respect to residential amenity. I am also of the opinion that this option
would result in an acceptable noise output from the site.
Objection has been raised to emissions from the applicants building being a danger to health. Air quality at
the site has also been assessed by the Director of Environmental Services who advises me that the existing
situation is within the limits as prescribed under the applicants authorisation provided by the Environmental
Protection Act, 1990. In order to increase dispersal the Director of Environmental Services recommends six
stacks to a height of 14m (2m above the ridge height) with a diameter of 600mm. As an additional measure
the Director of Environmental Services has instructed a consultant, Dr McCann, to investigate further the
health fears of local residents. Should any negative findings ensue and be attributed to TBS the Director of
Environmental Services will be able to take action under the Environmental Protection Act, 1990.
The appearance of the stacks has also been raised as a matter of concern for residents. The six stacks would
be situated on the elevation facing the rear of two houses on Anglers Rest and at an angle to other properties
on Anglers Rest and Atherton Lane. This elevation is 76m wide and 12m high to the parapet. Given the size
of the stacks at a height of 14m and diameter of 600mm and relationship to the parent building would not in
my opinion, if colour treated to match the building, result in a detrimental impact upon the appearance of
the building.
It is clear from the objections received that the existing operation causes nearby residents concern from
noise and emissions. As discussed above mitigation has been investigated by the applicant. This mitigation
is considered acceptable by the Director of Environmental Services to ensure appropriate noise levels are
maintained. Also discussed above the operation is within the levels of the authorisation under the
Environmental Protection Act. As such I consider that the proposed mitigation along with the
recommended conditions will result in an operation that sits comfortably with surrounding residential uses.
In order to limit detrimental effects upon residents I recommend that the mitigation measures be imposed
without delay and appropriate conditions to limit noise and protect residential amenity are attached to an
approval of this application.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Since writing the above report I have received a letter from the applicant wishing to clarify that the extract
fans can not be moved for operational reasons rather than financial reasons as stated above.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The noise attenuation measures included in this application shall be installed and be operational within
two months of the date of this permission.
2. The rating level of the noise emitted from any fixed plant and equipment associated with the
development shall not exceed the existing background noise (measured as 47dB LA90 ) by more
than5dB(A). The noise level shall be measured at the nearest noise-sensitive premises. The
measurement and assessment shall be made in accordance to BS4142:1997 'Method for Rating Noise
Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas'.
4. The six spray booths situated at Siemens Road façade shall have noise attenuators installed (as per
noise report provided by Allaway Acoustics, March 2002) in order to achieve 52 dB(A) at the site
boundary.
5. The height of the six spray booth stacks shall, as per submitted amended drawing 02/44733/FUL
(received 24.10.2002), terminate 2m above the ridge height with a stack diameter of 600mm.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/45086/COU
APPLICANT:
TBS Fabrications Limited
LOCATION:
T.B.S. Fabrications Ltd Martens Road Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Continued use of premises for B1/B8 uses with additional B2 use
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
20th March 2003
Cadishead
At the meeting of the Panel held on 20th February 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an employment site on Northbank Industrial Estate that is adjacent to residential
properties of Anglers Rest and Atherton Lane. The site itself is bounded by industrial units on Martens
Road to the east and Brinell Drive to the north whilst the railway embankment is to the south. Siemens Road
is to the west of the site with the nearest residential property on Anglers Rest 27 metres away from the
building.
Members will recall that planning permission was approved by the Panel in 2000 for the erection of a
warehouse/office building at this site, with a ridge height of 12 metres, which has been built in accordance
with that approval. However the current use of the building falls within a general industrial classification,
the applicant (TBS) has moved his premises from an adjacent site, and requires separate planning
permission for the operation being undertaken.
This application is to retain this use within the general industrial use category. The use being undertaken
consists of the lamination of kitchen furniture, which has resulted in noise emitting from the site which has
caused nuisance to residents of properties of Anglers Rest and Atherton Lane. At present six extract ducts
are directed toward the properties on Anglers Rest and Atherton Lane at about half way up the building.
A separate application, 02/44733/FUL also presented for a decision on this agenda, is for six stack systems
that would take the extract system in closed 600mm diameter extract ducts up the side of the building to two
metres above the ridge height.
SITE HISTORY
In 1997, planning permission was granted for the erection of three storey offices with undercroft /
semi-basement car parking (97/37246/TPDC).
In 2000, planning permission was granted for the erection of a building to provide three warehouse/light
industrial units, four-three storey office buildings together with associated car parking and alterations to
vehicular access (99/40045/FUL).
In 2000, planning permission was granted for the erection of a building to provide three warehouse/light
industrial units, four-three storey office buildings together with associated car parking and alterations to
vehicular access (00/40842/FUL).
Also In 2000, planning permission was granted for the erection of a building to provide warehouse/office
units, three-three storey office buildings together with associated car parking and alterations to vehicular
access (00/41269/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to the imposition of conditions restricting noise
levels, imposition of silencers.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 26th September 2002.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:2 – 14 even & 11 - 21 Anglers Rest
15, 19, 25, 27, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41, 45, 49 Atherton Lane
A public meeting was also held on the 6th February 2003 to discuss this and the associated retention of use
application.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received fifteen letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues
have been raised:Original application no mention of industrial use
Noise Levels are excessive and affects sleep and watching TV
Source of noise should be moved to other side of factory
Emissions are a danger to health
Stacks would not look attractive and would devalue properties
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EN20 Pollution Control, EC1 A Balanced Portfolio of Sites,
EC13/31 Sites for Industry and Warehousing/Northbank
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EN20 seeks, to protect residential amenity including the potential level of environmental pollution
including noise nuisance on neighbouring properties. Policy EC1 seeks to ensure adequate facilities for
employment including industry where this is compatible with the surrounding area whilst Policy EC13/31
states that Northbank will be acceptable for Industrial uses given the good physical communications in the
area.
With regard to objections on the grounds that the original application did not include general industrial use
I would agree that it did not. The application was processed and approved by members as an
office/warehousing application. The building was then built in accordance with those approved plans
however the subsequent use does not have the benefit of planning permission. Under the Town and Country
Planning Act it is not illegal to undertake a use without planning permission and as this application is to
retain and therefore regularise the use I consider that the relevant issues to consider are the noise/emissions
and visual appearance of the proposal and effects upon residential amenity which will in effect determine
whether this use is acceptable at this location.
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
Complaints have been received by the Directorate of Environmental Services with regard to noise levels at
the site. The Director of Environmental Services has undertaken background noise readings at midnight at
the boundary of the site when TBS were not operating and daytime background noise levels have been
undertaken at the nearest noise sensitive premises. The daytime measurement proves with regard to British
Standards that the noise complaints are justified at present. The Directorate of Environmental Services have
advised me that a noise level of 52dB(A) would be acceptable at the nearest noise sensitive premises.
The Director of Environmental Services has advised the applicant to employ a consultant to produce a
report to investigate any mitigation for the noise disturbance. Results of this investigation recommended
that the installation of six discharge attenuators to the six spray booth discharge fans would achieve
52dB(A) at the site boundary. Local residents have suggested that mitigation could come from moving the
fans to the other side of the building. I have requested that the applicant move the fans however for financial
reasons the applicant can not do this. Under the best practicable means method of assessing mitigation the
Directorate of Environmental Services are satisfied that the installation of the six attenuators would provide
an acceptable noise output with respect to residential amenity. I am also of the opinion that this option
would result in an acceptable noise output from the site.
Objection has been raised to emissions from the applicants building being a danger to health. Air quality at
the site has also been assessed by the Director of Environmental Services who advises me that the existing
situation is within the limits as prescribed under the applicants authorisation provided by the Environmental
Protection Act, 1990. In order to increase dispersal the Director of Environmental Services recommends six
stacks to a height of 14m (2m above the ridge height) with a diameter of 600mm. As an additional measure
the Director of Environmental Services has instructed a consultant, Dr McCann, to investigate further the
health fears of local residents. Should any negative findings ensue and be attributed to TBS the Director of
Environmental Services will be able to take action under the Environmental Protection Act, 1990.
Residents have also raised the issue of wood shavings being blown over the cars and windows form the
operation. The applicant advises me that wood shavings do not leave the building via the vents as wood
cutting is not undertaken in the spray booth area and a filter is placed on the vent. Wood cuttings/shavings
are currently stored in skips at the rear of the site where wind could blow shavings toward residences. In
order to restrict this a condition has been imposed to prevent open storage at the side of the building facing
Anglers Rest.
The appearance of the stacks has also been raised as a matter of concern for residents. The six stacks would
be situated on the elevation facing the rear of two houses on Anglers Rest and at an angle to other properties
on Anglers Rest and Atherton Lane. This elevation is 76m wide and 12m high to the parapet. Given the size
of the stacks at a height of 14m and diameter of 600mm and relationship to the parent building would not in
my opinion, if colour treated to match the building, result in a detrimental impact upon the appearance of
the building.
It is clear from the objections received that the existing operation causes nearby residents concern from
noise and emissions. As discussed above mitigation has been investigated by the applicant. This mitigation
is considered acceptable by the Director of Environmental Services to ensure appropriate noise levels are
ensured. Also discussed above the operation is within the levels of the authorisation under the
Environmental Protection Act. As such I consider that the proposed mitigation along with the
recommended conditions will result in an operation that sits comfortably with surrounding residential uses.
I have no highway objections to this proposal. In order to limit detrimental effects upon residents I
recommend that the mitigation measures be imposed without delay and as such appropriate conditions to
limit noise and protect residential amenity are attached to an approval of this application. If these measures
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
are implemented then I consider the use would be in accordance with Policy EC1 and EC13/31 as the site
would then continue to provide over 100 jobs including employment for local people. As long as the
mitigation measures are adopted I recommend this use within the general industrial classification is
approved.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Since writing the above report I have received a letter from the applicant wishing to clarify that the extract
fans can not be moved for operational reasons rather than financial reasons as stated above.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The noise attenuation measures and stack systems included in the application 02/44733/FUL shall be
installed and be operational within two months of the date of this permission and shall thereafter remain
in situ and be maintained to achieve the required attenuation.
2. The rating level of the noise emitted from any fixed plant and equipment associated with the
development shall not exceed the existing background noise (measured as 47dB LA90 ) by more
than5dB(A). The noise level shall be measured at the nearest noise-sensitive premises. The
measurement and assessment shall be made in accordance to BS4142:1997 'Method for Rating Noise
Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas'.
3. No external plant or equipment shall be permitted, nor shall any additional openings be formed in the
elevations or roof of the building which directly ventilate the building or which discharge from any
internal plant or equipment, without the prior written permission of the local planning authority.
4. No outside storage shall take place unless with the prior written approval of the Local Planning
Authority.
5. The use hereby permitted shall NOT be operated on Sundays and Bank Holidays and shall ONLY be
operated between the hours of 06:00 and 22:00 Mondays to Fridays and 06:00 and 12:00 on Saturdays.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
APPLICATION No:
02/45183/HH
APPLICANT:
Sarah Bahrami
LOCATION:
12 Leigh Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Retention of front wall
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
20th March 2003
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a residential property on Leigh Road, Worsley. The proposal is to retain an
existing 2m high brick wall adjacent to Leigh Road that was built to enclose the applicant’s driveway.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:14, 16, 13-19(o), The Royal Oak PH, Doctors surgery, Aspell Engineering – Leigh Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Loss of sight lines
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV 1 states that consideration must be given to a number of factors including the relationship of
any development to roads.
This application was submitted following a complaint relating to loss of sightlines.
The existing wall, due to its location and due to it exceeding a height of 1m presents a danger to users of the
public highway.
RECOMMENDATION:
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The existing wall does not maintain a visibility splay of 2.4m x 33m and therefore does not provide
sufficient sightlines for users of the public highway contrary to Policy DEV1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
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
At the meeting of the Panel held on 6th March 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR
AN INSPECTION by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the 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.
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
Ellesmere 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
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
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).
In 1981 outline permission was refused (ref E13108) for the demolition of the property and its
redevelopment by 14 flats. The reasons for refusal were:
1. It would result in the loss of an attractive building, whose character and setting make an important
contribution to the amenities in Ellesmere park
2. The existing house could be feasibly maintained for an alternative use and its demolition would be
contrary to the Ellesmere Park Development Control Policy which seeks to retain such buildings.
3. The redevelopment for flats would be out of character with existing development and be contrary to
policy P6 of the Ellesmere Park Development Control Policy which indicates a presumption in
favour of conventional housing.
An appeal against this decision was dismissed in 1982.
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
13, 15, 23-37(o) Ellesmere Road
17 Ellesmere Road (flats 1-9)
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
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
PLANNING APPRAISAL
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
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 £59,200 (5% of costs) 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.
Design
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
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.
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th 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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
The report has been amended in two respects.
In terms of the economic report the circumstances in respect of conversion to flats has been corrected to
indicate the contingency figures being a 5% of costs not revenue.
The history section has been supplemented by details of a 1981 decision. In response to this additional
history I would advise as follows: Since the refusal the property has received permission and been used as a nursing home and has lost
some of its character. The property has been inspected with a view to considering the potential for
listing but I can confirm my view that the building does not have sufficient merit to be listed.
 The proposed replacement building in 1981 was of significantly less quality in terms of its design
and character than that now proposed.
 The current application has been submitted with an economic analysis which justifies
reconsideration of the 1981 decision.
 The redevelopment of the adjoining site at 28 Ellesmere Park has established that flatted
redevelopment can be successful and in consideration of policy P6. I remain of the view that the
proposed development does “reflect the scale and detail inherent in the traditional character of the
area” as required by policy P6.
 In conclusion the circumstances have now changed since 1981/2 and the current proposals are both
justified by the applicant and achieve an appropriate quality of design and layout.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RECOMMENDATION:
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th 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 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)
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:
02/45324/REM
APPLICANT:
G And J Seddon Limited
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
LOCATION:
G And J Seddon Limited Armitage Avenue Little Hulton Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Reserved matters application for the siting, design and external
appearance of two retail units together with associated car parking.
WARD:
Little Hulton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a large builders yard and offices situated on Armitage Avenue at its junction with
Manchester Road West. The site covers an area of 0.87 hectare and is bounded by residential development
to the north and south and by the churchyard to St Paul’s Church to the west. There are houses opposite the
site on Armitage Avenue beyond which is the Little Hulton District Centre. The site falls over 4m from
Manchester Road West. There are a number of existing workshop and office buildings on the site.
This is a reserved matters application and it proposes the erection of two retail units, both of which would
be A1 food units. The units would provide 1000 and 1161sq.m of floorspace and would be located next to
each other, facing Armitage Road and sited to the rear of the site with car parking to the front. The smaller
unit would be subdivided to form two shop units. A total of 148 car parking spaces would be provided.
The buildings would be located a minimum of 15m from the rear of the flats to the north and 8.5m from the
boundary with houses to the south. The units would be single storey and would have hipped roofs to north
and south and gable ends between the vehicular access to the rear service yard.
Vehicular access would be from Armitage Avenue with a separate pedestrian access being provided at the
junction of Armitage Avenue and Manchester Road West in order to facilitate pedestrian movements
between this site and the Little Hulton District Centre. In addition a dedicated pedestrian route has been
provided to the units from Armitage Avenue. A landmark feature would also be provided at this junction,
the details of which have not been submitted.
A total of nineteen new trees would be planted and it is proposed to retain all existing trees on the site.
The units would be faced in brick with a profiled metal roof. Unit 1 would have approximately 40% of its
frontage glazed. Planting boxes would be provided to the remaining brick elevation. Unit 2 would have a
totally glazed frontage.
The application has been amended in a number of respects as a result of my concerns since it was first
submitted.
Members will be aware that an application to renew for a second time, the original outline planning
permission appears later on this agenda.
SITE HISTORY
In December 1996 outline planning permission was granted for the development of the site for retail
purposes (96/35559/OUT). This permission was renewed in January 2000 (99/40116/OUT).
CONSULTATIONS
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
Director of Environmental Health – Recommends that an assessment of ground contamination be
undertaken and that conditions be applied with regard to noise, odour and lighting.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – The site is not particularly well served by public
transport. Improvements could be made to the submitted scheme to improve its accessibility to pedestrians.
Advice is also provided with regard to the relocation of the existing bus stop on Armitage Avenue.
The Coal Authority – No objections
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised my means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:2 and 4, 1 to 21 and Little Hulton Conservative Club Armitage Avenue
1 to 5 (incl) Armitage Grove
St Paul’s Church Peel Lane
St Paul Primary School, Horseshoe Public House and 1 to 12 Metcalf Court Manchester Road West
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received five representations in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Buildings are too close to Metcalf Court
The boundary to Armitage Grove needs to be much more secure but not too high
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the relationship to existing services and facilities, the likely scale and
type of traffic generation, the amount of car parking provision, arrangements for servicing and access, the
effect on neighbours and the visual appearance of the development.
Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant planning permission unless it is satisfied
with the quality of design and the visual appearance of the development.
With regard to the letters that have been received from neighbours Unit 1 has now been moved a further 5m
away from the properties on Metcalf Court and space is available for landscaping so that the outlook from
these properties should not be significantly effected.
With regard to the neighbours on Armitage Grove, all have written to me, most want the boundary to be
solid and high but one considers that a high solid boundary would have a detrimental effect on the outlook
from her property.
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
With regard to the detailed design and my own concerns, the position of the buildings on the site has been
adjusted to further improve the relationship with properties on Armitage Grove. The proposed building is
now 0.5m further away from these houses than the existing workshop building on the site. In addition the
roof has been hipped and the ground level has been reduced in order to minimise the impact of the new
building. In addition I consider that the removal of the current open storage area which is both unsightly
and potentially the scene of traffic movements and its replacement with a landscaped area represents an
improvement in amenity for those neighbours.
To the rear of the development, abutting the curtilage of the Listed church, it is intended to use boundary
treatment consisting of a green colour coated weld mesh fence set close to the existing low wall. This fence
would then be planted with creepers in order to soften the interface between the two sites. Trees would be
planted along this boundary where it would not interfere with the manoeuvring of HGVs.
With regard to car parking the numbers provided are based on two similarly sized food retail units. The
figure of 148 spaces is below the maximum allowed under Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (154 spaces),
but in excess of that advocated by Regional Planning Guidance for the North West (134 spaces). I am
satisfied that the level of parking proposed in not inappropriate given the advice in PPG6 regarding the
potential for this edge of centre site to generate linked pedestrian trips to the Little Hulton District Centre.
The principle of retail development on this site has been accepted. I do not consider that the site can
practically be developed in an alternative way that improves linkages with Little Hulton District Centre.
The design of the development has been significantly improved since it was first submitted and I consider
that the development would not have a significant detrimental effect on any neighbouring property or on the
street scene. I consider that the development does provide adequate linkages to the District Centre and that
the level of car parking is appropriate.
I therefore recommend that the application be approved subject to the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition C01X Landscaping
2. Standard Condition M05 Site investigation
3. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a noise impact assessment for
the approval of the Director of Development Services. The assessment shall focus on the impact of the
proposed development on the surrounding noise sensitive uses. The assessment should include details
on hours of use, deliveries, waste collection, fixed plant or equipment associated with the site as well as
mobile equipment used on the site. The assessment shall identify all measures necessary to ensure that
the overall background noise level in the area does not increase. (Background noise levels should be
agreed in writing prior to the assessment commencing). Recommendations and remedial works
contained within the approved report shall be implemented prior to any unit being brought into use and
maintained in good working condition thereafter. A verification report shall be submitted to the
Director of Development Services for written approval identifying all measures implemented to control
noise prior to the commencement of trading on the site.
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
4. Prior to the development being brought into use a lighting scheme shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Director of Development Services. Lighting provided in the development shall be
erected and directed so as to avoid nuisance to residential accommodation surrounding the site.
Guidance can be obtained from the Institute of Lighting Engineers that relates to these matters
(guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution). It is recommended that the lighting be designed
to provide a standard maintained illumination (LUX) of between 5 and 20 LUX with the lower level
being the preferable one.
5. Details of the boundary to houses on Armitage Grove shall be submitted for the written approval of the
Director of Development Services. The boundary shall be erected in full prior to the development
being brought into use.
6. Notwithstanding the plans submitted, should the unit(s) be used for non-food sales, the amount of car
parking shall be reduced to a number to be agreed with the Director of Development Services and the
residual area landscaped in a manner to be agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services.
Such landscaping shall be implemented within three months of the bringing into use of the unit(s).
7. Details of the landmark feature shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services. The feature shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details
within six months of the commencement of development.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
2. To safeguard the amenity of future users of the development in accordance with policy DEV1 of the City
of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
6. To ensure that proper provision is made for the parking of vehicles within the site in accordance with
policy T13 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
APPLICATION No:
02/45331/FUL
APPLICANT:
Mrs M Ruscoe
LOCATION:
Playing Field At Junction Of Lumns Lane And Agecroft Road
Pendlebury Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2m high weldmesh boundary fencing
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the existing playing field on the corner of Lumns Lane and Agecroft Road. The
site is now open as the previous concrete post and chain link fence has become broken and has large
sections missing. The proposal is to replace the boundary fencing with a 2m high weldmesh fence in the
same position.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 27 February 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:20-58 (even) Agecroft Road
1 & 2 Dauntessy Ave
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objection in response to the application publicity
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EN23 – Croal-Irwell Valley
Other policies: R1 - Protection of recreational land.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I am satisfied that the proposed fencing would secure the site and is of an acceptable standard.
The position of the fence at the junction of Agecroft Road and Lumns Lane is set away from the kerb edge,
and is angled away from the corner so that I do not consider that it would not affect the sight lines at this
junction.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The fencing hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior to the
commencement of the development by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/45337/OUT
APPLICANT:
Eckersley Joinery Limited
LOCATION:
Eckersley Joinery Manufacturers Bagot Street Wardley Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for the erection of a residential
development comprising of 25 two bedroomed apartments and
alterations to existing vehicular access (re-submission of planning
application 02/44961/OUT)
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This outline planning application relates to an existing joinery and builders yard set back from Manchester
Road and currently accessed via Bagot Street an unadopted road. The site is bounded to south by a railway
line, to the west by other small, old industrial premises, to the north by residential development and a vacant
site, beyond which is Manchester Road and to the east by Bagot Street beyond which is residential
development.
The site currently comprised workshop buildings with terrace of three two-storey dwellings that face Bagot
Street
It is proposed to erect a total of 25 two-bedroomed apartments on the site in a mix of two, three and four
storeys. Approval of the siting and means of access is sought at this stage. Access to the development
would be from Manchester Road. In terms of siting, the existing small terrace would be replaced by a part
two storey, part three-storey block comprising five apartments. Of the remaining twenty apartments
eighteen would be in a block situated to the rear of the site parallel to Manchester Road. The final two
apartments would adjoin this main block at right angles to the west of the site. Of the nine ‘building blocks’
four would be two-storey, three three-storey and two four-storey. A total of 25 car parking spaces would be
provided.
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
The proposed development would be located between 2.1m and 0.6m from the rear boundary of the site,
although there would be many windows facing this boundary these windows would be to either landings,
halls, bathrooms or kitchens. Only one four-storey block would have living room and bedroom windows
facing this boundary. Beyond this boundary is a railway embankment. The track itself is some 25m from
the site.
SITE HISTORY
A similar application was submitted last year but withdrawn at the request of officers (02/44961/OUT).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – The proposed development is situated in close proximity to a railway,
a main road and an industrial estate. It is reasonable to expect a loss of amenity to the apartments should
protective measures not be implemented. Conditions are required with regard to noise and contaminated
land.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections but provide advice.
The Coal Authority – No objections
Network Rail – No response to date
Environment Agency – No objections
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:2 and 4 Longview Drive
555, 569 to 579 and 583 to 593 Manchester Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two representations in response to the application publicity. The following issues have been
raised:Access via Bagot Street is unacceptable
The existing boundary wall should remain
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the location and nature of the proposed development, the amount of car
parking provision, the potential for noise nuisance and the effect on neighbours.
With regard to the letters that have been received none are objecting to the proposed development in
principle. It is not intended that any vehicular access is via Bagot Street and as the application is in outline
the question of whether or not the existing brick boundary wall remains or not is not addressed.
The application has been improved since the original application was first submitted last year. I am
satisfied that the level of car parking is appropriate and I note the comments of the Director of
Environmental Services with regard to the requirement for conditions. I am satisfied that the proposed mix
of two, three and four storeys is acceptable in principle and would result in a visually acceptable form of
development. It is noted that most of the development will be at two-storey height with the four storey
elements making up the minority of the scheme. The four storey elements of the development are set back
over 45m from the Manchester Road frontage and I do not consider that there would be any detrimental
effect on the street scene as a result of this development.
I do however have a number of concerns with regard to the proximity of this development to its boundaries.
The development is sited very close to the boundary with the railway and although most of the windows
facing this boundary are to non-habitable room windows the layout submitted would result in at least two
ground floor windows to bedrooms being, in one case, just 1m from this boundary. The potential would
exist for this window to face a 2m high solid boundary. I consider that this is not acceptable. In addition
with regard to the effect on the land to the west, the proposed development facing this land would be a mix
of two and four-storey in height. The development would be between 1.8 and 3.8m from this boundary.
The City Council is aware that redevelopment of this neighbouring site is being contemplated and I
consider that the site layout that is proposed by this application would prejudice any future redevelopment
of this site.
I am satisfied that there would be no significant detrimental effect on any existing neighbouring property as
a result of this development and that residents may well benefit from the removal of this existing joinery
and builders yard but for the reasons outlined above I must recommend that this application is refused for
the following reasons.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would result in an unacceptable outlook for future residents as a result of its
siting so close to an existing boundary contrary to policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
2. The proposed development as a result of its size and siting would have an unacceptable effect on any
future development of the adjoining site contrary to policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan
3. The City Council is not satisfied that the amenity of future residents would be acceptable having regard
to the proximity of the proposed development to the adjacent railway line and their nearby sources of
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
noise contrary to Policy EN20 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letters from the Greater Manchester
Fire Service, Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit and The Coal Authority.
APPLICATION No:
03/45343/FUL
APPLICANT:
Lyle Cars Ltd
LOCATION:
Lyle Cars 301 Liverpool Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Installation of two storage tanks
WARD:
Barton
At the meeting of the Panel held on 20th February 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the rear yard of a private hire taxi office. The proposal is to install two tanks for
the storage of liquid petroleum gas. The tanks would be sited on an area of concrete hardstanding 5 metres
in length by 2 metres in width. The tanks would be used to store liquid petroleum gas (LPG), to be used by
private hire vehicles.
The site currently appears to be used for the parking of vehicles associated with the taxi office - the
applicant has confirmed that the cars currently parked on the site are awaiting repair.
The application site relates to a mid-terraced property. The other uses in this terrace are all Hot Food (A3) at
ground floor and there are a variety of uses, including residential at first floor. To the rear of the site is a 3
storey office building associated with a contractors business.
SITE HISTORY
E/19682 – Change of use from a shop with office to a taxi office. Application approved for a temporary
period, until 31st March 1989.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – There is insufficient detail to properly assess the proposal, such as the
position of any drainage gulleys and where the cars would be parked. There are safety distance
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
requirements for these which are set out in the relevant guidance. Detailed plans are required to allow
further investigations to be undertaken regarding safety distances.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:288, 295 – 299 (odds) Liverpool Road
Fire Station, Liverpool Road
Singh Bros, Eliza Ann Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issue has been
raised:the tanks would be close to the building to the rear and would breach safety regulations on the distance
required for any types of tanks to be installed
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
EC14/4 – Improvement Proposals – Patricroft, Barton/Eccles
DEV1 – Development Criteria
EN20 – Pollution Control
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors
in determining applications for planning permission including the visual appearance of the development
and its relationship to its surroundings; the amount, design and layout of car parking provision and the level
of any risk or hazard to existing land uses. Unitary Development Plan policy EN20 states that the City
Council will encourage and support measures to reduce air pollution. LPG is a cleaner fuel than diesel and
petrol and the conversion of vehicles to LPG is in accordance with policies to reduce air quality problems in
the urban environment.
Temporary planning permission for the taxi use expired in 1989 and although there are no records to
indicate that a further planning permission has been approved, enforcement action would not now be taken,
providing that the premises have been in continuous use for a period exceeding 10 years.
The objection raised relates to safety regulations for this type of installation and that the location of the
proposed tanks is too close to the property to the rear of the site. The drawing submitted is not to scale and
does not accurately indicate the disposition of existing buildings within and surrounding the application
site, so the relationship between the proposed development and the surrounding properties cannot be
properly assessed. The Director of Environmental Services does not have sufficient information to allow
proper consideration of the proposal.
A further concern relates to the loss of car parking at the site. At present, there is satisfactory space for
approximately five cars to park in the rear yard area. The proposed development and associated barrier and
equipment would occupy a large proportion of the yard area, taking up space currently used for car parking.
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
Furthermore, I do not consider that there would be sufficient space between the proposed tanks and the
existing outbuildings for vehicles to gain access to the remaining area immediately adjacent to the rear of
the taxi premises, resulting in the loss of this area of car parking. I do not therefore consider that there would
be any scope for car parking within the red line area indicated by the applicant. The applicant has not
indicated where the vehicles using the LPG facility would park and from the information submitted, it
would appear that the only available space for vehicles to wait would be outside the application site
boundary. There are parking restrictions on Liverpool Road and part of Eliza Ann Street and given the
industrial/commercial nature of the area, there is a high demand for on-street car parking. On each of my
two visits to the site, there appeared to be problems with on street parking in the area and there were also a
number of taxis parked on the surrounding streets. I am concerned that the loss of car parking and the
intensification of the use of the rear yard area would be detrimental to highway safety and cause nuisance to
neighbouring uses.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Members should be aware that since writing my report I have received amended plans to accurately
demonstrate the existing site layout and the proposed development. The amended plans indicate that there
may be adequate provision for one car to park within the remaining yard area, between the proposed LPG
facility and the rear of the building. The plans still do not indicate where vehicles using the LPG facility
would park – as the red line indicating the extent of the application site is only 4 metres wide, it would
appear that vehicles would have to refuel outside the application site boundary. My concerns in relation to
the loss of car parking and inadequate car parking provision remain.
The Director of Environmental Services has no objections to the proposal.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would result in the loss of car parking provision to the rear of the site.
Inadequate on-site car parking would be unsatisfactory and detrimental to highway safety, contrary to
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1.
APPLICATION No:
03/45373/FUL
APPLICANT:
Hedley Homes
LOCATION:
Land To Rear Of 54 Ringlow Park Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of one pair of semi-detached dwellings
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
At the meeting of the Panel held on 6th March 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR
AN INSPECTION by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel.
My previous observations are se out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant and overgrown former garage court, which lies to the rear of properties
on Ringlow Park Road and Douglas Road. It is an irregularly shaped parcel of land which forms a
reasonably secluded backland site. To the north, east and south lie residential rear gardens, whilst to the
west is Sindsley Brook. On the site are a number of mature trees and smaller bushes and undergrowth, with
the trees on the northern part of the site protected by a Tree Preservation Order. There are a number of
concrete garage bases, and the site is accessed by a 3.7m wide cobbled alleyway off Ringlow Park Road.
This proposal is for a pair of semi-detached properties consisting of two and three storeys. The dwellings
would both have an integral garage and balcony at first floor level on the front elevation. There would be no
habitable windows located in the gable elevations. The houses would be sited to the south of the site,
accessed from the alley which runs along the back of properties on Ringlow Park Road, and accesses the
road between numbers 46 and 48.
SITE HISTORY
The site was formerly used as a garage court with eight garages. It was sold by the City Council in 1989 to
form a garden area for 54 Ringlow Park Road. A restrictive covenant was placed, which said that the land
could not be used for any purpose other than a garden without prior written consent.
Planning permission was granted on appeal in 1997 for the erection of two dwelling houses,
96/35760/OUT. Planning permission was renewed in 2000 (00/40941/OUT).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Environment Agency – No comments to date
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:2 – 14 (even) Douglas Road
2 – 6 (even) Lambton Road
2 – 66 (even) Ringlow Park Road
33 – 37 (odd) Ringlow Park Road
2A Ringlow Park Road
REPRESENTATIONS
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
I have received five letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Noise and disturbance during construction
Height
Loss of light
Loss of privacy
Loss of trees
Impact on wildlife
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
DEV1 – Development Criteria, DEV2 – Good Design, EN9
- Derelict and Vacant Land, EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodland, EN10
- Landscape
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV 1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining
applications, including the visual appearance of the development and its relationship to its surroundings.
DEV 2 seeks to ensure high standards of design. Policy EN9 states the Council’s intention to encourage the
reclamation of vacant sites for appropriate uses. This site is a former garage court, and has been vacant for
some time, therefore, it’s re-use for housing is appropriate, as it would develop a site which lies within an
established residential setting. UDP policies EN7 and EN10, assert the Council’s intention to conserve
trees and woodland, to protect and enhance the landscape quality of local areas.
This proposal would involve the removal of two sycamores protected by TPO. A further three trees which
are not subject to a TPO would also be removed as well as two groups of self seeded scrub. The City’s
Arboricultural officer has inspected the trees and is of the opinion that this proposal would affect the
remaining trees on site. However, this proposal is no closer to the trees than the outline proposal approved
by the Planning Inspectorate.
The objections raised from the application publicity also makes reference to the wildlife on the site
including Pipistrelle bats.
The proposal would maintain sufficient separation to the properties on Douglas and Lambton Road. The
site slopes towards the brook and as such the properties on Ringlow Park Road are on an elevated level.
The combination of levels and the staggered increase in the height of the roof provides sufficient separation
away from the rear of Ringlow Park Road. The properties on Ringlow Park Road are not directly opposite
this proposal. Therefore I do not agree that this proposal would be unduly high and have a detrimental
impact upon the neighbouring properties.
Both properties would have a balcony at first floor level on the front. The proposed property closest to
No.54 Ringlow Park Road would incorporate a screen wall to safeguard privacy, I have attached a condition
to ensure that this wall is maintain in the future. The western property would maintain more than 21m from
the gable to the properties on Lambton Road. The boundary also consists of mature trees which are subject
to a Tree Preservation Order.
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
I have no highway objections, and it can reasonably be argued that two houses would create less vehicular
traffic than the previous eight garages. I do not consider two additional houses would significantly increase
traffic flows.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
3. Standard Condition D02X Details of Materials
4. No additional windows shall be inserted into the eastern elevation without the prior written approval of
the Director of Development Services
5. The screening wall along the balcony of the eastern plot as shown on drawing No. 545.p.03(2) shall be
maintained at all times to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services whilst the balcony is
in use
6. During the first available planting season following the felling of the two sycamore tree(s) hereby
granted consent, it shall be replaced by standard tree(s) in accordance with British Standard 3936:Part
1:1965 (Specification for Nursery Stock Part 1: Trees and Shrubs) and which shall have a clear stem
height from the ground of 1.8m, a minimum overall height from the ground of 2.75m, a minimum
circumference of stem at 1m from the ground of 8 cm. The species and location of the replacement
tree(s) shall be agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
3. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/45399/FUL
APPLICANT:
North West Domestics
30
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
20th March 2003
At the meeting of the Panel held on 6th March 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR
AN INSPECTION by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to 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
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
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:
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:
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
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 contray to Policy T13 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/45420/FUL
APPLICANT:
E Nevis
LOCATION:
Cobden House Cobden Street Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Change of use of former bank premises into twenty residential
apartments
WARD:
Pendleton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a former bank building situated at the junction of Cobden Street, Mill Street and
Brettargh Street close to the junction of Cobden Street with Broughton Road. The three storey building is
distinctive and attractive and has a curved frontage to the street. It is on the local list of buildings of
architectural, archaeological or historic interest.
The building has been vacant for some time but externally is in good condition.
The site backs on to the Albion and Cobden Street Industrial Estates and is surrounded by a mix of old
commercial and industrial buildings. On the opposite side of Mill Street is a small area that is to be used as
car parking for this development. The existing outside yard to the building is to be landscaped and also
provides emergency access from the building.
It is proposed to convert the property to form 20 apartments, 17 would be one-bedroomed and 3
two-bedroomed.
CONSULTATIONS
New Deal for Communities Team – No response to date
Director of Environmental Services – Concerned about the application and considers that he is unable to
determine the acceptability of the proposal without a noise assessment being carried out regarding the
businesses that are located behind the site that have a 24hour operation.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No response to date
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:3, 12, 14 to 18 Cobden Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EC14/3 Improvement Proposals
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, EC3 Re-Use of Sites and
Premises, EC4 Improvements to Employment Areas, DEV4 Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EC14/3 states that in addition to the general improvements to industrial and commercial estates as
set out in Policy EC4 the City Council will seek improvements in four specific areas. The site lies within
the Pendleton Industrial and Commercial Improvement Area and the reasoned justification to the policy
states that the City Council will seek to improve the built environment and vehicular access and circulation
within the industrial area centred around Cobden Street and Langley Road. The City Council’s aim is
maintain existing employment and make the area more attractive to incoming firms.
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the location and nature of the proposed development including its
relationship to existing and proposed land uses, the amount of car parking provided, the potential for noise
and the effect on neighbouring properties. Policy EC3 states that where existing non-retail commercial
premises become vacant the City Council will seek to re-use them for similar or related uses except where
certain criteria apply, such as where the premises could be used for other purposes without a resulting
material or unacceptable shortfall in the range of premises available for economic development. Policy
EC4 states that the City Council will seek to improve employers operating conditions by encouraging the
improvement of land and premises and promoting improvement of employment areas generally. Policy
DEV4 states that the City Council will encourage greater consideration of crime prevention and personal
and property security in the design of new development and in the improvement of existing buildings and
that particular regard will be paid, amongst other things, to the relationship of car parking to buildings,
especially entrances and pedestrian circulation.
The application site also forms part of the Pendleton Church Area Study. This is a piece of work
commissioned by the Lower Kersal and Charlestown New Deal for Communities Partnership that looks at
the regeneration and redevelopment of the area around Pendleton Church, including the Cobden Street
Industrial Estate. The Study recommends the consolidation of the Cobden Street Industrial Estate. It is
envisaged that this will be achieved through the introduction of small industrial units opposite the
application site and the possible relocation of businesses into the Estate from the Greenwood Street / Bazaar
Street area where residential development is proposed. The Study forms part of a much wider regeneration
programme for the whole area, and its implementation is seen as a priority for the New deal for
Communities Partnership in the forthcoming years.
Given the strong emphasis on improving and consolidating this employment area I am concerned about the
suitability of a housing use on the application site, both in terms of a poor housing environment and its
impact on industrial occupiers.
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
PPG3 takes a broadly positive approach to the re-use of existing buildings, including the use of vacant
commercial buildings for housing. However, it places a strong emphasis on creating attractive high quality
living environments in which people will choose to live.
In light of the above I consider that the site would not be able to provide a satisfactory living environment as
whilst being on the edge of the industrial estate it is fairly set back from Broughton road and surrounded by
industrial uses. In addition there are a high number of HGV movements along Cobden Street that would
impact on the amenity of residents living in the proposed development, exacerbated by the fact that the
building is located at the back of a comparatively narrow footpath. Furthermore Mill Street is also an
access into the Albion Trading Estate. This poor level of amenity for occupiers would inevitably lead to
complaints, and as such, place pressure on surrounding industrial uses to modify their operations. This
would be contrary to policy EC4 through compromising existing industrial uses and reducing the potential
of the Estates to function properly.
I am also concerned about the location of the car park. The applicant provides no details regarding security
features and I consider that the isolated car park does not accord with policy DEV4.
While the bringing back into use of a fine building is to be welcomed I feel that in this instance the
introduction of a residential use on this site is inappropriate due to the very poor living environment that
would result from the surrounding uses and the amount of traffic and noise that they generate. I also
consider that the proposed use may lead to pressure on the operation of surrounding industrial uses and the
gradual erosion of the Estates. I consider that a more acceptable use for the site would perhaps be office or
managed workspace that would complement the employment area and surrounding uses.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed use would, as a result of its close proximity to neighbouring industrial users, result in an
unacceptable living environment for future occupiers contrary to Policy DEV1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
2. The proposed development would, as a result of a lack of secure on site parking, inadequately address
crime prevention and as such is contrary to policy DEV4 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/45454/FUL
APPLICANT:
H2 Construction
LOCATION:
Former Top Rank Bingo Club Church Street Eccles
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
PROPOSAL:
Erection of one 5 storey block of 19 two bedroomed apartments with
creation of new vehicular access (re-submission of planning application
02/45093/FUL)
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former Bingo Hall on the corner of Church Street and Mather Road. The
building which is some five storeys in height and occupies the full site is now in a near derelict condition
and is situated in an area mixed in character. To the west is a commercial terrace with residential
accommodation above whilst to the east and at a slightly higher level are the flats of Gardner House.
Immediately to the rear (north) of the site is an industrial unit and there are also commercial premises
opposite on Mather Road whilst further up Mather Road are residential dwellings. Opposite the site on
Church Street is an area of open space. The site is within the Eccles Housing Renewal Area and also within
a designated environmental improvement corridor.
In December last year application reference 02/45093/FUL was withdrawn for a similar scheme for 19
apartments following concerns about the design and lack of amenity space resulting in an overdevelopment
of the site. This application has now been submitted to address these concerns.
The proposal is for the demolition of the hall and for the erection of a new five storey building which would
provide 19, two bed flats. It would be constructed from reconstituted slate and brick with contrasting brick
band details and black timber panelling. The roof, which would use reconstituted slate, has been lowered in
parts with dormer windows incorporated to reduce the overall massing of the block.
The applicant has also reduced the car parking provision to 13 spaces and provided a small area of grassed
amenity space. In support of the proposal the applicant has submitted a design statement . I have outlined
the main points below.
The existing property is uninspired and “tired”. It is neglected and forms a mass of building which
would be difficult to convert to an alternative use due to lack of windows; ad hoc floor levels; depth
of space and inner space. The building has no architectural merit and overshadows in its depth and
bulk adjacent dwellings and buildings.
The proposal would include the replacement of structures on site within a single building with
space to the rear and incorporating architectural detailing, including pitched roofs, dormers,
profiling, modelling and various roof ridge and gutter lines to add interest and architectural quality.
The proposed elevations include band courses, balconies and coyne detailing, incorporating
elements of architecture in keeping with the appearance of adjacent existing buildings and utilising
similar materials.
The building has been designed with a predominantly four and a half to five storey appearance to
contribute to a sense of place.
The dwelling forms would incorporate elements of architecture in keeping with the appearance of
adjacent dwellings/development proposals. The elevational design would be conceived taking
examples of architecture embodied within the adjacent scheme proposals, and utilising similar
materials.
The visual impact of the development is limited to the view from Church Street and Mather Road.
The removal of the building would be an environmental improvement in the area and encourage
regeneration.
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No comments received.
Environment Agency – no objections in principle subject to a condition for surface water to be passed
through trapped gullies.
Architectural Liaison Officer – recommends that boundary railings are erected around the site and that the
entrance doors should be turned through 90 degrees so that they face Mather Road.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 30 January 2003.
A site notice was displayed on 5 February 2003.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:190, 190A Church Street
1 – 7(O) 4 Mather Road
1 – 18 Gardner House
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection, one from a local residents group in response to the application
publicity. The following issues have been raised:Loss of existing on-street parking spaces which is already at a premium
Loss of parking spaces for customers of commercial premises on Church Street
Height of building
Site is likely to become target for crime if not guarded on 24 hour basis
Entrance on Mather Road could become meeting place resulting in increased noise
Future occupiers of the properties
Rats are present on the premises – how will this be treated?
Service road opposite the site should not be blocked by construction vehicles.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none.
Other policies: EC3 Re-use of Sites and Premises, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4
Design and Crime, H7/1 Housing Area Improvement and Renewal, EN15
Environmental Improvement Corridor.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider that the main issues to be considered for this proposal firstly relate to the suitability of residential
use in this location within the housing renewal area and environmental improvement corridor taking into
account policies H7/1 and EN15. Secondly, the detail of the proposal in terms of its design and layout is of
consideration and in this respect policy DEV 2 is important.
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
The former bingo hall is vacant and is in a poor state of repair. I do not consider therefore that the principle
of residential use would be unacceptable.
To firstly address the concerns of the objectors they are concerned about the impact of the proposal upon car
parking along Mather Road and the impact upon local businesses which rely on on-street parking. The
proposal would provide 13 car parking spaces within the site and the applicant has indicated that six of the
residents would be blind and it would also be a tenant controlled housing scheme. Notwithstanding this, the
site is within walking distance to Eccles town centre and is also along a main bus route. In accordance with
PPG3 and PPG13 and the government’s wish to reduce the reliance on cars, I would consider this a highly
accessible site and therefore this provision would be sufficient.
The access road at the rear of the properties on Church Street must not be blocked by construction vehicles
but this should not happen. I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds.
In relation to the concerns about the height of the proposed apartments, the existing building is higher than
the proposed apartment block and as such has established the principle of development of such a height
along this stretch of Church Street. However, it is not just the height that is important but also the overall
design, scale and massing of the apartments, the overall scheme that must be considered fully.
The entrance to the apartments is at the rear of the site adjacent to Mather Road and the objectors are
concerned about an increase in noise as a result. I do not foresee that the proposal should necessarily
encourage residents to gather outside the entrance, however it is also important to take into consideration
the location of the site on a main road within a mixed commercial and residential area, and I am of the
opinion that local residents expect a degree of noise. I do not consider that this would increase sufficiently
from the scheme.
The proposal would be a replacement building occupying the full frontage of the site; some 23m and
extending back 14.5m at its widest point. The existing building is on the local list and does have some
architectural merit. Following the withdrawal of the previous application the applicant has improved the
design of the apartment block incorporating a reduced roofline and additional design details throughout.
The scale and massing of the building has been reduced slightly and the overall design has become more
impressive. I consider that it is now a more appropriate design for this prominent site location on the route
into Eccles. A small amenity area has been incorporated into the site.
The proposal would result in the redevelopment of the site with an imposing five storey development which
reflects the importance of this main arterial route into Eccles. I do not consider that it would have a
significant detrimental impact upon the amenity of any neighbouring residents and therefore recommend
that this application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
3. Standard Condition D02X Details of Materials
4. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface
water drainage from hardstanding area shall be passed through trapped gullies with an overall capacity
compatible with the site being drained.
5. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
6. The amenity space shown on the approved plans with surrounding landscaping shall be maintained and
made available for use at all times by residents of the apartments.
7. In order to establish clearly the noise environment to be at the proposed development the developer
shall submit an acoustics report detailing the ambient noise levels in the area about the application site
making reference to Planning Policy Guidance Note 24: Panning and Noise. Where appropriate, the
report shall identify any sound attenuation measures necessary to protect the proposed dwelling, and
which will ensure a reduction of indoor noise levels to below 35dB(A) LAeq as set out in the WHO
Guidelines for Community Noise 1999. The report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority
PRIOR to the commencement of the development and all identified sound proofing measures shall be
implemented and retained for the duration of approval.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with policy DEV1 of the UDP.
5. Standard Reason R014A Parking of vehicles - each dwelling
6. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
7. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This permission relates to the amended plans received on 31 January 2003 with revised elevational
details and 12 February 2003 which shows a landscaped amenity area at the rear.
2. Historical maps indicate that the site is adjacent to a former clay pit and cotton mill, therefore it is
possible that contamination found its way on to the site as a result of these uses. Therefore once any
earthworks commence, should operatives discover any adverse ground conditions and suspect it to be
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
contaminated then they should report to the site Manager. Works in that location should cease and the
problem area should be roped off until representative soil amples are sent for analysis and the results
assessed by my officer who can advise on the appropriate action.
APPLICATION No:
03/45463/OUT
APPLICANT:
G & J Seddon Ltd
LOCATION:
G And J Seddon Limited Armitage Avenue Little Hulton Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Renewal of outline planning application for development of land for
retail purposes
WARD:
Little Hulton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a large builders yard and offices situated on Armitage Avenue at its junction with
Manchester Road West. The site covers an area of 0.87 hectare and is bounded by residential development
to the north and south and by the churchyard to St Paul’s Church to the west. There are houses opposite the
site on Armitage Avenue beyond which is the Little Hulton District Centre. The site is no longer suitable
for the applicants needs.
This application seeks to renew outline planning permission for the second time. The original outline
permission did not show any details. Members should note that a reserved matters application for this site
also appears on this agenda (02/45324/REM).
SITE HISTORY
In December 1996 outline planning permission was granted for the development of the site for retail
purposes (96/35559/OUT). This permission was renewed in January 2000 (99/40116/OUT).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services - no response to date
British Coal – no response to date
Environment Agency – no response to date
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:2 and 4, 1 to 21 and Little Hulton Conservative Club Armitage Avenue
1 to 5 (incl) Armitage Grove
St Paul’s Church Peel Lane
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
St Paul primary School, Horseshoe Public House and 1 to 12 Metcalf Court Manchester Road West
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one representation in response to the application publicity. The following issues have been
raised:Concern about the replacement boundary treatment
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: S2 Location of New Retail Development, S3 Key Local
Centres
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy S2 and planning Policy Guidance Note 6 Town Centres and Retail Developments seek to maintain
and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres by requiring all new retail development to be located
in or immediately adjacent to existing centres. PPG6 sets out the sequential test, by which new retail
development should seek to locate in town centres, then edge of centre locations. The advice states that in
smaller centres the best solution may be for an edge of centre foodstore with parking facilities that can serve
the whole centre. Edge of centre locations are defined as those within easy walking distance of the centre,
typically 200-300m away. In this instance the site lies 120m from the edge of the centre with no suitable
alternative sites available closer to the centre, so meeting the sequential test. Providing that good pedestrian
linkages are built into the full design I consider that the development would provide the opportunity for link
trips to improve the retail offer, vitality and viability of Little Hulton as a whole.
Policy S3 states that the City Council will seek to retain, consolidate and improve Salford’s key local
centres, of which Little Hulton is one.
The issues raised by the one representation received are appropriately dealt with at reserved matters stage.
There have been no significant changes in the site’s circumstances or in planning policy or guidance since
planning permission was first granted in 1996. I therefore recommend that permission be renewed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
2. Standard Condition B01X Reserved Matters
3. Any subsequent reserved matters planning application shall be accompanied by a design scheme which
shall show full details of the pedestrian linkages between the site and Little Hulton District Centre. The
approved scheme shall be implemented according to the approval before the site is first occupied.
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. To ensure pedestrian access between the site and Little Hulton District Centre in accordance with
Policy T10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/45468/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr Farnsworth
LOCATION:
40 Orme Avenue Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension, construction of drop curb, and
detached garage.
WARD:
Pendleton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The two-storey side extension would be flush with the front main wall of
the existing dwelling and the rear main wall of the existing rear single
storey element of the dwelling. The extension would be 3.9m wide and have
a ground floor kitchen window and first floor balcony on the gable of the
extension facing open land. There would be a rear first floor bathroom
window, and front bedroom and dining room windows in the extension.
The garage would be constructed along the boundary with 161 Lancaster Road and be built up against the
gable of the existing garage. It would measure 6.2m wide along the rear boundary and be 10.7m long. The
garage would be constructed in an L-shape, leaving approximately 10m from it to the facing gable of the
dwelling’s two-storey side extension. It would be 4m to the ridge and 2.5m to the eaves. The site is lower
than the properties at the rear. There would be approximately 10m to the rear of the pavement from the
garage doors.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – no objections.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:
35 and 38 Orme Avenue
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
159 and 161 Lancaster Road.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:
Destroy the open aspect and views.
Devalue property.
Unsightly design of garage.
Concerns over future use of garage.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: Dev8 of the Unitary Development Plan- House Extensions.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Dev8 states that permission would be granted if the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse
impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance,
loss of privacy or light.
There are no objections to the two-storey side extension, only to the garage and I am satisfied the extension
complies with policy.
The objections relate to the loss of views from the garden and houses to the rear. I consider, as there is a
0.5m level change from the site, upwards to the properties at the rear and there is a fence of 1.5m along the
adjoining boundary with 161 Lancaster Road, only 0.5m to the eaves and a further 1.2m to the ridge of the
garage would be visible above the fence. The roof gable of the proposed garage would be facing the
properties at the rear; therefore the effect the garage would have on the views would be minimised and I
consider there would not be a significantly detrimental impact upon the views from these properties. There
would be a distance over 9m to the closest main habitable windows of the properties to the rear complying
with Guidance Note HH4 of the Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions that states there
should be a minimum distance of 9 m to protect the amenity of these rooms.
A further objection to the proposal was that the garage would be of an unsightly design. I consider that the
garage would be in keeping with the property and so would comply with the provisions of the
Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions.
I therefore recommend the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
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. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/45474/COU
APPLICANT:
Advanced Life Support Group
LOCATION:
29/31 Ellesmere Street Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from offices to educational facility
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the property at 29/31 Ellesmere Street, Swinton. The property is currently vacant
but was previously used as offices. The application proposes the change of use of the premises from offices
to a training facility for medical staff. The applicant currently operates a similar facility from premises at
Salford Quays, but now wishes to relocate. It is proposed to open the facility from 8.00am and 7.30pm
Monday to Friday. In order to provide car parking within the curtilage of the site, it is proposed to demolish
the outbuilding.
SITE HISTORY
In December 2000 planning permission was granted for the conversion of the storage building to office
training facilities and alterations to the elevations was approved (Ref: 00/41598/COU).
In 1989 planning permission was refused for the construction of a car park and alteration to the existing
access at the property due to the loss of open space, detrimental impact on visual amenity and increase in
traffic which would result (Ref: E/24971).
In 1980 planning permission was granted for the use of the premises as offices (Ref: E/11501)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to conditions.
PUBLICITY
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1, 7-27 (O), 8-40 (E), 37-47 Ellesmere Street
Winton Auto Services, East Lancs Road
37A Arthur Street
1-15 Holyrood Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Insufficient car parking
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: T13 – Car Parking
DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy T13 aims to ensure that adequate and appropriate car parking provision is made. In achieving this
aim, new developments should provide sufficient car parking in accordance with the Council’s adopted
standards. Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria to which the Council will have regard in the
determination of applications, including the relationship of the proposed development to existing and
proposed land uses and the amount, design and layout of car parking provision.
I have received one objection to the application. The objector raises concerns over the provision of car
parking within the site in light of the significant on street car parking on the roads surrounding the
application site.
I consider car parking to be the main factor in the determination of this application as I consider the
proposed use to be acceptable in principle. However, adequate car parking is required to be provided within
the curtilage of the site. In support of the application, the applicant has submitted written evidence based on
the current premises at Salford Quays.
The applicant has provided a plan showing 22 car parking spaces to be accommodated within the site,
following the demolition of the existing outhouse building. On the basis of the information provided by the
applicant in terms of the numbers of staff and visitors, I consider the proposed car parking provision to be
sufficient. I am satisfied that the proposed use would not result in on street parking in the surrounding area
and have no objections to the application on highway grounds. I therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use not less than 22 car parking spaces shall
be provided within the curtilage of the site in accordance with the plan received on 12th March 2003
and such spaces shall be made available at all times the premises are in use.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
APPLICATION No:
03/45478/FUL
APPLICANT:
Nuttall Construction Limited
LOCATION:
Former Petrol Filling Station 175 Worsley Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of one - two storey building comprising 10 apartments
together with associated car parking and construction of new vehicular
access
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of the former petrol station close to the junction with Partington Lane
with Worsley Road. The site has now been cleared and is surrounded by the residential properties of
Wayfarers Way and Waggoners Court and flats of 199 to 205 Worsley Road. There are six trees within the
site growing along the east and west boundaries.
The proposal is to erect 10, two bed apartments within a two storey block which would measure 32m by
10m deep. There would be two separate entrance porchways on the frontage to the flats at the first floor
level which would project out from the front main wall by 1.8m. The block would be sited adjacent to the
eastern boundary with a new access and parking for 13 vehicles within the western half of the site. There
would be an amenity area to the rear of the apartment block which would be paved. The apartment block
would be constructed from brick with contrasting feature brickwork.
CONSULTATIONS
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to a site investigation and the internal layout of
the site is such that main habitable rooms are not above/below bedrooms..
Environment Agency – no objection in principle subject to a site investigation to determine potential for
pollution of the water environment.
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Officer – recommends that rails and gates are erected on the site
frontage and that the development is built to Secured by Design standards.
City Council’s Arborist – has inspected the trees on the site and advises that they are not worthy of retention
and recommends that replacement trees are planted alongside the development proposal.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 13 February 2003.
A site notice was displayed on 5 February 2003.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1 – 9 Lyon Street
199 – 205, 186 Worsley Road
7 Carder Avenue
8 and 10 Waggoners Court
21 – 35(O) Wayfarers Way
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Loss of privacy
Loss of sunlight
Noise during construction
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none.
Other policies: H1 Meeting Housing Needs, DEV1 Development Criteria.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main issue to be considered for this proposal relates to the impact upon the neighbouring residential
properties in accordance with policy DEV1 particularly in terms of privacy. The proposal broadly complies
with policy H1 as it would provide additional housing within the City. I am also satisfied that residential
use is acceptable in principle on this site which is surrounded by further residential dwellings.
The objectors are concerned about a loss of privacy from the proposal. The flats would be sited 21m from
the rear main wall of the properties at the rear and as the application site is at a slightly lower level than
these properties I am satisfied that this separation is acceptable. These residents should not therefore
experience an unacceptable level of privacy loss as a result of this proposal.
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
The second concern relates to a loss of sunlight. The site lies to the south of the majority of the dwellings
and the proposal is for a two storeys development which would stand 8m to the ridge of the roof. Coupled
with the separation distance I do not consider that the adjoining residents would be significantly
detrimentally effected by the proposal. Unfortunately there would be a noise impact during the
construction but this would be during the normal working day and would only be for a limited period.
The proposal would provide 13 car parking spaces and taking into account current government guidance
which is actively seeking to reduce car parking provision in areas which are accessible by other means of
transport, I consider this to be acceptable. I have no objections on highway grounds.
The apartments would be two storey and of a design that would be in keeping with the surrounding area.
There would also be an amenity area at the rear for the benefit of the residents. The proposal would result in
the redevelopment of a brown field site and should not have a significant detrimental impact the
neighbouring residents. I therefore consider the proposal to be acceptable and recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
3. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be used
for the walls and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
4. Standard Condition M05 Site investigation
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached comments from the City's Drainage section dated 14
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
February 2003 regarding the drainage of the site.
2. The disused entrances to the former petrol station and the yellow lines shall be reinstated at the
developers expense.
APPLICATION No:
03/45490/FUL
APPLICANT:
Werit UK Ltd
LOCATION:
27A Northbank Industrial Estate Darby Road Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from warehousing (Class B8) to industrial and storage
use (Class B1/B2/B8)
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing industrial unit on the corner with Brinell Drive. The sewerage works
adjoin the site to the rear.
The proposal is to change the use of the premises from a B8 storage and distribution use to a general
industrial use for the manufacture of intermediate bulk containers and plastic pallets. The existing
warehouse would be adapted to install plant equipment including transformers, compensation plants,
switch bays and distributors to power the machinery, a cooling water plant, a compressed air unit, an
extrusion blow-moulding machine for the production of intermediate bulk containers, a plastic granulates
silo for raw material storage and a mill plant for the dressing and recycling of scraps. A manual container
assembly line is also proposed.
The proposed hours of operation would be from 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and from 8am to 1pm on
Saturdays. There would be no working on Sundays. There would be up to 75 new employees in addition to
the 10 currently employed.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 17 February 2003.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
Other policies:
20th March 2003
none.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The application premises are currently in B8 storage and distribution use and are located within the
Northbank industrial park. There are no residential dwellings within close proximity of the site and
therefore I do not consider that there should be any detrimental impact from the proposal. I have no
objections on highway grounds and recommend that this application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
03/45499/COU
APPLICANT:
S G And K E Clark
LOCATION:
289 Chorley Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from shop to shop for the sale of hot food
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an end terraced unit in a commercial terrace, between Sutherland Street and
Abbey Drive.
The unit is currently vacant. The immediate neighbour is a retail shop with living accommodation above.
This application seeks to change the use from retail use to a café with proposed opening hours of 8:00am –
3:00pm five days a week and 8:30am – 2:00pm on Saturdays and closed on Sundays.
SITE HISTORY
In 2000, planning permission was granted for the retention of roller shutters to the front of the property.
Planning permission was recently refused for the change of use to A3 with the opening hours until midnight
(02/45054/COU).
PUBLICITY
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
The following neighbours were notified of the application:273 – 287 & 303 (odd) Chorley Road
224 – 232 (even) Chorley Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection and a twenty named petition in response to the application publicity.
The following issues have been raised:Increase noise and general disturbance
Increase in traffic congestion
Increase in litter
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
S5 – Control of Food and Drink Premises
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy S5 states that the City Council will only grant planning permission for such uses where it would not
have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents by reason of noise,
disturbance, smells, fumes, litter, vehicular traffic movements, parking or pedestrian traffic.
I have received one letter of objection and a twenty named petition in response to the application publicity
which makes reference to generally disturbance issues. The main planning consideration with regard this
application is the adjoining residential properties and the likely impact that this proposal would have on
amenity. The immediate property has residential accommodation on the first floor. There are also several
residential properties directly opposite the proposal.
The hours of operation applied for by the applicant in this instance are significantly reduced than those
which have previously been refused. Noise and general disturbance normally associated to such premises
often occurs, and is more severe, in the late evenings. This proposal would close mid afternoon and as such,
I am of the opinion would not generate the levels of disturbance to which the objections refer.
A condition requiring a litter bin to be provided by the applicant is recommended. Parking restrictions are in
place along Chorley Road. The adjoining side road Sutherland Street has no waiting restrictions. I have no
highway objection.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that this proposal, subject to the following conditions, would not have a
detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents, nor would it be contrary to policy S5 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. 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 3.00 pm Monday to Friday and 8.30 am to 2.30 pm on
Saturday.
3. Details of the fume extraction system serving the cooking or/and food preparation areas shall be
designed such that there will be no odour or noise nuisance to residential premises and shall be
approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the change of use taking place. The extraction
system approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be installed prior to the commencement of the
proposed use, and shall be used whenever the cooking equipment is in use.
4. 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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/45506/HH
APPLICANT:
R Aspinall
LOCATION:
6 Francis Avenue Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey rear extension
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
This application relates to a semi-detached property in a residential area. The property has an existing
single-storey rear extension that projects 1.7m.
The proposal is to erect a single storey rear extension. The proposal would project a further 1.54m (3.3m in
total) and be the same width as the existing extension with a height of 3.7m with a hipped roof.
CONSULTATIONS
The Coal Authority – No Objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:4 and 8 Francis Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity from the occupier of the
adjoining semi-detached property. The following issues have been raised:Loss of light
Overbearing
Loss of view
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies: DEV8 -House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 states that planning permission will not be granted for extensions that have an unacceptable adverse
impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance loss
of light or privacy.
Policy HH9 states that single-storey rear extensions will not normally be acceptable if they exceed more
than 2.74m measured externally from the rear elevation of the adjoining property.
No. 8 has a bay window on the rear elevation that projects 0.6m. The bay has windows on either side and on
the rear elevation of the bay. The proposal would project 2.74m from the bay window, I would not consider
the projection to have an unacceptable loss of light to the bay window nor would it be overbearing.
Loss of view is not a planning consideration.
HH9 is in place to protect light to habitable room windows from single-storey rear extensions. The
proposal extends a total of 3.3m beyond the adjoining rear elevation however on the rear they have a bay
window that projects 0.6m. The proposal would project 2.74m beyond the bay window. Due to bay
windows having glass on the side elevations, the proposal would have less impact than on a normal window
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
and would not consider it to have an unacceptably adverse impact on the residents of the neighbouring
property.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Please note this approval relates to the amended plan received on the 20th February 2003 which shows
a reduction in projection
APPLICATION No:
03/45511/HH
APPLICANT:
I Baker
LOCATION:
1 Cedar Drive Clifton Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey rear extension and construction of rear
dormer to provide room in roofspace
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a semi-detached bungalow and the proposal is to erect a single-storey rear
extension and to construct a dormer in the roof space at the rear of the house.
The single-storey extension would extend 3.9m close to the adjoining boundary and back 2.7m to attach to
the existing dining extension. The corner of the proposal facing the adjoining neighbour would be angled
off at 45degrees. The dormer would project 2.4m from the roof and would be 2.8m wide.
Beyond the applicant’s adjacent boundary are the rear gardens of houses on Manchester Road. Beyond the
applicant’s rear boundary are the rear gardens of houses on Walnut Close.
SITE HISTORY
In 1998 planning permission was approved for a single storey rear extension (98/37668/HH).
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:3 Cedar Drive
380-386 (e) Manchester Road
1 Walnut Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 2 letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Loss of privacy as a result of dormer extension
Loss of light as a result of dormer extension
Loss of view as a result of dormer extension
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV8 – House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 states that permission would be granted if the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse
impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, over shadowing, dominance,
loss of privacy or light.
Objections that have been received relate only to the dormer extension. The single-storey element and
dormer are in accordance with Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions.
Loss of privacy: There would be a distance of approx. 13m from the proposed dormer to the rear boundary
of the applicant’s rear garden. Beyond this rear garden are the bottoms of gardens belonging to houses on
Walnut Close. Therefore I do not envisage any significant loss of privacy for neighbouring residents.
Loss of Light: The proposed dormer would be relatively small and would be sited below the ridge line of
the dwelling and would be set well back from the eaves line. Therefore, I hold the opinion that the
proposed dormer would not lead to a loss of light for neighbouring residents.
Loss of view: This is not a planning consideration.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Coal Authority.
APPLICATION No:
03/45512/HH
APPLICANT:
N Finney
LOCATION:
11 Roughlee Avenue Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Construct dormer extensions in roofspace at front and rear of dwelling
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a semi-detached bungalow at the top end of a cul-de-sac. The proposal is to
construct a front dormer which would be 3.7m in width, 0.9m in height, and it would be a flat roof design. It
is also proposed to construct a large rear dormer, which would be 7m in width, and 2m in height. It would
cover most of the rear roof, being set up 0.6m from the eaves. This rear dormer would be a square box
design.
SITE HISTORY
In 1999 planning permission was submitted for the same front and rear dormers as now proposed. However,
this was withdrawn before it was determined. (ref. 99/39706/HH).
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:109-117 (odd) Arthur Street
9-13 Roughlee Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
I have received 4 letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:-
Serious overlooking and loss of privacy, both to the surrounding properties and their gardens
The size of the extension would be out of character with the bungalows
The extent and design of the dormers, particularly with the flat roofs would create a physical
incongruity
The increased floor area would almost double the size of the property, which would be out of
character with these modest, retirement size bungalows
When the properties to the rear on Arthur Street were built in 1982, they were restricted to
bungalows to avoid privacy and overlooking because of the proximity of the properties. This
rear dormer would effectively make the application property a house
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV 8 states that planning permission shall only be granted when they would not have an
unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking,
overshadowing, dominance loss of privacy or light. It also seeks to ensure that the extension does not have
an unacceptable impact on the appearance of the street scene. The Council’s SPG for house extensions
includes guidance for dormers in order to reduce their impact.
The letters of objection from the neighbours express their serious concerns about the overall impact on their
properties, and I do concur with these concerns. I am concerned about the impact of the rear dormer on the
neighbouring properties because of the separation distances. The bungalows immediately behind are 15.5m
away from the application property and the house to the rear is about 18m away. These houses have
habitable windows facing and the proposed dormer also shows rear facing habitable windows. The SPG
would require a minimum of 21 metres separation between habitable windows and this distance is short of
this. Therefore I am concerned that there would be a serious problem of overlooking and loss of privacy to
the house and bungalows to the rear.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed rear dormer would be a large dominant feature which would be detrimental to the
neighbouring residents in terms of loss of privacy and overlooking and would be contrary to policy
DEV8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the Council's Supplementary Planning
Guidance for house extensions.
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/45525/TEL56
APPLICANT:
O2 UK Limited
LOCATION:
Pavement Opposite 129/133 Gerald Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Prior notification for the installation of one 12m high
telecommunications column with operational lighting arm and two
associated equipment cabinets
WARD:
Pendleton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a pavement area opposite 129/133 Gerald Road, Salford 6. It is proposed to erect
a 12.1m high telecommunications column with an operational lighting arm and two associated equipment
cabins. Surrounding uses are predominantly residential, although there are a number of shops in the
vicinity. Land to the rear of the application site is being developed for a new high school.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:127-145 (O) Gerald Road
79-117 (O) Blandford Road
Salford University Irwell Valley Campus, Blandford Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a petition from the Charlestown Residents Association signed by 84 residents. However, the
reasons for objection have not been stated.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: SC14 – Telecommunications Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider that in visual terms this proposal is acceptable. The site lies adjacent to a main road, where the
proposed column would be viewed in conjunction with existing lamp posts. It would not appear a
significantly unsightly feature in the street scene, as it would be similar in appearance to the lamp posts.
Similarly, the proposed equipment cabinets would also be viewed in conjunction with existing street
furniture. Consequently, I do not believe that it would appear an incongruous or intrusive feature. Whilst I
have received a petition signed by members of the Charlestown Residents Association, the grounds for
objection have not been stated.
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
The applicants have submitted a declaration which shows that the proposed equipment complies with
ICNIRP public exposure guidelines. Therefore, I am satisfied that sufficient information has been provided
to show that there should be no adverse health implications. The applicants have demonstrated that other
potential sites have been investigated in the surrounding area, but were considered either not feasible,
available or would not have the required coverage. The applicants state that the proposed development is
required to improve coverage in the area. I am satisfied that this justification meets the criteria of SC14.
Therefore, on balance I consider that the proposal would not significantly harm the visual amenity of the
area or neighbouring occupiers and recommend approval.
.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
03/45547/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr & Mrs Jennings
LOCATION:
34 Charlton Drive Wardley Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a single storey side extension with dormer extension to roof
space at front and dormer extension to roof space at front and rear of
existing dwelling
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The proposal, which is in two parts, is for a single storey side extension with a front dormer and a dormer
extension to the existing dormer in the front of the existing dwelling and a dormer to the rear of the existing
dwelling. The side extension would be set back 6m from the front main wall of the existing dwelling and
extend 6.3m back by 4.3m. A dormer would be constructed in the roof, which would be set up from the
eaves, down from the ridge and in front the gable side of the roof.
The dormer in the front of the existing dwelling would be an extension of
the existing dormer and be set in from the side of the roof. The dormer
in the rear of the existing dwelling would be set up from the eaves, down
from the ridge and in from the side of the roof joining 15 Charlton Drive.
The windows in this dormer shall be obscure glazed.
There are dwellings to all sides of the property.
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal- no objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:
15 and 32 Charlton Drive
59,61 and 63 Moss Bank Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application
publicity. The following issues have been raised:
Overlooking/privacy
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: Dev8 – house Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Dev8 states that permission would be granted if the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse
impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance,
loss of privacy or light.
The objector cites his concern over the three windows in the rear dormer of the existing building
overlooking his property. There would be over 21m to the properties at the rear from the dormer and the
windows would be obscure glazed. The applicant has agreed to obscure glaze the third window, which is a
landing window, in order to increase privacy for the neighbours to the rear. I consider, therefore that the
proposal would not have a significantly detrimental impact on these neighbours due to the distance and the
obscure glazing to the non main habitable room windows.
The remaining elements of the proposal meet with the Council’s Supplementary Planning guidance for
House Extensions and I do not consider that it would have a significantly detrimental impact on the amenity
of the surrounding neighbours or the street scene.
No objections on highways grounds.
I therefore recommend the application for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
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:
03/45561/HH
APPLICANT:
F Hankinson
LOCATION:
15 Calder Drive Little Hulton Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a single storey side extension together with two storey
dormer extension in roofspace at front and single dormer extension in
roofspace at rear and rear conservatory
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a detached house. The rear of a house on Kent Road faces the gable wall of this
property. The proposal is to replace the existing attached garage with a two storey side extension to the front
part of the property. This would link in with the previous side extension. It is also proposed to construct a
front dormer window and two facing dormers which would be one above another because of the angle of the
roof and the high ridge line. There would also be a rear conservatory which would project out 1.75m along
the party boundary with the adjoining semi.
SITE HISTORY
In 1980 planning permission was granted for a two storey side extension (ref. E/10592)
In January 2001, planning permission was granted for a rear dormer in the roof of the original house (ref
00/41695/HH). As part of this planning application process, a second rear dormer above the side extension
was removed, because of concerns about the impact on the facing neighbours.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:-
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
17, 30-34 (even) Calder Drive
2-8 Kent Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have been
raised:-
The existing extension already has an overbearing effect on their property, and this would
seriously exacerbate the problem.
The applicants are now proposing a dormer which was previously removed from the scheme
because of the possible effect on the neighbours.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV8 – House extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV 8 states that planning permission shall only be granted when they would not have an
unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking,
overshadowing, dominance loss of privacy or light.
I am concerned about the possible impact on the occupiers of the neighbours. The rear of their house faces
the gable of the applicants house, and they have a main bedroom window which is 12.7m away from the
existing extension, and a conservatory extension which is 10.3m away. The existing extension is about 1
and a half storeys as it is a ground floor with a room in the sloping roof. However, the proposal would
continue the angled roof up to the full height of the top ridge and would include front and rear dormers.
The separation between the properties is less than is now required by the Council’s SPG for house
extensions, as it would now be necessary to provide a minimum of 13m. This existing extension does
provide a solid wall across the rear of the applicants house and I am concerned that the additional extensions
would increase the overbearing appearance and possible loss of light for the neighbours to an unacceptable
level.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed side extension and dormer windows would have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring
property in terms of loss of light and overbearing appearance and would be contrary to policy DEV8 of
the Council's Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance for house
extensions.
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/45571/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr A Pownall
LOCATION:
1 Newlands Avenue Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of part two storey/part single storey side extension and single
storey rear extension
WARD:
Winton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to an end semi-detached property in a residential area. The side elevation of the
property overlooks the rear elevations of properties on Liverpool Road.
The proposal is for a part single part two-storey side extension. There would be a single storey projection
in front of the front elevation by 0.88m. The two-storey element would be flush with the front elevation and
run close to the common boundary with houses fronting Liverpool Road. The two storey element would be
6.5m long with a single storey behind it set in 1.5m along the common boundary. This single storey
element would project 3.7m beyond the rear elevation.. The total height of the proposal would be 6.4m with
a hipped roof.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:2 and 3 Newlands Avenue
784 – 792 (evens) Liverpool Road
REPRESENTATIONS
Councillor Lancaster has requested that the application is determined by the Planning and Transportation
Regulatory Panel. No other comments have been received.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 states that planning permission will not be granted for extensions that have an unacceptable adverse
impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance loss
of light or privacy.
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
HH3 of the Supplementary Planning Guidance states that planning permission will not normally be granted
for two storey / first floor extensions that do not maintain a minimum distance of 13m between its blank
wall gable and facing ground floor habitable room windows of neighbouring dwellings. The application
property “sides on” to the rear elevation of houses fronting Liverpool Road.
The proposed two-storey side extension would be approx. 11.8m from the habitable ground floor window
of 786 Liverpool Road. I would therefore consider the proposal to have an unacceptably overbearing
impact on the property and result in an unacceptable loss of light.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would be detrimental to the amenity of the neighbouring occupier in that it
would not maintain a minimum distance of 13m between the proposed two-storey side extension and the
rear elevation No 786 Liverpool Road contrary to the HH3 of the Council's Supplementary Planning
Guidance for House Extensions and Policy DEV8 of the City of Salford's Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
03/45588/TEL56
APPLICANT:
O2 (UK) Ltd
LOCATION:
Pavement To Front Of 258 Eccles Old Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Prior Notification for the installation of one 12.1m high
telecommunications monopole with operational lighting arm together
with two associated equipment cabinets at ground level
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land at Eccles Old Road, within a key local centre (Weaste & Seedley ward). The
proposal is for the installation of one 12.1m high telecommunications monopole with operational lighting
arm together with two associated equipment cabinets at ground level.
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
The proposed type.3 monopole will be based approximately between the post office at no.258, and no.205
Eccles Old Road, sited along the boundary of the footpath and car-park, in between the post-box and
existing cabinet. The two equipment cabinets proposed are to be sited 7metres to the East along the same
boundary (access panels to face Eccles Old Road).
The monopole (including two antennas) has been designed to appear as an item of street furniture complete
with an operational lamp to match existing surrounding lampposts, and sited 6metres to the West of an
existing lamppost to create a realistic street-scene.
The Applicant has submitted a certificate indicating that the proposed equipment and installation would be
ICNIRP compliant. Eighteen alternative sites have been considered, but have been discounted (including
seven due to lack of interest). The reason for the development is to provide ‘coverage, upgrade, and
capacity’.
SITE HISTORY
No previous applications on this specific site but the following point should be noted.
This present application follows an earlier application at 254 Eccles Old Road (Beaucliffe Hotel) for the
erection of one fake brick chimney shroud enclosing nine antenna on roof top and installation of four
equipment cabins at ground floor level. This was withdrawn in January 2003. (03/45346/TEL)
CONSULTATIONS
No objections received.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 19th February 2003.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:
5, 6, 11, 12, 17, 18 Portland House
154-260(e) Eccles Old Road
189-215(o) Eccles Old Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three (3) representations/ letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:
-
Aesthetic quality of the area – visual impact
Obstruction & hazard to pedestrians including the disabled and partially sighted shoppers
Environmental & health implications
Signals emitted may affect computer systems in nearby buildings
I have also received a letter and substantial petition from Mr John Binns to the following effect:
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
‘Petition against O2 (UK) Limited installation of telecommunication
monopole. Site adjacent to 256/257 (258?) Eccles Old Road, Salford 6. Grid
Ref: 378446 399203’.
(Please note the correct description should mention only 258 Eccles Old Road)
It should be noted that Councillor Mr Heywood has requested this application should go to panel.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
SC14 – Telecommunications
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
S3 – Key Local Centres: Eccles Old Road
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy SC14 states that the City Council will normally grant planning
permission for telecommunications development where such development would not have an unacceptable
impact on visual amenity residential amenity, natural historical value, and built historical value.
The City Council will also take into account whether there are any satisfactory alternative sites for
telecommunications development available and whether there is any reasonable possibility of sharing
existing telecommunication facilities. Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 (PPG8) – Telecommunications,
sets out national policy in relation to telecommunication development. The Government's policy is to
facilitate the growth of new and existing telecommunications systems whilst keeping the environmental
impact to a minimum. The Government also has responsibility for protecting public health. The Stewart
Report (2000) recommended that the Government adopt ICNIRP (International Commission on
Non-Iodising Radiation Protection) guidelines to limit public exposure from telecommunication
developments.
Significant amendments have been made to improve the siting and appearance of the street-lamp structure,
including setting the monopole back to the side of the footbath along the car-park boundary, and also to
place the monopole in a position that gives a more realistic distance between this and the two nearest
existing lamp-posts thereby allowing the structure to fit in with the alignment of other street-furniture.
Objections raised include risk to public health and the environment. The applicant has, however, provided a
Certificate declaring that the proposed installation conforms to ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines. With
regards to the siting and appearance of the proposed development, I consider that the ultra slimline
monopole lamp-post design is in keeping with street scene, being a similar height to existing street lighting
columns in the vicinity. Given that the development would be sited within a key local centre rather than a
residential area, I consider this will help attain at least an appropriate distance to the dwellings and the
hospital, and the design as a street lamp will allow the structure to fit in with the existing street scene. I am
satisfied that alternative sites have been considered.
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
A further objection relates to the impact on IT (information technology) equipment in nearby buildings.
Further to this the applicant has submitted a statement to explain that ‘principles of Electromagnetic
Compatibility (EMC) have been designed to ensure that electrical devices do not interfere with eachother’
thus ‘IT and telecommunications equipment is immune to electric fields up to 3 Volts/metre’ (Ref:
CENELEC EN 55024 & ETSI EN 300-386-2). To this effect I am satisfied that there will be no detrimental
impact on nearby IT equipment.
Having analysed this application with the above issues in mind I conclude that this application is
acceptable, with particular regard to policies SC14, DEV1 & DEV2.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D05B Colour treatment
3. The proposed structure shall incorporate a street-lamp feature as shown in plan 12835 Revision 3,
C51286 001.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Reason: To ensure the development fits in with the character of the surrounding area in accordance
with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/45600/COU
APPLICANT:
Wai Kuen Chan
LOCATION:
7 Moorside Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from shop to shop for the sale of hot food
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an end terrace property within the Clovelly Road/Worsley Road key local centre.
The property is currently vacant but previously traded as a DIY store. The adjoining road is Moorfield
Road which consists of residential to the north and commercial shops with living accommodation above on
the south side. There are parking restriction in place outside the premises on Moorside Road. There are no
parking restrictions on the adjoining side road.
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
This proposal seeks to change the use of the property into a hot food take away. The property has been
extended to cover the whole of the curtilage.
SITE HISTORY
Planning permission was granted earlier this year for the installation of new shop front (03/45350/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Objection due to loss of amenity to neighbouring residents
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1 – 7 (odd) & 2 and 4 Moorfield Road
1 – 5 and 9 – 15 (odd) Moorside Road
Accountants, Moorside Road delivered by hand
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 15 letters of objection in response to the application publicity and a 135 named petition
against the proposal. I have also been asked by councillor B Boyd that this application referred to the panel.
The following issues have been raised:Traffic congestion
Noise and disturbance
Health issues/Rubbish/Smells
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
S3 – Key Local Centres, S5 – Control of Food and Drink
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy S3 seeks to retain, consolidate and improve Salford’s key local centres. However, the area is not
defined within the first deposit draft of the replacement plan. Policy S5 states that the City Council will
only grant planning permission for such uses where it would not have an unacceptably adverse impact on
the amenities of neighbouring residents by reason of noise, disturbance, smells, fumes, litter, vehicular
traffic movements, parking or pedestrian traffic.
The objections received refer to the noise, disturbance and increase in traffic generation of the proposed
use. I am of the opinion that issues with regard to smells and rubbish could be successfully address through
appropriate condition.
Although the small cluster of properties to which this property is a part, is within an existing key, the
immediate area consists mainly of residential uses. Therefore, I consider that the main planning issues with
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
regard this application is the relationship and impact upon residential accommodation. The first floor of the
adjoining property is residential accommodation. To the north of the adjoining road, Moorfield Road, are
residential properties. There is also residential accommodation above the commercial properties on
Moorfield.
Applications for hot food shop are considered by the City Council on the basis of its adopted Development
Control Policy No.2 – Hot Food, Cafes and Snack Bars and Policy S5.
Due to the relationship of the proposal to the neighbouring residential accommodation, and the increased
traffic generation, I am of the opinion that this proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of
neighbouring residents contrary to policy S5 and the adopted Development Control Policy No.2 of the City
of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed opening of the business would seriously harm the amenity of neighbouring residents by
reason of noise, fumes, vehicular activity and general disturbance contrary to the Council's Unitary
Development Plan Policy S5 - Control of Food and Drink Premises.
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
APPLICATION No:
03/45447/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Director Of Development Services
LOCATION:
60/68 Whittle Street Walkden
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4m high fencing and installation of roller shutters
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to an existing row of shops with 2 storey maisonettes above. The proposal is to
install externally mounted roller shutters on all the shop front windows. These would be colour treated. It is
proposed to erect 2.4m railing style fencing and pedestrian gates across the front of the block, which would
follow the line of the existing canopy. It is also proposed to erect a fence at the rear together with jailor gates
over the door. All of this work would be colour treated.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1-4 Sportside Avenue
60A-68A, 58C, 70, 93-105(O) Whittle Street
1 & 2 Meadowside Grove
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV4 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The application is to provide security to this block of properties which currently suffers with problems,
particularly with youths collecting in the evening. I do not consider that the proposal would have an adverse
effect on the street scene as it would be a quality design and the materials would be colour treated.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The shutters and fencing hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
prior to the commencement of the development by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
03/45503/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Mrs A Taylor (Head Teacher)
LOCATION:
Light Oaks Primary School Lancaster Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Siting of a temporary single storey toilet block attached to existing
dining hall and siting of two secure steel storage units
WARD:
Claremont
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This proposal relates to land at Light Oaks Primary School in Salford 6 (Claremont ward). The
development will include a toilet block (sited to the East of the existing rear dinning hall block) and two
storage units (in front of the dinning hall), all single storey. The proposal is intended to provide improved
facilities for children at the school (including evening classes) and to provide storage space for playground
equipment.
The two ‘Ultraguard Security Units’ will be powder coated green and will measure 3000mm x 2438mm.
Materials to include prefinished/ insulated board with double glazed units.
The toilet block (attached to existing dinning hall) will be coloured in medium blue & grey and will
measure 7360mm x 2923mm. Materials to include insulated flat roof with multi-layered felt.
SITE HISTORY
The panel will recall that in 2002 planning permission was granted for replacement roofing at Light Oaks
Primary School Lancaster Road, Salford 6 (02/44086/DEEM3).
In 1998 planning permission was granted for an extension and alteration to existing school to form a new
40-place nursery (98/37609/DEEM3).
In 1995 an application was withdrawn regarding the erection of new fencing around school
(95/33549/DEEM3).
CONSULTATIONS
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
Director of Environmental Services – No objections.
British Coal – No objections but that the property is within the likely zone of influence on the surface from
underground coal workings.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 13th February 2003.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:
1-4 Brandon Road
142 Lancaster Road
45-59(o) Russell Road
5-9(o) Westgate Road
1-41(o) Light Oaks Road
1-6 Laurel House
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received nil (0) representations/ letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
SC4 – Improvement/Replacement of Schools
SC6 – Schools in the Community
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design & Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy SC4 (Improvement/Replacement of Schools) highlights the council’s aim to improve on any
deficiencies in school facilities such as replacement facilities and support infrastructure. The policy also
provides that the condition of buildings and educational facilities is compatible with current requirements. I
consider this policy to compliment the proposal by allowing the provision of toilet facilities adjacent to the
existing dinning hall, thereby removing the need for children to return to the main building for relief,
potentially compromising the safety of other children by removing one member of staff to escort the
children. The adaptation of the dinning hall to include toilet and storage facilities will also allow potential
for community use and clubs during after school hours as identified in policy SC6 (Schools in the
Community).
Issues of design and crime are identified in policy DEV4 which allows for appropriate means of crime
prevention. Further to this the agent has confirmed that the steel containers (with no windows) are to be
secured via a concealed shackle type padlock. The toilet block will have a Five Lever mortice lock and
opening casement windows (approx 200mm x 120mm wide) with wire mesh covering. I consider policy
DEV4 to compliment the proposed two storage units, by reducing risk of theft or vandalism.
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
With regard to design of the units I consider the proposed materials and colours to be acceptable, and will fit
in with the surrounding environment, including some nearby bushes and similar colours used on the
existing main building. Given that the proposed structures will all be single storey with flat roofs I consider
that there will be no visual impact on neighbouring properties (DEV1). The storage units will be effectively
screened by the existing dinning hall and the toilet block is screened by a gentle gradient and bushed at the
rear.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Coal Authority.
APPLICATION No:
03/45530/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Belvedere Early Years Centre
LOCATION:
Belvedere Early Years Centre Belvedere Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Siting of one steel storage container
WARD:
Pendleton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to the Belvedere Early Years Centre, Belvedere Road. The application is for the
siting of one storage container in 1.8mm thick steel, coloured green RAL6005. The dimensions of the
container would be approximately 2.43m X 3.04m. The container would be located approximately 15m
from Broadwalk Primary School, 25m from Whitebeam Court flats, and 43m from the public highway
(Whitebeam Close).
SITE HISTORY
In 1994 permission was granted for the siting of one steel storage container (94/33228/DEEM3).
In 2002 permission was granted for the siting of one steel storage container (02/44694/DEEM3)
PUBLICITY
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
A site notice was displayed on 18th February 2003.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H8 – Housing Area Improvement and Renewal – Public Sector
Other policies:
DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that consideration shall be given to a number of factors including the visual appearance
of development and its relationship to its surroundings.
At present there are two existing steel storage containers on the site. This application is for a third container
to store toys and safety equipment. The proposed container would be coloured green and would be
enclosed on two sides by existing palisade fencing that is also coloured green and on a third side by the
Belvedere Early Years Centre. Due to the relatively small size of the container and its location in relation to
surrounding uses, I am of the opinion that it would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area
and is in accordance with Policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The storage container shall be coloured green RAL6005 prior to it being sited at the Belvedere Early
Years Centre.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
03/45532/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Environmental Services Directorate
LOCATION:
Council Depot Chestnut Avenue Worsley
74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
PROPOSAL:
Erection of railings above boundary wall and retention of boundary
fence and gates
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to the Environmental Services Depot on Chestnut Avenue. The front gates and
fencing have been replaced with 2.54m high black railing style, which have gold detailing. The application
is to retain this fence and gates. The boundary to the rear of the houses on Chestnut Avenue is formed by a
brick wall of varying height, with metal posts and chain link fencing above. The proposal is to remove the
chain link, and erect railings above the wall. The overall height of the boundary would remain constant
around the site from the overall height of the gates, although the actual height of the railings would vary
because the ground level along the houses’ boundary is slightly higher than the level at the road side.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1-23 (odd), 2-8 (even) Chestnut Avenue
126-130 Walkden Road
Telephone Exchange, Chestnut Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV4 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The railings and gates on the site frontage have been specifically made and are of a high quality of design.
Therefore I would consider that they enhance the street scene, and are not detrimental to the outlook of any
neighbouring residents.
The existing boundary to the rear of the houses has chain link fencing which is in a poor condition, and parts
of the brickwork needs repairing. Therefore it does not provide a safe and secure boundary treatment. I am
mindful that the adjoining residents do not enjoy the most attractive outlook, in facing the depot. However,
I am satisfied that the quality of proposed railings would be an improvement from the existing fence, and it
would not have a detrimental effect on the amenity of these neighbours.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th March 2003
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The fencing hereby approved shall be coloured black with gold detailing, unless agreed otherwise in
writing with the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
77
20th March 2003