PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
APPLICATION No:
01/43274/OUT
APPLICANT:
Mrs T Wachel
LOCATION:
31 Singleton Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of a two storey building
comprising three flats together with associated car parking and
alteration to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Kersal
At the meeting of the Panel held on 1st August 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR
AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATON REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
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
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
alternative use appropriate to the residential character of the area justifying the loss of an existing older
property which contributes to and enhances the character of the Broughton Park Area.”
In his statement the Inspector considered that the Broughton Park policy DEV10 and in particular part iii)
related to larger Victorian buildings rather than more modern dwellings and therefore justification for the
demolition of the dwelling was not of consideration.
He did consider however that the combination of the proposed siting, the height of the building, the effect
on trees and the necessary extent of the parking provision would “destroy the fine balance that presently
exists between the built development and the spacious garden.”
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 19 November 2001.
The following neighbours were notified :
1, 3 – 6 Singleton Close
22, 26, 29, 33 Singleton Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received six letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Proposal is of a similar scale to the scheme recently dismissed on appeal and has not addressed the
key concerns of the inspector eg integration of the development into the plot to ensure that it is not
intrusive
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
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
Other policies: DEV10 Broughton Park Development Control Policy, H1 Meeting Housing Needs, T13
Car Parking, DEV1 Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider that the issue of particular importance for this application is to assess the proposal against the
previous permission which was dismissed on appeal. In this the inspector was particularly concerned about
the siting and height of the building, the impact upon the trees and the parking provision. In addition to this
the proposal must also be considered in relation to its impact upon the adjacent residential dwellings.
One of the main concerns of the objectors is that this scheme now being considered is very similar to the
previous scheme which was dismissed by the inspector and in fact has a larger floor area. To clarify this
fully, the footprint of this proposal is 36 square metres less than that proposed under 00/41558/OUT, (the
footprint being 189.2 square metres previously and this now 153 square metres) and almost 15 square
metres larger than the existing bungalow.
Another significant difference between the two schemes is the parking provision. Previously it was
proposed to provide six parking spaces at the rear of the flats, accessed from a driveway extending down the
side of the development with an additional two spaces at the front. The applicant is now proposing only
five parking spaces which accords with the requirements within the UDP for three flats and these would be
provided at the front of the site where it is currently hardstanding/drive. With this revision the majority of
the rear garden is available for amenity area for future residents together with the garden to the side of the
plot adjacent to Singleton Close. I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds.
The inspector was concerned about the possible effect that the previous proposal would have upon some of
the perimeter trees, and particularly those along the western boundary to Singleton Close. The applicant
has amended the footprint of the proposed flats, reducing it in size but also bringing it 6.4m – 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
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
separation distance I do not consider that there would be any significant impact from the proposal. I am
satisfied that the proposal would not have a significant detrimental impact upon their amenity.
In assessing this proposal, I am of the opinion that the applicant has in fact addressed the concerns that were
highlighted by the inspector at the previous appeal and that the proposal now being considered is
acceptable. I therefore recommend that this application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition 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:
02/43743/FUL
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
APPLICANT:
St Pauls C Of E Primary School
LOCATION:
St Pauls CE Primary School Crompton Street Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4m high security fencing
WARD:
Walkden South
At the meeting of the Panel held on 18th July 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR
AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATON REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a school within a residential area. To the north are houses, with the allotments on
the western boundary. The proposal is to re-fence the northern and western boundary with 2.4m high
fencing for improved security. It was initially proposed to erect palisade fencing around the boundary.
However, this has now been amended so that the northern boundary, to the rear of the houses on Manchester
Road as well as facing and adjoining the houses on Crompton Street, would be of a railing design. It would
all be coloured green.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 26 March 2002.
The following neighbours were notified :
217-235 (odd), 209-215 (G and F flats) Manchester Road
6 Waters Edge
15, 42-58 Crompton Street
10 & 12 The Reach
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 3 letters of objections, one signed by 9 households, and one verbal objection. The following
comments having been made:
1. The design of the fence would be unsightly.
2. The height of the fence would not be visually attractive, it would ruin the view for the
households and would be inappropriate in the cul-de-sac in Crompton Street.
3. It would be better with a height of 1.8m (6 foot)
4. The fence would be 1m away from the kitchen window of the bungalow at no. 58 Crompton
Street and would give the occupier the impression of being in prison.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV4 - Design and crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV4 states that the City Council would encourage greater consideration of security but that this
should have consideration to the position and height of fencing and gates. I am aware that the objections
received to this proposal related to the original scheme, which proposed palisade fencing around the whole
boundary. However, the northern boundary has now been amended for a 2.4m high railing. Therefore it
would, in my opinion, address one of the residents’ main grounds of objection and would certainly improve
the appearance of the proposed fence.
I am aware that the residents had also objected to the height of the fence at 2.4m high, particularly as
Crompton Street is a cul-de-sac. However, I would consider that the impact of the fence in the street scene
would be reduced by the use of railings and therefore I would not consider that the height of the fence would
cause a seriously adverse impact on the street scene or on the facing neighbours.
I am mindful that the occupier of the adjoining no. 58 Crompton Street has objected because he would have
a fence 1m away from his kitchen window, which he uses a lot, and it would give him the impression of
being in a prison. The fence would also narrow the room he has for manoeuvring deliveries to his house. I
am mindful that the school could erect a fence up to 2m in height without planning permission. I do not
consider that the extra 0.4m that is proposed over the permitted development height would have any
additional effect on the occupier of no. 58. I am also mindful that the school could also erect a solid fence
without planning permission.
Therefore, having considered the objection from the local residents, I would not regard the amended
proposal would have a seriously adverse effect on the amenity of the neighbouring residents nor on the
visual impact of the street scene.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The fencing hereby approved shall be colour treated in a green colour and shall be maintained thereafter
to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services
3. The permission hereby approved shall relate to the amended design of the fence to the northern
boundary.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Care must be taken to reduce any damage to the culverted watercourse and the open watercourse must
not be obstructed by the fencing. The brook course is to be resurfaced where the fence is nearby.
APPLICATION No:
02/44180/HH
APPLICANT:
G Weilding
LOCATION:
61 Hill Top Road Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey extension to provide storeroom (Resubmission
of 02/43624/HH)
WARD:
Walkden North
At the meeting of the Panel held on 18th July 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR
AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATON REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached property adjacent to the Blackleach Country Park. The proposal is for
the retention of a single storey rear extension. It projects out 11.2m from the rear elevation along the
boundary with the neighbouring house. It measures 3.2m in width and it is 3.6m in height along the
boundary, with a mono-pitched roof sloping into the applicants’ property.
SITE HISTORY
In March 2002, an identical application for the retention of this storeroom was refused, because of the
possible effect on the neighbouring residents.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
59 Hill Top Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for house extensions has a specific policy relating to
single storey extensions which states that extensions along a boundary should not normally exceed 2.74m.
It may be possible to exceed 2.74m providing it does not project beyond a 45 degree line from the mid-point
of any habitable room window in the adjacent property.
The adjoining house no. 59 has a kitchen window nearest to the boundary but this extension still exceeds the
point on a 45 degree from their habitable rooms. Therefore it would be contrary to Council policy.
The applicant, in submitting this new application, was concerned that not all the circumstances had been
taken consideration. Firstly this store replaced an old outbuilding that was not fit to store the horse tack and
equipment, which is the use for which it is required. In building the new store, the applicant extended its
length by 2.75m to the bottom of the garden in order to provide security, by removing the unsecured area at
the rear of a building that backs onto Blackleach Country Park. He says that the neighbours were in
agreement with the opportunity to increase security.
He also states that the adjoining houses have been built in recent years, and when planning permission was
granted the original outbuilding was in place. The position of the original store meant that it was further
along the boundary to the new neighbours windows that at a point on this 45 degree line and therefore the
Council exceeded its own limits on relationships between windows and single storey buildings when it
granted the neighbouring houses. His argument is that as the City Council has already allowed a
relationship that exceeded its policy then it should not restrict the length of this replacement store.
In response I would say that at the time that the houses were built, the Council did not have a specific policy
about the relationships and distances between houses and habitable windows and therefore the application
would have been judged on its own merits. Obviously the distance from no. 59 to the original outbuilding
was considered adequate. However, as the Supplementary Guidance has been adopted, it is clearly a
material consideration. Also the applicant has not tried to replace the original outbuilding with one of a
similar length but instead has built it a further 2.75m along the boundary, giving a single storey wall 3.6m in
height for a length of 11.2m. This is not only contrary to Council policy but also exceeds the relationship
that originally existed. Therefore I would consider that it would have an adverse effect on the neighbour in
terms of loss of light and an overbearing appearance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. Standard Reason RR34C Neighbouring Residents - Size/Siting
APPLICATION No:
02/44320/HH
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
APPLICANT:
J Finch
LOCATION:
60 Rose Avenue Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey front extension, two storey side extension and
single storey rear extension
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property in a residential area. The proposal is for the erection of
a part single / part two-storey side extension and single-storey front extension.
The side proposal would project 2.4m up to the side boundary, the two-storey element would be in line with
existing front and rear elevation with a single storey element project 1.2m beyond the rear. The front
extension would project 1m and create a porch and bay window.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
58, 62, 71, 73 and 75 Rose Avenue
71, 73 and 75 Baines Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection from the occupiers of the property to the rear in response to the
application publicity. The following comments having been made:
Loss of privacy
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 states that permission would be granted if the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse
impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance,
loss of privacy or light.
The two-storey element of the proposal would be in line with the existing front and rear elevation, the
proposal would be more than 25m from the properties to the rear, therefore I would not consider the
proposal to create any further loss of privacy.
The application site is set back 6.4m from the front elevation of No.58 therefore our terracing policy is not
applicable
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
In conclusion I consider the proposal complies with Policy DEV8 and SPG House Extensions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D01B Materials to Match
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
02/44322/HH
APPLICANT:
J Caldwell
LOCATION:
27 Entwistle Street Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property in a residential area. The proposal is for the erection of
a two-storey side extension.
The proposal would project 2.2m up to the side boundary and run the full length of the existing property.
The first floor would be set back 2m from the front elevation and there are no habitable windows on the side
elevation of the neighbouring property.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
25, 29, 38 and 40 Entwistle Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection from the occupier of the neighbouring property in response to the
application publicity. The following comments having been made:
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
The boundary wall to which No.27’s gate is currently fastened would be removed.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 states that permission would be granted if the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse
impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance,
loss of privacy or light.
There is currently a wall between No.25 and No.27 and the gate to No.27 is attached to the wall, the
proposal would result in the wall being removed. This is a private matter between the neighbours and is not
a material planning consideration. The proposal meets with current planning policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D01B Materials to Match
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
02/44360/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Boardman
LOCATION:
3 Lothian Avenue Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of part single/part two storey rear extension
WARD:
Winton
At the meeting of the Panel held on 1st August 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR
AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATON REGULATORY PANEL.
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
My previous observations are set out below:
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
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
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
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.
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
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44392/FUL
APPLICANT:
St Ambrose Barlow R C High School.Board Of Governors
LOCATION:
St Ambrose Barlow R C High School Playing Field Site, Stanwell Road
Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a four badminton court sports hall with ancillary facilities
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Ambrose Barlow playing fields on Stanwell Road. The fields are bounded by
Swinton Ambulance station to the west, the Civic Centre car parking to the north and residential properties
to the south. The proposal seeks to erect a sports hall to accommodate four badminton courts. A tarmac
hard play court would also be provided and the existing pitches would be re-laid within the site. The
proposal would maintain the existing boundary treatments.
The sports hall would be located 27m from the nearest properties on Stanwell Road and would measure
10.6m in height X 34.8m (L) X 24.4m wide. It would be constructed of a profiled metal roof deck system,
which would sweep from the front to wrap around the back. The walls would be cladded in colours to be
agreed. External recessed lighting is also provided to enhance and complement the design.
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – No response to date
Sport England - No objections but provide advice
Coal Authority – Advice given
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
The Buckley Arms, Partington Lane
Police Station, Stanwell Road
Ambulance Station, Stanwell Road
16 – 84 (e) Stanwell Road
47 & 49 and 38 – 44 (e) Mount Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received seven letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Traffic and car parking
Possible impact on emergency services
Loss of greenfield/open space
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
Loss of sports pitches
Loss of value
Unnecessary lighting
Unknown colour scheme
Possible commercial use in future
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
SC4 (Improvement / Replacement of Schools) R1 (Provision of Recreational Land
and Facilities) SC6 (Schools in the Community) DEV1 (Development Criteria) DEV2 (Good Design) R1
(Protection of Recreation Land and Facilities) R2 (Provision of Formal Recreation Facilities) EN3
(Protected Open Land)
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV1 states that due regard must be paid to a number of factors that include size and density, traffic
generation parking provision, visual appearance, landscaping and open space provision, together with the
effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for neighbouring properties. In addition to which DEV2 relates to
the quality of the design and appearance of the development, particularly in terms of its relationship with
surrounding properties. SC4 encourages the making good of any deficiencies in school facilities through
the development of new facilities. SC6 supports and promotes the community use of schools and other
public building wherever possible. R1 seeks to protect recreational land unless it is for recreational or
non-commercial purposes related to the recreational use of land. R2 seeks adequate provision of formal
recreational facilities across the City. EN3 seeks to protect and enhance all existing areas of open land,
however limited infilling which would not adversely affect the character or scale of the open space is
acceptable.
The proposal has generated a number of objections from local residents, and the main issues to consider
with regards to this application relate to; loss of playing fields, traffic generation, and the impact on amenity
of neighbouring residents. There is also the issue that the residents feel the wider community would use the
proposed development, which would have a greater impact.
In considering the objection with regard to a loss of sports pitches it is necessary to consider recreational
policies R1 and R2 and the advice provided by Sport England. Although this scheme would build upon part
of the existing marked playing fields, the proposal would utilise the remaining fields in an efficient manor
to provide pitches for a wider range of sports. The proposal would also provide the school with a formal
sports provision in accordance with R2.
Car parking and traffic problems in general are currently experienced along both sides of Stanwell Road.
Residents are of the opinion that this proposal would generate more traffic congestion. The agent has
confirmed that the school would only use the proposal during normal school hours, which would not
generate any additional traffic. Although policy SC6 supports the community use of such facilities, no
provision with regard to car parking has been made as part of this proposal. I therefore consider it prudent
to restrict the use of the facility to the school, however this would not restrict the potential for community
use in the future provided that car parking and traffic issues are satisfied.
With regard to the issue of loss of open space and green fields, the fields are currently used for the provision
of sports pitches. Policy EN3 ‘Protected Open Land’ seeks to protect and enhance areas such as this;
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
however, the policy states that “limited infilling which would not adversely affect the character or scale of
the existing open spaces.” This proposal would also conform with the UDP as a whole in accordance with
EN3(i). The proposal has been situated as to provide indoor facilities and maximising the remaining
outdoor facilities within the site. Sport England have confirmed that this provision for both indoor and
outdoor provision would be of sufficient benefit to the development of sport as to outweigh the detriment
caused by the loss of some of the playing field. Therefore I am of the opinion that this proposal satisfies
policies R1, R2 and EN3.
Loss of commercial value is not a material planning consideration. With regard to the final objection to the
design, I am of the opinion that the design is simple, modern and innovative. It would be sited some 14m
into the site and would be side on and at a distance of 27m from the 2 storey frontages of No.’s 50 –54
Stanwell Road. It would also maintain 42m from the single storey ambulance station adjoining the site.
The ambulance station would continue to be screened by a row of existing trees, which would not be
affected by this proposal.
Therefore I would recommend that this proposal be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning with the date of
this permission.
2. No development shall be started until full details of the colour of facing materials to be used for the
walls and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
3. Standard Condition C01X Landscaping
4. The use of the development hereby permitted shall be limited solely to the staff and pupils of St
Ambrose Barlow RC High School
5. The pitches as shown on the approved plan shall be marked out prior to the use of the sports hall
commencing.
(Reasons)
1. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. No provision has been made for off street car parking in accordance with policy T13 of the City of
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
Salford Unitary Development Plan and to grant an unrestricted permission would be detrimental to the
amenity of neighbouring residents on Stanwell Road
5. To safeguard the provision of informal recreational space in the area in accordance with policy R1 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant should contact United Utilities prior to commencement for sewer details
APPLICATION No:
02/44426/FUL
APPLICANT:
George Wimpey Manchester Limited
LOCATION:
Former Oakwood Public House Lancaster Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing public house and erection of four storey block of
68 apartments together with associated landscaping, car parking and
alterations to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Claremont
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of the Oakwood Public House at the junction of Lancaster Road and
Welwyn Drive. The Oakwood covers the south east corner of the 1.29 acre site, with the remainder of the
site being covered in hardstanding for parking. The site is bounded by varying levels of hard and soft
landscaping including a line of mature poplars fronting Lancaster Road.
Planning permission is sought for the erection of two blocks of flats containing 68 flats in total. One block
would be in an L shape form and would be part three storey and part four storey and wraps around the
corner of Welwyn Drive and Lancaster Road covering the position of the existing public house structure.
The other block, rectangular in shape, would be three storeys high with two flats in the loft space and is
located in the centre of the former car parking area. Vehicle access would be from Lancaster Road and a
right hand turn facility would be provided using the existing highway.
The three storey part of the L-shape building is 20.6m long by 14m deep and is 12m high to the ridge. There
are two four storey sections of the L-shape building left, the section fronting Welywn Drive is 12.4m deep
by 22.4m long and is 15.5m high. The section fronting Lancaster Road is 12.6m deep by 23.8m long and is
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
12.5m in height. The other building, the three storey rectangular section is 12.6m deep and 44m long and is
12.4m in height.
The proposed roof of the development varies between 6.9m to 10m in height from eaves to ridge level. The
applicant proposes 68 parking spaces and three bicycle parking spaces. The proposal includes two bin
stores which are proposed to be brick built. The application also includes a revised right hand turning lane
into the site. The applicant has supplied a supporting statement that runs through the site area, discusses
planning policy including Government guidance PPG3 (Housing), discusses the proposed layout and
detailed design. This statement concludes that the proposal would make an attractive addition to the
housing stock of the area.
SITE HISTORY
In 2002 (16th May), planning permission was refused for the erection of two residential blocks
incorporating 72 residential units (02/43990/FUL).
In 1993, planning permission was granted for new vehicle gates, pedestrian gates and boundary fencing
(93/31735/DEEM3).
In 1990, advertisement consent was granted for four external illuminated wall signs and two pole signs
(E/27343/ADV).
In 1985, advertisement consent was granted for internal and external illuminated signage (E/18687).
In 1982, planning permission was granted for a single storey extension at the rear of the property
(E/136766).
In 1981, advertisement consent was granted for five box signs and a post sign (E/12763/ADV).
In 1981, planning permission was granted for external fire escapes (E/12165).
In 1979, temporary planning permission was granted for 5 years for a garage to house a car (E/8288).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Objections to the layout submitted
British Coal – No objections
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 11th July 2002
A site notice was displayed on 11th July 2002.
The following neighbours were notified :
2 – 26 Clintonville Drive
1 – 24 Welwyn Drive
1, 2 & 3 Branksome Drive
174 & 177 Swinton Park Road
234, 236 & 251 Lancaster Road
Lancaster Lodge, Lancaster Road
2 –10 even Cranford Close
REPRESENTATIONS
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
I have received ten letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Objection to the height of the development
Objection on privacy grounds
Object as no childrens play facilities included
Object to the bin stores
Object to lack of parking
Object over security
Object to boundary treatment
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EN9 Derelict and Vacant Land, H1 Meeting Housing Needs, H6 & H11 Open Space
Provision Within New Housing Developments, DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4
Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy H1 relates to the adequate supply of housing. I consider that the intended use conforms to this policy
and also to Governments guidance for higher density sites and the re-use of previously developed land. The
site was occupied by a large public house, that had been vacated and vandalised considerably, and a large
car park. The vandalised building detracted from the character of the area, thus appropriate residential
redevelopment in accordance with other policies in the plan should be encouraged. The building has now
been demolished.
Objection has been raised to the size of the blocks and to possible detrimental privacy impacts. The
proposal seeks a high density development and includes 68 flats over mostly three floors with high roof
space atop. The northern, three storey block, has been sited in a position some 40 metres from the existing
two storey residential houses on Cliftonville Drive. Although the site is elevated above Cliftonville Drive I
am of the opinion that the reduced height, previous application height was 15.8m whilst the current
proposed maximum height is 12.4m, and distance away from residential properties is such that a
detrimental impact would not ensue upon residential properties. Although the proposed L-shape block
would be higher than the rectangular block the distance to the nearest residential property, on Welwyn
Drive of 32m and to the nearest on Lancaster Road of 32.8m, and given the proposal does not face directly
toward habitable rooms of existing property I consider amenity of the existing properties would not be
detrimentally affected. To the north of the site the gable end of Lancaster House facing this site has no
habitable windows as such I do not consider any negative amenity would arise.
Objection has been raised to the lack of childrens play facilities on the site. The proposal has been submitted
with no private amenity space on site. There is provision within policies H6 and H11 for a contribution
under a commuted sum to be made for appropriate facilities off site. The applicants have agreed to sign up
to a commuted sum for additional facilities within the Oakwood Park, which is across Lancaster Road. The
sum is ₤110,250; ₤70,000 capital plus ₤40,250 to cover annual maintenance for ten years. It is anticipated
that this sum will go toward improving childrens play facilities within the park. I consider the propsal would
be in line with Policies H6 and H11. In addition to a commuted sum the applicants have provided an
increased amount of land around the development for residents to dry clothes and space to separate the
buildings and car parking since the last submission.
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
I consider this submission has a dramatically improved design in comparison to the previous submission.
The corner of the site has a half decagon feature which I consider contributes to the site as a key feature and
represents in scale the previous public house, which had an imposing presence within the street scene. A
mixture of brick and render helps to break up the elevations with a more sympathetic design to the street
scene than the previous submission. Window size and design in addition to a stepped building line and
rendered bays express a vertical emphasis in the building that would introduce a visually interesting and
compatible development within the area. Although the corner plot is four storeys I consider that the design
and siting would not detrimentally harm the character of the area as such I consider the development
respects the character of the surrounding area as intended within policy DEV2 and DEV1.
Objection has been made on security grounds in addition to the Greater Manchester Police Architectural
Liaison Unit objecting to the layout of the development. Amongst the comments received include
appropriate site security, appropriate lighting scheme in the car park and a secure access to be created in the
inner lobbies. These are issues important security issues which should be addressed prior to such a scheme
being considered favourably. As such the applicant has amended the scheme to introduce a brick wall and
railing to the site boundary and other security measures including electronic entrance gates.
The proposal includes 100% parking (68 spaces one per flat) and revised access. Objection has been made
on lack of on-site parking. I consider that this level of parking coupled with bicycle stands and proximity to
public transport links is acceptable and is in line with the City Councils and Governments recommended
parking standards.
The applicant has submitted a tree report which states that the majority of the poplar trees on site are of poor
quality and should be replaced with better quality species more appropriate to the location. I would agree
with the observations of this tree report subject to a satisfactory landscaping scheme being agreed. The
applicant has agreed to the City Of Salford’s Senior Arborist advice to introduce a mixture of Quercus rubra
(oak), Quercus coccinea (oak), Alnus rubra (beech)and Robinia Frisia as these trees are considered to be
more appropriate to the location than the existing species.
The redevelopment of this site is desirable and would enable the introduction of a residential use compatible
with surrounding uses. I consider the distance to neighbouring properties is sufficient to maintain privacy
and levels of sunlight and daylight.
I consider the detailed design of this planning application to be greatly improved from the previous
submission, both in terms of the reduced bulk and the evident attention to detail that this scheme
encompasses. I consider the height and massing of the development to be appropriate to the location
especially considering the dominant presence of the public house that previously stood on the site. The
scheme includes replanting of appropriate tree species on the site and for the provision of childrens play
facilities or other local environmental improvements through a section 106 legal agreement.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement for the sum of
£110,250 for off site play facilities and/or environmental improvements in the adjacent Oakwood Park, and
its vicinity and give authority for the decision notice to be issued on completion of the agreement.
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
3. The windows of all habitable rooms shall be acoustically dual glazed to the standards of the Noise
Insulation Regulations 1975 (as amended). An alternative would be to install sealed double glazed units
comprising glass of 10mm and laminated 6.4mm with a 12mm air gap. The unit shall be installed in
accordance with the manufacturers recommendation to avoid air gaps when filling the frames.
Alternative means of mechanical ventilation, which must be sound attenuated must be provided.
4. Prior to the commencement of the development the developer shall submit a site investigation report for
the approval of the Director of Development Services. The investigation shall address the nature,
degree and distribution of ground contamination and shall include identification and assessment of the
risk receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act, 1990 Part IIA, focusing primarily on
risks to human health and to controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of
ground conditions on the and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services
and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and
property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Director of Development Services prior
to the start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the
approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.
5. Replacement semi-mature trees, consisting of a mixture of species Quercus rubra, Quercus coccinea,
Alnus rubra and Robinia pseudoacacia " Frisia" shall be planted prior to first occupation of the
apartments. The number and location of the replacement trees shall be agreed in writing by the Director
of Development Services prior to the commencement of the development. This condition shall not be
considered to have been complied with until the replacement trees, as approved by the Director of
Development Services, have been established to the satisfaction of the Director of Development
Services. Any trees that are lost or die within five years of planting shall be replaced on a like for like
basis.
6. Standard Condition C01X Landscaping
7. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved the developer shall submit detailed
plans of the cycle parking scheme for the approval of the Director of Development Services. The
approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the development and shall thereafter
be maintained to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
8. For each flat prior to occupation a parking space shall be made available within the development at all
times.
9. Prior to the commencement of the development the developer shall submit details of the following
security measures for the approval of the Director of Development Services; electronic remote control
entrance gates, video entry security systems to each block and details of a lighting scheme for the
development. The aforementioned details, once approved, shall be implemented prior to the first
occupation of the development.
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
10. The construction of the development hereby approved shall not commence until appropriate widening
and a dedicated right turn lane has been approved and implemented, by the Director of Development
Services, to allow safe entrance to the site from Lancaster Road.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
4. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
7. Reason: To provide adequate provision for cycle parking in accordance with Policy T11 and PPG13.
8. Standard Reason R014A Parking of vehicles - each dwelling
9. Standard Reason R040A Secured from crime
10. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding details
of drainage.
2. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under Section 106
of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, prior to the granting of planning permission.
3. This permission shall relate to the amended plans as received on the 30th July 2002 and the letter
received on the 26th July 2002.
APPLICATION No:
02/44432/FUL
APPLICANT:
Vodaphone Limited
LOCATION:
Oakwood Nursing Home Radcliffe Park Crescent Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Installation of 3 panel antenna, equipment cabin internally within the
building together with ancillary development,
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
15th August 2002
Claremont
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Oakwood Nursing Home, a prominent building situated in its own grounds at the
end of Radcliffe Park Road Conservation Area. The property shares the same site with Globell Court to the
east of the nursing home and Beech House to the north. The site is within a residential area, with three
schools within relatively close proximity. There are also a number of mature trees within the site, which
screen the nursing home to a degree, from the wider conservation area.
The nursing home is a large, mid 19th Century house. It has two storeys, plus attic windows to the roof and
a tower of four storeys in the middle. On top of the tower is a chimney that protrudes 2.2m above the tower.
There are 1m high railings on the tower. There is a large porch on the ground floor beneath the tower, for the
drive to pass under. It is known locally as “Teapot Hall” and whilst the building is not on the statutory list it
is included in the Local List of Buildings, Structures or Features of Architectural, Archaelogical or Historic
Interest.
There is existing telecommunications equipment, in the form of 3 dual band antennae, installed on the tower
just below the roof at approximately 15m above ground level. The antennae have been coloured beige to
make them less visually obtrusive. There are also three telecommunications antenna located behind a
replacement chimney and associated equipment behind a replacement perspex window.
Planning permission is sought for the installation of three panel antennas and one microwave dish behind
replacement perspex windows within the tower of the building at fourth floor level. An internal equipment
room is proposed, as such all the proposals would be internal to the building.
SITE HISTORY
The site has attracted considerable interest from telecommunications operators, both informally, and
formally through the applications listed below.
In July 1999 planning permission was refused for the erection of a telecommunications base station with
associated equipment and antennae. The reason for refusal, being that it would detract from the character of
the Radcliffe Park Road Conservation Area and a Grade A locally listed building, both by reason of its
design, size and siting. The applicants subsequently appealed, which was allowed in March 2000, on the
condition that the antennae, supports and equipment cabin were coloured, to ensure a satisfactory
appearance (99/39254/FUL).
In February 2001 a prior notification was submitted by Hutchinson 3G UK, and later withdrawn, for the
installation of six panel antennae fixed to the tower roof. The application was withdrawn.
In April 2001 an application was submitted by Vodafone Ltd, and later withdrawn, for the installation of
telecommunications equipment on the tower roof top, cabin and ancillary equipment (01/42317/FUL).
In October 2001 a planning application was refused for the installation of six panel antennas and GRP
brattishing on the rooftop. The reason for refusal was the detrimental impact upon the locally listed building
and the Radcliffe Park Conservation Area (01/42864/TEL).
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
In December 2001, a planning application was approved for the erection of a replacement GRP chimney to
accommodate three panel antennas and three microwave dishes to be located internally, together with the
replacement of existing glass with penetrable perspex and development ancillary thereto (01/43198/TEL).
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on the 11th July 2002.
A press notice was published on the 18th July 2002.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
22 Avondale Drive
26,27 and 29 Oakwood Drive
2, 17-27(o), 28, 29, 29a, 31, 33-37(o), 39-41(o), 51, 55 Radcliffe Park Road
16 Radcliffe Park Crescent
26 – 36 Globall Court, Radcliffe Park Road
Beech House Residential Care Home, Radcliffe Park Road
1-5(o), 2-22(e) Weylands Grove
St. Johns Church of England Primary School, Daisy Bank Avenue
St. Lukes R.C. Primary School, Swinton Park Road
Oakwood High School, Park Lane
Hazel Blears, MP
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 8 letters of objection in relation to the proposal in response to the application publicity.
The main issues identified are as follows:
Health implications
Proximity of the local schools, and potential health risks to the local school community.
Increased interference with television and radio reception and increased noise of the development
The visual appearance of the development particularly with regards to the character of the building
and the Radcliffe Park Road Conservation Area.
Telecommunications development is already on site against the wishes of local residents and this
development could lead to more
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: SC14 Telecommunications
EN11 Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
DEV 1 Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
Unitary Development Plan policy SC14 states that the City Council will normally grant planning
permission for telecommunications development where such development would not have an unacceptable
impact on visual amenity. Through this the City Council aims to balance the needs of the
telecommunications industry with the need to preserve residential amenity and protect environmentally
sensitive areas. The policy also highlights the importance of site sharing and the erection of antennae on
existing buildings or structures.
Both DEV1 and EN11 also pay due regard to the visual appearance of development and its relationship with
its surroundings. Policy EN11 also makes clear that it is the intrinsic character of the Conservation Area that
is protectable. Furthermore PPG8 on Telecommunications sets out the main issues concerning the
installation of such development, highlighting the importance of siting and design, particularly within
conservation areas.
The main issues to consider with regards to this application are the health implications of the proposed
development on both local residents and the school community, interference with television and radio
receptions within the area, and finally its visual appearance.
Whilst it is clear from the objections received that local residents believe there could be health implications,
in terms of radio frequency output the proposed apparatus would be below the ICNIRP guidelines as
recommended by the Stewart Report. The applicant has also confirmed that the ICNIRP certificate relates
to the combined output of Vodafone, BT Cellnet and Hutchison 3G. The applicant has submitted further
details to show the power output from all three operators when operating at full capacity would be 497 times
below the precautionary levels of ICNIRP. As such I am satisfied that the proposed development would be
in accordance with the precautionary approach adopted by the City Council.
Secondly national guidance states that in any development significant and irremediable interference with
other electrical equipment of any kind can be a material planning consideration. In response to the
objections received it is therefore important to consider the current interference and likely increase that may
occur as a result of the proposed development. However no evidence has been provided to support this
objection, or to justify refusal of the proposed development on these grounds. Objection has also been
raised on the grounds of noise from the associated equipment which is inside the building. I have proposed
a condition to ensure the proposed equipment does not cause nuisance to nearby residents.
The third issue to consider is that of the visual appearance of the proposed development. The applicants
propose to replace the existing windows of the tower with translucent poly-carbonate sheet and to locate
three panel antennae within the tower. The three panel antennas would not be visible through replacement
window; the main consideration therefore, is whether the new window effects the character and appearance
of the Conservation Area. The applicant has submitted sample panels and has stated the windows would be
frosted to prevent the antennas being seen.
Subject to the replacement windows being developed in a suitable etched or frosted finish I do not consider
the proposal would have a detrimental visual impact upon the parent building or the Conservation Area. I do
not consider that the three panel antennas located behind perspex windows would be visible from the
grounds of the nursing home or surrounding residential properties.
The presence of various mature trees would also screen the development to some degree, from a distance
and as such the wider conservation area. Previous applications were refused as it was considered that the
cumulative effect of the proposed and existing antennae would be to the detriment of the locally listed
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
building and the Conservation Area. As the current application would not be visible I would not have the
same objection.
Finally the applicant has stated that there were no other suitable sites to meet network demand and a ground
based mast was deemed as inappropriate in this area. The applicant also states that other rooftop sites were
considered, however these were discounted by the relevant landowners. The justification for siting the
development within the nursing home can be considered reasonable in so far as there is existing equipment
on the site and the proposal would not be visible.
Given that the proposal would not be visible I consider that any psychological health risks would be
minimised in addition to the three proposed and existing equipment being well within ICNIRP guidelines
development I am of the view that a refusal on health grounds can not be sustained. I consider that this
proposal would not result in a detrimental impact on the architectural and historic merit of this prominent
building. I also consider the proposal would not detract from the character and appearance of the Radcliffe
Park Conservation Area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until a sample of the replacement etched glazed poly-carbonate sheet
windows have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved sample.
3. The development hereby approved shall not be started until a noise impact survey detailing any
remedial measures to negate noise impact upon residents of the nursing home and upon nearby
residential properties has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services. Such measures shall thereafter be implemented and maintained prior to, and during the
operation of the development to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R006A Character - conservation area
3. To ensure that the amenities of nearby residents and the character of the locality are not adversely
affected by noise and nuisance in accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/44435/FUL
APPLICANT:
A And A Carpets
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
LOCATION:
A And A Carpets Oakhill Trading Estate Devonshire Road Walkden
Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of warehouse extension
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to existing industrial premises located in the heart of the Oakhill Trading Estate.
The site is surrounded by similar industrial properties.
Additional storage space is required by the occupiers and the proposed building would measure 26m by
42m and would provide 1200sq.m of additional floorspace. The building would have a pitched roof and
would be 10m high. It would be clad in profiled metal sheeting.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections but provides advice.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both press and site notices.
The following neighbours were notified :
Units 23 to 26, 30 to 33, 46 to 49 and 50 to 53 Oakhill Trading Estate
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the effect on neighbouring properties, the amount of car parking and the
visual appearance of the development.
I am satisfied that there is sufficient parking on the site and that the visual appearance of the development is
acceptable. I am also satisfied that there would be no detrimental impact on any neighbouring property as a
result of this proposal.
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D02X Details of Materials
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
02/44437/TEL56
APPLICANT:
Hutchinson 3G UK Limited
LOCATION:
Site To South East Of 7 Herevale Grange And North Of East
Lancashire Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Prior notification of telecommunications installation for the erection of
a 12.5m ultra slim monopole with three antennae and one 300mm
microwave dish together with equipment cabinet and ancillary
development
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a strip of land along the East Lancs Road. To the north of the site lies is the site
known locally as Ellenbrook Anglers. To the south lies the Woodside Pub.
The proposal seeks to erect a 12.5m high monopole on the grass verge between the footpath and the
carriageway. It would an ultra slim monopole with three antennae and one 300mm microwave dish
together with equipment cabin and ancillary development.
SITE HISTORY
This site has no planning history, but the adjoining piece of land has been the subject of four previous
telecom applications.
In 1997 a prior notification application was refused for the installation of a 15m high tower with dual polar
antennae, dishes and compound, 97/36372/TEL.
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
In 1998 a prior notification application for the installation of a 15m high monopole with three antennae, two
microwave dishes, six LNA units and one equipment cabin was refused, 98/38071/FUL.
In 1999 the council objected to a prior notification for the installation of telecommunications equipment
comprising a 15m monopole mast and cabin, 98/38808/TEL.
In 1999 a prior notification application for the erection of one 15m lamp post type mast with three antenna,
one microwave dish and equipment cabinets and compound, was refused, 99/39491/TEL.
In 2001 a prior notification for the siting of a 15m sectored column, nine dual polar antennas, two
microwave dishes, equipment cabin and ancillary equipment was refused, 01/42750/TEL42.
All the proposal have been refused on the following grounds:

“The proposed development would be contrary to the provisions of policy SC14 of the adopted Unitary
Development Plan relating to telecommunications development”.

“The proposed development would be an unduly intrusive feature in the street scene and would
seriously injure the visual amenity of the area by reasons of siting, design and height”.
CONSULTATIONS
Highways Agency – No comments to date
PUBLICITY
Site Notice posted on 15th July 2002
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
7 – 11 (odd) Chapel Meadow
135 – 161 (odd) Wyre Drive
1 – 9 (odd) and 8 – 10 (even) Herevale Grange
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 31 representations in response to application publicity. The main issues identified are as
follows:
Damage to visual amenity
Proximity to school and residential properties
Health fears
Failure to consider alternative sites
I am also aware that the Worsley Civic Trust and Amenity Society are opposed to the proposal being
concerned about both health issues and loss of visual amenity.
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: SC14 Telecommunications
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy SC14 states that the Council will normally grant approval for telecoms development unless it would
have an unacceptable effect on visual and residential amenity.
The adjoining site has a history of planning refusals for telecom masts, however I consider that this proposal
is different. The previous applications were all for 15m high monopoles, sited on open land, whereas this
proposal is for a 12.5m high slender pole on the highway between existing lamp posts. The previous four
applications were also all set on land which was subject to a 106 Agreement for structural open space as part
of the wider Ellenbrook housing development, however this proposal lies just outside that boundary.
Further, the City Council recently refused two similar 10m high monopole masts at locations nearby on the
East Lancs Road. These were both subsequently approved on appeal. These locations are similar to that
now being considered and the appeal decisions are a material consideration.
I consider that is visual terms this proposal is acceptable, as the site lies adjacent to a major arterial road,
where it would be viewed in conjunction with lamp posts, which are 12m high. Further, it would not appear
a significantly unsightly feature in the street scene, as it would be similar in appearance to the lamp posts.
Consequently, I do not believe that it would appear an incongruous or intrusive feature. The site lies 40m
away from the nearest residential property.
The applicants have submitted additional information on magnetic field strength and power density, which
show that the levels fall within the ICNIRP levels identified through the Stewart Report. Therefore, I am
satisfied that sufficient information has been provided to show that there should be no adverse health
implications. The applicant’s justification states that the monopole masts are designed to improve ‘below
clutter’ coverage in a specific area. They are low powered so only have a coverage radius of 500m,
therefore need to be sited in a specific location. They cannot site share with the larger macro cells as they
are devised to enhance coverage at the lower level, whilst the equipment does not work to its optimum in
close proximity to other antennae. They state that the mast would be critical to achieve optimum cell
coverage. Therefore, I am satisfied that this justification meets the criteria of SC14.
Therefore, on balance I consider that the mast would not significantly harm the visual amenity of the area or
neighbouring occupiers, so recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44449/HH
APPLICANT:
M Royle
LOCATION:
44 Lambton Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side and rear extension
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi detached dwelling
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
42, 46 and 55 Lambton Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection which raises the matter of congestion on Lambton Road and
inadequacy of parking on the site.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies: DEV 8 of the UDP
SPG for House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The 2 storey side extension is consistent with Supplementary Planning Guidance, the first floor being set
back by 2 meters to avoid terracing.
The property across the drive has a small secondary window on the side elevation and I am satisfied that
there is no significant loss of amenity to this neighbouring property.
The objection is from a neighbour across the street, who is concerned that the applicant will have
inadequate parking and this will result in on street parking. However the proposal does include a garage and
drive length of the appropriate standard (5.5 metres) and hence meets the Council’s normal parking
standards.
RECOMMENDATION:
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th 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 external 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 R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/44452/FUL
APPLICANT:
Collinson Grant Limited
LOCATION:
Ryecroft 10 Aviary Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two 4m high metal posts for security cameras
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a large detached property in use as offices set within substantial grounds at the
end of Aviary Road. The site which amounts to some 3 hectares is bordered by St Mark’s CE Junior and
Infants School to the east; a public footpath and the rear garden boundary of houses on The Warke to the
west; and the mainly single carriageway road that leads to The Aviary, to the north. The site has a frontage
to Aviary Road. Vehicle access to the site is off Aviary Road, opposite where it forms a junction with
Crossfield Drive and where the public footpath emerges. There are parking restrictions in place at this
location. There are a number of mature trees to most of the site boundaries and a wooded area to one corner
of the site close to the southern boundary. All trees, except those due to be felled are protected by a Tree
Preservation Order. A 2m high close-boarded fence surrounds the entire site.
Planning permission is sought to erect two 4m high poles to be used as mounts for security cameras. One
would be located on the Aviary Road frontage in the opposite corner to the site entrance. The other would
be located 4m in from the side boundary of the premises with the footpath that runs to the rear of houses on
The Warke at the common boundary with numbers 7 and 9.
SITE HISTORY
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
In September 2001 planning permission was granted to change the use of the property to offices
(01/42688/COU). Consent was also granted to fell 22 trees and prune 72 others on the site (01/42740/TPO)
In February 2002 permission was granted to make alterations to the rear of the property and provide a new
entrance to the property (01/53457/FUL)
In July 2002 permission was refused to erect a 3m high boundary wall on the boundary with St Mark’s
School (02/44131/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Worsley Civic Trust – no response to date
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours have been notified of the application:1-15 The Warke
7 and St Mark’s School, Aviary Road
St Mark’s Rectory, Walkden Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to application publicity. The main issues identified are as
follows:
At the meeting of the Panel in September 2001 where the original change of use was allowed the
applicants stated that security cameras would not be required.
The cameras will be unsightly and will result in a loss of privacy.
If the beech hedge were to be retained then the situation would be improved.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: Policy EN18 and EN25 Worsley Greenway
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The application property is located within the Worsley Greenway where the general thrust of policy is to
preserve its open character and to improve the appearance and use of the Greenway for amenity, wildlife,
conservation, agriculture and recreational purposes. In particular there is emphasis on the conservation of
trees and woodlands. Policy DEV1 states that in considering applications the City Council will have regard
to a number of factors that include the effect upon neighbouring residents.
I do not consider that the fact that the applicant had previously not considered that security cameras would
be necessary to be a material planning consideration to which I should attach much weight. Any applicant
has the right to submit an application and have that application considered on its own merits.
I do not consider that the camera and post would be unsightly. The post to which the objector refers will be
located 4m inside the site boundary and will be screened by mature trees and the beech hedge. I have,
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
however, attached a condition requiring the painting or powder coating of the post. With regard to the issue
of privacy, the cameras do have the potential to invade privacy and therefore I have attached a condition
that should ensure that neighbours gardens are not within the line of sight of the cameras.
Similarly I consider that the beech hedge does provide an important screen and I have attached a condition
ensuring that if the hedge is removed then the post closest to the neighbouring houses would also have to be
removed.
I have also attached a condition preventing the posts being used for security lights in the interests of the
amenity of neighbouring residents.
I am satisfied that there will be no significant detrimental effect on any neighbouring property as a result of
this proposal and subject to the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The metal posts shall be powder coated or painted a colour to be agreed by the Director of Development
Services prior to their erection.
3. The security cameras shall be so directed so that they only overlooking the car parking and office
building, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
4. Should the beech hedge that screens camera post number 2 from the houses on The Warke be removed
then the post and camera shall be removed within 24 hours.
5. No independent light source shall be attached to either post or incorporated into either security camera.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
APPLICATION No:
02/44478/HH
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
APPLICANT:
D Brickhill
LOCATION:
1 Bowness Avenue Cadishead
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension and construction of new pitched
roof to replace existing at the front of the property (re-submission of
planning application no. 02/44126/HH)
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a corner semi-detached property in a residential area. The proposal is for the
erection of a two-storey side extension and construction of pitched to replace flat roof at the front of the
property.
The two-storey side extension would project 4.6m and run the full length of the property (7.5m) with a
height the same as the existing. The height of the roof over the garage and front door would be increased
from 2.1m to 2.87m with a sloping roof.
SITE HISTORY
02/44126/HH was submitted in May 2002 but was withdrawn
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
3 Bowness Avenue
1 – 8 (incl) Keswick Close
10 – 14 (e) Bowness Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 states that permission would be granted if the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse
impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance,
loss of privacy or light.
The side extension would be within one metre of the side boundary, which would be contrary to current
policy. However the front of the extension would not protrude beyond the front elevation of the house and
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
so leave the main street scene intact. The street scene of the sort cul-de-sac is characterised by fairly tightly
packed houses and as such I do not consider the impact on this street scene would be sufficient to justify a
refusal of planning permission.
The proposal would be approx.15m from the properties directly facing it, I would not consider it to have a
detrimental impact on neighbouring properties.
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
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44307/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Peel Hall CP School
LOCATION:
Peel Hall C.P School Greencourt Drive Little Hulton Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4m high palisade perimeter fencing
WARD:
Little Hulton
At the meeting of the Panel held on 18th July 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR
AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATON REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Peel Hall Primary School and is for the erection of a 2.4m security fence.
The site is bounded by residential properties to the north (Greencourt Drive), Peel Lane to the east and a
small wooded area to the west. There is an area of playing fields to the rear of the school, which is outside
the proposed fencing, beyond which the there is a substantial fail in the level of land.
Amendments have been made to the proposal to address some of the concerns of local residents. The
proposal now seeks the ‘crusader’ style railing at a height of 2.4m along the frontage of Greencourt Drive.
Palisade will be used fronting the gables of 21 Greencourt and 126 Peel Lane and the remaining three sides.
The fencing along the boundary of Peel Lane has also been amended. It is now proposed to be set back 3m
to lessen the visual impact and ensure that the row of trees on the boundary are not affected. The trees
would also provide a natural screen. The original proposal sought 2.4m palisade fencing around all four
sides.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 24th June 2002
The following neighbours were notified:
126 Peel Lane
1 – 21 (con) Greencourt Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received six letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Impact upon local environment
Visual impact
Height
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
Loss of view
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV4 Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 requires development to be appropriate to its surroundings and to have a good visual
appearance and DEV4 seeks development that designs out crime.
The objections received in relation to this proposal are based around the visual impact and the style of the
fencing. Amendments have been sort to reduce the visual impact upon the local residents. A ‘crusader’
style railing is now proposed along the frontage of Greencourt Drive and the position of the palisade has
been improved to safeguard the visual impact from Peel Lane. Although these amendments address some
of the concerns of the local residents, I have not had any of the objections formally withdrawn.
The height of the fence and loss of view are also raised in the letters of objection. Although the area is
mainly residential in character the styles and height of fencing, palisade and crusader, is proposed to stop
youths gaining access to the school playground and buildings. Loss of view is not a material planning
consideration.
I now consider that the style of railings proposed at the front of the school to be in character with the
residential area and the requirements of DEV1. I have no highway objections and recommend approval
subject to conditions being imposed to the colour treatment and for single prong fencing only.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The fencing hereby approved shall be single prong.
3. Standard Condition D05B Colour treatment
4. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 3rd July 2002 which shows a variation of
type and repositioning of the fencing.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
4. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.
APPLICATION No:
02/44316/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Development Services Directorate
LOCATION:
Carlton Footbridge Crossing Between Carlton Way And Lords Street
Cadishead
PROPOSAL:
Rebuild existing footbridge incorporating cycle lane five metres
upstream from its current location
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Glaze Brook which forms the boundary between the City of Salford and
Warrington. The proposal is to remove an existing footbridge to the rear of Carlton Way (Warrington) and
Purley Drive (Salford) and replace it with a new bridge 5 metres upstream.
The new steel bridge would be an overall width of 3.3 metres in width, providing a clear width of 2.0 metres
and it would span 20 metres. The height of the parapet walls would be 1.5 metres. Two bollards would be
positioned at each side of the bridge, reducing access to the bridge to widths of between 0.9 and 1.0 metres.
The proposal would affect a public right of way to the existing bridge, which would need to be diverted.
Parts of the existing footway would be removed and filled with topsoil.
A playing field separates the application site with residential properties on Purley Drive and Norfolk Close.
Members should be aware that Warrington Council is also dealing with a planning application for this
proposal as it extends into their administrative area.
SITE HISTORY
None relevant.
CONSULTATIONS
Warrington Council – No comments to date.
Peak and Northern Footpaths Society – No comments to date
Open Space Society – No comments to date.
Environment Agency – No objection in principle. Recommend condition regarding the provision of
protective fencing during the course of the construction period. Also recommend a number of Informatives
– letter to be forwarded to Applicant.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 24th June 2002.
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
The following neighbours were notified:
9, 10 – 18 (evens) Purley Drive
14 – 20 (evens), 21 – 24 (inclusive) Norfolk Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 16 letters of objections from residents in Warrington in response to the application
publicity, in addition to a letter of objection from the Glazebrook Residents Action Group. The
following comments having been made:








overall width is excessive for a cycleway and pedestrian crossing
it would allow motorcycles, cars, tractors and heavy goods vehicles to cross
not many people use it at present and very few cyclists
there is nothing wrong with the existing bridge which enables foot and cycle access across the river
are many problems associated from the bridge being used by motorbikes and if the bridge was bigger,
cars would use it increasing the danger to people
a bridge of this width would be a magnet for the local cider set at night and this would deter most local
people from using it after dark
the land across the Glaze has a history of people racing motorbikes and cars across the grass and
numerous vehicles have been abandoned there. Putting a 3.5 metre wide bridge would make it easy for
joyriders to access Glazebrook Lane and the motorway
if the bridge is unsafe as it is, why is it still open?
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
R12/20 - Provision of Recreation Land and Facilities
T11 – Cycling
DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy R12/20 allocates the Glazebrook Valley as a recreation site and seeks to
increase the recreational use of the valley and accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists. Policy T11 states
that the City Council will adopt a cycling strategy which will identify and implement a continuous network
of safe cycle routes between neighbourhoods and other areas of activity. The proposal to replace the bridge
is part of the Greater Manchester Cycleway Orbital Route and a project that was proposed to mark the new
millennium.
With regards to the objections raised relating to the width of the proposed bridge and the potential for
vehicular access, the width of the bridge (2.9 metres) is necessary to ensure the safety of pedestrians and
cyclists who will use the bridge. The width is actually slightly narrower than the 3.0 metre width
recommended by Sustrans. The installation of two bollards at each side of the bridge would, however,
restrict the width of access to the bridge and would prevent vehicles such as cars and HGVs using the
facility. With regards to the use of the existing and proposed bridge by motorbikes, I consider that measures
to restrict motorcycle access would also result in impaired access for pedal cyclists and motorised
wheelchair users and as such would not be desirable.
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
A recent condition survey has found the bridge to be in a poor structural condition and it is estimated that
15% of the structural steelwork would need to be replaced, most of which is located on the underside of the
bridge. It is therefore considered to be more appropriate to replace the bridge and at the same time
incorporate cycleway facilities. The existing bridge would not be removed until the new bridge is
completed, this is to ensure that the public right of way is maintained at all times. With regards to the public
right of way over the existing bridge, a diversion order under section 257 of the Town and Country Planning
Act will be required to allow for the new bridge being 5 metres upstream.
I consider that the new bridge will enhance facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and those with impaired
mobility and I have no objections on highway grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Before the development is commenced and during the course of the construction period, temporary
protective metal fencing shall be erected at Glaze Brook. Details of the type of protective fencing to be
used shall be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority before it is erected.
3. The bridge hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior to the
commencement of the development by the Director of Development Services.
4. The development shall not commence until the necessary approval for the footpath diversion, as
required under the relevant legislation, has been secured.
5. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use two bollards shall be provided at each side
of the bridge to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services and such bollards shall be
maintained at all times that the bridge is in use.
6. This permission shall relate to the amended plans (SA 4602/07 and SD/STD73) received on 2nd July
2002 which show the proposed location of four bollards and provide details of the bollards and the
method of installation.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. To protect the river and prevent debris and construction material from encroaching into this area.
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
5. To prevent vehicular use of the bridge and maintain solely for the use of pedestrians, cyclists and those
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
with impaired mobility in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan.
6. To prevent vehicular use of the bridge and maintain solely for the use of pedestrians, cyclists and those
with impaired mobility in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment Agency
dated 23rd July 2002. Please note the requirement for the Environment Agency's written consent under
the Water Resources Act 1991.
2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached e-mail from the Director of
Development Services (Public Rights of Way Officer) dated 30th July 2002.
APPLICATION No:
02/44467/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Mrs G Merrett
LOCATION:
Buile Hill High School Eccles Old Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Siting of two portable classroom units
WARD:
Claremont
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Buile Hill High School. Temporary planning permission is sought for two years
to site two portable units within the school grounds. One unit would be positioned to the south of the
gymnasium, towards the east of the site. This unit would be 9.7 metres by 6.1 metres by 3.37 metres in
height. The second unit would also be sited to the south of the main school premises and would be
positioned to the west of the site. This unit would be 11.7 metres by 12.0 metres by 3.2 metres high.
The school site is relatively large, there are playing fields to the south between the school and Eccles Old
Road. There are residential properties to the east and west of the site, these are located some distance from
the proposed units.
SITE HISTORY
00/40817/DEEM3 – Siting of two portable buildings. Approved 15.6.00
01/42417/DEEM3 – Siting of seven portable classroom units. Approved 21.6.01
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections.
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
110 – 112 (e) Eccles New Road
31 – 35 (o), 54 – 56 (e) Lullington Road
1 – 51 (o) Manor Road
1 Keaton Close
1 Chaplin Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations or letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None relevant.
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
SC4 - Improvement/Replacement of Schools
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider that the proposal is in general accordance with Policy is SC4, which relates to physical
improvements to school facilities and ensures that the condition of buildings is compatible with current
requirements. Policy DEV1 states that regard should be had to the visual appearance of the development
and its relationship to its surroundings.
The portable classroom units are required to accommodate the increase in pupils which is expected in the
forthcoming school year to meet current requirements and the needs of the local area. The portacabins
would not be directly visible from any residential properties surrounding the site, given that there are
mature trees on the school boundaries and changes in site levels. The school site as a whole is relatively
large and I am of the view that the units would not be particularly visually obtrusive. There are already a
number of portable buildings located at the site, but I consider that as the proposal is for a temporary period
of two years only, I am satisfied that the proposal would not have any significant detrimental impact on the
character of the area. The proposal would not result in the loss of playing fields at the school.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The building hereby permitted shall be removed on or before the expiration of a period ending on 15th
August 2004 when the site shall be restored to its condition immediately prior to the commencement of
development, unless a further permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Due to the temporary nature of the units and the stated intentions of the applicant.
APPLICATION No:
02/44476/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Mr D Nozkus
LOCATION:
Wharton County Primary School Rothwell Lane Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4m high palisade perimeter fence
WARD:
Little Hulton
BACKGROUND
Members will be aware that at the Panel meeting on 18th July 2002 it was resolved to visit this site in
advance of any formal recommendation to visit the site.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to an existing primary school in a residential area. The proposal would erect two
styles of fencing around the perimeter at a height of 2.4m. Palisade fencing would be used along the
northern boundary and would turn the corner onto Rothwell Lane for a distance of 45m. The Crusader
fencing (traditional round bar railing) would then continue along the remainder of the Rothwell Lane
frontage. Palisade would be used along the southern boundary and would stop 5m from the junction of
Rothwell Cresent, crusader would then be used again to turn the corner and continue along the whole
western boundary.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 19th July 2002
The following neighbours were notified :
340 – 360 (e), 294 & 294 Manchester Road West
62 – 64 (e) Manorial Drive
42 – 44 (e) and 29 Oakfield Drive
1, 2, 24 and 43 Rothwell Crescent
Wharton Manse Rothwell Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th August 2002
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV4 Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 requires development to be appropriate to its surroundings and to have a good visual
appearance and DEV4 seeks development that designs out crime. Although the area is mainly residential in
character the security style palisade and crusader style fencing is proposed to stop youths gaining access to
the school playground and buildings. I consider that the proposal would meet the requirements of DEV4.
I consider that the style of railings proposed at the eastern and western boundaries of the school to be in
character with the residential area and the requirements of DEV1. I have no highway objections and
recommend approval subject to conditions being imposed to the colour treatment and for single prong
fencing only.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The fencing hereby approved shall be single prong.
3. The fencing hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior to the
commencement of the development by the Director of Development Services.
4. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 6th August 2002 which shows the position
and styles of fencing.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
46
15th August 2002