PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
APPLICATION No:
4th July 2002
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
At the meeting of the Panel held on 20th June 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR
AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.
Following an inspection of the Panel on 26th June 2002, I have the following additional observations to make.
Since writing my report, I have received additional letters of objection. There have now been a total of 61
letters of objection received in relation to the proposals, in addition to an objection from the Worsley Civic
Trust. The main concerns raised relate to the use of Grange Road for access to the proposed treatment site
and the consideration of alternative routes to this site, in addition to concerns regarding reed bed technology.
In relation to access to the treatment site, alternatives are currently under further investigation. With regards
to reed bed technology, the Applicant has provided responses to some of the concerns raised by residents.
The Coal Authority has completed 20 minewater treatment schemes over the period 1996 to 2002. The
schemes installed by the Coal Authority include a number of sizeable reedbeds, extending up to some 3
hectares (for example, the Taff Methyr Scheme). The total area of the lagoons in the Worsley Scheme is 2.25
hectares (the whole application site is approximately 6 hectares and the whole treatment site is approximately
4.6 hectares) but, allowing for the initial settlement lagoons, the combined area of the reedbeds is only 1.5
hectares.
The Coal Authority has stated that this scheme has been designed on the basis of fundamental parameters,
established from both research investigations and operating experience of earlier schemes in the UK and
USA, as set out in its design recommendations. As such, the Coal Authority is confident that, coupled with
the operational flexibility incorporated in the scheme design (eg. lagoon water depths, retention periods,
desludging intervals), the scheme will provide satisfactory reduction in iron concentrations without adverse
environmental effects, for example, odour problems.
The Coal Authority is not aware of any odour difficulties in relation to other schemes that they have
previously installed. In this scheme, the majority of the ochrous sludge would be deposited in the initial
settlement lagoons, rather than the reedbeds, which to a degree would act as 'polishing' units. Thus the Coal
Authority confirm that most of the sludge (and certainly that which would be removed most frequently, at
intervals of 5 to 8 years for any one lagoon) would not include a significant proportion of organic matter, this
being the component which is most likely to cause odours. The Coal Authority are not aware of any odour
problems occurring in the vicinity of Worsley Delph and the adjacent Bridgewater Canal, despite the
accumulation over many years of ochrous sludge on the bed.
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
Concerns have also been raised in relation to 'dry sludge' being blown by the wind. The Coal Authority has
stated that the sludge would be removed from the lagoons or reedbeds in a relatively wet state, with a
moisture content of approximately 98% by weight. De-watering (eg. using a centrifuge) would reduce the
moisture content to the order of 40%, at which the sludge would have a moist cake consistency, suitable for
transport by road to a licensed tip. A further issue raised by residents relates to the consideration of
alternatives to the treatment site proposal, for example, the possible transfer of minewater to the Davyhulme
Sewage Treatment Works. This alternative has been considered by the Coal Authority who do not consider
that it would present an appropriate alternative as it would result in the diversion of a significant water
resource away from the Bridgewater Canal and such a proposal could, under certain circumstances, cause
loss of water depth in the Canal, with attendant difficulties for the maintenance of navigation.
Furthermore,the Applicant believes that the discharge of minewater into the public sewers would introduce
appreciable maintenance difficulties for United Utilities, due to the deposition and accretion of ochre in the
pipes and related loss of hydraulic capacity.
Finally, I recommend that condition 17) is amended in relation to details that have already been submitted
regarding the fencing of trees.
My previous observations are set out below:
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
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
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
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. De- sludging 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
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
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.
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.
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
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
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;
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
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:
Other policies:
EN25 – Worsley Greenway
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.
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
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 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
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
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 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
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
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
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
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
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.
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
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
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 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.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Since writing my Report, I have received a further eleven letters of objection to the proposal. Comments
additional to those already outlined above are as follows:
-
construction traffic could be brought in via the motorway works access points
there is already a problem with access to Grange Road from Worsley Road
pollution from the construction, regardless of the traffic
I have also now received the following comments from the Worsley Civic Trust and Amenity Society:
-
are in agreement with the nature of the purification system and the method of transport of the sludge
water from the Delph, however are concerned with aspects of the scheme and its implementation
concerns relating to the consultation process
noise levels should not be exceeded at any time during pumping at the Delph in proximity to the homes
there
Worsley Civic Trust owns a ‘starvationer’ (original mine barge) in water in the Delph area – a condition
is recommended that there should be no interference or removal unless the permission of the Trust
concerned that pipeline is not taking the optimal route – would appear a ridiculous route across the traffic
island when it could take a route within the canal banks
with the likely motorway works undertaken in the next years as a result of the M60JETTS study, there
may be disruption and resiting of the pipeline
Grange Road is unsuitable as a n access road
declared vehicle movements are wholly unacceptable
the use of Grange Road will create a dangerous precedent in the issue of the Salford Forest Park proposal
I have received comments from the Applicant regarding the practicality of two of the proposed conditions
and as such, I have made amendments to conditions 2) and 8).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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 12 months of the commencement of
development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any
trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of
Development Services.
3. 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
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
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. Prior to the commencement of operation of the minewater treatment scheme, details of the size, route,
condition and capacity of the proposed overflow culvert shall be submitted to 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.
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 façade 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
1900-0800
No Hours Noise LAeq dB
11
Peak Noise dB(A)
75
13
Night Ambient +5
13
85
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
Sunday
0800-1900
1900-0800
11
13
4th July 2002
Night Ambient +5
Night Ambient +5
55
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. No development shall be started until the trees as identified in the survey received 2nd May 2002 have
been surrounded by substantial fences which shall extend in accordance with the protected areas detailed
in Appendix 1 of the survey (or such positions as may be agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services). Such fences shall be erected in accordance with the specification submitted and
shall remain until all development is completed and no work other than that approved by this planning
permission, including any storage of materials, shall take place within the perimeter of such fencing.
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.
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
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 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.
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
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
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.
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.
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
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:
02/43522/FUL
APPLICANT: G. Weilding
LOCATION: Land Adjacent To Hill Top Road Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL: Raising of land for drainage purposes to allow horses to graze, together with
associated planting
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to grazing land at the eastern end of Hill Top Road set back off the road, which is in
council ownership and currently has the benefit of a grazing licence. There are residential properties to the
west of the site and also opposite to the north, with the Blackleach Country Park beyond this. To the south
west are the industrial properties of Barlow Street. Directly between the field area and the road there is an
open grassed area.
The application has been submitted by the licence holder for the grazing of the field. It is proposed to raise
the levels of part of the field by approximately 1m over an area measuring approximately 25m by 50m, to
bring the field level above the level of the water table to improve the site’s drainage and improve grazing.
The edge of the raised area would be graded down to the existing levels to form a small slope. The hardcore
has already been deposited onto the field which would be soiled and grassed. It is anticipated that
approximately 200 tonnes of top surface soil would be required which would take between 1 – 5 days to
bring onto site.
A pathway would be created down to the field off the road and this would be gated. A section of post and
wire fencing 1.2m high would be erected which would extend around the turning head at this end of Hill Top
Road, as a means of reducing both fly tipping and the overrun of vehicles when turning.
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections.
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – no objections in principle.
Environment Agency – no objections in principle but request that the applicant be advised that a waste
management licence or exemption may be required.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 31 January 2002.
The following neighbours were notified :
2 – 16 and 25 – 59(O) Hill Top Road
234 Bolton Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
The main areas of concern are as follows:
Unsuitable waste already tipped on the site
No need for a road access to the field
Field drainage is that poor and has been grazed previously without the need of improvement works
Inconvenience caused whilst bringing the material onto the site
Eyesore
Traffic generation
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider the main issues for this application relate to the resulting visual impact once work has been
completed and the potential impact upon the amenity of the residents of Hill Top Road from the nature and
degree of traffic generated from vehicles in association with the work.
I have received two letters of objection from residents who have a number of concerns not least because some
hardcore material has already been deposited on the site. In relation to the proposal being an eyesore, I would
agree that at the present time, the site is unattractive and an eyesore, but this is partly owing to the fact that
work has stopped during the consideration of this application. It is proposed that should permission be
granted, soil would be placed on top of the hardcore and the whole area would be grassed. This would retain
the green open field character and I do not believe that from a distance it would be possible to identify that
any raising of levels had occurred. The field has historically suffered from drainage problems and the work
is proposed as a means of improving this. I do not consider that the actual raising of the levels would have
a significant detrimental impact, especially as it would be grassed.
The Environment Agency have inspected the hardcore that has been deposited on the site and have requested
that any tyres and plastic film be removed if necessary. On this basis they now have no objections to the
proposal although a waste management licence may be required.
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
Another concern was the creation of an access road to the raised area. Following further clarification from
the applicant this would not be a tarmaced access road but would be a pathway from Hill Top Road to the
raised field area. Hardcore would again be laid with soil and chippings to be laid on top of this and this
would enable the horses to be taken easily into the field without churning up the grassed area off the road. In
relation to the fencing that would be erected around the turning head, this would enclose the area infront of
the field and act as a deterrent from fly tipping which I am given to understand is a fairly common
occurrence.
Whilst the hardcore was brought onto the site, some inconvenience was experienced by residents from the
traffic bringing the material to the site. Similar types of vehicles would probably bring the top soil to the site
which again could lead to some inconvenience to residents, but this would be relatively shortlived and would
result in the improved appearance of the site which would be beneficial.
The applicant wishes to improve the grazing on the land which at present is suffering from considerable
drainage problems, for his horses. I acknowledge that some work has occurred with some inconvenience and
disturbance to residents, but once finished, I am satisfied that the proposal would not have any detrimental
impact. I therefore recommend that this application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. This permission shall relate to the plans received on 22 May 2002 which show cross section and levels
details for the proposal and the supporting information contained within the letter from the applicant
dated 25 March 2002..
3. Full details of the fence and gate to be erected at the head of Hill Top Road and the path to the field shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the
commencement of development.
4. The top surface soil material shall be brought onto the site and any associated working shall take place
between the hours of 8am - 6pm Monday to Saturday ONLY.
5. The works hereby approved shall be completed within 3 months of the date of this permission and to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
Reason(s)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
3. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached letter from the Environment Agency dated 23 April
2002 and in particular to the informative regarding a waste management licence.
APPLICATION No:
02/43597/REM
APPLICANT: Westbury Homes Ltd
LOCATION: Agecroft West Agecroft Road Pendlebury Swinton
PROPOSAL: Details of the siting, design and external appearance of 287 dwellings together with
associated car parking, construction of new vehicular access and
creation of new surface water drainage system
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former Thermalite site which was granted permission in outline with all
matters reserved, for residential development following a public inquiry at the end of 1998. The site lies
within the Croal Irwell Valley with essentially the central part of the site for residential development,
surrounded by a landscaped area to provide an open space framework and to facilitate access to the wider
Valley area. This application is now seeking approval for the reserved matters for the housing development
and also the discharge of conditions of the outline permission.
The proposal was originally for the erection of 271 dwellings but this has subsequently been increased to
comply with PPG3 “Housing”, and the requirement for a more intensive use of existing sites, to 287
dwellings. This would comprise a mix of two and three storey, detached, semi-detached and mews type
dwellings and include 59 flats within 5, three and four storey blocks. The applicant has sought to try and
create two main areas within the site. In the eastern half the dwellings would be of a higher density. In the
western half it is sought to achieve a more rural character, with lower density and more open boundary
treatments with greater emphasis on tree and shrub planting. The apartment blocks would be sited at the
main entrance into the site, three on the main frontage to Agecroft Road and two on the opposite side of the
access road into the site.
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
The overall development would comprise dwellings of 14 different designs, varying from two bed to four
beds in detached, town house, terraced properties and a mix of two and three storeys. In terms of privacy
distances normally a separation of 21m is sought. In accordance with government guidance and following
a request from the City Council the density of the development has been increased. A balanced approach has
been taken in this respect by the applicant with an average of 20m separation achieved. In support of this
it is considered that this is an edge of town site but the applicant has tried to create a development of a human
scale and intimacy which many people would find sociable, comfortable and private. The individual units
have been designed to prevent overlooking/privacy issues by staggering, angling and protruding dwellings,
screening walls and fences together with building orientations and elevational treatments.
The main access into the site would be off a roundabout which would be constructed on Agecroft Road and
also serve the Agecroft Commerce Park on the opposite side of the road. There would be a second access
from the site 45m from the western boundary on Agecroft Road.
The site has previously had approval for reclamation works and alterations to existing site levels (ref.
00/41574) and this work has now been completed. The result is that the land levels raise towards a central
mound and it is proposed to utilise this landform to form a focus for the whole development and create a
village green. A tree lined vista would lead from Agecroft Road to the village green. A toddlers play area
would be sited here.
The outline scheme was approved subject to a number of conditions and this application is seeking to
discharge three of these. One condition was imposed to secure a landscaping strip with a minimum width of
20m along the Agecroft Road frontage which was also to accommodate a footpath/cycleway. The road
layout is such that a circular system has been designed to reflect the site characteristics and shape, with small
cul-de-sacs off this main road. Owing to the design and as a means of making it more interesting, an average
of 20m landscaping strip would be maintained along the frontage although this would not be a rigid line.
Through this area there would be a cycleway/footpath which would then provide a link to the greenspace
area.
Another condition related to the whole footpath/cycleway network within the greenspace framework
including its links to the housing site. In relation to this the original submission provided four separate links
into the greenspace from the housing site, but following advice from the Architectural Liaison Officer this
number was reduced to two. One would be off the main access road into the development with the second
in the north eastern “corner” of the site. At this point a motorcycle barrier would be incorporated.
It is still intended that the greenspace framework around the site be managed and maintained by an
independent management company as agreed within the legal agreement attached to the outline permission.
Discussions are still on-going in relation to this to ensure that satisfactory maintenance of this area is
achieved. The management company would also maintain the areas of open space and the play area within
the site. In accordance with policy a sports pitch would be provided on the edge of the housing area and the
greenspace framework beyond and a toddlers play area would be sited within the village green area.
Members may recall the last application for the site in August 2001, reference 00/41574/FUL for the
construction of a new access road, alterations to existing site levels with the importation of fill material and
also the creation of a new surface water drainage system. This proposal incorporated the use of a sustainable
urban drainage system with a series of detention and retention ponds in the public open space, one of which
was to have been positioned on the frontage to Agecroft Road. The scheme now being considered also
originally included a SUDs (Sustainable Urban Drainage) scheme but this has now been amended to provide
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
a sealed pipe system following concerns about the future management, maintenance and liability issues
relating to the SUDs scheme.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Development Services – no objections in principle but require a noise assessment to be
undertaken with necessary mitigation measures, and also for the sports pitch to be constructed to the National
Playing Field six acre standard.
United Utilities – no objections in principle.
Environment Agency – no objections in principle.
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – no comments received to date.
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – require landfill gas protection measures to be included in the final
housing design.
Railtrack – no objections
GMPTE – no objections in principle.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – no comments.
Coal Authority – no objections.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published in February of this year.
A site notice was displayed on 20 February 2002.
The following neighbours were notified :
1 – 15 Manor Lodge, Agecroft Road
40 – 82 Agecroft Road
1 and 2 Dauntesy Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EN23 Croal-Irwell Valley, EN5 Nature Conservation
Other policies: EN17 Croal – Irwell Valley, EN10 Landscape, DEV1 Development, DEV11 Development
and Flood Risk, DEV7 Development of Contaminated Land, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Crime and Design,
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The initial assessment of this application was undertaken at the outline stage at the public inquiry which
established the principle of residential development on this brownfield site. Therefore, it is the details of the
scheme now submitted in terms of siting and design and its impact upon the Croal-Irwell Valley, and also
security that are of relevance in the consideration of this proposal.
I have received no objections to the proposal and I am also given to understand from the applicant that during
a marketing exercise there was significant support for the development. The applicant has increased the
numbers of units to 287 in accordance with government guidance and PPG3. However, to be able to achieve
this higher density the separation distances have been reduced slightly to an average of 20m (normally 21m)
across the whole site. In support of this, the site as a whole is a new development site surrounded by the
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
green swathe and therefore does not impinge upon any neighbouring development. I am also satisfied that
the dwellings have also been sited in such a way as to ensure that any impact from overlooking and loss of
privacy would not be unduly experienced by any resident.
The proposed layout incorporates a number of dwelling types including a number of apartments located
within 2, three, and 3, four storey blocks. These would all be sited at the main entrance to the development
with one four storey block parallel to the main entrance access road within the site overlooking the
greenspace to the railway. Siting the apartments in these locations together with their design would
contribute to the creation of, and help identify, the main entrance into the development. Overall I consider
that the applicant has developed a scheme which complements the characteristics of the site and one which
provides a good mix of housing types to attract a mixed population, again in accordance with government
guidance.
Conditions 4 of the outline permission related to a 20m landscaping strip along the frontage to Agecroft Road
and a footpath/cycleway network throughout this area. The proposed housing layout has maintained an
average of 20m across the frontage to any dwelling or apartment block although this is reduced in parts and
there are also areas of carparking which would encroach into this area. However, in some areas there is a
distance in excess of this 20m and therefore I am satisfied that the broad aims of this condition have been
broadly met. A 3m footpath/cycleway also passes through this area from which access can then be achieved
into the larger greenspace framework from a footpath which enters the development at two separate points.
Condition 3 of the outline permission requested details of the footpath/cycleway network within the
greenspace framework and its links with the housing site. There is an existing footpath from Lumms Lane
which runs along the rear northern boundary to the site and returns along the eastern boundary. This is then
able to be accessed from a couple of separate points within the housing development. There were previously
more links into the greenspace area but following security concerns from the Architectural Liaison Officer,
these were removed. I am satisfied that with these two access points, the wider area is able to be accessed and
is therefore acceptable. A motor cycle barrier would be erected at each access point into the greenspace area.
The applicant has taken on board the conditions of the outline permission and in relation to the reserved
matters has designed a layout and produced a scheme which would complement the characteristics of the site
and the area. It would result in a high quality development which would not detract from this location in the
Croal Irwell Valley.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 20 May 2002 which shows 287 dwellings.
2. The developer shall undertake an assessment in accordance with planning and noise guidance document
PPG24 to assess the impact of transport related noise on the new housing developments (including noise
from trains and traffic on Agecroft Road).
A scheme shall be submitted prior to the commencement of development and with the approval of the
Local Authority, outlining the results of the assessment and where necessary what mitigation measures
should be implemented. These measures shall then be implemented.
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
3. Full details of the sports pitch play area which shall be designed in accordance with the six acre standard
(produced by the National Playing Fields Association), shall be submitted to the Director of
Development Services prior to the commencement of its development.
4. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
5. Full details of the proposed phasing for the building works, including areas of phasing and timescales
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development prior to the
commencement of the first phase.
6. Full details of the exact type and location of traffic calming measures shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of development and shall
be implemented with each phase..
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
2. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
3. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
6. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The site is to be a 20 mph zone and a traffic regulation order shall be required, the costs of which shall
be met by the developer.
2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached letter from the Greater Manchester Geological Unit
dated 19 February 2002 detailing design specifications for the dwellings, and also the letter from
GMPTE dated 18 February 2002 regarding the relocation of bus stops..
APPLICATION No:
02/43911/COU
APPLICANT: P Cassidy
LOCATION: 4 The Drive Salford 7
PROPOSAL: Change of use of Flat 2 to office (Class B1 Business)
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
4th July 2002
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a three-storey detached property at The Drive. The property has been converted
into six flats (a Certificate of Lawfulness application is currently under consideration for this development)
and the proposal is to convert one of the ground floor flats into an office (class B1).
The proposed hours of working are Monday to Friday 9.00am to 5.30pm. The Applicant has indicated that
there are 10 parking spaces at the site. The surrounding uses are predominantly residential.
SITE HISTORY
02/43913/CLUD - Certificate of Lawfulness for the continued use as five self contained flats. Pending
consideration.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Hours of working should be restricted to Monday to Friday 0900 to
1730, with no working on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified:
1, 2, 3, 6 The Drive
1 – 18 (inc.) Moorfield Lodge
Flats 1 – 6 (4 The Drive)
Flats 1 – 6 (5 The Drive)
Flats 1 – 5 Lyndale Court, The Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments have
been made:
1. The Drive is already over populated and very busy with the amount of traffic that uses it and is certainly
not suitable for more
2. It is a residential area
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
Site specific policies: DEV10 – Broughton Park Development Control Policy
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV10 states that the City Council will, in determining planning
applications for development in Broughton Park, only grant planning permission where the development
would maintain the predominantly residential character of the area. Whilst policy DEV1 states that regard
will be had to the likely scale and type of traffic generation and the amount of car parking provision. With
regards to DEV10, I consider that the proposal would maintain the predominantly residential character of the
area, in particular as the rest of the property would remain in residential use.
The proposal has generated one objection from local residents. The main areas of concern relate to traffic and
car parking at the site and the residential nature of the area. With regards to traffic and car parking, the
proposed development is relatively small in scale – 60m2 floorspace and as such, UDP parking standards
would require the provision of two car parking spaces. The Applicant has indicated that there are 10 parking
spaces available at the site. I consider that this amount of car parking is adequate to service both the
self-contained flats and the proposed office use. I do not consider that the traffic generation of an office of
this scale would be significant.
With regards to the amenity of residents and the residential nature of the surrounding area, I consider that
providing the operating hours of the business are restricted to 9am to 5.30pm, Monday to Friday, then the
development would not have any significant detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents.
I have no objections on highway grounds and I do not consider that the proposal would be detrimental to
residential amenity.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The use hereby permitted shall NOT be operated on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays and shall
ONLY be operated between the hours of 9.00am and 5.30pm
3. This permission shall relate only to the use of the site for an office and for no other purpose, including
any other purpose within Class B1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.
4. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use not less than two car parking spaces shall
be provided within the curtilage of the site to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services
and such spaces shall be made available at all times the premises are in use.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
APPLICATION No:
02/44040/FUL
APPLICANT: Aspull Engineering Co Ltd
LOCATION: Aspull Engineering Co Ltd Garden Lane Boothstown Worsley
PROPOSAL: Retention of palisade security fencing
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a yard area to the rear of the Aspull Engineering premises. The proposal seeks the
retention of a 20 metre section of 2.4 metre high, three-pronged palisade fencing. The fencing is not presently
colour-treated.
The fencing has been erected adjacent to a public footpath (Worsley No. 91) that runs along the boundary of
the site, between the back gardens of properties on Border Brook Lane, where there is a 2 metre high timber
fence. The resulting footpath width is between 1.2 metres and 1.5 metres. The fencing is located at a distance
of approximately 12 metres from the rear of these dwellings. There is a difference in levels between the
application site and the dwellings on Border Brook Lane – the application site is approximately 2 metres
higher. To the north of the site is an area of recreational land.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified:
14 to 36 (evens) Border Brook Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received four representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The
following comments have been made:





would lower value of properties on Border Brook Road , due to its ugliness
the fencing is ugly and not in keeping with the area
the fencing has taken away some of the public footpath and bridleway
the fencing is not secure
previously, the yard was enclosed by concrete panel fencing which kept in the various noises of trucks
etc associated with the business. The new fence is open and property owners on Border Brook Lane are
subjected to more noise and can see all that goes on in the yard
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
Councillor Boyd has requested an inspection of this site by the Panel.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: R12/13 – Provision of Recreational land and Facilities
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV2 seeks to ensure a high standard of design in new development and
policy DEV1 states that regard will be had to a number of factors in determining applications for planning
permission including the visual appearance of the development and its relationship to its surroundings.
Policy R12/13 relates to the land to the north of Simpson Grove, which includes the yard area where the
fencing has been erected and seeks to improve the site and develop its recreational potential.
The proposal has generated a number of objections from local residents. The main areas of concern relate to
the obstruction of the footpath and the appearance of the fencing. With regards to the possible obstruction of
the footpath, there have been extensive discussions on this matter. There is no defined footpath width
recorded on the definitive statement for rights of way and it is evident that prior to the erection of the palisade
fencing in question, there was a concrete panel fence approximately 3 metre from the timber fencing to the
rear of the dwellings on Border Brook Lane. Pedestrians have therefore previously had the opportunity to
walk over this whole distance. The Applicant has submitted details regarding the history of the public right
of way and has stated that the footpath width was no greater than 0.9 metres. The width of the footpath varies
along its whole length and the actual walked line of the path is no greater than 0.9 metres for the majority of
its length.
With regards to the appearance of the proposed fencing, I do not consider that three-pronged palisade fencing
is particularly appropriate within or adjacent to residential areas. The residents of Border Brook Road are,
however, screened from the majority of the fencing by the timber boundary fencing to the rear gardens. The
top 0.4 metres of the palisade is nevertheless visible to these residents. I therefore recommend that the
fencing is colour-treated to protect the visual amenity of these residents.
I consider that the fencing will provide increased security for the business premises and do not consider that
it would have any significant detrimental impact on the visual amenity of neighbouring residents, providing
that it is colour-treated. I have no objections on highway grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Within one month of the date of this permission, the palisade fencing hereby approved shall be treated in
a colour to be agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The width of the path and indeed the line it takes within the previously fenced area, is at this stage a
judgement that the applicant must take. The fact that the City Council does not object to the proposal at
the current time indicates only that we have no evidence to suggest that the right of way have been
obstructed. Should further evidence be revealed in the future to indicate that the width of the right of way
is at that point greater than 1200 mm, or is located along a different line to the one that has been left then
it may be necessary for the City Council to take action to restore the legal width and line of the path.
2. This decision is without prejudice to any future applications to extend the fencing further along the
public footpath, for which the applicant and the City Council will need to consider the appropriate line
and width of the path over which the public have right of way. In any case it is likely that this section
would require a minimum width of 2500mm be retained to prevent the path becoming an alley and to
retain it's amenity value.
APPLICATION No:
02/44041/FUL
APPLICANT: G Wimpey Manchester Ltd
LOCATION: 628 Eccles New Road Salford 5
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing training centre and erection of two-four storey buildings
comprising 48 apartments and two-two storey buildings comprising two
apartments and six garages together with associated car parking
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of a vacant Youth training Scheme Craft Training Centre situated on
Eccles New Road opposite Turnpike House. The site measures approximately 0.34 hectare and is bounded
by the Eccles to Manchester railway to the north, beyond which is the M602 motorway, City Council depots
to the east and south beyond Eccles New Road and a railway cutting to the west
It is proposed to demolish the existing buildings and erect a total of 50 two-bedroomed apartments in three
4 storey blocks and two two-storey units that provide garaging at ground floor with a single apartment above.
The buildings would be faced in brick and render and would have tiled pitched roofs. A total of 52 car
parking spaces would be provided.
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – no objections in principle but requests a condition regarding drainage and provides
advice.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – the site adjoins the nearest bus stops located on Eccles
New Road which offer frequent services between Manchester and Wigan, Eccles and Swinton. The site is
also within walking distance of both Weaste and Ladywell Metrolink stations. This will give the residents
of this scheme a real choice in travel mode and potentially reduce the amount of car travel that could
otherwise be generated by such a development. In order to maximise the benefits of the site’s location in
relation to public transport it should be ensured that the pedestrian environment is designed to be as safe and
convenient as possible so as not to discourage people from accessing the site on foot. This can be achieved
through the implementation of measures including the appropriate use of lighting, landscaping, pedestrian
footpaths within the site and surfacing. Due to the sites proximity to the Metrolink line a condition should
be attached regarding consultation regarding Metrolink.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – no objections in principle but provides advice.
Railtrack – No objections and provide advice.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by both press and site notices.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 of the UDP states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when
considering applications. These factors include the amount of car parking, the potential for environmental
pollution and noise and the visual appearance of the development. Policy DEV2 states that the City Council
will not normally grant planning permission unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and the
appearance of the development.
The proposals accord with government advice contained in planning Policy Guidance Note 3 Housing with
regard to achieving higher densities in sustainable locations along public transport corridors.
The site is ideally located in terms of access to public transport and I consider that one parking space per flat
is adequate car parking provision. The condition attached regarding noise should ensure that any future
occupier is not adversely affected by traffic noise.
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
I am satisfied that the proposed building is acceptable in scale, massing and design and will make a positive
contribution in the locality.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of development details of a separate and secure pedestrian link from the site
to Eccles New Road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services. Such details as are approved shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of any unit.
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
4. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
5. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
6. Prior to the commencement of development a site investigation report shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Director of Development Services. The investigation shall address the nature, degree
and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an identification and
assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA,
focussing primarily on risks to human health and to controlled waters. The investigation shall also
address the implications of ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby
occupied building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental
receptors including ecological systems and property. The sampling and analytical strategy shall be
approved by the Director of Development Services prior to the start of the site investigation survey.
Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report shall be implemented in
full prior to the occupation of any unit.
7. The noise assessment and suggested mitigation measures submitted by Wimtec Environmental
(referenced EPN 60171M and dated May 2002) shall be subject to the approval in writing of the Director
of Development Services prior to the commencement of the development. Such measures as are
approved shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of any unit.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. To ensure that the development provides easy access to public transport facilities in accordance with
policy T4 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
3. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
4. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
5. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
6. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
7. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the need to intercept surface water draining from the development
prior to its entering the highway across a footway, to meet the requirements of Section 103 of the
Highways Act 1980.
2. The Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding details
of drainage.
3. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment Agency.
4. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Greater Manchester
Passenger Transport Executive.
5. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Greater Manchester
Police Architectural Liaison Unit.
6. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from Railtrack.
APPLICATION No:
02/44085/FUL
APPLICANT: Fordville Ltd
LOCATION: 33-37 Cottenham Lane Salford 7
PROPOSAL: Installation of security shutters and erection of security fencing and entrance gates
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
4th July 2002
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to two linked industrial units located at the westerly end of Cottenham Lane. The site
is surrounded by industrial units to the south, east and north whilst to the west lies an area of public open
space. The industrial units have been vacant for some time.
Planning permission is sought for the erection of replacement 2.4m high fencing with a 3.0m electrified
fence behind along the north, west and south boundaries of the site. Existing windows are to be removed and
replaced with cladding to match the existing building on the east elevation. The entry gates are to be moved
forward. A similar application was granted in February 2002, however this application seeks to amend the
position of the security fencing, and the entranceway into the site.
The applicant has received funding in the form of two grants from the City Council through the Business
Liaison Team. Part of the site is owned by the City Council.
SITE HISTORY
In 1978, planning permission was granted for the erection of warehouses and offices (E/6216).
In 1978, planning permission was granted for the erection of extension to existing warehouse and offices
(E/9673).
In 1979, planning permission was granted for the erection of a factory warehouse unit with ancillary offices
(E/8599).
In 1981, planning permission was granted for the erection of an industrial unit associated car parking and
construction of new vehicular access (E/11890).
In 1988, planning permission was granted for the erection of a two storey extension to provide a new
entrance and staircase (E/22587).
In 2002 planning permission was granted for the installation of security shutters and the erection of 2.4m and
the repositioning of gates. (02/43500/FUL)
PUBLICITY
The following neighbouring addresses were notified:
Unit 51-55 Cottenham Lane
Unit 1-3 Elton Street
Unit 27-31(o) Cottenham Lane
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; DEV4 Design and Crime; EC3 Re-Use of Sites and Premises.
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 requires that regard should be had to the standard of design; location and nature of the proposal
within its surroundings and to the relationship to the road network. Policy DEV4 relates to consideration of
crime prevention including the provision of security features. Policy EC3 relates to the re-use of vacant
industrial buildings.
All other industrial units within the area are enclosed by railings; mostly to a height of three metres. The
applicant states the existing chain link fencing is not considered satisfactory by Safer Salford and the Greater
Manchester Police to prevent further break-ins at the premises. The applicant has stated the proposals as
submitted are as recommended by Safer Salford and the Police. The applicant has also submitted material to
show that he would be able to obtain insurance following the implementation of this scheme. The unit is in
an isolated area and has been vandalised and damaged several times. I consider the measures proposed within
this application will ensure the re-use of the building. The proposed railings are to be painted blue to match
existing street furniture in the area. I do not consider that the height or design of the railings and electric
fencing will harm the character of the area.
The re-alignment of the entrance gates will provide more room on site which would require a road closure.
I have no highway objections and recommend conditional approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The development shall not commence until the necessary approval for the road closure as required under
the necessary legislation, has been secured.
3. 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. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/44129/FUL
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
APPLICANT: K Hoang
LOCATION: 194 Trafford Road Eccles
PROPOSAL: Installation of new flue on side elevation
WARD:
Barton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application for planning consent relates to the installation of a new flue on the side elevation of an
existing hot food take away establishment (Chip Shop) in Eccles. The new flue will extend beyond the ridge
line of the building, alongside an existing flue which serves the premises. The new flue will allow for the
addition of a further food preparation area within the take-away premises. The flue will measure 350mm in
diameter and will be fitted with a vent and suitable filters.
SITE HISTORY
In May 2002 a similar application was withdrawn as the applicant had failed to notify the adjacent land
owner with a land interest in the proposal site (Ref: 02/43892/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
44 Fairless Road
190,192,147,196 Trafford Road
1-7 Charlton Avenue
113-123 Ellesmere Street
125-135 Ellesmere Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one representation in response to the application publicity. The following issues were raised:



Introduction of late opening hours
Increase in noise and litter
Parking problems
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
S5 – Control of Food and Drink Premises
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that when considering planning applications the City Council should have regard to the
location and nature of the proposed development, including its relationship to existing and proposed land
uses; its visual appearance and the potential level of air, water and environmental pollution, including noise
and nuisance. Policy S5 relates to the control of food and drink premises and states that in considering
application relating to hot food uses, the City Council should consider the impacts of the proposed use on
neighbouring residents in relation to noise, disturbance, smells, fumes, litter and vehicular traffic.
There was one representation received to the application from a neighbouring resident, concerned that the
application would lead to an increase in opening hours at the take-away, and associated problems of
increased, noise, litter and parking problems. As the application does not propose to increase the opening
hours of the existing takeaway, I would not anticipate an associated increase noise, litter and parking at the
site and therefore dismiss these concerns.
There is an existing flue installed at the site and I am satisfied that proposed installation, which is similar in
scale, will not be so significant as to harm visual amenity in the area. I have received no objections from
Environmental Services as regards noise and odours and on this basis recommend that the application be
approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Details of the fume extraction system serving the cooking and / or preparation of food (in particular the
type of filter to be used and the frequency of filter replacement), shall be designed such that there will
be no odour or noise nuisance to residential premises and shall be approved by the Director of
Development Services in writing, prior to development taking place.
3. Prior to the development hereby approved coming into use, the applicant shall provide a litter bin to the
front of the premises. The applicant shall first submit details of the design and position of the litter bin
(in liaison with the Director of Environmental Services), for the written approval of the Director of
Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
3. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
APPLICATION No:
4th July 2002
02/44161/FUL
APPLICANT: Snowso Limited
LOCATION: Garden Area At Side Of 14 Victoria Road Eccles
PROPOSAL: Erection of a four storey building comprising 14 self contained flats (two within roof
space) together with associated landscaping, car parking and
construction of new vehicular access.
WARD:
Eccles
BACKGROUND
Members will recall that planning permission was recently refused on this site for a similar development.
My report highlights the changes that have been made to the previous proposal and draws to the attention of
members additional information supplied by the applicant’s agents. In addition the applicant has appealed
against the refusal of the application and a public inquiry is due in November.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to land that currently forms a side garden to 14 Victoria Road (The Grange) which
lies outside the Ellesmere Park Conservation Area but within the area covered by the Ellesmere Park
Development Control Policy. 14 Victoria Road is a fairly large, two-storey detached residential property that
has access from Victoria Road close to its junction with Westminster Road. The site is surrounded by
residential properties of different sizes and types. Manor Heath, to the west, is a large, locally renowned three
storey property adjacent to which there is a bungalow beyond which is a three storey large Victorian
semi-detached house. There are semi-detached properties to the north-east next to which there is again a large
three storey Victorian house. On the opposite side of Victoria Road there are a number of detached
properties. Due to the orientation of the buildings none of the surrounding properties look directly at the
application site.
The site is reasonably enclosed on all sides. There are a number of mature trees in addition to various shrubs
along the boundary with Victoria Road. A 1.5m and a 2.5m brick wall encloses the site along the party
boundary with Manor Heath and 4a Stafford Road (the bungalow) respectively. There are also a number of
mature trees along the boundary and within the adjacent properties, which screen the site from view
somewhat. There is a 2m high wooden fence along the boundary with the rear garden of no.1 Westminster
Road, and existing treatment along the eastern boundary of 14 Victoria Road screens the application site
from view when coming down Victoria Road. Access into the site is currently gained via the entrance for 14
Victoria Road, however there is a disused access in the south-west corner of the site.
The majority of mature trees within the site are protected under Tree Preservation Orders (TPO).
Planning permission is sought for the erection of a four storey building comprising 14 self-contained flats
together with associated landscaping, car parking, and the construction of a new vehicular access. The
building is L-shaped and is sited 6m away from the proposed common boundary with The Grange and 8m
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
from the main blank side gable. Due to its shape a small proportion of the building would project forward
from the building line created by The Grange. All distances between adjoining properties exceed the City
Councils standards as the proposed development would be at least 21.7m away from Manor Heath; 30m and
38.4m from 4a and 6 Stafford Road; 28m from the nearest semi-detached property; and 33.5m from those on
Victoria Road. There are 4 apartments proposed on the ground, first and second floor, and 2 on the third floor
in the roof space. The building would measure 10.75m at its highest point and would have a hipped roof.
Various elements from properties within Ellesmere Park have been incorporated into the design of the
building, including bay windows stretching up to the second floor, brick detail surrounding the windows,
dormer windows, and timber eaves detailing. The parking provision proposed is in accordance with the City
Councils parking standards as there are 18 provided, 14 for residents and 4 for visitors. Access would be
gained via the existing access in the north east corner and a new access adjacent to the proposed boundary
with 14 Victoria Road. Finally aside from those already removed the trees would remain unaffected, and a
comprehensive landscaping scheme is proposed.
A number of detailed amendments have been made to the previously refused scheme and these are detailed
as follows:* an overall reduction in height of the building of 1.88m has been achieved through lowering the ground
level by 300mm, reducing floor to ceiling heights by 300mm and reducing the height of the roof by creating
an internal flat roof. The overall height of the highest windows has been lowered by 600mm.
* the window in the roof space that was closest to 4A Stafford Road has been moved to the gable elevation
and the balconies at second floor level on the rear elevation have been removed.
* additional detailing has been added to the elevations that reflect the Victorian character of the area.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services - no objections
British Coal Authority - no objections
Greater Manchester Police - no objections
Ellesmere Park Residents Association – no response to date
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
1, 2, 4, 4a, 6, 10 to 14, 18, 26, 33, 41, 42 and Manor Heath, Stafford Road
1 to 15, 2, 2a, 2b, 9a, 12 and 18 Westminster Road
2, 3 to 11, 5a, 6a, 8, 12, 12b and 14 Victoria Road
18 Barclay Drive
22 Clarendon Road
14 Ellesmere Road
5 Glenart
18 Sandwich Road
The Aviary, Montonmill Gardens
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
4 Sunnybank Avenue
18 Chatsworth Road
All neighbours and objectors previously notified were notified of this current application.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 39 representations in response to the application publicity. The same objections as were
raised previously have been made again and many of the objectors have stated that the detailed changes are
not significant and have failed to address the reasons for refusal of the last application. The main issues
identified are as follows;
The issue of traffic generation and highway safety seems to be the greatest concern amongst the
majority of those whom have objected, the main reasons being: the junction of Victoria Road and Half Edge Lane is already considered to be dangerous and the
proposed development would add to this existing problem.
Loss of trees.
The existing noise and traffic sensitive uses located on Victoria Road would be affected by increased
traffic.
The proposed development would serve to increase the amount of traffic on Victoria Road together
with existing and proposed flat development elsewhere, to unacceptable and dangerous levels.
At the point at which access to Victoria Road is proposed, the road is unadopted and is already in
poor condition, in addition to which the highway is particularly narrow.
The proposed development and associated traffic may jeopardise the future reuse of existing
properties within Ellesmere Park.
Impact on the visual amenity of neighbouring properties, in addition to the character of the
Conservation Area as a whole.
The proposed development contradicts those policies established by the City Council within the
Ellesmere Park Development Control Policy.
Flooding is a problem for the area, as the sewers were not built to accommodate all these extra
multiple properties proposed.
Style and design of the proposed development.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: DEV9 Ellesmere Park Development Control Policy
Others: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, T13 Car Parking
PLANNING APPRAISAL
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
Policy DEV9 states that when determining applications within Ellesmere Park the City Council shall ensure
that; any development would maintain the areas predominantly residential character; due regard has been had
to matters siting, design, height and facing materials; and the provision of car parking. DEV1 states that due
regard must be paid to a number of factors that include size and density, traffic generation parking provision,
visual appearance, landscaping and open space provision, together with the effect on sunlight, daylight and
privacy for neighbouring properties. In addition to which DEV2 relates to the quality of the design and
appearance of the development, particularly in terms of its relationship with surrounding properties. Finally
T13 seeks to ensure that adequate parking provision is made where necessary.
The issue of government advice in the form of Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 on Housing. This states that
local planning authorities should revise their plans to take account of the guidance set out in the PPG. It also
states that in considering planning applications for housing development in the interim, before development
plans can be reviewed, local authorities should have regard to the policy contained in the PPG as material
considerations which may supersede the policies in their plan. PPG3 calls on local planning authorities to
avoid the inefficient use of land. Policies which place unduly restrictive ceilings on the amount of housing
that can be accommodated on a site should be avoided.
A large number of objections have been received from surrounding residents, and the main issues to consider
with regards to this application relate to; traffic generation; the impact on amenity of neighbouring residents
and the character of Ellesmere Park; design; and the impact of the proposed development on drainage within
the area. There is also the issue that the residents feel the proposed development contradicts the policies
within the Ellesmere Park Development Control Policy.
Whilst I appreciate the residents concerns regarding the existing traffic situation, particularly along Victoria
Road, I do not believe that the additional cars which may use the road as a result of the proposal, would lead
to such an increase in traffic sufficient to warrant refusal of the application. In addition to which I have
received no objections on highway grounds and am satisfied with the proposed parking provision and access
arrangements.
With regard to the issue of amenity and the impact of the proposed development on Ellesmere Park there are
a number of factors that need to be considered. Although the habitable room windows of the bungalow at
4a Stafford Road would not be overlooked I do consider that the private rear garden to this property would
be overlooked by the rear windows in the proposed development despite the fact that there is a 2.5m brick
wall along the party boundary and a number of mature trees which would help to screen the site from view
during times when the trees are in leaf. Other neighbouring properties are orientated in such a way that none
would be directly overlooked by the proposed development, and together with the separation distances I am
satisfied that it would not unduly impact on the amenity of other neighbouring residents. I am satisfied that
the design of the proposed building in itself is appropriate and incorporates various Victorian features and
elements, taken from other properties within Ellesmere Park.
With regard to the concerns over drainage I am satisfied that the proposed development would not have a
significant impact on existing drains.
The final issue to consider is how the proposed application fits in with the Ellesmere Park Development
Control Policy. The policy states that where sites are outside the Victorian core, as is the case here, unless the
nature of a particular site and surroundings dictate otherwise, the City Council would normally expect new
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
residential development to be in the form of two-storey houses. It is relevant here to consider how other
developments in Ellesmere Park have been treated.
9 Half Edge Lane – 01/42390/COU – This property lies outside the Victorian core but within the
Conservation Area. Permission was granted for a large extension to a semi-detached Victorian property and
change of use to flats.
Former Ash Leigh School – 00/41005/COU – Again this property lies outside the Victorian core but within
the Conservation Area. Permission was granted for change of use, alterations and extensions to form 16 self
contained flats.
Granville, 28 Ellesmere Road – 00/41043/FUL – This property lies outside the Victorian core and outside
the Conservation Area. Planning permission was granted for a part 4 and part 3 storey development
comprising 18 apartments. The application involved the replacement of an existing Victorian property. An
adjacent property was also Victorian but other surrounding properties are newer.
4 and 6 Victoria Road – 96/35068/FUL – This property lies outside the Victorian core but within the
Conservation Area. Planning permission was granted for a 3 storey development comprising 18 apartments.
Again the application involved development on a site formerly occupied by a pair of Victorian properties
and again one of the adjacent properties was Victorian.
I remain of the opinion that the situation here is significantly and crucially different in that the proposed
development does not involve the replacement of an existing property but the development of an existing
side garden and that 14 Victoria Road is not a Victorian property, although I would acknowledge that Manor
Heath is a Victorian property. Manor Heath, however, does not front on to Victoria Road but rather faces
Monton Road and the junction of Victoria Road and Stafford Road. The new property will be read in the
street scene in context with 14 Victoria Road and not with Manor Heath. I therefore consider that, unlike the
circumstances above where flatted development outside the Victorian core has been approved, the
circumstances in this instance do not justify an exception to be made to policy DEV9 of the UDP and policy
6 of the Ellesmere Park Development Control Policy that both state that outside the Victorian Core, unless
the nature of a particular site and its surroundings dictate otherwise, the City Council will generally only
approve new residential development in the form of two storey houses.
The policy also states that all parking provision should be located behind the building line, the majority of the
car parking is set back behind the building line and I consider that the two spaces that do project forward do
not have a significant impact. Finally the policy refers to the established building line, however due to the
position of the building there is not a formal building line as such to maintain.
The applicant argues that policy DEV9 and the related Ellesmere Park Development Control Policy are
superseded by PPG3. While I accept that the development of this site for individual dwellings would be
likely to fall short of the densities recommended in PPG3 it must be recognised that not every site that is
developed will be able to meet those levels. This is a side garden to an existing house. The aspirations of the
Ellesmere Park Development Control policy are as valid today as they always have been.
Despite the fact that the application has been improved from that that was refused I do not consider that
sufficient changes have been made to warrant a change in recommendation on this development. I have
considered the advice contained in PPG3 but do not consider that it is sufficient to outweigh my objections
to the scheme. I therefore recommend that the proposed development is refused on the grounds that it would
have an unacceptable effect on the residents of 4a Stafford Road as a result of its overbearing nature and loss
of privacy and that it would be contrary to UDP policy as a result of its nature and design.
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development by reason of its size and nature would be out of character with the
surrounding area and contrary to policy DEV9 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan as it
would be in the form of flatted development.
2. The proposed development would, by reason of its size and siting, have an unacceptable detrimental
effect upon the amenity of the occupiers of 4a Stafford Road due to the overbearing nature of the
development and loss of privacy that would occur that would be contrary to Policy DEV1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/44167/HH
APPLICANT: D Gibson
LOCATION: 23 Valdene Drive Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL: Erection of single storey side extension
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application, which has been submitted by an employee of the City Council, relates to a detached property
and is for the erection of a single storey side extension. The extension would be to create a garage 6.25m deep
x 3.6m wide. It would be offset 3.25m at its nearest point to the boundary with number 26.The boundary to
number 26 is formed by 2m shrubs which follow onto 5m trees. The trees are not covered by a TPO.
CONSULTATIONS
Coal Authority – Advice Given
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified:
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
21, 24, 26 Valdene Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
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 boundary treatment would provide screening to the proposed garage, thereby reducing any impact on the
neighbouring property. As a result, it is considered that the proposed flank window would not need to be
obscure glazed. The trees are not covered by a Tree Preservation Order and it is considered that they are not
worthy of protection given their amenity value and significance in the street scene are minimal. There would
be a distance of approximately 3.2m to the boundary with number 26.
The hardstanding to the front of the property meets the requirements as set out in the Supplementary
Planning Guidance Note HH17 (House Extensions) and as such will not cause an obstruction to highway
safety. I therefore have no objections on highway grounds.
The proposal would not result in any loss of light or have a detrimental impact in terms of amenity on the
neighbouring property or street scene and therefore accords with the provisions laid out in the Unitary
Development Plan Policy DEV 8.
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)
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
02/44163/DEMCON
APPLICANT: Housing Services Directorate
LOCATION: 37 - 41 Norway Street Salford 6
PROPOSAL: Prior notification for the demolition of existing properties
WARD:
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This prior notification relates to the demolition of 3 vacant terraced houses located on Norway Street, within
the Seedley and Langworthy Regeneration Area. The proposal involves the complete removal of the
dwellings to ground level, with the consolidation of cellar space. Following demolition works the site will
be soiled and seeded and a knee rail will be erected around the perimeter of the site.
The proposal has been submitted as part of the SRB5 Seedley and Langworthy Regeneration Initiative
(SALI). The properties are located in a residential area, which has particularly high vacancy levels. Other
significant problems within the area include high levels of crime and a poor quality environment. The
demolition of these properties is an important phase of the SRB5 initiative, which will involve remodelling
works to be undertaken in the locality.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Coal Authority – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
10-22 (e) Glendinning Street
33-35 (o) 51-53 (o) Norway Street
40-50 (e) Norway Street
38 – Norway Street
REPRESENTATIONS
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
I have received no letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H7 – Housing Area Improvement and Renewal – Private Sector
Other policies: H3 – Maintaining and Improving Private Sector Housing
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy H3 states that the City Council will seek to maintain and improve older private sector housing and its
environment, which will be achieved partly through the selective clearance of housing not capable of
improvement and the provision of new dwellings and open space. This Policy is applied specifically to the
Seedley and Langworthy area in Policy H7, which states that the City Council will promote the improvement
of the Seedley and Langworthy in accordance with the Seedley and Langworthy Proposals plan.
The properties in question have been identified as part of the regeneration process, as being in an extremely
poor state of repair. Demolition was considered the most appropriate course of action in these circumstances.
The site will subsequently be redeveloped as part of the regeneration process, in accordance with the
Seedley and Langworthy Proposals plan.
Due to the very poor condition of these properties, I am satisfied that the demolition of 46-80 Langshaw
Street would be in accordance with Policy H3 and Policy H7 of the UDP. I consider the proposal acceptable
and have no objections.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicants attention is drawn to the fact that any consequent traffic management must be in
accordance with the Safety at Streetworks and Roadworks code of practice.
APPLICATION No:
02/44182/COU
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
APPLICANT: Orbit Investments (Salford) Limited
LOCATION: The Designer Outlet Centre The Quays Road Salford Quays Salford 5
PROPOSAL: Change of use of ground floor retail unit to retail and/or professional services and/or
restaurant at lower ground floor level and change of use from retail to
office on the ground, first and first mezzanine floors.
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to four storeys at the south west corner of the Lowry Designer Outlet development.
The designer outlet is immediately to the north and east with the Lowry Centre on the other side of the Plaza
to the west. To the south is the footbridge that connects with the Imperial War Museum over the Manchester
Ship Canal.
Planning permission is sought for the change of use of the lower ground floor from retail (A1) to either retail
(A1), professional services (A2) or a restaurant use (A3) or a combination of these uses. Planning permission
is also sought to change the use from retail to business (B1) on the ground, first and first floor mezzanine.
SITE HISTORY
In 1999, planning permission was granted for the erection of a 740 space multi-storey car park and access
(99/39189/FUL).
In 1998, planning permission was granted for the erection of a 13 screen cinema, commercial/leisure, Digital
World Centre, hotel, offices, residential, restaurants, wine bars, retailing, car parking, road, open space and
landscaping (98/38429/FUL).
In 1996, planning permission was granted for the re-alignment of the existing loop road and construction of
the Lowry Plaza (96/35771/FUL).
In 1996, planning permission was granted for the erection of the Lowry Centre for the performing and visual
arts (96/35728/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objection
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 5th June 2002
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, TR5 Protection of Existing and Potential Assets, S5 Control
of Food and Drink Premises, EC1 A balanced Portfolio of Sites.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 relates to the proposed use and its relationship to existing and proposed uses. Policy TR5
requires the protection of existing tourism interest and explains that potential tourism will be deemed as
being a material consideration. Policy SC5 states that food and drink uses will be acceptable where this
would not interfere with residential properties or the highway whilst EC1 requires sufficient supply of office
accommodation.
I consider the lower ground floor frontage at this location to be an important frontage which should, in
accordance with the above Unitary Development Plan Policy, continue similar retail and other associated
active uses adjacent to the Lowry Plaza. As such the applicant has amended the scheme to allow a retail use,
either a shop; professional services use (bank, building society etc.) or a restaurant/pub use at lower ground
floor in order to facilitate services that would be compatible with the tourist nature of the area. I consider a
mixture of these uses to be acceptable and also consider that these uses would not harm residential amenity
or highway safety.
I consider the office accommodation on the ground, first and first mezzanine floors would facilitate the
further supply of office accommodation within the Salford Quays area and would create a further mix of uses
on the site. I do not consider the loss of retail space to be detrimental to the Quays area, especially as an
employment generating use is proposed. I have no highway objections and recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
APPLICATION No:
02/44183/COU
APPLICANT: Parkcare Homes (No 2) Limited
LOCATION: Charles House Charles Street Salford 6
PROPOSAL: Change of use to residential care home together with erection of single storey
extensions to front and rear, associated landscaping and alterations to
existing car park
WARD:
Pendleton
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site lies within Brindle Heath at the corner of Charles Street and Maurice Drive. The existing building
was last used for education related purposes and has been vacant for approximately two years. The building
and site is becoming increasingly unsightly. The site used to be owned by the Council. The site is split level
with the building forming a single storey structure when viewed from Charles Street and Maurice Drive. A
two storey element faces the ambulance station which lies to the north-east of the site.
Externally, a car park lies on the front of the site accessed from Charles Street. There are a number of small
tress facing Maurice Drive and along the common boundary with houses to the south-east on Maurice Street.
A terrace of houses also faces the site on Charles Street. To the south-west is an area of grass beyond which
is the embankment to Broad Street where it forms the dual carriageway A6.
It is proposed to change the use of the property and provide extensions to form a residential care home. The
facility provided would provide residential mental healthcare arising from the closure of the existing facility
at Prestwich Hospital.
The main extension would be to the Maurice Drive frontage and would measure approximately 50m by 8m.
It would be single storey and would be curbved to follow the line of Maurice Drive. There would be two
smaller single storey extensions at the lower level on the side of the building facing the ambulance station.
These would measure 14m by 8m and 9m by 8m. The existing car park would be expanded to provide 11
car parking spaces and some trees would be lost these would be replaced by new planting. The largest tree
on the site would be retained and would be a feature of a new internal courtyard. The Maurice Drive and
Charles Street frontages would be bounded by new 1.5m railings replacing the existing mesh fencing.
The facility will provide accommodation for 24 people and referrals to the home will only be through the
Salford Mental Health Trust.
SITE HISTORY
In May 1993 planning permission was granted for the change of use of the property from an adult training
centre to offices or light industry (93/30933/DEEM4).
In January 1994 planning permission was granted to change the use of the property from a daycare centre to
a 28 bed nursing home (93/31937/COU) and in April of that year permission was granted for a 40 bed
nursing home (94/32250/COU).
In December 2000 permission was granted to change the use of the property to offices (00/41512/DEEM3).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – The proposed development is located close to the busy A6 dual
carriageway and to the ambulance station. Measures will be required to reduce loss of amenity.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
1 to 27 and the Ambulance Station Charles Street
4 to 18 and 5 to 15 Maurice Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The objections are on the
following grounds:Residents don’t want a mental health unit on their doorsteps
Loss of value
A home for people sectioned under the Mental Health Act should be further away
Enough similar and unneighbourly uses in the area already
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H8/1 Housing area Improvement and Renewal – Public Sector, SC12 Residential Care
Homes and Nursing Homes
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy H8/1relates to the improvement of existing public sector housing. Policy SC12 states that the City
Council will only grant planning permission for residential care homes where a number of criteria can be
satisfied. These criteria include the site being located in a residential area with good facilities, that the
existing building is no longer suitable for single family accommodation, that there is no unacceptably adverse
effect on neighbouring residents, that sufficient car parking is provided and that adequate provision is made
for private amenity/open space within the site.
Planning permission has been granted in the past for a 40 bed nursing home. This facility will provide care
for 24 people. Loss of value is not a material planning consideration that I can take into account and I do not
consider that the presence of other similar facilities should have any significant impact on the application.
The area is served by three bus services. The proposal will significantly improve the appearance of a site and
building that has remained vacant for two years. The proposed extensions are all single storey and do not
result in any loss of amenity to any neighbouring resident and 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. 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
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
3. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
4. Prior to the commencement of development a site investigation report shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Director of Development Services. The investigation shall address the nature, degree
and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an indentification
and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, PartIIA,
focussing primarily on risks to human health and to controlled waters. The investigation shall also
address the implications of ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby
occupied building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental
receptors including ecological systems and property. The sampling and analytical strategy shall be
approved by the Director of Development Services prior to the start of the investigation survey.
Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report shall be implemented in
full prior to any occupation of any unit.
5. Prior to the commencement of development an assessment to determine the external noise levels that the
residents will be subject to (daytime and night) shall be submitted to the Director of Development
Services. The assessment shall have due regard to Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 - Planning and
Noise and shall detail what steps are to be taken to mitigate the disturbance found. The assessment and
mitigation measures shall be approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the
commencement of the development and any mitigation measures that are approved shall be implemented
in full prior to the occupation of any unit.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
4. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
APPLICATION No:
02/44184/HH
APPLICANT: R Thomas
LOCATION: 12 Brackley Road Eccles
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing garage and kitchen and erection of part single/part two storey
rear extension
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
4th July 2002
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property on a corner plot. The site is bounded by Broad Oak Park
and Worsley Golf course to the rear. This proposal is to demolish the existing single storey garage and
kitchen and replace with a part single, part two storey rear extension.
The extension would project 6.95m and would be 0.3m from the neighbouring conservatory, which is
situated on the common boundary. The neighbouring conservatory projects 7.6m. The two storey element
would also project 6.95m, but would maintain a distance of 3.8m to the common boundary. This proposal
would also maintain a driveway length of 8.1m .
CONSULTATIONS
Coal Authority: Advice given
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
10 Brackley Road
Worsley Golf Club
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments have
been made:
Drainage issues
Damp / damage
Accessibility and maintenance
Loss of privacy
Loss of light
Loss of view
Adverse effect on value
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV 8 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.
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
The objection received to this application was from the occupier of the adjoining property and concerns the
existing single storey conservatory on the common boundary. The neighbour is concerned that this proposal
would cause problems with drainage, access, maintenance and is concerned about the potential longer term
effect on their property. These issues are not material planning considerations. However, drainage issues are
considered fully by the Building Control section during construction.
The objection also makes reference to a loss of privacy. The windows on the elevation that faces the common
boundary would be 3.8m away and are not habitable room windows. However, I have attached a glazing
condition to these windows to ensure there is no loss of privacy. The single storey element of this proposal
would project 6.95m from the back of the house. The neighbouring conservatory on the common boundary
projects 7.6m. The first floor element of this proposal would be set in 3.8m and also projects 6.95m. The
proposal has been designed so that the first floor is within a 45 degree projection from the neighbours
bedroom window to minimise the impact upon the neighbouring property.
The final points raised in the objection letter refer to a loss of view and an adverse effect on the value of the
property. These issues are not material planning considerations.
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.
3. The glazing for the element of the 1st floor facing the party boundary shall be obscured and shall be
maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
APPLICATION No:
4th July 2002
02/44185/LBC
APPLICANT: Director Of Development Services
LOCATION: Worsley Court House Worsley Road Worsley
PROPOSAL: Erection of external staircase and balustrade at rear
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing external door to the rear of Worsley Courthouse. The building is Listed
Grade II and lies within the Worsley Village Conservation Area.
It is proposed to replace the existing stone steps by a wooden staircase with handrail. The new stairs are
required under building regulations as the door is used as an emergency exit from the building. The existing
stone steps would remain in place and would not be damaged in any way by the new 4-tread staircase.
SITE HISTORY
There is no history relevant to this application.
CONSULTATIONS
Worsley Civic Trust – no response to date
Worsley Village Community Association – no response to date
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbours were notified :
Rock House, Worsley Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
Other policies: EN12 Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings, EN13 Works to Listed Buildings
and Buildings Within Conservation Areas
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EN12 states that the City Council will not normally permit any development that would detract from
the architectural and historic character of a Listed Building, would destroy or obscure any significant
architectural or historic feature, or would be detrimental to the setting of a Listed Building. Policy EN13
relates to the demolition or alteration of Listed Buildings.
This proposed development is required to allow the building to continue to be used for functions. The
existing steps will be retained and the new staircase is a wooden construction that is comparatively small and
that is located to the rear of the property and is not visible from any part of the highway or any other public
areas. I am satisfied therefore that the proposed development does not detract from the architectural or
historic character of the Listed Building and that there is no significant detrimental effect on any
neighbouring property.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R038 Section 18
APPLICATION No:
02/44214/TPO
APPLICANT: J And C Devaney
LOCATION: 69 Cavendish Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL: Fell one tree
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a tree situated in the front garden of 69 Cavendish Road, Salford. The tree is
protected by the City Of Salford Tree Preservation Order No.4, which covers a large number of trees in the
surrounding area
CONSULTATIONS
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
Environmental Services – The tree is healthy and stable, it has recently been pruned and has a high visual
amenity. There are no arboricultural reasons for the removal of the tree.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
67 and 71 Cavendish Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of support in response to the application publicity. The following comments have
been made:
The tree roots are lifting up the pavement
Squirrel droppings
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The tree is situated at the front of the property, the applicant is concerned about dropping from either
squirrels or pigeons that are in the tree. The tree is also lifting up the pavement at the front of the property.
The City’s Senior Arboricultural Officer has inspected the tree and is of the opinion that the tree is a healthy
specimen with a high visual impact. I would not consider the removal of the tree to alleviate the problem of
droppings but rather move the problem to another area. With regards to the removal of the tree for the lifting
of the pavement this may be alleviated by the root pruning of the tree.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed felling of T9 of the City of Salford Tree Preservation Order No. 4 would seriously injure
the amenity of the area and insufficient evidence has been provided to justify the removal of a protected
tree .The removal of this tree would be contrary to policy EN 7 (Conservation of Trees and Woodlands)
of the City of Salford's Unitary Development Plan.
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
APPLICATION No:
4th July 2002
02/44249/ADV
APPLICANT: The Lowry Centre Limited
LOCATION: Lowry Centre Salford Quays Salford 5
PROPOSAL: Display of one free standing internally illuminated sign board, one internally
illuminated fascia sign, one backlit fascia sign and one non-illuminated
fascia sign
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The Lowry centre is located on the Quays Road between Dock 9 and the Manchester Ship canal. The
proposed signage is to be installed at the western side of the Lowry Centre for the performing arts. The
signage is proposed fronting the Lowry Plaza and consists of four separate signs.
One sign is free standing and is located near the taxi drop off/pick up point and consists of a frame 6.6m high
by 6.6m wide with a lower section of the frame at 2.3m above ground level. An illuminated banner is
proposed to be secured within this frame with flood type illumination. The other three adverts are proposed
to be fixed onto the Lowry building itself and consist of a backlit Lowry logo fixed to the balustrade at first
floor level; internally illuminated panels providing information on opening times and shows at ground floor
level and also non illuminated advertisements on fixed within the glass panels at first floor level.
SITE HISTORY
In 1996, planning permission was granted for the erection of the Lowry Centre for the performing and visual
arts (96/35728/FUL).
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 12th June 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: none
PLANNING APPRAISAL
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
The main considerations in the determination of this case are the impact of the proposals upon amenity and
public safety. I consider the signage affixed to the building to be sympathetically designed and would not
detract from the character of the Lowry Centre or the Lowry Plaza. I also consider the type of illumination for
these adverts to be sensitive to the Lowry and Plaza.
The stand alone sign has been designed to allow a headroom underneath of 2.3m. Although this sign is 6.6m
high from ground level when viewed in context of the scale and design of the Lowry, The Designer Outlet
with residential tower and the proposed Digital World Centre I consider this sign also to be in keeping with
the visual amenity of the area. The sign also has the spotlights built in for the illumination of the Lowry
Centre. I do not consider the signage would impact upon highway safety and recommend approval subject to
the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition K01S Standard Advertisement Condition
2. The maximum level of luminance of the signs hereby permitted shall not exceed 400 cd/sq.m. and all
illumination shall consist of static lighting only.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R034 Advert
2. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
58
4th July 2002
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
APPLICATION No:
4th July 2002
01/43161/DEEM3
APPLICANT: Community And Social Services Directorate
LOCATION: Sahal Court Great Clowes Street Salford 7
PROPOSAL: Change of use of part of former residential home to offices, together with the
creation of additional car parking and 6m high lighting columns
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to an existing building on the corner of Great Clowes Street and Clarence Street.
It was formerly used as a residential home, but part of it has been converted to offices. The proposal is
now to convert the remainder of the residential use, which is currently vacant, into offices, together with
the creation of additional car parking. This car parking would be floodlit by 5, 6m high floodlighting
columns.
SITE HISTORY
In 1996, planning permission was granted for part of the building to be converted into offices. (ref.
96/36120/DEEM3).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objection, subject to a condition regarding the level of
illumination from the floodlighting columns.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed.
The following neighbours were notified :
Health Centre, Great Clowes Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Part of this building has already been converted into offices, and I would not consider that the proposed
conversion of the rest of the building would have an adverse effect of the amenity of the area. The
proposal does include some additional parking, on the side bounded by John Street and therefore I would
not consider that the additional traffic generated by the change of use would have an adverse impact.
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4th July 2002
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
3. The lighting provided should be erected and directed so as to avoid nuisance to residential
accommodation in close proximity and should be designed to provide a standard maintained
illumination LUX of between 5 and 20 LUX.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R013A Use of parking areas
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
61
4th July 2002