PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
APPLICATION No:
01/43281/COU
APPLICANT:
W Leeson
LOCATION:
Plot 1 Linnyshaw Trading Estate Moss Lane Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Use of site as a waste transfer station, crushing and screening of inert
wastes and ancillary storage
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to two adjoining industrial plots in the north western corner of the Linneyshaw
Industrial Estate, to the rear of the former Vibroplant site at the top of Moss Lane. There are industrial units
adjoining the site to the east, the Vibroplant site to the south beyond which are residential properties of
Stoneyside Grove, Fernside Grove, Meadowside Avenue and Stoneyside Avenue. Work is currently being
undertaken to the site to the west but it has been used for open storage previously.
Plot 1 was granted a temporary permission in October 2000 for the screening and crushing of demolition
waste, planning reference 00/40943/FUL and in April 2001 a permanent permission was granted for the
same use, reference 01/42086/FUL
This application is for both plots 1 and 2 to make a single plot for the use of the site as a waste transfer
station with the crushing and screening of inert waste together with ancillary storage. The crusher and
screener would be sited on the northern half of the site (ie formerly plot 2) with the skip waste and storage
bays in the southern half (formerly plot 1) to the rear of the 3m high acoustic barrier. This was put in in
association with application 01/42086 and runs along the southern and eastern boundaries. It is intended to
extend the current operations of recycling hardcore to produce aggregate materials to include screening of
construction and demolition waste and sorting of skip waste. The proposed hours of operation are from
7.30am – 6pm Monday to Friday with no working over the weekends. The site would be accessed via the
recently surfaced access road off Moss Lane which was a condition of permission 01/42086/FUL and it is
anticipated that there would be approximately 25 HGVs visiting the site each day. As part of this in relation
to the waste transfer aspect of the proposal, the applicant has stated that he has two skip wagons and that it
is anticipated that there would be an average of 15 wagons a day although this would vary and on some days
there would be considerably less.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – has no objections in principle subject to the imposition of similar
conditions as applied to the previous uses in the vicinity relating to the sheeting of vehicles, hours of
operation and vehicle movements, use of the crusher and screener, height of storage of materials, acoustic
barrier, control of dust and pests, lighting and also a site investigation
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – considers that with suitable conditioning and high operational
standards the development should not have an unacceptable impact upon the local community and
environment.
Environment Agency – no objection in principle but requests that if permission is granted conditions be
attached relating to the storage of chemicals on site on impervious bases and a scheme for the disposal of
foul and surface waters. They also high-light that a waste management licence is likely to be required.
PUBLICITY
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
A site notice was displayed on 19th November 2001.
A press notice was published in March of this year.
The following neighbours were notified :
1 – 6 Fernside Grove
30 – 56 Meadowside Avenue
1 – 39 Stoneyside Avenue
1 – 6 Stoneyside Grove
T J Murphy, UBU Environmental
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EC13/25
Other policies: MW11 Waste Recycling and Bulk Reduction, MW15 Development Control Criteria –
Waste, EN2/22 Green Belt, R11/2 Provision of Country Parks.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy MW11 encourages proposals which result in recycling and reclamation of waste materials which is
what this application is seeking a permission for and is therefore supported by this policy. However, this is
safeguarded by compliance with policy MW15 in particular which is aiming to control any such
development and its impacts. This states planning permission will only be granted where there is not an
unacceptable impact in terms of a) “visual amenity, ground or water contamination, noise, smell dust,
vermin vibration or other nuisance”, and also in terms of access, traffic generation and road safety. These
are all important considerations, especially with the proximity of the housing to the south of the site.
The application would effectively create one larger site from the amalgamation of the two plots. On part of
this site there would be the screener and crushing operations which are already authorised. I have received
no objections from the application publicity.
The main difference therefore is the waste transfer aspect of the proposal. This would result in stockpiles of
materials on the site but these would be sited immediately behind the acoustic barrier and would therefore
be screened. I would consider that the height of any stockpile be restricted to a maximum height, similar to
the height of the acoustic fencing.
There would be an increase in traffic, especially in terms of HGVs. However, the proposed hours of
operation are only from Monday to Friday and during the length of the normal working day and there would
be no working at weekends or bank holidays
I have no objections on highway grounds and consider that this proposal complies with MW15. It should
not therefore have a significant adverse impact upon the area or the neighbouring residents and therefore I
recommend that this application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. All vehicles entering and leaving the site shall be sheeted or otherwise totally enclosed.
3. Vehicles shall only enter and leave the site between the hours of 7.30am and 6pm Monday to Friday
with no movements at weekends or bank holidays.
4. The crusher and screener shall only be operated between the hours of 8am and 6pm Monday to Friday
with no working at weekends or bank holidays.
5. No materials, goods or pallets shall be stored or deposited in the open to a height exceeding 5m.
6. The acoustic barrier shall be permanently and fully maintained at all times on the southern and western
boundaries of the site. The crusher or screening plant may not be operated if the acoustic barrier is
damaged or incomplete.
7. All skips involved with the waste transfer activities shall be stored on hard standing. All transfer of
waste shall be carried out on areas where hard standing exists.
8. The applicant shall submit a revised dust management plan for the whole site for written approval to the
LPA within 2 months of approval of the planning permission. The dust management plan should
identify all potential areas where the generation of dust may occur, and identify control methods to
minimise the generation of dust. The plan shall include as a minimum:
- measures for the crushing and screening plant
- on site storage of fine materials including wind whip measures
- dust control on roads and hard surfaces
- and the control of dust and mud on vehicles leaving the site.
Once agreed the measures proposed shall be implemented and retained thereafter.
9. The applicant shall submit a scheme for approval by the LPA for the monitoring of pests on site. The
scheme shall detail measures to be undertaken should a pest control problem arise.
10. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the
approval of the LPA. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground
contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to
receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focussing primarily on
risks to human health and to controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of
ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on
services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems
and property.
The sampling and analytical stragety shall be approved by the LPA prior to the start of the site
investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report
shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.
11. Any facilities for the storage of chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by
impervious bund walls, details of which shall be submitted to the LPA for approval. The volume of the
bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
tankage, the compound should be at least equivalent to 110% of the capacity of the largest tank, or 25%
of the total combined capacity of the interconnected tanks whichever is the greatest. All filling points,
vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall
be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework
should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank
overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund.
12. 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 Director of Development Services. Such a
scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
6. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
9. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
10. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
11. To prevent pollution of the water environment.
12. To ensure a satisfactory means of drainage.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached letter from the Environment Agency dated 5
December 2001 and in particular the section "Informatives".
2. The crushing and screening plant should only be used if there is a current and applicable authorisation
for the use of the equipment in force. If the applicant does not have an authorisation for the use of this
plant, the Environmental Services Directorate should be contacted to arrange for an authorisation to be
drafted and issued.
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
APPLICATION No:
01/43511/FUL
APPLICANT:
The Coal Authority
LOCATION:
Land At Worsley Delph And Carrs Meadow, Together With
Underground Pipeline Between The Two Sites Worsley Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Construction of barrier wall, footbridge and pumping station at the
Delph, 1km of underground transfer pipeline,5.6 hectares minewater
treatment site with inlet cascade building,wetland ponds, pumping
station,outlet to canal and landscaping
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a large elongated site of approximately 6 hectares. There are three main elements
to the site, namely land at Worsley Delph, land at Carrs Meadow and the area between the two sites.
Worsley Delph is a Scheduled Ancient Monument situated within the Worsley Village Conservation Area.
Carrs Meadow is presently rough pasture and lies within the Green Belt.
The proposal is to construct a pumping station, barrier wall and replacement footbridge at Worsley Delph
and to lay approximately 1 km of underground pipeline to link to a treatment site of approximately 5
hectares at Carrs Meadow. The treatment site would briefly comprise settlement lagoons, wetland ponds, an
inlet cascade building and outlet to the canal and landscaping. The purpose of the scheme is to remove the
iron ochre content of the water at Worsley Delph and the surrounding stretch of the Bridgewater Canal.
Discharge of minewater into Worsley Delph presently results in the orange discoloration of the Delph and
canal and the deposition of iron ochre sludge. This ochreous discharge is affecting water quality and
suppresses the aquatic flora and fauna.
Works at the Delph would comprise the construction of a barrier wall and footbridge across the eastern
tunnel, to capture water, whilst providing pedestrian access to the wharf area. An underground pumping
station is proposed at the foot of the steps leading up to the footbridge. A platform area above the pumping
station would be formed and paved with stone with two cast iron access covers to allow maintenance access
to the pumping station. The creation of a level ‘bench’ would necessitate the construction of a small
reinforced concrete wall with stone facings. It would be a maximum height of 1.7 metres and would be
erected to the north and east of the pumping station. A small GRP control kiosk would be located on land
adjacent to School Brow to allow for maintenance. The existing sluicegate in the western channel would be
repaired to prevent future minewater discharge from this source.
A buried pipeline to transfer water to the treatment site would run from Worsley Delph down School Brow
and onto Worsley Road, where it would run westwards and cross the M60 roundabout and skirt the western
boundary of the Courthouse car park. The pipeline would be laid underneath the existing woodland footpath
from the car park to the northern bank of the Bridgewater Canal. The pipeline would cross underneath the
canal to the rear of 33 Woodgarth Lane and would run along the southern towpath to the proposed treatment
site.
The treatment site would be set back approximately 30 metres from the foot of the embankment to the M60
motorway and would be approximately 250 metres in length by 185 metres in width. Vehicular access to the
site would be via Grange Road over the motorway and via an existing track to a gas regulator station. From
here a new access would be created running parallel to the M60 motorway embankment. The treatment site
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
would comprise three settlement lagoons and six wetland ponds (reed beds), surrounded by earth bunded
structures. A cascade building would be erected at the south-east of the site. The building would be 6.5
metres in length by 5.0 metres in width by 4.7 metres in height and would have a pitched roof. It would be
constructed in fair face blockwork and timber boarding. There would also be an underground pumping
station in order to return treated water to the canal at the north of the site. The access track would extend
into the site to enable maintenance. A concrete hardstanding of approximately 20 metres by 55 metres
would be constructed between the settlement lagoons and the motorway embankment. Part of this area
would be used for the drying of sludge. A combination of two metre high green weld-mesh fencing (mainly
to the southern boundary) and timber post rail would be erected around the perimeter of the site. Extensive
landscaping in the form of tree and shrub planting would be provided within the site and on the boundaries
of the treatment site.
The principal feature of the treatment site will be formed by the construction of earth bunds and
embankments raised above existing ground levels, following the removal of topsoil. The bases of the ponds
and lagoons will be formed by excavation below existing levels, but due to the shallow depth of
groundwater levels and the nature of the sub soil (clay) the extent to which the ponds can be sunk is limited.
Generally the bunds/embankments will be in the order of 1.2m in height save for the south- west corner
where they will be 2.5m high. The perimeter bunds will be heavily landscaped and graded where possible.
Whilst a large part of the treatment site would be constructed using in situ materials, some 31,500 m³ of
material would be imported for the bunds. The only vehicle access to the site is via Grange Road. The
applicant estimates that over a 14 week period it would take 4 No. 18 tonne lorries per hour to transport the
material on site with an operating period of a 10 hour day (ie 08:00 to 18:00) over a six day week. Once
operational the applicant estimates that the settlement ponds will require de- sludging at intervals of five to
eight years, while for the wetland ponds the operation is expected to be on a 15 to 20 year basis. Desludging would take between 4 to 10 weeks to complete and vehicle requirements are 3 to 5 per week. In
terms of volume one settlement pond would produce some 130m³ (= 168 tonnes).
An arboricultural impact assessment has been undertaken to identify trees requiring removal to
accommodate the development, trees that are undesirable to be retained due to defects and measures
required to preserve other trees at risk. In total, seven trees would be felled and crown lifting would be
required for a number of other specimens. Surveys have been undertaken to establish the presence of
protected species at the site, namely Great Crested Newts and bats. These surveys conclude that there are no
great crested Newts or bats in the vicinity of the site and as such no mitigation requirements.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services (Parks and Countryside) – Concerns relating to damage to tree roots,
however these have now been addressed. Environmental improvements of the scheme far outweigh the
disadvantages.
Director of Environmental Services (Pollution Control) - No objection in principle. Some concerns
regarding noise and vibration of construction works and pumps. Recommend conditions and informatives
with regards noise, vibration and dust.
English Heritage – No objection to the proposals.
English Nature – In favour of the scheme in principle, owing to the potential environmental gains, however
initially raised concerns regarding the methodologies employed when assessing the presence of protected
species and the practicality of some of the habitat creation schemes. Further to the production of the updated
surveys and changes to the scheme English Nature consider the applicant has now addressed their initial
concerns.
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
Environment Agency – No objection in principle to the proposal. Recommend condition regarding details
of overflow culvert in order to assess impacts on flood defence and land drainage. Also recommend
informatives regarding need for Water Abstraction Licence and Discharge consents. Great Crested Newts
surveys must be undertaken in addition to consideration of subsequent colonisation of treatment site by
Great Created Newts.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – The scheme will greatly enhance the setting of the Scheduled
Ancient Monument at Worsley Delph and the Bridgewater Canal. Recommend an Archaeological
Watching Brief for the construction of the minewater scheme and that full archaeological records are made
of all structures involved in the works.
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – Overall the scheme will have a number of positive environmental
benefits, including ecological benefits from remediation of minewater pollution at the Delph and the
Bridgewater Canal. Many initial concerns have been satisfied by amendments to the proposal. Some
concerns were raised regarding the bat survey and disturbance to nesting birds. A management plan should
be provided – see attached condition.
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – In general the proposal would have major benefits for Salford’ s
environment. However a number of issues were raised regarding the lack of some details to properly assess
the scheme. These details have now been submitted and are considered satisfactory.
Highways Agency – No objection in principle to the proposals. Require clarification regarding access track
and excavations.
Manchester Ship Canal Company – No objections to the proposal. Developer would need to obtain their
formal approval of the Method Statements, Risk Assessments and detailed engineering drawings and plans.
Steam, Coal and Canal – Fully in support of the proposals.
United Utilities – No objections to the proposal in principle. The pipeline would cross the lines of public
sewers – these should be identified and protected during construction. Any necessary disconnection or
diversion of United Utilities’ mains will be at developer’s expense. Letter attached for further information.
Worsley Civic Trust – The Trust observed that within their organisation some members felt the iron ochre
enhances the character of Worsley whilst others see it as pollution. The treatment site may be too close to
the motorway to allow future modifications to be made.
Worsley Village Community Association – None received
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 7th February 2002
Site notices were displayed on 1st February 2002 and 8th May 2002
The following neighbours were notified:
64 Farm Lane
2, 3 School Brow
The School House, School Brow
3, 5, 2, 4, 6 Worsley Road
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
The Courthouse, Library, Rock House, Barton Road
2 – 8 (evens) Barton Road
1, 1a, 3, 5, 6a Barton Road
Novotel Hotel, Worsley Brow
14 – 20 Dellcot Lane
33 Woodgarth Lane
Grange Farm, Grange Road
2- 42 (evens) Grange Road
1 – 33 (odds) Grange Road
493 – 495 (odds) Worsley Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of support and fifteen letters of objection to date in response to the application
publicity on the following grounds:
Use of Grange Road as the main construction access and serious effect on lifestyle, including noise
pollution and general aggravation. It is a narrow tree lined residential road and is completely inappropriate
for heavily laden lorries;
Danger to children and the elderly who use Grange Road from heavy vehicles;
Local residents will not be able to park on Grange Road due to the heavy traffic.
Grange Road will become worn and pot- holed. Vibrations from the lorries will undermine the house
foundations and drainage.
The service road running alongside the motorway is not wide enough to allow passing traffic, which may
result in further damage to fencing, dykes and potentially crops;
Would be a serious impact on residents at Grange Farm as a result of noise and dust;
Impact on financial aspects of Grange Farm;
Local residents should not suffer any loss due to potential damage caused by the lorries;
Local residents were informed that Grange Road would not be used as an access to Salford Forest Park.
However now this proposal which was included in the Salford Forest Park application proposes to use
Grange Road as the only available access;
If this proposal is accepted, there is a danger that a precedent is set for future development on the other side
of the motorway from Grange Road, with Grange Road being accepted as the main access. Schemes to
develop the land on the other side of the motorway should address the issue of access with more thought;
Wet sludge could be a recipe for disaster in terms of dirty roads;
The sludge is toxic and will be transported past houses;
Would create another odour problem in the area;
Is no reference to other options which might have been considered;
Proposal breaches Green Belt principles;
Extra traffic will result in congestion and delays;
There is a lack of information and analysis on the effectiveness of the treatment site.
No analysis has been undertaken on the effect on tourism and history of removing the iron ochre;
The colour of the water in the Delph and the Bridgewater Canal gives it special character;
The treatment site will result in the loss of Grade I agricultural land.
There are omissions in the proposal, including no reference to the Thirlmere Aqueduct and how will the
applicant stop the water from draining out of the new ponds?
The minimal distribution of notification letters to residents is in this case entirely inappropriate;
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
EN25 – Worsley Greenway
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
Other policies:
20 TH JUNE 2002
EN22 - Green Belt
EN24 – Conservation of the Mosslands
EN20 – Pollution Control
EN2 – Development Within Green Belt
EN4 – Agriculture
EN5 – Nature Conservation
EN6 – Conservation of the Mosslands
EN7 - Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
EN11 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
EN14 – Archaeology and Ancient Monuments
EN18 – Worsley Greenway
TR5 – Protection of Existing and Potential Assets
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
PLANNING APPRAISAL
This proposal must be considered against a number of Unitary Development Plan policies. Policy EN20Pollution Control states that the City Council will encourage and support measures to reduce water
pollution. The proposed minewater treatment site is located on Grade 3a pasture land within the green belt
and partially within the Mosslands area and as such regard should be had to national planning guidance
contained within PPG2 (Green Belts) and PPG7 (The Countryside and Rural Economy) and UDP policies
EN2, EN4 and EN6. Worsley Delph is a Scheduled Ancient Monument and is also located within the
Worsley Village Conservation Area and Worsley Greenway, as such regard should be had to EN14, EN11
and EN18. The proposed pipeline route should also be considered in relation to these policies, in addition to
EN7.
Firstly, with regards to policy EN20, the construction of a minewater treatment site and associated
facilities to prevent the ingress of iron ochre into the canal would enable improvements to water quality
and the development of flora and fauna - this is fully in accordance with this UDP policy. Policy EN11 Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas says that in seeking to preserve or enhance
conservation areas, the City Council will have regard to the need to promote environmental improvements
and enhancement programmes, and will encourage high standards of development which are in keeping
with the character of the area. The development is an environmental improvement and is therefore in
accordance with this policy. The design of the proposed works at the Delph are of a high standard. The
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit has stated that the scheme would greatly enhance the setting of
the Scheduled Ancient Monument. The proposed works at the Delph would be in accordance with policy
TR5 which states that the City Council will protect tourism assets from unsympathetic development.
Policies EN18 & EN25 (Worsley Greenway) state that the City Council will seek to preserve the open
character of the Worsley Greenway and will seek to improve the appearance and use of the Greenway for
amenity, wildlife, conservation, agriculture and recreational purposes. The development is not contrary to
these policies, as the environmental improvement of the canal will improve the environment of the canal for
wildlife, amenity, and recreation purposes. The policy also emphasises the protection, enhancement and
promotion of sites and structures of archaeological importance and ancient monuments.
With regards to Policy EN6 & 24 (Conservation of the Mosslands) which seek to protect and enhance the
Mosslands, and policy EN6 which states that planning permission will not normally be granted for
proposals which would be detrimental to the wildlife of the Mosslands. The Applicant has indicated that the
proposed minewater treatment site is species-poor grassland, and that the proposed landscaping at the site
would enhance the areas wildlife rather than be detrimental to the Mosslands. Ecological surveys and a
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
biodiversity assessment have been undertaken by the Applicant, in addition to bat surveys and great crested
newt surveys. No bats or great crested newts were found during these surveys.
Policy EN2 (Development Within Green Belt) states that the character of the Green Belt will be preserved
by maintaining a general presumption against inappropriate development within it, and protecting its visual
amenity by resisting proposals for development within or conspicuous from the Green Belt which, although
they would not prejudice the purposes of including land in the Green Belt, might be visually detrimental by
reasons of their siting, materials, or design. EN2 and PPG2 Para. 3.4 also state that the construction of new
buildings within the Green Belt will be considered to be inappropriate unless they are for a number of
purposes, including essential facilities for uses that preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not
conflict with the purposes of including land within it. PPG2 further advises that engineering and other
operations, and the making of material changes in the use of land are inappropriate development unless they
maintain openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt.
The proposed treatment site consists of a material change of use of the land and building and engineering
works including the creation of ponds and lagoons, the construction of an access track and the erection of a
cascade building and perimeter fencing. I consider that the lagoons and ponds would preserve the openness
of the Green Belt, and would not detract from the purposes of including land within the Green Belt, so are
essentially compatible with policy EN2 and PPG2. The treatment site area would be landscaped and
surrounded by landscaping. The main above ground element of the proposal would be a small building that
would house the cascade. I consider that this building is necessary as an essential part of the treatment site
proposal in that it would conceal the inlet cascade at the end of the termination of the pipeline. This building
would be partially screened by the proposed landscaping and bunds at the site, furthermore, the building
would be constructed with materials that would be in keeping with the visual amenity of the area. Trees
would be planted adjacent to the site security fencing which would reduce its visual impact.
In the Supporting Statement, the Applicant has indicated that there are an absence of suitable alternative
sites for the treatment works and that the benefits brought about by the removal of ocherous discharge from
the canal amount to ‘very special circumstances’ which would allow for the development of this proposal in
the Green Belt. They further justify the proposal by indicating that the built elements will be designed to be
compatible with the rural nature of the site, and with the ponds/ lagoons being essentially earth bunded
structures and the site including substantial landscaping and ecological/ habitat improvement works, the
overall form of the site on completion should remain compatible with the Green Belt designation of the
area. The limited scale and size of the built and above ground elements of the proposed development and its
particular characteristics would not in my view result in inappropriate development and would preserve the
openness of the Green Belt. Furthermore I do not consider the proposal would be at odds with the five
purposes of including land in the Green Belt and therefore conclude that the proposed development is
appropriate development in the Green Belt.
The land at the proposed treatment site has been surveyed by DEFRA and has been given a Grade3a rating
of agricultural land. PPG7 – The Countryside and the Rural Economy and UDP policy EN4 provide
guidance on the development of agricultural land. PPG7 para. 2.17 states that development of greenfield
land, including the best and most versatile (defined as land in grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land
Classification), should not be permitted unless opportunities have been addressed for accommodating
development on previously-developed sites and on land within the boundaries of existing urban areas.
Where development of agricultural land is unavoidable, local planning authorities should seek to use areas
of poorer quality land in preference to higher quality, except where other sustainability considerations
suggest otherwise. Furthermore, policy EN4 states that the City Council will safeguard the best and most
versatile agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a) and that planning permission for non-agricultural use of land
will not normally be granted if the development would be likely to result in the loss of the land in the longer
term as a high quality agricultural resource. Where less versatile land becomes surplus to agricultural
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
requirements there will be a presumption in favour of proposals which safeguard the open character of the
land and are of recreation, landscape or nature conservation value.
The Applicant has stated that alternative options for the treatment site have been considered, but rejected.
The five options considered were an underground site within the tunnels (rejected due to inadequate space
and ventilation difficulties), within the Delph Apron area (potential Scheduled Ancient Monument
implications), under Worsley Road Bridge (rejected due to inadequate space), land to the north of the canal
between the M60 motorway and the Worsley slip road (possible wildlife constraints) and finally land to the
north of the canal, immediately west of the M60 slip road (rejected – land allocated to alternative
development by land owner, with resultant acquisition difficulties). This site to the south of the canal was
selected as it provided sufficient area for passive treatment and was as close as possible to the source of the
discharge to the canal, to minimise the distance for pumping the untreated water and associated long term
energy consumption. Options closer to the source would have involved chemical treatment together with
the use of electrical and mechanical plant, which was not considered to be compatible with the conservation
nature of Worsley Village and the Scheduled Ancient Monument at the Delph.
The Applicant has also considered the possibility of locating the treatment site on areas of lower grade
agricultural land. This option would require minewater discharges to be pumped over an additional distance
of 3 km, involving significantly higher energy consumption than the current proposal over the life of the
scheme. In addition, this option would mean that the treatment site would be remote from the canal to which
the treated water would be returned. With regards to the life span and potential end date for the programme,
the Applicant has indicated that it is not possible to be specific on this matter – the scheme will be required
to operate as long as iron continues to be discharged in significant concentrations from the former
underground mines. It is expected that the system will need to operate for many years to come and the Coal
Authority has secured a long term lease from the site owners. In the event that the scheme does become
redundant at some point in the future, the Applicant believes that it would be possible to dismantle the
treatment facilities and reinstate the land for agricultural purposes. The treatment site will result in the loss
of Grade 3a agricultural land, however the proposal is part of an environmental improvement scheme that
will safeguard the open character of the area, in addition to bringing biodiversity and landscape
improvements. In the long term, it is possible that the site could be reverted to agricultural land if and when
the iron ochre discharge ceases. The use of the land would therefore be reversible and the Grade 3a land
may not be permanently lost. For these reasons, I do not consider that the proposal would be contrary to
policy EN4.
With regards to policy EN7, it will be necessary to remove seven trees, crown lift 12 trees and remove a
dead limb from another tree. The tree loss would be in two areas - one in the area of woodland to the south
of Worsley car park and one close to where the pipeline would cross the canal. The tree loss is necessary to
allow excavation driving and receptor pits which are required to enable the installation of the pipeline
where there are major changes in direction. The trees that would be crown lifted are all located to the south
of the canal, adjacent to the tow path. These works are necessary to allow a 5.5 metre clearance over the tow
path. A temporary haul route will be laid on top of the existing path through the woods to facilitate access
for pipeline laying. In order to minimise damage to tree routes through vehicle compaction, a temporary
road surface comprising a biaxial geogrid overlaid with road stone will be constructed. Pipeline laying will,
wherever possible, be by trenchless techniques, i.e. directional drilling. On the canal towpath and in
wooded areas, the pipeline would be installed by manual methods. These techniques should allow for
minimal disturbance, in particular to tree roots. The Applicant proposes the planting of fifteen replacement
trees to mitigate against the tree loss. In addition, extensive tree planting is proposed at the treatment site.
With regards to the objections raised, two principal areas of concern relate to traffic generation and the use
of Grange Road as the vehicular access to the site. The access to the treatment site would be taken from the
gas regulator adjacent to the M60 Motorway, which itself is accessed via Grange Road. This access is also
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
used by farm vehicles and members of the nearby shooting clubs. The Applicant has stated that the most
intensive access requirements for site vehicles would occur during the period of the main earthworks at the
treatment site - these operations are expected to be confined to a period of 14 weeks. It is estimated that on
average this would in involve the passage to the site of 4 to 5 18 tonne lorries per hour and daily movements
to and from the site of the contractor’s operatives cars. There would be other intermittent movements from
the delivery and removal of plant items and the delivery of materials, for example, mixed concrete to the
site – there would be approximately 4 deliveries per week over the 31 week construction period. Grange
Road is essentially a residential road, but also provides access to the land and farms on the other side of the
M60 motorway and as such the passage of some commercial vehicles. I do however consider that these
predicted traffic movements will undoubtedly lead to a change in the normal traffic conditions of Grange
Road. With regards to possible damage to the surface of Grange Road, this is adopted highway and as such
the City Council is responsible for its maintenance. Prior to the commencement of works, the Applicant will
be required to inspect and record the condition of the road and any subsequent damage to the road
attributable to the contractor’s operations would be made good to the satisfaction of the City Council. The
operation of the minewater treatment scheme would result in the accumulation of iron ochre sludge which
will periodically require removal and disposal. It has been estimated that operations to remove this sludge
would be required at intervals of two or more years and would extend over a period of between four and ten
weeks at a time. This would necessitate 3 to 5 lorry movements per week to remove the dewatered sludge to
a licensed tip. The Applicant has confirmed that although the sludge would contain relatively high
concentrations of iron, together with some organic residues due to the breakdown of vegetation, the ochrous
sludge would not be toxic.
Alternative access routes have been considered by the Applicant, these comprise the Bridgewater Canal
itself and roads and tracks to the west of the M60 motorway. Use of the Bridgewater Canal to transport 30
000m3 of materials has been investigated and a number of constraints were identified. The limited water
depth of the canal would significantly restrict possible barge loads to 20 tonnes; slow loading and unloading
and restricted travel speed would result in long cycle times for barges and would significantly extend the
period of earthworks construction on site; plant, for example a grab crane and conveyors would be required
to facilitate loading and unloading and would necessitate the closure of the canal towpath. Consequently,
the earthworks operation would be likely to extend over a period of between 50 and 60 weeks. A
consideration of alternative access from roads and tracks to the west of the M60 revealed that these
essentially comprise narrow and in parts unmade farm tracks which would therefore be unsuitable for the
passage of construction traffic of the size and volume predicted. It is therefore concluded that the only
suitable access route to the treatment site would be via Grange Road. Reference has been made in the
written representations to the Salford Forest Park proposal and any other future development of land to the
west of the M60 motorway. The Salford Forest Park proposal is a current planning application with two
main proposed access points from junction 13 of the M60 and from A580 in Wigan. Consideration of this
planning application is a separate matter, which will be considered on its own merits.
With regards to the potential impacts of the use of Grange Road and the impact on residential amenity, all
but two of the dwellings on Grange Road are set back a distance of approximately 10 metres from the
highway. Two properties that are particularly close to the highway are those at the junction of Grange Road
with Barton Road, however, at this point traffic would be travelling very slowly on approach to the junction
and again disturbance to residents can be expected. I acknowledge that there would be a significant increase
in the volume of traffic, in particular HGVs using Grange Road during the construction period and I
consider that this would have some significant detrimental impacts on residents in the short term. This
would however be for a 14 week period only and I believe that this temporary short term inconvenience for
residents would not outweigh the long term benefits of the minewater treatment scheme as a whole. I do not
consider that the proposed traffic generation during the operational use of the scheme would be
significantly detrimental to the amenity of residents on Grange Road.
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
A further objection relates to the necessity to remove the orange discolourant from the Delph and the canal
and the effect of this on tourism in Worsley. Pollution from minewater discharges is not unique to Worsley.
Many former coal mining areas in the country have been affected by similar iron ochre discoloration. The
Coal Authority, in close consultation with the Environment Agency, has prioritised the polluting minewater
discharges in England and Wales and a programme of remedial schemes has been initiated by the Coal
Authority. There are currently 15 schemes in operation, with a further three schemes currently under
construction. As already discussed, the Delph is a Scheduled Ancient Monument and played an important
part in Salford’s history. The Worsley Delph forms the termination of an extensive system of underground
canals which historically served the Duke of Bridgewater’s coal mines. Coal would be loaded onto barges
underground and transported via the Bridgewater Canal to the markets of Manchester. The underground
canal network also provides a means of draining the former coal workings and as a result of mine
abandonment, a significant flow of ocherous minewater emerges from the tunnels at Worsley Delph. This
ocherous minewater discharge results in the orange discoloration of the water and results in the deposit of
iron ochre sludge in the surrounding areas of water. The result of this is that the aquatic flora and fauna is
suppressed and the visual amenity value of the canal is poor. The proposal would prevent the ingress of iron
into the canal and would result in the significant reduction in visual pollution, improvements to water
quality, the enhancement of aquatic flora and fauna and the inevitable enhancement of the public amenity of
the canal. I consider that these positive benefits would enhance the Scheduled Ancient Monument and will
promote tourism in Worsley, rather than adversely affecting it.
Local residents have also raised concerns regarding the effectiveness of the proposed treatment site, what
measures would be taken to stop the ponds leaking and the presence of the Thirlmere aqueduct. With
reference to the Thirlmere aqueduct, I can confirm that this does not cross the site. With regards to the
design of the settlement lagoons and wetlands, the Applicant has confirmed that the size and configuration
have been based on current practice for the treatment of minewater. Calculations have also been undertaken
and the designs are supported by the monitoring of minewater discharges at the Delph over a period of a
year and a programme of sampling/ analysis to ascertain iron concentrations. In relation to the potential for
the ponds to leak, measures would be taken to prevent damage to the impermeable lining of the settlement
ponds during de-sludging operations. Tapes would be placed over the material that encapsulates the
membrane to provide advance warning that de-sludging is approaching the membrane zone. With regards to
odours, existing conditions at the Delph demonstrate that there is no problem of odour associated with the
minewater. It is however recognised that some organic material is likely to become trapped within the
sludge during the operation of the system – there may therefore be some release of odours during the
de-sludging of the wetlands, but this is expected to be slight. The wetland ponds would be de-sludged at
intervals of typically 15 to 20 years, depending on requirements, any resulting odours would be expected to
occur only during this short infrequent period.
The final objection raised relates to the level of public consultation. As with all applications for planning
permission, statutory procedures were followed. The application was advertised in the local press,
numerous site notices were displayed around the application site and at Grange Road and individual
neighbour notification letters were sent to residents. Furthermore, the Coal Authority held a public
consultation meeting in February 2002, to which local residents were invited to attend.
In conclusion, with regards to traffic generation, I consider that there would be a significant short-term
impact on the residents of Grange Road during the construction phase of the works. I do however believe
that this would be for a short period only and that the amenity and recreation/ tourism benefits that would
result from the removal of iron from the canal coupled with the absence of other potentially suitable
treatment sites within the urban area would outweigh this temporary disadvantage. With regards to the
effect of the proposal on the amenity of residents, the treatment site is fairly remote from any neighbouring
housing and as such I do not consider the proposed use would not have an unacceptable impact in terms of
visual amenity, noise, dust, smell, or other nuisance. Furthermore, I do not consider that residents living in
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
properties close to the Delph would be unduly affected by the proposed works at the Delph, providing that
the condition relating to noise is complied with. I consider that the works at the Delph would enhance the
Scheduled Ancient Monument and the tourism potential of the locality. Additionally, the provision of
significant landscaping in conjunction with the minewater treatment site would help to ameliorate any
potential harm to the Green Belt and Mosslands that this development could cause. The scheme would
enable improvements to water quality, development of flora and fauna, improve visual appearance of the
canal and Delph area by removing the orange discolourant, would allow public access to the Delph/ wharf
area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The landscape scheme hereby approved shall be carried out within 6 months of the commencement of
development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the
Director of Development Services.
3. During the first available planting season following the felling of the seven trees hereby granted
consent, they shall be replaced by 3 no. Fagus sylvatica, 3 no. Tilia cordata, 6 no. Quercus robur and 3
no. Aesculus hippocastanum. The location of the replacement trees shall be agreed in writing by the
Director of Development Services prior to the felling of the trees. This condition shall not be considered
to have been complied with until the replacement trees have been established to the satisfaction of the
Director of Development Services.
4. No development of the treatment site shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing
materials to be used for the cascade building of the development have been submitted to and approved
in writing by the Director of Development Services.
5. No development at the Delph shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials
to be used for the footbridge, retaining wall and hardstanding of the development have been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.
6. No development shall be started until full details of the height, colour and type of fencing to be used at
the treatment site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
7. No development shall be started until full details of the proposed GRP kiosk at The Delph (Including
dimensions and details of materials) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
8. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until details of the size, route,
condition and capacity of the proposed overflow culvert have been submitted and approved by the
Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the
approved details.
9. All vehicles and mechanical plant used for the purposes of the works shall be fitted with effective
exhaust silencers and shall be maintained in good and efficient working order.
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
10. All compressors used on site shall be 'sound reduced' models fitted with properly lined and sealed
acoustic covers which must be kept closed whenever the machines are in use.
11. All ancillary pneumatic percussive tools shall be fitted with mufflers or silencers of the type
recommended by the equipment manufacturers. Percussive tools shall be fitted with dampened bits.
12. Any machinery which is in intermittent or occasional use shall be shut down in periods between use, or
throttled back to a minimum level.
13. No Blasting shall be permitted.
14. The Sound Level at any point one metre from the faēade of any occupied building outside the boundary
of the site due to the noise levels arising from the contractor's operations shall not exceed the following
levels:Day
Monday
to Saturday
Hours
0800-1900
No Hours Noise LAeq dB Peak Noise dB(A)
11
1900-0800
Sunday
0800-1900
1900-0800
75
13
11
13
85
Night Ambient +5
55
Night Ambient +5
55
Night Ambient +5
55
15. All stockpiles of fine materials which may be subject to wind whipping shall be dampened down in
accordance with a scheme that shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services prior to the commencement of development on a regular basis as required to
prevent dust nuisance and dust migration off site.
16. Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, a detailed ecological management plan shall
be produced to provide details of the proposed long-term maintenance of the scheme. The scope of this
plan shall be agreed by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of the work.
The scheme shall then proceed in strict accordance with the maintenance measures identified within the
approved plan.
17. Standard Condition C03X Fencing of Trees/no work within spread
18. Replacement trees shall be planted in the period from November to March, following the felling of the
trees identified in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment. This condition shall not be considered to have
been complied with until the replacement tree(s) have been established to the satisfaction of the
Director of Development Services.
19. Prior to the commencement of development the Applicant shall secure the implementation of an
archaeological watching brief for those areas in the vicinity of the control kiosk, pipeline, areas
adjacent to the canal, dam and footbridge. The archaeological watching brief shall be drawn up by the
Applicant and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The development shall be
carried out in accordance with the archaeological watching brief.
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
20. This permission shall relate to the following amended plans:
19943/OA/501D - received 29th April 2002
19943/OA502B - received 27th March 2002
19943/OA/503B - received 27th March 2002
19943/OA/505C - received 29th April 2002
19943/OA/506C - received 29th April 2002
19943/OA/507B - received 27th March 2002
19943/OA/508B - received 27th March 2002
19943/OA/511B - received 27th March 2002
19943/OA/512B - received 29th April 2002
19943/OA/513A - received 27th March 2002
P812/07 - received 3rd May 2002
P812/08 - received 3rd May 2002
21. This permission shall relate to the submitted planning application as amended by fax from the Agent
dated 11th June 2002 which states the depth of the pipeline in the woodland areas and the methods of
pipeline laying in this area i.e. directional drilling techniques.
(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 R004A Amenity-area
6. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
8. To enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the effects of the proposed development on flood
defence/ land drainage.
9. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
10. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
11. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
12. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
13. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
14. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
15. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
16. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
17. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
18. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
19. To ensure that if remains of archaeological significance are disturbed in the course of the work, they
can be recorded and if necessary, emergency salvage undertaken, in accordance with EN14.
20. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
21. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Pipelines/ structures should be designed in accordance with adoptable standards.
2. The Director of Development Services (Bridges and Structures Section - 0161 793 3834) should be
consulted regarding installation at Worsley Road bridge.
3. The Director of Development Services (Highways Maintenance Section - 0161 793 3876) should be
consulted regarding the approvals required for laying pipeline in adopted highway and details of
re-instatement of car park and highway surfaces.
4. Access to the canal tow path from the Worsley car park shall be maintained at all times.
5. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letters from United Utilities dated 13th
February 2002 and 30th May 2002..
6. Please contact the Environment Agency regarding an abstraction licence, in accordance with Section 24
of the Water Resources Act 1991 (please see attached letter).
7. Please contact the Manchester Ship Canal Company regarding the need to obtain formal approval of
Method Statements, Risk Assessments and detailed engineering drawings and plans (please see
attached letter).
8. Please note that Scheduled Ancient Monument consent must be secured prior to the commencement of
development.
9. All stationary plant shall be screened where possible to minimise the transmission of noise from site
operations.
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
10. A readily available supply of water shall be maintained on site for the purposes of dampening down any
dust or fine materials likely to be blown off site.
11. The Contractor should aim wherever possible to delay any noisy activities from occurring on site until
at least 9am. This should reduce the likelihood of complaints occurring due to the construction works.
12. Please see attached letter from the Environment Agency dated 27th May 2002.
13. Please see attached letter from the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit dated 27th May 2002.
Please note that all birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, while nesting. It is
important that no tree works take place while birds are nesting.
Contractors should be aware of their legal obligation to stop work immediately if any bats are found and
to seek advice from a licensed bat worker.
14. Please see attached Memorandum from the Director of Development Services (Highways Maintenance
Section) dated 6th June 2002.
APPLICATION No:
02/43702/HH
APPLICANT:
P Conhye
LOCATION:
24 Wardley Hall Lane Roe Green Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Members will recall this scheme was inspected by the panel and subsequently deferred to allow the
applicant to rework the scheme. During the Panel meeting 18th April 2002 the applicant offered to amend
the scheme in view of the objections received.
A revised scheme has now been submitted by the applicant replacing the pitched roof at the rear, with a flat
roof. I am conscious of the objections received but I am of the opinion that the amendments are minimal but
remain of the opinion that the scheme is in accordance with the Council’s own SPG and will not have an
unacceptable adverse affect on the amenity of the neighbouring residents. I have re-consulted the
neighbouring properties and have received two further letters of objection reiterating their initial objections.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
This application relates to a semi-detached property and is for the erection of a two storey side extension. It
would be set in 0.05m from the common boundary and would measure 9.45m. The first floor element
would be set back 2m. It would be of a gable design at a height of 7.2m, matching the existing design.
There are no windows on the proposed gable elevation. This proposal would be flush with the existing rear
elevation (as extended) and would provide a pitched roof over this proposal and the existing ‘flat roofed’
bedroom extension at a maximum height of 7.5m.
This proposal would maintain a 5.8m driveway.
SITE HISTORY
In 1976, planning permission was granted for a kitchen and dining extension and in 1978 planning
permission was granted for a bedroom extension.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
9, 11, 22, 26 and 30 Wardley Hall Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity. I have also received a
request from Councillor Boyd that this application be put before the Panel. The following comments
having been made:
Over development
Overbearing
Loss of light
Foundations on neighbouring property
Loss of privacy
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV8
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that planning permission will only be granted where there would be no unacceptably
adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and where an extension would not have
an unacceptably adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, by reason of its siting, height, massing,
design and appearance.
The objections received to this application were from by the adjacent property and the neighbouring
property at the rear. The neighbour at the rear is concerned that this proposal would cause a loss of privacy
and enjoyment of their garden. This proposal would not be any closer to the neighbouring garden than the
existing first floor bedroom window. I am also happy that the garden overlooked (8.6m to the boundary) by
this proposal, is the bottom end, furthest away from the property.
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
With regard to the ‘overbearing’ and loss of light issue raised by the adjacent property. There are no
habitable windows on the facing gable, which would be 2.4m from the gable of the neighbouring property.
The neighbouring property has had a single storey, full width, rear extension and as such this proposal does
not impact upon those windows. There is also a detached garage on the common boundary within the
neighbouring. The length of the two storey element is within the tolerated distance to safeguard the impact
on the neighbours bedroom window as stated in the Council’s Draft Householder policy.
The relevant certificate has been served on the adjacent property. If the foundations proposed do encroach
on the neighbouring property, then this must be agreed prior to commencement with the neighbouring
occupier, it is not a material planning consideration.
Although this property has already been extended, I do not consider that the provisions detailed in this
proposal would be an over-development of the house.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
02/43768/HH
APPLICANT:
D Williams
LOCATION:
9 Riverside Avenue Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension
WARD:
Irlam
At a meeting of the Panel held on 16th May 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR
AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached dormer bungalow and is for the erection of a two-storey side
extension.
The proposal would project up to the side boundary, the first floor element would be set back 2m from the
front elevation to comply with the Council's terracing policy. On the ground floor there would be 6m of
hardstanding maintained for off road parking. The proposal would be 2.5m to the eaves and 7m at the ridge
with a pitched roof and would be in line with the existing rear elevation. It has no windows on the side
elevation.
SITE HISTORY
99/40028/HH – Single storey side extension approved December 1999
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
50, 52 and 54 Broadway
7 and 11 Riverside Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity from the owner of the
neighbouring property. The following comments having been made:
Loss of light and overbearing
Loss of access to the rear of the property would be unacceptable
Extension would cause neighbouring residents disturbance and possible damaged to property.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that planning permission will only be granted where there would be no unacceptably
adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and where an extension would not have
an unacceptably adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, by reason of its siting, height, massing,
design and appearance.
The objector’s property at No.7 has only a landing window on the side elevation that would be affected by
the proposal, although some light would be lost to this window it is not habitable room. The existing
property is sited 1.8m forward of No.7’s front elevation but the 2 metre set back means that the extension
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
would not project forward of the neighbouring property. The proposal would be approx. 2.2m from No.7
which has a door on the ground floor, front elevation, closest to the proposal. Due to the separation and the
set back I would not consider the proposal to have an overbearing effect.
The second objection with regards to obstructing access to the rear of the property is not a material planning
consideration and would be a private matter under the Party Wall Act..
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
3. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 24th April 2002 which shows the setting
back of the first floor.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
APPLICATION No:
02/43845/FUL
APPLICANT:
Capital Ventures Plc
LOCATION:
Land Fronting Ordsall Lane And Trafford Road Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Erection of office building comprising 6534 sq.m floorspace, 218 car
parking spaces, landscaping and new security lodge for Exchange Quay
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant plot of land lying between the Metrolink and Trafford Road at Exchange
Quay. To the north lies the Exchange Quay Metrolink station, with single storey industrial units beyond, to
the east are two landscaped areas, one of which is included in the application as the site for a security lodge.
To the west is the vacant Quays Campus site and to the south, beyond Trafford Road is the Copthorne
Hotel.
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
The building would be six storeys and would provide three levels of car parking. The building would have
a flat roof and the proposed materials used for the elevations would be polished blockwork, metal cladding
and glazing. The building would have its main entrance from the south and would measure approximately
55m by 45m.
The site is surrounded by trees on three sides. This single row of trees consists of 31 plane trees, 6
ornamental maples and a cherry tree. The trees are just 4-5 years old.
The application proposes 6500sq.m of office floorspace with 218 car parking spaces and a small security
lodge on an adjoining site that would provide security services to the whole of the Exchange Quay
development.
The proposed security lodge would be located on its own island site close to the main access into Exchange
Quay. It would measure 4.5m by 4.5m
SITE HISTORY
In December 2001 outline planning permission was granted for office development with the formation of a
new vehicular access (01/43228/OUT).
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – No objections in principle but requests that conditions be attached and also provides
advice.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – The site adjoins Exchange Quays Metrolink stop and
is also within walking distance of the nearest bus stops of Trafford Road. The latter offer frequent services
to a variety of locations including Manchester, Eccles and Stretford. The site has, therefore, very good
public transport accessibility. PPG13 sets out the importance of the need to reduce the need to travel by
private car, and the promotion of more sustainable travel choices. This site is very well served by public
transport, and there is therefore the opportunity to encourage the use of the public transport network thereby
reducing the amount of car journeys resulting from this development. GMPTE therefore does raise concern
at some of the statements in the Transportation Report submitted with the application regarding the
inappropriateness of restrictions on the amount of car parking. Although it is appreciated that the site has to
remain attractive to potential occupiers, it is maintained that the benefits of having such good public
transport accessibility should be maximised and its use supported. It is considered that a Travel Plan should
be submitted to achieve this. The development, implementation and monitoring of the Travel Plan should
be covered by planning condition to ensure that it has a real impact and that car use is actually reduced.
Although the car parking provision is in line with PPG13 maximum standards, in a site where public
transport accessibility is so good there should be an opportunity to reduce that level. It is imperative that all
works adjacent to the Metrolink line and platforms will need to be co-ordinated with Serco Metrolink, the
tram operators, to ensure that construction and operation do not affect the Metrolink system or compromise
safety in any way. This should be covered by condition.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – Objects to details of the design.
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – Makes a number of detailed comments about the ground
contamination reports submitted and requests a condition regarding the submission of further details.
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EN9 Derelict and Vacant Land, DEV2 Good Design
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EN9 states that the City Council will promote and encourage the reclamation of derelict and vacant
land for appropriate uses. Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant planning
permission unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance of the development.
The proposal would re-use a vacant commercial site for an employment generating use, as such it accords
with policy EN9 of the UDP. The site lies in a commercial area, with office use in keeping with Exchange
Quay and the emerging proposals for the Quays Campus site. Outline permission for office development
on the site has been approved.
I am satisfied that the design of the building is good and its appearance will enhance the area. I do,
however, share a number of concerns with the consultees. Minor changes have been made to the design to
accord with the concerns of the Police Architectural Liaison Officer. With regard to the comments of the
GMPTE I am mindful of the fact that the proposed level of car parking falls within the standards contained
in PPG13 that are set at levels that reduce the reliance on the car as a means of transport. I therefore do not
consider that the imposition of a condition requiring the submission of a Travel Plan is necessary or
appropriate in this instance. With regard to the Metrolink I have attached an informative pointing out the
need for liaison with Serco Metrolink.
The development would result in the removal of the majority of the trees but I do not consider that in this
instance it is appropriate to retain those perimeter trees. The Police Architectural Liaison Officer as well as
the applicant have both pointed out the security risks that there would be involved if they were to be
retained. The front of the site will be landscaped and there will be tree planting to the front of the building.
I am satisfied that the proposed development would have no detrimental impact on any neighbouring
property and that it would continue the regeneration of the Quays and enhance the appearance of the area. I
therefore recommend that permission be granted subject to the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Before the development is commenced a detailed site investigation shall be carried out to establish if
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
the site contains contaminants, to assess the degree and nature of the contaminants present, and to
determine its potential for the pollution of the water environment. The method and extent of this
investigation shall be agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the
commencement of the work. Details of appropriate measures to prevent pollution of groundwater and
surface water, including provisions for monitoring, shall then be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Planning Authority before the development commences. The development shall then proceed in
strict accordance with the measures approved.
3. Prior to being discharged into ant watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface
water drainage from the site 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.
4. Prior to the commencement of development details of a pedestrian link between the offices and the
Metrolink stop shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.
The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme and the offices shall
not be brought into use until the pedestrian link has been provided.
5. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit further design specifications
with regard to the measures to be taken to protect the site from underground gases. The
recommendations and remedial works contained within the WSP Environmental Report (ref.
210706MA/1368(1)) and in the WSP Environmental letter dated 6 March 2002 and in any further
report shall be implemented by the developer prior to the occupation of the site.
6. The exit from the service road shall incorporate one way exit flaps or hydraulic bollards to prevent
vehicles accessing the car parking area beneath the offices in accordance with details to be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The offices shall not be brought into
use until the approved scheme has been implemented.
7. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
3. To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
4. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
5. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
6. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment Agency.
2. The applicants attention is drawn to the contents of the letter from the Greater Manchester Passenger
Transport Executive and particularly the need to reduce reliance on the private car and the need to liaise
with Serco Metrolink.
APPLICATION No:
02/43865/FUL
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Roseston
LOCATION:
27 Singleton Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of new dwellinghouse
WARD:
Kersal
At a meeting of the Panel held on 6th June 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR AN
INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a site on Singleton Road, Salford 7. The proposal is to demolish the existing
dormer bungalow and replace it with a four-bed dwelling comprising ground floor with bedrooms within
the roofspace, on the existing building footprint.
The footprint of the proposed dwelling would be 12.3 metres by 11.5 metres. A single storey morning room
to the centre would project 2.1 metres to the rear. The maximum height of the dwelling would be 8.1 metres.
Access to the site would be from Singleton Road. Existing and proposed parking would be to the front of
the dwelling.
The principal windows to the dwelling would be located on the front and rear of the dwelling. There would
be four small secondary windows to the lounge and dining area on the west side of the dwelling and there
would be a large staircase window to the east side.
There are a number of trees and shrubs to the Singleton Road boundary and the side boundary with 29
Singleton Close. A sycamore, hawthorn and laburnum trees are protected by Tree Preservation Order No. 4.
The rear garden is overgrown and contains a number of fruit trees which are of a poor condition and are not
worthy of protection. There is a fence of approximately 2 metres in height on the 29 Singleton Road side of
the boundary. 29 Singleton Road is at higher level than the application site – the difference in site levels is
approximately 0.7 metres.
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
The surrounding area is residential. There is a bungalow on each side of the application site at 25 and 29
Singleton Road. To the rear of the site is the garden of 3 Singleton close and to the front of the site is 7
Kersal Crag.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Coal Authority – No objections.
Broughton Park Residents Association – No comments.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified:
25, 29 Singleton Road
1, 3 Singleton Close
7 Kersal Crag
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Due to the existing height and construction of the present bungalow, the garden of 3 Singleton Close is
not overlooked whatsoever, this would not be the case were a house to be built as per the plans
submitted
concerns regarding how near the proposed house would be to rear perimeter fence, compared to the
distance of the rear of the current bungalow
loss of privacy to 3 Singleton Close
building a house between two bungalows will impact visually and aesthetically on the bungalow at 25
Singleton Road and the surrounding area
the building of a new house will restrict existing light, whereas building a bungalow would not
lifestyles would be disrupted by demolition and building works
the windows on the first floor of the rear of the proposed dwelling will overlook the garden and
dwelling at 1 Singleton Close
the plans are too large for the size of land available
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: DEV10 – Broughton Park Development Control Policy
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV10 states that in considering proposals for residential development,
due regard should be had to matters of siting, design and height of buildings, facing materials, provision of
car parking, the protection of trees, the provision of landscaping and access requirements.
With regards to the objections raised regarding overlooking, loss of privacy and loss of light, I do not
consider that the proposal would cause a significant loss of light or privacy to neighbouring properties.
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
Amended plans have been received which demonstrate that the proposed dwelling would be positioned on
the same footprint as the existing dwelling and would not project any further forward than the footprint of
the existing bungalow. Part of the proposed morning room at the rear of the dwelling would extend 2.1
metres beyond the existing footprint. This morning room is the only element of the proposed dwelling that
would extend beyond the dimensions of the existing footprint. The footprint shown would lie 28 metres
away from the side of 7 Kersal Crag. The proposed dwelling would not directly face 1 and 3 Singleton
Close. The front of the dwelling would be 2.6 metres from the boundary with 29 Singleton Close to the east
– the existing dwelling has a garage on this side, which is 1.4 metres from this boundary. Although there
are windows proposed to each side of the dwelling, I do not consider that these would result in any loss of
privacy, providing that they are obscure glazed. With regards to the objection raised in relation to
overlooking and loss of privacy to gardens of 1 and 3 Singleton Close, the proposal would introduce two
principle windows within the roofspace which would look out over the gardens. The gardens to 3 Singleton
Close are extensive and the garden to 1 Singleton Close would not be directly overlooked by the proposed
dwelling, for these reasons, I do not consider that the proposal would result in any significant overlooking
or loss of privacy to these gardens.
With reference to the objections relating to the appearance of the dwelling and its height, the Applicant has
amended the proposal to reduce the height of the dwelling by 0.7 metres, resulting in a maximum height of
8.1 metres, in addition the eaves have been dropped. In comparison, the dwelling at 25 Singleton Road is
6.4 metres in height and 29 Singleton Road is 6.7 metres in height. Furthermore, 29 Singleton Road is at a
higher level of approximately 0.7 metre. This difference in site levels would result in the proposed dwelling
and the bungalow at 29 Singleton Road having the same ridge height.
Although the application site is the middle property of a row of three bungalows of similar design, I do not
consider that the surrounding area has any predominant architectural style – there is a mixture of bungalows
and two storey properties along this section of Singleton Road in addition to a mixture of architectural
designs. Consequently, I do not consider that this proposal would look out of character. I do not believe that
the proposal would over develop the site, given that the footprints of the existing and proposed dwellings
are similar.
The proposal would allow for the retention of the protected trees, which would maintain the tree lined
setting of this section of Singleton Road. The City Council’s Arboriculturalist has visited the site and does
not consider that these trees would be affected by the development, providing that the proposed dwelling
does not project any further forward than the footprint of the existing bungalow.
I am satisfied that by maintaining the existing footprint, the dwelling would be in keeping with the building
line along Singleton Road. I consider that the design of the building is such that it compliments the varied
local architecture and streetscene. I have no highway objections to utilising the existing access and consider
that there would be adequate parking provision.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within 6 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
3. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
4. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls and roof
of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
5. So far as they lie within the site, visibility splays of 2.0m by 2.0m by the drive shall be provided at the
junction of 0.6m with Singleton Road and shall thereafter be maintained free of any obstruction over
0.6 metres in height above the adjacent carriageway.
6. The windows to each of the side (east and west) elevations of the dwelling, facing the party boundaries,
shall be obscure glazed and shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Director of
Development Services.
7. This permission shall relate to the amended plans received on 2nd May 2002 showing amendments to
the dwelling height and roof design and 15th May 2002 which shows the footprint of the dwelling set
back in line with the footprint of the existing dwelling.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
4. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
5. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
6. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Possible alterations are required to existing Section 24 public sewer. Drainage details are required. The
Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding details of
drainage.
APPLICATION No:
02/43897/FUL
APPLICANT:
Walkden High School (FAO S Lynn)
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
LOCATION:
Walkden High School Birch Road Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Construction of car park and hard play area with seating and erection
of 2.4m high security fence
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Walkden High School on Birch Road. The proposal is replace the existing
railings along the road frontage with 2.4m high security fence which would be a railing design. It is also
proposed to construct a small car park on the Laburnum Road frontage which would be used as hard play
area during the day, but would be used as parking for the sports centre at the school during the evening.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 11 April 2002
The following neighbours were notified :
13-35 (odd) Laburnum Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV4 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The hard standing would provide a small car park, but one which would only be used for vehicles at night.
Therefore it would improve a corner of the school which would be little used at present. I would not
consider that it would have an adverse effect on the amenity of the neighbours or on the area generally.
The proposal for the railing would provide better security for the new car park, and would in my opinion be
of a good quality design. Therefore I would not consider that this would have any adverse visual effect on
the neighbours or on the street scene.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
2. The railings hereby approved shall be colour treated in mid blue, RAL5010, and shall be maintained
thereafter to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
3. The gates for the vehicular entrance shall be set back 5.5m from the kerb edge and so far as they lie
within the site, visibility splays of 4.5m x 70m shall be provided at the site entrance and shall thereafter
be maintained free of any obstruction.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the existance of a small culvert which passes through the site of the
proposed car park. Therefore the Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be
consulted regarding the details of the site drainage.
APPLICATION No:
02/43935/HH
APPLICANT:
Nicola And Terry Johnson
LOCATION:
5 Kinsley Drive Walkden
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension
WARD:
Walkden South
At a meeting of the Panel held on 16th May 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR
AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached property on a new residential estate. The property is on a corner, close
to the end of a cul-de-sac.
The proposal is for the erection of a two-storey side extension the proposal would project 2.8m towards the
highway and be the same length (7.9m) and height (7.5m) as the existing property. This would result in a a
distance of .7m
PUBLICITY
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
The following neighbours were notified :
7, 8, 10, 12 and 21 Kinsley Drive
2 and 4 Worsbrough Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objections in response to the application publicity from the occupiers of the
properties that would face the proposal. The following comments having been made:
Loss of light
Obtrusive development resulting in loss of outlook
Open plan estate would be enclosed
Loss of foliage leaving a harsh treatment to the side boundary.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies: DEV8 – House extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that planning permission will only be granted where there would be no unacceptably
adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and where an extension would not have
an unacceptably adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, by reason of its siting, height, massing,
design and appearance.
The draft SPG for house extensions provides that normally extensions on corner plots should retain a
distance of 2 metres to the boundary. There may be exceptions if locational factors can justify them.
The proposal would be approx. 17.8m from the front elevation of the objectors properties, this more than
complies with the current policy of gable ends to main elevations being a minimum of 13m apart.
The proposed extension would result in some loss of amenity and openess, replacing as it does the current
side garden. However the property is located toward the end of a cul de sac where there is no formal
building line that needs to be protected. The property is not in a prominent location.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
3. No windows shall be inserted on the side elevation of the extension hereby approved without prior
written consent from the Director of Development Services.
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
APPLICATION No:
02/43936/OUT
APPLICANT:
Kelly Homes
LOCATION:
Former Ambassador Bingo Club Langworthy Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for the erection of one three-storey and
one four-storey building comprising 31 flats together with associated
car parking and construction of new vehicular access
WARD:
Claremont
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This outline planning application relates to the former Ambassador cinema building that is located at the top
of Langworthy Road between Eccles Old Road and Bolton Road. It is proposed to demolish the building,
which in itself does not require planning permission, and erect two residential blocks, one of three storeys,
the other of four, containing a total of 31 flats with associated access road, car parking and landscaping.
Approval of the siting, design external appearance and access are all sought at this stage. Should planning
permission be forthcoming only the landscaping will be subject of a further application.
The existing site covers an area of 0.25 of a hectare and slopes down from Langworthy Road to the rear of
the site, a fall of approximately 2m. To the north and west the site is bounded by houses with offices to the
south. The site is currently dominated by the large former cinema building. The Ambassador opened in
1928, one of the first large ‘super cinemas’ in the Manchester/Salford area. It is best known for its
association with Violet Carson who played the piano there in her youth.
A total of 38 car parking spaces would be provided to the rear of the site.
Both buildings would have brick elevations with render at top floor level with hipped roofs. Adjacent to the
neighbouring residential property on Langworthy Road the four storey block steps down to three and then
two adjacent to the common boundary.
SITE HISTORY
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
Outline planning permission was granted in February 2000 for the erection of 22 two bedroomed flats on
the site (99/40256/OUT). Members will recall that the building was listed before this application could be
implemented. The building was subsequently de-listed.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – noise measurements have been taken and it is recommended that a
condition be imposed to ensure protection against noise. It is also recommended that a site investigation
report be undertaken prior to the commencement of development to ascertain levels of underground
contamination.
Environment Agency – no objection in principal but provides advice.
Claremont Community Association – no response received to date.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No objections in principle but objects to the
details as submitted and requests that conditions be imposed.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified of the application:
401 to 403 (odd) Langworthy Road
12-24 Ashcroft Avenue
44-48 Castleway
Holly Bank and Pendleton Housing Office, Eccles Old Road
Salford Womens’ Centre, Langworthy Road
I have also notified the Ambassador Project of the application.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one objection to the application in response to my notification of the application to the
Ambassador Project. The writer considers that this is an interesting building that forms part of our heritage.
It is considered that the building is in good condition and could easily be refurbished to benefit the local
community or businesses.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
H6- Open Space Within New Housing Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that the City council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the effect on neighbouring properties, the amount of car parking and the
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
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 appearance of the development.
Policy DEV4 states that the City Council will encourage greater consideration of crime prevention and
personal and property security in the design of new development and in the improvement of existing
buildings and land.
The outline application previously approved did deal with issues of siting and access.
With regard to matters of design and crime, I consider that the concerns of the Police Architectural Liaison
Officer would be covered by the landscaping details with include details of fences and boundary treatment.
Turning to policy H6, this seeks to make provision for open space and play equipment within residential
developments predominantly for family accommodation. The scheme the subject of this particular
application, however, is not ostensibly aimed at the family market. Also, the site layout is such that there
will be a relatively generous communal garden/open space area for use by the residents. On this basis, I do
not consider it reasonable, or indeed necessary, to require the applicant to provide off-site open space and/or
play equipment on this occasion.
With regard to the comments of the Director of Environmental Services the issue of contamination was
resolved under the previous application. I have attached a condition regarding noise.
I note that no comments have been received from the Claremont Community Association. One objection
has been received on the grounds that the existing building should be retained. This matter has been
extensively considered by English Heritage and the building is not now considered to be worthy of the
protection that is afforded by Listed status. I have received one verbal comment in support of the
development.
At the present time, the Ambassador building stands approximately 8 metres away from the gable end of
number 401 Langworthy Road. The proposed flats, in comparison, would stand just over 3 metres away.
Whilst this decrease in physical separation of 5 metres is, when viewed in isolation, considered to be
relatively significant, the height, massing and scale of the proposed flats must also be taken into
consideration. In terms of height, the Ambassador stands at just over 18 metres, with the proposed flats
standing 5 metres to eaves level and 9 metres to the ridge at the point where they adjoin number 401. With
regard to scale and massing, the footprint of the Ambassador is such that it extends 34 metres to the rear of
401, whereas the footprint of the flats close to number 401 finish level with 401’s rear elevation. In
summary, therefore, the height, scale and massing of the flats and 401 Langworthy Road are very similar.
As this is the case, I am of the view that any loss of natural light to the windows of this dwelling, as a
consequence of the erection of the flats, will be more than compensated for as a result of the demolition of
the Ambassador building. Also, and in addition to the issue of natural light, I am of the view that the
general outlook and enjoyment of number 401 Langworthy Road will be significantly improved as a direct
consequence of this development.
I am satisfied that the design and appearance of the development are acceptable and that the level of car
parking provision is appropriate. I am satisfied that there will be no significant detrimental effect on any
neighbouring property and that the local area will be improved as a result.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been submitted
to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
- a landscape scheme for the site which shall include details of trees and shrubs to be planted, any
existing trees to be retained, or felled indicating the spread of the branches and trunk positions, walls,
fences, boundary and surface treatment.
3. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
4. Prior to the commencement of development, the surface material to be used and construction details of
the access road and car park shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services. The approved details shall be completed prior to the first occupation of any of
the flats hereby approved.
5. So far as they lie within the site, visibility splays of 4.5m by 33m shall be provided at the junction of the
site access road with Langworthy Road and shall thereafter be maintained free of any obstruction over
1m in height above the adjacent carriageway.
6. Prior to the occupation of any of the flats the site access shall incorporate an entry/exit radii of 4.5m and
pedestrian crossing points.
7. No development shall be commenced until full details of the location, design and construction of bin
stores have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such
approved bin stores shall thereafter be constructed and made available for use before the development
is brought into use.
8. The windows of all habitable rooms to the elevations facing Langworthy Road and to the side
elevations shall be acoustically dual glazed to the standards of the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975
(as amended). An alternative would be to install sealed double glazed units comprising glass of 10mm
and laminated 6.4mm with a 12mm air gap. The unit shall be installed in accordance with the
manufacturer's recommendations to avoid air gaps when fitting the frames. Alternative means of
mechanical ventilation, which must be sound attenuated shall also be provided.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
4. In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and the safety of users of the highway in accordance
with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5. Standard Reason R025A Intervisibility of users of highway
6. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
7. In order to ensure that refuse vehicles are able to enter and exit the site in a forward gear and in the
interests of the residential amenity of both future occupiers of the site and adjacent residents in
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
8. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
APPLICATION No:
02/43939/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Lam
LOCATION:
105 Broadway Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension
WARD:
Irlam
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property and is for the erection of a two storey side extension.
The proposal would provide a kitchen and storage area at ground floor and two bed rooms above. The first
floor element would be set back 2m. The ground floor element would maintain 4.9m to the highway. It
would match the length of the existing gable and would have a hipped roof that would also match the shape
of the existing roof.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
103, 107 and 104 Broadway
2 Marston Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Terracing effect
Car Parking Provision
Access to neighbouring property
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV 8 – House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
Policy DEV8 states that planning permission will only be granted where there would be no unacceptably
adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and where an extension would not have
an unacceptably adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, by reason of its siting, height, massing,
design and appearance.
The letter of objection makes reference to three issues with regard to this proposal. The first issue refers to
the potential terrace effect. The Council’s own Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) states that
alterations to semi-detached properties such as this must maintain 1m to the common boundary or set the
first floor back by 2m. This proposal is set back 2m at first floor level.
The second objection relates to a potential car parking problem and the knock on effect that this may have
upon the nearby traffic junction. The guidance within the Council’s SPG states that a minimum of 4.8m is
required to provide one ‘off street’ car parking space. This proposal would maintain 4.9m to the back of the
highway.
Therefore I am of the opinion that this proposal is in accordance with the guidance contained within the
Council’s own SPG.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
02/43956/TPO
APPLICANT:
Fountain Forestry Ltd
LOCATION:
Elmwood Barton Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Fell two lime trees without replanting as specified in Condition 5
(01/42207/TPO) replace trees one for one with standard size trees only
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the felling of two Lime trees without replanting the 2 for 1 replacements as
specified in Condition 5 of the previous application 01/42207/TPO. The applicants reason for felling these
trees is because they are situated beneath 400 kv electricity conductors which require several metres
clearance.
SITE HISTORY
In 2001 permission was granted to fell one Beech, two Limes and to pollard another two Lime trees. One of
the conditions was that the two Limes and the Beech be replanted with six heavy standards. These being,
either, Thorns, Whitebeams and Persian Ironwood to replace the Limes and Yew trees to replace the Beech.
The applicant has objected to the replacements being on a two for one basis, also to the heavy standard size
of the replacements. He has offered to replant on a one for one basis and only to plant standards instead of
heavy standards. Since then he has offered to replant on a two for one basis, but only with normal standards
instead of the larger heavy standards.
The reason given for this is that the cost involved with complying fully with condition 5 would be too
restrictive and the two Lime trees could remain and be pruned from the electrical conductors many times for
less cost. The applicant has stated that if the Council insist on the replanting on a two for one basis and with
the larger tree size then the applicants company will reduce the Limes to their previous pruning points. This
should be avoided if possible as topping protected trees sets a bad example to the passing public and may
lead to the public thinking that this form of pruning practice is acceptable.
The Beech tree is to be felled under Section 198 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as it has been
determined by the Councils Senior Arboricultural Officer to be dangerous and dying. The applicant has
agreed to replace this tree with one standard sized tree of a species that when it has reached its mature height
will never need to be topped due to its proximity to the overhead 400kv conductors. As this tree is going to
be felled under the TPO exemption for dangerous trees, there is only a requirement for the applicant to
replace one tree, also as the tree is exempt from a TPO, conditions may not be used.
The applicant has also confirmed that he would like to object to condition 6. This requires that, if any
replacement tree dies within 5 years it should be replaced. As this condition is a standard condition and that
LPA’s are advised to impose a condition to ensure that further replacements are planted if any newly
planted tree dies, in the DETR TPO guide to the law and good practice, this condition should still be
applied.
CONSULTATIONS
The Councils Senior Arboricultural Officer recognises that to continually top these trees is bad practice and
would not object to the replacement trees being standards, rather than the trees remaining and being heavily
pruned on a regular basis.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
73 Barton Road
75 Barton Road
Councillor Boyd, Councillor K Garrido and Councillor K Holt.
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
UDP EN 7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
It would be more beneficial to the visual amenity of the area if new shorter at maturity trees were planted,
instead of retaining the existing trees and pruning them very heavily every few years as once topped the
trees will look unattractive.
Whilst I understand the applicants concerns about the extra cost incurred in planting two heavy standard
trees for every one lost, this extra cost is outweighed by the need to compensate the visual amenity of the
area, for the loss of the mature Limes. These trees are very prominent and are situated on a major road,
which leads into the Conservation Area. The planting of two trees for every one lost in this area will not
only maintain the tree cover of the area but will improve it for the future.
The planting of heavy standard trees will have a greater immediate impact on the area and will reach
maturity quicker, thus restoring the treescape sooner, than if normal standard sized trees were planted.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. There has been insufficient reason given to vary condition 5 of application 01/42207/TPO, as the
replacement of two for one lost is necessary to maintain and enhance the visual amenity of the area, to
compensate for the loss of prominant mature trees.
2.
Not planting two trees for every one lost contradicts the new draft Supplementary Planning Guidance
for Trees : Planting and Protection, as this policy requires that two replacements are planted for every
tree lost.
APPLICATION No:
02/44039/FUL
APPLICANT:
Hallmark MSO
LOCATION:
Verdant House Verdant Lane Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Retention of 3m high palisade fencing to front boundary, 3m high
palisade fencing to three other boundaries set in one metre from
existing concrete boundary wall together with enlarged vehicular
accesses to Verdant Lane.
WARD:
Winton
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
th
At a meeting of the Panel held on 6 June 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR AN
INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to former Council owned warehouse premises on Verdant Lane off Brookhouse
Avenue. The site is surrounded on three sides by residential development and is opposite Peel Green
cemetery. The site lies approximately 0.5m to 1m lower than residential properties to the rear.
The planning application is for the retention of the 3m high palisade fencing within the existing concrete
panel fence that surrounds the site on the three residential sides and to replace the fence on the front
boundary with Verdant Lane. A number of trees that were situated just outside the site on City Council
owned land have been removed in order to erect the fence. The trees had also been used as a means of
getting into the site and the applicant had been advised by the police that the trees compromised the security
of the site. This tree removal has been undertaken with the authority of the City Council as landowner.
Since the application was submitted the applicant has erected the fencing as a result of the large number of
burglaries that were occurring.
SITE HISTORY
There is no site history relevant to this application.
CONSULTATIONS
No consultations have been necessary on this application although the Director of Environmental Services
has commented on the objection that has been received.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 2nd May 2002
The following neighbours were notified of the application:
1 to 43 and 63 to 71 Senior Road
21 to 35 Brookhouse Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one verbal objection and four copies of a letter of objection in response to the application
publicity. The following comments having been made:
The fencing has been erected prior to approval.
Increase in noise from motorway as a result of loss of trees.
The installation of a diesel generator in the yard area, and the resulting black smoke, fumes and
noise.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that the City council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the effect on neighbouring properties and the impact on trees. Policy
DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant planning permission unless it is satisfied with the
quality of design and the appearance of the development. Policy DEV4 states that the City Council will
encourage greater consideration of crime prevention and personal and property security in the design of
new development and in the improvement of existing buildings and land.
With regard to the issue of the applicant erecting the fencing prior to gaining planning approval, the
applicant stated that this was necessary due to extent of vandalism at the site. A letter was sent to the
applicant expressing the Panel’s concern that development had commenced at the site. With regard to the
complaint that has been received regarding the removal of trees, the Director of Environmental Services has
commented that vegetation barriers only marginally attenuate noise and that in this instance the removal of
the trees has resulted in the complainant having an unobstructed view of the motorway that may contribute
to his perception that the noise has increased. I am satisfied that the trees that were removed by the
applicant were not protected, and that the reasons for removing the trees (i.e. to prevent access over the
security fencing) are valid. I am of the opinion that the installation of the generator in the yard area of the
site would require prior planning approval, however, this is not a matter for consideration as part of this
current application, and I am satisfied that the matter is being followed up as a separate issue.
I therefore consider the main issues to relate to the impact of the fencing on the residential properties which
back onto the site. As a result of the difference in levels I do not consider that the fence would be prominent
when viewed from the rear of residential properties and it is noted that despite the fence having been erected
no complaints have been received. The fence is not prominent and as the property has been subject to high
levels of burglaries and vandalism and the same fencing can be found elsewhere on Verdant Lane I consider
that providing that the fence is painted a suitable colour that in these circumstances it is acceptable.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D05B Colour treatment
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 8 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/44045/COU
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
APPLICANT:
S Borg
LOCATION:
Stable Block At Rear Of 34 Victoria Crescent Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Change of use of former stable block to dwelling house including part
single and part two storey front and side extensions
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former stable block at the rear of 34 Victoria Crescent, Ellesmere Park. The
site lies within an established residential area on the south side of Victoria Crescent, just outside the
Ellesmere Park Conservation Area. The adjacent land to the west at 32 Victoria benefits from planning
permission for the erection of a three storey block of six flats. Within the site, 34 Victoria Crescent contains
ten flats, some with habitable windows overlooking the site subject to this application. To the south are
residential properties which are separated from the site by a 4.5m high wall.
Planning permission is sought for partial rebuilding and extension of this former stable block to
accommodate a self contained residential property. Extensions to the stable block are proposed at ground
floor level to the west, a small toilet extension1.7m wide by 2.5m deep and also a forward extension to the
north and east which would extend the building line by 0.7m toward number 34 Victoria Crescent. At first
floor level extensions and refurbishment is proposed to convert to residential. A pitched roof would also be
proposed that would protrude above the rear wall. Additional windows are proposed at first floor level 2.5m
away from flats at 34 Victoria Crescent.
SITE HISTORY
In 1999, planning permission was granted for the change of use from a single family dwelling to a house of
multi-occupancy at 34 Victoria Crescent (98/28646/COU).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objection
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 15th May 2002.
The following neighbours were notified :
Flats 1 – 10 plus A 34 Victoria Crescent
32 & 36 Victoria Crescent
59 – 65 odd Victoria Crescent
39a, 41 and 43 Half Edge Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The comments being:
Overbearing presence of the extension
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 Meeting Housing Needs, DEV1 Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 relates to development proposals keeping in character with existing and surrounding
buildings and the protection of residential amenity whilst Policy H1 seeks additions to the housing stock.
Although the reuse of the stable would allow the building to be retained and would create an additional
dwelling within the City I do not consider there is sufficient distance between the habitable rooms of this
proposal and the habitable rooms of flats within 34 Victoria Crescent.
The proposed distance of 2.5m between the bedroom of the proposed dwelling and the kitchen and
bathroom of flats at 34 Victoria Crescent is very close even though this is at a slight angle. In addition there
is only a distance of 5m between the dining room of the existing rear flat at 34 Victoria Crescent and the
bedroom, lounge and kitchen of the proposed stable house. I consider that this proposal would seriously
reduce the existing amenity of flats at both ground and first floor to the rear of 34 Victoria Crescent by way
of loss of privacy. I have no highway objections but recommend refusal for the reasons stated below.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would result in a sub-standard residential environment for the occupiers of
the proposed dwelling and of loss of privacy for neighbouring residents and as such would be contrary
to Policy DEV1 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/44092/HH
APPLICANT:
R Tench
LOCATION:
24 Gillingham Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of detached garage
WARD:
Winton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
This application relates to a semi-detached property located at the end of a cul-de-sac with a large garden to
the side. It is bounded at the rear by Winton Park, which has several large mature trees. The boundary
fronting Gillingham Road consists mainly of a 1.8m privet hedge with some fencing and trellis.
This proposal would convert an existing garage into a study, which does not require planning consent.
However, the applicant wishes to replace this garage with a prefabricated panel type within the side garden.
It would be situated 6.13m from the extended section of the property and 2.15m from the boundary fronting
Gillingham Road. It would measure 5.5m (l) X 3.85m (w) and would have a pitched roof at a height of
2.7m.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
22 and 27 to 39 (odd) Gillingham Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
have been made:
Out of character
Blot on the landscape
Materials to be used
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV8 – House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that planning permission will only be granted where there would be no unacceptably
adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and where an extension would not have
an unacceptably adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, by reason of its siting, height, massing,
design and appearance.
The letters of objection make reference to two main issues, character and the material to be used. The area
is predominantly residential and I do not agree that a garage of this type, located within the curtilage of the
property would be out of character.
The second issue raised made reference to the type of material to be used, particularly a PVC roof. The
garage elevation would be well screened from Gillingham Road by a well established 1.8m privet hedge
This proposal would maintain 8m to the mature trees within Winton Park and due to the type of foundations
required for a prefabricated style garage I am of the opinion that it would not impact upon those trees.
Therefore I am of the opinion the development will not have any adverse effect on the neighbouring
properties and is in accordance with the Council’s own SPG for house extensions.
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
02/44096/COU
APPLICANT:
J Smith
LOCATION:
670 Bolton Road Pendlebury
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from shop to shop for sale of hot food
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to an existing shop, within a row of various shops on the busy main road. A number
of properties along the block have either associated or self-contained flats above the shop units. Within this
block of properties there are a number of other A3 uses, as follows:
1. 664 Bolton Road, A3 use, granted on appeal in 1999 (ref. 39747)
2. 668 Bolton Road, café/bistro granted in 2001 (ref. 43023)
3. 674 Bolton Road A3 use granted in 1991 (ref. 27822)
4. 678 Bolton Road A3 use granted in 1992 (ref. 29218)
The proposal is to change the use of the shop to an A3 hot food takeaway. The hours of opening would be
10am – 11.30pm Monday to Saturday and 5pm – 10.30 on Sunday.
CONSULTATION
Director of Environmental Services – as the first floor of the neighbouring property is residential, he
recommends refusal because of the possible detriment to their amenity due to noise and fumes.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
654-668(even), 672-682 (even) Bolton Road
7-17(odd) Coronation Street
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection which has been signed by occupiers of 11 properties in the block.
They object on the grounds that they already have serious parking problems, litter pollution, noise and
vandalism to properties and vehicles. They believe that this location cannot accommodate another fast food
outlet.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: S5 – Control of food and drink premises
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy S5 states the City Council will only permit proposals for the sale of food and drink where the use
would not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of surrounding residents by reason of noise,
disturbance, smells, fumes, litter, vehicular traffic, parking or pedestrian traffic.
In considering this application, I am mindful that a number of shops have flats up above them. The café at
the adjoining no. 668 does have a flat above that is currently occupied by the people who run the business.
The Director of Environmental Services has recommended permission be refused because of the possible
effect on the neighbours.
However, I am also mindful of the previous decisions for other A3 uses within this block in recent years.
The Council has granted consent of 2 other takeaways in the row in 1991 and 1992, although they did not
appear to have living accommodation immediately adjacent at the time. Planning permission was granted
on appeal in 1999 for an A3 use three doors away from the application site, despite it being clear to the
Inspector at the time that there was an adjacent flat. The Inspector noted that this is a busy main road and
existing A3 uses would mean that flats would already experience noise and disturbance, an additional A3
premises would be unlikely to create additional activity and noise.
Given the previous appeal decision, I would consider that it would be difficult to argue that the
circumstances now are any different to those that surrounded the appeal decision 3 years ago. This is still a
busy main road which would generate noise and disturbance, as do the existing takeaways. Therefore, given
the circumstances, I would not consider it possible to justify refusal for the proposed change of use.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition G09X Extraction of Fumes etc.
3. The use hereby permitted shall only operate between the hours of 10am until 11.30pm Monday to
Saturday, and 5pm until 22.30pm on Sundays.
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
4. Standard Condition G12F Provision of bin
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/44113/HH
APPLICANT:
Miss H D Witchell
LOCATION:
11 Cavendish Grove Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of conservatory at rear of dwelling
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a large semi-detached property, located in a residential area. The proposal is for
the erection of a conservatory.
The proposal would be situated in the rear garden attached to an existing single-storey rear extension. The
conservatory would be 6m X 3m with a total height of 2.7m.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
9 and 13 Cavendish Grove
33, 35, 37 and 39 Hopwood Avenue
10, 12, 14 and 16 Monton Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection from the occupier of the neighbouring property (No.13) in response
to the application publicity. The following comments have been made:
Proposal would cause an unsightly view
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that planning permission will only be granted where there would be no unacceptably
adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and where an extension would not have
an unacceptably adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, by reason of its siting, height, massing,
design and appearance.
The proposal would be contained well within the curtilage of the dwelling and is surrounded by a 2m wall
with several large mature trees, I would not consider the proposal to cause an unsightly view.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
02/44120/HH
APPLICANT:
Jason Lydiate
LOCATION:
20 Gillingham Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of part single/part two storey side and rear extension
WARD:
Winton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property and is for the erection of part single, part two storey
side and rear extension.
A single storey element is proposed along the boundary with the adjoining property. It would project 2.7m
X 2.9m and would have a pitched roof at a maximum height of 3.7m. The two storey element would tie into
and continue around the side and rear elevation, it would have a hipped roof that would match and tie into
the existing roof structure. From the front this proposal would be set back 2m and maintain a 6.6m drive
length.
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
The adjoining property has a single storey kitchen extension on the opposite side from this proposal. The
adjacent neighbour has a single storey car port on the side. Beyond the rear garden is Winton Park.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
18 & 22 and 23 & 25 Gillingham Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
have been made:
Disturbance of foundations
Loss of light
Size and siting
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV8 – House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that planning permission will only be granted where there would be no unacceptably
adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and where an extension would not have
an unacceptably adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, by reason of its siting, height, massing,
design and appearance.
The letters of objection make reference to three issues:
1. Disturbance of foundation to the car port – this is not a material planning issue, however it would be
considered under the Party Wall Act.
2. Loss of light to the adjacent property – there is currently a car port attached to the gable, which has no
windows. I am also of the opinion that the projection of the two storey element would not have any
affect upon any of the habitable windows of the adjacent property.
3. Single storey element would create a tunnel effect upon the adjoining property – this part of the
proposal would project 2.7m and would be 0.15m from the common boundary. There is current a 1.8m
boundary Waneylap style boundary fence. The SPG states that a single storey extension that projects
no more than 2.74m is acceptable.
Therefore I am of the opinion the development will not have any adverse effect on the neighbouring
properties and is in accordance with the Council’s own SPG for house extensions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
02/44124/HH
APPLICANT:
Kristian Adams
LOCATION:
22 Langland Drive Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Relocation of existing boundary fence together with additional side
fencing and vehicular/pedestrian gates
WARD:
Barton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property and seeks to relocate the existing garden fencing to
enclose part of the existing driveway and a proportion of open plan garden.
The fence measures 2.4m in height and has been painted green. It would project a further 3.75m towards
the highway X 10m and would ‘square off’ a larger garden area. The proposal would still maintain an area
of landscaped garden and sufficient ‘off street’ car parking.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
20, 24 –28 (even) and 21 – 27 (odd) Langland Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
have been made:
Impact upon use of driveway
Loss of vehicular visibility
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV8 – House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that planning permission will only be granted where there would be no unacceptably
adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and where an extension would not have
an unacceptably adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, by reason of its siting, height, massing,
design and appearance.
The letter of objection makes reference to two issues:


Use of driveway – the neighbour has indicated that the erection of a fence in this location would render
his drive useless, as they would be unable to open car doors - this is not a material planning
consideration.
Loss of vehicular visibility – I have no highway objection to this proposal
Therefore I am of the opinion the development will not have any adverse effect on the neighbouring
properties, would maintain the character of the estate and is in accordance with the Council’s own SPG for
house extensions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
02/44128/OUT
APPLICANT:
North West Development Agency
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By Winders Way, Broughton Road East And Frederick
Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Outline application for the erection of 'Innovative Hub' building to
provide for business, education, training, advice and community uses
WARD:
Pendleton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant and cleared site at the junction of Frederick Road and Broughton Road
East. It lies adjacent to Salford University Business Park. Opposite is the David Lewis Recreation Ground.
There is a single house on the opposite side of Frederick Road and the site is close to student
accommodation currently under construction on the former tramway depot. The site is irregular in shape
and is generally flat save for a raised area towards the rear boundary and Winders Way, which flanks the
site and provides vehicular access to the Business Park. The site contains a number of self-seeded trees,
which are in generally poor condition. It lies within the Charlestown/Lower Kersal New Deal for
Communities Area.
The application is in outline form with all matters reserved. The applicant states that the proposed
‘Innovation Hub Building’ would be a high quality landmark building and provide a recognisable focal
point for the Salford Innovation Park project. This project is a scheme which will bring together and
integrate business, education and the community in a way that will significantly enhance business
competitiveness, harness entrepreneurial potential and deliver real benefits to the local community. The
building would provide, incubator/business space, space for education use by schools, flexible community
training/meeting space, employment and business advice and a range of shared services. Access to the new
building would be from Winders Way.
The incubator/ business would be the dominant use in the building (50% of the total floor space). It would
be flexible to adapt to the changing needs of companies. Individual units would vary in size between 20-100
sq m. The education space would comprise flexible learning space. The building would provide a range of
meeting rooms to be used by tenants, other local businesses and community groups. Office space and
business support services would be offered. Shared facilities would include a central reception and a small
catering/retail facility.
SITE HISTORY
In 1991 deemed planning permission was granted for the erection of a print skills centre on the site
(E/27751 refers).
PUBLICITY
A site notice has been displayed and a press release issued.
The following neighbours were notified :
106 Frederick Road
Unit 2 Broughton Road East
REPRESENTATIONS
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: Policy EC12/1 Sites for Business and High- Tech Uses
Other policies: EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands; EN9 Derelict and Vacant Land ; EN16
Improving the Urban Environment
PLANNING APPRAISAL
In planning policy terms the site is allocated in the UDP for business and high-tech uses and is specifically
identified as a suitable site for the expansion of the University Business Park, being well located to increase
links between the University and industry and commerce. The proposal forms part of the Salford Innovation
Project (SIP) which will extend the attractiveness of the adjoining Business Park. This proposed building
would be a key focus of the SIP and will anchor and drive forward the development of the park.
The site is in a derelict and vacant condition and mounding has been formed on its boundaries. The trees on
the site are generally in a poor condition and do not contribute significantly to the amenity of the area. I
would maintain that the clearance of the site and the development of a high quality building and
landscaping scheme would enhance the site in a more beneficial way than retaining the existing poor quality
treescape.
The applicant has advised that vehicle access would most likely be taken from Winders Way. This is a
purpose built access road off Frederick Road that serves other units within the Business Park.
I find the use acceptable for this site and subject to a high quality scheme its development would
considerably enhance the area and serve to continue its regeneration.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
2. Standard Condition M05 Site investigation
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is advised that subject to the amount of floorspace which may be provided in the building
a Traffic Assessment would have to accompany the reserved matters submission.
2. The Council's Drainage Engineer advises that the development should be served via a separate foul and
surface water system which may require possible attenuation A maximum discharge via a combined
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
connection should not exceed 50 litres per second to main sewer. Floor levels may need to be raised to
reduce flooding.
APPLICATION No:
02/44130/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Chapman
LOCATION:
4 Boscombe Avenue Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing garage and erection of single storey rear
extension and two storey side extension (Resubmission of planning
application 01/42227/HH)
WARD:
Barton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property on Boscombe Avenue, just off Peel Green Road.
The proposal is for a single storey rear extension and a two-storey side extension. The rear extension would
project 2.74m X 8.3m with a sloping roof 3.5m at its highest. The two storey side extension would project
2.1m X 7.8m with a hipped roof the same height as the existing, the first floor would be set back 2m from
the front elevation.
SITE HISTORY
01/42227/HH – Refused May 2001 as it created a potential terracing effect - Single storey rear extension
and two-storey side extension.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
3a, 3b, 2 and 6 Boscombe Avenue
85 and 87 Peel Green Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two representations in response to application publicity, one from the occupier of the
adjoining property and one from their solicitor. The main issues identified are as follows:
Loss of light
Loss of privacy
Loss of value to property
Loss of view
General disruption caused by the development
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART 1
SECTION 1:APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20 TH JUNE 2002
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 states that permission would be granted if the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse
impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance,
loss of privacy or light.
The objection from the adjoining occupier at No.6 relates solely to the single storey rear extension only.
The extension conforms with the Council policy in that it projects 2.7m and hence I do not consider that the
extension would significantly affect the amenity of the adjoining occupier. I would not consider the
proposal to have an impact on the neighbouring occupier’s privacy. There are no windows on the side
elevation of the proposal, the boundary treatment at present is a 1.2m fence with mesh on top, their is little
privacy between the two gardens at the moment and the proposal would not alter this. The latter three
issues are not planning considerations.
The previous application was refused on terracing grounds. This has now been resolved and the first floor
of the side extension is now set back 2m from the front elevation which complies with council policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th June 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44056/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
North Walkden Primary School
LOCATION:
North Walkden Primary School Whittle Drive Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4m high palisade perimeter fencing
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The proposal is to erect two sections of 2.4 metre high palisade fencing at the school. One section of fencing
would be erected along the school boundary to the rear of 61a and 79 Worsley Road North, to replace
existing railings and a second section would be erected between the existing school drive and the playing
field. Vehicular and pedestrian access gates would be erected on the Whittle Drive boundary. It is proposed
to colour-treat the fencing green. The fencing would join with previously approved fencing to completely
enclose the school buildings.
The surrounding area is predominantly residential. A rear alley separates the rear gardens and garages of the
residential properties at 61a to 79 Worsley Road North.
SITE HISTORY
01/43174/DEEM3 - Erection of 2.4m high palisade boundary fencing. Approved 6.12.01.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 10th May 2002
The following neighbours were notified:
61a, 63 to 91 (odds) Whittle Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations or letters of objections in response to the application publicity to date.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV4 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th June 2002
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 identifies 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 and the impact on existing trees on or adjacent to the development site.
DEV4 states that will have regard to the position and height of fencing and gates.
With regards to DEV1 and the appearance of the proposed fencing, the fencing would be separated from the
dwellings by a rear alley and residents own boundary treatments. I do not therefore consider that the two
proposed sections of palisade fencing would be visually obtrusive in this location, providing that they are
colour-treated.
I consider that the proposed sections of fencing would provide increased security for the school premises.
I do not consider that the proposal would have any significant detrimental impact on the visual amenity of
neighbouring residents and have received no objections to the proposal. I have no objections on highway
grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The fencing hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior to the
commencement of the development by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/44083/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Director Of Education And Leisure
LOCATION:
Ontario Basin The Quays Road Salford Quays Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Siting of Ambit 20m floating sculpture
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th June 2002
This application relates to the siting of a 20m long by 5m wide by 1.4m high floating sculpture to be
positioned at the northern end of the Ontario Basin, The Quays Road, Salford Quays. Ontario Basin is
bounded by The Quays Road and dedicated walkways. Ontario Basin is bounded by The Watersports
Centre to the west, the Tourist Information Centre and four sculptures to the north, office buildings to the
east and Salford Quays Metrolink Station and restaurants to the south east.
Planning permission is sought for the siting of the sculpture, named Ambit, within Ontario Basin close to
the mooring point of the recently departed La Pinta barge. The sculpture would be moored in place and
would be illuminated for an hour on an evening. The sculpture would be positioned on the water adjacent to
the Irwell Sculpture Trail.
CONSULTATIONS
Manchester Ship Canal Company – No objection to the amended location.
British Waterways – No objections
Lowry Trust – No objections
Watersports Centre – No objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 10th May 2002 and for the revised location on the 24th May 2002.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, EN10 Landscape, TR1 Developing Key assets, TR2
Improving Visitor Attractions, TR3 Linkages to Other Attractions.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV1 relates to the relationship between the development and its surroundings whilst EN10 relates to
improving the landscape within the City. Policies TR1, TR2 and TR3 relate to improving the tourism
potential at the Quays and the grouping together of visitor attractions and to increasing tourism links with
sites at Manchester City Centre, Castlefield and Trafford Wharfside.
The proposed Ambit sculpture, which is currently moored on the Weir in Sunderland, has received a lot of
positive national media interest. The siting of this sculpture within Ontario Basin would I consider enhance
the attractiveness of the Quays area to visitors. I have no objections to the proposal subject to conditions
being imposed with respect to water quality and safety of users of the water. I have no highway objections
and recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th June 2002
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Prior to the siting of the sculpture the developer shall submit a method statement that confirms the
impact of the proposal upon the water quality of the basin. The statement shall make specific reference
to the impact of the proposal upon existing EU bathing quality levels within the basin. Such statement
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to
implementation, the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved method
statement.
3. Prior to the sculpture being installed the developer shall submit a method statement to show whether the
existing water treatments in the basin will be affected by the development. Such statement shall include
details of mooring and fixing the sculpture in relation to the water treatment works. The statement shall
be submitted to and shall be approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to
implementation, the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved method
statement.
4. Prior to the siting of the sculpture the developer shall submit a method statement to show the method of
access of the sculpture into and out of the basin. The statement shall make reference to the impact of the
proposal upon existing railings and street furniture. Such statement shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to implementation, the development shall be
undertaken in accordance with the approved method statement.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. In order to protect existing water quality in the Basin in accordance with Policy DEV1 of the Adopted
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. In order to protect existing water quality in the Basin in accordance with Policy DEV1 of the Adopted
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. In order to protect existing facilities in the area in accordance with Policy DEV1 of the Adopted City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/44086/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Light Oaks Junior And Infants School
LOCATION:
Light Oaks Junior And Infants School Lancaster Road Salford 6
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
PROPOSAL:
Replacement roofing
WARD:
Claremont
20th June 2002
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the Light Oaks Infant and Junior School which fronts onto Lancaster Road,
Salford 6. The site is bounded by residential properties including Lancaster Road, Light Oaks Road,
Westgate Road and Russel Road. Planning permission is sought for the replacement of the existing roof
tiles with a matching brown colour metal sheeting system.
SITE HISTORY
In 1998, planning permission was granted for an extension to the school buildings to provide a 40 place
nursery (98/37609/DEEM3).
In 1995, planning permission was granted for the erection of fencing (95/33549/DEEM3).
In 1992, planning permission was granted for the erection of a single storey classroom (E/29726).
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 15th May 2002.
The following neighbours were notified :
1 – 6 Laurel house, Light Oaks Road
1 - 11a odd Light Oaks Road
49 – 59 odd Russell Road
1 – 4 inclusive Brandon Road
142 – 144 even Lancaster Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, SC4 Improvement/Replacement of Schools
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 relates to development proposals keeping in character with existing and surrounding
buildings whilst Policy SC4 requires the improvement of old schools. The existing tiles are proposed to be
replaced by a roofing system that will appear very similar when viewed from within the school grounds and
from nearby residnetial properties. As such I consider the proposal, that will provide for easier maintenance
and hence improve the school, will not detract from the character of the existing or surrounding areas. I
have no highway objections and recommend approval.
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th June 2002
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
APPLICATION No:
02/44102/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Mrs T M Dillon (Headteacher)
LOCATION:
St Andrews Methodist Primary School Prescott Street Little Hulton
Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4 metre high palisade perimeter fencing
WARD:
Little Hulton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the boundary of St. Andrews Methodist Primary School.
The proposal is to erect three sections of 2.4 metre high palisade fencing. One section of fencing is proposed
at the corner of the school boundary to the rear of 235 Manchester Road East and the side of 15 Harrop
Street. A further section of fencing is proposed at the corner of the school boundary adjacent to the linear
walkway which runs along a disused railway line. A third section of fencing and vehicular/ pedestrian
access gates are proposed along the front boundary, to the east of the school buildings. All of the fencing
would be colour treated green.
Numerous trees and shrubs are located around the boundaries of the school. It is not proposed to fell any
trees as part of the development.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 16th May 2002
The following neighbours were notified:
175 – 205 (odds), 231 – 235 (odds) Manchester Road East
Prescott House, Prescott Street
15 – 17 (odds), 27 –29 (odds) Harrop Street
8, 9, 11 Roxby Close
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th June 2002
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations or letters of objections in response to the application publicity to date.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none relevant.
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV4 – Design and Crime
EN5i – Nature Conservation
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 identifies 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 and the impact on existing trees on or adjacent to the development site.
DEV4 states that will have regard to the position and height of fencing and gates. The south-western
boundary of the school is parallel to the linear walkway which is a Wildlife Corridor and as such, regard
should be had to policy EN5i which states that development will not normally permitted where it would
significantly impair the efficient functioning of a wildlife corridor.
With regards to the appearance of the proposed fencing, the fencing would be located to the side and rear of
residential properties. I do not therefore consider that the fencing would be visually obtrusive in this
location, providing that it is colour-treated. With reference to the Wildlife Corridor, it is not proposed to
remove any trees and I do not consider that the proposal would have any significant detrimental impact on
the functioning of the corridor.
I consider that the proposed sections of fencing would provide increased security for the school premises
and do not consider that the proposal would have any significant detrimental impact on the visual amenity
of neighbouring residents. I have received no objections to the proposal and have no objections on highway
grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The fencing hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior to the
commencement of the development by the Director of Development Services.
3. The gates hereby permitted shall open inwards ONLY.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th June 2002
3. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
APPLICATION No:
02/44144/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Wharton County Primary School
LOCATION:
Wharton County Primary School Rothwell Lane Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Extension and refurbishment to include demolition of nursery mobile,
resurfacing car park, erection of playground canopy and railings and
siting of storage container
WARD:
Little Hulton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to an existing primary school in a residential area. The proposal is to erect a small
extension to the gable end of one wing of the building. It would project out 2m from the end of the building
and have a hipped roof to match in with the existing. It would be to provide a toilet extension and allow for
internal alterations.
It is also proposed to demolish the existing modular building that accommodates the nursery, which would
be located within the existing building. Where the nursery is, it is proposed to erect a canopy for a covered
play area, which would by 6.2m square. It is also proposed to site a container for a toy store. It would
measure 2.5m by 4.2m, be 2.5m high and would be coloured green. The remaining area where the nursery
stood would be re-surfaced for play area and would be fenced with a 1.4m high railing.
PUBLICITY
Site notices was displayed on 28 May 2002.
The following neighbours were notified :
340-360 (even), 294 & 296 Manchester Road West
Manse & 2 Rothwell Lane
62 & 64 Manorial Road
1,2,24 & 43 Rothwell Crescent
42, 44 Oakfield Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
20th June 2002
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The application is proposing relatively minor alterations to the school. It would improve the appearance of
the site by removing the existing nursery building, which has reached the end of its useful life. I would also
consider that the proposed canopy and cabin would not be visually detrimental to the amenity of the area.
Instead they would provide improvements in the facilities provided for the children of the school and
nursery. Also the removal of the nursery building would lead to an increase in the amount of outdoor play
space for the children.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
3. The cabin and railings hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior
to the commencement of the development by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
66
20th June 2002