PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
APPLICATION No:
04/47928/FUL
APPLICANT:
Mr N C Napier
LOCATION:
13 Boysnope Wharf Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey portal frame workshop and office unit
including covered area for spoil storage.
WARD:
Irlam
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing waste transfer station located on Boysnope Wharf, off
Liverpool Road, Irlam. Entrance to the site is off Boysnope Wharf. The site is triangular in shape
and is bound to the south-east by the old course of the River Irwell. Adjacent to the west is a plant
hire business and to the north-east is a garage for vehicle servicing. To the north, on the opposite
side of the Boysnope Wharf access Road is a large area of open land. An application is under
consideration for the use of this land for industrial/warehouse purposes (02/43848/OUT). The
nearest residential properties are approximately 700m away to the south-west. The site currently
comprises two storey portacabins, a concreted yard area, a waste reception and handling areas as
well as stockpiles of waste materials, processed materials and storage containers.
The proposal is to erect a single storey portal frame workshop with covered spoil storage bays and
an ancillary canteen, reception and toilet/shower. At present the storage of spoil is open on site.
The unit would be located close to the entrance of the site along the common boundary shared with
the plant hire business and would be adjacent to a similar portal frame building erected by this
neighbouring business. The proposed building would measure 6.4m x 15.3m and would have
ridge height of 4.2m.
SITE HISTORY
In 1994, planning permission was approved for the continued use of the land as a waste transfer
station, together with the erection of boundary and sorting bay walls, a storage container and a site
office (94/32518/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no comments received.
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – Support the application
Environment Agency – no objection, advice given.
PUBLICITY
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
A press notice was published on 29th July 2004.
A site notice was displayed on 15th March 2004.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
AFI, Boysnope Wharf
L for Leather, Boysnope Wharf
HES Enterprises, Boysnope Wharf
Autobase, Boysnope Wharf
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
objector is of the opinion that the applicant is currently in breach of the obligations of their Waste
Management Licence by virtue of dust and effluvia nuisance, odour nuisance, burning and smoke
nuisance, and the storage of unspecified organic/effluent products. The objector also states that
further expansion of the business would lead to congestion. He also requests clarification as to the
nature of the spoil storage.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EC10/1 – Major High Amenity Sites in Strategic Locations.
Other policies:
EC4 – Improvement to Employment Areas
EN20 – Pollution Control
MW15 – Development Control Criteria – Waste.
T13 – Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: E3/11 – Sites for Employment Development
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
EN14 – Pollution Control
EN15 – Protection of Water Resources.
W1 – Waste Management
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the impact of the development on the
amenity of the area and the impact of the change in operating circumstances on the local
environment.
Policy EC10/1 states that the site is allocated for high-tech industries. Policy E3/11 identifies the
site for employment development. Given that the proposal relates to an existing use and that the
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
development would support that employment use I am satisfied with the principle of the
development.
Change in operating circumstances and impact on local environment
Policy EC4 seeks to improve employers operating conditions by encouraging the improvement of
land and premises. Policy EN20 supports development that would reduce the likelihood of air and
water pollution. Policies EN14 and EN15 also support such development. Policy MW15 sets out
a number of criteria and states that planning permission will not normally be granted for proposals
which, among other things, would cause unacceptable harm to the water environment. This is
reiterated in Policy W1.
The development would not only improve the general appearance of the site but would also help to
alleviate impacts associated with the existing operations. The proposal would prevent the need for
open storage of spoil on site and, as a result of the spoil being less exposed, is likely to reduce air
and water pollution and odours.
The objector has concerns that the site operators are in breach of their Waste Management
Licence. This is an issue to be considered by the Environment Agency and is outside of the scope
of planning law. The Environment Agency have stated that the building may fall outside the
current waste management licence for the site. I have, therefore, attached an informative to
highlight the fact that the site operators must comply with their licence agreement and that they
must contact the Environment Agency to discuss the matter.
Policy T13 seeks to ensure adequate levels of parking provision for developments. The existing
site has provision for parking for six/seven cars but there is no formal lay out. The applicant has
provided a parking layout with the proposal which would accommodate 7 cars. I am of the opinion
that the parking layout would improve the amenity and safety of the site for users and visitors and
would also improve the visual amenity of the site. However, given that the proposed portal frame
building would not conflict with the existing parking area and that the intensity of the use is not
changing, I do not feel it is necessary to attach a condition (Circular 11/95 states that conditions
should not be imposed unless they are necessary and effective, and do not place unjustifiable
burdens on applicants). With regard to the comments raised by the objector, the proposal is not to
expand the business and so no additional traffic is expected.
Impact on neighbouring uses
Policy DES1 calls for development to respect the local physical context and to have regard to the
relationship with neighbouring buildings. Boysnope Wharf is a somewhat isolated commercial
area at least 700m from the nearest residential properties. The adjacent plant hire business has
erected a similar style portal frame building and other neighbouring buildings are commensurate
with a commercial area. Therefore, I am satisfied that the proposed building respects the local
context and feel that the building would improve the visual amenity of the area.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
During consideration of the application agreement was reached with the applicant for a
car-parking layout to be submitted. The layout provided would significantly improve the amenity
and safety of the site for users and visitors and would also improve the visual amenity of the site.
CONCLUSION
I am satisfied that the proposal would improve the visual amenity of the site and would respect the
local context. Furthermore the proposal would reduce the likelihood of air and water pollution in
accordance with the afore mentioned policies. I therefore recommend approval for the proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls
and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
3. Standard Condition M04 Landfill gas
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. To ensure a safe form of development that poses no unacceptable risk of pollution.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and
proposals in the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant
material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other
material planning considerations that outweigh this finding:
EC10/1 - Major High Amenity Sites in Strategic Locations.
EC4 - Improvement to Employment Areas
EN20 - Pollution Control
MW15 - Development Control Criteria - Waste.
T13 - Car Parking
E3/11 - Sites for Employment Development
DES1 - Respecting Context
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
EN14 - Pollution Control
EN15 - Protection of Water Resources.
W1 - Waste Management
2. Please note that the developer has an obligation to comply with their waste management
licence and that, according to the Environment Agency, the proposed building may fall outside
the licence for the site. Please contact the Environment Agency to discuss the issue further.
APPLICATION No:
04/48359/FUL
APPLICANT:
George Wimpey (Manchester) Limited
LOCATION:
Former 'Restawhile Beds' Factory Worsley Road North/
Devonshire Road Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Proposed development of 127 (two additional plots) two, three
and four bedroomed apartments, mews and detached houses.
WARD:
Walkden North
BACKGROUND
This application relates to the erection of 127 dwellings on the site of the former Restawhile Beds
factory located at the junction of Worsley Road North and Devonshire Road in Walkden.
Members will be aware that the Panel considered a similar application for 125 dwellings on a
slightly smaller site area in June 2003 (03/45684/FUL). The application was recommended for
refusal but members considered the application a special case and were minded to approve the
application subject to adequate conditions, the signing of a Section 106 legal agreement and
delegated the decision to the Chairman of the Panel.
In February 2004 the owners of the adjoining industrial estate applied for judicial review of the
planning permission on five grounds, namely that the Council:acted in breach of the Town and Country (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations
1999;
acted in breach of a legitimate expectation that the owners of the adjoining industrial estate
would be notified of the application;
erred in failing to take account of loss of the land as an employment site;
acted irrationally;
erred in failing to give reasons for its decision.
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
Although a previous application (02/44736/FUL) had been screened in accordance with the EIA
Regulations a formal screening opinion of this application was not made. Therefore, in February
2004 a letter was sent to the Royal Courts of Justice saying that the Council would not be
contesting the application for judicial review on the grounds that the consideration of the
application did not strictly meet the requirements of the Regulations. Therefore, although the
Council contested the other four grounds for judicial review, conceding one meant that Salford
would not be contesting the application for judicial review as a whole. It was also pointed out to
the Court that the decision notice had been issued without the final approval of the Chairman of the
Panel. Advice from Counsel taken at the time stated that Wimpey were entitled to view the
decision notice as a valid one.
However, in March 2004 the Council was made aware that Wimpey had commenced development
of the 125 houses and in April 2004 the City Council wrote to Wimpey’s solicitors stating that the
development that had taken place on the site was not in accordance with the planning consent as
Wimpey had failed to comply with conditions precedent imposed by the Council. It was suggested
that in order to avoid the risk of enforcement action Wimpey should submit a fresh application to
the Council. Development of the site is well under way and a number of dwellings are nearing
completion.
The current position with regard to the application for judicial review is that the application for
permission to appeal against the original decision to grant planning consent has been allowed, but
that the case has been adjourned pending the determination of this new application for planning
permission.
Members are therefore required to consider this new application, which includes an additional 6m
strip of land that accommodates the line of the footpath, anew.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The Restawhile Beds factory ceased manufacturing in November 2000. The building was single
storey with two storey offices to the front of the site. The site covers an area of 3.2 hectares and is
adjacent to the Oakhill Trading Estate that lies to the north and west of the site. There are
industrial premises opposite on Worsley Road North with residential properties to the south
beyond Hirst Avenue. To the rear of the site there are industrial premises and the former Ashton
Fields Colliery site that is a site of proposed open space and industrial development.
It is proposed to erect a total of 127 residential units on the site. The proposal comprises a broad
mix of house types including two-bedroomed apartments, two and three-bedroomed terraced
houses, three-bedroomed semi-detached houses and four-bedroomed detached houses. All
properties would be two-storey with the exception of twelve three-storey townhouses and two
blocks of four-storey apartments on the Worsley Road North frontage. The main access to the site
would be from Hirst Avenue and the application proposes the widening of the kerb radii at the
junction of Hirst Avenue and Worsley Road North. In addition three units would be accessed from
Hirst Avenue itself along with access to the garages for twelve other houses. Emergency access is
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
provided from Devonshire Road. A total of 164 parking spaces are provided, less than 1.3 per
dwelling.
Three areas of open space are proposed within the development, one semi-private area at the
junction of Hirst Avenue and Worsley Road North adjacent to the apartment blocks, another
semi-private square to the rear of the site that would provide an enclosed public seating area to
those properties on the square and a third area of public open space measuring 0.17 hectare in
compliance with requirements on public open space within housing developments. The total open
space provision within the site amounts to just over 0.3 hectare. The applicant has agreed to fund
children’s equipped open space within the local area.
The layout is imaginative and unusual. As stated above a traditional square is created to the rear of
the site with its own public garden in the centre. Cars are separated from curtilages and garages are
located to the rear of squares of houses thereby enhancing the pedestrian friendly nature of the
development and reducing the overall parking provision by removing driveways to the front of
garages. This emphasis on pedestrian access to dwellings has also resulted in a reduction in some
of the traditional interface distances between units.
The application provides for the reinstatement of a public footpath that linked Hirst Avenue and
Worsley Road North with the former colliery site to the west that is now proposed public open
space.
SITE HISTORY
Members will recall that planning permission was first refused for a similar scheme on land that
makes up the majority of this site in November 2002 (02/44736/FUL). The application was
refused on the following grounds:The proposed equipped children’s play area would seriously injure the amenity of future occupiers
and neighbouring residents by reason of its layout and siting. As such it would be contrary to both
policies DEV1, H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
The layout of the proposed development does not adequately address crime prevention and as such
is contrary to policy DEV4 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
The proposed development would result in the loss of an employment site leading to a material
shortfall in the range of sites available for economic development. As such the proposal would be
contrary to Policy EC3 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
The proposal would result in the loss of a mature tree protected by City of Salford Tree
Preservation Order 266 that would have a significant detrimental effect on the amenity of the area.
As such the development would be contrary to both policies DEV1 and EN7 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
The proposed development would be detrimental to highway safety and the free flow of traffic on
Devonshire Road as a result of cars backing out of car parking spaces accessed of that road. As
such the development would be contrary to policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
The details of the last application (03/45684/FUL) are dealt with in the opening ‘Background’
section.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Following my review of the noise report I have the following
comments to make concerning the proposals within the report and also have recommendations
based on the supplied information. I consider that for plots 89 to 97 and the apartment block the
windows of all habitable rooms facing Worsley Road North shall be fitted with glazing capable of
achieving a Sound Reduction Index (Rw) of at least 30dB(A). All rooms detailed above shall also
have acoustically shielded mechanical ventilation to allow adequate ventilation and summer
cooling to occur without compromising the acoustic protection afforded by the glazing. A 1.8m
high close boarded timber fence, with no air gaps or holes in the fence shall be erected along the
northern boundary of the site. The fence shall thereafter be maintained in good repair for the
lifetime of the industrial estate and the fence shall be erected prior to the occupation of any
properties within 30m of the site boundary. First floor habitable rooms of properties with a view of
Devonshire Road or the units on the industrial estate shall be fitted with glazing capable of
achieving a sound reduction index of at least 30 dB(Rw). Any rooms requiring the above glazing
specification shall also be fitted with acoustically shielded mechanical ventilation to allow
adequate ventilation and summer cooling to occur without compromising the acoustic protection
afforded by the glazing. All habitable rooms on the site shall be capable of meeting the
requirements of BS8233:1999 – Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction in Buildings. Namely that
no habitable rooms shall exceed the following range of sound levels – bedrooms – 30 to 35 dB
LAeq,t and living rooms – 30 to 40 dB Laeq,t. A verification report shall be submitted for the
written approval of the Director of Development Services that demonstrates compliance with all of
the above noise conditions relating to the requirements of BS8233:1999 and glazing/mechanical
ventilation requirements for properties with habitable rooms facing Worsley Road North,
Devonshire Road or industrial units on the Oakhill Industrial Estate.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No comments received to date on the
current application. Previously the comments were as follows:- has a number of concerns with
regard to security issues including the garage courts, recessed doors on one of the house types and
the underpass on another house type.
Greater Manchester Fire Service – No objections.
The Environment Agency – No comments to date on the current application. Previously the
comments were as follows:- Objects to the application due to the following. Although there would
be no flood defence objections to the principle of culverting the watercourse, the applicant has not
determined its existing route entering and leaving the site as recommended in the Agency’s
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
previous response to application 02/44736/FUL. In addition the applicant has not taken into
account any potential effects of diverting the flow into the sewer system. The applicant must
ensure that third parties downstream would not be affected by the interruption of the flows. The
Agency would again suggest that this issue is addressed before the granting of planning
permission. The Agency is in general opposed to the culverting of watercourses because of the
adverse ecological, flood defence, health and safety and other effects that are likely to arise.
Although there are no flood defence objections to the principle of culverting this particular
watercourse, the Agency would prefer that the applicant pursue the opportunity of retaining the
open watercourse or ensure that the loss of open watercourse is mitigated for elsewhere.
Mitigation could take place on the development site or preferably by constructing a compensation
wetland in a more ecologically viable site where there is connectivity to other semi-natural sites;
such as the nearby Blackleach Country Park. This would also meet with Salford UDP policies
EN10 and EN15 of improving landscape quality and promoting improvements along identified
wildlife corridors. The Agency would suggest the applicant contact the Blackleach Country Park
to assess the viability of accommodating a wetland mitigation scheme within the Park,
compensating for the loss of open watercourse within the proposed development site. Any
culverting of a watercourse requires the prior written approval of the Agency under the terms of
the Land Drainage Act 1991 and the Water Resources Act 1991. The agency seeks to avoid
culverting, and its consent for such works will not normally be granted except for access crossings.
The Agency advises against building over any new or existing culverted watercourses. If this
matter can be satisfactorily resolved the Agency requests that a number of conditions regarding
contamination and surface water drainage be attached to any permission as well as a number of
informatives.
Coal Authority – No comments to date on the current application but previously had no objections.
Ramblers Association – Wish to maintain their objection to the development.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 to 39 Hirst Avenue
1 to 16 (incl.) Gorton Grove
Units 15B, 23, 19, 16, 20 and 30 Oakhill Trading Estate Devonshire Road
1 to 27 and 2 to 16 Arthur Avenue
1 to 15 and 2 to 12 Albert Avenue
115 to 125 Worsley Road North
I have also specifically notified both the owners of the adjoining industrial estate and their agents.
REPRESENTATIONS
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
I have received two letters objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:The development will result in the loss of an important employment site
The development will have serious implications for the Oakhill Industrial Estate and the
amenity of future residents
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EC3 Re-Use of Sites and Premises, EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands,
H1 Meeting Housing Needs, H6 and H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing
Developments, DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime,
EN10 Landscape, EN15 Environmental Improvement Corridors, T10 Pedestrians, T12 Public
Rights of Way
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EN14 Air Pollution, Noise, Odour and Vibration, E5 Development Within
Established Employment Areas, DES1 Respecting Context, DES11 Design and Crime, H8 Open
Space Provision Associated With New Housing Development, H1 Provision of New Housing
Development, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, A2 Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the development will result in the
loss of an important employment site and whether the development would have serious
implications for the Oakhill Industrial Estate and the amenity of future residential occupiers.
Loss of an important employment site.
Policy EC3 of the adopted UDP states that where existing industrial premises become vacant, the
City Council will seek to re-use or redevelop them for similar uses, except where one or more of
three criteria apply. These criteria include that the site could be used for other purposes without a
resulting material or unacceptable shortfall in the range of sites and/or premises available for
economic development. Policy E5 of the revised deposit draft replacement UDP states that
planning permission will only be granted for the re-use or redevelopment of sites or buildings
within an established employment area for non-employment uses where the development would
not compromise the operating conditions of other remaining employment uses and where one or
more of a number of criteria apply. These criteria include that the developer can clearly
demonstrate that there is no current or likely future demand for the site or building for employment
purposes.
Previously the applicant had submitted a report that pointed out that the site had been marketed for
a period of 18 months when the main use ceased in 2000. During that time there were just two
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
viewings with no viable offers being made. The report went on to argue that there was no shortage
of industrial land available within the City. With regard to the issue of the particular size of the site
the report argued that it had no advantages over others in the City. The report pointed out that the
site did not form part of the adjoining industrial estate that is characterised by relatively small
units.
The objector argues that unemployment is high in the local area and that the site is in a good
location. Vacancy rates on the adjoining industrial estate are very low and the objector argues that
the applicant has not considered the supply of sites in the local area and argues that demand for this
size of site is high.
In my previous report I stated the following:The issue of employment land supply is more complex than the assessment provided by the
applicant suggests. Their assessment concentrates on the supply of land at a City level. In
addition to providing employment opportunities at key locations in the City, (such as Salford
Quays, Chapel Street, Agecroft etc) it is considered important to provide more local employment
opportunities, particularly in those areas where unemployment is relatively high. Consequently,
the Draft UDP allocates sites for employment in the Walkden and Little Hulton area, such as land
at Wharton Lane, and land at Clegg’s Lane, to augment the existing estates such as Oakhill, and
replace the declining Linnyshaw Industrial Estate.
The Restawhile site does have a role to play in this distribution of employment land across the
area. More importantly, Oakhill has a significant contribution to make and should therefore be
protected from development that could lead to its erosion. In these terms, the proposal can still be
judged to be contrary to Adopted UDP policy EC3 (Re-Use of Sites and Premises).
Since writing that report more than twelve months ago time has moved on and events have
occurred that are material to the assessment of this application. Firstly the industrial building that
occupied the site was demolished in the autumn of 2003. Secondly, planning permission has been
granted in outline for 15,000sq.m of industrial floorspace on a 7.1 hectare site on the former
Ashton’s Field Colliery in Little Hulton.
The arguments on whether or not there would be any likely future demand for the site and whether
there would be a resulting material or unacceptable shortfall in the range of sites and/or premises
available for economic development relate closely to whether or not the development is in
accordance with policies EC3 of the adopted UDP and E5 of the revised deposit draft UDP.
Previously these arguments were finely balanced and the recommendation was that the
development of the site for housing would result in a material shortfall in the range of sites
available for economic development. I consider that the demolition of the industrial building on
the site has resulted in its value as an employment site being diminished. While this has resulted
from the applicant commencing development and while the City Council could have taken
enforcement action to remove the residential buildings from the site it is doubtful that the applicant
could have been required to reinstate the former factory. With regard to the recent planning
permission on the former Ashton’s Field Colliery, although this site is a long standing employment
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
allocation the grant of planning permission brings forward a significant amount of employment
land in the local area.
I do not now consider that the development of this site for housing would result in the loss of an
important employment site resulting in a material shortfall in the range of sites available for
economic development and therefore the development is not contrary to policies EC3 of the
adopted UDP and E5 of the revised deposit draft replacement UDP.
Implications for the Oakhill Industrial Estate and the amenity of future occupiers.
Policy DEV1 of the adopted UDP 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 and the
potential level of environmental pollution, including noise. Policy EN14 of the revised deposit
draft replacement plan states that in areas where existing air pollution including dust, noise, odour,
artificial light or vibration levels exceed local or national standards, planning permission will only
be granted for environmentally sensitive developments such as housing, where the development
incorporates adequate measures to ensure that there is no unacceptable risk or nuisance to
occupiers, and that they are provided with an appropriate and satisfactory level of amenity.
The objector argues most strongly that the development of this site for housing without adequate
noise mitigation measures to protect the amenity of future residents will have serious implications
for the continued success of the Oakhill Industrial Estate. The owners of the Estate have sought an
independent study of the original noise report submitted by the applicant. That study argues that
there are deficiencies in the applicant’s noise report and that since it was undertaken vacancy
levels on the Estate have dropped significantly. The study also considered that the mitigation
measures outlined in the applicants noise study are insufficient to create an acceptable residential
environment for future residents.
On these issues of noise I am mindful of the comments of the Director of Environmental Services.
He is satisfied that the implications of the effects of the proximity of those 24-hour operations
closest to the site were fully taken into account in the previous application and that the increase in
occupation on the site does not affect that issue and that the deficiencies of the original report are
addressed by the conditions that are now proposed.
Other issues
Previously I recommended refusal on two grounds. The second reason related to the issue of the
footpath. Policy T10 of the adopted UDP states that the City Council will ensure that the needs of
pedestrians are given greater attention by a number of means that include improving pedestrian
links between residential areas and recreation areas. The revised application includes a 6m strip of
land that enables this long disused footpath to be reinstated and I therefore do not object to the
application on those grounds.
With regard to other policies in the development plan I consider that the development is fully in
accordance with those policies outlined above. I have no objections on highway grounds and am
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
satisfied that the development has no significant detrimental impact on any interest of
acknowledged importance.
The issue of the culvert has been resolved with the Environment Agency.
CONCLUSION
Despite the rather complex background to this application I consider that the main issues are
whether the development will result in the loss of an important employment site and whether the
development would have serious implications for the Oakhill Industrial Estate and the amenity of
future residential occupiers. Closely allied to this is whether or not the development would
comply with policies EC3 and E5.
I consider that the circumstances have changed over time and while matters are finely balanced I
consider that that the case on employment land supply is now not so strong as to justify refusal of
the application. In coming to this conclusion I have also taken into account the changes that this
application makes to the footpath issue. I therefore recommend that permission be granted subject
to the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
i.
that the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter
into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 to secure the payment of a commuted sum for,
and implementation of children’s equipped play space in the
local area to the value of £170,992;
ii.
that the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded to grant planning
permission, subject to the conditions stated below, on completion of such legal agreement;
iii.
that authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application be issued, (subject
to the conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned legal
agreement,
iv.
that authority be given to refuse the application if the applicant fails to complete the S106
agreement within a reasonable period on the grounds that the proposals would not be in
accordance with policies H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Conditions
1. The landscape scheme hereby approved shall be carried out within 12 months of the date of
this permission 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.
2. Before any dwelling is occupied that part of the site to be used by vehicles shall be laid out,
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
drained, surfaced and sealed to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services and
shall thereafter be made available at all times the premises are in use.
3. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the following measures shall be undertaken:- For plots
89 to 97 and the apartment block the windows of all habitable rooms facing Worsley Road
North shall be fitted with glazing capable of achieving a Sound Reduction Index (Rw) of at
least 30dB(A). All rooms detailed above shall also have acoustically shielded mechanical
ventilation to allow adequate ventilation and summer cooling to occur without compromising
the acoustic protection afforded by the glazing. A 1.8m high close boarded timber fence, with
no air gaps or holes in the fence shall be erected along the northern boundary of the site. The
fence shall thereafter be maintained in good repair for the lifetime of the industrial estate and
the fence shall be erected prior to the occupation of any properties within 30m of the site
boundary. First floor habitable rooms of properties with a view of Devonshire Road or the
units on the industrial estate shall be fitted with glazing capable of achieving a sound reduction
index of at least 30 dB(Rw). Any rooms requiring the above glazing specification shall also be
fitted with acoustically shielded mechanical ventilation to allow adequate ventilation and
summer cooling to occur without compromising the acoustic protection afforded by the
glazing. All habitable rooms on the site shall be capable of meeting the requirements of
BS8233:1999 - Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction in Buildings. Namely that no habitable
rooms shall exceed the following range of sound levels - bedrooms - 30 to 35 dB LAeq,t and
living rooms - 30 to 40 dB Laeq,t.
A verification report shall be submitted for the written approval of the Director of
Development Services that demonstrates compliance with all of the above noise conditions
relating to the requirements of BS8233:1999 and glazing/mechanical ventilation requirements
for properties with habitable rooms facing Worsley Road North, Devonshire Road or industrial
units on the Oakhill Industrial Estate.
4. The footpath hereby approved shall be made available for use within six months of the date of
this permission and shall be maintained as such and open for use at all times.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
2. Standard Reason R013A Use of parking areas
3. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
4. Reason: In the interests of pedestrian access in accordance with policy T10 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
1. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, prior to the granting of planning
permission.
2. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and
proposals in the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant
material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other
material planning considerations that outweigh this finding:
EC3 Re-Use of Sites and Premises, EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands, H1 Meeting
Housing Needs, H6 and H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments,
DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, EN10
Landscape, EN15 Environmental Improvement Corridors.
APPLICATION No:
04/48424/FUL
APPLICANT:
Healey Construction Ltd
LOCATION:
Land At The Junction Of Chadwick Road Monton Lane Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a residential development consisting of two part four
part five-storey blocks comprising 58 apartments, 23 car parking
spaces together with creation of new vehicular access
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land on the west side of the junction of Chadwick Road and Monton
Lane, Eccles. The site is opposite the Grade II Listed St Andrews Church. The current use of the
site is as a cash and carry wholesale use which is accessed from Monton Lane. Buildings on the
site consist of mainly single storey (4m high) units located at the rear of the site. There is also a two
storey element to the cash and carry facility. The majority of the site consists of open car parking
with some poor quality vegetation along the boundary of the site with Chadwick Road.
Surrounding uses consist of the Church and two storey housing to the north across Chadwick
Road, garage to the west and residential flats to the south and east. The site is lower than the level
of Chadwick Road.
Planning permission is sought for the erection of 58 apartments in two L shaped blocks. Block 1,
positioned toward the west part of the site is 4 storeys high with a flat roof being 12.5 metres high.
The block is 25m away from Harty House to the south whilst it is 25m away from the houses
across Chadwick Road to the north. The existing Eccles Wing and Radiator vehicle garage is 14m
from this block to the west.
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
Block 2, near the corner of Chadwick Road and Monton Lane is mostly four storeys with one 5
storey element. The 4 storey parts are 12.5m high to the flat roof whilst the 5 storey element is
14.75m to the flat roof. The five storey element of block 2 is 7.5m wide by 6.5m long and is set
behind the Monton Lane facade by 1.2m, there are no habitable room windows overlooking
Monton Lane from the fifth floor level. This block is designed with stone corner feature. This
block would be a minimum 24m away from three storey flats, Aberdeen House, on Monton Lane
and would be 32m away from the open aspect of the flats at Montrose and 27m away from Dundee
House both also on Monton Lane. The siting of this proposed block also results in an acute angle
and distance of 12.9m separating the corner point of Harty House and the end wall of this proposed
development.
The blocks are mostly four storeys high, with flat and slightly angled sloping roofs.
Materials proposed consist of brick, cedar boarding, metal cladding, stone cladding, glazed
stairwells, steel balconies with smoked glazed infill panels. The roofs are proposed to be finished
with a metal standing seam finish. Part of the fourth floor levels are stepped behind the main
facade directly opposite residential properties on Monton Lane and Chadwick Road. Some of the
apartments have been designed with balconies. Landscaped areas are shown to the front and sides
of the blocks with an area of incidental open space to the west of block 1. Twenty three parking
would be provided behind the blocks and would be secured behind electronically controlled
vehicle and pedestrian entrance gates between the blocks from Chadwick Road. Direct pedestrian
access is also proposed to each of the stairwells from the road. The application has been submitted
with a sustainability report, design statement and tree report.
SITE HISTORY
In 2003, planning permission was granted for 39 flats in two blocks. The blocks were 10m in
height to ridge level and 39 parking spaces were proposed (03/45361/FUL).
In 2000, planning permission was granted for the erection of a single storey extension to form a
new retail area (00/40585/FUL).
In 1981, planning permission was refused for the erection of a two storey office building and
associated car parking (E/12727).
In 1985, planning permission was granted for the erection of five light industrial units (E/18537).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No comments received
Architectural Liaison Unit – Concerns over the layout as the majority of entrance doors are located
within the secure car parking area. Comments that all main access should have access taken
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
directly off surrounding streets so strangers don not have access into the car park. The application
has been amended to ensure that pedestrian access is achieved for all flats without having to go
through the car park.
Greater Manchester Fire Service – No comments received.
PUBLICITY
Press notices, including impact on the setting of the listed building, were published on the 24th June
2004.
Site notices were displayed on the 3rd June 2004
The following neighbours were notified of the application:2 –14 even Chadwick Road
1 Mather Avenue
St Andrews Church, Chadwick Road
St Andrews Medical Centre, Russell Street
1 – 18 Harty House, Monton Lane
1 –24 Lowry House, Monton Lane
1 – 8 Montrose House, Monton Lane
1 – 8 Aberdeen House, Monton Lane
1 – 12 Dundee House, Monton Lane
Eccles Wing and Radiator, Chadwick Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection from two residents of Aberdeen House, one letter of
objection on behalf of St Andrews Church, one letter of objection signed by six residents of
Dundee House and a further letter from a different resident of Dundee House in response to the
application publicity.
The following comments were made:
Four storey is too high, the previous three storey approval is preferred
Most blocks in the area are three storeys high
Four storey block would block views of St Andrews Church
Outlook would be diminished from existing properties
Not enough car parking result in too much on street parking
TV reception maybe affected
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H7/1 Housing Area Improvement and Renewal: Private Sector
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
Other policies:
DEV1 Development Criteria,
DEV2 Good Design,
DEV4 Design and Crime,
T13 Car Parking,
EC3 Re-use of Sites and Premises,
H1 Meeting Housing Needs,
H6 & H11 Open Space Provision,
EN12 Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings
EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
ST11 Location of new development
H1 Provision of New Housing
DES1 Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES11 Design and Crime
H8 Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development
CH4 Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the
suitability of the site for housing, the scale and mass of the
development and its impacts upon users and neighbours, the design
of the development and its appearance in the streetscene and the
setting of adjancent listed building. Other planning issues are the
proposed level of parking, designing out crime, and open space
provision.
With regards to the suitability of the site for housing the principle of residential development on
the site was approved by the Panel last year. Adopted UDP policies have not changed, site specific
policy H7/1 relates to improving private sector housing in the Eccles/Patricroft area. This proposal
would provide good standard relatively small units, not family accommodation, in the area. The
proposal would also satisfy policy H1 in providing brownfield land for housing use. Policy EC3
relates to the provision of employment land, given the area is mainly residential and that the
applicant of the previous application stated alternative accommodation for the cash and carry
business had been located within the Salford. In terms of emerging policies of the revised deposit
draft replacement plan ST11 and H1 seek housing development to be located on previously
developed land at an appropriate density for the site. I consider the density of development
proposed on this formerly developed site on the edge of Eccles town centre which has three public
transport nodes (train, metro and bus stations) is appropriate.
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
Policies DEV1, DES1 and DES7 require consideration to be given to residential amenity and to
provide well designed development that fits in with the character of the area. I have received
objection to the impact of four storeys upon amenity from occupiers of flats on Monton Lane. The
previously approved scheme consisted of three storeys which were 10m in height to ridge level and
ensured a 24m separation to surrounding residential properties. This scheme maintains a minimum
24m between facing habitable windows of this block and surrounding residential properties.
Although this scheme is in the main one storey higher I do not consider that the additional height to
12.5m, or the five storey element, would detract from residential amenity through loss of daylight
or privacy. The fourth floor of block 2 and block 1 is set back behind the forward elevation by
between 1m and 3m and obscure glazed canopy screens are proposed on these set backs to allow
for the resulting flat roofs to be used as terraces whilst preventing overlooking. I consider the
separation distances are appropriate.
Policies DEV1, DEV2 and DES1 seek to encourage the enhancement of the environment through
good design whilst policies EN12 and CH4 seek to safeguard the setting of Listed buildings.
Objection has been raised by local residents to the blocking of views of St Andrews Church from
Dundee House. The proposed blocks are set back from the back of footpath by between 2m and 8m
and landscaping can be conditioned to ensure appropriate hard and soft landscaping. The variation
in footprint of the blocks allows different materials to be utilised on the elevations, which breaks
up the mass of the building. As well as recesses there are geometric features and glazed balconies
on the elevations that add interest to the form. The size, mass and siting of the proposed blocks are
similar to the previous approval the main difference being the additional storey (two additional
storeys in one part). The height difference between the 2003 approval and this scheme is 2.5m, 5
storey element excepted, and I consider the impact of the additional height will not detrimentally
effect the character of the street scene or the area in general.
I also consider that the proposed materials complement the buildings design and are appropriate to
the local context. The proposed stone elements would match the stone of the Listed Church. I
consider the siting, scale, quality and materials of this development would be suitable in the
streetscene and would not have a detrimental impact upon the setting of the Listed Church.
Policy T13 requires developments have appropriate car parking and the parking standards in the
adopted plan are based on minimum levels. Within the revised deposit draft UDP the emphasis of
parking shifts to maximum parking standards to be in line with national (PPG3 and PPG13) and
regional planning guidance (RPG13) and the desire to have less reliance on travel by private car. I
have received objection to the level of on site car parking proposed. Twenty three car parking
spaces are proposed for the 58 apartments. The applicant has submitted a sustainability statement
which details the proximity of the site to services in Eccles town centre, to schools, medical
facilities and public transport facilities. Although the scheme proposes just under 50% parking I
am satisfied that this level of parking is appropriate given the close proximity to metrolink,
mainline train stations, the bus interchange and the services in and around Eccles town centre. I do
however suggest a condition to ensure appropriate secure cycle parking on site. I consider the
revised draft plan carries sufficient material weight to vary from the minimum parking standards
of the adopted UDP. Vehicle access to the parking proposed is served by an access which I am
satisfied has sufficient visibility splays. I have no parking or highway objections to the scheme.
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
The scheme has been amended to ensure that visitors to the site do not have to access the
apartments through the car park. I am satisfied that the scheme meets the requirements of DEV4
and DES11 with regard to designing out crime.
The proposal includes areas of incidental open space which I consider are acceptable however in
order to comply with policies H6, H11 and H8 the applicant wishes to enter into a S106 obligation
to provide formal play facilities and contribution to open space off site. I consider that this is
appropriate and recommend such an obligation be entered into.
Only small self seeded trees fronting Chadwick Road will be lost for the development but I
consider a condition requiring appropriate landscaping including tree plating on site should be
attached to an approval. One tree a Norway Maple, identified as T15 on the submitted tree survey,
will need to be managed as a result of the development. This tree is within a wooded area outside
the site boundary and branches that overhang the application are proposed to be lopped. The tree
survey shows that there is a defect on branches of this tree that overhang the application site. As
there would be no impact on visual amenity from outside the application site I am satisfied with the
proposed tree management and suggest a condition so that details can be agreed.
Objection has been raised to loss/harm upon TV reception. I do not consider that the additional
height and mass of this development over and above the previous approval will result in any
significant change.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The proposal has been amended three times to introduce more stone to the elevations, to improve
the design and elevation treatment and to increase separation distances to existing residential
properties.
CONCLUSION
I consider the proposal does not affect the special architectural or historic character of the Listed St
Andrews Church and that the development will make a positive contribution to the streetscape
especially given the appearance of the site at present. I consider the quality of the proposal will
make a significant impact to the regeneration in the area. I am satisfied with the proposed entrance
to the site on Chadwick Road and have no highway objections. I consider the scheme accords with
UDP policies and taking into account material considerations of emerging UDP recommend
approval subject to the legal agreement and conditions below.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Members are minded to grant planning permission subject to the
conditions below once the legal agreement has been signed.
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
i.
5th August 2004
That the Director of Corporate services be authorised to enter
into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 to secure the following:
a commuted sum payment of £91,955 for formal open space,
childrens
play
space
and
local
environmental
improvements.
ii.
That the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded
to grant planning permission on completion of such legal
agreement
iii. That authority is given for the decision notice relating to the
application to be issued, subject to the conditions and reasons
stated below, on completion of such legal agreement.
iv.
That authority be given to refuse the application if the applicant fails to complete the S106
agreement within a reasonable period on the grounds that the proposals do not support the
aim and objectives of the area.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls,
roofs, balconies/balustrades, railings, doors _window of the development have been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
and approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such
scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and
surface treatment and shall be carried out within twelve months of the commencement of
development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning
Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
4. Standard Condition M05 Site investigation
5. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
6. No dwelling shall be occupied until a scheme for the provision for cycle and motorcycle
storage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services and the scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved particulars.
7. In order to establish clearly the noise environment at the proposed development the developer
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
shall submit an acoustics report detailing the ambient noise levels in the area about the
application site making reference to Planning Policy Guidance Note 24: Planning and Noise.
Where appropriate, the report shall identify any sound attenuation measures necessary to
protect the proposed dwelling, and which will ensure a reduction of indoor noise levels to
below 35dB(A) LAeq as set out in the WHO Guidelines for Community Noise 1999. The
report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority PRIOR to the commencement of the
development and all identified sound proofing measures shall be implemented and retained for
the duration of approval.
8. Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved the developer shall submit for
the approval of the Director of Development Services a scheme for the management of tree
T15 as identified on the submitted tree report. Such scheme should include details of any
required ongoing maintenance and details of who and how often such maintenance will be
undertaken. Once approved such scheme shall be initially implemented in accordance with the
details approved prior to construction of block 1.
9. Notwithstanding the annotation on the submitted drawings the material of the balustrading to
all balconies hereby approved shall be obscured/etched/smoked glazed screens and a sample
shall be submitted of this prior to the comencemnet of development in accordance with
condition two above.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. To ensure a choice of transport modes for residents in accordance with Unitary Development
Plan Policy DEV1.
7. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
8. To ensure health and management of T15 in accordance with policy EN7.
9. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance
with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works. Property specific summary
information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect
the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports
Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
2. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, prior to the granting of planning
permission.
3. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
4. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and
proposals in the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant
material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other
material planning considerations that outweigh this finding:
Adopted UDP:
H7/1 Housing Area Improvement and Renewal: Private Sector
DEV1 Development Criteria,
DEV2 Good Design,
DEV4 Design and Crime,
T13 Car Parking,
EC3 Re-use of Sites and Premises,
H1 Meeting Housing Needs,
H6 & H11 Open Space Provision,
EN12 Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings,
EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
Revised deposit draft replacement plan policy
ST11 Location of new development
H1 Provision of New Housing
DES1 Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES11 Design and Crime
H8 Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development
CH4 Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
H7/1 Housing Area Improvement and Renewal: Private Sector, DEV1 Development Criteria,
DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, T13 Car Parking, EC3 Re-use of Sites and
Premises, H1 Meeting Housing Needs.
5. The Development Services Directorate (Highways Section) should be consulted regarding the
construction of a footway crossing, the cost of which will be the responsibility of the
developer.
6. This permission shall relate to the ameded plans received on the 13th July 2004 exceptfor the
amended site plan received 19th July 2004.
APPLICATION No:
04/48425/FUL
APPLICANT:
BBS Developments
LOCATION:
Patricroft Conservative Club Barton Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing club and erection of two storey club and
one four storey block comprising of 32 apartments with
associated carparking and alterations to existing vehicular access
(re-submission of planning application 04/47734/FUL)
WARD:
Barton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This site relates to the existing Patricroft Conservative Club at the junction of Barton Road and
Eddison Road, Eccles. The Conservative Club is a one and two storey building that fronts onto
Barton Road at the northern part of the site. The club building returns the corner onto Eddison
Road and has a large expanse of tarmacked area to the rear. There is one mature, possibly over
mature, tree at the site whilst there are also some self seeded trees around the site. There is a mobile
phone mast within the site, positioned between the club and 34 Barton Road, which can be seen
from long views down Barton Road and Eddison Road. There are mostly two storey houses in the
immediate vicinity along Barton Road whilst across the Bridgewater Canal to the north east there
are industrial units. To the west of the site over Eddison Road is the Patricroft Recreation Area.
Planning permission is sought for a replacement two storey Conservative Club at the southern part
of the site. The replacement club would have brick and render walls, profile metal roof and feature
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
angled signage plinth. The existing club would be demolished and in its place is proposed a four
storey apartment block containing 32 one and two bed apartments. The apartments are designed in
an L-shape with glazed stairwells, timber and render walls, glazed balconies and metal flat roofs.
There are separate pedestrian and vehicle entrances to both the club and apartments. The
apartments have been shown with secure wall and railings around the perimeter with a 1.8m high
timber fence between the apartment parking and the club parking areas. Thirty one car parking
spaces are shown for the club whilst 30 spaces are identified for the 32 apartments. A visibility
splay of 4.5m by 90m has been identified at the Barton Road/Eddison Road junction.
The applicant has submitted a noise and tree report with the application.
SITE HISTORY
In May this year a planning application (04/47734/FUL) for a four storey block of 39 apartments
and replacement club facility was withdrawn. The application was withdrawn by the applicant
following comments from members of the public and officers with regard to the impact of the
scheme on residential amenity and the design of the proposed buildings.
In 1999, the Council raised no objections for the installation of a 15m high radio tower with
antennae on top and an equipment cabinet (99/9080/TEL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Environment Agency – No objections but recommend a condition regarding surface water
drainage.
British Coal – No objections.
GM Police – Recommended amendments to the boundary treatments to make the site more secure.
The application has been amended to account for improved security.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 3rd June 2004 and a press notice has been published.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
16 – 21 Barton Road
34 – 40 Barton Road
Garage, Barton Road
2 – 30 even Darwell Avenue
2 – 6 even Eddison Road
Bowling Club, Eddison Road
22 – 24 even Tetlow Road
33 – 35 odd Tetlow Road
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received four letters of representation in response to the planning application publicity.
Two of these letters maintain an objection to the application for the reason that:
Four storey development is too high
One of the above letters also states that:
The number of trees to be removed are clarified and the tree report is updated
The Council should be satisfied with the design of the apartments, and that
The removal of the mobile mast is positive
The safeguarding of the beech tree is positive and this tree should be TPO’d.
The two other letters state that this application is improved from the previous submission
(04/47734/FUL) and no objection is given as long the following issues are clarified:
The mobile mast is removed and controlled through condition
The Beech tree next to 34 Barton Road is not removed
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
DEV1 Development Criteria,
DEV2 Good Design,
DEV4 Design and Crime,
T13 Car Parking,
EC3 Re-use of Sites and Premises,
H1 Meeting Housing Needs,
H6 & H11 Open Space Provision,
EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
EN20 Pollution Control
SC14 Telecommunications
SC1 Provision of Social and Community Facilities
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
ST11 Location of new development
H1 Provision of New Housing
DES1 Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES11 Design and Crime
H8 Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development
DEV1 Telecommunications
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are replacement of the club building and
resulting noise impacts, suitability of the site for residential, daylight and privacy of existing and
future occupiers, appearance and mass of the proposed buildings, level of car parking, design and
crime, loss of trees and the removal of the existing mobile phone mast.
Policy SC1 relates to the retention of social and community facilities. The proposal involves a
replacement club facility which I am satisfied conforms to this policy. With regards to the
suitability of the site for housing I consider the proposal satisfies adopted UDP policy H1 in
providing brownfield land for housing use. In terms of emerging policies of the revised deposit
draft replacement plan ST11 and H1 seek housing development to be located on previously
developed land at an appropriate density for the site. I consider the density of development
proposed on this formerly developed site is appropriate.
Policies DEV1, DES1, DES7 and EN20 require consideration to be given to residential amenity
and to provide well designed development that fits in with the character of the area. The two storey
club building would be 35m away from the nearest residential property. The submitted noise
survey explains that the siting and method of construction of the new club building would not give
rise to significant noise levels as a result of activity within the club. The Director of Environmental
Services raises no objection and given there is an existing club on the site I am satisfied that the
there would be no noise impacts subject to the measures detailed in the report of Symonds Group
Ltd are implemented.
I do not consider the new club would impact upon the residential amenity through privacy or
sunlight/daylight. The four storey apartment building is at its closest point 13m at an angle from
the gable end of 34 Barton Road and 21m from 6 Eddison Road. I am satisfied with the distance to
34 Barton Road especially as a beech tree stands between the buildings. To 6 Eddison Road I am
satisfied with the impact of sunlight/daylight as the development is to the north but require that the
nearest facing bedroom windows are obscured glazed and fixed shut, there is another window to
this room. The applicant has shown this on his submitted drawings but I propose a condition to
require this for the avoidance of doubt. On the L shape return of the apartments there is a lounge
window on each of the floors 25.5m away from 6 Eddison Road, I am satisfied with this distance in
terms of privacy and sunlight. I am also satisfied with the amenity for future occupiers of the
apartments.
The apartments are set back from the back of footpath on Barton Road by 3m. I consider the siting
and distance away from two storey residential properties to be appropriate and sufficient to allow
the mass of the proposed four storey block. The flat roof helps reduce the overall mass of the
building. The external appearance of the apartments, some with integral balconies some with bolt
on balconies, and the proposed render, timber and metal cladding with glazed stairwells provides a
modern design that I consider will have a positive contribution to the street scene. Areas of
incidental open space are proposed which would be landscaped in accordance with a condition
however in accordance with policies H6, H11 and H8 the developer has agreed to enter into a S106
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
obligation to provide a financial contribution for formal and informal facilities for open space.
Such facilities could be provided within the Patricroft Recreation site which is next to the
application site.
Policies T13 and A10 require appropriate car and cycle parking. I consider the 31 car parking
spaces for the club to be appropriate. I consider that the site is reasonably accessible by public
transport and that 30 spaces for the 32 apartments is acceptable subject to cycle parking being
provided on site. At this location I would have concerns if less than 30 spaces were provided and I
recommend a condition to ensure that the car parking layout as submitted is laid out prior to the
occupation of any of the residential units. Boundary railings are proposed within a visibility splay
of 4.5m by 90m. I have no highway objections to the proposal.
DEV4 and DES11 require that developments are secured from crime. The boundary wall and
railings allow for separate pedestrian and vehicular access and direct access to the flats. A self
closing controlled pedestrian gate will ensure that strangers do not have access to windows of flats
or to cars within the site. Subject to the implementation of such measures I am satisfied that the
scheme would be reasonably secured from crime.
Policy EN7 requires that trees and woodlands are preserved. This scheme has been amended to
allow the retention of the beech tree adjacent to 34 Barton Road. The submitted tree report does
explain that this tree has defects which the Councils Arborist has concurred with. This tree is to be
retained as part of the scheme and the siting of the building 9m away from the tree will allow for a
suitable replacement to grow once the existing beech tree has died. Given the health of this tree I
do not consider it appropriate to place a TPO on this tree. There is one tree to be removed fronting
onto Barton Road for the development whilst some self-seeded trees will be removed for the siting
of the replacement club. A cluster of trees are to be retained between the vehicular access points
for the development. Myself and the Councils arborist are satisfied with the loss of these trees
subject to an appropriate landscaping condition being imposed.
Policies SC14 and DEV1 require visual amenity, residential and appearance on the street scene to
be considered when determining telecommunication applications. I consider that if this proposed
apartment block was already built and the existing mast was not built and was proposed it would
not be in accordance with the above telecommunications policies given the proximity and
overbearing of the mast upon the apartments. Given that the proposed parking for the flats is on the
site of the existing mast the mast will have to be removed to facilitate the parking. As I require the
30 spaces for the development and that these spaces are provided before the apartments are
occupied the mobile phone mast would have to be removed to facilitate the development. I
consider a separate condition is not required for the removal of the mast and the applicant has
confirmed in writing that the mobile phone mast is removed.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The previous application (04/47734/FUL) included 39 apartments over three/four storeys with a
footprint larger than the current proposal. The increased footprint would have had a negative
impact upon the residential amenity of properties on Eddison Road, would have meant the loss of
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
the Beech tree with no room for a suitable replacement. The value added to the development
through pre-application discussions and amendments during the application as a result of officer,
consultee and neighbour responses can be summarised as:











Removal of mobile phone mast,
Reduction in the footprint of the apartments,
Reduction in the massing of the development,
Improvement in the design and external appearance,
Higher quality materials for the development,
Improvement in separation distances – improving residential amenity,
Safeguarding of the Beech tree and space for a suitable replacement to grow when this tree
dies,
Retention of more trees,
S106 obligation to provide a commuted sum payment of £57,998 for formal and children’s
play provision,
Addition of cycle parking,
Increased space around the building for landscaping.
CONCLUSION
I consider that the replacement club would not impact detrimentally upon the amenity of existing
or future residential occupiers by noise or disturbance. I consider the site to be suitable for
residential development and that the density and mass of development is compatible to the size of
the site and the street scene. I consider the buildings are well designed and with the high quality
materials will contribute positively to the character of the area. The siting of the buildings allows
for trees to be retained and for landscaping to be incorporated. I consider appropriate parking is
proposed and that sufficient visibility splays are provided. The mobile mast will be removed as a
result of the development and together with the commuted sum I consider that the scheme
complies with policies of the adopted and emerging UDP and will make a positive contribution to
the area.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Members are minded to grant planning permission subject to the conditions below once the
legal agreement has been signed.
i.
That the Director of Corporate services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the following:
a commuted sum payment of £57,998 for formal open space, children’s play
space and local environmental improvements.
ii.
That the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded to grant planning
permission on completion of such legal agreement
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
iii.
That authority is given for the decision notice relating to the application to be issued,
subject to the conditions and reasons stated below, on completion of such legal agreement.
iv.
That authority be given to refuse the application if the applicant fails to complete the S106
agreement within a reasonable period on the grounds that the proposals do not support the
aim and objectives of the area.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls,
roofs, balconies and lift rooms of the development have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Director of Development Services.
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
and approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such
scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and
surface treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months; of the commencement of
development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning
Authority. The scheme shall also include details (size and siting) of a replacement extra heavy
standard beech tree that should be planted in the following planting season after the beech tree,
next to 34 Barton Lane has died. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall
be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
4. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
5. No dwelling shall be occupied until a scheme for the provision for cycle and motorcycle
storage, and 5% of the club and apartment car parking being dedicated as disabled spaces, has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services and the
scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved particulars.
6. The northern window of bedroom A on each of the four floors facing Eddison Road, as
identified on the submitted plans, shall be obscure glazed and non opening.
7. The noise mitigation measures identified within the Symonds Group Ltd report shall be
implemented in full prior to the first use of the replacement club. Prior to the occupation of any
apartment hereby approved the 1.8m high timber fence shall be erected between the apartment
car parking and the club car parking. Once installed such measures shall be maintained
thereafter.
8. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakway system, all
surface water drainage from hardstanding areas shall be passed through trapped gullies with an
overall capacity compatible with the site being drained.
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. Standard Reason R013A Use of parking areas
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
8. To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policy EN20 of the Adopted
UDP.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works. Property specific summary
information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect
the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports
Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment
Agency.
3. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
4. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, prior to the granting of planning
permission.
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
5. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and
proposals in the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant
material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other
material planning considerations that outweigh this finding:
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
DEV1 Development Criteria,
DEV2 Good Design,
DEV4 Design and Crime,
T13 Car Parking,
EC3 Re-use of Sites and Premises,
H1 Meeting Housing Needs,
H6 & H11 Open Space Provision,
EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
EN20 Pollution Control
SC14 Telecommunications
SC1 Provision of Social and Community Facilities
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
ST11 Location of new development
H1 Provision of New Housing
DES1 Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES11 Design and Crime
H8 Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development
DEV1 Telecommunications
6. This permission does not grant consent under the Town and Country Planning (Control of
Advertisements) Regulations 1992 for the advertisement(s) shown on the submitted plan, nor
does it imply that such consent would be forthcoming.
APPLICATION No:
04/48460/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Wadsworth
LOCATION:
250/251 Beesley Green Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey side and front extension
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the erection of a single storey side and front extension at 250/251
Beesley Green, part of the former Beesley Hall, a Grade II Listed Building. An application for
Listed Building Consent for the proposed extension and accompanying internal alterations appears
elsewhere on this agenda.
SITE HISTORY
On the 18th of February 1999 Listed Building Consent was granted for the erection of a
conservatory at 250 Beesley Green, reference 98/38805/LBC.
CONSULTATIONS
Roe Green Civic Trust – No objections
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on the 15th of July 2004.
A site notice was displayed on the 1st of July 2004.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
252 Beesley Hall
23 and 249 Kempnough Hall Road.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 25 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised 



The proposed extension is out of character with the Listed Building
The proposed extension would detract from the ambience of Beesley Green.
The scale of development is inappropriate as it would result in the over development of the site
The proposed extension would encroach onto the public footpath/bridleway into Worsley
Woods
Councillor McDonald has requested that Panel consider this application and the Listed Building
application.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: EN7 – Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
EN11 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
EN12 – Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings
EN13 – Works to Listed Buildings and Buildings Within
Conservation Areas
DEV8 – House Extensions
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: CH2 – Works to Listed Buildings
CH5 – Works Within Conservation Areas
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 Alterations and Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issue relating to this application are the impact the proposed extension may
have on the architectural and historic character of the Listed Building, the Roe Green/Beesley
Green conservation area and the residential amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents.
The impact the proposed extension would have on the trees in the vicinity should also be
considered.
Policies EN12 and EN13 state that the Council will not normally permit
any development which would detract from the architectural and
historic character of a Listed Building, something that is reiterated
in Policy CH2. In order to do this, the Council will seek to ensure
that extensions are in keeping with the character of the building.
The proposed extension is single storey and it has been designed to
respect the character of the listed building in terms of its size,
location and proposed materials. Consequently it would preserve the
character and appearance of Beesley Green or the Roe Green/Beesley
Green Conservation Area.
Policy DEV8 states that development must not have an unacceptably
adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason
of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light,
something which is reiterated in DES7 and DES8. The location and
positioning of 250/251 Beesley Green and the proposed extension is
such that those at number 252 Beesley Green would not experience a
reduction in the residential amenity they currently enjoy.
Policy EN7 seeks to conserve trees and woodlands in order to preserve
and enhance the amenity of the City and Policy EN11 emphasises the
particular importance of maintaining mature trees in order to
preserve and enhance the character of conservation areas. Policy CH5
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
also emphasises the importance of retaining the treescape within
conservation areas. There are a number of mature trees surrounding
250/251 Beesley Green including a mature ash tree, which would have
to be removed for the proposed development to go ahead. The Council’s
senior arborist has inspected the tree and is of the opinion that
the tree is a poor specimen that is not worthy of retention. Its
removal to facilitate the proposed development would not therefore
adversely affect the treescape, particularly as the other trees on
the site would not be affected by the proposed development, as there
would be in excess of 3.6m between the extension and any part of the
trees.
A number of concerns have been expressed about the encroachment of
the proposed extension onto the public footpath/bridleway into
Worsley Woods and the possible obstruction of the right of way. The
proposed extension would however be located entirely within the
boundary of the site and therefore the access to Worsley Woods would
be maintained by means of an access way located to the right of the
site.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Amended plans were received in response to recommendations made by the Planning Officer,
which secured improvements to the original submission.
CONCLUSION
Overall, the proposed development complies with all the relevant policies of the adopted Unitary
Development Plan and the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan. It would not therefore detract
from the character or setting of the Listed Building to which it would be attached nor would it have
an adverse impact upon the character of the Roe Green/Beesley Green conservation area. I
therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls
and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
3. The permission shall relate to the amended plan received on the 19th of July 2004.
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works. Property specific summary
information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect
the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports
Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
2. The decision to grant permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material
considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance, and the particular circumstances
summarised below:
Adopted UDP - EN7 - Conservation of Trees and Woodlands, EN11 - Protection and
Enhancement of Conservation Areas, EN12 - Protection and Enhancement of Listed
Buildings, EN13 - Works to Listed Buildings and Buildings Within Conservation Areas,
DEV8 - House Extensions
Revised Deopsit Draft UDP - CH2 - Works to Listed Buildings, CH5 - Works Within
Conservation Areas, DES7 - Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES8 Alterations and
Extensions
APPLICATION No:
04/48475/FUL
APPLICANT:
Dr V Joshi
LOCATION:
266 Liverpool Road Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing house, garage and shop and erection of one
two storey block comprising six apartments including associated
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
car parking
WARD:
Irlam
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
Planning permission is sought for the demolition of an existing house and shop and the erection of
one two storey block comprising six apartments including six associated car parking spaces at 266
Liverpool Road, Irlam. The amenity space proposed would measure approximately 47.5 sq m and
would be located at the southwest corner of the site. The proposed boundary to Liverpool Road is
a dwarf brick wall 0.6 metres high with railings above to a maximum height of 1.4 metres with
wrought iron gates. The building would be positioned at the corner of the site at the junction of
Liverpool Road and 1 St. John Street. It would be sited forward of the building line of adjacent
properties at 268 Liverpool Road and 1 St John Street. The footprint of the proposed building is
158 sq m., which is marginally larger than the footprint of the existing buildings, which measures
approximately 153 sq m. The site lies outside the Key Local Centres and is located in a residential
area containing houses of mixed architectural styles and housing types. Surrounding properties
include principally semi-detached housing with some terraced and detached dwellings.
SITE HISTORY
In 2001 planning permission was approved for the change of use of a house to offices, with the
erection of a single storey side shop extension, demolition of an existing garage and laying out of
car parking spaces to the rear (01/42765/COU). The existing garage was not demolished as part of
the implementation of the development.
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – No objections
Director of Environmental Services – No objections. However, “The proposed development is
close to Liverpool Road and therefore may be affected by traffic noise from this road. Prior to the
commencement of the development the developer shall assess the effect of traffic noise on the
development with regard to PPG 24 ‘Planning and Noise’ and detail any remedial measures if
required.”
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 7th June 2004, which expired on 28th June 2004.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 St. John Street
20 and 22 Elsinore Avenue
250, 252 and 254 (including the flats above) Liverpool Road
191, 193, 195, 197, 199, 201, 268, 270, 272, 274 Liverpool Road
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 6 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised: 











The proposal would be sited forward of the existing building line of adjacent properties on
Liverpool Road
The new building appears to be closer to the boundary of 268 Liverpool Road than the
existing house and would thus cause loss of light
Loss of privacy
The proposed side entrance door would be used frequently by residents using the rear car
park, thereby resulting in loss of privacy to no. 268
The St. John Street elevation has an entrance directly onto the footpath
Proposed building would look out of character on Liverpool Road by having no frontage or
garden
Parking provision is insufficient, thereby leading to on street parking on Liverpool Road
and significant traffic generation on St. John Street
Design, type (flats) and modern style out of character with the area
The site is too small to accommodate the development
Irlam has adequate housing provision, more amenities are needed instead
Demolition and building work would generate noise, dust and traffic and may affect the
structure of surrounding properties
Loss of property value
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 - Development Criteria
DEV2 - Good Design
DEV4 - Design and Crime
EN15 - Environmental Improvement Corridors
H1 - Meeting Housing Needs
T13 - Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 - Respecting Context
DES7 - Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES9 – Landscaping
DES11 - Design and Crime
A10 - Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
EN18 - Environmental Improvement Corridors
H1 - Provision of New Housing Development
ST1 - Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods
ST2 - Housing Supply
ST8 - Environmental Quality
ST11 - Location of New Development
ST12 - Development Density
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are:
The siting and design of the proposal and its impact on the street scene of Liverpool Road and St
John Street and the effect of the proposal on the amenity of neighbouring residents. Another issue
is the capacity of the surrounding streets to deal with the resultant traffic generation and the
increased demand for car parking spaces.
Policies DEV1, DEV2, DEV4, ST8, DES1, DES7 and DES11 seek development to be of a high
design quality that is appropriate to the character of the area whilst respecting the amenity of
neighbouring residents and deterring crime through design. Policy DES9 requires development to
incorporate appropriate landscaping proposals. Policies EN15 and EN18 require development
located on Liverpool Road to contribute to the environmental improvement of the road frontage
and the removal of dereliction. Policy H1 aims to meet housing need through the provision of new
housing and polices ST2, ST11 and ST12 require development to be of an appropriate density for
the site and to be located close to existing residential amenities in order to encourage sustainable
development. Policies T13 and A10 seek to ensure adequate and appropriate provision of car
parking spaces in association with the number of dwelling units created taking into account the
public transport available in the locality, which will thereby contribute to the greater use of more
sustainable modes of transport.
Impact on the street scene and the building line
The site is a corner plot, situated on a bend on Liverpool Road with a terrace of adjacent properties
to the north sited forward of the building line of no. 268. Numbers 254 and 252 Liverpool Road to
the north have a shop forecourt but no front garden. However, the pavement on Liverpool Road
widens in front of no. 266, which would reduce the potential overbearing effect on the street scene.
Given that the side elevation and garage of no. 254 is sited directly against the pavement of St.
John Street and the properties on the north side of St. John Street have frontages of only 1.5m, I
consider that the proposed siting of the development is acceptable. The amended plans step the
proposed building line away from 268 Liverpool Road and the building would be sited closet to the
footpath at the junction of Liverpool Road with St. John Street. Hence, given the siting of
surrounding properties and the location of the site, I consider that the development would not
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
result in an overbearing impact on the surrounding street scene and would not have an
unacceptable impact on the existing building lines, consistent with policies DEV1, DEV2, DES1
and DES7.
I consider that the proposed design of the development is acceptable in this location and is
appropriate to the context of the area given the mixed dwelling types and architectural styles in the
locality. The proposal is designed to provide natural surveillance to surrounding streets, thereby
helping to reduce crime and fear of crime in accordance with policies DEV4 sand DES11.
Therefore the proposal accords with the City Council’s polices DEV1, DEV2, DEV4, ST8, DES1,
DES7, DES11, EN15 and EN18.
Impact on residential amenity
Given the existing residential property surrounding the site, I am satisfied with the principle of
residential use for the site. I am satisfied with the proposed density of the residential units on the
site and that adequate and appropriate provision of amenity space is provided in the amended plan.
The landscape treatment of the site is subject to an attached condition to ensure that it is
appropriate for the site and will protect the amenity of neighbouring and future residents consistent
with policy DES9. I am of the opinion that the amenity, light and privacy of neighbouring residents
would be protected by the proposal in accordance with policies DES1 and DES7 for the following
reasons:




North – 254 Liverpool Road contains a ground floor shop and a first floor flat. The blank
gable wall facing the development is sited 14m away from secondary habitable room
windows of the proposed dwellings, which complies with Salford City Council’s design
guidance on separation distances between dwellings.
South – 268 Liverpool Road has a principle habitable room bay window on the side
elevation facing the proposed building. However, the proposed building at no. 266 would
be sited no closer to no. 268 than the existing building. Therefore the separation distance of
the side bay window at no. 268 to no. 266 would be no worse than the existing situation. A
condition is attached to ensure the appropriate obscure glazing of first floor side windows
that would otherwise overlook the side bay window at no. 268. The proposed side entrance
door facing no. 268 contains a glazing element but the door would enter into a corridor area
and not a habitable room.
East - Residential properties are sited more than 21m away from the site.
West – The proposed building would introduce habitable room windows more than 13m
away from the facing wall of 1 St. John Street, which contains no habitable room windows.
Car parking provision
The site is located on a main public transport route close to the facilities of Upper Irlam Key Local
Centre. I am satisfied with the proposed provision of 1 car parking bay per dwelling in this location
and I have no highway objections to the proposal. I consider that an increase in the number of
proposed car parking spaces within the curtilage of the site would result in the loss of the proposed
amenity space to the detriment of the future residents of the development.
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
Other considerations
The door facing 268 Liverpool Road only provides access to one flat, thus I consider that there
would not be an unacceptable resultant loss of privacy because of the limited number of residents
and visitors likely to use the side entrance door.
All development involves a level of noise, traffic generation and general disturbance but it would
be over a temporary period and is therefore acceptable.
Loss of property value is not a material planning consideration.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Amended plans were received in response to recommendations made by the Planning Officer,
which secured the following improvements to the original submission: 
The proposed 6 car parking spaces are marked as measuring 2.4m wide by 4.8m long with
6m reversing space in accordance with the City Council’s car parking standards.

The area of proposed amenity space has been increased and extended to meet the rear
pedestrian access route around the proposed property to ensure that it would be more
useable to future residents of the site.

A siting plan and existing and proposed street scene elevations were submitted which more
clearly show the impact of the proposal on the street scene and the amenity of neighbouring
residents.

A proposed side secondary habitable room window, which would have caused a loss of
privacy to the residents of 268 Liverpool Road has been deleted in the amended plans.
Therefore, I consider that conditions 5 and 7 address the issue of loss of privacy.

The St. John Street entrance is set in from the pavement by 1.5m in the amended plan,
which I consider to be acceptable.

The proposed building has been set back from the footpath of St. John Street and has been
stepped in away from the St. John Street footpath in part.
CONCLUSION
Given the mixed types and architectural styles of housing and flats in the locality, I consider that
the appearance of the development is acceptable and I am satisfied that the loss of the existing
vacant shop is acceptable given the site’s proximity to Upper Irlam Key Local Centre. I am of the
opinion that the proposal would not significantly adversely affect neighbouring residential
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
amenity and would not have a detrimental impact on the adjacent highway. I consider that the
principle of building flats in this location would meet housing need identified in policy H1 and that
development of the brownfield site is in accordance with strategic policies ST1 and ST12 by
contributing to the provision of a higher housing density and a mix of dwelling types that would
enhance the vitality and viability of the area. Hence, for the above reasons I recommend approval
of the application.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
and approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such
scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and
surface treatment and shall be carried out within 6 months of the commencement of
development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning
Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
3. 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 F05D Provision of Parking
5. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 18th June 2004 which shows no
ground floor room window on the south elevation.
6. Prior to first occupation of either dwelling house sealed double glazed units shall be installed to
all habitable room windows facing Liverpool Road and St. John Street comprising glass of
10mm and laminated 6.4mm with a 12mm air gap. The units shall be installed in accordance
with the manufacturer's recommendations to avoid air gaps when fitting the frames.
Alternative means of ventilation, which shall be sound attenuated, shall also be provided and
made available at all times the premises are in use.
7. The glazing for the windows facing the party boundary between 266 and 268 Liverpool Road
shall be obscured, and shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Director of
Development Services.
8. The common boundary with 268 Liverpool Road shall be treated with a fence, which prior to
commencement of the development, details of the height, type and colour treatment of the
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
boundary fence to 268 Liverpool Road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services. The aforementioned fence shall be implemented prior to
first occupation of any residential unit hereby approved and maintained thereafter to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R014A Parking of vehicles - each dwelling
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
7. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
8. To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents of the development at 268 Liverpool
Road in accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of the City of Salford Adopted Unitary
Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is advised that any disused access points should be made good at the developer's
expense.
2. The Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding
details of drainage.
3. The applicant is advised that construction work begins no earlier than 9:00a.m. for the duration
of the construction works for the development hereby approved in order to protect the amenity
of neighbouring residents.
4. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and
proposals in the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant
material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other
material planning considerations that outweigh this finding:
Adopted UDP: DEV1 - Development Criteria
DEV2 - Good Design
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
DEV4 - Design and Crime
EN15 - Environmental Improvement Corridors
H1 - Meeting Housing Needs
T13 - Car Parking
Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP:DES1 - Respecting Context
DES7 - Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES9 - Landscaping
DES11 - Design and Crime
A10 - Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
EN18 - Environmental Improvement Corridors
H1 - Provision of New Housing Development
ST1 - Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods
ST2 - Housing Supply
ST8 - Environmental Quality
ST11 - Location of New Development
ST12 - Development Density
5. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
APPLICATION No:
04/48476/LBC
APPLICANT:
Mr & Mrs Wadsworth
LOCATION:
250/251 Beesley Green Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Listed Building Consent for the erection of a single storey side
and front extension and accompanying internal alterations.
WARD:
Worsley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the erection of a single storey side and front extension at 250/251
Beesley Green, part of the former Beesley Hall, a Grade II Listed Building. An application for
Listed Building Consent for the proposed extension and accompanying internal alterations appears
elsewhere on this agenda.
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
SITE HISTORY
On the 18th of February 1999 Listed Building Consent was granted for the erection of a
conservatory at 250 Beesley Green, reference 98/38805/LBC.
CONSULTATIONS
Roe Green Civic Trust – No objections
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on the 15th of July 2004.
A site notice was displayed on the 1st of July 2004.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
252 Beesley Hall
23 and 249 Kempnough Hall Road.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 2 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised:

The proposed development is unsympathetic and out of character with the Listed
Building.
The proposed development would therefore destroy the vista of the 3 cottages.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: EN7 – Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
EN12 – Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings
EN13 – Works to Listed Buildings and Buildings Within
Conservation Areas
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: CH2 – Works to Listed Buildings
PLANNING APPRAISAL
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
The main planning issue relating to this application are the impact the proposed extension may
have on the architectural and historic character and setting of the Listed Building.
Policy EN12 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan states that the Council will not normally
permit any development or alterations that would detract from the architectural and historic
character of a Listed Building or its setting. This is reiterated in Policy CH2 of the Revised Deposit
Draft Replacement Plan. The proposed extension is single storey and it has been designed to
respect the character of the listed building in terms its size, location and proposed materials. It is
therefore acceptable from a planning perspective. The proposed internal alterations are necessary
to join the 2 cottages and to link the existing property to the proposed extension. As these
alterations would not adversely affect the external appearance of the building they too are
acceptable. As such they would preserve the character of a feature of special architectural interest
of this listed building.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Amended plans were received in response to recommendations made by the Planning Officer,
which secured improvements to the original submission.
CONCLUSION
Overall, the proposed development complies with all the relevant policies of the adopted Unitary
Development Plan and the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan. I therefore recommend that
the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls
and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
3. The permission shall relate to the amended plan received on the 19th of July 2004
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R038 Section 18
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The decision to grant permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material
considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance, and the particular circumstances
summarised below:
Adopted UDP - EN7 - Conservation of Trees and Woodlands, EN12 - Protection and
Enhancement of Listed Building, EN13 - Works to Listed Buildings and Buildings Within
Conservation Areas
Revised Deopist Draft UDP - CH2 - Works to Listed Buildings
APPLICATION No:
04/48510/FUL
APPLICANT:
The Governors, St Phillips RC Primary School
LOCATION:
St Philips R.C. School Cavendish Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of six floodlighting standards to football/resource pitch
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site is a school located in a residential area with residential properties to the rear.
The proposal is to erect six floodlight at the rear of the school in the existing playground. The
flood lights would be 8m in height.
SITE HISTORY
In February 2002 planning permission was granted for the erection of 3m high palisade security
fencing (02/43518/DEEM3)
In January 1998 planning permission was granted for the extension of existing school to provide
single classroom including removal of existing pitched roof, building up of existing walls,
provision of new floor and pitched roof (97/37447/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
Environmental Health – no objections subject to scheme being submitted and approved
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 24th June 2004
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
7, 9, 11 and 11A Cavendish Road
Our Lady Church Cavendish Road
Servite Priory Bury New Road
22 – 34 ABCD (evens) Albert Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one petition with eight addresses and one letter of objection in response to the
planning application publicity. The following issues have been raised:Increase in inconsiderate parking
Increase of noise after school during the winter and summer months
Possible effect on local security
This facility is not open to the local community and residents of Salford
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:SC4 – Improvement / Replacement of Schools
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
EHC0A – Provision and Improvement of Schools and
Colleges
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issue relating to this application is the impact of the proposal on neighbouring
occupiers.
Policy SC4 (Improvement/Replacement of Schools) and also EHC0A of the revised deposit
replacement plan highlight the Council’s aim to improve on any deficiencies in school facilities
such as replacement facilities and support infrastructure. The policy states that proposals should
not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring uses and that adequate
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
standard of playing fields and other recreation provision be in accessible and convenient location
and wherever possible to be accessible to the community. The school is looking to provide
floodlighting between the hours of 09.00 – 17.00 Monday to Friday and in addition 17.00 – 21.00
on Tuesday and Wednesday for community use. The School currently operates between these
hours including the existing community use two night per week. The installation of the floodlights
would not generate more traffic. The objection refers to existing inconsiderate parking, the
proposal would not increase the need for parking as the building is currently used between these
hours. With regards to noise the existing pitch is 40m from the properties to the side of the school
and 25m from properties to the rear, with dense trees and foliage between them. A scheme
detailing luminance levels and angles of lighting shall be submitted and approved. With regards
to the effect on security, the floodlights would only be used when necessary and when they are in
use the school grounds would be occupied therefore I would not consider the proposal to have an
impact on security and adjacent residential dwellings. The facility is used two nights per week for
community use which is encouraged by EHC0A, the objection refer to lack of community use and
many of the visitors to the school do not live in Salford. The school is very close to the boundary
with Bury, therefore there may be pupils and visitors from both Bury and Salford I would not
consider this objection to be relevant to the application.
The proposal is close to the boundary of the Bury MBC but as the application is minor and would
not have an impact on the Borough Council I have not consulted them.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The floodlights hereby permitted shall ONLY be operated between the hours of 09.00 - 17.00
Monday, Thursday and Friday and 09.00 - 21.00 Tuesday and Wednesday.
3. Prior to commencement of development a scheme shall be submitted and approved in writing
by the Director of Development Services which specifies the provision to be made for the
control of light emanating from all floodlit areas. The scheme shall include luminance levels
and beam angles. The scheme agreed shall be the scheme implemented and maintained
thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The scheme shall ensure:A) The illumination of the ball court should be kept to a minimum.
B) The beam angle of any lights directed towards any potential observer should be kept below
70 degrees. Spill shields shall also be fitted.
C) Lights are angled and pointed to ensure no light spillage (zero lux) at the elevations of the
nearby residential properties.
D) Lights shall be designed to be asymmetrical beams that permit front glazing to be kept at or
rear parallel to the surface of the play area.
2. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and
proposals in the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant
material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other
material planning considerations that outweigh this finding:
SC4 - Improvement/Replacement of Schools
Deposit Draft Replacement Plan
EHC0A - Provision and Improvement of Schools and Colleges
DES7 - Amenity of Users and Neighbours
APPLICATION No:
04/48558/COU
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Atkins
LOCATION:
5 Barton Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from residential dwelling to holistic and beauty
therapy salon
WARD:
Worsley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
The proposal is for a change of use at 5 Barton Road Worsley. The application site involves the
‘Old Nick’, which is a grade II listed building. It is located on the main road with off road parking
facilities. The site is within the Worsley Village Conservation Area. The proposal would not
involve any external alterations to the building. Internally the only operation would involve the
removal of the modern kitchen sink and associated units. The proposed use of the building would
be for a Holistic Beauty Therapy Salon.
CONSULTATIONS
Worsley Village Conservation Trust: No objections
Worsley Village Community Association: No objections
Director of Environmental Services: Has noted potential noise disturbance from laundry and staff
room and late evening working at 7.00 and 8.00 pm.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1, 1A to 7A Barton Road
10 to 16 Barton Road
9 to 11 Kenwood Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 5 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised:  Overlooking
 Impact upon neighbours
 Future Advertising
 Affecting Listed Building
 Noise
 UDP
 Over development of area.
 Change of use (Class issue)
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria, EN12 – Protection and
Enhancement of Listed Buildings.
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: CH2 – Works to a Listed Building, DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the need to protect the Listed Building
from harm. The effect that the change of use may have on the amenity of neighbouring residents
with particular reference to noise disturbance.
The site relates to a Grade II Listed Building, which is covered under policy EN12. CH2 of the
Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan recognises the need to allow change of use to Listed
Buildings when it is not practical to continue original use, or where the new use would secure the
long-term future of the building. DEV1 and DES7 state that development will not be permitted
where it would have an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of neighbours.
Protection of a Listed Building
There are no proposed external alterations. In my opinion the building will be improved by the
removal of the modern kitchen units as this will reveal the original features of the cells within the
site that have previously been covered. The proposed use accords with Policy EH12 as the policy
encourages new uses for such buildings. It has been identified that the building has been vacant for
over twelve months. Therefore the preservation and enhancement of the site complies fully with
the criteria of both EH12 and CH2
Amenity of Neighbours
With regard to the proposed change of use, the new use would not generate excess noise and
disturbance as the business is by appointment only and would only have room for four customers
at any one time.
CONCLUSION
The main issues relating to this application has been with regard to the amenity of neighbours and
preservation of the listed Building. I am satisfied that the proposal would not injure the amenity of
neighbouring residents and by attaching conditions to restrict the noise generated from the
operation of the business I consider that the amenity enjoyed by those residents would not be
effected any more than by that of a typical family house. The objections I have received do not
conflict with the relevant policy concerning this application. It is considered that the proposed use
of this unit will enhance and preserve the character of the area and be to the benefit of securing the
long-term future of the Listed Building.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works. Property specific summary
information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect
the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports
Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
2. The development hereby approved is in accordance with the policies as laid out in the Adopted
UDP and the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan. There are no other material
considerations that out way this finding:
EH12- Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings
EH13- Works to Listed Buildings and Buildings within Conservation Areas
DEV1- Development Criteria
DES7-Amenity of Users and Neighbours
CH2-Works to Listed Buildings
3. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
APPLICATION No:
04/48616/FUL
APPLICANT:
R Richards
LOCATION:
Land At Rear Of 1 To 7 Heather Avenue Irlam Cadishead
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a detached bungalow and integral garage together
with alterations to existing vehicular and pedestrian access
(resubmission of previous application 04/47632/FUL)
WARD:
Cadishead
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This proposal is for the erection of one detached dwelling with integral double garage, together
with alterations to existing pedestrian and vehicular accesses on land to the rear of and adjacent to
1-7 (odd) Heather Ave, Cadishead. There is a public footpath (right of way) within the application
site which will be retained over the private driveway to be constructed for access to the proposed
dwelling. To the south-west of the site are houses, to the south-east and east are allotments and to
the north is a railtrack and beyond that greenbelt.
The land (0.15 hectares including the public right of way) was formerly part of a larger plot,
previously under the ownership of British Rail but was purchased at auction by residents of
Heather Avenue, garden sections were then extracted and planning permission was granted for the
erection of a detached dwelling adjacent to 76 New Moss Road. The remainder of the land is the
subject of this planning application.
The proposed dwelling would be an ‘L-shaped’ bungalow. The eaves height would be 2.3m and
the ridge height would be 7m. Also proposed is a new soakaway (for surface water drain) and
septic tank set apart 40m from the nearest property at 7 Heather Avenue. Alongside the new
driveway/ right of way there will be a 2m high acoustic fence, installed to reduce excessive noise
from the adjacent railway.
SITE HISTORY
In 2004, an application was refused for the erection of a detached bungalow and integral garage
together with alterations to existing vehicular and pedestrian accesses on land to the rear of and
adjacent to 1-7 (odd) Heather Ave, Cadishead (04/47632/FUL).
In 2003, an application was approved for the erection of a detached
dwelling and garage together with construction of new and alterations
to existing vehicular access on land adjacent 76 New Moss Road,
Cadishead (03/46856/FUL).
In 2003, an application was withdrawn for the erection of two detached dwellings together with
alterations to existing pedestrian access and alterations to and construction of new vehicular access
on land adjacent 76 New Moss Road, Cadishead (03/46413/FUL).
In 1990, an outline application was refused for the erection of two detached dwellinghouses with
garages at land to the rear of Heather Avenue, Cadishead (E/26809/OUT).
In 1987, an application was approved for the erection of a detached dwellinghouse and garage on
land adjacent to 76 New Moss Road, Cadishead (E21839).
In 1987, an application was refused for the erection of a detached bungalow and garage on land
adjacent to 7 Heather Avenue, Cadishead (E21838).
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No comments receievd
Railtrack – No comments received
Open Spaces Society – No comments received
Ramblers Association – Objection has been raised on the following grounds:



The proposal would reduce the amenity value of the land which is adjacent to the right of
way and would make using the access less attractive as using a private drive would be
intimidating. Furthermore, future occupants may not respect the right of way and may, for
example, create obstructions or own a dog which could be intimidating.
The proposal would set a precedent for further expansion into the open space adjacent to
the land.
There would be public safety issues given that vehicles would use the access.
Greater Manchester Police Authority – no comments received.
Peak and Northern Footpaths Society – No objection so long as the right of way is maintained.
Environment Agency – Object on the grounds that the foul drainage poses a risk of pollution of
surface waters and groundwater.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 20th July 2004, and a second site notice stating that the application
will affect a right of way was displayed on 22nd July 2004.
A press notice was published on 8th July 2004, and a second press notice stating that the
application will affect a right of way was published.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
5 and 8 Brentwood Avenue
1-7 (odd) and 2-6 (even) Heather Avenue
70, 72, 155-165 (odd) New Moss Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. Councillor Mann has requested that this application is considered by the Panel.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
EN6 – Conservation of the Mosslands
EN24 - Conservation of the Mosslands
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
Other policies:
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
EN3 – Protected Open Land
EN20 – Pollution Control
T10 - Pedestrians
T12 – Public Rights of Way
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
EN8 – Mosslands
Other policies:
ST11 – Location of New Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
EN3 – Greenfield Land
EN7 – Nature Conservation
EN15 – Protection of Water Resources
PLANNING APPRAISAL
This application is a resubmission of a previous application (04/47632/FUL), which was refused
on two grounds relating to the impact of the proposal on the Mosslands and the impact of the
proposal on the open character of the land. This new application is identical to the previous
submission except that a statement has been submitted by the applicant addressing the latter issue
and an ecological report has been submitted addressing the former issue. Objection has also been
raised by the Ramblers Association and the Environment Agency which have been detailed above.
This report will therefore concentrate on these issues.
Impact on the open character of the open land and design
The applicant contends that the bungalow would be contiguous with the neighbouring built up area
and that it would not have a detrimental impact on the open character of the land. The applicant
also states that the development would improve the amenity of this site which, it is claimed, has
been used for tipping. Adopted UDP Policy EN3 (Protected Open Land) relates to all open land
not protected by the Green Belt, and states that planning permission will normally be refused for
all development except those uses consistent with open land status, working of minerals, re-use of
buildings which would help diversify the rural economy, essential development connected with an
established source of employment, limited infill around existing settlements which would not
affect existing open spaces, development essential to the provision of public services and utilities.
However it appears that the proposed development would fail to meet any of these criteria and
would significantly compromise the openness of this Greenfield site, which is in between
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
well-established allotments, and the Greenbelt. This visual impact would be exacerbated by the
fact that the proposed bungalow is effectively the same height as a two-storey dwelling.
Policy T10 seeks to protect the needs of pedestrians in part by taking into account the presence of
existing rights of way in new development. The Ramblers Association have objected to the
proposal on the grounds that it would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the users of the
Right of Way. I support this view and feel that the proposal would represent a visual intrusion on
the open land and hence affect the amenity of the users of the Right of Way. The remaining issues
raised by the Ramblers Association are speculative and are not views that I support. I have no
objection on traffic safety grounds.
Paragraph 5.18 of PPG13 states: ‘the Government is committed to maximising the re-use of
previously-developed land and the conversion of existing buildings to promote regeneration and
minimise the amount of greenfield land being taken for development’. This approach is reiterated
in PPG3 with regard to Housing. There is no evidence to suggest that the site falls under the
definition of previously developed land, as set out in Annex C of PPG3, and therefore it should be
assessed on the basis that it is Greenfield. Policy UR4 of RPG13 sets out a target for Salford: ‘on
average at least 90% of new housing will be on previously developed land’. Policy DP1 of RPG13
requires economy in the use of land and buildings, and sets out a sequential approach to
development that prioritises previously-developed (Brownfield) land over Greenfield sites. Policy
ST11 of the Revised Draft UDP seeks to implement Policy DP1 of RPG13, having regard to the
local circumstances of the city. As such, it does identify a series of limited ‘exceptions’ when
Greenfield sites may be brought forward whilst previously-developed land remains available. The
proposed development does not fall within any of those exceptions. The only justification that the
applicant puts forward for bringing this Greenfield site forward for residential development is the
present anti-social use of the site. I would not consider the poor management of the site to justify
development not according with national, regional, and local planning policy.
Policies DEV1, DEV2, DES1 and DES7 relate to the need for good design
in relation to the local context and seek to protect the amenity of
neighbouring occupiers. In this location within the open land, I
am of the opinion that the roof of the dwelling is very high for a
bungalow and this exacerbates the impact of the open character of
the land.
With regard to the impact of the development on
neighbouring occupiers, I feel the proposal is acceptable and would
not have a significant effect on their amenity.
Impact on the Mosslands
Policy EN6 and EN24 (Conservation of the Mosslands) identifies that the council will recognise
the need to protect and enhance the Mosslands, also giving consideration to protecting the area
from peat extraction, an essential characteristic for many species of plant and animal traditionally
found within mosslands. This is reiterated in Policy EN8. In section 4 of the Ecological Report
prepared by Pat Waring, it states that, the site is remote from the main body of the peat, and the
railway running along its northern side prevents the site from being part of an intact hydrological
part of the mosslands. Having reviewed the information in the ecological report I agree with this
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
statement and confirm that although the site falls within the mossland boundary as shown on the
UDP proposals Map, it has little value in mossland terms. I am of the view, therefore, that the
proposal is in accordance with Policies EN6, EN24 and EN8.
Pollution
Policy EN20 states that development will not normally be allowed if
it is considered likely to have an unacceptable effect on the quality
of the City’s rivers, water courses, water bodies and ground waters.
This is echoed in Policy EN15. The Environment Agency have objected
to this application on the grounds that the proposed means of foul
drainage poses a risk of pollution of surface waters and groundwater
in an area served by public sewers.
CONCLUSION
The main issues in the determination of this application are the impact on the open character of the
land, the impact on the Mosslands and the liklehood of the pollution of local watercourses.
Although I am satisfied that the impact on the Mosslands will not be significant, I contend that the
proposed dwelling would have a significant detrimental impact on the character of the open land
by reason of it size and siting contrary to Policies EN3. Furthermore, the proposal is contrary to
national, regional and local policy (ST11) on Greenfield development. Finally, the Environment
Agency have stipulated that the development is likely to result in the pollution of surface waters
and groundwater contrary to Policies EN20 and EN15.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. By virtue of the proposed siting and design of the dwelling the proposed development would
seriously injure the visual amenity of the area by encroachment onto the open space between
the allotments and the greenbelt and would be contrary to policy EN3 of the adopted City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan and ST11 of the Revised Draft Replacement City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
2. The proposed means of foul drainage poses a risk of pollution of surface waters and
groundwater contrary to Policy EN20 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan and Policy EN15 of the Revised Draft Replacement City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan.
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
APPLICATION No:
04/48620/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Lightoaks Junior And Infant School
LOCATION:
Light Oaks Junior And Infants School, Lancaster Road
Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4m high boundary fencing (re-submission of
planning application 04/47642/DEEM3)
WARD:
Claremont
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site is situated to the rear of residential houses on Light Oaks Road and Russell Road,
the two main frontages are on Lancaster Road and Westgate Road
The proposal is for the erection of 2.4m high fencing around the full circumference of the
Junior and Infant School. On the main road frontages, Lancaster Road and Westgate Road
the type of fencing would be crusader. The fencing would be set back 2m from the public
footpath on Westgate Road and the existing school railings would be retained. The
Lancaster Road Frontage is currently a low wall with two entrance steps leading to the
school, there are grass verges along this frontage. The proposed fencing would be set back
4.5m from the public footpath on Lancaster Road.
To the rear of the properties on both Russell Road and Light Oaks Road there would be
Weldmesh 358 fencing. It would be situated on the rear boundaries of the residential
properties.
All the fencing would be powder coated green.
SITE HISTORY
In January 2004 and application was submitted and withdrawn for the erection of 2.4m
high palisade fencing and crusader fencing, the crusader fencing is still part of the current
application the palisade fencing has been replaced by weldmesh fencing
(04/47642/DEEM3)
In June 2003, planning permission was granted for the erection of single storey extension
and alterations to elevation of the Infant School (03/45994/DEEM3)
In June 2003, planning permission was granted for the erection of single storey extension
and alterations to front elevation of the Junior School (03/45994/DEEM3)
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
In March 2003, planning permission was granted for the siting of a temporary single-storey
toilet block attached to rear of existing dining hall, and siting of two secure steel storage
units alongside the play area (03/45503/DEEM3).
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).
CONSULTATIONS
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No Comments
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 6th July 2004
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 4 Brandon Road
31 and 34 Hallwood Road
123 – 153 (odds), 142 – 146 (evens) Lancaster Road
1 – 6 Laurel House, 1 – 11 (odds), 11A, 19 – 41 (odds) Light Oaks Road
38 and 47 Margrove Road
45 – 67 (odds) Russell Road
2 – 22 (evens), 5 – 9 (odds) Westgate Road
13 Verdun Avenue
59 Sunningdale Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 2 letters of objection and 2 letters of support in response to the planning
application publicity. The following issues have been raised:Loss of value of residential properties
Eyesore that will not keep the vandals out
Fence too high would feel caged in
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Design Criteria.
SC4 – Improvement/Replacement of Schools.
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
DEV2 – Good Design.
DEV4 – Design and Crime.
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:EH0A – Provision and Improvement of Schools and
Colleges
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours.
DES1 – Respecting Context.
DES11 – Design and Crime.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: the visual appearance of the
proposed fencing both in relation to the street scene and impact on residential properties.
These issues must be carefully balanced against the need for security and the impact on the
street scene and neighbouring residential properties and whether the proposal complies
with the relevant policies of both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Replacement UDPs.
These issues will be discussed in turn below.
With regard to the issue of street scene, on the two main frontages there would be crusader
railings. The railings would be set back from the road frontage. DEV4 and DES11 both
indicate that crime prevention methods should not be at the expense of high quality design.
The design of the railings are high quality and the Police Architectural Liasion Officer
considers this type of fencing to be the most appropriate type to be used on road frontages.
Policy SC4 (Improvement/Replacement of Schools) and also EHC0A of the revised
deposit replacement plan highlight 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. The School is currently the target of vandals there are a number of
windows on the elevation facing Lancaster Road therefore the need to protect this frontage
is to ensure that that vandals cannot access the building, the school also suffers from
trespasser’s late at night on this frontage using the grass verges as a lavatory. One of the
objections specifically relates to this boundary and the objector considers the proposed
fencing to be an eyesore that will not deter vandals. As mentioned the fencing would be set
back 4.5m from the road frontage I would therefore not consider it to have an unacceptable
impact on the street scene and the Police Architectural Liaison Officer recommends this
type of fencing on main frontages to deter vandals.
Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria to which regard will be had in the determination
of planning applications. Of most relevance to this application are the location of the
proposed development, including its relationship to existing and proposed land uses, the
layout and relationship of existing buildings and the visual appearance of the development
and its relationship to its surroundings. Two of the boundaries are at the rear of residential
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
properties on both Russell Road and Light Oaks Road. The existing boundary treatment to
the properties on Light Oaks Road consists mainly of 2m high fencing, whilst on the
Russell Road boundary there are various types and heights of fencing including some
boundaries with no boundary treatment. The proposed fencing namely weldmesh would
stand 2.4m in height which in most cases only 0.4m of the fencing would be seen above
existing boundary treatment. One of the objections refers to the height of fencing on the
rear boundaries on Light Oaks Road, as mentioned there is existing 2m high fencing along
this boundary therefore only 0.4m of fencing would be visible. The weldmesh fence will
not provide a fortress effect to the school as it is designed to allow views through the
panelling this will give the effect of keeping the aspect open The Police Architectural
Liaison Officer considers this type of fencing to be the most appropriate adjacent to
residential properties.
The issue of loss of value to properties is not a planning consideration.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The original application 04/47642/DEEM3 proposed single prong palisade fencing along
the rear boundaries of the residential properties on Light Oaks Road and Russell Road after
discussion with the Architectural Liaison Officer this has been replaced with Weldmesh
358 fencing. Also as part of these discussion the fencing along Westgate Road and
Lancaster Road were set back from the road frontages.
CONCLUSION
It is not envisaged there will be any adverse impact upon the street scene or the character of
the area. This is due to the fence being set back from the road frontage and the high quality
fencing to be used on the main road frontages. I would not consider there to be an
unacceptable adverse impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring residents. The type of
fencing to be used is considered the most appropriate adjacent to residential properties. The
new fencing will be powder coated green. The proposed development will result in
enhanced security for the school whilst not fortifying the facility. I believe that the
proposed development fully complies with the relevant planning policy as stated in the
Adopted UDP and the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan. The proposed fence will
be in keeping with the school and meets the requirements of all interested parties. I
therefore respectfully recommend this application for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The fencing and gates hereby approved shall be colour treated Green (RAL6004) prior
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
to installation and shall be maintained thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies
and proposals in the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all
relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There
are no other material planning considerations that outweigh this finding:
SC4 - Improvement/Replacement of Schools
Deposit Draft Replacement Plan
EHC0A - Provision and Improvement of Schools and Colleges
DES7 - Amenity of Users and Neighbours
APPLICATION No:
04/48650/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Springwood Special School (Mrs Anthea Darlington)
LOCATION:
Springwood Special School Barton Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4m high fencing with gates
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to the erection of two types of fencing: firstly, Palisade fencing
which will be located on the south and west sides of the school. This fencing will be 2.4m
in height and painted green. The palisade fence will be located within the school grounds
and will be an additional fence line to the existing boundary fence. The second fence type
will be Weldmesh fencing it will again be 2.4m in height. The Weldmesh fence will be
located on the north and west of the school buildings. Again this will be an additional fence
and not a replacement for the existing perimeter fence. There will be an additional five new
gate entrances, three located adjacent to Barton Road whilst the remaining two new
entrances are located to the rear of the coach parking bays.
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
The total length of the new Palisade fence will be 46m and the total length of the Weldmesh
fencing will 47m.
SITE HISTORY
In 1998 (98/38813/DEEM3) the original school was demolished and replaced by a purpose
built 175-place primary school for special educational needs. This development included
the erection of new school buildings and improvements and access for car parking and
coach access.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 02.07.2004
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2 to 32 Ashdown Drive
28,60 to 76 & 25 to 57 Barton Road
2A, 2B, 140 to 152 Overdale
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised: 






New fencing will be too high.
Fence type inappropriate for the site.
New fence will adversely affect the view from Barton Road.
De-valuation of properties.
Fence will create the wrong impression for the school.
Against human rights to enclose children with razor fencing.
Against the Council’s policy for the environment.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: DEV1 – Design Criteria.
Other policies: SC4 – Improvement/Replacement of Schools.
DEV2 – Good Design.
DEV4 – Design and Crime.
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours.
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context.
DES11 – Design and Crime.
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the design and location of the
fence and whether the location and design of the fence would have a detrimental impact
upon the amenity of neighbouring residents on Barton Road.
Design.
The proposed fencing is in keeping with the school. DEV2 seeks to ensure that all
developments adhere to good design principles. On the point of the fence being to high,
2.4m is a standard height for palisade and weldmesh fencing used on all school sites
across Salford. The height will not result in an over-bearing or dominant feature of the
site yet it will be sufficient to enhance the security of the school and act as a deterrent.
The palisade and weldmesh fence will not provide a fortress effect to the school as it is
designed to allow light to travel through the panelling this will give the effect of
keeping the school open. The fencing will also be powder coated to ensure it is in
keeping with the existing perimeter fence and does not stand out against its
surroundings. DEV1 also seeks to make sure that any proposed development does not
adversely impact the amenities of existing residents. The proposed fences are such in
my opinion there will be no adverse impact upon the amenity of the residents.
Location
The proposed fencing will be located within the dip of the
school grounds. Therefore the street level from Barton Road
will be higher than that of the proposed fencing. The palisade
fencing, which will be most visible fencing from Barton Road
will not look out of character with the area. The existing
perimeter fence which is located on Barton Road is similar
in design to the palisade fence although it is not as high
due to the difference in ground levels the proposed fencing
will have any further impact upon the school or the area. The
proposed internal fencing is in keeping with DES7 of the
Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan.
It is not envisaged the proposed development will have any adverse impact upon the
amenity of the neighbouring residents and that the type and siting of the new fences is in
keeping with the principles of all the UDP’s.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
I have agreed to having the General Purpose Rounded Top and Notched design placed
upon the top of the palisade fence this I believe will further reduce the visual impact upon
the school and ameliorate the objectors point relating to the school generating the wrong
impression.
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th August 2004
CONCLUSION
It is not envisaged there will be any adverse impact upon the street scene or the character of
the area. This is due to the fence being sited within the school grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Prior to the erection of the palisade railings and weldmesh panelling hereby approved
they shall be painted green (RAL 6005) and maintained therafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the
Applicant should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of
their proposal. Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before
undertaking any operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including
coal mine shafts and adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works.
Property specific summary information on any past, current or proposed surface and
underground mining activity to affect the development can be obtained from the Coal
Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports Service can be contacted on 0845 762
6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
2. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies
and proposals in the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all
relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There
are no other material planning considerations that outweigh this finding:
SC4 - Improvement/Replacement of Schools
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
67
5th August 2004