PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
APPLICATION No:
01/43274/OUT
APPLICANT:
Mrs T Wachel
LOCATION:
PROPOSAL:
31 Singleton Road Salford 7
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.
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.”
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
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
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
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
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 – 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 This would be the subject of a
subsequent application. I am satisfied that sufficient information has been submitted in order to assess this
application. 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.
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
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 A02 Outline
2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been submitted
to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
- plans and elevations showing the design of all buildings and other structures;
- the colour and type of facing materials to be used for all external walls and roofs;
- a landscape scheme for the site which shall include details of trees and shrubs to be planted, any
existing trees to be retained, or felled indicating the spread of the branches and trunk positions, walls,
fences, boundary and surface treatment.
3. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 4 April 2002 which shows ground level
details.
4. The proposed development shall NOT exceed two floors of accommodation as shown in the approved
plans.
5. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
5. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
APPLICATION No:
01/43287/REM
APPLICANT:
Yeshivah L'zeirim
LOCATION:
Land At Legh Street Salford 7
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
PROPOSAL:
Details of the siting, design and external appearance of the erection of a
residential college together with associated landscaping, car parking
and construction of new, and alteration to existing, vehicular access
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a site situated at the southern end of Legh Street, close to the junction with
Northumberland Street. The site which is 0.25 hectares in size has a frontage of 53m and extends back from
the road by 40m. There are residential dwellings on Legh Street to the north and opposite to the east.
Broughton Mews a three storey residential development backs onto the site to the south. To the rear of the
site (the west) is a vacant plot of land which separates the site from the grounds of the Mandley Park School.
There is a row of trees along the rear boundary which are covered by Tree Preservation Order no. 9.
In November 1998 permission was granted in outline with siting and means of access determined for the
erection of a residential college, planning reference 98/38054/OUT and this was renewed in March of this
year, reference 01/43286/OUT. The application now being considered is a full application for the erection
of a residential college. The building would be positioned 4m from the rear boundary, and 1m from the
northern boundary. It would extend 28m parallel to the rear boundary before “dog-legging” in and
extending 20m towards Legh Street. This section of the building would stand 14m from the rear main wall
of the Broughton Mews properties. The building would comprise four storeys including a sub-ground
level. At this sub ground level there would be reception hall, dining room, kitchen, storage and a lobby
area. At the ground floor there would be classrooms, lobby and residential accommodation. The first floor
would comprise the library, some residential accommodation. The top, or second floor level would
provide more synagogue accommodation.
The servicing would be undertaken at the rear of the site, with access adjacent to the southern boundary.
This would also provide the women’s access. On the frontage adjacent to the northern boundary there
would be a car park for eight vehicles and there would be a main pedestrian access in the centre of the site.
As part of the application a tree survey has been submitted. This identifies that there are a total of 34 trees
on the site and recommends that 18 of these should be removed, all in a poor condition. These 18 trees are
predominantly where the proposed college would be sited. It is recommended that the 16 remaining trees
should be retained as they are all either young, average or in a good condition. Taking into full account the
proposal and the current ground levels on site, there is a possibility that no tree would survive. The
applicant has indicated that replacements would be planted where possible. The applicant has also
amended the plans to secure the retention of four trees on the site frontage which are not protected but
which do contribute to the amenity of the area.
CONSULTATIONS
The City Council’s Arborist – the trees on the frontage to the site do contribute to the amenity of the site and
would be worthy of protection. However, if the proposal were to be permitted all trees would not survive
and would have to be removed owing to the existing change in levels on the site. Good replacement trees
with similar statures such as red alder, red oak and red maple should be sought.
Higher Kersal Community Committee and Broughton Residents Association – consider that the proposal
would be a great improvement upon the present overgrown site.
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
Director of Environmental Services – no objections in principle.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – there are no known features of archaeological interest on the
site.
Environment Agency – no comments received.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was posted 3 December 2001.
The following properties were notified:
19 – 41 Legh Street
2a, 2b, 2c, 4a, 4b Legh Street
Flat 6 Holme Leigh, 6 Park Lane
Machzike Hadass Synagogue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site Specific Policies: none.
Other policies: EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodland, SC2 Provision of social and community
facilities by private and voluntary agencies, EN3 Protected Open land, DEV2 Good Design, DEV1
Development Criteria
APPRAISAL
I consider the main issues associated with this proposal relate to the scale of the development in relation to
the size of the site; its impact upon the trees on the site and also the impact of the college building upon the
amenity of the neighbouring residents to the north and south. However, in considering this proposal is it
important to bear in mind that the site has the benefit of an outline permission which has established the
principle of the use on the site.
Legh Street falls away towards Northumberland Street so that there is a change in levels of approximately
1m between this site and the adjoining site, Broughton Mews to the south. There would be 14m between
the rear main wall of the dwellings to the proposed building which would be 4m higher to the eaves above
the ridge line of the dwellings. However, the facing elevation to the dwellings would be 10m before angling
away into the application site. I have received no objections to the proposal and as the remainder of the
building angles away allowing light to reach the dwellings and there are no facing main habitable windows
in the proposed building, I am minded to consider the proposal to be acceptable in terms of its impact upon
these residents in particular. The elevation closest to no.35 Legh Street, the adjacent dwelling to the north,
is similar to the outline scheme which was approved and again I consider this to be acceptable.
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
The design of the building would be modern but Legh Street is a mix of house styles, the majority of which
are modern. I am satisfied that the proposal would enhance the character of the area and result in an
impressive architectural building.
The college would be for approximately 100 students and eigh car parking spaces would be provided on the
frontage. This would not strictly accord with parking standards, however the students that would attend this
college would not have use or access to a car and therefore I am satisfied that the proposal is acceptable in
this respect and I have no objections on highway grounds. I would suggest that a legal agreement should be
attached to any permission to secure the use of vehicles by students, as attached to the previous outline
schemes.
The site is covered by a number of trees and those along the rear boundary are covered by TPO No. 9 which
would have had to be removed to allow the outline scheme. This proposal would bring the footprint of the
building slightly forward away from these trees but not sufficiently enough to allow the trees to be retained.
The principle of these trees to be felled has been accepted with the outline scheme.
As well as levels falling towards Northumberland Street, the levels within the site undulate and if there is to
be any development on this site, it would have to be levelled. The City’s arborist has inspected all of the
trees on the site, and a tree report has been submitted which was seeking to retain some of the trees, but he
is of the opinion that the trees would not survive the levelling work necessary. He therefore recommends
that the trees are felled and some good quality replacements are sought. I am minded to agree with the
arborist, not least because even if the TPO’d trees were retained, their full amenity value would not be able
to be appreciated because the building would stand in front of them and these would be 13m to the eaves
and therefore only the tops of the trees would be visible. If new trees were planted, these could grow and
develop with the site as it matures.
The trees on the frontage to Legh Street are not protected but I do have concerns about the impact upon the
street scene, if the whole site were to be cleared. The plans have been amended to reduce the width of the
pedestrian entrance and also to enlarge a grassed area in order to try and retain four trees. If this were
achieved initially this would create the opportunity to retain the treescape on the road frontage whilst the
new trees that would be planted as part of any landscaping scheme became established. I am of the opinion
that this would reduce the immediate impact of any proposal on the site. Whilst the clearance of the site
would be significant it would be of greater benefit in the long run.
The site has now been vacant for some time and is becoming overgrown. It does not enhance the character
of Legh Street which has benefited from recent development and therefore on balance, taking into account
the history on the site and the establishment of the principle of development, I consider this proposal to be
acceptable.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement to secure the
following:
1.
2.
students attending and using the facilities provided at the college are banned from using cars or
motor vehicles to travel to or from the said college premises and
the applicant shall use its best endeavours to ensure that the above-mentioned ban is complied with
by its students.
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
b) 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,
c) that authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application to be issued (subject to the
condition and reasons stated below) on completion of the above mentioned agreement.
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 7 May and 12 July 2002 which shows
revised elevational details.
4. Standard Condition C01X Landscaping
5. No development shall be started until all the four lime trees along the site frontage and closest to No. 35
Legh Street, have been surrounded by substantial fences which shall extend to the extreme
circumference of the spread of the branches of the trees (or such positions as may be agreed in writing
by the Director of Development Services). Such fences shall be erected in accordance with a
specification to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services and
shall remain until all development is completed and no work, including any form of drainage or storage
of materials, earth of topsoil shall take place within the perimeter of such fencing.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
3. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
APPLICATION No:
02/43629/FUL
APPLICANT:
Novembre Properties Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By Pendleton Way, Market Way, Hankinson Way And
Heywood Way Salford 6
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two retail warehouse units, alterations to existing market
and construction of a new roof structure over market area
WARD:
Pendleton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land to the south of Salford Shopping City, situated between Pendleton Way,
Market Way, Hankinson Way and Heywood Way. The market is currently located on the south eastern
side, with the food hall, the Flat Iron public house, the Mother of God and St James Church and the market
store situated on the south western half. Fitzgerald Way runs from the subway entrance and dissects the site
between the existing market and the other uses. The application site has recently been sold to the applicant
for this proposal now being considered.
The proposal comprises three main aspects. Firstly it is proposed to relocate the market with the stalls sited
on Market Way, and to erect two units, both approximately 1300 square metres in size. They would be
single storey units constructed from silver/light grey cladding panels. Each would measure 28.5m by 49m
and stand 9m to the highest point of the convex roof design. There would be two large glazed shop
windows on the frontage of each unit to Market Way but the end elevation to Hankinson Way would not
have any windows. As a means of breaking up this elevation and improving its visual impact, the applicant
has included a signage tower with a digital clock in the centre of the elevation.
The second element to the proposal would see the relocation of the existing market to stalls which would be
positioned along Market Way and Fitzgerald Way. A canopy structure would be erected over these areas.
This would extend the full length of Fitzgerald Way from the subway access to Market Way and along
Market Way to Hankinson Way. The canopy would be of a modern design, constructed from profiled metal
and have a curved roof set on an angle. There would be access control gates at each end of Market Way and
also at the southern end of Fitzgerald Way.
Finally, there would be servicing yard, to the south of the proposed units which would be accessed off
Heywood Way with a car park for marketeers adjacent to this. This area would be surrounded by a dwarf
brick wall with railings to approximately 1.8m high on top of this. These would be painted black.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections subject to the imposition of conditions restricting noise
levels and the hours of deliveries to the service yard between 8 am and 7.30pm Monday to Saturday and
from 10am to 4pm on Sundays.
Architectural Liaison Officer – would request that the development be Secure by Design approved, the
restriction on use of car parking/service areas, the market hall to be secure from pedestrian access when
closed. A number of design measures are also recommended to improve the general security of the site.
GMPTE – no objections and would recommend that the surrounding routes to the site are as pedestrian
friendly as possible through means such as lighting, signing and surfacing materials.
Peak and Northern Footpath Society – no comments received to date.
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Society – no comments received.
National Market Traders Federation – fully support the proposal and are pleased that the market will be
roofed over.
PUBLICITY
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
A site notice was displayed on 20 February 2002.
A press notice was published on 21 February 2002..
The following neighbours were notified :
76 and 77 Pendleton Way
47 – 50 and 75 Market Way
51 and 52 Fitzgerald Way
45 and 46 Hankinson Way
Flat Iron Public House
Mother of God and St James Church
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: S1 Maintenance and Improvement of Town Centres,
Other policies: S1 Town Centres, S2 Location of New Retail Development, S6 Maintenance and
Improvement of Town Centres, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Crime and Design,
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider the main issues to be addressed relate to the impact the proposal will have upon the vitality and
viability of Salford Precinct, as well as its visual impact. Policies S1 and S6 both seek to maintain and
improve the City’s district centres, with S6 specifically encouraging refurbishment works. Policy S2
requires new retail development to be located in or immediately adjacent to existing shopping centres,
appropriate in scale and character to the area.
The proposal lies within an existing defined District Centre and therefore the proposal is considered to be
compliant with shopping policies.
The proposal would re-site the market along Market Way within new purpose built stalls which would be a
considerable improvement upon the existing stalls. Although the market stalls in their new location would
not be as visible as they currently are from Hankinson Way, at each entrance to the new market area, at
either end of Market Way, there would be a large 12.5m high sign structure which would advertise the
market. Therefore there should not be any detrimental impact upon the existing trade from the re-siting of
the market.
There would be no shop windows on the unit adjacent to Hankinson Way for security reasons but the
elevation would be broken up by a signage tower with a digital clock structure mid way. There would
however be two large windows on each unit on the frontage to Market Way which would encourage
shoppers. The units would be modern in design and with the careful choice of materials, I am satisfied that
they would contribute to the visual amenity of the area and would in fact be an improvement upon the
existing character.
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
The proposed canopy together with the new units that would be erected in place of the existing market
would create a more unified area and modernise the centre, generally improving the overall appearance and
image, in accordance with policy S6 in particular. This in turn should contribute significantly to the vitality
and viability of the centre and I would therefore recommend that this application be approved.
The proposal exceeds 2,500 square metres and therefore needs to be referred to Government Office.
RECOMMENDATION
That Members resolve to approve the application subject to the following conditions and refer the matter to
the Secretary of State. Subject to no intervention the planning permission be issued under delegated
powers.
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 canopy and the walls and roof of the units 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 20 May 2002 which shows footpath
provision around Hankinson Way/Heywood Way.
4. There shall be no deliveries to the retail unit service yard outside the hours of 8am and 7.30pm Monday
to Saturday and 10am to 4pm on Sundays.
5. The rating level of the noise emitted from any fixed plant or equipment shall not exceed the existing
background level by more than 5dB(A). The noise level shall be determined at 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. The development shall not commence until the necessary approval for the footpath/road closure as
required under the necessary legislation has been secured.
7. Full details of the proposed market stall units shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of development.
8. Full details of the boundary wall and railings which shall be powder and agreed colour shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the
commencement of development.
9. Standard Condition G12F Provision of bin
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
6. To ensure compliance with the relevant sections of the Town and Country Planning Act and the
Highways Act.
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
9. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached letters from the Greater Manchester Police
Architectural Liaison Officer dated 8 March and 5 June 2002.
APPLICATION No:
02/43740/FUL
APPLICANT:
FAG Construction
LOCATION:
64A Upper Park Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of a new detached
dwelling with detached garage and alteration to existing vehicular
access
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing bungalow within Broughton Park. The bungalow is set between
several large Victorian properties that are typical in Broughton Park. To one side is a residential property
and to the other is a private Jewish Girls school. The proposal is to demolish the bungalow and build a new
detached dwelling. It would be on a similar footprint to the existing bungalow.
The design of the house has been amended from that originally submitted, in order to reduce the impact on
the adjoining house and to match the appearance in better within the street scene. The main building would
be a 2-storey, 5 bedroom house which would measure 11.3m wide by 13.2m. The front elevation now
includes a turret feature to reflect similar features on the neighbouring buildings. There would also be a
single storey side and rear element, in order to include a garage, utility room, family room and a succah.
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Arboricultural Officer – the development is unlikely to affect the trees directly because the existing
bungalow and the slightly elevated position of the trees would mean the roots are not likely to be affected.
However, there may still be concern about overshadowing, loss of light and leaf litter.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
33, 35, 41, 64, 66, 66a, 68 Upper Park Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 2 letters in response to the application publicity. The following comments having been
made:





Loss of privacy to the neighbours’ lounge and bedrooms as well as their garden
Loss of light to their property because of the increase in height
New house would over dominate the adjoining house because of the height
The boundary fence would be damaged during construction
The demolition of the property would increase congestion, which is already bad because of the
adjacent school
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: DEV10 – Broughton Park
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV10 seeks to retain the older properties where it enhances the character of the area. However, I
would not consider that this bungalow would enhance the character of the area, as it is probably was built in
the 1960s and it does not reflect the Victorian character of the surrounding houses. However, the policy
does require any new buildings to reflect the character of the existing buildings in terms of the size, scale
and design. I would consider that this proposal, as amended, would not be out of place within Broughton
Park and has tried to reflect some of the design features of the two pairs of semis immediately adjacent on
either side.
The existing bungalow is set forward of the objectors’ house although it is offset so that it is not directly in
front of 66a. However, the objectors do have a large feature bay which includes windows that are facing
directly towards to the bungalow so they are concerned about the impact on these main rooms. The
separation between the two buildings would be 15m to the nearest part, but because of the angled
relationship there would be no direct overlooking between the two properties. In considering the
relationship between the two houses I would bear in mind that no. 66a. is at a higher internal level than the
surrounding ground level. Therefore the rooms at 66a would be over 1m higher that at the proposed house.
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
I would also consider that at the nearest part of the rear elevation to the objectors’ house there would be
patio doors at ground floor and a frosted window at first floor as the amended plans now show an en-suite
nearest to the objectors’ house. Any of the bedroom windows would be further away from the objectors
house which would increase the angle between the windows and reduce further the chance of direct
overlooking.
I acknowledge that the neighbours would be faced with a difference outlook from their house if the
bungalow is replaced by a house, but I would not consider that it would automatically mean a seriously
detrimental affect on their amenity. Although the house proposed is large, it would be no closer to the
neighbours than the bungalow and indeed at the nearest part the house would be over 3m further away. The
house would also be set at street scene level, where as the style of 66a is that of the large imposing Victorian
design with steps up from ground level to an elevated internal design. Therefore I would not consider that
even the large house that is proposed would completely over dominate the existing properties.
The Council’s SPG on trees requires all proposed development to have regard to trees as part of
development. There are several protected trees to the front of the site which are healthy and worthy of
retention. At the closest part of the house, it would be set 6m away from the nearest sycamore, which is 3m
further away that the bungalow is at present. Given the position of this bungalow, the Council’s Arborist is
of the opinion that the physical construction is unlikely to adversely affect the trees. However, he does
express concern about the impact on the occupiers of the house and any pressure that this may bring on the
trees in the future.
The main front of the house would be 12m away from the large beech tree on the road frontage and I would
consider that this be adequate separation to prevent problems to the occupiers of the house and ensure the
retention of the tree. In submitting the amended plans, the architect has taken on board the concerns about
the proximity of the trees to the east in terms of light problems. Therefore along the side closest to the
sycamore trees it is now proposed for the single storey element, the front part of which would be the garage.
The nearest point that habitable rooms would be to the sycamores would be over 9m away and well outside
the canopy spread. Therefore, in considering the issues of the trees, I would regard that it would be possible
for this house to be built without the loss of the trees.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls and roof
of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
3. Standard Condition C03X Fencing of Trees/no work within spread
4. Standard Condition M01 Removal of Permitted Development Rights
5. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the surface materials to be used for the
driveway shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R037A Additional measure of control
5. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
APPLICATION No:
02/43747/COU
APPLICANT:
V Janjic
LOCATION:
242 Newearth Road Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from shop to an estate agents with self contained flat on
first floor, alterations to side elevation and retention of external
staircase.
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an end of terraced property that has formerly been used as a newsagent with flat
above. The proposal is for a change of use to an estate agent with a self-contained flat at first floor level. The
application also proposed alterations to the side elevation of the building facing Mather Fold Road to
include a new shop window. The applicant has started work in implementing this change of use and has
erected an external staircase at the rear to gain access to the first floor flat. These details were not included
in the original submission.
The applicant has now submitted an appeal against the non-determination of this application. The
application has not been determined to date mainly due to a mis-understanding as to whether the work
relating to a rear external exit was to be included as part of this application.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections, but would recommend that the flat be sound insulated
to meet Building Regulations to prevent any problems.
PUBLICITY
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
The following neighbours were notified:
2 Mather Fold Road
127-133(o), 178, 244-248(e) Newearth Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no objection to the change of use for the property. The neighbour has verbally objected to
the external staircase that has been constructed to the rear.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The proposed use as an estate agent would not, in my opinion, be detrimental to the amenity of the area. The
previous use, a newsagent and corner shop, which would have generated a reasonable number of customers.
This is a busy main road and there are no parking restrictions. I would not consider that there would be any
highway objections to any traffic generated. The applicants have proposed 9.30am to 5pm opening on
Monday to Friday with 10am-4pm on Saturday and no Sunday opening. Therefore I would not consider that
the hours of operation would be particularly disturbing for the surrounding residents. I would also consider
that the proposed side windows, which face across Mather Fold Road, would not be detrimental to the
visual amenity of the building. Therefore I would not consider that the proposed amenity of the area or of
neighbouring residents would be harmed by this proposal.
I am aware that there are objections to the new rear exit and external staircase that has been erected to the
rear of this property. Due to its design and position I am concerned that this staircase has a detrimental
impact on the amenity of the immediate neighbour in terms of its visual impact and potential for
overlooking.
In conclusion I find the principle of the proposed change of use acceptable but cannot support the retention
of the external staircase, which gives access to the first floor flat. As an appeal has been submitted the Panel
cannot determine the application. However the Panel is requested to support the recommendation which in
turn will form the basis of the Council’s stance at appeal.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Panel resolve to support the recommendation.
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The external staircase at the rear of the property has a seriously detrimental impact on the amenity of
the neighbouring resident by reason of loss of privacy and its incongrous appearance contrary to
Policy Dev 3 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/43844/COU
APPLICANT:
C Koskie
LOCATION:
Former Educational Office Supplies Building Stamford Street Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from showroom to childrens nursery
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a former office supplies showroom. The proposal is to change the use of the
premises to a children’s nursery. In addition, two new windows would be inserted into the rear elevation,
existing windows would be replaced with UPVC double glazed windows and external timber cladding
would be made good where necessary. The use would be incorporated into the existing nursery and
associated play areas to the rear of the site. The proposals would result in an additional 50 childcare places.
Six car parking spaces have been identified to the front of the premises. The proposed hours of operation are
7.45am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday.
The surrounding area is predominantly residential, there is however an existing nursery to the rear
(south-west) of the site and a business use on the opposite side of Stamford Street. Members should be
aware that there is a planning application for the change of use of a dwelling opposite this application site
(12 Stamford Street) to an office also on the Agenda for this Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel
meeting (ref. 02/43989/COU).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Director of Community and Social Services – No objections
Director of Education and Leisure – No objections.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
8 – 14 Stamford Street
209 – 227 (odds) Pendlebury Road
75 – 93 (odds) Coronation Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:

concerns regarding traffic generation and that the amount of traffic visiting site has been
underestimated
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION




1st August 2002
there are no means of control where people park their vehicles whilst dropping off the children
parents have no consideration for speed limits and as a consequence the road surface has been all but
destroyed
a carriageway width of approximately 6 metres will be left – how can vehicles drop off, park and turn
around
insufficient car parking provision
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
T13 – Car Parking
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that regard will be had to a number of factors in determining
planning applications, including the location and nature of the proposed development, the likely scale and
type of traffic generation and the amount of car parking provision.
There are a number of residential properties surrounding the premises, the impact of the proposal must
therefore be assessed in relation to the amenity of these residents. I do not consider that the change of use of
the premises would be significantly detrimental to the amenity of these residents, in particular, as no
additional outdoor play area would be provided.
With regards to the objections raised in relation to car parking and traffic generation, I have the following
comments to make. Firstly, Stamford Street is an unadopted highway and as such maintenance of the road
surface rests with the property owners on either side of Stamford Street. UDP car parking standards would
require the provision of eight on site car parking spaces and the proposal would provide six car parking
spaces to the front of the premises, on Stamford Street. Given the location of the premises in a
predominantly residential area and the proximity of Bolton Road, I consider it likely that that some visitors
and staff will arrive by foot or bus. Comings and goings for the proposed use are expected to be similar to be
similar to that of the existing nursery, where children are delivered to the nursery between 7.30am and
9.30am or at lunch time and are collected at lunch time or between 3.30pm and 5.30pm. Arrival and
departure times of children to the nursery will therefore be staggered throughout the day. The six parking
spaces would be able to be used in conjunction with the established nursery use, where there is currently no
visitor parking. I therefore consider that this would constitute an improvement to the existing car parking
situation for the adjoining nursery premises. With regards to the width of the carriageway, if cars park in
front of the proposed nursery, at right angles to Stamford Street and cars park at right angles to 12 Stamford
Street opposite the nursery, then there would be a carriageway width of approximately 6 metres. This 6
metre distance is in compliance with UDP car parking layout standards.
The development would be progressed under the Government’s Neighbourhood Nursery Initiative (NNI). I
consider that the proposed use would provide a valuable local amenity.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use not less than six car parking spaces shall
be provided within the curtilage of the site to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services
and such spaces shall be made available at all times the premises are in use.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2.
To ensure that adequate provision is made for the parking of vehicles within the curtilage of the site, in
accordance with UDP policy T13.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding details
of drainage.
2. Please note that planning permission may be required for any future provision of new external play
areas, storage containers and disabled access ramps. Please contact the Director of Development
Services (Development Control Section) regarding the requirement for planning permission for such
elements.
APPLICATION No:
02/43989/COU
APPLICANT:
Tavern Developments Ltd
LOCATION:
12 Stamford Street Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from dwelling to offices and provision of two parking
spaces to front of property
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a terraced house on Stamford Street. The proposal is to change the use of the
dwelling to offices, providing additional accommodation for the adjacent Tavern Developments business.
A garden wall to the front of the property would be removed to allow for two 900 car parking spaces to be
provided. The proposed hours of operation are 8.30am to 5.30pm, Monday to Friday.
Surrounding uses are mixed. The adjacent property at 14 Stamford Street is a dwelling, whilst planning
permission was granted in 1998 to change the use of the dwelling at 10 Stamford Street to an office. To the
north of the application site is the former Pendlebury Market site. Opposite the site is a vacant
showroom/office - Members should be aware that there is a planning application relating to these premises
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
(Former Educational Office Supplies Building) on the Agenda for this Planning and Transportation
regulatory Panel meeting (ref. 02/43844/COU).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified:
14 Stamford Street
219, 221 Pendlebury Road
Rainbow Nursery, Stamford Street
Educational Office Supplies, Stamford Street
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
T13 – Car Parking
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that regard will be had to a number of factors in determining
planning applications, including the location and nature of the proposed development, the likely scale and
type of traffic generation and the amount of car parking provision.
The application site is located in an area of mixed uses. With regards to the proposed use of the premises as
an office and the hours of operation, I do not consider that this use of the premises would be detrimental to
the amenity of residents at 14 Stamford Street.
With reference to car parking, I have the following observations to make. UDP car parking standards would
require the provision of four on site car parking spaces. There would therefore be a shortfall of two parking
spaces. There is, however, on street parking available in the area, furthermore, there is parking available
within the yard area of the adjacent Tavern Developments premises. Concerns regarding traffic and car
parking have been expressed by the Applicant in relation to a planning application to change the use of
premises on the opposite side of Stamford Street to a nursery. I can confirm that Stamford Street is an
unadopted highway and as such maintenance of the road surface rests with the property owners on either
side of Stamford Street. With regards to car parking, if cars park at right angles to the front of 12 Stamford
Street and at right angles to the front of the premises opposite, then the width of the street would be
approximately 6 metres. This 6 metre distance is in compliance with UDP car parking layout standards.
I have no objections on highway grounds.
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use, the wall to the front of the property shall
be demolished and the ground made good to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services
and not less than two car parking spaces shall be made available for car parking use at all times that the
premises are in use.
3. The use hereby permitted shall NOT be operated on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays and shall
ONLY be operated between the hours of 8.30am and 5.00pm Monday to Friday.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2.
To ensure that adequate provision is made for the parking of vehicles within the curtilage of the site, in
accordance with UDP policy T13.
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/44023/OUT
APPLICANT:
J A Harrison And Sons Ltd
LOCATION:
Broadoak Garden Centre 173 Worsley Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for the erection of twelve detached
dwellings (renewal of 99/38927/OUT)
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the Broadoak Park Garden Centre. The site is 0.75 hectares in size and is bounded
by dwellings on Merlewood Drive and Fairmount Road to the east, Chatsworth Road to the south and
Welbeck Road to the west. Sindsley Brook runs along the western boundary to the site. The land inclines
quite steeply beyond the Brook to the houses of Welbeck Road. Footpath No. 51 runs along part of the
eastern boundary to the site, before cutting across the site to meet Worsley Road. There are a number of
mature trees at the site, some of which are protected by Tree Preservation Orders - 109 (Worsley Road
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
frontage), 224 (birch trees to the rear of 9 Merlewood Drive) and Swinton and Pendlebury TPO (four beech
trees to the centre of the site).
This is an outline application, seeking approval for matters of siting and access. It is a renewal of an outline
permission granted in August 1999 – there have been no amendments to the proposal. The proposal is for
the erection of twelve detached dwellings across the whole site, with a central access road.
The majority of the site is presently operated as a garden centre and comprises a nursery, greenhouses, sales
areas and car parking number. The rear of the site is grassed and contains a number of trees and is not
accessible to the public. The area surrounding the site is predominantly residential in nature.
SITE HISTORY
E/23509 – Outline planning application for the development of land for residential purposes. Approved
19.4.89.
99/38927/OUT - Outline planning application for the erection of twelve detached dwellings together with
alterations to existing access. Approved 19.8.99.
99/39939/TPO - Fell one beech tree. Refused 27.10.99.
CONSULTATIONS
Coal Authority – Letter attached for information.
Director of Environmental Services – Has recommended conditions regarding contaminated land and noise.
Environment Agency – No objection in principle. Recommend conditions relating to floor levels, surface
water regulation and fouls and surface water disposal. Also recommend a number of informatives.
Peak and Northern Footpaths Society – No comments to date.
United Utilities – No objection in principle. Comments regarding required water mains and public sewers
that cross the site. Soil survey required. Letter attached for Applicant’s information.
Worsley Civic Trust – No comments to date.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 9th May 2002
A site notice was displayed on 2nd May 2002
The following neighbours were notified:
188 – 192 Chatsworth Road
3, 6 Grovehurst
7 – 19 (o); 16 – 20 (e) Merlewood Drive
16 – 32 (e) Welbeck Road
74 – 80 (e); 171, 393 Worsley Road
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 3 letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:




12 properties would be too many to squeeze into the narrow valley
would cause even more traffic problems on the very busy Worsley Road
private driveway to house 1) would cut across the public footpath
tree should stay protected for the public’s enjoyment
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H9/34 – Sites for New Housing
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
T13 – Car Parking
EN7 – Conservation of Trees and Woodland
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy H9 allocates the application site for residential development. The
application is in outline only and therefore seeks to establish the principle of residential development at the
site. There have been two previous approvals at the site for residential development. In 1999, planning
permission (ref. 99/38927/OUT) was granted for an identical proposal – this approval will lapse on the 19th
August. There have been no changes in circumstances since the previous approval – the UDP was adopted
in 1995. There have, however, been changes to national planning guidance, of particular relevance to this
proposal is the revised PPG3 – Housing. Before development plans can be reviewed, local authorities
should have regard to the policy contained within PPG3 as material considerations that may supersede the
policies contained within their development plans. PPG3 states that where permissions for housing
development are renewed, they should be revised to take account, for example, of the need for higher
quality development which makes more efficient use of the available land. The design of the dwellings
would be considered following the submission of the reserved matters planning application. With regards to
making efficient use of land, I consider that the presence of so many constraints to this site, including
Sindsley Brook, Public Footpath No. 51, protected trees, public sewer and site levels, would make it
difficult to achieve better use of this site. I also consider that the layout and density of the development
would be in character with the surrounding area.
One of the objections relates to too many properties being squeezed on the site. The number of properties
has already been approved in 1999, furthermore, as already outlined above, revised national guidance seeks
to secure more efficient use of land and higher density development. With regards to traffic generation, I do
not consider that the development would create significant additional traffic that would result in congestion
on Worsley Road. With regards to the public footpath, the applicant has indicated that the footpath would
cross the drive to plot 3. This may raise issues relating to the management and maintenance of the footpath
and the line of the footpath would have to remain clear from obstructions at all times. If the Applicant
wished to divert this section of the footpath , then a diversion order would be required. I have attached a
Note to Applicant recommending that the City Council’s Rights of Way Officer is contacted to discuss
matters relating to the public footpath, prior to the submission of the reserved matters planning application.
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
UDP policy EN7 seeks to encourage the conservation of trees and woodlands wherever possible. The
proposal would require the removal of five trees at the site, one of which (beech) is covered by a Tree
Preservation Order. This tree does contribute to the general amenity of the area and its loss would have an
impact on the site. The loss of the tree is necessary to allow for the access road (which has been designed to
reduce its impact on other trees covered by a preservation order). A planning application to fell the beech
tree was refused in 1999, this was refused because it would seriously injure the amenity of the area and
because insufficient evidence had been provided to justify its removal – there were no arboricultural
reasons why the tree should be felled. I am of the opinion that the proposal to fell the tree as part of the
development of the site is acceptable when considered against the existing number of trees at the site and
the total number of trees that would have to be removed to allow for the development. I have attached a
condition requiring that the beech tree is replaced by two new specimens.
I consider that the proposal to develop this site for residential purposes is still acceptable and is in
accordance with policy H9. I have no objections on highway grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been submitted
to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
- plans and elevations showing the design of all buildings and other structures;
- the colour and type of facing materials to be used for all external walls and roofs;
- a landscape scheme for the site which shall include details of trees and shrubs to be planted, any
existing trees to be retained, or felled indicating the spread of the branches and trunk positions, walls,
fences, boundary and surface treatment.
3. Standard Condition C03X Fencing of Trees/no work within spread
4. Standard Condition C05C No topping etc to Trees protected by TPO
5. The beech tree which is subject to a Tree Preservation Order and which is shown to be felled on the
approved plans shall be replaced by two trees and the species and location of the replacement trees shall
be agreed in writing prior to the commencement of development to the satisfaction of the Director of
Development Services.
6. The section of Footpath 51 which crosses the site shall be retained and made accessible at all times
7. A means of physical demarcation of the limits of Footpath 51 shall be agreed in writing by the Director
of Development Services and installed by the developer. This shall be maintained at all times to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
8. A full arboricultural method statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing prior to the
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
commencement of development. This shall include details of the working of the site in relation to
existing trees.
9. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until details of existing and
proposed floor levels have been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme
shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved details.
10. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and
implementation of a surface water regulation system has been approved by the Local Planning
Authority. The scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans.
11. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of
foul and surface waters has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme
shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans.
12. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 and Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (and any subsequent amending order), there shall be no
development within the areas of the curtilage of the plots hereby identified below, as defined in Part 1
of Schedule 2 of the above Order without the prior grant of planning permission by the Local Planning
Authority:
- the rear of plots 1 and 2;
- the front and north east gable elevations of plot 3;
- the north east gable elevations of plot 4;
- the front and southern gable of plot 5;
- the front and northern gable of plot 6;
- the front and southern gable elevation of plot 7;
- the front and south east gable elevation of plot 8;
- the front of plot 9;
- the front and southern gable elevation of plot 10;
- the whole of plot 11.
13. Prior to commencement of the development the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the
approval of the LPA. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground
contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to
receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focussing primarily on
risks to human health and to controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of
ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on
services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems
and property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to the start of the site
investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report
shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.
14. Prior to the commencement of any building works on site, the applicant shall submit for approval an
assessment of noise likely to affect the application site. This assessment should be geared towards
assessing the noise from the adjacent Worsley Road, and any other sources which are deemed
significant on the site. The assessment shall identify any noise attenuation measures which may be
determined appropriate to reduce the impact of noise on the properties on site. Once agreed, all
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
identified noise control measures shall be implemented and thereafter retained.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Reason: The application is for outline permission only and these matters were reserved by the
applicant for subsequent approval.
3. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
4. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. To safeguard Footpath 51 and ensure its availability for use at all times, in accordance with Unitary
Development Plan Policy T10.
7. To safeguard Footpath 51 and ensure its availability for use at all times, in accordance with Unitary
Development Plan Policy T10.
8. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
9. To ensure that the development is subject to minimum risk of flooding.
10. To reduce the increased risk of flooding.
11. To ensure a satisfactory means of drainage.
12. To protect the line of the easement of the sewer and the trees on the site covered by a Tree Preservation
Order.
13. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
14. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment Agency
dated 18th June 2002.
2. The Director of Development Services (Highways Maintenance Section - Public Rights of Way
Officer) should be consulted on 0161 793 3781 regarding the public footpath, prior to the
commencement of development. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached
e-mail from the Public Rights of Way Officer dated 25th June 2002.
3. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from United Utilities dated 27th
May 2002.
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
4. The Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding details
of drainage.
5. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Coal Authority.
6. The Director of Environmental Services (Environmental Health Section) should be contacted on 0161
793 2083.
APPLICATION No:
02/44031/FUL
APPLICANT:
Peter Janjic
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To 80 Green Lane Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of new terraced dwelling
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the side garden area of 80 Green Lane, Patricroft, which is on the corner of Green
Lane and Cromwell Road. Number 80 is the end terrace property of a row of six two storey houses, each
with a half width rear extension, with vehicular access from the rear. Number 80 occupies a corner plot and
has an extensive side garden.
Planing permission is sought for the erection of a three bedroom dwellinghouse which would be attached to
80 Green Lane. The house would be the same height as the existing terrace and would have an outrigger
extension following the same pattern as the rest of the terrace. Permission is also sought for the erection of
a garage with access to the rear of the property and 1.6m high boundary fencing. There are four existing
trees on the site of the proposed house that would need to be removed for the house to be built.
SITE HISTORY
In 1974, planning permission was refused the demolition of 74 to 80 Green Lane and the erection of 4 flats
in a two storey block (E/192).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 6th June 2002
The following neighbours were notified :
169 Cromwell Road
216 Cromwell Road
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
72 – 78 Green Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection from the same people in response to the application publicity. The
following comments having been made:
Loss of trees
Loss of sunlight to garden
Loss of house value
Proposal out of character with the rest of terrace
Applicant not have right of access to the rear
Noise from building works
Over supply of housing in the area
A land registry covenant is also raised which states building on this land is prevented.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:n/a
Other policies: H1 Meeting Housing Needs, DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy H1 relates to the supply of housing and the provision of adequate housing stock. In addition
Government guidance states the supply of housing land should be on previously developed land such as this
site. I do not consider there is over supply of housing in the area and I am of the opinion that the proposal is
in accordance with policy H1, in that it would be suitable for family accommodation and would involve the
release of land for housing.
With regard to trees on the site the City Of Salford Senior Arborist has inspected the trees on the site and has
determined that although there are some amenity benefits, the trees are not of a standard to warrant
protection through a TPO. In considering the loss of these trees I have had regard to the City Of Salford
Supplementary Planning Guidance – Trees which requires the replacement of trees at a level of two for one.
The applicant has agreed to this stipulation and has amended the application to include the replanting of
eight new trees on the site. I therefore consider that the objection to the development on the grounds of loss
of trees can not be sustained.
The rear elevation of the outrigger of the proposed new house would be 16m from the gable end and garden
area of the objectors property. As such the minimum distance of 13m is maintained. I consider that the
distance of the house and the single storey garage from the objectors and indeed other residential properties
is sufficient to maintain existing levels of sunlight. I also consider that distance are such that privacy would
be maintained. With respect to the amenity of any future occupier of the dwelling the Director of
Environmental Services requests a noise survey condition to be imposed.
Objection has been raised regarding a new building would not fit in with the character of existing buildings.
The application has been amended to include architectural detailing such as stone sills and brick arches
around original sash style windows, fanlight above the door with detaining around the door frame. The
proportions of the building have also been amended to match the existing terrace. In addition, the outrigger
has been repositioned to match the even rhythm of the terrace at the rear. I consider identical materials and
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
flemish bond style brickwork will ensure that this proposal would not detract from the character of the
existing terrace, as such I consider the proposal would be in accordance with policies DEV1 and DEV2.
The issue of access at the rear has been addressed by the objector. The applicant has informed me that he
also has the right of access to the rear of the property. I consider that the sole right of access over this
unmarked, un-made up land is a civil matter not for consideration as part of this application. I also consider
that noise during building work and property value are not material planning considerations. With respect to
access as stated in the main body of the report this is a civil matter, as is the covenant in the land registry
entry.
As the proposal includes the replacement of the four trees with eight trees; the proposal has been amended
to maintain the character of the terrace that it would be attached to and there would be an additional house
within the City that would not detract from neighbouring amenity I consider the proposal to be in line with
planning policy. I have no highway objections and recommend approval.
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, roofs and windows of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Director of Development Services.
3. Eight replacement trees shall be planted in accordance with a scheme to be approved by the Director of
Development Services in the period from November to March in the year following the felling of the
four trees to be removed for the development, and this condition shall not be considered to have been
complied with until the replacement trees have been established.
4. The developer shall undertake an assessment to determine the external noise levels that the residents in
the house will be subject to (day and night). The assessment shall take into consideration the expected
noise from surrounding development and 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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding details
of drainage.
APPLICATION No:
02/44153/FUL
APPLICANT:
Biffa Waste Services Limited
LOCATION:
Clifton Hall Landfill Site Lumns Lane Clifton Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Installation of leachate pipeline
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing landfill site, Clifton Hall, located close to Lumns Lane. Planning
permission is sought to lay a pipeline (diameter 100mm) to take leachate (ie leachate is rainwater that has
come into contact with deposited wastes and has become contaminated) to a nearby sewer. The pipeline
would be 480 m long and would be buried in a trench 1m deep with a working width of 6m. It would run
from the landfill site down to and across Lumns Lane and then enter Magnesium Elecktron Limited (MEL)
land where it would connect to an existing sewer. The site is operated on a containment basis whereby
lining works ensure that any leachate generated at the site is not allowed to escape. The Waste Management
Licence requires that only a limited amount of leachate is allowed at the site hence the need to arrange off
site disposal.
The route of the pipeline would mostly fall within open land associated with the landfill site or
neighbouring civic amenity site. When it crosses over to MEL land its present route would result in the
removal of trees. The applicant has now agreed to re-route the pipeline to avoid the trees but would need the
consent of the landowner, MEL. Such negotiations will take time and the applicant will accept a condition
that the routing of the pipe can be conditioned for further approval.
SITE HISTORY
In 1995 planning permission was granted to use the site as a landfill site with restoration to a country park.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to a condition to minimise any noise should
pumping be required.
Environment Agency: No objections in principle and welcomes the proposal to dispose of leachate.
GM Waste Disposal Authority: As landowners of part of the route they have no objections in principle
subject to a formal licence being completed
PUBLICITY
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
All landowners affected have been notified.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EN17 and 23 Croal Irwell Valley; EN2 Green Belt; R11/3 Provision of Country
Parks- Slack Brook.
Other policies:
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The route of the pipeline lies in an area of restraint and environmental bias where the approach is to protect
and enhance the countryside and open land. The proposal would take contaminated leachate from the site in
a controlled manner and avoid the need to tank it off on a regular basis. Visually the pipeline would have a
very limited impact and as such would not be at odds with the policy framework for this area nor be
inappropriate development in Green Belt terms (ie it would its openness). Subject to a condition that would
safeguard existing trees I would recommend that planning permission be granted.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The rating level of noise emitted from any pump equipment associated with the operation of the
leachate pipeline shall not exceed the existing background level by more than 5dB at any time. The
noise level shall be determined at the nearest residential property. The measurement and assessment
shall be made according to BS 4142:1997 Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and
Industrial Areas.
3. No development shall have commenced until details of the route of the pipeline as it enters Magnesium
Elecktron Limited land and then connects to the existing sewer have been submitted to and received the
written approval of the Director of Development Services. This route shall not affect existing trees
along its route. Such details shall include the width of the trench, its depth, required working width and
tree protection measures. The pipeline shall be constructed in strict accordance with the agreed details.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/44311/COU
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
APPLICANT:
East Journey
LOCATION:
Land On Corner Of Blackfriars Street And Greengate West Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Change of use of vacant warehouses and offices and erection of new
residential wing to form 30 flats together with associated car parking
and construction of new, and alteration to existing, vehicular and
pedestrian accesses
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land at the corner of Blackfriars Road and Greengate West, Salford 3. This corner
plot is triangular in shape and is abutted by the Renault Garage to the east, with other industrial uses to the
north east of the garage. Principle land uses within the area are residential and consist of mostly two storey
houses to the north over Greengate West and high rise high density blocks to the south west over Blackfriars
Road. Half the site contains the shell of a brick built Victorian factory the other half contains an internal
courtyard area and an office block.
Planning permission is sought for the conversion of the existing redundant and derelict warehouse and
office accommodation into 30 flats. Vehicle access is proposed from Blackfriars Road into an internal
courtyard with pedestrian access being from the courtyard. A four storey extension is also proposed and a
new third floor proposed to an existing three storey element of the building. The new third floor and four
storey extension would be predominantly brick to the lower storeys with aluminium cladding at the upper
level. It would have a shallow mono-pitched lead covered roof and extensive glazing to the top floor.
SITE HISTORY
In May this year a similar application for 31 flats was withdrawn.
In 1997, planning permission was granted for change of use from electricity substation and works to
business (97/36594/COU).
In 1995, no objection was raised to the siting of a new telephone kiosk (95/33729/TEL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – The proposed development is situated on a busy road and residents
may suffer loss of amenity due to the noise from passing traffic. It is also next door to the Renault car
showroom and service centre that is a Part B authorised process under the Environmental Protection Act
1990 (Respraying of Road Vehicles). There may also be some noise disturbance as a result of the 24 hour
operation of the garage. No complaints have been received regarding noise or odours from the garage and
there are currently residential properties in close proximity. It is therefore requested that conditions be
applied.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No objections but provides advice.
United Utilities – no objections but provide advice.
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices
The following neighbours were notified :
2 – 8 Greengate
1 – 33 Anaconda Drive
1 – 9 odd Carding Grove
Renault, Trinity Way
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no response to the application publicity
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EC3 Re use of land, H1 Meeting Housing Needs, DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2
Good Design
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EC3 seeks the reuse of industrial land and buildings where a shortfall of similar premises would not
ensue. The site is adjacent to the Springfield industrial area and is close to the Cambrdige Industrial estate
where similar sized usable premises are available. This site has fallen into considerable disrepair and
detracts from the character of the surrounding area, as the supporter notes the conversion to housing would
I consider make a considerable improvement to the amenity of the area and would be in accordance with
Policy H1 Housing which seeks to increase the supply of housing. I therefore consider the principle of
conversion to housing is acceptable.
Policies DEV1 and DEV2 seek a high standard of design whilst ensuring sunlight, daylight and privacy to
residential properties. The conversion to housing of the existing buildings and the extension at second floor
level and the new four storey would not impinge upon surrounding amenity I consider that the amount of
sunlight/daylight to all flats would now be acceptable following amendments that have been made to the
scheme since it was withdrawn.
In the main the design of the conversion is treated sympathetically to the existing structures on site. The
design of the second floor roof extension and four storey extension, although very contemporary, is simple
and clean and does not dominate the existing well proportioned buildings. I consider that the design is
acceptable and in accordance with policy DEV2.
There are 16 off street car parking spaces proposed, including one disabled space. I consider this to be an
adequate level of parking for such a residential scheme and to be in line with Governments recent advice on
parking standards for an edge of regional centre site that is well served by public transport. Access to the car
parking areas is via two existing vehicle entrances from Blackfriars Road. The proposed parking doors to
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
the main parking area have been sited 5.5m from the roadway in accordance with my advice. The applicant
has been made aware of the S106 Chapel Street policy regarding contributions towards environmental
improvements in the local area and has confirmed that the developer will contribute a sum of ₤30,000.
The redevelopment as housing of this site would be desirable in policy and amenity terms, indeed a letter of
support was been received to the previous application, and I am satisfied now, as a result of a number of
changes that have been made from the scheme that was withdrawn, that the proposed development would
have no detrimental effect on any neighbouring residents, the street scene or the area in general but would
represent an improvement for the area.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement for the sum of £30,000
and give authority for the decision notice to be issued on completion of the agreement.
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 shall have due regard to the Department of the
Environment Guidance PPG24 - Planning and Noise. The assessment and mitigation measures shall be
submitted and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the
commencement of development and any mitigation measures are to be implemented in full prior to
occupation of any unit.
3. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the external
elevations and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director
of Development Services.
4. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
3. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
4. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Greater Manchester
Police Architectural Liaison Unit.
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44321/LBC
APPLICANT:
Miss K Livsey
LOCATION:
17 The Crescent (Worsley Road) Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Listed Building Consent for the replacement of two ground floor rear
windows, bricking up one first floor rear window and bricking up rear
door and the installation of a velux window
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a Grade II listed building within the Worsley Village Conservation Area. Listed
building consent is sought for the replacement of two ground floor rear windows, bricking up one first floor
rear window and bricking up rear door and the installation of a velux window.
The velux window has already been installed within an existing extension, fronting No.19. The first floor
window of the previously extended element, closest to No.19, has already been bricked up. The applicant
also intends to brick up the existing rear door. The two ground floor windows would be replaced with
UPVC French doors.
SITE HISTORY
In 1987 planning and listed building consent were granted for the erection of a first floor rear extension.
In 1983 planning permission was granted for the erection of a detached garage.
In 1980 planning permission was granted for the demolition of the existing kitchen and WC and the erection
of a single storey rear extension.
PUBLICITY
The proposal has been advertised within the local press and a site notice displayed 24th June 2002.
The following neighbours were notified :
15 and 19 The Crescent
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
EN12 Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings, EN11 Protection and
Enhancement of Conservation Areas
PLANNING APPRAISAL
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
Policies in the UDP seek to ensure that development does not detract from the architectural or historic
character of a listed building or is not detrimental to its setting or environmental quality. At the same time
the policies seek to safeguard listed buildings by monitoring their condition.
The planning issues associated with this application relate specifically to the type of material proposed for a
listed building. Although the building itself has been extended, consideration has been given to the design
and appropriateness of the materials that have been used. This proposal seeks to replace windows with
French doors made of UPVC. I am of the opinion that the style of doors is acceptable on the rear elevation,
but UPVC would have a detrimental impact upon the character of this Grade II listed building and would act
as a precedent for other such alterations.
Therefore, I would recommend that this proposal be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. Standard Reason RR58E Alts. Out of Character with Building
APPLICATION No:
02/44329/OUT
APPLICANT:
P G Walker
LOCATION:
Site Of 16 Broadway Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Outline application for the demolition of existing dwelling and erection
of 5 terraced town houses and alterations to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of an existing large detached property at the junction of Broadway and
Warwick Road. The existing dwelling has a large side garden and the plot measures approximately 32m
wide by 30m deep. In common with other properties on Broadway there is a wide grassed verge between
the pavement and the carriageway that contains mature trees. In addition there are five mature trees within
the plot.
The application has been submitted in outline and it is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling and erect
five terraced town houses. The applicant has informed me that these would be two storey at the front and
three storey at the back due to the difference in ground levels between the front and rear of the site. Access
would be provided off Warwick Road. A distance of 9m would be maintained to Broadway as currently
exists. There would be a distance of 12.5m to the common boundary with the property to the rear on
Warwick Road. There would be minimum of 3.5m between the proposed building and Warwick Road.
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Environment Agency – No objection in principle
The Coal Authority – No objection in principle but provides advice
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1 to 7 and 2 to 10 Warwick Road
1 Normanby Road
1, 3, 1A, 5A, 7A, 9A, 10, 12 and 18 Broadway
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a total of 74 letters of objections in response to the application publicity and one letter of
support. I have also received a petition with 180 signatures objecting to the application. The following
comments having been made:
Out of character
Loss of privacy and overlooking
Increase in traffic and loss of highway safety
Loss of outlook
Over development of the site
Loss of value
Disturbance during construction
Loss of light
The development would set a precedent
Loss of trees
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 of the UDP states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when
considering applications. These factors include the size of the proposed development, the likely scale of
traffic generation, the effect on neighbours, the visual appearance of the development and the impact on
trees.
Central Government advice as contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 Housing is particularly
relevant to this application. This states that local planning authorities should revise their plans to take
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
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 and promotes high
density development. Policies which place unduly restrictive ceilings on the amount of housing that can be
accommodated on a site should be avoided.
In particular 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 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.
With regard to the objections that have been received I do agree with those objectors who have stated that
three storey townhouses would be out of character with other properties in the area. I consider that this
would be to the detriment of the area. I consider that the proposal may give rise to a loss of privacy to
surrounding properties as a result of overlooking from rear elevation windows.
I cannot agree that the increase in traffic would be significant or that it would lead to a significant loss of
highway safety.
Residents have objected on grounds of loss of outlook. I consider that residents are referring to a loss of
view and must point out that the right to a view is not a material planning consideration that I can take into
account. I do, however, consider that the proposals would be overbearing to those closest residents seeking
to enjoy the relative privacy of their rear gardens.
I therefore, in light of the above, agree that the proposal does represent an overdevelopment of the site.
Loss of value is not a material planning consideration that I can take into account and disturbance during
construction is in part an inevitable result of any building work. This is never any reason to refuse an
application and is in part regulated by the Director of Environmental Services if it were to become a
statutory nuisance.
I do not consider that the proposal would result in any significant detrimental loss of light to any
neighbouring property.
With regard to the issue of precedent each application must be considered on its own merits and I therefore
do not agree that a precedent would be set by this application especially from the point of view of the local
planning authority.
The proposed dwellings would be no closer to the mature beech trees to the front of the property than the
existing building is. The two trees to the side of the property are not good specimens and I consider that
their loss would be adequately compensated for by replacement planting.
I consider therefore that the main planning issues are firstly whether the issues of loss of privacy, the
overbearing nature of the scheme and its character are so sufficient as to warrant refusal of the scheme and
if they are then do the considerations contained in PPG3 outweigh other concerns.
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
I do not consider that the degree of privacy that would be lost is so sufficient as to warrant refusal of the
application. All gardens in the area experience some degree of overlooking from windows of other houses.
I do however, consider that the development for five townhouses would be overbearing when viewed from
some residents gardens to such an extent that would be seriously detrimental to amenity. I therefore
consider that the proposal amounts to an overdevelopment of the site that is out of character with
surrounding properties and contrary to Policy DEV1 of the UDP.
Whilst I agree that the principles of the proposal do accord with Government advice as contained in PPG3 I
do not consider that these considerations outweigh my concerns regarding the effect on neighbouring
properties and the area generally.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would be out of character by reason of its size and siting and would be an
overdevelopment of the site and have an overbearing effect on neighbouring properties that would be
contrary to Policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/44360/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Boardman
LOCATION:
3 Lothian Avenue Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of part single/part two storey rear extension
WARD:
Winton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached house within a residential area. The proposal is to erect a rear
extension that would be part single and part two storey. The extension would project out 2.45m from the
rear of the house and the ground floor element would cover the whole of the back of the existing house. The
first floor extension would only be 6.1m in width, being set in 2.45m from the side boundary that is nearest
to no. 1 Lothian Avenue.
The proposal is to provide an enlarged dining and kitchen area on the ground floor and a bathroom and
bedroom at first floor. However, because of the distance to the house to the rear, it is proposed for the
bedroom to only have roof lights.
PUBLICITY
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
The following neighbours were notified :
1 & 5 Lothian Avenue
24 Sutherland Street.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 2 letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:









The large extension in close proximity would result in loss of light and privacy to the side exit
door, conservatory and garden to the rear
It would affect the outlook and light from the neighbour to the side
It will appear overbearing and overshadowing, particularly considering the existing proximity
of all the properties
A new side facing utility window would look straight into the neighbours partially glazed side
door, causing privacy problems
The closer proximity and reduced garden area would affect the noise travelling to the
neighbours property and garden
The neighbours would suffer disturbance during construction which is particularly of concern
for their children
the dirt and dust created would affect the neighbours white rendering
the inspection hatch for the drains are in the neighbours garden and therefore they will
experience disturbance to their lawn
The detrimental effects that the neighbours would suffer would in turn affect the property
values
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – house extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The Council’s supplementary planning guidance (SPG) identifies a number of separation distances that
would normally be required before a planning permission is granted.
Having looked at all the separation distances and relationships that are proposed. I would consider that all
the necessary separation distances have been maintained. I have also considered the effect on the proposed
patio door from the blank gable to the rear, but as the relationship of the two wall would be off-set, only half
of the patio would face the gable. Therefore, I would not consider that any part of the proposals would be
contrary to the SPG.
The neighbours to the rear are concerned that it would have an overbearing appearance, especially as they
often leave their side door, which faces the applicants’ property, open for air. This door enters the
neighbours utility room and then onto the kitchen and therefore I would not consider that this would be a
habitable room that would need to be protected.
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
Although the original layout of the estate meant that the houses appear relatively close to one another and
the extension would be visible from neighbours’ houses, that would not necessarily make the proposal
unacceptable. I would consider that as separation distances can be maintained and the relationship between
the properties are somewhat staggered to each other then it should not have an unacceptably adverse effect
of overshadowing or overbearing appearance. I appreciate the objectors are concerned that they may well
experience disturbance during construction. However, this would not be a reason for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)
Order 1995 (or any subsequent amending order), no window other than those indicated on the approved
plans may be installed on the rear elevation without the prior grant of planning permission by the Local
Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
APPLICATION No:
02/44388/HH
APPLICANT:
B Young
LOCATION:
3 Kiel Close Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension
WARD:
Barton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached dwelling. It is proposed to erect a two storey side extension the
full depth of the building at ground floor and set in 2m from the front main wall at first floor.
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
The extension would be 9.5m from the rear elevation of the adjacent dwelling which is situated
approximately 0.5m lower than the applicants property.
The extension has been partially completed.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1 to 7, 12 and 14 Newry Road
1 and 5 Kiel Close
7 Caledonian Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objections in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
The extension would be overbearing
A single storey would be acceptable
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: SPG (House extension) and DEV8.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Supplementary Planning Guidance lays down standards for separation distances and the proposal does not
comply with the standards.
I agree with the neighbour that the proposed development be overbearing when viewed from both his
dining/kitchen area and from the rear garden. I consider that the effect on the neighbouring property would
be seriously detrimental to his amenity and I therefore recommend that the application be refused.
The applicant has stated that if this application is refused he will resubmit an application for the retention of
the partially completed extension as a single storey extension only.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed extension by reason of its size and siting would have a seriously detrimental effect on the
amenity of neighbouring residents that would be contrary to Policy DEV8 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions.
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
43
1st August 2002
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
44
1st August 2002
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44357/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Housing Services Directorate
LOCATION:
94 Coniston Avenue Little Hulton Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a single storey front and side extension
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an end of terrace property that is owned by the Housing Services Directorate.
The proposal is to demolish an existing single storey side element in order to construct a larger room.
The extension would project out 2.86m from the side of the house. It would be 7.5m in length, being set
back 1.8m from the main wall and projecting 1.55m behind the rear wall. There would also be a small
single storey extension wrapping around the back door to create a rear hall. The whole extension would
have pitched roofs to tie with the house, and would allow for internal alterations in order to provide
ground floor facilities for a disabled resident.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – no comment to date
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
51, 53, 92, Coniston Avenue
97 & 99 Graymar Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 and Supplementary Planning Guidance (House Extensions).
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The extension has been designed well to match in with the original house, but it would provide the
necessary ground floor facilities for the occupiers of the property. It would not, in my opinion, be
detrimental to the visual appearance of the street scene. Nor would it be detrimental to the amenity of
any of the neighbouring residents.
The proposal complies with Supplementary Planning Guidance (House Extensions).
RECOMMENDATION:
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
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:
02/44358/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Housing Services Directorate
LOCATION:
51 Coniston Avenue Little Hulton Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey front and side extension
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an end of terrace property that is owned by the Housing Services Directorate.
The proposal is to demolish an existing single storey side element in order to construct a larger room, to
provide ground floor bedroom and facilities for a disabled person. It would project out 3.7m from the
side of the house, be 6.98m in length and therefore be 0.4m longer than the house and it would wrap
around the front door to provide a new entrance. It would have a pitched roof to tie in with the existing
design of the house.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – no comments to date
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
49, 53 and 94 Coniston Avenue
2 Ladywell Avenue
8 Broughton Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 and Supplementary Planning Guidance (House Extensions).
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The extension has been designed well to match in with the original house, but it would provide the
necessary ground floor facilities for the occupiers of the property. It would not, in my opinion, be
detrimental to the visual appearance of the street scene. Nor would
it be detrimental to the amenity of any of the neighbouring residents.
The proposal complies with Supplementary Planning Guidance (House Extensions).
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:
02/44417/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Housing Services Directorate
LOCATION:
6 Brown Street And 53 - 77 Shawcross Street Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Prior notification for the demolition of existing properties
WARD:
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site is located within the Seedley and Langworthy SRB area. The proposal relates to a
row of terraced properties on Shawcross Street, between the junctions with Brown Street and
Woodheys Street. The application seeks confirmation as to whether the prior approval of the Council is
required to demolish the dwellings. Members will recall that in instances where the demolition of a
dwelling-house is required, Part 31 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995 requires that before the commencement of any demolition, the developer
should apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the
authority is required to approve the proposed method of demolition and the proposed restoration of the
site.
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st August 2002
The properties are under the control of the Housing Services Directorate. They are currently in a very
poor state of repair. The dwellings will be completely removed to ground level and the cellar space
consolidated. All demolition will be supervised by the Director of Development Services (Development
and Building Control Section) to accord with health and safety requirements.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified:
52 – 76 (evens) West Towers Street
2 – 4 Woodheys Street
31, 54 – 80 (evens) Shawcross Street
4, 8, 11 – 21 (odds) Brown Street
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
H3 – Maintaining and Improving Private Sector Housing
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy H3 states that the City Council will promote the selective clearance of
housing not capable of improvement and the provision of new dwellings and open space.
The proposal has been submitted as part of the SRB5 Seedley and Langworthy Regeneration Initiative
(SALI). The properties are located in a residential area, which has particularly high vacancy levels.
Other significant problems within the area include high levels of crime and a poor quality environment.
The demolition of these properties is an important phase of the SRB5 initiative, which will involve
remodelling works to be undertaken in the locality.
Due to the very poor condition of these properties, I am satisfied that their demolition would be in
accordance with UDP policy H3 and have no objections to the proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
No Objections Subject to the following Conditions
1. Prior to the demolition of any of the dwellings on the site, a scheme of site aftercare shall be
submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Director of Development Services. This scheme shall
be implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services within three months of
the completion of the demolition works.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
49
1st August 2002
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
50
1st August 2002