PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
APPLICATION No:
05/51106/FUL
APPLICANT:
Degussa Feb
LOCATION:
Feb Limited Albany House Swinton Hall Road Pendlebury
Swinton M27 4DT
PROPOSAL:
Retention of external storage racking system an erection of roof
at back
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Albany House on Swinton Hall Road in Swinton. The applicant
Degussa Feb applied to retain a wooden external racking system used for storage purposes,
which is located at the north east of the site. It is approximately 70m in length, 1.2m in depth
and 3.6m in height.
SITE HISTORY
A complaint was made to the Council by a nearby resident regarding the racking system and its
location within the site. The complainant claimed the racking was higher than the height of the
boundary wall. A site visit was undertaken by an Enforcement Officer and due to the racking
being fixed to the floor by bolts it is considered to be a permanent structure used to store drums
and hence required planning permission. A retrospective application was submitted by Degussa
Feb Ltd to retain the racking.
The application was originally put before Panel on 20th October 2005 where it was deferred for a
site visit on 11th November 2005. At the next meeting (17th November 2005) the application was
deferred to request that (a) the applicant submits a scheme in relation to the provision of a
covering for the top and back of the racking system and (b) the Health and Safety Executive
(HSE) investigates the concerns raised with regard to the substances stored on the racking
system. The application is now back before Panel as the two issues raised have been looked into
and further information received.
CONSULTATIONS
The Director of Environmental Services – no objection.
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 20th September 2005.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1, 2, 3 and 4 Acme Drive
2 – 20 (E) Old Mill Close
26 – 36 (E) Old Mill Close
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection was received in response to the amended plans showing the proposed roof
and back to the racking system. The reasons are outlined below:
Visual impact
Increase in height
Racking not being fit for purpose
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
EN20 – Pollution Control
DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
EN14 – Pollution Control
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether there is an unacceptable impact
on the amenity of nearby residents both visually and in terms of noise and disturbance from
stacking operations and whether the proposal accords with the provisions of the development
plan.
Adopted Policy DEV1 and Revised Policies DES1 and DES7 state regard should be had to
factors such as the relationship to existing buildings and its surroundings, the character of the
area, the visual appearance of the development and the amenity of users and neighbours.
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
Adopted Policy EN20 and Revised Policy EN14 state development would not normally be
allowed if it is considered to have an unacceptable increase in noise particularly around sensitive
areas such as housing.
The use of Albany House as an industrial unit which handles chemicals has been operating for
many years prior to planning permission being granted for the residential development of the
former Acme Mill into 59 dwellings in 1988. It was therefore considered acceptable to have
housing on the land adjacent to Degussa Feb. The company does have existing external storage
across the site and the racking subject of this application is to the north east of the site.
The boundary treatment between the racking system and the residential properties consists of an
embankment with tall trees to the rears of 2 to 10 Old Mill Close, and fencing/walls to the rears
of 12 to 38 Old Mill Close. The nearest property to the application site is 30 Old Mill Close
where it is the side elevation of the house facing the application site. There are no habitable
room windows on this elevation. The neighbouring properties on Old Mill Lane have their rear
gardens between the rear of the properties and the boundary with Degussa Feb which is in excess
of 15m at the minimum distance and I consider there to be sufficient screening with the fencing
and walls for there not to be an unacceptable detrimental impact on the residential amenity of
Old Mill Lane and Acme Drive and any overlooking.
As previously mentioned the use of Albany House as a unit which handles and stores chemicals
has been in existence for many years and so the issue of these chemicals near to houses is not a
new occurrence. Since the application’s previous appearance at Panel, site visits have been
undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). At a site visit made on 2 nd November
Degussa were required by the HSE to relocate all the barrels with flammable chemicals to the
rear of the site away from residential properties in order to comply with regulations. I have had
confirmation from the HSE that following a further visit on 19th December only inflammable
chemicals are now stored on the racking system along the boundary near Old Mill Close which
does not pose any safety concerns.
The presence of the racking system was considered to be a suitable and safer method of storing
the drums rather than having the drums simply put one on top of the other. There is existing
activity for example fork lift trucks. In this part of the site and as such, Members need to
consider whether the activities associated with the stacking of materials (fork lift trucks, lifting
and unloading materials and so on) is significant in terms of the frequency, intensity and nature
of the activities themselves.
In response the Director of Environmental Services has not objected to the proposal. He has
assessed the proposals and given existing site conditions and activity that already takes place, the
addition of a racking system would not unduly harm the living conditions of residents in terms of
noise and disturbance.
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
The proposed roof and back cladding to the racking would be made of galvanised steel which
would be colour treated black. The addition of a roof would result in the racking being 40cm
than originally proposed higher at 4m. I do not consider this increase in height would result in
an unacceptable impact on visual amenity to the residents and consider that the benefits of the
roof and back cladding would outweigh any impact on amenity. As previously discussed the
nearest habitable room windows are more than 15m away and as there is a high wall and fencing
on the boundary to act as screening.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the racking system with the addition of a back and roof is
acceptable, as it does not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of the nearby
residential properties in terms of overlooking, loss of privacy and any increase in noise. I am of
the opinion that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of both the Adopted and Draft
UDPs. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The roof and back to the racking system shall be installed within one month of the date of
this permission unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
2. The approved roof and back to the racking system shall be painted black prior to their
installation unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
APPLICATION No:
05/51566/HH
APPLICANT:
T Wallwork
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
LOCATION:
39 Greenleach Lane Worsley M28 2RX
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two-storey side extension, two storey rear extension,
single storey rear extension, raised decking area.
WARD:
Worsley
At a meeting of the Panel held on 16th February 2006 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Since writing my report, Peel Holdings has submitted a letter stating that it has no objections to
the proposal.
On renotification of neighbours of the amended plans, I have received one letter of objection
from a neighbour. Issues raised include: development is too large for the site,
 development would be an eyesore and out of character with the property and
conservation area.
 development would cause an invasion of privacy.
These issues have already been dealt with and are set out in the report below.
Following the meeting, between the applicant, planning officers and the conservation officer, it
was agreed that the design of the dormers on the front of the property should be changed to mono
pitched dormers to reflect the design of the existing dormers. However, this design aspect was
not modified and gable dormers have been proposed on the development against the
conservation officers recommendation. This is therefore an additional reason for refusal. The
proposed dormers do not respect the architectural design features of the original dwelling and are
therefore contrary to Policy HH8 of the Householder Supplementary Planning Guidance,
Adopted policy EN11 and Draft Policy CH5. In addition a new garage originally proposed has
been deleted from the application pending further discussions with the Environment Agency in
relation to its position and maintenance of the adjacent brook.
I have also given further consideration to the reason for refusal in light of the above. I am of the
opinion that whilst there is a street scene issue the prevailing concern is with the impact on the
house and the conservation area. I have therefore changed the wording of the reason for refusal.
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
My original observations are set out below.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a detached property on Greenleach Lane in Worsley. The site is
situated in a predominantly residential area and is located within the Roe Green/Beesley Green
Conservation Area. The gable wall of the property faces onto Greenleach Lane The property has
a steep pitched roof which is a unique feature. Due to the steep pitch, the small dormers in the
front roof space and at the large dormer to the rear of the property are again unique features
characteristic of the period in which the property was built. It is a small dwelling, set in its own
grounds. The qualities highlighted are not seen on any other buildings in the area. As a result of
the above, even though it is not a listed building, it has a special and unique character in this area
and makes a significant contribution to the Conservation Area.
The application consists of a two-storey rear extension, part two-storey, part single storey side
extensions and a raised decking area. Although the proposal is the same, the description has been
amended to reflect the fact that the north side of the property faces Greenleach therefore
corresponding amendments to the description of elevations were made.
The proposed two-storey extension would be an ‘L Shape’ extension that wraps around the rear
and south facing side of the property continuing past the front of the property.
The extension would extend to the rear by 6.6m. It would be inset 1.6m from the side elevation
and extend 15.8m along the existing rear elevation of the property.
The extension would continue along the side elevation and continue past the existing front
elevation by 8.2m. This new south facing side elevation would measure a maximum of 24.6m in
total.
The single storey aspect would be situated behind the proposed two storey side extension. It
would project 4.8m from the proposed side elevation and would be 11m in width with both
corners running at 45 degree angle. It would accommodate a sunroom. There would be another
single storey extension that would project 2m to the front of the side extension and 5m to the
rear. This would accommodate a pantry and utility room. The raised decking would project 7.6m
from the two storey side extension and would surround the sunroom. It would be 22.6m wide.
Following discussions with the applicant, modifications to some architectural features were
made. These included changes to the detail around windows, raising the roof to a min of 45
degrees to try and maintain a steep pitch which is characteristic of the original dwelling and a
change to the central dormer on the East side of the extensionto replicate the existing dormer..
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
The applicant has also submitted application for Conservation Area Consent in relation to this
property (05/51657/CON) which appears elsewhere on the agenda.
SITE HISTORY
Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of existing garage and removal of roof of
house and erection of two storey side extension, two storey rear extension and detached
double garage. Pending Decision (Ref 05/51657/CON)
Crown raise to 5m over the public highway and 2.5m over the path and re shape crown
by 2m by branch tip reduction avoiding inter nodal cuts one cherry. Pending Decision
(Ref 05/51521/TPO)
Fell one magnolia (T1), one Lawson Cypress (LC) and four Sawara Cypresses (SC1),
(SC2), (SC3), (SC4). Remove lowest branch and prune to balance crown Pending
Decision (Ref 05/51522/TREECA)
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – no objections in principle. Prior written consent from the Agency is
required for any proposed works or structures in, under, or within 8m of the top bank of the main
river Kempnough Brook.
PUBLICITY
This application has been advertised by a site notice posted on 1st November 2005 and a press
notice on 10th November 2005.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Kempnough Hall, Kempnough Hall Road
Spinney End, Lumber Lane
Littlewood, Lumber Lane
246, 247, 248 Kempnough Hall, Kempnough Hall Road
37 Greenleach Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity.
Councillor Compton asked for application to go to Panel due to the nature of the development
and its impact on the Conservation Area.
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: none
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV 2 – Good Design
DEV 8 – House Extensions
EN11 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES8 – Alterations/Extensions
CH5 – Work within Conservation Area.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the siting and size of the proposed
extension, its design and appearance and the impact on the Roe Green/Beesley Green
Conservation Area.
Policy DEV2 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan states that the City Council will not
grant planning permission for alterations or extensions unless it is satisfied with the quality of
design and the appearance of the development. In assessing the extent to which any development
complies with this policy, regard will be had to the scale of the proposed development in
relationship to its surroundings.
Policy DEV8 of the Adopted UDP states that development will not be permitted where it would
have an unacceptable adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene.
Policy EN11 of the Adopted UDP states that the City Council will seek to preserve or enhance
the special character of areas of architectural and historic interest. In considering any planning
application for development within a conservation area the City Council will consider the extent
to which that development is consistent with desirability of preserving or enhancing the
conservation area. In seeking to preserve or enhance conservation areas the City Council will
have regard to the need to encourage high standards of development which are in keeping with
the character of the area.
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
Draft Policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its physical context,
respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated, and contribute towards local
identity and distinctiveness.
Draft Policy DES8 states that planning permission will only be granted for alterations or
extensions to existing buildings that respect the general scale, character, rhythm, proportions,
details and materials of the original structure and complement the general character of the
surrounding area. The design of alterations and extensions must ensure that the resultant building
appears as an attractive and coherent whole. Any modifications resulting in an unacceptable
impact on the appearance of the building, or failing to retain the building’s key features, will not
be permitted.
Draft Policy CH5 states that development in conservation areas will only be permitted where it
would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. In determining
this, regard will be had to a number of factors, including whether the proposal retains or
improves features that contribute to the character or appearance of the conservation area, is of a
high standard of design, consistent with the design policies of the plan, secures environmental
improvements and enhancements and protects and improves important views within, into and out
of the conservation area.
Roe Green/Beesley Green was designated as a conservation area because of its arrangement of
open space and housing giving the area the character of village greens. The Council aims to try
and preserve the character of the housing stock and residential environment within the Roe
Green/Beesley Green Conservation Area.
Section 72 of the Town and Country Planning Act requires that special attention be paid in the
exercise of planning functions to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or
appearance of a conservation area. Special regard should be had for such matters as scale, height,
form, massing, respect for the traditional pattern of frontages, vertical or horizontal emphasis,
and detailed design (eg. the scale and spacing of window openings, and the nature and quality of
materials). General planning standards should be applied sensitively in the interests of
harmonising the new development with its neighbours in the conservation area. Whilst the
character and appearance of conservation areas should always be given full weight in planning
decisions, the objective of preservation can be achieved either by development which makes a
positive contribution to an area's character or appearance, or by development which leaves
character and appearance unharmed.
In considering the proposed development and following a meeting with the applicant, the
Council’s Conservation Officer has stated“It was clear from the meeting with Mr Wallwork and his architect that he would not consider
reducing the size of the proposed extensions at all. However, I can confirm that he does agree to
altering the design of the proposed extensions, as requested, in the following way.
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
Increasing the pitch of the roofs to 45 to be more in keeping with the pitch of the existing
roof of 60.
Changing the shape of the proposed dormer windows to mono pitched roof instead of
gabled dormers, again to reflect the design of the existing dormers.
Including a replica of the gabled dormer on the proposed east elevation overlooking the
adjacent walkway footpath.
Re-positioning of the garage, due to the presence of a protected tree, so that the double
door would face east with the gable wall still facing north.
Notwithstanding my suggestions that would reduce the size of the proposed extension by a
nominal 1m on the north and 1m on the south elevations, together with the change in shape of
the proposed conservatory to a more traditionally shaped Victorian conservatory, the applicant
steadfastly refused.
In mitigation the applicant explained that, following the submission of his application, he had
purchased an adjacent plot of land, on the opposite side of the Brook running through his rear
garden. This had effectively doubled the size of the plot of land in which his house and garage
are located. However, I am not sure that this is a material consideration in processing the
application for extensions.
Further to my above-mentioned comments, in view of the agreed amendments, I feel that the
character of the existing property would be preserved, that the proposed extensions lie on the
lesser elevations, although the east elevation overlooks the walkway, and that they would not
detract from the overall character of the Roe Green/Beesley green Conservation area.”
Although the Conservation Officer has no objections to the proposal I have taken a different
view in terms of the development’s impact on the Conservation Area. I do not believe that the
increase in size of the plot is a material consideration and does not in any way diminish the
impact of the development on the Conservation Area. As mentioned above some changes have
been made to the detailed design of the scheme. However, even though discussed at the said
meeting, the applicant has not altered the size of the proposed extensions which is the major
concern on the overall impact of the development on the street scene within the conservation
area.
The extension would project 6.6m from the rear of the property and a maximum of 10.4m to the
south side of the property, and project 8.2m to the front of the property. There are no properties
directly facing the front, rear and side of the property facing onto Greenleach Lane. There would
be a distance of 27m from the single storey sunroom and Kempnough Hall across Kempnough
Brook with adequate screening from trees. I am therefore of the opinion that the development
would cause no loss of privacy or overlooking. I am therefore satisfied that it accords with
Adopted Policy DEV8 and Draft Policy DES7.
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
The proposed development would be almost three times the size of the original dwelling,
measuring approximately 256m2 from a starting floor space of 88.8m2. As a result of discussions
between officers and the applicant, certain design features have been maintained in the proposed
development as discussed above. However, due to its size and siting, the extension does not
respect or pay sufficient regard to the general scale, proportions, form, rhythm and massing of
the original structure. It is a corner property that is prominent within the street scene and the
conservation area. The development would be disproportionate to the size of the original
dwelling, resulting in an unsympathetic building that would not respect or reflect the character of
the property or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. I am therefore of
the opinion that the proposed development would not make a positive contribution to
Conservation Area’s character or appearance. This is contrary to Policies DEV2, DEV8 and
EN11 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and Draft Policies DES1, DES 8 and CH5.
CONCLUSION
The proposed development is considered to be in a prominent position within the Roe
Green/Beesley Green conservation area and due to its size and siting would be too overbearing
and dominant on the street scene and within the Conservation Area contrary to Adopted policy
DEV2, DEV8 and EN11 and Draft policy DES1, DES8 and CH5
I therefore recommend that the application be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would by reason of its size, siting, massing and design result in
unsympathetic and disproportionate additions to the existing dwelling which in turn would
not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Roe Green/Beesley Green
Conservation Area, The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy HH8 of the
Householder Supplementary Planning Guidance, Policies DEV2, DEV8 and EN11 of the
Adopted Unitary Development Plan and Draft Policies DES1, DES8 and CH5
APPLICATION No:
05/51657/CON
APPLICANT:
T Wallwork
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
LOCATION:
39 Greenleach Lane Worsley M28 2RX
PROPOSAL:
Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of existing garage
and removal of roof of house and erection of two storey side
extension, two storey rear extension and detached double garage
WARD:
Worsley
At a meeting of the Panel held on 16th February 2006 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a detached property on Greenleach Lane in Worsley. The site is
situated in a predominantly residential area and is located within the Roe Green/Beesley Green
Conservation Area. The gable wall of the property faces onto Greenleach Lane The property has
a steep pitched roof which is a unique feature. Due to the steep pitch, the small dormers in the
front roof space and at the large dormer to the rear of the property are again unique features
characteristic of the period in which the property was built. It is a small dwelling, set in its own
grounds. The qualities highlighted are not seen on any other buildings in the area. As a result of
the above, even though it is not a listed building, it has a special and unique character in this area
and makes a significant contribution to the Conservation Area.
The application is for conservation area consent for the demolition of existing garage and
removal of roof to the dwelling.
The applicant has also submitted an application for a two-storey rear extension, part two-storey,
part single storey side extensions and a raised decking area (Ref: 05/51566/HH) which appears
elsewhere on the agenda.
SITE HISTORY
Erection of two storey side extension, two storey rear extension, single storey rear
extension and raised decking area (Ref 05/51566/HH)
Crown raise to 5m over the public highway and 2.5m over the path and re shape crown
by 2m by branch tip reduction avoiding inter nodal cuts one cherry (Ref 05/51521/TPO)
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
Fell one magnolia (T1), one Lawson Cypress (LC) and four Sawara Cypresses (SC1),
(SC2), (SC3), (SC4). Remove lowest branch and prune to balance crown (Ref
05/51522/TREECA)
CONSULTATIONS
Worsley Civic Trust and Amenity Society – no objections
Worsley Village Community Association – no comments
PUBLICITY
This application has been advertised by a site notice posted on 11th November 2005and press
notice on 17th November 2005.
The following neighbours addresses were notified:
Kempnough Hall, Kempnough Hall Road
Spinney End, Lumber Lane
Littlewood, Lumber Lane
246, 247, 248 Kempnough Hall, Kempnough Hall Road
37 Greenleach Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity.
Councillor Compton asked for application to go to Panel due to the nature of the development
and its impact on the Conservation Area.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site Specific policies: none
Other policies: none
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: EN11 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
EN13 – Works to Listed Buildings within Conservation Areas
DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
Site specific policies: CH5 – Works within Conservation Area (15, Roe Green/Beesley
Green Conservation Area)
Other policies: CH6 – Demolition of Buildings within Conservation Areas.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EN11 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan states that when assessing an application
for development within a conservation area, the extent to which the proposal is consistent with
the desirability of preserving or enhancing the conservation area will be considered. In doing so,
the Council will have regard to a number of issues, including encouraging the retention and
improvement of existing buildings and promoting environmental improvement and enhancement
programmes.
Policy EN13 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan sets out the criteria to which the Council
will have regard in considering proposals for the demolition of unlisted buildings within
conservation areas. These include the importance of the building, the condition of the building
and the importance of any alternative uses for the site.
Draft Policy CH5 states that development within conservation areas will only be permitted where
it preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the area. In determining this, regard will
be had to a number of factors, including the extent to which the proposal retains or improves
which contribute to the character or appearance of the area and secures environmental
improvements.
Draft Policy CH6 states that demolition within a conservation area will only be permitted where
the structure to be demolished makes no positive contribution to the character or appearance of
the area, where it can be demonstrated that there is no viable use of the structure, and the cost of
repairing and maintaining it is prohibitive or where the proposals would make a vital
contribution to the regeneration of the local area or would secure the redevelopment of a larger,
neglected site.
In reaching my recommendation on this application, I have undertaken an assessment in line
with the guidance contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the historic
Environment relating to the demolition of a non listed building within a Conservation Area. My
conclusions are set out below.
Roe Green/Beesley Green was designated as a conservation area because of its arrangement of
open space and housing giving the area the character of village greens. The Council aims to try
and preserve the character of the housing stock and residential environment within the Roe
Green/Beesley Green Conservation Area.
Local Planning Authorities are required by PPG15 to pay special attention to the desirability of
preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area in question; and, as
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
with listed building controls, this should be the prime consideration in determining a consent
application. In the case of conservation area controls account should clearly be taken of the part
played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is
proposed, and in particular of the wider effects of demolition on the building’s surroundings and
on the conservation area as a whole. It is also stated that consent for demolition should not be
given unless there are acceptable and detailed plans for any redevelopment
I consider that the proposal to demolish the garage and remove the roof of 39 Greenleach Lane
would not preserve or enhance the character of the building and the Conservation Area. The
steep pitched roof is a key architectural feature unique to the property, the garage again reflects
the unique features, characteristic of the period in which it was built. The removal of the roof and
garage would be of great detriment to the building and the Conservation Area. Both the roof and
the garage are still in viable use and in a good state of repair. In this instance the redevelopment
proposal submitted in conjunction with this application for conservation area consent has been
recommended for refusal due to its unacceptable size and siting and its negative impact on the
conservation area. The application would therefore be contrary to PPG15, Adopted Policies
EN11 and EN13 and Draft Policies CH5 and CH6.
CONCLUSION
I consider the garage and the roof of 39 Greenleach Lane to make a significant contribution to
the character of the building and appearance of the Conservation Area. They have architectural
and historic value and are in a good state of repair. I consider that their demolition would have a
negative impact on the appearance of the Conservation Area and given that there are no
alternative appropriate schemes for redevelopment, I therefore recommend that the application
be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development does not preserve or enhance the character of the building and
the Conservation Area and would seriously injure the visual amenity of the building and the
street scene within the Conservation Area and there is no appropriate redevelopment scheme
for the site. The proposed conservation area consent would therefore be contrary to Adopted
policies EN11, EN13 and Draft policies CH5 and CH6.
APPLICATION No:
05/51950/FUL
APPLICANT:
Hochtief PPP Solutions Ltd
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
LOCATION:
Buile Hill High School Eccles Old Road Salford M6 8RD
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a replacement two storey high school
WARD:
Claremont
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The Buile Hill High School site is located to the east of Chaseley Road, to the south of Dronfield
Road and Pendleton College, and to the west of Manor Road. The school site also has a large
frontage to Eccles Old Road. There are existing vehicular entrances and exits from Chaseley
Road and Manor Road although the Chaseley entrance is the principle vehicular access. The
school buildings are to the southern part of the site with the playing fields covering the northern
part of the site. Pendleton College also forms part of a larger educational campus and the two
establishments share sports pitches. Pendleton College fronts onto Dronfield Road however the
college does not form part of the application. The site has some mature trees along the
boundaries.
The site the subject of this application is bounded by Pendleton College to the north, Chaseley
Road to the east, Eccles Old Road to the south and Manor Road to the west. The site is currently
occupied by the existing single and two storey Buile Hill High school, which is sited roughly in
the centre of the site parallel to Eccles New Road. The schools playing fields are to the north of
the school building and are shared with Pendleton College. There are existing temporary
classrooms located between the school buildings and Eccles New Road. The site boundaries
contain some mature trees. Members will recall that outline permission has previously been
granted for a replacement high school.
Planning permission is sought for the construction of a two storey replacement high school, with
associated playing fields car parking, boundary treatments, and landscaping. The applicant
intends to demolish the existing school once the new school is open and ready for use. Vehicle
access is proposed from Chaseley Road. Pupil/pedestrian access is planned from Manor Road
and Chaseley Road. The applicant has submitted a supporting design statement, tree report and
survey and transport statement. The applicant has amended the scheme to include the provision
of one all weather pitch amongst the four pitches proposed at the site.
SITE HISTORY
In 2003, outline planning permission was granted for a replacement high school
(03/46706/DEEM3)
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
In 2000, planning permission was approved for the siting of two portable buildings
(00/40817/DEEM3)
In 2001, planning permission was approved for the siting of seven portable classroom units
(01/42417/DEEM3)
In 2002, planning permission was granted for the siting of two portable classroom units
(02/44467/DEEM3)
CONSULTATIONS
GMP Architectural Liaison Unit – Recommends and advise on the use of robust boundary
treatment, laminated glazing at ground floor level, use of shutters to ground floor windows,
lighting, landscaping and bins store. Overall the development should be built to Secured by
Design Standards.
Director of Environmental Services – Recommends conditions and advice on site
investigation/ground conditions, lighting, fume extraction, noise from construction and
demoliotion phases.
Environment Agency – No objections
Sport England – Objection to loss of playing fields. Would withdraw objection if all weather
pitch was included as compensation for loss of playing pitch.
PUBLICITY
Site notices were displayed on 13th January 2006.
A press notice was published on 12th January 2006.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
48 – 64 even Dronfield Road
2, 22 – 26 even & 31 – 35 odd Caldy Road
31 – 35 odd & 54 & 56 Lullington Road
51, 53, 54 Trenant Road
1 Carlton Road and flats 1 – 3, 1 Carlton Road
3 Carlton Road and flats 1 – 4, 3 Carlton Road
5 Carlton Road
7 Carlton Road and flats 1 – 8, 7 Carlton Road
9 & 11 Carlton Road
13 Carlton Road and flats 1 – 8, 13 Carlton Road
15 Carlton Road and flats 1 – 4, 15 Carlton Road
17 Carlton Road
19 Carlton Road and flats 1 – 3, 19 Carlton Road
21 Carlton Road and flats 1 – 7, 21 Carlton Road
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
23 & 25 Carlton Road
14 Barrfield Road
Flats 1 – 3, 25 Barrfield Road
27 Barrfield Road and flats 1 – 6, 27 Barrfield Road
29 & 31 Barrfield Road
33 Barrfield Road and flats 1- 3, 33 Barrfield Road
Flats 1 – 3 35 Barrfield Road
37 Barrfield Road and flats 1 – 3 Barrfield Road
39 & 41 Barrfield Road
43 Barrfield Road and flats 1 – 3, 43 Barrfield Road
45 Barrfield Road and flats 1 – 5, 45 Barrfield Road
47 – 57 odd Barrfield Road
Flats 1 – 3 59 Barrfield Road
61 Barrfield Road and flats 1 – 3, 61 Barrfield Road
1 – 9 odd Keystone Close
Flats 29 – 46 Garbo Court, Monroe Close
18 – 24 Chaseley Road
1 – 44 Longmead Road
1 – 27 odd Manor Road
1 – 10 Westfield
1 & 2 – 10 even Keaton Close
1 & 3 Chaplin Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity.
The following comments have been raised:
Groups of children congregate and sometimes results in anti-social behaviour and
boundary fencing should be installed.
Find loss of trees acceptable bit would like replacement trees and bushes granting
as soon as possible.
Drop off area for children should be improved.
Concern over the dangerous access/servicing route on a 90 degree bend on
Chaseley Road.
I have also received a letter from Pendleton College advising of the shared ownership of playing
fields at the site.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
UR1 Urban Renaissance
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
UR2 Inclusive Social Structure
ER13 Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
SC4 Improvement/Replacement of Schools
R1 Protection of Recreation Land and Facilities
DEV1 Development Criteria
DRAFT REPLACEMENT UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
EHC1 Provision and Improvement of Education, Heath and Community
Facilities
DES1 Respecting Context
DES2 Circulation and Movement
A1 Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
DEV5 Planning Conditions and Obligations
R1 Protection of Recreation Land and facilities
A10 Provision of car, cycle and motorcycle parking in new development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy SC4 explains the Council will endeavour to provide improved and replacement school
facilities subject to availability of adequate resources. The policy seeks to ensure that the
condition of school buildings and infrastructure is compatible with current requirements. In cases
where existing recreation land is proposed to be developed Policy R1 explains planning
permission would not normally be granted unless an equivalent replacement site is provided.
Policy ECH1 also promotes the improvement of schools as long as sports provision is maintained
on site and residential amenity and environmental quality is not harmed as a result. This policy
also requires that access be available from a wide range of transport modes.
DEV1 lists a number of criteria that any development must have regard to. Included are the size
and density of buildings, neighbouring amenity, access arrangements, parking and landscaping.
DES1 explains the Council will seek to ensure development respects the character of the local
area with respect to buildings, landscaping and to have a general high standard of design. Policy
A1 requires that a travel plan be submitted where appropriate to ensure access by other means
than the private car whilst Policy DEV5 allows this to be controlled through the imposition of
conditions. Policy DES2 requires design and layout of development is such that conflicts
between users of the highway are minimised.
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
Principle of Development and Sport England
I consider the principle of a new school to be in accordance with policies SC4 and ECH1. The
principle has also been approved under the outline consent. The provision of sports pitches at the
site needs to accord with policies R1 and ECH1. These policies require that sports provision
should be within the existing site. Sport England have commented that the proposed loss of a
sports pitch is not acceptable unless an all weather pitch is included within the scheme as such a
pitch would provide increased usage throughout the year. As this amendment has now been
provided I consider the proposal is in accordance with policies R1 and ECH1. I recommend a
condition be attached to require a scheme to be submitted detailing temporary sports provision
Siting and Design
Policies within both UDPs, DEV1, DES7 and ECH1 seek to maintain residential amenity and
ensure a high standard of design. The school has been designed and sited adjacent to Chaseley
Road so as to cause minimal impact upon the openness of the site. The nearest residential units to
the site are the flats at Chaseley Field which are 45 metres away from the school. I consider this
distance complies with the Council’s standard separation distances and I also consider the
proposal would not result in a loss of residential amenity by way of loss of privacy, sunlight and
daylight.
The two storey building has an E-shape plan layout. The elevations are composed of a mixture of
brick, metal cladding and blue-grey render with a metal gentle sloping roof. I consider the
general ethos of the design to be acceptable. However I would recommend a condition is
attached to seek further detailed design of the elevations to include details of window and door
reveals, and detail on how the roof joins the walls of the building.
I have received objection to the scheme on the basis of youths congregating around the perimeter
of the site. The Architectural Liaison Officer has recommended 2.4m high railings around the
perimeter of the site, the lamination of glass and internal shutters to the ground floor windows,
along with a lighting scheme. The submitted scheme includes 2.4m high railings around the
perimeter of the site and whilst I am satisfied that the proposed siting and height of the railings
would resolve the objection I am not satisfied with the proposed triple prong industrial style
fencing. I recommend a condition be attached to require detail of railings, lighting scheme and
the schemes compliance with secure by design principles be submitted for approval. Subject to
such conditions I consider the scheme complies with the Councils design based policies.
Resource Conservation
The applicant has stated the proposed building has been designed to minimise the impact upon
the environment including use of materials that have low embodied energy and are from
renewable resources and a design that achieves optimum energy efficiency which results in
minimum carbon dioxide emissions. The applicant states this approach is being continually revisited. No specific measures have been identified, as such I recommend a condition relating to
sustainable construction, energy efficiency and resource conservation be attached.
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
Access and Highways
Concern has been raised by one local resident over matters of traffic safety at the staff and
service vehicle access/egress at the 90 degree junction on Chaseley Road. There are 20 parking
spaces proposed to be sited along the service vehicle route. I consider that visibility along both
the east/west and north/south parts of Chaseley Road are acceptable. I am also satisfied with the
main vehicle entrance which is sited at the same location as the existing vehicular entrance.
There are 12 parking spaces proposed including 6 disabled spaces within the main parking area.
The existing City Learning Centre will stay in its existing position with access remaining from
the existing access from Manor Road. The CLC would include parking for 20 cars. At present
at the site there are 137 car parking spaces and I consider across the whole site the increase to
142 spaces is appropriate with regard to current parking standards. Pedestrian and pupil access
will be from points on Manor and from a dedicated pedestrian access from Chaseley Road. I am
satisfied that segregated pupil access to the school would be provided in accordance with policies
DEV1 and DES1. In addition my recommendation is subject to the applicant providing and
implementing a travel plan for staff and students.
Trees and Landscaping
The submitted tree survey and arboricultural statement advises that 14 trees would be lost to
accommodate the site access and replacement sports pitches. Five trees would be lost along the
Chaseley Road boundary. However the vast majority of trees would be retained and I do not
consider the amenity value of the tree belt would be unduly affected. Replacement trees would
be planted throughout the site, however I consider a landscaping condition requiring a detailed
landscaping scheme should be attached. I consider this is acceptable with regard to policies EN7
and EN10.
Value Added
During the processing of the application I have liaised with the developer to ensure that a
sufficient standard of replacement play pitches are provided.
Conclusion
I consider the application to be in accordance with policies in the UDPs to improve educational
facilities. I also consider the proposed siting and access of the development satisfactorily
addresses issues of residential amenity, traffic safety, trees, landscaping and sports provision. I
recommend approval subject to the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
and roofs of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaken using the approved materials,
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3. Within one month of the first occupation of the school hereby approved the applicant shall
submit a travel plan for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The travel plan shall
include details on safer routes to school measures for students and parents and shall also
include measures for sustainable travel to and from work for members of staff. The plan shall
also set out a timetable which shall specify when the approved measures shall be
implemented by. Once approved the measures shall be implemented in accordance with the
approved plan unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
4. Within one month of the first occupation of the school hereby approved the applicant shall
submit a travel plan for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The travel plan shall
include details on safer routes to school measures for students and parents and shall also
include measures for sustainable travel to and from work for members of staff. The plan shall
also set out a timetable which shall specify when the approved measures shall be
implemented by. Once approved the measures shall be implemented in accordance with the
approved plan unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
4. The existing school shall be demolished within three months of the occupation of the
replacement school.
5. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
6. Standard Condition C01X Landscaping
7. No development shall commence unless and until a scheme has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, of interim arrangements for sports
provision whilst the replacement school is constructed. Once approved such interim scheme
shall be implemented prior to the commencement of development. Interim arrangements for
sports provision shall be maintained during the construction works and shall only cease when
the permanent sports provision for the replacement school has been implemented, including
the artificial pitch, in accordance with the approved layout plan.
8. No development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme(s) detailing sustainable
construction techniques and enerby efficiency have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be built and maintained in
accordance with the approved scheme.
9. Notwithstanding the details shown on the submitted drawings no development shall
commence until a scheme to include the detailed design of the elevations has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved the development
shall be built in strict accordance with the approved scheme.
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
10. Notwithstanding the details shown on th approved plans no development shall commence on
site until a scheme to include the detailed design of the railings has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved the development shall
be built in strict accordance with the approved scheme.
11. No development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing measures to
comply with secure by design principles, has been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. Once approved the development shall be implemented in
accordance with the approved scheme and shall thereafter be retained.
12. No development shall be commenced unless and until a site investigation report (the Report)
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and
ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to
receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing
primarily on risks to human health and controlled waters. The investigation shall also
address the implications of ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers on
nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider
environmental receptors including ecological systems and property. The investigation shall
where appropriate include a risk assessment and an options appraisal including the remedial
strategy.
The proposed risk assessment, including the sampling and analytical strategy shall be
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of the site investigation
survey.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Report including its
risk assessment, options appraisal and recommendations for implementation of the remedial
strategy.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a site Completion Report shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall
validate that all works were completed in accordance with those agreed by the Local
Planning Authority.
13. Any floodlighting or security lights within the curtilage of the proposed development shall be
positioned and operated in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to the Local Planning
Authority. The lights shall not be brought into use unless and until the Local Planning
Authority has approved the scheme in writing.
14. Details of the fume extraction system serving the cooking or/and food preparation areas shall
be designed such that there will be no odour or noise nuisance to local premises and shall be
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the development taking place.
The approved system shall be installed and shall be used at all times when the premises are
used for cooking or preparing foods. The system shall be maintained and serviced in
accordance with the manufacturers recommendations.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. To promote sustainable travel in accordance with policies DEV1 of the City of Salford UDP
and policy A1 of the Revised Deposit Draft UDP.
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
7. In order to ensure sufficient sports provision in accordance with policy R1 of the Adopted
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
8. To ensure the development accords with policies EN17 and EN217A of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan, Draft Replacement Plan 2004-16.
9. To exercise an additional measure of control to safeguard the design quality of the building
and amenity of the area in accordance with policies DEV 1 and DEV2 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan and DES1 of the Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development
Plan.
10. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
11. To ensure the development complies with the principles of secure by deisgn in accordance
with policies DEV4 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
12. In the interests of public safety and in accordance with Policy DEV1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
13. To protect the amenity of occupants of nearby premises in accordance with Policy DEV1 of
the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
14. To protect the amenities of occupiers of nearby premises in accordance with Policy N20 of
the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and EN14 of the City of Salford UDP,
Draft Replacement Plan 2004-16.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. 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.
2. Construction works shall not be permitted outside the following hours:
Monday to Friday 08:00 to 18:00
Saturdays
08:00 to 13:00
Construction works shall not be permitted on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays
Access and egress for delivery vehicles shall be restricted to the working hours indicated
above.
3. The contractor who demolishes the building shall contact Salford City Council's Building
Control Unit to discuss demolition prior to work commencing.
APPLICATION No:
05/51956/FUL
APPLICANT:
Mast Lift Co Ltd
LOCATION:
Land At Lime Close, East Of Hankinson Way Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Erection of primary and community care facility, library,
council offices and ancillary accommodation together with
layout of car park and boundary treatment
WARD:
Langworthy
Additional Observations
This application was deferred at the meeting of the Planning and Transportation Regulatory
Panel on 2nd March 2006 to allow a further response to be made to the matters raised by the
Salford Precinct Area Forum already summarised in my previous report and Members concerns
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
over the design, appearance and layout of the new building. The applicant and his architectural
advisors will be present at the Panel. My original observations are supplemented by the
following paragraphs:
Pre-Application Consultations
LIFTCo, the city council and PCT have developed the current proposals in close consultation
with local residents, including two public exhibitions of the emerging proposals and three direct
meetings with the Precinct Forum.
The first meeting with the Forum was held in November 2003. The proposals have been
significantly changed to address residents’ objections to the original sketch scheme: the access
to the proposed car park has been moved, new car parking for the use of neighbouring residents
and pedestrian routes through the housing area have been improved. All issues raised have been
addressed as far as is practical.
The near final proposals were exhibited at a drop-in session in Broadwalk Library, attended by
around 60 people, in July 2004. The revised proposals were generally supported.
There have been no changes to the site boundary since this exhibition.
Loss of parking to housing blocks
The site of the proposed building was last occupied by Lime Court, which contained 61 flats, and
included 33 parking spaces, plus a number of garages. It is proposed to provide 24 new car
parking spaces for residents of Hornbeam, Beech and other neighbouring residential blocks.
Given the reduction in residential population with the demolition of Lime Court, this level of
replacement parking provision is considered reasonable.
It is not anticipated that parking spaces will be specifically reserved for residents of particular
blocks, although this will be a management issue for New Prospect Housing Ltd, rather than for
the applicant.
The layout of the replacement car park provides a pedestrian route of adequate width within the
residential area and adequate provision for access by emergency services. It is anticipated that
the proposed parking spaces will adequately cater for delivery vehicles and ambulances; this
again will be a management issue for New Prospect Housing Ltd, rather than for the applicant.
Impact on existing footways through the site
A dedicated, continuous pedestrian route is to be created around the proposed replacement car
park, improving on the original layout. All the paths significantly exceed minimum footpath
guidelines (1.8 metres) and are considered adequate for pedestrians with prams and those with
disabilities.
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
The proposed route incorporates an existing path along the side of Beech Court: this is to be
widened from 1.8 metres to 2.0 metres and proposed adjustments to site levels will allow
removal of an existing low wall that makes the existing path seem narrower.
The footpath linking Beech Court with Broadwalk is 3 metres wide and is gated for use by local
residents only. The site layout has already been revised to minimise the length and maximise the
width of this footpath.
Objectors stated they are surrounded by car parks so visual issue of car parking and fumes
from cars
The proposed development includes 57 car parking spaces within the site for staff, plus the 24
replacement spaces for residents. The provision of new trees along the Lime Close site boundary
will further aid fume removal and also reduce any possible negative visual effect caused by the
car park, and will enhance the area generally.
A draft ‘green travel plan’, encouraging staff, patients and visitors to consider alternate travel
arrangements other than motor vehicles, was submitted with the planning application. The site is
close to local housing and bus routes are within 100 metres, both of which will reduce the need
for centre visitors to travel by car.
Construction
If planning permission is granted, there remains a great deal of work to finalise legal and
financial details and the construction timetable. The contractor is currently looking at an 18-20
month construction period commencing autumn 2006.
Construction access will be via Lime Close, through the residential compound, until the new
access across Broadwalk is constructed. The contractor will be required to maintain the existing
compound security, working in partnership with New Prospect Housing Ltd, and to make good
any damage. Following completion of the building, Lime Close will not be used, except in
emergencies.
By trying to control construction traffic, it is hoped that any impact on existing tenant security
arrangements will be minimised and, it is hoped, eliminated.
Construction partner Laing O’Rourke are a national company with a proven record of working in
partnership with Salford communities to minimise the effects of construction. They are the
construction company responsible for Salford’s two current LIFT developments in Lower Kersal
and Charlestown, where they have been awarded ‘Considerate Constructors’ status.
Design of the Building
The LIFT design approach is based on the contemporary urban design language championed by
CABE, and is based on the principle that good design influences the quality of people’s lives.
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
The design should make a positive contribution to the people who use the buildings, to the local
environment and through this to the communities in which we live and work.
The city council and PCT asked LIFTCo to provide a landmark building that would enhance the
area and are satisfied that the proposed design meets these objectives and will be an attractive
feature in the area.
The building’s scale seeks to relate well to surrounding buildings and emerging plans to improve
the character and appearance of the area .Externally the three storey building is a mix of glass
,brick and render and is of a similar height to the nearby St Paul’s Church.
The building will, wherever possible, be transparent, primarily at ground level, highlighting the
public areas and key circulation space. This will allow visual connection and help establish a
relationship between inside and out. The approach specifically aims to foster high levels of
animation, safety and security along Broadwalk.
Special attention has been given to the public entrance, which is intended to be prominent from
Shopping City. The curved brickwork walls acts as a foil to the 3 storey glazed entrance screen.
This reinforces the building’s landmark function and aids internal and external navigation for its
users. The glazed main entrance, with a public square in front is a distinctive feature designed to
create a landmark and attract visitors to the building.
Internally, the upper two floors would house clinical treatment rooms with children’s health
services occupying certain areas. Privacy and security is a requirement in these areas, hence the
need for fenestration to be limited in these areas.
Most neighbouring buildings are of flat roof construction. The proposed roof deck is stucco
finished, aluminium standing seam, behind parapet walls. It is considered to be an attractive
contemporary design solution that is in harmony with the neighbouring roofscape.
Summary
The development of this building is an urgent priority for the city council and PCT, and it will
provide replacement accommodation for Pendlebury children’s hospital and meet some of the
objectives of the SHIFT programme.
The Lime Court site was selected after a careful review of potential alternatives. There are no
alternative sites within or adjacent to Shopping City that could be brought forward quickly
enough to meet the timetables for the children’s hospital and LIFT.
The scheme has been designed to address issues raised in pre-application consultations, as far as
is practical. The current proposal is considered to meet the reasonable concerns of neighbouring
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
residents. There appears to be no scope to provide any further mitigation without compromising
the effectiveness of the scheme.
Original Report
BACKGROUND
In July 2000 the government published the NHS plan, a ten year plan for the modernising and
reforming the NHS. It identified the urgent need to improve primary care premises in England
as a key constraint to the development of the services. The plan states that the priority for
investment will be those parts of the country where primary care facilities are most in need of
improvement.
The government has provided the NHS a vehicle for improving and developing primary and
community care facilities – NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT). The local LIFT is a
joint venture between the Department of Health, the local healthcare community and the private
sector; to develop and encourage a significant increase in investment in primary care and
community based facilities.
There are 6 primary care trusts (PCT) in the area including Salford, which is co-terminus with
the City Council. Each of the PCT areas have growing communities which will need more and
better health and social care facilities for the foreseeable future.
The initial focus of the NHS LIFT will be on investment in those parts of the country, such as
inner cities, where primary care services are in most need of expansion. The Manchester,
Salford and Trafford area has been identified as the first wave LIFT and this application is
submitted in this respect.
In Salford, the opportunity has been taken to use LIFT to redesign and deliver a wider range of
services, including both PCT and council services. New buildings will offer traditional health
services with other functions that attract the widest range of visitors into each facility. For
example, the four largest centres will include public libraries, community meeting rooms and
one-stop shops, where visitors can access information on services provided by all partners.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site, to the east of Hankinson Way and Pendleton Precinct, is divided in two by
the Broadwalk which is a pedestrian avenue with tree planting along its route.
The larger part of the application site, to the north of the Broardwalk, is the site of the former
Lime Close flats, which have recently been demolished and a car parking area used by residents
of the former Lime Court and neighbouring buildings. This part of the application site is bounded
by Lombardy and Salix Courts to the east, Hornbeam and Beech Courts (both accessed from
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
Lime Close) to the north and a surface car park for residents of Briar Hill Court to the west. The
surface car park to the west is accessed from Hankinson Way, beyond Hankinson Way lies
Pendleton Precinct.
The smaller part of the application site, to the south of the Broardwalk, is currently occupied by
the vacant, single storey, former police station between the Library and Mulberry Court, with the
Hankinson Way pay-and-display car park and Holm Court to the south. The police station would
be demolished.
Planning permission is sought for the erection of a three storey building on the northern, larger
part of the site. The three storey building would house a new library and community rooms
(relocated from the existing library building on the other side of the Broadwalk), one-stop shop,
café, pharmacy, and child services units at ground floor level. At first floor level there would be
General Practice Doctors surgeries, general clinical rooms, paediatrics functions whilst second
floor level would provide accommodation for dentist surgeries, audiology suites, paediatric
suites and child services functions.
The building has a rectangular shaped footprint. The library would occupy the southern part of
the ground floor and would have full height windows allowing views onto the Broadwalk and
views from the Broadwalk into the library. Children’s services are also proposed on the ground
floor and a courtyard play area is proposed at the eastern end of the site. The courtyard play area
is to be enclosed by a 2.4m high wall screening it from the Broadwalk.
The pedestrian entrance to the building is on the western side facing toward Hankinson Way.
The entrance has a triple height glazed entrance area and is designed to be a prominent feature
seen from Pendleton Precinct. Elevations are constructed from rendered blockwork with
rectangular shaped windows regularly spaced along the first and second floors. A public Square
is to be developed off the Broadwalk in front of the main entrance. Within this Square nine trees
would be planted and five benches would be sited.
Most visitors arriving at the centre by car are expected to use the existing Hankinson Way payand display car park. Dedicated parking for disabled drivers and drop-off facilities will be laid
out on the former police station site.
A secure car park for staff use, would be provided to the north of the building enclosed by 2.4m
high railings. Vehicular access to this car park would be via a roadway constructed across the
pedestrianised Broadwalk, from Loganberry Avenue, which is itself accessed from Hankinson
Way. The new roadway has been designed, in conjunction with Urban Vision engineers, so as to
indicate to drivers that they are entering a pedestrian priority area and to prevent vehicles from
accessing the rest of the pedestrianised area. Vehicular gates from this staff car park onto Lime
Close are proposed to be restricted to emergency access only.
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
In addition, new car parking for residents of Hornbeam and Beech Courts, and other
neighbouring residential blocks, is to be provided to the north of the new building and staff car
park. These 24 spaces would have vehicular access via Lime Close. The proposed perimeter
fence would separate the staff and resident’s car parks.
A total of 16 trees are to be removed to enable the development whilst 33 trees are proposed to
be planted.
The application has been submitted with a planning and design statement, tree report, access
parking and traffic generation are also covered within the statement. The statement broadly
explains that the scheme complies with health and community policies of the UDP, that the
design has been carefully crafted to ensure the building complements the surrounding area and
meets the needs of future users of the facility. The statement explains peak activity for visitors to
the services provided is mid morning and mid afternoon, which are outside of the normal peak
times. The statement also explains that visitors to the service will all come from local areas
thereby reducing travel to facilities at Hope Hospital throughout the day. The statement further
explains the proposal would not result in an increase in trip generation rather a movement in trips
from Hope Hospital to the site and the application site is more accessible by bus.
HISTORY
In 2003, outline planning permission was granted for a LIFT centre comprising library and
health facilities (03/45507/OUT) on a site to the East of Hankinson Way and North of Churchill
Way. This site is also allocated for such use by policy EHC6/2 of the draft replacement UDP.
Detailed feasibility studies subsequently development of this site to be impractical and the
current proposal is being promoted instead.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Provides advice that a ground condition and fixed plant
noise condition should be attached, otherwise no objections.
Architectural Liaison Officer – No objections subject to a condition requiring the development is
built to secure by design standards.
Arboricultural Officer – considers the five trees contribute to the amenity of the area and advises
that they are worthy of retention.
Director of Education and Leisure – No comments received
Environment Agency – No objections
Salford Precinct Area Forum – Concerned at lack of recent pre-application consultation by the
applicant with the forum and apparent changes to the site boundary since the previous
consultation. Limited parking spaces provided for residents of Salix and Lombardy Courts with
the plans showing 14 spaces for 60 properties. Parking is tight to Beech, Salix and Lombardy
Courts with no consideration to deliveries and ambulances. No footpath around the parking on
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
Beech Court. Existing access path to the side of Beech Court is not wide enough for people with
disabilities. Also pose the following questions/statements:
Has a traffic impact assessment been conducted?
Has a health impact assessment been conducted (air quality, noise, disturbance
etc). Especially as this site is adjacent to sheltered accommodation and the
majority of residents in the area are elderly.
What impact will the fumes from the car park have on residents using the
gardens, which is the only local outside space?
How does this scheme fit in with the master planning process for the area?
Why have PCT not been part of the master planning process?
Concerns regarding the security system that operates in this area being
compromised.
PUBLICITY
Site notices were displayed on 23 January 2006
Press Notices were published on 12th January 2006
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1 to 98 Beech Court
1 to 114 Hornbeam Court
1 to 69 Salix Court
1 to 26 Lombardy Court
St Paul’s Church
1 to 166 Mulberry Court
1 to 99 Holm Court
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two responses to the application publicity, one objection and one letter of
support.
The objector raises the following issues:
Object to car park and boundary treatment
Lots of pensioners in the area have to take care when going to the Precinct
Level of noise created
The development is too near Beech Court and Hornbeam Court.
The letter of support raises the following comment :
“It does seem that this proposed project will be an enormous benefit to my local
community particularly those of us with disabilities or those who are over retirement age
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
by providing greater access to healthcare and community services so it should be
encouraged”.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP3 Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: S6 Maintenance and Improvement of Town Centres
Other policies: SC9 Health Care Facilities, SC1 Provision of Social and Community Facilities,
SC2 Provision of Social and Community Facilities by Private and Voluntary Agencies, DEV1
Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, EN7 Conservation of
Trees and Woodland, T13 Car Parking.
REVISIED DEPOSIT REPLACMENT UDP
Site Specific policies: S2/1 Retail and Leisure Development Within Town and Neighbourhood
Centres
Other Policies: ST9 Retail, Leisure, Social and Community Provision, EHC1 Provision and
Improvement of Health and Community Facilities, DES1 Respecting Context, DES11 Design
and Crime, A1 Transport Assessment and Travel Plans, A8 Impact of Development on the
Highway Network, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments,
EN10 Protected Trees, EN17a Resource Conservation.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policies SC1, SC2, SC9 and EHC1 seek the development and improvement of health, education
and community facilities. Policies S6 and S2/1 promote the vitality and viability of town centres.
Policies DEV1, DEV2, DES1, seek to ensure development fits in to the character of the area and
is of good design. DEV4 and DES11 require developments to be designed in order to design out
crime. Policies T13, A1, A8 and A10 require appropriate car parking to be provided and for
impacts on the highway network to be considered. Policies EN7 and EN10 seek the protection of
trees. Policy EN17a requires developments to minimise their impact upon natural resources.
Policy EHC6/2 establishes the principle of developing a LIFT facility in this area, albeit that the
detailed site has been changed.
Principle of Development
The proposal would provide new a library, primary health and social care facilities and is
therefore in broad accordance with policies SC1, SC2 and SC9 of the adopted UDP which are all
seeking to improve, maintain and support provision of social and community facilities within the
city. Policy EHC1 promotes new and improved health and community facilities provided that
five criteria are met. The five criteria are; development should not have an adverse impact upon
residential amenity and character, not have an unacceptable impact upon environmental quality,
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
be accessible to the community by a range of transport options, not give rise to unacceptable
levels of traffic congestion, and finally have the potential to act as a community focus and
encourage linked trips.
In terms of policies relating to Salford Precinct both the adopted and emerging UDP’s explain
the importance of the Precinct in providing retail, leisure and other facilities for the local
community. Proposals that enhance opportunities to perform a number of activities within a
single trip are promoted as this helps to reduce the need to travel in line with sustainable
development objectives. I am satisfied the intended replacement and new uses this application
proposes will enhance the ability to undertake a number of activities within one trip. I also
consider the proposed development will enhance the vitality and viability of the retail and leisure
functions of Salford Precinct, in line with policies S6 and S2/1.
Residential Amenity
The nearest housing to the LIFT building is Mulberry Court which is 24m away to the south.
Lombardy Court is 32 metres away, Hornbeam Court 28 metres away and Beech Court is 25
metres away. Council separation distances require a distance of 24 metres between facing
habitable room windows of three storey properties and I am satisfied that the height and scale of
the proposed building will not detract from residential amenity.
Highways and Parking
The Government’s guidance note on transport, PPG13, also states that new intermediate health
facilities should, where possible, be located in town, district or local centres where they will be
highly accessible by non car modes of transport and where the facilities can reinforce the range
of services provided by these centres. I consider the 59 parking spaces proposed, for use by
visitors and employees, are in line with maximum parking standards. I am also satisfied with the
range of transport options open to visitors and employees of the proposed facilities.
Objection has been received to the application on the basis of lack of parking to the surrounding
Courts. The number of residents potentially wanting parking spaces in this area has been
significantly reduced by the demolition of Lime Court. As part of the application the applicant
proposes to create 24 replacement spaces at the southern end of Lime Close. I consider that the
number of parking spaces available to residents is acceptable, bearing in mind current maximum
parking standards.
The footpath that links Beech Court with the Broadwalk is 3 metres wide and is gated for use by
local residents only. I consider the width of this footway to be appropriate for use by those with
disabilities given City Council standards require a minimum footpath width of 1.8 metres. The
layout of the replacement car park provides a pedestrian route of adequate width within the
residential area and adequate provision for access for ambulances etc.
The proposed vehicular access across Broadwalk will introduce traffic into an area that is
currently traffic-free, albeit in a controlled and restricted fashion. I understand that this option
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
was devised following consultation with the Precinct Forum and that alternative options were
discounted as either involving unacceptable loss of amenity to neighbouring residents or
requiring land outside the applicant’s control. I consider that the proposed introduction of a
controlled vehicular access to a private staff car park will not significantly weaken the character
of Broadwalk as a pedestrian thoroughfare and that the proposed detail design will not create an
unacceptable pedestrian hazard. I am also mindful that the proposed building, with the public
library located on the frontage to Broadwalk, will significantly improve the amenity, safety,
security and character of the pedestrian route, by introducing casual surveillance and vitality
along the route.
In response to concern over car fumes I would suggest that in order to re-use this brownfield site
in accordance with policy ST11 of the emerging UDP a level of parking would need to be
provided on site. Parking on site is subject to maximum parking standards. The site could
otherwise remain as underused land however the positive regeneration benefits and community
facilities would not be provided if this were the case. The Director of Environmental Services
does not object to the position or number of car parking spaces associated with the development.
The applicant has been in discussions regarding design and traffic and highway issues. A traffic
statement and draft green travel plan has also been submitted as part of this application.
I concur with the applicant that the proposal would not result in increased congestion on the
surrounding highway network subject to a condition binding the development to a green travel
plan. As such I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds.
Design
Policies DEV1, DEV2 and DES1 require development to be designed to a good standard and to
fit in with the character of the area. The proposed LIFT building has a modern minimalist design,
with contrasting brickwork and render. The architect has explained, within the design statement,
the proposed building has a modern form with angled and curved elevations to enhance the
appearance of the area. Floor to ceiling glazing, with active uses behind, is proposed at ground
floor to provide maximum overlooking of and from the Broadwalk. The LIFT building does not
extend onto the Broadwalk or onto the communal grounds of the surrounding Courts. The height
at three storeys corresponds to the height and mass of St Paul’s Church to the south. The height
and mass also corresponds positively to the tower blocks that surround the site. I consider the
simple glazed design at ground floor is appropriate to the setting and that the proposal
corresponds positively to the pedestrian environment.
Design and Crime
I have received objection to the impact of development upon security in the surrounding areas.
The surrounding area is characterised by tower blocks with car parking the base with the parking
areas enclosed by high railings. Whilst the car park of the development is secured by 2.4m high
railings and the garden area is secured by a 2.4m high wall, the development does seek to
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
promote active uses toward the Broadwalk and the car parking areas. Fencing is not proposed
between the Library at ground floor and the Broadwalk. Overlooking occurs from the building
over the public realm and vice versa except for the children’s garden which is screened from
view from the public realm. I am satisfied that this development will generate more pedestrian
activity in the area and would enhance natural surveillance within the area. The Architectural
Liaison officer is satisfied the proposal seeks to design out crime and recommends a condition be
imposed to ensure the developer seeks secure by design accreditation. In accordance with
policies DEV4 and DES11 I propose to append such a condition.
Trees
Sixteen trees within the site are to be removed from the site to enable the development. I
consider the loss of these trees to be acceptable subject to 33 extra heavy standard replacement
trees being planted as part of the development. I would wish to seek to ensure the remaining trees
are retained and have therefore recommended a condition be attached to secure fencing around
these during construction works.
Other Issues
The Precinct Forum have asked how this development fits in with the emerging Masterplan for
Pendleton and questions why the PCT were not involved in the Masterplanning process.
The Pendleton Area Action Plan is at an early stage of preparation. Formal consultation on
options is not due until September 2006 and the plan is not due to be adopted until October 2008.
I see no reason to treat this proposal as premature. The proposed building will provide a
valuable public service as its location within the town centre meets local and national policy.
There do not appear to be any reasons why development of the building on this site should
unduly constrain options for the Masterplan. I understand that the emerging Masterplan may
emphasise the potential to extend and enhance Broadwalk as a pedestrian route through the area;
however, as stated above, I believe that the proposals are consistent with this objective.
I understand that the PCT are represented on the steering group for the project. I am advised that
the applicants and the PCT have held meetings with the Precinct Forum during development of
the proposals and that the emerging scheme was amended in response to some of their
comments. Public open days have also been held at Boardwalk Library. I understand that the
last meeting was held in January 2004 and the last open day held in July 2004 and that there have
been no changes to the site boundary and no significant changes to the proposals since then.
Value Added
Extensive pre-application discussions between Urban Vision and Council Officers and LIFTco
and their architects/consultants have informed the design and layout of the development. The
servicing and access arrangements have been amended to improve safety within the site.
Conclusion
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
As the site lies adjacent to the defined Town Centre it is accessible to a range of bus routes and
by cycling and walking. Also the town centre location is ideal for the encouragement of linked
trips thereby overall reducing the need to travel. I am also satisfied with the level of parking
proposed and of impacts on traffic generation. I agree with the letter of support that this scheme
will provide an increased level of services within the community to the benefit of local people, I
am satisfied that the proposal complies with policies EHC1, SC1, SC2 and SC9.
I consider that the proposal would be of considerable benefit to the residents of Salford and is in
accordance with both national and local policies. I consider the development will provide
positive regeneration benefits to Pendleton as well as providing valuable community functions
within the local area that enable multifunction trips to the town centre. I consider that residential
amenity will not be adversely affected and that the design and layout of the development is to a
good standard. I also consider the proposed development to be acceptable to the surrounding area
and that it would positively contribute and interact with the street scene. I am satisfied with the
amendments to the scheme that the servicing will and parking is acceptable. I therefore
recommend that this application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls
and roofs of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme
shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, bollards, 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 Local Planning Authority.
4. Standard Condition C03X Fencing of Trees/no work within spread
5. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
6. The vehicular entrance gates to Lime Close shall be restricted to emergency vehicle use only.
7. Within a period of one month of the first occupation of building hereby approved operators
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
shall undertake a travel survey and this data will form part of a Travel Plan. Within a period
of 6 months from the first date of occupation, a Travel Plan shall be submitted for the written
approval of the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan shall as a minimum include the
broad areas of actions, objectives and timescales for review and monitoring. Within a period
of twelve months of the commencement of occupation, the operator shall undertake a
monitoring survey. Within twelve months of first occupation of the building, a Travel Plan
shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority, which shall
include a review of targets, measures and staff survey data. Annually from the
commencement of occupation of the building, a Travel Plan shall be submitted for the
written approval of the Local Planning Authority for a period of 5 years and then at a time
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
8. No development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing measures to
comply with secure by design principles, has been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. Once approved the development shall be implemented in
accordance with the approved scheme and shall thereafter be retained.
9. Standard Condition M08 Site Investigation - new
10. Noise from fixed plant and machinery on site (LAeq,5 minutes) shall not exceed the
background level (LA90,1 hour) at the boundary of the nearest residential properties at any
time.
11. No development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing recycling of waste
from the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented and thereafter retained prior to the
first occupation of the library and medical facilities hereby approved.
12. No development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme(s) detailing sustainable
construction techniques and energy efficiency have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and
maintained in accordance with the approved scheme(s).
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
6. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
7. Reason: To ensure sustainable modes of travel are used in accordance with policies DEV1 of
the Adopted UDP and A10 of the Revised Deposit Draft Salford City Council UDP.
8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
9. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
10. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
11. In order to provide recycling facilities in accordance with policy DEV1 and EN20 of the City
of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
12. To ensure development accords with policies N17 and EN17A of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan, Draft Replacement Plan 2004-16.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from North West
Water.
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. Construction works shall not be permitted outside the following hours:
Monday to Friday 08:00 to 18:00
Saturdays
08:00 to 13:00
Construction works shall not be permitted on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays
Access and egress for delivery vehicles shall be restricted to the working hours indicated
above.
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
5. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the
applicant/developer is advised to contact the Pollution Control Section of the Environment
Directorate (Tel: (0161) 737 0551
APPLICATION No:
05/51957/FUL
APPLICANT:
Mast Lift Co Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To Carnegie Library And War Memorial
Square, To The East Of Corporation Road And To The North
Barton Lane Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of primary and community care facility, library,
council offices and ancillary accommodation together with laying
out of car park and boundary treatment
WARD:
Barton
BACKGROUND
In July 2000 the government published the NHS plan, a ten year plan for the modernising and
reforming the NHS. It identified the urgent need to improve primary care premises in England
as a key constraint to the development of the services. The plan states that the priority for
investment will be those parts of the country where primary care facilities are most in need of
improvement.
The government has provided the NHS with a vehicle for improving and developing primary and
community care facilities – NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT). The local LIFT is a
joint venture between the Department of Health, the local healthcare community and the private
sector; to develop and encourage a significant increase in investment in primary care and
community based facilities.
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
There are six primary care trusts (PCT) in the area including Salford, which is co-terminus with
the City Council. Each of the PCT areas have growing communities which will need more and
better health and social care facilities for the foreseeable future.
The initial focus of the NHS LIFT will be on investment in those parts of the country, such as
inner cities, where primary care services are in most need of expansion. The Manchester,
Salford and Trafford area has been identified as the first wave LIFT and this application is
submitted in this respect.
In Salford, the opportunity has been taken to use LIFT to redesign and deliver a wider range of
services, including both PCT and Council services. New buildings will offer traditional health
services with other functions that attract the widest range of visitors into each facility. For
example, the four largest centres will include public libraries, community meeting rooms and
one-stop shops, where visitors can access information on services provided by all partners.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site is currently occupied by the Carnegie Library and its 1970s extension and by the vacant,
former Council offices at 11 Corporation Road. It is bounded by the memorial Square to the
east, Barton Lane to the south, Corporation Road to the west and Church Street to the north. The
Market Hall bounds the site to the north west. The existing Eccles health centre bounds the site
to the south-west. An unadopted highway bisects the site on a north south axis between the
library and the health centre. Access and egress to this unadopted highway is from Barton Lane.
There is currently no vehicular access or egress onto Church Street however there is an open
pedestrian route from Barton Lane to Church Street. The Market Hall lies to the north west of the
site with the library to the north and the sports centre to the south on the opposite side of Barton
Lane. Residential dwellings face the site on the opposite side of Corporation Road.
The application proposes the demolition of the existing 1970s library extension and the
construction of a new part three part four storey extension to the library to incorporate a one stop
shop, community facilities, children’s library, café, General Practice doctors’ surgeries, dentist
facilities and clinical facilities. Fronting the square the extension would attach to the Carnegie
Library, on the same building line, and would then return along Barton Lane. The extension
would then follow the line of the existing unadopted highway between the library and health
centre and rejoin the west elevation of the Carnegie. The west and south elevations are to be
constructed mainly from glass, with blue coloured glass panels at first and second floor levels.
The western elevation of the extension would be constructed out of dark red bricks with large
glazed areas at ground floor and glazing incorporating a vertical emphasis at first and second
floor levels. The extension would have a flat roof.
The ground floor level of the extension would provide a café, one stop shop, children’s library,
and community rooms and would have level access into the existing Carnegie Library. At first
floor level there would be 14 consulting/treatment rooms. All rooms would either face the street
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
or the proposed internal atrium. At second floor level there would be 18 consulting rooms
including dentist surgeries, x-ray facility and audiology rooms. The floors are linked by three
staircases and two lifts. The main staircase and lifts are located between the existing Carnegie
Library and the proposed extension. A new public entrance from the Memorial Square would be
located between the Carnegie Library and the proposed extension. The entrance area would have
a triple height hallway with the staircase being visible through curtain wall glazing from the
square. A canopy is proposed, protruding into the square, above the entrance at roof level. This
new entrance is designed to serve both the new building and the original Carnegie building,
although the original Carnegie entrance will also be retained.
Parking is proposed to be accessed from Corporation Road with egress onto Church Street
through a one way system. 22 parking spaces are proposed and would be sited to the north of the
existing medical centre and south of the Market Hall. This would occupy the site of the existing
building at 11 Corporation Road. The one way access road within the site would not be to
adoptable standards and would be access controlled from Corporation Road. Access for service
vehicles would be from Barton Lane along the existing unadopted highway through the site and
egress for service vehicles would be onto Church Street. The applicant proposes to retain a
pedestrian access through the site from Barton Lane to Church Street. The applicant advises the
facilities will be open 8am to 10pm seven days a week.
Although Eccles health centre is not within the application site, services provided there will
transfer to the new building. It is understood that the health centre site will be developed as a
later phase of the LIFT project, although no details are currently available.
The new library and community room accommodation within the new building replaces the
existing accommodation within the demolished Carnegie extension.
The application has been submitted with a planning and design statement, tree report and an
assessment of works to the listed Carnegie Library. Access, parking and traffic generation are
also covered within the statement. The statement broadly explains that the scheme complies with
health and community policies of the UDP that the design has been carefully crafted to ensure
the building complements the Carnegie building and meets the needs of future users of the
facility. The statement explains peak activity for visitors to the services provided is mid morning
and mid afternoon, which are outside of the normal peak times. The statement also explains that
visitors to the service will all come from local areas thereby reducing travel to Hope Hospital
throughout the day. The statement further explains the proposal would not result in an increase in
trip generation. Rather it would result in a rduction in trips from Hope Hospital to the site, which
is more accessible by public transport.
An associated Listed Building Consent Application also appears on this agenda, reference
number 05/51958/LBC.
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
SITE HISTORY
In 2003, outline planning permission was granted for a LIFT centre comprising library and
health facilities (03/45509/OUT) on the site of Eccles health centre and 11 Corporation Road.
The current scheme differs from the outline proposal in that the site of the health centre is now
excluded and the Carnegie extension is now included.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No comments received
Architectural Liaison Officer – No comments received
Arboricultural Officer – Considers that the two trees on Barton Lane to be removed for the
development add amenity value to the area
Ramblers Association – “The Ramblers Association (Manchester & High Peak Area) is not
objecting to this development”.
Open Space Society – No comments received
GM Pedestrian Association – No comments received
Peak and Northern Footpath Association – No comments received
Director of Education and Leisure – No comments received
Environment Agency – No objections
PUBLICITY
Site notices were displayed on 12th January 2006
Press Notices were published on 12th January 2006
The following neighbours were notified of the application:2 – 32 Corporation Road
167a Church Street
116a & 116 to 136 even Church Street
101 – 107 odd Church Street
1 – 5(O), 36, Barton Lane
The Royal Oak Pub, Barton Lane
Market Traders Association, Market Hall, Church Street
Aldi Stores, Church Street, Eccles
1, 2 & 4 Irwell Place
Elizabeth House, 133 Church Street
Albert Edward Inn, 142 Church Street
Bandroom, Corporation Road, Eccles
Wellington Hotel, 148 Church Street
Royal Oak, 34 Barton Lane
Eccles Recreation Centre, Barton Lane
HSBC Bank, 120 – 122 Church Street
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
Stalls 1 to 29 Market Hall, Church Street
Tarbert Investments Ltd, First Floor, Market Hall
First Floor, Market Hall
First Floor Office 2, Market Hall
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no response to the application publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP3 Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: S6 Maintenance and Improvement of Town Centres
Other policies: SC9 Health Care Facilities, SC1 Provision of Social and Community Facilities,
SC2 Provision of Social and Community Facilities by Private and Voluntary Agencies, DEV1
Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, EN7 Conservation of
Trees and Woodland, EN12 Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings, EN13 Works to
Listed Buildings and Buildings Within Conservation Areas, T13 Car Parking.
DRAFT REPLACMENT UDP
Site Specific policies: S2/2 Retail and Leisure Development Within Town and Neighbourhood
Centres, EHC6/1 Sites for the provision of health facilities
Other Policies: ST9 Retail, Leisure, Social and Community Provision, EHC1 Provision and
Improvement of Health and Community Facilities, DES1 Respecting Context, DES11 Design
and Crime, A1 Transport Assessment and Travel Plans, A8 Impact of Development on the
Highway Network, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments,
EN10 Protected Trees, EN17a Resource Conservation, CH2 Works to Listed Buildings, CH4
Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policies SC1, SC2, SC9, EHC1 and EHC6/1 seek the development and improvement of health,
education and community facilities. Policies S6 and S2/2 promote the vitality and viability of
town centres. Draft policies DEV1, DEV2, DES1, EN12, EN13, CH2 and CH4 seek to ensure
development fits in to the character of the area and that the integrity and setting of the Listed
building are ensured. DEV4 and DES11 require developments to be designed in order to design
out crime. Policies T13, A1, A8 and A10 require appropriate car parking to be provided and for
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
impacts on the highway network to be considered. Policies EN7 and EN10 seek the protection of
trees. Policy EN17a requires developments to minimise their impact upon natural resources.
Principle of Development
The principle of a LIFT centre has been established through the outline planning permission and
the existing use of the Carnegie extension for community facilities. The proposal would provide
new library, primary health and social care facilities and is therefore in broad accordance with
policies SC1, SC2 and SC9 of the Adopted UDP which are all seeking to improve, maintain and
support provision of social and community facilities within the city. Policy EHC6/1 allocates
part of the application for the provision of health facilities, parking for this application is
proposed on part of the allocated site. The applicant has stated that a second phase subject of an
application would be submitted on the allocated site. Policies EHC1 promotes new and improved
health and community facilities provided that five criteria are met. The five criteria are:
development should not have an adverse impact upon residential amenity and character, not have
an unacceptable impact upon environmental quality, be accessible to the community by a range
of transport options, not give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic congestion, and finally have
the potential to act as a community focus and encourage linked trips.
The nearest houses to the proposed extension are 68 metres away on Corporation Road. I do not
consider that this distance would result in loss of residential amenity to occupiers of those
properties. Vehicular access to the site and to the car park is from Corporation Road. I also do
not consider this would result in loss of amenity to occupiers of properties on Corporation Road
as access points already exist, for car parking for the existing health centre and library, from
Corporation Road. Given the distance between the extension to the Carnegie Library and the
houses on Corporation Road I do not consider there would be an adverse impact upon the
character of the area. As the site lies within Eccles Town Centre it is accessible by a range of
public transport options including buses, train, Metrolink, cycling and walking. Also the town
centre location is ideal for the encouragement of linked trips thereby overall reducing the need to
travel. I am also satisfied with the level of parking proposed and of impacts on traffic generation,
which I will address in more detail in the next section of the report. I am satisfied that the
proposal complies with policies EHC1, EHC6/1 and SC1, SC2 and SC9.
In terms of policies relating to Eccles town centre both the Adopted and Draft UDP’s explain the
importance of Eccles town centre in providing retail, leisure and other facilities for the local
community. Proposals that enhance opportunities to perform a number of activities within a
single trip are promoted as this helps to reduce the need to travel in line with sustainable
development objectives. I am satisfied the intended replacement and new uses this application
proposes will enhance the ability to undertake a number of activities within one trip. I also
consider the proposed development will enhance the vitality and viability of the retail and leisure
functions of Eccles town centre, in line with policies S6 and S2/2.
Highways and Parking
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
The Government’s guidance note on transport, PPG13, also states that new intermediate health
facilities should, where possible, be located in town, district or local centres where they will be
highly accessible by non car modes of transport and where the facilities can reinforce the range
of services provided by these centres. I consider the 22 parking spaces proposed, for use by
visitors to the proposal, are in line with maximum parking standards. I am also satisfied with the
range of transport options open to visitors and employees of the proposed facilities. The
proposal incorporates three spaces for disabled drivers and cycle parking facilities, which I
consider to be acceptable.
The applicant has been in extensive discussions regarding design and traffic and highway issues.
A traffic statement and draft green travel plan have also been submitted as part of this
application. The application has also been amended to ensure that the pedestrian route running
north south through the site has a clear unobstructed path in line with design and crime policies
and the need to retain existing pedestrian routes. The amendment to the scheme has also resulted
in the applicant proposing that service vehicles only enter the site from Barton Lane and leave
via Church Street, which will ensure goods vehicles do not reverse within the site. The egress
onto Church Street has also been relocated away from the Market Hall which results in a safer
junction, less conflict with the Market Hall and the retention of trees adjacent to the Market Hall.
I concur with the applicant that the proposal would not result in increased congestion on the
surrounding highway network subject to a condition binding the development to a green travel
plan. As such I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds.
Design and Impact on Listed Building
Policies DEV1, DEV2 and DES1 require development to be designed to a good standard and to
fit in with the character of the area. Policy CH2 advises that extensions to listed buildings will
only be allowed where they would preserve or enhance the character and features of special
architectural or historic interest and policy CH4 explains planning permission will not be granted
for development that would have an unacceptable impact on the setting of a listed building. The
extension to the Carnegie Library is a modern minimalist design. The architect has explained,
within the design statement, the proposed building has a simple form so as not to compete with
the grandeur of the Carnegie Library. The architect also explains horizontal transoms have been
designed to reflect the horizontal emphasis of the cills, cornicing and coping of the Carenegie
Library. Floor to ceiling glazing, with active uses behind, is proposed at ground floor to provide
maximum overlooking of and from the Memorial Square and Barton Lane. The extension does
not extend above the height or building line of the Carnegie and I consider the simple glazed
design is appropriate to the setting and complies with the above policies.
Trees
Two trees on Barton Lane are proposed to be felled for the development whilst amendments to
the scheme allow the group of trees on Church Street to be retained. The trees in the Memorial
Square and at the junction of Barton Lane and Corporation Street would also be retained.
Considering the importance of the proposed development to Eccles Town Centre I consider the
loss of these two trees on Barton Lane is acceptable subject to replacement trees being planted as
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
part of the development. I would wish to seek to ensure the remaining trees are retained and have
therefore recommended a condition be attached to secure fencing around these during
construction works.
Value Added
Extensive pre-application discussions between Urban Vision and Council Officers and LIFT and
their architects/consultants have informed the design and layout of the development. The
servicing and access arrangements have been amended to improve safety within the site.
Conclusion
I consider that the proposal would be of considerable benefit to the residents of Salford and is in
accordance with both national and local policies. I consider the development will provide
regeneration benefits to Eccles Town centre as well as providing valuable community functions
within the local area that enable multifunction trips to the town centre. I consider that residential
amenity will not be adversely affected and that the design and layout of the development is to a
good standard. I also consider the setting of the listed Carnegie and its architectural and historic
importance will be preserved. I am satisfied with the amendments to the scheme that the
servicing will and parking is acceptable. I therefore recommend that this application be
approved. The applicant will need to enter into a S278 agreement for external highway works for
the creation of a lay-by to Barton Lane.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls
and roofs of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The development shal be undertaken using the approved materials.
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
and approved by the Local Planning Authority 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 Local Planning Authority.
4. Standard Condition C03X Fencing of Trees/no work within spread
5. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
6. Within a period of one month of the first occupation of the building hereby approved
operators shall undertake a travel survey and this data will form part of a Travel Plan. Within
a period of 6 months from the first date of occupation, a Travel Plan shall be submitted for
the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan shall as a minimum
include the broad areas of actions, objectives and timescales for review and monitoring.
Within a period of twelve months of the commencement of occupation, the operator shall
undertake a monitoring survey. Within twelve months of first occupation of the building, a
Travel Plan shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority,
which shall include a review of targets, measures and staff survey data. Annually from the
commencement of occupation of the building, a Travel Plan shall be submitted for the
written approval of the Local Planning Authority for a period of 5 years and then at a time
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
7. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority no development shall be
commenced unless and until a scheme detailing measures to comply with secure by design
principles, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Once approved the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved
scheme and shall thereafter be retained.
8. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority no development shall be
commenced unless and until a scheme detailing sustainable construction techniques has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the
occupation of the development the approved scheme shall be installed and shall thereafter be
retained and maintained.
9. No development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing recycling of waste
from the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the
library and medical facilities hereby approved and thereafter maintained.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
6. To ensure sustainable modes of travel are used in accordance with policies DEV1 of the
Adopted UDP and A1 of the Revised Deposit Draft Salford City Council UDP.
7. To secure the building from crime in accordance with policy DEV4 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan and DES11 of the Revised Deposit Replacement UDP.
8. To ensure the development accords with policies EN17 and EN17A of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan, Draft Replacement Plan 2004-16.
9. In order to provide recycling facilities in accordance with policy DEV1 and EN20 of the City
of Salford Unitary Development Plan, and Policy MW1 o th Draft Replacement Plan
2004.16.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. 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:
05/51958/LBC
APPLICANT:
Mast Lift Co Ltd
LOCATION:
Carnegie Library, War Memorial Square, To The East Of
Corporation Road And To The North Of Barton Lane Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Listed Building Consent for internal alterations and interface
with existing gable
WARD:
Barton
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
BACKGROUND
In July 2000 the government published the NHS plan, a ten year plan for the modernising and
reforming the NHS. It identified the urgent need to improve primary care premises in England
as a key constraint to the development of the services. The plan states that the priority for
investment will be those parts of the country where primary care facilities are most in need of
improvement.
The government has provided the NHS with a vehicle for improving and developing primary and
community care facilities – NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT). The local LIFT is a
joint venture between the Department of Health, the local healthcare community and the private
sector; to develop and encourage a significant increase in investment in primary care and
community based facilities.
There are six primary care trusts (PCT) in the area including Salford, which is co-terminus with
the City Council. Each of the PCT areas have growing communities which will need more and
better health and social care facilities for the foreseeable future.
The initial focus of the NHS LIFT will be on investment in those parts of the country, such as
inner cities, where primary care services are in most need of expansion. The Manchester,
Salford and Trafford area has been identified as the first wave LIFT and this application is
submitted in this respect.
In Salford, the opportunity has been taken to use LIFT to redesign and deliver a wider range of
services, including both PCT and council services. New buildings will offer traditional health
services with other functions that attract the widest range of visitors into each facility. For
example, the four largest centres will include public libraries, community meeting rooms and
one-stop shops, where visitors can access information on services provided by all partners.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site is currently occupied by the Carnegie Library and its 1970’s extension and by the
vacant, former council offices at 11 Corporation Road. It is bounded by the memorial square to
the east, Barton Lane to the south, Corporation Road to the west and Church Street to the north.
The Market Hall bounds the site to the north west. The existing Eccles health centre bounds the
site to the south-west. An unadopted highway bisects the site on a north south axis between the
library and the health centre. Access and egress to this unadopted highway is from Barton Lane.
There is currently no vehicular access or egress onto Church Street however there is an open
pedestrian route from Barton Lane to Church Street. The Market Hall lies to the north west of the
site with the library to the north and the sports centre to the south on the opposite side of Barton
Lane. Residential dwellings face the site on the opposite side of Corporation Road.
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
The application proposes the demolition of the existing 1970s library extension and construction
of a new part three part four storey extension to the library to incorporate a one stop shop,
community facilities, children’s library, café, General Practice doctors surgeries, dentist facilities
and clinical facilities. Fronting the square the extension would attach to the Carnegie, on the
same building line, and would then return along Barton Lane parallel to Barton Lane. The
extension would then follow the line of the existing unadopted highway between the library and
health centre and rejoin the west elevation of the Carnegie. The west and south elevations are to
be constructed mainly from glass, with blue coloured glass panels at first and second floor levels.
The western elevation of the extension would be constructed out of dark red bricks with large
glazed areas at ground floor and glazing incorporating a vertical emphasis at first and second
floor levels. The extension would have a flat roof. Internal works to the Carnegie library include
the widening of the existing opening form the Carnegie to the library extension and the removal
of non-original partition walls within the Carnegie.
Ground floor level of the extension would provide a café, one stop shop, children’s library, and
community rooms and would have level access into the existing Carnegie Library. At first floor
level there would be 14 consulting/treatment rooms. All rooms would either face the street or the
proposed internal atrium. At second floor level there would be 18 consulting rooms including
dentist surgeries, x-ray facility and audiology rooms. The floors are linked by three staircases
and two lifts. The main staircase and lifts are located between the existing Carnegie Library and
the proposed extension. A new public entrance from the memorial square would be located
between the Carnegie and the proposed extension. The entrance area would have a triple height
hallway with staircase being visible through curtain wall glazing from the square. A canopy is
proposed, protruding into the square, above the entrance at roof level. This new entrance is
designed to serve both the new building and he original Carnegie building, although the original
Carnegie entrance will also be retained.
Although Eccles health centre is not within the application site, services provided there will
transfer to the new building. It is understood that the health centre site will be developed as a
later phase of the LIFT project, although no details are currently available.
The new library and community room accommodation within the new building replaces the
existing accommodation within the demolished Carnegie extension.
The application has been submitted with a planning and design statement, which includes an
assessment of works to the listed Carnegie Library. The statement explains the design has been
carefully crafted to ensure the building complements and does not compete with the Listed
Carnegie library and meets the needs of future users of the facility. An associated Planning
Application also appears on this agenda, reference number 05/51957/FUL.
SITE HISTORY
In 2003, outline planning permission was granted for a LIFT centre comprising library and
health facilities (03/45509/OUT) on the site of Eccles health centre and 11 Corporation Road.
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
The current scheme differs from the outline proposal in that the site of the health centre is now
excluded and the Carnegie extension is now included.
CONSULTATIONS
English Heritage – No comments received
Victorian Society – No comments received
Royal Commission on Historic Monuments – No comments received
PUBLICITY
Site notices were displayed 17 January 2006
Press Notices were published on 12 January 2006
The following neighbours were notified of the application:2 – 32 Corporation Road
167a Church Street
116a & 116 to 136 even Church Street
101 – 107 odd Church Street
1 – 5(O), 36, Barton Lane
The Royal Oak Pub, Barton Lane
Market Traders Association, Market Hall, Church Street
Aldi Stores, Church Street, Eccles
1, 2 & 4 Irwell Place
Elizabeth House, 133 Church Street
Albert Edward Inn, 142 Church Street
Bandroom, Corporation Road, Eccles
Wellington Hotel, 148 Church Street
Royal Oak, 34 Barton Lane
Eccles Recreation Centre, Barton Lane
HSBC Bank, 120 – 122 Church Street
Stalls 1 to 29 Market Hall, Church Street
Tarbert Investments Ltd, First Floor, Market Hall
First Floor, Market Hall
First Floor Office 2, Market Hall
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no response to the application publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP3 Quality in New Development
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EN12 Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings, EN13 Works to Listed
Buildings and Buildings Within Conservation Areas.
REVISED DEPOSIT REPLACMENT UDP
Site Specific policies: none
Other Policies: CH2 Works to Listed Buildings, CH4 Development Affecting the Setting of a
Listed Building.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policies EN12, EN13, CH2 and CH4 seek to ensure development is fits in to the character of the
area and that the integrity and setting of the Listed building are ensured. The application has
been submitted with a statement explaining the library was constructed in 1907.
Design and Impact on Listed Building
Policy CH2 advises that extensions to listed buildings will only be allowed where they would
preserve or enhance the character and features of special architectural or historic interest and
policy CH4 explains planning permission will not be granted for development that would have
an unacceptable impact on the setting of a listed building. The extension to the Carnegie Library
is a modern minimalist design. The architect has explained, within the design statement, the
proposed building has a simple form so as not to compete with the grandeur of the Carnegie
Library. The architect also explains horizontal transoms have been designed to reflect the
horizontal emphasis of the cills, cornicing and coping of the Carenegie Library. Floor to ceiling
glazing, with active uses behind, is proposed at ground floor to provide maximum overlooking of
and from the Memorial Square and Barton Lane. The extension does not extend above the height
or building line of the Carnegie Library and I consider the simple glazed design is appropriate to
the setting. I consider that the proposed internal works to the Carnegie do not harm the special
architectural or historic interest of the Listed building.
Value Added
Extensive pre-application discussions between Urban Vision and Council Officers and LIFT and
their architects/consultants have informed the design and layout of the development.
Conclusion
I consider that the proposed extension to the Carnegie and internal alterations will not detract
from the building’s special architectural and historic importance. I therefore recommend that
this application be approved.
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R038 Section 18
APPLICATION No:
06/51994/FUL
APPLICANT:
Easter Developments (Salford) Limited
LOCATION:
Land To The North Of Centenary Way Centenary Park Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of one light industrial/warehouse unit with B1(c), B2
and B8 class uses together with ancillary offices, service yard
and car parking
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site lies to the north of the Coronet Flour Mill on land adjacent to industrial/commercial
development currently under construction to the north of Coronet Way. Immediately to the west
is the West One retail development.
The land to the north is at a significantly higher level (10 metres higher) and is currently in part
used as the GMPTE park and ride car park. There is also a proposal to develop part of this land
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
for residential purposes. That application is in outline with all matters reserved. The Council has
resolved to approve that application and the matter is now awaiting a decision from the Secretary
of State.
The application site is generally flat and the land to the north rises steeply up an embankment.
The embankment is not included within the application site, apart from a narrow 4 metre wide
maintenance strip at the foot of the slope.
The site is accessed via the existing roundabout on to Centenary Way, which also serves the
adjoining development currently under construction.
The proposed development is a single unit of 4,000 sq.m. The building would be located to the
rear of the site, hard up to the embankment. This achieves the object of screening the service
areas from proposed residential development on land to the north. The service area is located to
the site frontage and adjacent to the site access where 86 parking spaces would be provided along
with HGV service areas. In addition cycling facilities are provided. There is a 5 metre wide
landscaped strip to the Centenary Way frontage which will serve to screen the service areas from
the highway.
The building would be 10 metres high to the eaves with a shallow pitched roof.
The scheme represents Phase 2 of the larger site, which is known as Centenary Park. The design
and appearance of the development is consistent with that currently under construction.
SITE HISTORY
No relevant previous planning history.
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – no comments received.
Health and Safety Executive – no comments received
Architectural Liaison Officer – no comments received
Manchester Ship Canal Company – no comments received
Trafford MBC – no comments received
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company– no comments received
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 23rd February 2006
A site notice was displayed on 3rd February 2006
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:Units 10,11,12,13a,13b,13,14,9b,9a, West One Retail Park
GMPTE
Coronet Flour Mill
REPRESENTATIONS
Councillor Ainsworth has asked that his objections be recorded in respect of the following
matters:The site boundary does not match that of the land allocated for employment use in the
Revised deposit UDP (policy ref E3/14). In particular my concern is that the application
fails to include formal landscaping and associated proposals for the adjacent escarpment
to the north, a feature which is, and will remain, a visually significant/prominent aspect
of the allocated site on the approach to the City from the south/Centenary Bridge and at
the approach to the proposed ‘Broadway Link’ road and the associated amenity route
which the RDD seeks to promote.
The escarpment and adjoining elements of land represents an opportunity to incorporate
tree planting and soft landscaping etc. which could respectively serve to
Provide ecological mitigation of the former relatively wild open space and wildlife
habitat which now comprises the Business Park under current construction.
Accommodate amenity space for workers of the estate, given the relative remoteness of
the estate from the facilities of Eccles.
Reduce the risk of noise intrusion to the higher level element of the upper section (which
fronts Eccles New Road) of the former Weaste Quarry site
Help provide the air quality mitigation measures resolved to be appropriate in
consideration of the recent Article 10 consultation in respect of the proposed expansion
of the operational facilities of the nearby Cerestar plant.
Ensure appropriate allocation of responsibility for future upgrading and maintenance of
the embankment and avoidance of the future risk of it remaining as an unkempt and
unattractive feature in consequence of it being physically and visually separated from the
‘upper section’ of the former quarry site the future use of which is uncertain.
Respond to the physical intervention strategy of the Draft Vision and Strategic
Regeneration Framework for Central Salford prepared by the Central Salford URC -. and
in particular the identification of the significance of the location of the application
site/estate as an important visual and image forming ‘Riverfront Node’ in the analysis
prepared by the international design team commissioned by the URC
The detail of the proposals fails to provide the ‘focal point’ (architectural) feature, either
an element of the proposed building or otherwise, that the Design Statement
accompanying the application identifies to be important – and which is supported by the
observations of the Central Salford URC analysis referred to above. The proposal fails to
reflect, and continue the ‘tradition’ of, the architectural/sculptural aspects of nearby
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
buildings (e.g. the grain store/bridge etc) and streetscape features promoted by the former
TPDC.
The absence of a Travel Plan, and associated monitoring arrangement, in the context of
the location being relatively poorly served by public transport.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EC13/1 – Weaste Quarry
Other policies:
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
T13 – Car Parking
DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: E3/14 – Sites for Employment Development
A9/6 – Provision of New Highways
Other policies:
ST3 – Employment Supply
E5 - Development Within Established Employment Areas.
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours.
A1 – Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
DES11 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Land use
The site is allocated for Employment development by policy E3/14. The proposed use and form
of development will be consistent with neighbouring development and land uses.
This allocation does include the embankment above the site but this land is clearly not
developable and does not lie within the application site. The applicant has confirmed that the
embankment is currently owned by Peel Holdings who will retain ownership once the
application site has been sold. The embankment is currently planted with trees and shrubs, which
are in various stages of maturity, but is generally well covered with planting. It is intended that
the embankment will be retained as an area planted with trees and shrubs separating the upper
land from the application site, although this will not be within the control of the applicant. The
concerns raised by Councillor Ainsworth in respect of the embankment are pertinent but I
consider that the existing extent of planting will achieve the objectives required.
Design of the development
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
Policy DEV2 states that the Council will not normally grant planning permission for new
development unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance of the
development. Policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its physical
context.
The proposed unit would be comparable in design to surrounding industrial units and I am
satisfied that the landscaped zones proposed are adequate, and would soften the visual impact of
the development.
The second point raised by Councillor Ainsworth expresses concern about the lack of a focal
point and that the design does not reflect the character of nearby buildings. However the design
is not intended to form a focal point but the design statement does comment that the office
element of the building will form a distinctive detail achieved by a change in materials and
double height glazing. The design is complementary to the first phase of the development rather
than the larger grain store.
Policies DEV4 and DES11 seek to encourage the inclusion of design measures, which reduce
criminal activity. The comments of the Police Architectural Liaison Officer are awaited but a
quality 2.4 metre high fence is proposed around the service yard, which I consider would be
acceptable.
Impact of development on the neighbouring users
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors in determining
planning applications including the relationship to the road network, the likely scale and type of
traffic generation, and the arrangements for servicing and access to the proposed development.
This is reiterated in Policy DES1. Policy DES7 states that development will not be permitted
where it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other
developments.
The design and layout of the site reflects the potential for residential development on the land to
the north and would minimise the potential for noise and nuisance in the future.
Given that the site is located within an existing industrial area, I am satisfied that the proposal
would not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.
Transportation
Policies T13 and A10 seek to achieve appropriate provision of parking for new developments.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 – Transport and Policy A10 seek to encourage the use of
more sustainable forms of travel such as public transport, cycling and car sharing. The developer
has made efforts to encourage cycling by the provision of cycle parking facilities and shower
facilities. The application of current parking standards would require a maximum parking
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
provision of between 66 and 88 parking spaces. The provision at 86 is towards the upper limit
but in view of the site location is considered acceptable and in accordance with the Draft Policy.
The applicant has agreed that a Travel Plan will be produced to best address how traffic issues to
and from this site will be addressed. It is proposed therefore to include a suitably worded
condition to this effect.
CONCLUSION
I am of the opinion that the use of the site, the design of the buildings and layout of the
development is consistent with the policies contained within the UDP, and are acceptable. I
therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three 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 Local
Planning Authority. The development shall bre undertaken using the approved materials.
3. Prior to the first occupation of the development a Travel Plan shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local planning Authority. The Plan as approved shall be implemented
thereafter monitored and targets met in accordance with the details within the Plan.
4. Standard Condition C01X Landscaping
5. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the
disposal of foul and surface waters has been approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Such a scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the
approved plans.
6. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soak away system, all
surface water drainage from vehicle parking shall be passed through an oil interceptor
designed and constructed to have a capacity and details compatible with the site being
drained. Roof water shall not pass through the interceptor.
7. The parking and vehicular turning facilities shall be made available prior to the first
occupation and shall be retained thereafter at all times.
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
8. Standard Condition M08 Site Investigation - new
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Reason: To ensure sustainable modes of travel are used in accordance with policies DEV1 of
the Adopted UDP and A10 of the Revised Deposit Draft Salford City Council UDP.
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. To ensure a satisfactory means of drainage.
6. Reason: To ensure a safe form of development that poses no unacceptable risk of pollution.
7. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
8. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
Note(s) for Applicant
1. 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:
06/52037/FUL
APPLICANT:
Urban Guide Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To 7 Barton Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Retention of existing two/three storey building comprising five
dwellings, but including amendments to the existing building
comprising removal of forward projecting bay on front elevation
and provision of rough render finish.
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
16th March 2006
Worsley
BACKGROUND
This report relates to a newly constructed building at 7 Barton Road, Worsley. Planning
permission was granted for 5 apartments in February 2003 (02/45283/FUL) following the
withdrawal of an earlier scheme for six apartments (02/44335/FUL).
Following enforcement action the applicant has submitted this application for the retention of
the existing two/three storey building but including amendments to the existing building
comprising removal of the forward projecting bay on the front elevation and the provision of
rough render finish
THE BUILDING AS CONSTRUCTED
The development has been built differently to what was approved and the main differences are as
follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
increase in the highest part of the building by 35cm (although other parts have
reduced in height)
increase in the size of the stairwell to unit 4 that extends from ground to 2nd floor (as a
result of building regs requirements)
increase in size of ground floor bedroom to unit 3 and to the stairwell to unit 4 above
from 1st to 2nd floor (as a result of the building regulations requirements and to fill in
area below ie bedroom size increase)
minor amendments to door and window positions around the building
forward projection of oriel windows facing Barton Road at 1st and 2nd floor by a
distance of 45cm
internal alterations that result in habitable rooms being closer to a garden chimney in
an adjoining property.
ENFORCEMENT HISTORY
A report to the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel was considered in November
2005. The Panel considered that enforcement action should be taken regarding points i) and v)
above, namely that part of the building was too high and should be reduced to the height
originally approved and that the forward projection on the Barton Road elevation should be
removed, due to the adverse nature of these two aspects of the building on the Conservation
Area. Members also requested that the building should be faced in rough cast render similar to
other buildings on Barton Road rather than the smooth render that has been used.
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
Enforcement action has been taken and the applicant has appealed against the enforcement
notice. The appeal is due to be heard by means of a hearing later this year.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land within the Worsley Village Conservation Area. The site is
bounded by on three sides by residential development with commercial shop and office premises
to the south. The site covers an area of 0.86 hectare and originally comprised part of the garden
to 5 Barton Road, The Old Nick, a grade II Listed Building, a small single storey fabric and
interior design shop and a former parking area to the office premises to the south. The site has
now been developed and comprises five dwellings with ancillary parking and landscaping.
It is proposed to retain the building as it currently exists but with two exceptions. Firstly that the
forward projecting bay at first and second floor level on the front elevation of the building would
be removed and that the building would be finished in rough white render to match existing
buildings on Barton Road.
CONSULTATIONS
Worsley Village Community Association – considers that the City Council should not back
down from the decision that it reached in November 2005 regarding the enforcement issue and
request that the application be refused.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
1, 1A, 3, 9 to 14 (incl), 16, 35 and 61 Barton Road
9, 11and 14 Kenwood Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a total of 19 representations in response to the planning application publicity.
All but one object to the application and almost all object to the building in its entirety. The
following issues have been raised:
Out of character, too big, unsightly, an eyesore, overbearing, out of place
That the developer should not be allowed to ‘get away with it’
That the fault lies with the original approval
The changes are cosmetic
Removal of the bay will spoil the appearance
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP3 – Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
EN11 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
EN12 – Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings
DRAFT REPLACEMENT UDP POLICY
Site specific policies:
CH5 – Works Within Conservation Areas
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
CH4 – Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building
CH6 - Demolition of Buildings within Conservation Areas
PLANNING APPRAISAL
It is important to remind ourselves of the issues to be determined in this application.
Planning permission for a building the same as is now built save for those six areas highlighted
above was granted in February 2003 following the withdrawal of an earlier application for a
larger development.
The report considered by the Panel in November 2005 highlighted that there were six main areas
where the building as constructed deviated from the approved drawings. These six areas are
referred to above.
The Panel concluded that enforcement action should only be taken with regard to two of those
areas of departure, the height and the projecting bay.
This application seeks to retain the height but to remove the bay.
As the existing building has not been built in accordance with the approved plans it remains
unauthorised development. A situation that this application seeks to resolve. It is therefore
necessary to formally consider again the development in the normal way. Firstly though I shall
now deal with each of the main ways in which the built development differs from the approved
plans in turn.
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
i) Increase in the height of the building.
This can be seen on the annotated elevation. The Panel in November 2005 reached the decision
that this increase has a significant detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area. At the time of this decision the City Council was unaware of how this
increase in height had come about. The applicant has now explained that the alterations to the
Building Regulations which accounted for the increase in the size of the stair well have also
resulted in the slight increase in the height of the building due to new sound proofing
requirements which have required a thicker floorplate and to increased ceiling height needed
partly as a result of the increase in the space needed to accommodate the stairs. I would also
point out that enforcing compliance with the approved height would necessitate a complete
demolition of this portion of the building.
ii) Increase in the size of the stairwell.
This alteration has been brought about as a direct result of an alteration in the Building
Regulations that came into force between the grant of permission and the commencement of
development. The increase in footprint of 4.25sq.m brings a 2.5 storey section of building 1.25m
closer to the property opposite, The Old Nick. This dwelling has a kitchen window at ground
floor level but planning permission has since been granted to change the use of the property from
residential to beauty salon (04/48558/COU) which has yet to be implemented. The distance
between the stairwell and the kitchen window is 9.2 metres. I do not consider there is any
detrimental effect on any neighbouring property as a result of this alteration as both the stairwell
and the kitchen are non-habitable rooms.
The impact of the stairwell to the only bedroom of the bungalow at 1A Barton Road is greater,
being 1.25 metres closer. The distance between these rooms is approximately 14.5 metres. The
owner of the bungalow is concerned about oblique overlooking into his bedroom but I consider
this distance to be acceptable. The impact of overlooking from bedrooms in units 1 and 2,
mentioned in the panel report, is mitigated by the erection of the new detached garage to The Old
Nick which effectively forms a screen between the properties.
This part of the building is also sufficiently set back from the road frontage for it not to have any
effect on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
The Panel considered in November 2005 that enforcement action should not be taken with regard
to this difference to the approved plans.
iii) Increase in the size of the bedroom to unit 3 and to the unit above.
This alteration has also been brought about as a result of the alteration in the Building
Regulations described above and relates to the same amount of floorspace, some 4.25sq.m at
both ground and first floors. The ground floor bedroom is now 1.35m closer to The Old Nick
which, as described, has a kitchen window at ground floor level, but has permission for use as a
beauty salon. The distance, at 11.6 metres, is below what the Council would normally expect
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
between a habitable bedroom and a kitchen. The normal distance would be 13 metres. Given
that the alteration arises as a result of the Building Regulations and relates to the building itself
and not to neighbouring property, I am satisfied that there would be no significant effect on any
neighbouring property as a result of this alteration. The impact at first floor is between a
stairwell and the ground floor kitchen to The Old Nick.
Similarly this part of the building is sufficiently set back from the road frontage for it not to have
any effect on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
The Panel considered in November 2005 that enforcement action should not be taken with regard
to this difference to the approved plans.
iv) Minor amendments to window and door positions and sizes.
I have highlighted the areas of change on the plans. There are no new windows introduced in
any area where this might cause a problem or reasonably be of any concern to any neighbour. I
am satisfied that these changes do not have any significant detrimental effect on any
neighbouring property or on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. This type of
alteration would normally be dealt with as a working amendment to the approved drawings.
The Panel considered in November 2005 that enforcement action should not be taken with regard
to this difference to the approved plans.
v) The forward projection of the windows on the Barton Road frontage.
This alteration brings habitable room windows, at 1st and 2nd floor, 45cm closer to habitable
room windows in the cottages on the opposite side of Barton Road.
This application includes the removal of this forward projecting bay. The existing windows
would then lie flush with the main front elevation. The slight overhang of the roof over the bay
would also be removed so that the roof line would be uniform over the whole gable.
vi) The internal alterations that bring bedrooms closer to a neighbours’ garden shed
chimney.
The issue of the chimney was not addressed at the original Panel meeting. The owner of the
chimney, which is attached to a stove in an outbuilding within the neighbours’ garden, has stated
that it is used infrequently and common sense indicates that on days when the chimney is likely
to be in use windows in adjacent bedrooms are unlikely to be open. The issue here though is one
of differences in the approved and built development. It is relevant that internal alterations could
be made at any time without the need for planning permission that would result in non-habitable
room windows in the approved scheme being used as habitable rooms. I do not therefore
consider that this issue effects my consideration of previous points.
The Panel considered in November 2005 that enforcement action should not be taken with regard
to this difference to the approved plans.
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
As the application seeks approval for the whole building I now turn to the appraisal of the whole
development that now has the benefit of being made on the existing building rather than on what
it was envisaged the building would look like when the previous planning application was
considered.
Appraisal of the whole development
Policy EN11 states that the City Council will seek to preserve or enhance the special character of
areas of architectural and historic interest. In considering any planning application for
development within a conservation area the City Council will consider the extent to which the
development is consistent with the desirability of preserving or enhancing the conservation area.
Policy EN12 states that the City Council will not normally permit any development that would
be detrimental to the setting of a Listed building or the environmental quality of the surrounding
area. Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when
considering applications. These factors include the car parking provision, the relationship to
existing buildings, the effect on neighbouring properties and the visual appearance of the
development. Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant planning
permission unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and the visual appearance of the
development.
The policies of the revised deposit draft replacement plan are similar to those of the approved
plan with regard to this development although policy CH5 is worth repeating here. It states that
development in conservation areas will only be permitted where it would preserve or enhance the
character and appearance of the conservation area. It goes on to say that in determining this,
regard will be had to the extent to which the proposal:
 retains or improves features that contribute to the character or appearance of the
conservation area;
 is of a high standard of design, consistent with the design policies of the plan;
 retains existing mature trees;
 secures environmental improvements and enhancements; and
 protects and improves important views within, into and out of the conservation area.
With regard to the objections that have been received I have considered the majority view that
the building is out of character, too big, unsightly, an eyesore, overbearing and out of place very
carefully. The City Council’s conservation officer has, in response to my consultation on the
development, stated that overall the rooflines, set-backs, footprint and decorative window
features present an agreeable shape to the Barton Road frontage in the Worsley Village
Conservation Area. He considers that the window detailing, with hoodmoulds, stone cills and
mullions add character to the otherwise plain render finish. He considers that in retrospect the
window projection adds character and helps to articulate the front elevation, the primary
elevation fronting onto a major vehicular and pedestrian route through Worsley Village
Conservation Area. The projection at first and second floor levels of 450mm allows a shadow to
be revealed to the north of the structure. This helps to define the elevation and serves to interrupt
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
an otherwise flat and, except for the hood-moulds above the window head, relatively
uninteresting plane. He considers that the inclusion of this detail is acceptable and would
enhance the character of the Worsley Village Conservation Area. He considers that the splayed
wall leading to the undercroft also adds to the interesting character of the development. He
considers that the quality of the doors and windows is good and adds greatly to the character of
the development
I agree that the building is large and accept that the judgement on whether the building is
consistent with the criteria set out in policy CH5 or not is finely balanced. I am satisfied
however, that on balance, the building does comply with the criteria set out in policy CH5. I
consider that the removal of the bay is desireable but would argue, in line with the views of the
conservation officer and two of the neighbours who have written to me, that complete removal of
the bay would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the building and on
the conservation area itself. I am mindful though that full removal of the bay was recommended
by the Panel in November and that the applicant is willing to undertake that work.
I do not consider that the development as proposed by this application will result in any
significant loss of light to any neighbouring property. Nor do I consider that the development
would be out of keeping or character with Worsley Village. Further I consider that the
development as a whole does enhance the conservation area and the setting of the adjacent listed
building in accordance with policy EN12.
I accept that some of the normal privacy and overlooking distances are not met by this
development but am of the view that these factors must be considered against the benefits that
the application originally brought in terms of replacing the incongruous single storey building
that was on the site and providing a development that is significantly more in keeping with the
character of the Worsley Village Conservation Area.
I consider that the level of parking is appropriate to the development.
In coming to a conclusion it is necessary to set out the options.
Should planning permission be refused the development would remain unauthorised and the
situation would be resolved by the appeal that the applicant has already lodged.
The applicant could undertake the work to remove the forward projecting bay and this would
leave the only unresolved issue the 35cm increase in the height of the building that the applicant
states has resulted through the requirements of the Building Regulations.
I consider that the main issue is whether or not the decrease in the height of the building is
necessary or not. I am of the opinion that in terms of the overall development this 35cm makes
no appreciable difference to the effect that the building has on neighbours or on the character and
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
appearance of the conservation area. I recommend therefore that planning permission be granted
subject to a condition regarding the rough render.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Within two months of the date of this permission the colour, specification and extent of use
on the building of the rough render shall be approved in writing by the local planning
authority and the building shall be rendered in accordance with the approved details within
three months of the date of this permission.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R006A Character - conservation area
APPLICATION No:
06/52046/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Stewart
LOCATION:
360 Liverpool Road Irlam M44 6AL
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a conservatory at the rear of the property
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a semi-detached property on Liverpool Road in Irlam.
The application is for the erection of a conservatory to the rear of the property. The extension
would project 6.07m in length and 4.3m in width. On the site there is an existing wall along the
common boundary, this wall is 1.75m high and 5.3m in length.
SITE HISTORY
There have been no previous planning applications on this site.
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
PUBLICITY
The following addresses have been notified:
358 and 362 Liverpool Road, Irlam
40,42 and 44 Francis Road, Irlam
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objections in response to the planning application. The application is
to be determined at Panel as the applicant has cited some special circumstances and the
Development Control Manager considers that the application raises issues which should be
determined by Members.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site Specific Policies: None
Other Policies: None
ADOPTED UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site Specific Policies: None
Other Policies: DEV8 - House Extensions
DRAFT REPLACEMENT UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Site Specific Policies: None
Other Policies: DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the siting and size of the proposed
conservatory, and the impact on amenity of the neighbouring residents of 358 Liverpool Road.
Policy DEV8 of the Adopted UDP and Policy DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement
Plan state that development will not permitted where it would have an adverse impact upon the
occupiers or users of other developments in the vicinity or an unacceptable impact on the
character and appearance of the street scene.
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) A Guide to House Extensions was
adopted in December 2002 after public consultation. It provides additional guidance on the
factors to be considered and standards maintained when determining householder applications.
The proposed conservatory is to be situated on the rear of the property 0.1m away from the
common boundary with 358 Liverpool Road. The proposal would project a maximum 6.07m
from the rear of the property in total and 5.7m along the common boundary. There is a habitable
room window at ground floor level on the rear elevation of 358 Liverpool Road, close to the
common boundary. HH9 requires that extension along the common boundary should not exceed
2.74m and in circumstances where a proposal would exceed 2.74m, it will normally be
considered to be acceptable provided it does not exceed a 45 degree line drawn from the mid
point of any habitable room windows. The proposed conservatory would project 5.7m along the
common boundary. This measurement exceeds 2.74m and the 45-degree splay from the middle
of the neighbouring habitable room window, therefore is contrary to policy HH9 of the SPG. The
proposal exceeds the distance specified in policy HH9 to protect neighbouring amenity therefore
its impact upon 358 Liverpool Road would be unacceptable, contrary to DEV8 of the Adopted
UDP and DES7 of the Draft Replacement UDP.
There is an existing wall along the common boundary of the proposal. This wall is 1.75m in
height and 5.3m in length. The height to the eaves of the proposed conservatory would be 2.6m
which would be 0.85m above the existing wall and the height to the ridge would be a further 1m.
Therefore the total height would measure 3.6m. The proposal would also project along the
common boundary beyond the existing wall by 0.4m and then a further 0.37m, to a total distance
of 6.07m. I consider that the proposed conservatory would have an overbearing effect, due to its
size and siting, on the amenity of the residents at number 358 which would be greater than that
which the residents are already subject to by the existing wall. I therefore consider the proposal
to be unacceptable and contrary to policies DEV8 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and
DES7 of the Draft Replacement UDP.
CONCLUSION
The proposed conservatory by reasons of its size and siting would have an unacceptable impact
on the residents of 358 Liverpool Road. The proposed conservatory would be considerably
higher and longer than the existing wall, thus having a greater impact on the amenity of the
residents of 358 Liverpool Road, than the existing wall. The proposal is contrary to policy HH9
of the SPG, DEV8 of the Adopted UDP and DES7 of the Draft Replacement UDP.
Therefore I recommend that the application be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would by virtue of its size and siting be an overbearing feature
and would unacceptably injure the amenity of the residents of 358 Liverpool Road. The
development is contrary to Policy HH9 of the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance
for House Extensions Policy DEV8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and
Policy DES7 of the Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan.
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
72
16th March 2006
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
APPLICATION No:
06/52167/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Housing Market Renewal Team
LOCATION:
Alley To Rear Of 1,3 & 5 Lords Avenue Salford M5 5HH
PROPOSAL:
Erection of gate to secure alleyway
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application is for the erection of 2.75m high maximum lockable double leaf gate at the
alleyways to the rear of 1,3,5 Lords Avenue, Salford 5 to provide residents only access and
improved security.
CONSULTATIONS
Peak and Northern Footpath Society – no response
Ramblers Association – no objections.
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – no response
Open Space Society – no response
Public Right of Way Officer- no objections.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published in the Salford Advertiser on 21.02.2006.
A site notice was displayed on 23.02.2006
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
14, 16 Whiteside Close
6, 8, 17, 19 Tootal Road
1-5 Lords Avenue
1 Martin Street
Willows Health Centre
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of representation in response to the planning application publicity.
The following issues have been raised:
The scheme should include 6 Tootal Road
The scheme would not able to protect 6 Tootal Road
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV1 - Development Criteria
DEV4 - Design and Crime
T10 - Pedestrians
DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES11 – Design and Crime
A2 – Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the impact the proposed gate on the
street scene and the amenity of neighbouring residents and the impact the proposed closures
would have upon crime, the fear of crime and public accessibility. The loss of existing public
rights of way also needs to be considered.
Policies DEV1 and DES1 identify a number of issues that should be taken into account when
determining planning applications. These include the visual appearance of the development
and its relationship to its surroundings. Policy DEV2 seeks to achieve high quality design and
to secure an acceptable appearance in development proposals. With respect to DEV1, DEV2
and DES 1, I am of the opinion that the design, siting, height and colour - being black powder
coated, of the proposed gate would be in keeping with the scale, height and character of the
other boundary treatments and therefore would not form visually obtrusive features for the
surrounding area nor the local residents would suffer any significant loss of amenity.
Policies T10 and DES 2 take into account the safety and the accessibility of existing public
rights of way in the planning of new development. Policy A2 also states that development
that would result in the loss of an existing public right of way will only be permitted where it
can be demonstrated that adequate levels of access for the disabled, pedestrians and cyclists
will be maintained through the site.
I am satisfied that the proposed alley gates are not going to result in any significant loss of
permeability, as the existing alleyway is not a through route. The local residents will also be
able to gain access through the alley gates, as they will be issued with the relevant keys. As
74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
such I am satisfied that the proposal meets the criteria in policy T10, DES 2 and A2. The
proposal would still preserve high level of accessibility and safety to all users.
Policies DEV4 and DES11 seeks for proposals to deter crime in the interests of personal and
property security without compromising on the appearance of the development. I am of an
opinion that the proposed scheme will assist in crime prevention in the area by only allowing
neighbouring residents access to the alleyways lie. This will help to reduce residents’ fear of
crime and overall beneficial to the area, which is in accordance with policy DEV4 and
DES11.
Regarding the objector’s comments that the scheme would not able to protect 6 Tootal Road
that and the scheme should include 6 Tootal Road. The applicant (Groundwork Manchester)
has submitted a letter explaining the reason they decided not to include 6 Tootal Road as part
of the application proposal. Planning officer has also carried out site visit to investigate the
issue raised by the objector.
Although the objector mentioned he is currently living in the property and there will be a
family moving in the near future, the ground floor of the objector’s property is empty,
boarded up and un-maintained. The boundary of 6 Tootal Road is surrounded by 1m high
brick wall and it was maintained in a poor condition. The Landscape Architect at
Groundwork Manchester has assessed the wall and he is of the opinion that the entire rear
boundary wall of 6 Tootal Road would need to be re-built as it would not support the fencing
that would be required to increase the height. Groundwork would not have the sufficient
funding available to complete this work as their funding is only available until late March or
early April 2006. Therefore, they decided to omit 6 Tootal Road from the current scheme.
Furthermore, even if the work were carried out including 6 Tootal Road, I consider it would
not increase the security of the property due to the setting of the property boundary. As
mentioned in previous paragraph, 6 Tootal Road is surrounded by 1m high brick wall and the
gable elevation of the property is facing to the public highway. Any intruder would still be
able to gain access to the property or the rear alleyway from the low side boundary wall at 6
Tootal Road, it would render the gate useless. In order to secure this property and the rear
alleyway it would required removal and rebuilt of the existing boundary wall. Groundwork
has already mentioned they would not be able to cover the cost. Although on the letter
submitted by Groundwork indicated the objector may consider re-building the wall
eventually by his own cost. There would be no guaranteed from the objector when is the
work being carried out.
Therefore, whilst I sympathise with the objector concerns, I do not consider that these
concerns warrant refusal of the scheme given that the security consideration of the remaining
resident properties at the rear alleyway.
I believe that the loss of existing public rights of way is acceptable given the proposed
improvements in crime prevention. I consider that the benefits of the proposal as outlined
above outweigh the access issue because the alleys are not recreational routes and the users of
the alleys are mainly local residents who would continue to have access to the rear alleyways
when they are no longer public rights of way.
75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
16th March 2006
CONCLUSION
Overall, the proposed development would not have an adverse impact upon the street scene
or the residential amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents. In fact the proposed
development would contribute to an improved quality of life, improve the pedestrian
environment, eliminating vandalism, theft and other criminal activity for existing and future
local residents. The proposal is therefore in accordance with policies DEV1 and DEV4 the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and policies DES1 and DES11 of the Draft
Replacement UDP. I therefore recommend the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until the appropriate order for
the closure or diversion of the public rights of way affected by the development has been
made.
3. The gate and panel shall be painted in the approved colour (RAL 9005) within 3 months
of their erection, and maintained in such a condition thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is advised that a formal easement will be required with Utilities for the
closures hereby approved.
76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 16th March 2006
77