PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL PART I 18th July 2002

advertisement

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

APPLICATION No: 01/42796/FUL

APPLICANT: Orbit Investments (Salford) Limited

LOCATION: Lowry Galleria Pier 8 Quays Road Salford Quays Salford 5

PROPOSAL: Erection of a 17 storey block consisting office unit, retail unit and 75 residential flats and the erection of a car park containing 412 spaces

WARD: Ordsall

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a site at the western end of Pier 8, Salford Quays. It is situated adjacent to the

Lowry Designer Outlet shopping centre and multiplex cinema and the Quays Road to the east, across which are the residential properties of the Grain Wharf housing development. To the north lies the existing car park of the Lowry and Designer Outlet whilst to the south lies the Manchester Ship Canal.

In addition to surrounding uses already mentioned the site can be considered to form part of an overall mixed use area comprising the Lowry Centre, The Watersports Centre, The proposed Digital World

Centre, residential properties and office accommodation. Pier 9 to the north of this site, across Erie Basin, is the subject of permission for a mix of uses including offices, residential, retail, hotel leisure and car parking.

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a tower consisting of 75 self contained flats each with a small balcony area above a ground floor food retail unit (274sq.m.) and an office space (90sq.m.).

Permission is also sought for the erection of a car park consisting of 412 spaces with access through the existing car park on site, the car park has been reduced since the original submission to six car park storeys. The tower is proposed at the south of this site and would be entirely forward of the forward building line of the existing residential flats across the Quays Road on Winnipeg Quay.

The main elevation of the tower is the south facing elevation, this fronts the Manchester Ship Canal. The east facing elevation faces existing three storey residential of Grain Wharf and also commercial development along the Quays Road.

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). This application included a 68 metre high office block on the current application site.

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).

1

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

CONSULTATIONS

Highways Agency – No objections

Environment Agency – No objections

GMPTE – No objections subject to parking spaces being justified

United Utilities – No objections

Trafford MBC – No objections

GM Police – Comments regarding internal layout of the scheme

Director of Environmental Services – No objections

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 3 rd

August 2001

The following neighbours were notified :

14, 15, 30, 40, 41, 42, 48, 54, 55, 57, 60, 64, 66, 76, 77 & 78 St Lawrence Quay

1 – 130 Vancouver Quay

1 to 74, 79, 80, 81 Winnipeg Quay

23, 25, 34, 37, 51, 59, 65, 75, 77, 79, 99, 105, 109, 113, 117, 135, 147 & 153 Labrador Quay

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 192 objections to the original submission with a further 5 objections received following the most recent amendment. The following comments have been made:

Loss of sunlight/daylight

Loss of privacy

Loss of outlook

Lack of parking on the Quays

Too much office space on Quays already

Design and massing of the proposal will detract from the Quays and existing buildings there

Construction would cause dust and disturbance to residents

Most of the initial objections were to the size of the proposed building and as the tower remains at 17 storeys to its peak I consider that the initial 192 letters should still stand as objections today.

I have also received one letter of support from the Lowry Trust in response to the application publicity.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: TR7/2 – Pier 8, Salford Quays

Other policies: EC3 – Re-use of Sites and Premises; EN9 – Derelict and Vacant Land; H1 – Meeting

Housing Needs; DEV1 – Development Criteria; DEV2 – Good Design; DEV4 – Design and Crime; T13

- Car Parking; T9 - Equality of Access; S4 – Local Shopping.

PLANNING APPRAISAL

2

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

The proposal forms part of a larger mixed use commercial development. The site occupies a prominent location within the mixed use area of Salford Quays which is considered part of the Regional Centre. The vision of a broad mix of uses at Salford Quays has been identified and refined since the mid 1980’s. The appropriate mix of uses will only be achieved in this unique district of Greater Manchester when the redevelopment is fully complete. The earlier phases of development of Salford Quays has comprised offices, residential, commercial, retail (non food), leisure and visitor attractions. The major attractions of the Lowry Centre, Imperial War Museum, Designer Outlet and the Digital World Centre ensure the area is well utilised by visitors arriving by tram and by car. As this site, subject of this application, is the last piece of the Pier 8 jigsaw remaining it is useful to assess the application against not just the above policies of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan but also regional planning policy (RPG13) and national planning policy (PPG1, PPG3, PPG6 and PPG13).

RPG13 provides the strategic planning framework for the North West and contains advice and guidance to the location and promotion of development within the region. The guidance places a particular emphasis on the need for urban regeneration within the region and the beneficial role that development proposals can play in achieving this. The guidance also calls for a mix of uses with the Regional Centres including residential accommodation.

National planning policy guidance further strengthens a requirement for mixed use developments and calls for the use of previously developed land for high density housing as a tool for regeneration and to limit urban sprawl, where such sites are well served by public transport. There is already a mix of uses and development styles at this site and the introduction of additional residential property would introduce more users of Pier 8 in the evening and would increase the vitality and viability of the Quays.

The introduction of a food retail outlet and a small office would help to serve the proposed and existing developments and would reduce the need to travel for goods and services. Consequently I consider the re use of this previously developed site for housing and a food retail shop and office to be in accordance with regional and national planning policy and also with the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan policies TR7/2; EC3; EN9; H1 and S4.

Turning now to the detail of the proposal which includes a seventeen storey residential tower which has been designed in the form of a series of shards rising from the ground. The footprint of the tower is 40m wide (south and north elevations) and 21m deep (east and west elevations). The tower would have a height of 53m at the shard closest to the existing residential properties across the Quays Road on

Winnipeg Quay. The height rises with each shard to a maximum height of 66.4m. Members will recall that the mixed use scheme (98/38429/FUL) approved by the Planning and Development Services

Committee included an office tower block on this same site 68m in height with a 40m by 14m footprint.

The shard closest to existing residential properties on Winnipeg Quay is some 33m away whilst the highest point of the tower is 69m from the same properties. The car park is set to the north of this site and at a height of 14.6m would be lower than the existing Designer Outlet building. As mentioned earlier the footprint of the tower is positioned to the south of the forward building line of properties on Winnipeg

Quay. The previous office building was 25m away from the residential properties on Winnipeg Quay, some 8m nearer than the current proposal.

Objections to the development have been received in relation to the height of the development and its impact upon the levels of sunlight and daylight enjoyed by residents of Winnipeg Quay. I appreciate this proposed building would be larger than the existing Grain Wharf flats but the actual impact upon

3

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002 sunlight and daylight should be considered. To this aim the applicant has produced a sunlight study showing; the shadowing effect throughout the day in mid winter of the site at present without this proposed building; the shadowing effect with the proposed building throughout the day in mid winter and also the shadowing effect of the proposal throughout the day in mid summer.

The sunlight study shows that in mid summer the existing properties on Grain Wharf and principally the blocks fronting the Quays Road closest to this proposal would not suffer a loss of sunlight. In mid winter, however the study shows that in the afternoon some flats would be detrimentally affected by a loss of direct sunlight in the afternoon. The nearest block (flats 1 – 10 Winnipeg Quay) to the proposed tower development are shown being affected at 14:00, with two other blocks being affected at 12:00 and 14:00 by a loss of direct sunlight. These same flats would however still have the benefit of daylight and although there must be weight attached to the objections to the loss of sunlight I consider that as a result of the slender side elevation of the tower, its shard design with reduced height fronting Grain Wharf flats and its sighting forward of the building line of the existing Grain Wharf flats that the proposal would not have a significantly detrimental impact upon the amenity of flats on Grain Wharf. The distance of 33m to the nearest existing residential blocks would, I consider, additionally ensure privacy for existing residents of Grain Wharf. I also consider that the current proposed residential tower, given its shard design and reduced overall height, to be less detrimental to surrounding residential properties than the previously approved scheme.

The actual design of the tower consisting of a series of angular shards or planes is proposed to be constructed out of glass, steel and a coloured concrete panel system. I consider that this will ensure the appearance of a lighter building. The balconies, in addition to providing residents with amenity space, also help to give the building a brighter feel. The colour and materials of the tower, different from the rest of the site, will also add to the buildings architectural interest. The roof garden element which is walled to the south with windows enabling pedestrians to look through the building to the sky will also help to create a good quality design. The car park, set behind landscaping, would be constructed in stone panels with indents along with a stone stair tower and a glass canopy for pedestrian access. I consider that the design of the tower and car park would tie in this part of the site with the rest of site through delicately contrasted materials and design. I consider the mass of this proposal sits comfortably on the corner of this mixed use site at a juxtaposition of two distinct regeneration sites. I consider that the site would be further improved visually by good quality landscaping around the car park and tower fronting the Quays Road.

Comments have been received from the Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit regarding the internal layout of the building and possible hiding places for miscreants. Comments were also received regarding restricting access to the residential flats from the car park area. Following these comments the application has been amended to restrict access to the residential areas from the front or south facing elevation only. With regard to recesses within the building the application has been softened to minimise recessed areas. As the applicant proposes to install CCTV, have security guards patrolling and install an ambient lighting system I do not consider that the proposal contravenes policy DEV4.

The internal layout has also been amended to provide access to the Designer Outlet Shopping Centre for people with mobility difficulties. This access utilises a lift or stairs and provides access from the Quays

Road bus stop outside the car park. Vehicular access and egress to the car park would be made through the existing Designer Outlet Shopping Centre car park. The Highways Agency has not objected to the layout or size of the car park. In addition to cycle parking the site is served by the Metrolink tram stop at

Harbour City.

4

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

Although a multi-storey car park is proposed for the 75 residential flats, a small food retail unit and small office the applicant has advised that parking in this car park would serve the whole site including the uses proposed by this application. Other uses on the site are the Lowry Centre; Designer Outlet Shopping

Centre; Warner Brothers Multiplex cinema and the Digital World Centre. Parking for all these attractions is provided at the one existing car park and therefore the parking standards contained within PPG13 and the UDP need to be assessed in respect of all these uses.

The table below lists all the uses at Pier 8 including the Lowry, Designer Outlet Shopping Centre,

Residential and Digital World Centre. Parking standards are set out and totalled against the actual parking provision. The requirements of the revised PPG13 Parking Standards and Parking Standard of the UDP would result in a close link between actual spaces on site and required standards.

Use Required by Standards Total Provided on Site

(Existing and Proposed Car

Parks)

Retail

Residential

Office

General Leisure

Cinema

Lowry

884

238

318

85

443

436

2404 2361

(I have used PPG13 (revised) wherever possible as this provides the most up to date standards).

The result shows under provision on site by 43 spaces which I consider is acceptable given parking standards contained within PPG13 are maximum levels in order to encourage use of public transport. The high level of objections to the development on the grounds that there is not enough car parking in the area can be determined to be a material consideration but Governments aims are clear with respect to demand management as a tool to encourage usage in public transport. Pier 8 is well served by public transport and the ability to park bicycles securely at the site will further encourage other modes of transport than the private car. I consider the proposed parking level to acceptable in terms of PPG13 and policies DEV1 and

T13.

Concerns were raised over the original scheme from the Director of Environmental Services over noise spillage from the car park to the existing flats on Winnipeg Quay. Through amendments to the application, including the redesign to a part solid wall and the limiting of the upper four car parking floors (5A, 5B, 6A and 6B) after 20:00 and before 08:00 daily the Director of Environmental Services is satisfied that noise spillage will be limited. The Director of Environmental Services also requires conditions to be imposed to limit noise spill into the proposed flats from the car park and commercial units.

In conclusion I consider the development as proposed uses would comply with the City of Salford

Policies, regional guidance and national guidance certainly with respect to the use and density of residential development. The food retail shop would also add to the suitable mix of uses and would further reduce the need to travel by car for services. I have noted the strength of objection, including concerns over the loss of sunlight, however the submitted sunlight study shows there is not a significant sunlight impact upon existing flats. In addition the previous approval for an office block was taller and

5

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002 nearer to properties on Winnipeg Quay, as such I consider the height and scale of the current proposal to be less detrimental to than the acceptable. Pier 8 is a mixed use location and I consider that the addition of this stimulatingly designed building will enhance the built form of The Quays. The parking provision on site would be below the Governments maximum parking standards and along with nearby access to the Metrolink system and the provision of cycle parking I consider in conjunction with the mix of uses in the area would form a sustainable development in accordance with planning policy. I therefore, recommend approval subject to the following conditions.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. The applicant shall contact United Utilities prior to the commencement of the development with regard to diversion of the sewers/water mains.

2. Prior to the commencement of the development the developer shall submit a site investigation report the approval of 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 by the developer prior to occupation of the site.

3. The rating level of the noise emitted from the fixed plant and equipment associated with the development hereby permitted shall not exceed the existing background noise level (determined to be 39dB(A)) by more than minus 5dB between 19:00 and 07:00 and 5dB at any other time. The noise level shall be measured at the nearest noise sensitive premises. The measurement and assessment shall be made according to BS 4142:1997: Rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas.

4. Access by heavy goods vehicles into the northern and southern service yards of the development hereby permitted shall not be allowed except between the hours of 08:00 and 22:00 on Mondays to

Saturdays, and 10:00 and 18:00 on Sundays, Bank Holidays and Public Holidays.

5. Access/Deliveries by HGV/LGV that are not via the service yards shall be limited to the time in condition 4.

6. The lighting provided in the scheme should be erected and directed so as to avoid nuisance to residential accommodation in close proximity. The lighting shall be designed to provide a standard maintained illumination (LUX) of between 5 and 20 LUX.

7. The east and north elevations of the car park hereby approved, shall be of solid construction to minimise the passage of sound directly towards the existing residential properties at Winnipeg Quay.

6

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

The structure of these elevations shall have no gaps that pass from the inside of the car park to the outside unless they are acoustically insulated in accordance with a scheme agreed with the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of the development.

Details of the above construction shall be submitted for the approval of the Director of Development

Services prior to the commencement of the development and shall be implemented prior to use of the car park.

Where the north and east elevations of the car park do not have solid construction the use of those levels shall be restricted to use between the hours of 08:00 and 20:00 daily only. Methods of restriction of the such parking areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of

Development Services prior to implementation of the permission. Such methods of restriction shall thereafter be implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.

8. The developer shall undertake an assessment to determine the external noise levels that the residents in the apartments will be subject to (day and night). The assessment shall take into consideration the expected noise from surrounding development and expected noise from the proposed development and associated traffic movements. The developer shall detail what steps are to be taken to mitigate any disturbances. The assessment shall have due regard to PPG24 Planning and Noise. A report shall be submitted for the approval of the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of the development and any mitigation measures are to be implemented prior to use.

9. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a scheme for the approval of the Director of Development Services that details the measures necessary to limit the transmission of sound and vibration from the offices/shops to the apartments above. Such measures shall be implemented prior to use.

10. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved the developer shall submit detailed plans of the cycle parking scheme for the approval of the Director of Development Services. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the development and shall thereafter be maintained to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.

11. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and shall be carried out within six months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.

12. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls, roofs, windows, balconies and doors of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.

13. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters has been approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such a scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans.

14. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakway system, all surface water drainage from impermeable parking areas, roadways and, hardstandings for vehicles shall be

7

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002 passed through an oil interceptor designed and constructed to have a capacity and details compatible with the site being drained. Roof water shall not pass through the interceptor.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason

R001 Section 92

2. Standard Reason

R028A Public safety

3. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

4. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

5. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

6. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

7. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

8. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

9. Standard Reason

R024A Amenity of future residents

10. Reason: To provide adequate provision for cycle parking in accordance with Policy T11 and

PPG13.

11. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

12. Standard Reason

R042A Character- (DEV2)

13. To ensure a satisfactory means of drainage.

14. To prevent pollution of the water environment.

Note(s) for Applicant

1. Detergents entering oil interceptors may render them ineffective.

2. The Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding details of drainage.

3. Please note that a separate system of drainage is required for this development.

4. The developer shall contact Mr Tuersley (0161 907 7346) of United Utilities with regard to water pressures and the provision of water storage and pumps to guarantee an adequate and constant supply of water.

8

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

5. The developer shall contact Network Connections, United Utilities, PO Box 453, Dawson house,

Liverpool Road, Great Sankey, Warrington, WA5 3LW (08457 462200) regarding connection to the water mains.

6. The applicant shall discuss full details of the site drainage proposals with Mr Kerasby, Sewer

Adoptions Section, United Utilities (0161 609 7513).

7. The developer should contact United Utilities with regard to separate metered water supply to each unit and internal pipework should comply with current water supply (water fittings) regulations

1999.

8. This permission shall relate to the amended plans as received on the 5th July 2002.

9. Prior to commencement of the development the developer shall contact United Utilities with regard to the need for a diversion of the sewers/water mains

APPLICATION No: 01/43274/OUT

APPLICANT: Mrs T Wachel

LOCATION: 31 Singleton Road Salford 7

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of a two storey building comprising three flats together with associated car parking and alteration to existing vehicular access

WARD: Kersal

Members may recall that this application was deferred at the meeting of the Planning and Transportation

Regulatory Panel on 18 April 2002 at the agreement of the applicant, to allow further discussions about the scheme and possible amendments. These have not taken place for a number of reasons and I have now been asked by the applicant to determine the original application. My original report is outlined below.

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the grounds of a detached bungalow on the corner of Singleton Road and

Singleton Close. The site measures approximately 39m by 25m with the bungalow set back some 12m from the frontage with Singleton Road and extending from the adjacent boundary by 15m. To the rear of the bungalow is an extensive garden with mature trees growing along the boundaries and fruit trees within the central area of the garden. There is a prunus tree along the boundary to Singleton Close which is covered by tree preservation order No.4.

9

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

The proposal which is in outline only seeks to demolish the existing bungalow and to erect a two storey building comprising three flats, one on the ground floor and two on the first floor. The application seeks to determine siting and also means of access. This would be via the existing access but this would be widened to 4.5m. The new building would be positioned on the same building line and stand between

6.4m from the adjacent boundary at the front and 4.8m at the rear. It would extend back 15.6m. Five parking spaces would be provided at the front. The applicant has also amended the proposal to lower the floor level of the building by 0.7m, similar to the adjacent properties.

Permission was recently refused and dismissed on appeal in October of this year for a similar proposal to demolish the existing bungalow but to comprise 6 flats within an “L” shaped building, planning reference 00/41558/OUT. The application was refused for the following reason:

“The proposal is contrary to the provisions of policy DEV10(iii,iv) of the UDP as the creation of a large parking area and extended driveway would create an un-neighbourly development which would unduly affect the amenity of adjoining occupiers and adversely affect tree cover and the predominantly residential character of the area, which is typified by large dwellings set in spacious gardens. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the existing property cannot be retained and converted economically for an acceptable alternative use appropriate to the residential character of the area justifying the loss of an existing older property which contributes to and enhances the character of the

Broughton Park Area.”

In his statement the Inspector considered that the Broughton Park policy DEV10 and in particular part iii) related to larger Victorian buildings rather than more modern dwellings and therefore justification for the demolition of the dwelling was not of consideration.

He did consider however that the combination of the proposed siting, the height of the building, the effect on trees and the necessary extent of the parking provision would “destroy the fine balance that presently exists between the built development and the spacious garden.”

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objections

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 19 November 2001.

The following neighbours were notified :

1, 3 – 6 Singleton Close

22, 26, 29, 33 Singleton Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received six letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following comments having been made:

Proposal is of a similar scale to the scheme recently dismissed on appeal and has not addressed the key concerns of the inspector eg integration of the development into the plot to ensure that it is not intrusive

10

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

Although only 3 flats rather than 6, they are significantly larger in floor area covering some

17.5% of the total site area

The site is already at a higher level than surrounding properties and therefore a 2 storey development would appear more intrusive which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the site

Loss of garden area

Insufficient parking with increased overflow parking onto Singleton Close and increased traffic

Impact upon trees on the site

No design details submitted

If this proposal were to be permitted it would open the floodgates for future flat schemes in the area

Increased noise from residents

Creation of odours from the bin store

Councillor Connor has objected to the proposal as the footprint of this revised proposal is very similar to the original scheme which was refused on appeal.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none

Other policies: DEV10 Broughton Park Development Control Policy, H1 Meeting Housing Needs, T13

Car Parking, DEV1 Development Criteria

PLANNING APPRAISAL

I consider that the issue of particular importance for this application is to assess the proposal against the previous permission which was dismissed on appeal. In this the inspector was particularly concerned about the siting and height of the building, the impact upon the trees and the parking provision. In addition to this the proposal must also be considered in relation to its impact upon the adjacent residential dwellings.

One of the main concerns of the objectors is that this scheme now being considered is very similar to the previous scheme which was dismissed by the inspector and in fact has a larger floor area. To clarify this fully, the footprint of this proposal is 36 square metres less than that proposed under 00/41558/OUT, (the footprint being 189.2 square metres previously and this now 153 square metres) and almost 15 square metres larger than the existing bungalow.

Another significant difference between the two schemes is the parking provision. Previously it was proposed to provide six parking spaces at the rear of the flats, accessed from a driveway extending down the side of the development with an additional two spaces at the front. The applicant is now proposing only five parking spaces which accords with the requirements within the UDP for three flats and these would be provided at the front of the site where it is currently hardstanding/drive. With this revision the majority of the rear garden is available for amenity area for future residents together with the garden to the side of the plot adjacent to Singleton Close. I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds.

The inspector was concerned about the possible effect that the previous proposal would have upon some of the perimeter trees, and particularly those along the western boundary to Singleton Close. The applicant has amended the footprint of the proposed flats, reducing it in size but also bringing it 6.4m –

11

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

9m away from these trees along the boundary. The City’s arborist is satisfied that this distance is acceptable and that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon these trees.

There is concern that no design details have been submitted and that a two storey development would have a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the site. In response to this the application is in outline form only and therefore there is no requirement for full elevational and design details to be submitted. This would be the subject of a subsequent application. I am satisfied that sufficient information has been submitted in order to assess this application. In relation to the concerns about a two storey building on the site, whilst Singleton Close is primarily single storey development, there are also two storey dwellings on the opposite corner of Singleton Close and adjacent to the application site. Furthermore, the proposed floor levels have been lowered and there are also the

Victorian dwellings directly opposite on the other side of Singleton Road which are at a much higher level and as such are taller and more imposing. The inspector stated that in this context he did not consider a two storey development would be “intrinsically unacceptable in this setting”. With the retention of the existing mature trees around the perimeter of the site and taking into consideration the characteristics of the surrounding dwellings, I am satisfied that a two storey dwelling would not be unacceptable, although the design details would be very important at the subsequent stage. I have appended a condition to secure that accommodation is provided on two floors only thus restricting the potential height of the proposed building. .

The proposed flats would be 16m from the closest corner of the bungalow at the rear which would be positioned at an angle to the flats and the closest corner of the building is a kitchen, a non-main habitable room. There would also be a sufficient separation distance to the properties opposite on Singleton Close.

In relation to the adjacent dwelling, no.33 Singleton Road, this property has a main habitable room window on its gable at the ground floor and the applicant has amended the footprint of the flats to bring it 13m from this. There is also existing dense vegetation to some 13m in height and together with the increased separation distance I do not consider that there would be any significant impact from the proposal. I am satisfied that the proposal would not have a significant detrimental impact upon their amenity.

In assessing this proposal, I am of the opinion that the applicant has in fact addressed the concerns that were highlighted by the inspector at the previous appeal and that the proposal now being considered is acceptable. I therefore recommend that this application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the

Director of Development Services.

3. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 4 April 2002 which shows ground level

12

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002 details.

4. The proposed development shall NOT exceed two floors of accommodation as shown in the approved plans.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason

R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

3. Standard Reason

R019 Avoidance of Doubt

5. Standard Reason

R005A Amenity-neighbours

APPLICATION No: 01/43439/FUL

APPLICANT: Oakbay Design Ltd

LOCATION: Land Adjacent To Railway Track Off Frederick Road Salford 6

PROPOSAL: Use of site for a waste and recycling treatment plant including erection of 3600 sq.m industrial unit and an admin. building together with 3.5m high fence and brick wall to North and East boundaries and 5m high palisade fence to railway

WARD: Pendleton

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a site some 1.3 hectares in size with a frontage of 46m to Frederick Road and extending back approximately 300m. It is bounded to the north by the infilled Manchester, Bury and

Bolton Canal and Salford College, to the east by Frederick Road and to the south by the railway line and large warehouse units on Cheltenham Street and beyond. The site has been vacant since 1997.

It is proposed to use the site for a materials recovery facility (MRF), for the recovery of material from the skip waste stream. There would be an administrative office block, 500 square metres in size which would be sited 30m back from the frontage to Frederick Road. This would be of traditional build with brick and tiled roof. There would be car parking for 30 vehicles in front of these offices to the site boundary and a weighbridge adjacent to the gable end of the offices.

To the rear of the office accommodation would be the MRF unit, a 3,000 square metre portal frame building with double skinned acoustic cladding and roof. This unit would house all equipment to operate the process and also provide an area of storage.

13

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

To the rear of the MRF unit would be an area of open storage for stockpiles with a skip storage area beyond this to the rear boundary of the site.

The site would be bounded by 2m high paladin fence along the southern boundary to the railway, on top of a 2.5m high retaining wall which has already been erected. Along the northern boundary to Salford

College there would be a 2.5m high close boarded fence which would also be erected for acoustic purposes. In front of this there would be a 2.5m wide landscaping strip planted with native species. A new 3.5m wall would be erected along the frontage with gates across the entrance. There would also be some landscaping works including tree and shrub planting for screening purposes along the southern boundary.

The proposed hours of operation would be from 7am – 11pm Monday to Friday with only internal operations allowed in the MRF unit after 7pm, and from 8am – 1.30pm on Saturdays. There would be no working on Sundays. It is anticipated that there would be 10 staff within the offices, 20 staff to operate the plant on a shift basis and up to 10 drivers to bring the waste to the site.

The type of material brought to the site would be derived from the building/household skip industry with some commercial waste imported from shops. It would be transported by skip wagons or HGVs and it is expected that there would be approximately 120 vehicle movements a day, 60 inward and 60 outward.

Whenever possible HGVs importing materials would leave, exporting reprocessed materials. All vehicles would be weighed upon entering and leaving the site at the weighbridge.

Incoming loads of material at a rate of 600 tonnes per day would be tipped inside the MRF building.

Each load would be inspected for material that could cause damage to the equipment. This and other material such as sheets of timber would be removed by hand to the appropriate storage area. The remaining material would then be placed in the front hopper to be fed into the trommel where soils and material under the size dictated by the grid gauge will be separated out. Generally this will produce soils which can be exported from site as restoration soils or soil making material. Waste from the trommel would then pass under a magnet and onto the picking belt. Materials such as paper and cardboard will be handpicked and dropped down a shoot into the bay below or straight into a waiting skip for future sorting. Other reclaimed items would include non-ferrous metals, plastics and timber. The remaining material is primarily hardcore which would be deposited at the end of the process. Processed hardcore would be removed by the front-end loader and placed in a designated heap outside to be removed from site as secondary aggregate. It is anticipated that the process will recover about 80% of incoming materials. All unsuitable waste would be bulked up and taken to a licensed landfill.

Empty skip containers would be stored at the western end of the site on a cold planing surface. Their movement would be restricted to working to outdoor activity times.

SITE HISTORY

In December 1993 an application for a certificate of Lawful Use for the use of the site as a scrap metal processing yard was granted, planning reference 93/31039/CLUD.

CONSULTATIONS

14

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

British Waterways – investigations have been undertaken with the applicant to establish the line of the canal and the line of the boundary fencing has been amended accordingly so that there should not be any detrimental impact upon the future restoration of the canal. They are concerned however, about the resulting environmental quality of the canal corridor and the appearance of the proposed retaining structures alongside a restored canal. They consider that the concrete and timber retaining structure will be a dominant and unattractive feature and the proposed landscaping strip is of insufficient scale to achieve a successful screen. However they would like to be consulted on any landscaping scheme planted along the boundary line to the canal.

They are also concerned about the proposal being a bad neighbour use which may have a detrimental impact upon the canal and environment through noise and disturbance. It is felt that with the restoration of the canal more beneficial uses could be attracted to this site and the area.

If planning permission is granted they would like conditions attached securing their supervision during site works to ensure that the original canal line is adequately protected and that they are consulted about the details of the boundary treatment and landscaping works. They advise that any final planting scheme should be undertaken after completion of the canal works between 2004 and 2006.

Railtrack – no objections in principle.

Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to a number of conditions restricting activity on the site including hours of operation, noise levels, a site investigation.

The Coal Authority – no objections in principle.

The Environment Agency – no objections in principle but recommends that the applicant undertakes a risk assessment to ensure that there would be no unacceptable risk to the groundwater environment.

Greater Manchester Geological Unit – no objections in principle.

-

-

-

Charlestown/ Lower Kersal New Deal Partnership – object to the proposal on the following grounds:

proximity and impact of the proposed development upon residential properties, particularly in relation to the hours of operation, noise and vibration that these residents would have to suffer, the high volume of traffic that would be generated and the impact of the proposed external lighting proximity to education establishments and the danger to children walking to school from the traffic visiting the site the site is within what has been designated the Innovation Park, which aims to support regeneration within the City and attract investment and employment to the area. The proposal does not support this vision.

Most importantly it is considered that the proposal goes against what the New Deal for Communities

Partnership is trying to achieve. The overall vision for the NDC area is “to make Lower Kersal and

Charlestown a place where people want to live, by building a community and future that engages everyone”. It is aimed to create an attractive and safe environment in order to improve the quality of life for the local community and in light of these aims it is considered that the proposal would be detrimental to the quality of life of the local community.

PUBLICITY

15

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

A press notice was published on 10 January 2002.

A site notice was displayed on 2 January 2002.

Salford College was notified about the proposal.

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received an objection to the application publicity from Salford College who are concerned about the following:

The number of vehicles –60/day

Noise and vibration in close proximity to library

Noise, dust and odours that may be generated and problems with enforcing this – they would like a noise, dust, odour plan.

Councillors Warmisham and Hulmes have also objected to the proposal.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none.

Other policies: EC3 Re-use of sites and premises, EN20 Pollution Control, EN27 Manchester , Bolton and Bury Canal, MW15 Development Control Criteria – Waste, DEV4 Crime and Design, EC14/3

Improvement proposals.

PLANNING APPRAISAL

I consider that there are a number of issues to be addressed in the consideration of this proposal. Firstly, the impact of the proposal upon the amenity of the area and the neighbouring residents, particularly in relation to policy EN20 and problems of noise, dust and vibration, must be considered. Secondly, as the canal runs adjacent to the northern boundary of the site, the impact of the proposal upon the restoration of the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal must be considered in light of policy EN27. This seeks to preserve the line of the canal and improve it’s appearance and develop the recreational potential. Policy

EC3 seeks to re-use or develop industrial sites which have become vacant for similar uses and in this respect I consider the proposal accords with the policy as the site has previously been in use as a scrap yard.

NDC have objected as outlined above as has Salford College and British Waterways. In considering these objections it is necessary to take into account the history on the site which has been established as a long standing industrial site for scrap metal. In this context, I consider the proposal to be an improvement as it would result in all processes undertaken within a contained unit and the site would be screened with fencing . There would be an area for stockpiles of finished secondary aggregates and also an area for skip storage but the stockpile area would be fully screened from the closest residents on

Lissadel Street by the timber acoustic fence.

There would be palisade fencing along the northern boundary to the area of skip storage which would be colour treated green and the applicant has indicated that there would be a 2.5m wide landscaping strip in front of the acoustic fence which could be planted within the boundary to act as a screen to the housing on Lissadel Street. I would therefore recommend that any permission have a suitable condition attached.

16

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

The NDC may have plans for the site and the surrounding area but unfortunately I am unable to attach any significant weight to this as any plans are not part of a statutory document.

In relation to the proximity of the site to residential dwellings and the impact upon their amenity, the site is at least 80m from the dwellings on Lissadel Street and separated by Lissadel Street itself and also the

Salford College Campus and car park. Work would be restricted to within the recycling unit after 7pm.

Similarly the lights would only be used when required and would be positioned to reflect into the site only and not out towards the dwellings. In relation to these aspects the Director of Environmental

Services is satisfied that with the use of careful conditions that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon these residents. Similarly, with the existing authorised use on the site I am mindful that a significant amount of traffic could be generated from a use that would not require planning permission and I do not consider that this proposal would generate an unacceptable level over and above this.

The boundary treatment would potentially have a significant impact. It was originally proposed to erect a 5m high profiled steel sheet fence along the northern boundary but this detail has subsequently been revised to a 2.5m high close boarded wooden fence on top of, but set in from, a retaining wall along the line of the former Bolton, Bury Canal. The levels within the site would also be reduced. The applicant has indicated that the acoustic fence could be of a high quality/standard. It would be detailed in a suitable manner to break up the uniformity of the barrier, although no specific details have been submitted at this stage. The area between the retaining wall and the acoustic fence would be planted and whilst this may take a couple of years to become fully established, it would in time, soften this boundary and reduce any impact it may have. The fencing is necessary for acoustic purposes and would also provide an element of screening for these residents. If the fence were carefully detailed and together with the landscaping I consider that it need not necessarily have a significant detrimental impact the possible recreational use of the canal once restored.

I am satisfied that the proposed fencing along the remaining boundaries including the 2m high paladin fence along the boundary to the railway is acceptable, especially as this is required for security of the site which is to be encouraged through policy DEV4. I would recommend however, that should this permission be granted, this fencing be colour treated which would improve its visual appearance and reduce its impact.

Along the frontage of the site to Frederick Road a new 3.5m high brick wall would be erected, again for general security of the site and again this would be detailed to reduce its impact upon the street scene.

As there is currently a high brick wall along this frontage I do not consider that its replacement would have a significant or detrimental impact. Immediately to the rear of all boundary treatment there would be tree and shrubs planted which would satisfy policy MW15.

Another concern from the NDC was related to the traffic that would be generated and the danger to children walking to the schools and college in the area. In response to this I would suggest that this proposal need not necessarily generate significantly more traffic than any other industrial usage of the site. It should be recognised that because of the size of the site, a certain level of traffic would be generated from any use. I do not consider that the likely numbers of vehicles entering/leaving the site are disproportionate to the size of the site.

In relation to the actual MRF unit, this would stand 17m high to the apex of the roof but would be cladded and could be of such a colour to sit comfortably within the surrounding environment and blend in against

17

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002 the back drop of other uses. This together with the separation distances to the residential dwellings, the set back distance from Frederick Road, the partial screening from the administrative block and the proposed boundary treatment, would all ensure that the proposed use would not be overly imposing or have a significant, detrimental impact upon the amenity of the area. The offices which would be initially visible from Frederick Road are set back some 30m and would also be of a traditional construction which would sit happily within the context of the surrounding environment.

The Director of Development Services was particularly concerned about the impact of the proposal in relation to noise generation and impact upon neighbours and therefore a noise impact assessment was undertaken and submitted. It is now considered that subject to the imposition of a number of conditions including the provision of an acoustic barrier along the northern boundary, certain operations only to be undertaken within the MRF unit and behind closed doors, the restriction on the use of audible vehicle reversing alarms, together with a restriction on the hours of operation both within the MRF unit and on the site generally, that the proposal is acceptable. A dust control plan would also have to be submitted and on this basis I am satisfied that the proposal complies with policy EN20.

The NDC consider the proposal to be against what they are trying to achieve in the area in terms of generating employment and creating a place where people want to live. In response to this the proposal would create a number of jobs and create a site which would be well managed and screened from the surrounding uses and I believe would therefore be a considerable improvement upon the existing site and its characteristics. British Waterways are satisfied that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon the future restoration of the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal and once the planting is established along this boundary this would ensure the canal was a pleasant place to walk for recreational purposes. It has been suggested however that any planting is done after the Canal restoration works are completed.

The proposed use would be an improvement in visual terms upon the authorised, previous operations on the site and with the careful use of conditions it should not have a significant detrimental impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring residents. I have no objections to the proposal on highway terms and therefore on balance recommend that this application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. The sorting operation using the static Trommell and Picking conveyor system shall not take place anywhere on the site except within the Materials Recovery Facility Building.

3. Before the use commences, the Materials Recovery Facility Building shall be insulated against noise with the acoustic cladding specified in the Noise Impact report No.1582 by Noise Co UK Ltd and shall be maintained thereafter.

4. An acoustic barrier to a height of 4.5m above the site grade shall be provided to the northern boundary. The acoustic barrier shall be so designed as to achieve the noise reduction predicted in the

Noise Impact report No1582. Full details of the barrier shall be submitted and approved in writing

18

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002 by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of development and this barrier shall be erected prior to the commencement of the approved operations on site and shall be maintained thereafter.

5. The use of vehicles reversing alarms on site plant is prohibited.

6. The incoming loads shall NOT be tipped anywhere on site except within the Materials Recovery

Facility Building.

7. The Rating Level of the noise emitted from the site shall not exceed the existing background noise determined to be 50dBL__ between 7am and 7pm and 44dBL___ between 7pm and 11pm by more than 5dB. The noise level shall be measured at the nearest residential dwelling on Lissadell Street.

The measurement and assessment shall be made according to BS4142:1997 "Rating Industrial

Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas".

8. The doors to the Materials Recovery Facility Building shall be kept closed at all times except for ingress and egress

9. There shall be no working in the Materials Recovery Facility Building outside the hours of 7am -

11pm Monday to Friday, 8am - 1.30pm on Saturday and no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

There shall be no working or vehicle movement anywhere on site with the exception of inside the

Materials Recovery Facility Building outside the hours of 7.30am - 7.pm, however vehicles will be permitted to travel directly from the night-time vehicle storage area to the exit from 7am onwards, ie

7am - 7pm.

10. The storage of skips shall not take place anywhere on the site except in the area marked on the drawing K142-002.

11. The surface of the skip storage area shall be treated so as to reduce the impact of noise of the skips being unloaded from the skip wagons and full details of the proposed treatment shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of development.

12. When loading the wagons with hardcore, the wagons shall be in such a position that the hardcore stockpile is between the wagon and the houses on Lissadell Street as far as possible to provide an acoustic screen.

13. The secondary aggregates shall be stored solely in the location shown on drawing K142 - 002

ONLY.

14. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a site investigation for the approval of the LPA. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, PartII_, 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 workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and property.

19

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior the start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.

15. A dust control plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development

Services and this shall be implemented before operation of the site commences and shall be maintained thereafter.

16. The paladin 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.

17. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 18 April 2002 which shows line of the

Manchester, Bolton, Bury Canal.

18. 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 a scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, including planting behind the fencing of the skip storage area as indicated on the approved plan, 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.

19. A fully detailed landscape scheme shall be submitted for the northern boundary to the canal between the acoustic fence and the retaining wall. This shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted and shall approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of development. It shall be carried out within the first available planting season and any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the

Director of Development Services.

20. There shall be no storage of secondary aggregates or skip storage above the height of the acoustic fence on the northern boundary or the paladin fence on the southern boundary whichever is the nearer at any time.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason

R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason

R005A Amenity-neighbours

3. Standard Reason

R005A Amenity-neighbours

4. Standard Reason

R005A Amenity-neighbours

5. Standard Reason

R005A Amenity-neighbours

20

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

6. Standard Reason

R005A Amenity-neighbours

7. Standard Reason

R005A Amenity-neighbours

8. Standard Reason

R005A Amenity-neighbours

9. Standard Reason

R005A Amenity-neighbours

10. Standard Reason

R005A Amenity-neighbours

11. Standard Reason

R005A Amenity-neighbours

12. Standard Reason

R005A Amenity-neighbours

13. Standard Reason

R005A Amenity-neighbours

14. Standard Reason

R028A Public safety

15. Standard Reason

R005A Amenity-neighbours

16. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

17. Standard Reason

R019 Avoidance of Doubt

18. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

19. To safeguard the amenity of the area and the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal in accordance with policy EN27 of the UDP.

20. Standard Reason

R005A Amenity-neighbours

APPLICATION No: 02/43548/FUL

APPLICANT: Barratt Manchester

LOCATION: Land Off Newearth Road Walkden Worsley

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing depot and erection of 34 dwellings and associated works

WARD: Walkden South

21

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the site of the fire station depot off Newearth Road. The adjoining site to the south was granted permission for a mixed use development comprising retail, residential uses, a medical centre and nursery, panning reference 00/41137/FUL. This is currently under construction. To the west are the properties of Hindburn Drive whilst to the north is the proposed line of the Leigh Guided Busway before it joins onto Newearth Road.

Permission is sought for the erection of 33 dwellings comprising one detached and a mix of semi-detached and mews dwellings. These would be positioned within a cul-de-sac fronting onto a central access road with a turning head at the western end.

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – no objections subject to a site investigation to be undertaken owing to the existing use of the site.

Environment Agency – no objections.

United Utilities – no objections in principle.

GMPTE – no objections to the proposal as the plans have been amended to respect the limits of the land required for the Leigh Guided Busway. They request that a condition be attached to ensure that no services are installed beneath the land to be acquired for busway purposes.

Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Officer – would request that the scheme be built to Secure by

Design standards with fences 2.1m high and access passageways to be fitted with self closing gates at the road end.

PUBLICITY

A press notice was published in February of this year.

A site notice was displayed on 31 January 2002.

The following neighbours were notified :

35 – 50 Hindburn Drive

9 – 13(O) and 26 Ellendale Grange

The Boundary Stone Public House.

Marston Western Region Properties Ltd

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none.

Other policies: DEV2 Good Design,

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The site is located within a predominantly residential neighbourhood and therefore the principle of the proposal is acceptable as it would be in character with the area. The main issues to be addressed relate to the adjoining uses/future uses to the north and south of the site, as well as the general design details of the development.

22

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

The applicant has amended the layout to secure the necessary land required for the Leigh Guided Busway and there would be a separation distance of approximately 25m from the back of the proposed dwellings to the buswayline. I am satisfied that, together with acoustic measures incorporated into the dwellings, as recommended by the Director of Development Services, that the proposal is acceptable in this respect.

The dwellings on the south side of the site, backing onto the mixed development are between 9 – 13m from the boundary and a minimum of 22m from the retail unit with flats at first floor level at the entrance and increasing to 27m towards the head of the cul-de-sac. With these separation distances I am satisfied that the amenity of the future residents of both developments will not be detrimentally affected.

The proposal is in accordance with PPG3 in terms of its density and the applicant has amended the proposal to bring car parking provision into line as well. There would be a row of semi detached dwellings on either side of the access road with 10 mews across the head of the site. In accordance with policies H6 and H11 a commuted sum circa £37,000) has been agreed which would contribute towards the management and maintenance of the Hilton Lane Strategic Recreation Route.

I have no objections on highway grounds and consider the proposal would result in an acceptable, attractive and beneficial use of the site.

RECOMMENDATION

 that the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement to secure the following: a) a commuted sum not to exceed £37,000 to be used for the management and maintenance of

Hilton Lane Strategic Recreation Route,

 that the applicant be informed that the Council is minded to grant planning permission subject to the

 conditions stated below on completion of such a legal agreement that authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application to be issued (subject to the conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above mentioned agreement.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the

Director of Development Services.

3. Standard Condition C01X Landscaping

23

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

4. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 2 July 2002 which shows 33 dwellings.

5. No services shall be installed beneath the land to be acquired for busway purposes as shown on the approved plan.

6. No development shall take place until a scheme for the boundary treatment adjacent to the Ellen brook watercourse and connecting wildlife corridor has been approved by the Local Planning

Authority. Such a scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason

R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

3. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

4. Standard Reason

R019 Avoidance of Doubt

5. To protect and maintain the line of the busway.

6. To protect Ellen brook and its linking wildlife corridors from any proposed development encroachment and prevent debris and construction material from entering into this area.

Note(s) for Applicant

1. Any development of this site must be drained on separate foul and surface water systems. All foul drainage must be connected to the foul sewers and only clean uncontaminated surface water should be connected to the surface water systems.

No building material or rubbish must find its way into the watercourse.

2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the letters from GMPTE dated 4 March 2002 (and accompanying statement from Mott Macdonald) and also 6 June 2002, the letter from United

Utilities dated 11 June 2002 and from the Architectural Liaison Officer dated 21 May 2002.

APPLICATION No: 02/43743/FUL

APPLICANT: St Pauls C Of E Primary School

LOCATION: St Pauls CE Primary School Crompton Street Walkden Worsley

PROPOSAL: Erection of 2.4m high security fencing

WARD: Walkden South

24

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a school within a residential area. To the north are houses, with the allotments on the western boundary. The proposal is to re-fence the northern and western boundary with 2.4m high fencing for improved security. It was initially proposed to erect palisade fencing around the boundary.

However, this has now been amended so that the northern boundary, to the rear of the houses on

Manchester Road as well as facing and adjoining the houses on Crompton Street, would be of a railing design. It would all be coloured green.

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 26 March 2002.

The following neighbours were notified :

217-235 (odd), 209-215 (G and F flats) Manchester Road

6 Waters Edge

15, 42-58 Crompton Street

10 & 12 The Reach

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 3 letters of objections, one signed by 9 households, and one verbal objection. The following comments having been made:

1.

2.

The design of the fence would be unsightly.

The height of the fence would not be visually attractive, it would ruin the view for the households and would be inappropriate in the cul-de-sac in Crompton Street.

3.

4.

It would be better with a height of 1.8m (6 foot)

The fence would be 1m away from the kitchen window of the bungalow at no. 58 Crompton

Street and would give the occupier the impression of being in prison.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None

Other policies: DEV4 - Design and crime

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV4 states that the City Council would encourage greater consideration of security but that this should have consideration to the position and height of fencing and gates. I am aware that the objections received to this proposal related to the original scheme, which proposed palisade fencing around the whole boundary. However, the northern boundary has now been amended for a 2.4m high railing.

Therefore it would, in my opinion, address one of the residents’ main grounds of objection and would certainly improve the appearance of the proposed fence.

25

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

I am aware that the residents had also objected to the height of the fence at 2.4m high, particularly as

Crompton Street is a cul-de-sac. However, I would consider that the impact of the fence in the street scene would be reduced by the use of railings and therefore I would not consider that the height of the fence would cause a seriously adverse impact on the street scene or on the facing neighbours.

I am mindful that the occupier of the adjoining no. 58 Crompton Street has objected because he would have a fence 1m away from his kitchen window, which he uses a lot, and it would give him the impression of being in a prison. The fence would also narrow the room he has for manoeuvring deliveries to his house. I am mindful that the school could erect a fence up to 2m in height without planning permission. I do not consider that the extra 0.4m that is proposed over the permitted development height would have any additional effect on the occupier of no. 58. I am also mindful that the school could also erect a solid fence without planning permission.

Therefore, having considered the objection from the local residents, I would not regard the amended proposal would have a seriously adverse effect on the amenity of the neighbouring residents nor on the visual impact of the street scene.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. The fencing hereby approved shall be colour treated in a green colour and shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services

3. The permission hereby approved shall relate to the amended design of the fence to the northern boundary.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason

R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

3. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

Note(s) for Applicant

1. Care must be taken to reduce any damage to the culverted watercourse and the open watercourse must not be obstructed by the fencing. The brook course is to be resurfaced where the fence is nearby.

26

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

APPLICATION No: 02/43766/FUL

APPLICANT: J D Homes

LOCATION: Land Adjacent To 1 Waterpark Road Salford 7

PROPOSAL: Erection of a detached dwelling and construction of a new vehicular access

WARD: Kersal

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a site within this residential area that is currently occupied by a detached garage, that has in the past been part of the adjoining house at 32 Broom Lane. The site is now a bit overgrown with a number of young self-seeded trees and shrubs, as well as 3 mature trees in the site, with

2 overhanging from the rear. The proposal is to erect a large 6-bedroomed detached house which would be a large hipped roofed building of a red brick design, with sandstone quoin block and render feature to the front. This would reflect the design of other houses within the area. The site access would be from the existing vehicular access into the garage.

SITE HISTORY

In 1982, planning permission was granted on appeal for a detached house on this site. (ref. E/13650).

In 1988 and 1993 planning permission was granted to renew this permission (ref.s E/22830 and

E/30778.).

In 1999 outline planning permission was granted for a detached house, with all matters reserved. (ref.

99/39643/OUT).

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – no objection

Arboricultural Officer – The development would be too close to the 3 mature trees at the front and side of the site. In his opinion, the trees are worthy of retention. 2 would need to be felled to accommodate the house whilst the position of the third would lead to pressure in the future for pruning or felling because of light and leaf problems.

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 22 March 2002.

The following neighbour addresses have been notified

1 Waterpark Road

32 & 34 Broom Lane

Cassel Fox Jewish School, Legh Road

27

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received no letters of objection in response to the application publicity.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None

Other policies: DEV10 – Broughton Park Development Control Policy

DEV1 – Development Criteria

EN7 – Conservation of trees and woodland

PLANNING APPRAISAL

In considering this proposal one of the material consideration is the previous approvals for a house on this site. Although none of these previous approvals are extant, this proposal has to be considered against these previous approvals. The previous design had a smaller footprint, with an approximate floor area of

110sq.m, compared to the current proposal of about 185sq.m. However, this scheme would be set further back into the site, thus reducing the impact on the street scene.

The other main consideration is the protected trees on the site. A horsechestnut tree on the site frontage, which is protected, would be right up to the front wall of the house and would need to be felled. A sycamore tree on the side boundary, which is not currently protected, would be less than 3m from the property and therefore would be felled. The other sycamore tree on the site frontage, which is also protected, would be 7m from the house and therefore might be retained during construction but would certainly be under pressure from future occupiers of the property.

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for tree planting and protection emphasis the need to retain and protect trees because of the enhancement to the street scene and landscape environment. It also emphasise policy EN7 to retain the treescape. The SPG identifies a number of factors that need to be considered on a development site with trees. This includes the physical position of the building and any site works in relation to the trees, and how the canopy of the trees relate to the new buildings.

The arborist report submitted with the application has indicated the horsechestnut tree has a cavity and a bark crack that would require monitoring even if the site is not developed, in order to identify if its condition were to become dangerous. The 2 sycamore trees are in a good condition.

In comparing the position of the previously approved house to the trees, it would have been 4.5m from the horsechestnut T1, and 3.5m from both the sycamore trees. This distance would be considered too close and therefore if it had been built, it is most likely that all 3 trees would have been felled or be under serious pressure for severe pruning or felling.. I do not consider, given the condition of the horsechestnut that its felling would justify the refusal of this property. This current proposal would be further away from the largest sycamore on the site frontage, T3, than the previous approvals. The nearest part of the house would be 7m away and therefore would be outside the spread of the branches. Therefore, it should be possible to retain this sycamore with this proposed layout.

Although this would be a large house, I would not consider that it would be out of character within the street scene, nor would it seriously injure the amenity of the neighbouring residents. Therefore in

28

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002 balancing the history on the site, against the desire to retain trees, I do not consider that the refusal of this scheme could be justified.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. Standard Condition D02X Details of Materials

3. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.

4. Standard Condition C12X Standard Size Replacement

5. Standard Condition M01 Removal of Permitted Development Rights

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason

R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason

R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity

3. Standard Reason

R010A Protect TPO trees

4. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

5. Standard Reason

R037A Additional measure of control

APPLICATION No: 02/44055/FUL

APPLICANT: Snack Solutions Limited

LOCATION: Snack Solutions Limited Simpson Grove Boothstown Worsley

PROPOSAL: Retention of canopy over loading bay and new entrance door

WARD: Worsley Boothstown

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

29

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

This application relates to the Snack Solutions premises that are located to the rear of Aspull

Engineering. Both the canopy and the new entrance on to Simpson Grove have been constructed prior to the application being submitted.

The canopy replaced an existing structure and the entrance on to Simpson Grove is a pedestrian access only.

The canopy is triangular in shape and measures approximately 12m along its longest side. It covers an open area between a former paint shop and the main building.

SITE HISTORY

Members will recall that there was a recent visit regarding application 02/44040/FUL that related to fencing at Aspull Engineering which adjoins this site.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbours were notified of the application:-

12 to 20 Border Brook Lane

33 Simpson Grove

REPRESENTATIONS

The only representations I have received are from Councillor Boyd who has requested an inspection of this site by the Panel and asks whether a condition regarding painting of the canopy would be appropriate.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none

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.

I consider that the design and appearance of both the entrance and the canopy are acceptable and that there is no significant detrimental effect on any neighbouring occupier as a result of this development.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. The parking area on Simpson Grove shall be surfaced and marked out and made available for use

30

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002 within 3 months of the date of this permission, and shall remain so at all times, in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

APPLICATION No: 02/43924/HH

APPLICANT: J Roscoe

LOCATION: 22 Shearwater Drive Walkden Worsley

PROPOSAL: Erection of two storey side extension and detached double garage at side

WARD: Walkden South

At a meeting of the Panel held on 20 th

June 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR

AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.

My previous observations are set out below:

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a detached property and is for the erection of a two storey side extension and detached double garage.

The two storey side extension would match the length of the existing gable and would be set in 1.2m from the common boundary. The height of the roof would increase by 0.45m and would be hipped.

There are no windows proposed within the new gable and there are no habitable windows within the gable of No.20 Shearwater Drive.

The garage would be located on the opposite side of the property to the two storey side extension and would maintain 2m to the gable of the house and 4.2m to the common boundary. It would measure 5.4m

(w) X 5.45m (l) and would have a pitched roof at a height of 4.45m. It would have a sweeping drive with sufficient off street car parking. cars.

CONSULTATIONS

The Coal Authority – Advice given

United Utilities – Advice given

PUBLICITY

The following neighbours were notified :

31

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

20 Shearwater Drive

10 & 11 Mere Bank Close

31 & 33 Ellesmere Avenue

30 & 32 West Avenue

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 4 letters of objection in response to the application publicity along with several photographs showing the extent of the vehicular activity at the bottom of the cul-de-sac. The following comments having been made:

Loss of light

Reduction off street car parking

Restriction of turning point

Potential increase in commercial activity

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.

One letter of objection refers to a potential loss of light to the side of No.20. There are no habitable windows within the gable of the neighbouring property and this proposal would maintain a distance of

5.2m between each gable.

Generally the letters of objection are concerned with the loss of off street car parking and the potential increase of vehicles located within the turning point of the cul-de-sac which at present hampers manoeuvrability. Concerns are also raised as to the level and use of the area for commercial uses.

The addition of a two storey side extension generally meets with the Council’s Supplementary Planning

Guidance for House Extensions in terms of the potential impact upon neighbours and the design of the scheme. The original proposal proposed to locate the garage directly opposite the end of the cul-de-sac.

However, after objections from United Utilities the applicant has moved to the side of the property and as such away from the easement protecting Thirlmere Aqueduct. The amended location of the garage also ensures that there will be sufficient off street car parking in front of the garage to meet the Council’s own standards.

I have also passed on the information supplied within the letters of objection to the Council’s enforcement officer and highway engineers to investigate.

32

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

I am of the opinion that this proposal will ease traffic and parking problems current experience by residents on Shearwater Drive. Therefore I would recommend that this proposal be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the

Director of Development Services.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason

R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason

R007A Development-existing building

APPLICATION No: 02/43935/HH

APPLICANT: Nicola And Terry Johnson

LOCATION: 5 Kinsley Drive Walkden

PROPOSAL: Erection of two storey side extension

WARD: Walkden South

Members will recall that this site was inspected on the 13 th

June 2002. Since then I have received an amended plan which shows an accurate floor plan of the proposal in relation to the highway.

I have received a further three letters of objection, two of the letters are from previous objectors the third is from the occupant of No.6. Additional comments have been made,

The installation of an external soil pipe on the gable end

Fence may be moved without permission

I would not consider an external soil pipe to be an intrusive feature and the proposal would be approx.

17.8m from the front of the properties facing. The amended plan clearly shows the existing fence in its current position, if the fence were to be moved closer to the highway then a planning application would be required.

My previous observations are set out below:

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

33

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

This application relates to a detached property on a new residential estate. The property is on a corner, close to the end of a cul-de-sac.

The proposal is for the erection of a two-storey side extension the proposal would project 2.8m towards the highway and be the same length (7.9m) and height (7.5m) as the existing property. This would result in a a distance of .7m

PUBLICITY

The following neighbours were notified :

7, 8, 10, 12 and 21 Kinsley Drive

2 and 4 Worsbrough Avenue

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received two letters of objections in response to the application publicity from the occupiers of the properties that would face the proposal. The following comments having been made:

Loss of light

Obtrusive development resulting in loss of outlook

Open plan estate would be enclosed

Loss of foliage leaving a harsh treatment to the side boundary.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICYs

Site specific policies:

Other policies: DEV8 – House extensions

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV8 states that planning permission will only be granted where there would be no unacceptably adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and where an extension would not have an unacceptably adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, by reason of its siting, height, massing, design and appearance.

The draft SPG for house extensions provides that normally extensions on corner plots should retain a distance of 2 metres to the boundary. There may be exceptions if locational factors can justify them.

The proposal would be approx. 17.8m from the front elevation of the objectors properties, this more than complies with the current policy of gable ends to main elevations being a minimum of 13m apart.

The proposed extension would result in some loss of amenity and openess, replacing as it does the current side garden. However the property is located toward the end of a cul de sac where there is no formal building line that needs to be protected. The property is not in a prominent location.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

34

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the

Director of Development Services.

3. No windows shall be inserted on the side elevation of the extension hereby approved without pror written consent from the Drector of Development Services.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason

R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason

R007A Development-existing building

3. Standard Reason

R005A Amenity-neighbours

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

At a meeting of the Panel held on 4 th

July 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR

AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.

My previous observations are set out below:

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a 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

35

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

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

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.

36

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

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)

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: 02/44100/TPO

APPLICANT: G Wimpey Manchester Ltd

LOCATION: Peel Hall Peel Lane Little Hulton Worsley

PROPOSAL: Fell one Sycamore (T14)

37

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

WARD: Little Hulton

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to the site of the former Grade II Peel Hall Hospital which earlier this year was granted permission for the erection of 64 dwellings, reference 01/42725/FUL. Trees on the site are covered by preservation order NO.176. As part of the housing application, a survey was submitted and it was agreed that 41 trees be felled.

The proposal is for the removal of one sycamore tree situated along the northern boundary which is leaning significantly. This was not shown to be felled as part of the housing permission.

CONSULTATIONS

Environmental Health – City’s Arboriculturalist – No objections

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None

Other policies: EN7 – Conservation of Trees and Woodlands

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The proposal is to remove one sycamore tree as it is leaning. The tree was originally part of a large group, some of which have been removed to make way for development. As many of the surrounding trees have been removed it has left the sycamore exposed. The sycamore has quite a serious lean and due to its exposure may been susceptible to windthrow. Beyond the tree to Armitage Road there is a wooded area and therefore the loss of this tree from the main road frontage would not have a significant detrimental impact.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition C08T Time Limit - tree work

2. Standard Condition C09T British Standard - tree work

3. Standard Condition C11T Replacement - Planting season

4. During the first available planting season following the felling of the Sycamore (T14) tree hereby granted consent, it shall be replaced by two standard trees in accordance with British Standard

3936:Part 1:1965 (Specification for Nursery Stock Part 1: Trees and Shrubs) and which shall have a clear stem height from the ground of 1.8m, a minimum overall height from the ground of 2.75m, a minimum circumference of stem at 1m from the ground of 8 cm. The species shall be one Red Oak

(Quercus rubra) and one Red Alder (Alnus rubra). These should be planed in a location to be agreed in writing with the Director of Development Services.

38

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

5. If the replacement trees dies or are removed within 5 years of planting, they shall be replaced within

12 months of removal or death to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason

R035A Situation to be reviewed

2. Standard Reason

R036A Good aboricultural practice

3. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

4. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

5. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

Note(s) for Applicant

1. The Beech tree (T108) has been removed off the application as it is exempt from TPO application procedures as it has been deemed to be dangerous.

APPLICATION No: 02/44130/HH

APPLICANT: Mr And Mrs Chapman

LOCATION: 4 Boscombe Avenue Eccles

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing garage and erection of single storey rear extension and two storey side extension (Resubmission of planning application

01/42227/HH)

WARD: Barton

At a meeting of the Panel held on 20 th

June 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR

AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.

My previous observations are set out below:

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a semi-detached property on Boscombe Avenue, just off Peel Green Road.

39

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

The proposal is for a single storey rear extension and a two-storey side extension. The rear extension would project 2.74m X 8.3m with a sloping roof 3.5m at its highest. The two storey side extension would project 2.1m X 7.8m with a hipped roof the same height as the existing, the first floor would be set back

2m from the front elevation.

SITE HISTORY

01/42227/HH – Refused May 2001 as it created a potential terracing effect - Single storey rear extension and two-storey side extension.

An appeal was lodged and dismissed in Feb 2002

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses have been notified:

3a, 3b, 2 and 6 Boscombe Avenue

85 and 87 Peel Green Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received two representations in response to application publicity, one from the occupier of the adjoining property and one from their solicitor. The main issues identified are as follows:

Loss of light

Loss of privacy

Loss of value to property

Loss of view

General disruption caused by the development

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None

Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions

PLANNING APPRAISAL

DEV8 states that permission would be granted if the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light.

The objection from the adjoining occupier at No.6 relates solely to the single storey rear extension only.

The extension conforms with the Council policy in that it projects 2.7m and hence I do not consider that the extension would significantly affect the amenity of the adjoining occupier. I would not consider the proposal to have an impact on the neighbouring occupier’s privacy. There are no windows on the side elevation of the proposal, the boundary treatment at present is a 1.2m fence with mesh on top, their is little privacy between the two gardens at the moment and the proposal would not alter this. The latter three issues are not planning considerations.

40

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

The previous application was refused on terracing grounds. This has now been resolved and the first floor of the side extension is now set back 2m from the front elevation which complies with council policy.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

The inspector commented on the proposed rear extension “The Council do not resist the proposed single-storey rear extension, the depth of which would exactly equal the guideline figure. I do however have reservations, in relation to Policy DEV8(1), about the visual impact of the extension on the outlook from the ground floor dining room window of No.6 The extension would be particularly close to the window, which is a very short distance from the common boundary, and it would be higher than a typical fence.”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason

R000 Section 91

APPLICATION No: 02/44147/COU

APPLICANT: Whitevale Properties Limited

LOCATION: 3 Walkden Road Worsley

PROPOSAL: Change of use from ironing service to nail technician/manicurist salon

WARD: Walkden South

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to terraced property situated on the corner of Walkden Road and Westminster

Road. It is currently vacant and there is a residential flat at first floor level which extends above the adjoining property, no.1.

Permission is sought to change the use of the premises from an ironing service to a nail salon. The proposed hours of operation would be from 10am – 6pm Tuesdays and Fridays, 10am – 8pm

Wednesdays and Thursdays and from 9.30am – 3pm on Saturdays. It would be closed on Sunday and

Mondays. It is also proposed to demolish an existing workshop/garage structure at the rear of the premises to provide additional parking for customers.

41

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – no objections.

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 27 May 2002.

The following neighbours were notified :

3 – 14 Walkden Road

39 and 41 Manchester Road.

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. They are concerned that there are already significant parking problems in the vicinity and to create two businesses where there was previously only one would increase the existing problems. They state that parking problems are particularly severe between 5pm and 7.30pm on Walkden Road and from 8.30am to 6pm there is extensive roadside parking from vehicles using the neighbouring developments – doctors, offices, nursing home, chip shop. The application form states that six new spaces would be provided but there is no submitted detail to support this. There is also concern about resulting security implications if the outbuildings are demolished.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none.

Other policies: S2 Location of New Retail Development

PLANNING APPRAISAL

I consider the main issue to be addressed is the impact of the proposal upon the neighbouring occupiers and particularly in relation to traffic generation.

The premises have historically been in commercial use and would have generated a level of parking demand. There is on-street parking availability on both Walkden Road and Westminster Road for all occupiers and businesses; it is not restricted for certain occupiers and I do not consider that the proposed use would generate a significantly higher demand than the previous uses.

The applicant has confirmed that the garage and workshop at the rear would be demolished and additional parking provided. I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds.

I consider that it would be more beneficial for the area to have the property occupied and the proposed additional parking at the rear would help alleviate any problems that are currently experienced. I am satisfied that this proposal would be in keeping with the character of the area. I therefore recommend that this application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

42

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. Prior to commencement of this use the area to be cleared for car parking shall be surfaced and laid out for car parking and shall be made available thereafter.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason

R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason

R019 Avoidance of Doubt

APPLICATION No: 02/44148/COU

APPLICANT: Whitevale Properties Limited

LOCATION: 1 Walkden Road Worsley

PROPOSAL: Change of use from Iron Services to Retail (A1)

WARD: Walkden South

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to an end terrace property situated on the corner of Walkden Road and

Westminster Road. It is currently vacant and there is a residential flat at first floor level which extends above the adjoining property, no.3.

Permission is sought to change the use of the premises from an ironing service to a childrenswear shop.

The proposed hours of operation would be from 9.30am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday and from 9am to

5pm on Saturdays. It is also proposed to demolish an existing workshop/garage structure at the rear of the premises to provide additional parking for customers.

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – no objections.

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 27 May 2002.

The following neighbours were notified :

3 – 14 Walkden Road

39 and 41 Manchester Road.

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. They are concerned that there are already significant parking problems in the vicinity and to create two businesses where there

43

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002 was previously only one would increase the existing problems. They state that parking problems are particularly severe between 5pm and 7.30pm on Walkden Road and from 8.30am to 6pm there is extensive roadside parking from vehicles using the neighbouring developments – doctors, offices, nursing home, chip shop. The application form states that six new spaces would be provided but there is no submitted detail to support this. There is also concern about resulting security implications if the outbuildings are demolished.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none.

Other policies: S2 Location of New Retail Development

PLANNING APPRAISAL

I consider the main issue to be addressed is the impact of the proposal upon the neighbouring occupiers and particularly in relation to traffic generation.

The premises have historically been in commercial use and would have generated a level of parking demand. There is on-street parking availability on both Walkden Road and Westminster Road for all occupiers and businesses; it is not restricted for certain occupiers and I do not consider that the proposed use would generate a significantly higher demand than the previous uses. The objector has stated that parking is particularly severe between 5pm and 7.30pm but the proposal would close at 5.30pm and therefore I do not consider that it would significantly contribute to this existing situation.

The applicant has confirmed that the garage and workshop at the rear would be demolished and additional parking provided. I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds.

I consider that it would be more beneficial for the area to have the property occupied and I am satisfied that this proposal would be in keeping with the character of the area. I therefore recommend that this application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. Prior to the commencement of this use the area to be cleared for car parking shall be surfaced and laid out for car parking and shall be made available thereafter

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason

R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason

R019 Avoidance of Doubt

APPLICATION No: 02/44152/COU

44

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

APPLICANT: O'Connor And Munro Group

LOCATION: 87/89 Great Cheetham Street West Salford 7

PROPOSAL: Change of use from hotel to house in multiple occupation

WARD: Broughton

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the White Lodge Hotel on Great Cheetham Street directly opposite Albert

Park. The hotel is situated within the middle of a row of larger Victorian residential dwellings.

Permission is sought to change the hotel to a house in multiple occupation for 14 asylum seekers.

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – no objections subject to a noise assessment with mitigation measures undertaken as necessary.

City of Salford Housing – no comments received to date.

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 24 June 2002.

The following neighbours were notified :

81 – 97(O) Great Cheetham Street West

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received one letters of objection signed by two neighbouring residents in response to the application publicity. The grounds of objection are:

Devaluation of properties where properties are already hard to sell

Larger properties should not be converted into flats for asylum seekers

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none.

Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main issues in the consideration of this application relate to the impact of the proposal which is more of a transient use, upon the area and the neighbouring residents.

45

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

The proposal would revert these two properties to a single residential use and not separate flats. The neighbouring properties are also currently residential use. As a dwelling in multiple occupation however, the occupants would be transient and it is whether this would have a material impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring residents. The premises are situated on a busy main road and are currently in use as a hotel where there are likely to be different residents staying every night or every couple of nights. I do not consider therefore that the proposed use would have any additional impact to the detriment of the neighbouring occupiers. I have no objections on highway grounds and therefore recommend that this application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. The developer shall undertake an assessment to determine the external noise levels that the residents will be subject to daytime and night. The developer shall detail what steps are to be taken to mitigate the disturbance from the above. The assessment should have due regard to the Department of the

Environment Guidance PPG24 - Planning and Noise. The assessment and mitigation measures shall be submitted for the approval of the LPA prior to the commencement of the development and any approved mitigation measures are to be implemented prior to occupation.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason

R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason

R024A Amenity of future residents

APPLICATION No: 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

At a meeting of the Panel held on 4 th

July 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR

AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.

My previous observations are set out below:

46

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

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 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

47

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002 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.

48

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

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

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.

49

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

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

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.

50

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

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 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

51

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

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 size and nature.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS

Since writing my report I have received a further statement from the agents. It refers to the recently published draft Regional Planning Guidance for the North West and to the target for recycling of land rising from 85% to 90% in Manchester and Salford. It also states that the RPG also promotes high density development as is also set out in government guidance in PPG3 and PPG13.

Their statement also refers in greater detail to the advice that is given in PPG3. In particular it points out that the PPG advises local planning authorities to make more efficient use of land by reviewing planning policies and standards, whilst creating high quality living environments. It also advises that local authorities should ensure that new housing developments help to secure a better social mix by avoiding the creation of large areas of housing of similar characteristics.

The agents also ask whether this site was identified under the urban housing capacity study required by PPG3.

The agents also point out that the PPG advises that policies that place unduly restrictive ceilings on the amount of housing that can be accommodated on a site irrespective of other considerations should be avoided and that developments that make inefficient use of land should be avoided.

52

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

The agents also refer to what they describe as relevant appeal decisions that were allowed and where

PPG3 was a determining consideration.

I have also received a response from the Ellesmere Park Residents Association. It sees no substantial changes to the proposal and so objects again to the proposal.

I have also received a further 21 letters of objection to the development. No new issues are raised by these letters.

I do not consider that any of the points raised by the agents for the applicant alter my views on the proposed development. Over 90% of newly developed land in Salford is recycled and the City

Council is meeting its targets with regard to new housing on brownfield sites. My recommendation therefore remains that the application should be refused on the following grounds.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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: 02/44176/HH

APPLICANT: M Brown

LOCATION: 9 Kepplecove Meadow Boothstown Worsley

PROPOSAL: Erection of single storey rear extension

WARD: Worsley Boothstown

53

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application is for the erection of a single storey rear extension to a detached dwelling. The property’s rear elevation is angled towards the neighbour and set back slightly.

The extension as submitted would have extended 4m x 6.1m wide, but this has now been amended to extend only 3.6 m in order to comply with the Council’s policy.

The boundary to number 7 is formed by a screen fence. To the rear boundary there is a 4m hedge, and there are no properties to the rear of the property.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbours were notified :

5,7, 28 Kepplecove Meadow

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments have been made:

Overlooking

Loss of Privacy

Disruption to Foul Sewer by Foundations

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None

Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions

SPG – House Extensions

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV8 states that planning permission will only be granted where there would be no unacceptably adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and where an extension would not have an unacceptably adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, by reason of its siting, height, massing, design and appearance.

The objector is concerned about both the extent of the projection and also the impact on a patio area which would be overlooked by the rear elevation of the extension. The objector has been notified of the amended plans but I have received no further communication.

The plans as amended do not breach a 45 degree line drawn from the objector’s rear ground floor window, because of the slight set back of the main house, and are therefore consistent with the policy. There is an existing screen boundary fence that retains privacy to the garden area and the proposed rear windows do not directly overlook the neighbours garden.

On this basis I am satisfied that there will not be a significantly adverse impact on the amenities enjoyed by the neighbour.

54

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason

R001 Section 92

18th July 2002

APPLICATION No: 02/44180/HH

APPLICANT: G Weilding

LOCATION: 61 Hill Top Road Walkden Worsley

PROPOSAL: Erection of single storey extension to provide storeroom (Resubmission of

02/43624/HH)

WARD: Walkden North

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a detached property adjacent to the Blackleach Country Park. The proposal is for the retention of a single storey rear extension. It projects out 11.2m from the rear elevation along the boundary with the neighbouring house. It measures 3.2m in width and it is 3.6m in height along the boundary, with a mono-pitched roof sloping into the applicants’ property.

SITE HISTORY

In March 2002, an identical application for the retention of this storeroom was refused, because of the possible effect on the neighbouring residents.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbours were notified :

59 Hill Top Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None

55

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

Other policies: DEV8 – House extensions

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for house extensions has a specific policy relating to single storey extensions which states that extensions along a boundary should not normally exceed

2.74m. It may be possible to exceed 2.74m providing it does not project beyond a 45 degree line from the mid-point of any habitable room window in the adjacent property.

The adjoining house no. 59 has a kitchen window nearest to the boundary but this extension still exceeds the point on a 45 degree from their habitable rooms. Therefore it would be contrary to

Council policy.

The applicant, in submitting this new application, was concerned that not all the circumstances had been taken consideration. Firstly this store replaced an old outbuilding that was not fit to store the horse tack and equipment, which is the use for which it is required. In building the new store, the applicant extended its length by 2.75m to the bottom of the garden in order to provide security, by removing the unsecured area at the rear of a building that backs onto Blackleach Country Park. He says that the neighbours were in agreement with the opportunity to increase security.

He also states that the adjoining houses have been built in recent years, and when planning permission was granted the original outbuilding was in place. The position of the original store meant that it was further along the boundary to the new neighbours windows that at a point on this

45 degree line and therefore the Council exceeded its own limits on relationships between windows and single storey buildings when it granted the neighbouring houses. His argument is that as the City

Council has already allowed a relationship that exceeded its policy then it should not restrict the length of this replacement store.

In response I would say that at the time that the houses were built, the Council did not have a specific policy about the relationships and distances between houses and habitable windows and therefore the application would have been judged on its own merits. Obviously the distance from no. 59 to the original outbuilding was considered adequate. However, as the Supplementary Guidance has been adopted, it is clearly a material consideration. Also the applicant has not tried to replace the original outbuilding with one of a similar length but instead has built it a further 2.75m along the boundary, giving a single storey wall 3.6m in height for a length of 11.2m. This is not only contrary to Council policy but also exceeds the relationship that originally existed. Therefore I would consider that it would have an adverse effect on the neighbour in terms of loss of light and a overbearing appearance.

RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:

1. Standard Reason

RR34C Neighbouring Residents - Size/Siting

APPLICATION No: 02/44201/FUL

56

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

APPLICANT: Gladman Developments

LOCATION: Land On West Side Of South Langworthy Road Salford 5

PROPOSAL: Commercial development

WARD: Weaste And Seedley

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a 2 hectare site accessed from South Langworthy Road to the south of

Eccles New Road. The site is currently in use as a timber yard. The site is bounded by South

Langworthy Road to the west, industrial premises off Missouri Avenue to the east, the rear of premises on Eccles New Road to the north and industrial premises on Kansas Avenue to the south.

It is proposed to demolish existing buildings on the site and develop the site as an office park of

10,960 sq.m of floorspace comprising six separate buildings. A total of 365 car parking spaces would be provided. Building 1a would be 3 storey, comprise 2,579 sq.m and would measure 43m by 18m. It would be set back 10m from Langworthy Road and 20m from the southern boundary of the site. Building 1b, four storeys in height, is set 31m to the west of building 1a and would have the same footprint as 1a.

The remaining four two storey buildings would be to the north of the site around a shared parking area. Building 2 would comprise 1,050sq.m and would measure 25m by 12m and Building 3

1054sq.m and measuring 25m by 12m, both would be set back from the South Langworthy Road frontage and Building 3 would be angled at 45 degrees to the road. Buildings 4 and 5 would be identical and sited at 90 degrees to each other along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site.

Each would comprise approximately 1,400sq.m of office floorspace divided up into six separate smaller units.

All of the buildings would be faced with brick and would have tiled hipped roofs. The single access to the site would be barrier controlled. There would be significant grassed areas adjacent to all of the buildings and there would be substantial shrub and tree planting. There would be a dedicated cycle lane into the development off South Langworthy Road. There would be a 25m by 7m pond adjacent to the main access into the development.

There is a metrolink stop to the north of the site at the junction of South Langworthy Road and

Eccles New Road. The application has been amended to reduce the number of car parking spaces in line with government advice on maximum parking numbers and to provide cycle parking. Revisions to the scheme have also introduced disabled parking spaces.

SITE HISTORY

In 2001, planning permission was granted for the erection of five two and three storey office buildings comprising a total of 8,844sq.m. of floorspace (01/42438/FUL).

CONSULTATIONS

57

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

Director of Environmental Services – No objections in principle but recommend a condition regarding contaminated land

The Coal Authority – No objections

Environment Agency – No objections in principle and provide advice

Metrolink – No objections

PUBLICITY

The application has been advertised by means of 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: EC1b A Balanced Portfolio of Sites – Sites for Office Development, EC3 Re-Use of

Sites and Premises, DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy EC1b states that office developments of this type help to diversify the City’s economic base by encouraging the growth of the service sector. While investment will be encouraged in existing centres it is recognised that not all office uses are suited to such locations and consideration will be given to out of centre proposals. Policy EC3 states that where existing industrial and non-retail commercial sites and premises become vacant the City Council will seek to re-use or redevelop them for similar or related uses. Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering applications for planning permission. Such factors include the relationship to road and public transport networks, the amount of car parking, the visual appearance of the development and the effect on existing trees. Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant planning permission unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and the visual appearance of the development.

I consider that the main planning issues are the extent to which this development accords with the policies of the UDP. The development of this site takes advantage of a prominent site on an increasingly important road frontage with excellent public transport linkages now that the metrolink line and station close to the site have opened. The development is supported by both policies EC1b and EC3. I am satisfied that the level of car parking is appropriate now that it has been reduced to maximum levels advised by government. Disabled and cycle parking are also provided within the site. The visual appearance of the development is of a high standard and would certainly represent an improvement on the former timber yard that it would replace. Existing trees that have been planted outside the existing boundaries of the site but within land in the ownership of the developers would be retained.

I am satisfied therefore that the development accords with the policies of the UDP and that there would be no detriment effect on any neighbouring occupier. I consider that the development would be of significant benefit to the local area both in economic and visual amenity terms and welcome the

58

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002 confidence in the local area that this development demonstrates. I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. Standard Condition C01X Landscaping

3. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials

4. No part of the development shall be occupied until details of the boundary fencing have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such details shall include the colour and maintenance of the fencing and no unit shall be occupied until the fencing has been painted in accordance with agreed details. The fencing shall be maintained in accordance with the agreed maintenance programme.

5. So far as they lie within the site, visibility splays of 4.5m by 90m shall be provided at the junction of the site access with South Langworthy Road and shall be maintained free of any obstruction over 1m in height above the adjacent carriageway.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason

R001 Section 92

2. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

3. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

4. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

5. Standard Reason

R025A Intervisibility of users of highway

Note(s) for Applicant

1. The Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding details of drainage.

2. The proposal shall relate to the amended site layout plan received on

APPLICATION No: 02/44214/TPO

APPLICANT: J And C Devaney

LOCATION: 69 Cavendish Road Salford 7

59

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

PROPOSAL: Fell one tree

WARD: Kersal

At a meeting of the Panel held on 4 th

July 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED

FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY

PANEL.

My previous observations are set out below:

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

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

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.

60

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

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.

APPLICATION No: 02/44251/FUL

APPLICANT: DRPH

LOCATION: Unit D Midway Gilchrist Road Irlam

PROPOSAL: Erection of side extension to existing industrial unit

WARD: Irlam

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to existing hardstanding to the east of the existing industrial unit at the south east junction of Gilchrist Road and Brinell Drive, Northbank Industrial Estate, Irlam. The unit is currently split into four separate units this proposed extension relating to unit D. The site is bounded by on all other sides by industrial units.

The floor area of unit D would increase from 1500sq.m. to 3700sq.m. height of the extension would be 2.5m higher than the existing with the building being constructed out of brick and cladding panels. 82 parking spaces are proposed including 4 disabled spaces. A landscaping strip 3.5m wide is proposed fronting Gilchrist Road.

SITE HISTORY

In 2000, consent was granted for the continued use within class B2/general industrial use

(00/40966/CLUD).

In 2001, planning permission was granted for the change of use from general industrial (B2) to business/light industrial (B1), general industrial (B2) and warehouse/distribution (B8)

(01/41844/COU).

In 2001, planning permission was granted for a new service road (01/42424/FUL).

61

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

In 2001, planning permission was granted for external alterations (01/42960/FUL).

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objections

Northbank Industrial Park Management Company – No objections

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 17 th

June 2002

A press notice has been issued.

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received no representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: EC13/31 Sites for Industry and Warehousing (Nortbank, Cadishead)

Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, EC1D A Balanced Portfolio of Sites (Sites for

Industry and Sites)

PLANNING APPRAISAL

This proposed business, industry or warehouse extension should be assessed against the above policies. Policy EC13/31 relates specifically to Northbank Industrial Estate and to the expansion of the area for employment generating uses. Policy EC1D echoes this with respect to the addition of facilities for employment generating uses. Policy DEV1 relates to the built form of the building and its relationship to surrounding properties.

I am satisfied that the extension of this industrial/business unit is in accordance with the aims of the

Unitary Development Plan with respect to increasing employment generating uses. Although the extension proposed is 2.5m higher than the existing building I consider that the proposed materials, that match the existing building, and the industrial nature of the area mean that the proposal will be acceptable in terms of its appearance and effect upon the street scene. The part glazed section would add interest in the elevation.

The extension will come within 1m of the sites eastern boundary, over which is the a landfill site that has been landscaped with footpaths running over. The proposed building would be visible from this park area but would be at a lower level and with the existing landscaping I consider the extension would not detrimentally effect this area. Additional landscaping including a 3.5m strip is proposed fronting Gilchrist Road. 82 parking spaces, including 4 disabled spaces, are proposed which is below the Governments maximum parking standards as advocated within PPG13. The applicant has agreed to provide cycle parking which will be the subject of a condition. I have no highway objections and recommend approval.

RECOMMENDATION:

62

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be used for the walls and roofs of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.

3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and shall be carried out within six months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of

Development Services.

4. Prior to the commencement of the development the developer shall submit a detailed scheme for the provision of 10 secure covered bicycle parking spaces for the approval of the Director of

Development Services. The approved scheme shall be implmented prior to the occupation of the building and shall therefater be maintained to the satisfaction of the Director of Development

Services.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason

R001 Section 92

2. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

3. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

4. Reason: To provide adequate cycle parking in accordance with Policy T11 and PPG13.

Note(s) for Applicant

1. The applicant should be mindful that no part of development, and no site workings during construction or after, should encroach upon the landfill E072b which is situated approximately

60m to the east of the present building.

2. The Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding details of drainage.

3. Please note that a separate system of drainage is required for this development.

APPLICATION No: 02/44293/HH

APPLICANT: N Madden

63

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

LOCATION: 3 Thornway Ellenbrook Worsley

PROPOSAL: Erection of two storey side extension (Resubmission of previous application

02/43859/HH)

WARD: Walkden South

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a detached property and is for the erection of a part single / part two-storey side extension and porch.

The proposal would project 3.8m from the side, the ground floor element would extend beyond the front elevation to be in line with the existing bay window at the front, the two-storey element would be set back 4.8m from the bay. The proposal would not extend beyond the rear elevation.

SITE HISTORY

02/43859/HH – Application refused for a two-storey side extension.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbours were notified :

1, 5, 10, 12 and 14 Thornway

3, 5 and 7 Edenvale

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received one letter of objection from the owner of the neighbouring property in response to the application publicity. The following comments have been made:

Creation of a tunnel effect causing loss of view

Loss of light

Building were built to create the most favourable street appearance

Proposal would be closer to property

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

64

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002 extension would not have an unacceptably adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, by reason of its siting, height, massing, design and appearance.

The objector’s property is ‘L’ in shape, with the garage approx.7m forward of the front elevation.

The proposal would be angled away from the neighbouring property I would therefore not consider that an unacceptable tunnel effect would be created. The application site is set forward of the objector’s property so there is a limited view to the properties facing and the head of the cul-de-sac.

The single-storey element of the proposal would be approx.6.4m forward of the neighbouring study window, due to the angle of the properties the proposal would meet current policy in that the proposal is within a 45 degree angle drawn from the mid-point of the neighbouring study window.

The two-storey element of the proposal again meets with current policy in that the two-storey element would be approx. 1.8m from the neighbouring property and projects 1.6m beyond its front elevation.

There are various house types with different building lines I would not consider the proposal to out of keeping with the character of the area or the street scene.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. Standard Condition D01B Materials to Match

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason

R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason

R007A Development-existing building

APPLICATION No: 02/44297/DEEM3

APPLICANT: Community And Social Services

LOCATION: White Moss House Bracken Avenue Worsley

PROPOSAL: Erection of single storey extension

WARD: Walkden North

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

65

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

This application relates to White Moss House and is for the erection of a single storey extension to provide additional office space. This proposal would be sited where previously a larger single storey element has been demolished.

The site is bounded by residential properties to the north, south and eastern elevations and a playground to the west. The existing building is single storey and has a flat roof. This proposal would measure 18.8m X 12.4m and would have a hipped roof at a maximum height of 6m. The proposal would maintain a distance of 35m to the nearest residential property.

The site has an area of trees along the southern boundary. This proposal would maintain 7m to these trees, further away than the previous building that has been demolished.

SITE HISTORY

In 1997 planning permission was granted for a change of use from residential home to offices.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbours were notified :

2-4 Bracken Avenue

1-13 (odd) Larkside Avenue

1-11 (odd) and 19 Sharp Street

170-222 (even) Manchester Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have not received any letters of objections in response to the application publicity.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None

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.

The existing building has a flat roof and this proposal would have a hip. Although this proposal does not match the design of the of the original building, I am of the opinion that the design of the original building to be of poor architectural quality. Therefore it would be unreasonable to insist on a flat roof design in this instance.

Although this proposal would not provide any additional car parking spaces, the current provision is sufficient to accommodate this proposal and the existing floor space. The previous application had a condition attached to ensure that the car parking spaces provided be maintained at all times, the

66

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002 siting of this proposal does not conflict with this condition. I do not consider that this proposal would have any significant detrimental impact on the visual amenity of neighbouring residents. I have no objections on highway grounds.

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 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. Standard Condition C03X Fencing of Trees/no work within spread

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason

R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason

R007A Development-existing building

3. Standard Reason

R009 Safeguard Existing Trees

APPLICATION No: 02/44367/ADV

APPLICANT: T Cole

LOCATION: Ordsall Youth Centre 319 Oldfield Road Salford 5

PROPOSAL: Display of sculptural advert

WARD: Ordsall

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The Ordsall Youth Centre is based at 319 Oldfield Road which occupies a corner plot at the junction of Oldfield Road and Ordsall Lane. Consent is sought for the display of a sign fronting Ordsall Lane.

The sign would spell out ‘Ordsall Youth Club’ each letter being 400mm by 400mm by 200mm and constructed in steel. The sign would be supported on poles 4m above the ground and would have an overall width of 4m. The sign is not proposed to be illuminated.

In addition to a functional role the sign is to be constructed and painted with the help of youth club members over the summer school holidays.

67

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

The application has been submitted on City Of Salford owned land.

SITE HISTORY

No relevant planning history.

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 25 th

June 2002.

The following neighbours were notified :

17 – 27 odd Wodens Avenue

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

The main issues to be considered are amenity and public safety implications of the sign. I consider the sign to be a suitable size in relation to the Community Centre and also surrounding uses. The sign would be parallel to Oldfield Road between the Hall and the rear gardens of 17 – 23 Wodens

Avenue. I do not consider that the amenity of these residential units would be affected by this proposal. In addition to advertising the Youth Centre the building/construction of the sign will also be of benefit to members of the youth centre. I have no highway objections or other public safety and recommend approval.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition K01S Standard Advertisement Condition

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason

R034 Advert

68

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

69

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

APPLICATION No: 02/44143/DEEM3

APPLICANT: Director Of Education And Leisure

LOCATION: St Peters CE School Vicarage Road Swinton

PROPOSAL: Erection of single storey sports centre and community centre (Amendment to previous application 01/42863/DEEM3)

WARD: Swinton North

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the playing field to the west of the school building at St Peter’s CE school.

Permission was granted in September of last year for the erection of a single storey sports and community centre, adjacent to the existing Fletcher Hall, planning reference 01/42863/DEEM3. Within the hall which was sited 20m from the residential properties on Lower Sutherland Street, there was one badminton court within a multi-purpose hall and a main meeting room together with associated facilities including an equipment store. The badminton court/multi purpose hall element was situated towards the eastern side of the building, closest to Fletcher Hall.

Permission is now sought to “hand” the development so that the store, plant room and changing/toilet facilites which were previously along the western elevation would be along the eastern elevation and the multi-purpose hall and meeting room would be on the western side of the building. All other details including the exact siting would remain the same as previously approved.

SITE HISTORY

In June 2001 permission was granted in outline for the erection of a single storey sports hall and community centre, reference 01/42259/DEEM3.

In August 2001 a reserved matters application for the design and appearance of the sports hall and community centre was withdrawn, reference 01/42719/DEEM3.

In September 2001 full permission was granted for a sports hall and community centre (ref:

01/42863/DEEM3)

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – no objections subject to the imposition of conditions relating to hours of use, noise levels, acoustic measures to doors and windows. The proposed hours of use would be from 8am – 6pm Monday to Saturdays with no use on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 31 May 2002.

The following neighbours were notified :

1a, 1, 3, 5 Balliol Street

87 – 89 St Peter’s Road

36 – 64 Lower Sutherland Street

REPRESENTATIONS

70

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

I have received no written representations in response to the application publicity.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none.

Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The principle of the proposal has been established with the granting of both an outline and a reserved matters application last year. The main issue in relation to this proposal to “hand” the development is the impact this would have upon the neighbouring residents and those along Lower Sutherland Street in particular.

There would be seven windows 1m by 0.8m in size to allow light into the multi purpose hall and the meeting room/arts crafts section. These windows in the main hall would not be openable and I would recommend that a condition to this effect be attached to any permission. The Director of Environmental

Services is satisfied that the proposal is acceptable on this basis but also recommends that the hours should be restricted to 6pm at night during the week. These were the same hours restrictions that were recommended at the time of the previous application 01/42863/FUL. However, this was finally granted permission to operate until 10pm Mondays – Saturdays and from 10am – 6pm on Sundays to Bank

Holidays.

I do not consider that this would have a significant additional impact, especially with the conditions restricting the opening of windows and doors. I have received no objections from residents to this effect and taking into account the wider benefit for the community that the sports/community use would bring,

I am minded to consider that this proposal is acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. The playground to St Peter's CE Primary School shall be made available for parking for community use in association with the proposed sports and community centre at all times outside school hours.

3. Standard Condition C01X Landscaping

4. Use of the building shall be restricted to the hours of 8.00am - 10.00pm Mondays to Saturdays and

10am - 6pm on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

5. The rating level of the noise emitted by any fixed plant or equipment eg ventilation or refrigeration equipment shall not exceed the existing background noise level by more than 5dB. The noise level shall be determined at the boundary of the nearest noise sensitive premises. The measurement and assessment shall be made according to BS4142:1997 "Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed

Residential and Industrial Areas"

6. Noise from amplified music shall not be audible at the boundary of the nearest noise sensitive dwelling.

7. The external doors to the main hall shall be acoustically treated to the standard of the Noise

Insulation Regulations 1975 (as amended). They shall be kept closed except for emergencies.

71

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason

R000 Section 91

2. To provide for the safety and convenience of users of the highway in accordance with DEV1 of the

City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

3. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

4. Standard Reason

R005A Amenity-neighbours

5. Standard Reason

R005A Amenity-neighbours

6. Standard Reason

R005A Amenity-neighbours

7. Standard Reason

R005A Amenity-neighbours

APPLICATION No: 02/44220/DEEM3

APPLICANT: Housing Services Directorate

LOCATION: Land At Junction Of Kingsley Avenue With Rushley Avenue Salford 7

PROPOSAL: Retention of 1.8m high railings

WARD: Kersal

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application is for the retention of railings on land to the east of Lower Kersal, at the junction of

Kingsley Avenue and Rushley Avenue. The site itself has been cleared and is bounded by residential properties and the River Irwell.

The railings have been colour treated prior to their erection and measure 1.5 meters in height. Between the junctions of Sherwood Avenue and Northallerton Road the land increases in height by 1m, at this point the railings are situated on top of a retaining wall.

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 18 th

June 2002.

The following neighbours were notified:

17 – 51 Rushley Avenue

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received one telephone call in favour of this proposal in response to the application publicity.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

72

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

Site specific policies: None

Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV4 Design and Crime

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV1 requires development to be appropriate to its surroundings and to have a good visual appearance and DEV4 seeks development that designs out crime. The area is mainly residential in character. The style of fencing erected is of a design acceptable within residential areas as specified in

DEV1. I also consider that the proposal would meet the requirements of DEV4. I have no highway objections and therefore I would recommend that this proposal be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve - unconditional

APPLICATION No: 02/44218/DEEM3

APPLICANT: Board Of Governors

LOCATION: Dukesgate Primary School Earlesdon Crescent Worsley

PROPOSAL: Erection of 2.4m high fencing along part of front elevation

WARD: Little Hulton

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The site concerned holds Dukesgate Primary School. Residential houses surround it to the north and east, an elderly person’s home to the south and a school to the west. Footpaths adjoin the site to the south, west and north.

The 2.4m high security fencing would replace existing 0.9m high railings on the east and would provide new fencing to the rear of the car park. Gates would be provided where the fence crosses footpaths.

SITE HISTORY

In 1979 planning permission was granted for the erection of the primary school, E/7979/LA. In 2000 planning permission was granted for the erection of new security fencing on school perimeter,

99/40196/DEEM3

PUBLICITY

The following neighbours were notified :

4,5,6 Brynheys Close

16 – 32 (even) 21 – 33 (odd) Earlesdon Crescent

REPRESENTATIONS

I have not received any letters of objections in response to the application publicity.

73

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:

Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV4 Design and Crime

PLANNING APPRAISAL

I consider that this proposal is acceptable, as it would improve the security of the site, in accordance with

DEV4, which seeks to encourage security improvements to existing buildings through the position and height of fencing and gates. The 2.4m high fencing would replace and supplement existing fencing, to improve security, and if colour treated green would not unduly detrimental to the amenity of the area or adjacent residents.

The fencing would not interfere with the adjoining footpaths or any vehicular accesses, therefore I have no highway objections. Consequently, I recommend approval.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. The fencing hereby approved shall be single prong.

3. Standard Condition D05B Colour treatment

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason

R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

3. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

APPLICATION No: 02/44271/DEEM3

APPLICANT: Alder Park Primary School

LOCATION: Alder Park Primary School Cranbrook Road Eccles

PROPOSAL: Erection of 2.4m high palisade security fence

74

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

WARD: Winton

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the provision of security fencing surrounding Alder Park County Primary and

Nursery School. There is existing fencing enclosing the school and playing field, much of which backs onto residential properties.

The proposal includes palisade fencing at 2.4m in height at the front of the site on Willow Road. This fencing would join, but not replace, the existing fencing that encloses the surrounding residential properties. The proposal also involves the erection of 2.4m palisade fencing at the footpath entrance to the Alder Park Nursery section of the site, the fencing then returns around to enclose the rear of 20 and

22 Cranbrook Road. The same fencing is also proposed to enclose the hardstanding around the school buildings, this fencing would run from the rear garden of 13 Kingswood Road to the rear of 6 Walker

Green. Two shorter lengths of palisade are also proposed stretching from the rear of 28 Cranbrook Road to the school building and also from the rear of 68 Walker Road.

The application is on City Council land and has been submitted by the Director of Development Services.

SITE HISTORY

There is no previous planning history.

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on the 19 th

June 2002.

The following neighbours were notified :

18 – 34 even Cranbrook road

1 –23 Kingswood Road

1 – 4 Walnut Road

54 – 68 Walker Road

2 –10 even Walker Green

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received one one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments having been made:

Object as railings visually intrusive at rear of property.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none

Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV4 Design and Crime

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV1 requires development to be appropriate to its surroundings and to have a good visual appearance and DEV4 seeks development that designs out crime. Although the area is mainly residential in character the security style palisade fencing is proposed to stop youths gaining access to the school grounds. I consider that the proposal would meet the requirements of DEV4.

75

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

The objection received relates to the impact of the railings detracting from the character of the rear of 28

Cranbrook Road. The proposed fencing to the rear of this property is to be at right angles to the existing fence and would not therefore in my opinion result in a significant visual impact upon that property. This situation is repeated at other points around the site and would also result in a minimal visual impact. I consider the railings to be acceptable at this location. I have no highway objections and recommend approval subject to conditions being imposed to the colour treatment and for single prong fencing only.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. The fencing hereby approved shall be single prong.

3. The railings hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior to the commencement of the development by the Director of Development Services.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason

R001 Section 92

2. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

3. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

APPLICATION No: 02/44279/DEEM3

APPLICANT: Summerville CP School

LOCATION: Summerville County Primary School Summerville Road Salford 6

PROPOSAL: Erection of 2.4m high perimeter fencing

WARD: Claremont

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the provision of security fencing around the school buildings and playground of Summerville County Primary School. The school is bounded by residential properties to the northern and eastern elevations, Broad Street to the south with fields to the rear.

The proposal would erect 2.4m pallisade fencing around the buildings and playground. It would be located to the rear of the properties on Tenby Drive and would then follow the boundary of the playground and the elevation fronting Broad Street. The front elevation facing Summerville Road and

76

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002 the residential properties opposite and would comprise of 2.4m ‘Crusader’ style railings. Both styles of fencing would be colour treated prior to their erection.

SITE HISTORY

None relevant

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on the 26 th

June 2002.

The following neighbours were notified :

1 – 25 (o) Tenby Drive

38 & 41 – 63 (o) Summerville Road

11 – 23 (o) Winton Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have had no letters of objection in response to the application publicity.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none

Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV4 Design and Crime

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV1 requires development to be appropriate to its surroundings and to have a good visual appearance and DEV4 seeks development that designs out crime. Although the area is mainly residential in character the security style palisade and crusader style fencing is proposed to stop youths gaining access to the school playground and buildings. I consider that the proposal would meet the requirements of DEV4.

I consider that the style of railings proposed at the front of the school to be in character with the residential area and the requirements of DEV1. I have no highway objections and recommend approval subject to conditions being imposed to the colour treatment and for single prong fencing only.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. The fencing hereby approved shall be single prong.

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. Standard Reason

R000 Section 91

77

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

2. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

3. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

18th July 2002

APPLICATION No: 02/44307/DEEM3

APPLICANT: Peel Hall CP School

LOCATION: Peel Hall C.P School Greencourt Drive Little Hulton Worsley

PROPOSAL: Erection of 2.4m high palisade perimeter fencing

WARD: Little Hulton

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to Peel Hall Primary School and is for the erection of a 2.4m security fence.

The site is bounded by residential properties to the north (Greencourt Drive), Peel Lane to the east and a small wooded area to the west. There is an area of playing fields to the rear of the school, which is outside the proposed fencing, beyond which the there is a substantial fail in the level of land.

Amendments have been made to the proposal to address some of the concerns of local residents. The proposal now seeks the ‘crusader’ style railing at a height of 2.4m along the frontage of Greencourt

Drive. Palisade will be used fronting the gables of 21 Greencourt and 126 Peel Lane and the remaining three sides. The fencing along the boundary of Peel Lane has also been amended. It is now proposed to be set back 3m to lessen the visual impact and ensure that the row of trees on the boundary are not affected. The trees would also provide a natural screen. The original proposal sought 2.4m palisade fencing around all four sides.

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 24 th

June 2002

The following neighbours were notified:

126 Peel Lane

1 – 21 (con) Greencourt Drive

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received six letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following comments having been made:

Impact upon local environment

Visual impact

Height

Loss of view

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

78

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

Site specific policies: none

Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV4 Design and Crime

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV1 requires development to be appropriate to its surroundings and to have a good visual appearance and DEV4 seeks development that designs out crime.

The objections received in relation to this proposal are based around the visual impact and the style of the fencing. Amendments have been sort to reduce the visual impact upon the local residents. A ‘crusader’ style railing is now proposed along the frontage of Greencourt Drive and the position of the palisade has been improved to safeguard the visual impact from Peel Lane. Although these amendments address some of the concerns of the local residents, I have not had any of the objections formally withdrawn.

The height of the fence and loss of view are also raised in the letters of objection. Although the area is mainly residential in character the styles and height of fencing, palisade and crusader, is proposed to stop youths gaining access to the school playground and buildings. Loss of view is not a material planning consideration.

I now consider that the style of railings proposed at the front of the school to be in character with the residential area and the requirements of DEV1. I have no highway objections and recommend approval subject to conditions being imposed to the colour treatment and for single prong fencing only.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. The fencing hereby approved shall be single prong.

3. Standard Condition D05B Colour treatment

4. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 3rd July 2002 which shows a variation of type and repositioning of the fencing.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason

R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

3. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

4. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

APPLICATION No: 02/44309/DEEM3

APPLICANT: Education And Leisure Directorate

79

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

LOCATION: Wentworth High School Wentworth Road Eccles

PROPOSAL: Siting of portable building, relocation of existing security fencing, erection of 2.4m high mesh fencing and gates around staff car park

WARD: Eccles

DESSCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the Wentworth High School, Wentworth Road Eccles. Planning permisison is sought for the relocation of a portakabin and security fencing close to the Chatsworth Road entrance to the site.

Permission is also sought for the erection of 2.4m high mesh fencing fronting the car park facing

Wentworth Road. The fencing to Wentworth Road is proposed to be positioned inside the existing site boundary with additional fencing to the north edge of the car park separating the staff car park and the playing fields. Fencing is not proposed along the rear gardens of properties on Salisbury Road.

The application is on City Council land and has been submitted by the Director of Development Services.

SITE HISTORY

In 2000, planning permission was granted for the siting of a portable building (00/40325/DEEM3).

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 19 th

June 2002

The following neighbours were notified :

20 – 32 Wentworth Road

10, 12, 24 – 32 even and 15 – 49 odd Salisbury Road

14 – 22 Chatsworth Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received no representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none

Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV4 Design and Crime

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV1 requires development to be appropriate to its surroundings and to have a good visual appearance and DEV4 seeks development that designs out crime. The area is mainly residential in character and I consider the addition of the security style mesh fencing around the staff car park would enable improved security whilst safeguarding the residential character of the area. Colour treatment of the mesh fencing would further reduce the impact of the railings.

The railings proposed around the portakabin are identical to the existing railings at that location, as such

I consider this fencing to be appropriate to the surrounding area. The revised location of the portakabin

80

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002 has been necessary as the currently proposed portakabin is the only available portable classroom for use by the school. I consider the revised location will not be detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring property or indeed the school. I would however require the replacement of the diseased tree on site and to provide suitable landscaping to ensure the building is screened. I have no highway objections and recommend approval subject to conditions being imposed to the colour treatment.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. The railings hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior to the commencement of the development by the Director of Development Services.

3. Standard Condition C01X Landscaping

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason

R001 Section 92

2. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

3. Standard Reason

R004A Amenity-area

81

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PART I

SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th July 2002

82

Download