PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/43739/FUL
APPLICANT:
GMPTE
LOCATION:
Junction Of A580 And M60 Motorway Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Construction of a 273 space park and ride car park and construction of
new vehicular access
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application has been submitted in association with the proposal for a Leigh to Manchester
Bus Corridor. This would include a guided section which would run between Leigh and Newearth
Road, with only the last 200m approximately within Salford. After this the busway would run
on-highway into Manchester. The proposed busway utilises a kerb guidance system comprising
a concrete trackway bounded on either side by upright kerbs. The position of the bus between the
kerbs is maintained by small horizontal guidewheels permanently fixed on the buses front wheels.
BACKGROUND
The total scheme is divided into three sections; the guided section, the A580 trunk road section from
Newearth Road to the M60 bridge, and the A580 non-trunked section from M60 bridge to Irlams o’Th’
Height and continuing along the A6 into Manchester.
The guided section is approximately 7km long and would run from Leigh through to Ellenbrook along the
path of a disused former railway line. This would be constructed under the Transport and Works Act and is
subject to a public inquiry in September of this year which the City Council shall be attending.
The second element, along the trunked A580 would require new carriageway to be built alongside the
existing highway but within the highway boundary. This carriageway would be restricted by a traffic
regulation order which would restrict access to buses and certain other modes of sustainable transport only.
The third element would comprise the inner lane of both inbound and outbound carriageways of the A580
being converted into bus lanes leaving the two outer lanes for general traffic. As the scheme passes through
Irlam o’th’ Heights it would link in with the existing bus lanes on the A6. At the approach to junctions the
bus lanes will be discontinued to provide three lane approaches to traffic signals.
THE APPLICATION
A park and ride scheme is proposed as part of the busway scheme and this application now under
consideration is for the creation of the park and ride car park. A second application has been submitted and
is also on this agenda for the creation of the bus lanes along the A580/A6 into Manchester, planning
reference 02/43744/FUL. That application details the busway proposal and its background, in more detail.
An environmental statement has been submitted in association with both applications.
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
The park and ride would provide parking for 273 vehicles on the north side of the A580 on the area of
grassed land between the A580 and the M61 slip road, under the M60 bridge. This falls within the City’s
greenbelt.
The site would be accessed by a traffic light controlled junction on either side of the A580 and there would
be a traffic light controlled junction onto the slip road for buses into Manchester. The buslane would feed
into the site on the A580 some 110m before the traffic light junction for cars. The site would be cleared and
levelled and new landscaping would be planted. This would include a hedgerow around the northern half
boundary to the site together with grassed areas and areas of native planting to enhance the grassed areas.
There would also be a single terminal building erected adjacent to the bus stop within the site boundaries.
Full details have not been submitted for this but plans indicate that this would have a footprint measuring
3m by 6m. If approved, the land would be transferred to GMPTE who would then manage and maintain the
whole park and ride site.
The general presumption of PPG2 “Greenbelts” is against inappropriate development and that it should be
for an applicant to demonstrate why permission should be granted. Annex E of the PPG also sets out
detailed criteria for assessing the suitability of park and ride proposals in greenbelt. This states:
“The countryside immediately around urban areas will often be the preferred location for park and
ride schemes … park and ride development is not inappropriate in greenbelts provided that:
a) thorough and comprehensive assessment of potential sites has been carried out, including both
non-Green belt and, if appropriate, other greenbelt locations, having regard to sustainable
development objectives and the need to be flexible about size and layout;
b) the assessment establishes that the proposed greenbelt site is the most sustainable option taking into
account all relevant factors including travel impacts;
c) the scheme will not seriously compromise the purposes of including land in greenbelts;
d) the proposal is contained within the local travel plan..and based on a thorough assessment of travel
impacts; and
e) new or re-used buildings included within the development proposal only for essential facilities
associated with the operation of the park and ride scheme.”
In this respect the applicant has justified the park and ride element of the proposal in the following way.
Alternative sites outside of the greenbelt have been explored and rejected;
Although a formal assessment of travel impacts has not been carried out, it is considered that the park
and ride will not lead to an overall increase in travel distances. Existing traffic congestion to the west of
the park and ride site is likely to deter users travelling from outside the Greater Manchester conurbation
or from transferring from existing rail services. It is anticipated that patronage will come from people
living along and close to the A580 corridor and people who drive along the A580 at present. The A580
to the west of the park and ride is currently at capacity at peak time and so traffic levels will not increase
further at this time, although there may be an increase in duration of peak time traffic conditions;
The openness and visual amenity of the greenbelt will not be compromised in particular because of the
site’s setting, landlocked within a major motorway interchange. Simple landscape treatment will help
to reduce the loss of the greeness of the site and soften its appearance;
The only new building proposed will act as a bus interchange building.
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
CONSULTATIONS
The following were consulted on both this application and the proposal for the construction of the bus lanes,
reference 02/43744/FUL. I have summarised all comments below.
British Waterways – the original line of the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal passes beneath the A6 at
Windsor Bridge but the proposal should not have any direct affect upon the restoration proposals for the
canal.
Peak and Northern Footpath Society – if permission is granted they request that a condition is attached to
ensure that no public right of way is obstructed, or if this is unavoidable then no development shall take
place until a diversion order has been confirmed and the diversion route is available for public use.
Wigan Council – no objections.
The Countryside Agency – no comments made.
English Nature – support the principle of the application owing to its contribution towards providing a
sustainable transport option in the Greater Manchester area. There are no statutory designated sites that will
be affected by the proposal and minimal impact to either protected species or Biodiversity Action plan
habitats along the route.
The Ramblers Association – object to the scheme as a whole, particularly the use of the old railway line
from Ellenbrook to Leigh for the route of the busway. However, in relation to the section on the A580
including the construction of the car park there are no comments except they would like to see more bus
stops along the route to serve areas of high population.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – there are no archaeological implications from the Park and Ride
scheme and only limited archaeological interest for the bus route. Where there is limited land take there
may need to be an archaeological watching brief. This can be secured through a condition.
Moorside South Residents Association – have objected to the proposal on behalf of the 6 local residents
associations, Worsley and Boothstown Community Committee, and the citizens of Leigh. They consider
that the proposal will exacerbate the existing traffic situation and also threaten the existing bus services.
They consider that any reduction of traffic lanes or disruption of traffic flow on the A580 between
Newearth Road and Irlams o’th’Height junction will lead to a build up of stationary traffic which will lead
to drivers seeking alternative routes to avoid delays which will in turn lead to build up and delays
throughout the Boothstown, Worsley and Swinton South area. These area are already heavily congested at
peak times. The M60 JETTS Study by the Highways Agency is considering the closure of all or some of the
slip roads at Junction 13 and this would increase the traffic demands on the A580 and also the number of
junctions the guided busway would have to cross. In relation to the park and ride, they understand that it is
not accepted practice to have car parking under the motorway flyovers and they also consider it impractical
to have car park entrances at busy road junctions. An alternative to the busway scheme would be to utilise
the existing railtrack in the area and at a fraction of the cost.
Worsley Civic Trust and Amenity Society – object to the whole scheme as they do not consider the
proposals are compatible with Government policy on transportation. Pedestrians and cyclists will be
hindered. There is no evidence to enhance the key policy area of “safer routes to schools”. There is no
evidence to support the notion that traffic crossing the A580 will not be further hindered or inconvenienced.
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
It will exacerbate rather than cure the traffic and transportation in the Worsley area. They do not consider
that the proposal should be considered until the M60 JETTS multi-modal study report is published.
Worsley Civic Trust Roe Green Branch – object to the proposals. They do not consider that the proposals
will solve the current congestion on the A580 – it will increase it by being limited to a small percentage of
the traffic on the whole length. It will hamper local traffic which mainly moves in a north – south direction.
They consider that the monies involved could be better spent. They would however support the
re-connection of the rail route between Leigh and Manchester.
Highways Agency – no objections in principle to the whole scheme subject to a Stage 1 Safety audit to be
commissioned and reviewed by the Agency and any works implemented on the trunk road or motorway
network may only be constructed under a S278 (Highways Act 1980) agreement. Following further
discussions with the GM Police and agreement that there shall be no vehicle parked within 5m of any M60
pier, they have now accepted in principle the location of the park and ride.
United Utilities – no objection in principle.
Busway – Noway – (Leigh to Tyldesley Residents) object to the proposal. They consider that the park and
ride application and the associated on-road bus-lane scheme are integrated and cannot be isolated in the
decision making process. They wish the City Council to refer the matter to the Secretary of State as a
development of more than local importance. In this respect they consider that the application for the park
and ride is premature as there is no clear “need” for it. They do not consider that in reality the scheme will
take that much traffic off the roads and will in fact result in worsening of congestion in the local area
surrounding the park and ride. This will have the knock-on effect of increasing traffic delays on the A580
which will be further exacerbated by the additional junction for the park and ride. They quote research from
Graham Parkhurst of the University of London Centre for Transport whose studies demonstrate that park
and ride is only viable with subsidies and that facilities only have a limited capacity for reducing traffic and
in some cases even increase congestion locally to the facility.
Boothstown Residents Association – object to the scheme and consider that the decision should be delayed
until the JETTS Study scheme, looking at means of improving traffic flows along the M60 through the
Worsley gap, is determined. There would be a loss of amenity for cyclists and pedestrians and the
intersection of the A580 and Newearth Road is already very busy and the scheme will only add to
congestion in the locality. They also consider that the location of the park and ride is poor and will result in
people parking in Ellenbrook for free rather than using the park and ride. Finally, they believe that people
are afraid of using buses for security and safety reasons and therefore are not convinced that the scheme
would be fully utilised.
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – consider that the proposals are unlikely to have a major ecological
impact. They note that the majority of the bus lane construction is within the highway and therefore
unlikely to have an additional ecological impact. The loss of grass verge will have a very limited impact
upon wildlife. The park and ride site is semi-natural in character with common spotted orchids and marshy
grassland which is moderately rich in species but is not outstanding. Provision should be made within the
scheme for the replacement of any grassland lost and any landscape planting should be designed to provide
ecological benefits to compensate for habitat losses. With minimal amount of tree and shrub loss, the
impact on birds will be minor but any clearance work should be avoided during nesting. The mitigation
proposals put forward for bats is acceptable and they agree with the precautionary principle outlined in the
Environmental Statement in respect of newts and any additional vegetation clearance.
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
Environment Agency – no objections in principle.
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – It would be beneficial to remove the potentially contaminated
material along the former railway line. It is noted that the proposal for the park and ride is within the
greenbelt
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Worsley Village Community Association – object to the proposal on the following grounds: many local
roads are at capacity and the bus lane will cause gridlock; busway is not readily accessible for local
residents; parking problem on nearby roads as users will be wary of using the proposed parking areas; the
park and ride area is isolated and further congestion will be caused by traffic trying to reach them; park and
ride is not safe for vulnerable groups; likely to be more congestion in Worsley village; the numbers of
passengers produced by GMPTE do not add up, especially since the Xanadu application was refused;
increase in accidents; impact on the environment; alternative modes of transport should be considered.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published in May 2002.
Site notices were displayed on 22 May 2002.
All properties fronting onto the East Lancashire Road have been notified about the proposal.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a total of 20 letters of objections in response to the application publicity to both this
application for the park and ride and the bus lane application. I have outlined all comments received and
identified those in particular which I consider relate specifically to the park and ride application below:
Specific park and ride objections:
Park and ride car park not big enough for the numbers of cars using the A580
Loss of greenspace from the park and ride
Park and ride will cause additional traffic and congestion
Loss of wildlife
Other objections received:
Increase in pollution
Increase in noise levels especially during unsociable hours
No real need for the busway – traffic moves freely as it is
Increased danger to pedestrians
Loss of existing footpath and cycleway
The busway will not relieve the situation – train is better alternative and the infrastructure is already
in place for this
Reduction to two lanes will slow traffic down significantly
Safety issues from increased traffic
Loss of privacy
Loss of wildlife
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
Eyesore from having to look out to bus lane and buses going past
Close proximity of bus lanes to properties
Disruption caused during works
Devaluation of properties
Scheme is not financially viable with buses operating on 24hour basis
Increased traffic chaos around Swinton and Worsley
I have also received a letter of objection from Councillor Garrido who objects on the following grounds:
Many of the existing local roads are at capacity and the provision of the bus lane on the A580 will cause
gridlock
Bus way is not readily accessible to local residents
Residents in Boothstown and Worsley village will have to drive in order to reach an embarkation point
thus causing a parking problem on side roads.
The proposed park and ride areas are isolated and further congestion will be caused by traffic trying to
reach them
Park and ride site is not safe for vulnerable groups
There is little or no public support for this proposal which indicates that the scheme will fail
Severe congestion will be caused at the point where the buses cross the motorway slip roads
The figures produced for the numbers of passengers do not add up, especially since the Xanadu
application was refused
The narrowing of the traffic lanes on the A580 is likely to cause accidents
The impact on the environment will be devastating
When the buses reach Chapel Street a bottleneck will occur
Alternative modes of transport should be considered along with increased local bus services
The likely number of users is not likely to justify the huge investment.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EN22 Green Belt, EN2 Development within the Green Belt,
Other policies: T1 A Balanced Transport Network, T2 Network of major roads of more than local
importance, T3 Highways, T4 public transport, T7 Traffic restraint, T9 equality of access, EN5
Nature conservation, EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands, EN10 Landscape, EN20
Pollution Control, DEV1 Development Criteria, R1 Protection of recreation land and facilities, T11
Cycling
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The site of the park and ride car park would be off the A580 and between the slip road off the M60 within
the City’s greenbelt. PPG2 “Greenbelts” states that the essential characteristic of green belts is their
permanence and their most important attribute is their openness. The general presumption is against
inappropriate development and it should be for the applicant to demonstrate why permission should be
granted. It states “Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the
harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations”.
Policies EN2 and EN22 within the UDP reflect these main aims of the PPG. The site is covered with
semi-natural scrub including trees and vegetation and therefore policy EN7 which seeks to encourage the
retention of trees and also ensure that any new tree planting is designed to contribute to wildlife
conservation as well as landscape quality, is of consideration together with EN5.
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
I consider that it is important when assessing this proposal, to take into consideration the whole scheme and
its overriding purpose to provide a sustainable form of transport and to encourage the use of public transport
thereby reducing car traffic.
One of the objections received was the belief that the park and ride would cause additional traffic and
congestion in the vicinity. The Worsley Civic Trust, Boothstown Residents Association and also
Busway-Noway also had objections on these grounds. The purpose of the park and ride is to provide an
area for parking for those wishing to use the busway into Manchester. The aim is to reduce car traffic on the
A580 and certainly from this point on where traffic is heavier in general. A new signal controlled junction
would be installed to allow access for both sides of the carriageway into the park and ride but the overall
sequencing of the signals would ensure that the overall journey time into Manchester would remain
unchanged. Furthermore, the introduction of the signal points will displace the queues that already occur
along the A580. If there is no provision made for a car park, then it may well be that users would park
within the immediate vicinity along the route and therefore the concerns of the consultees would be
realised.
The Boothstown Residents Association were concerned that the location of the park and ride would result in
people parking in Ellenbrook for free rather than using the facilities. Prior to the application submission it
was originally proposed to site the park and ride off the East Lancashire Road to the east of Walkden Road.
However, following considerable local opposition the site was moved to the site of this application now
being considered. There is always a possibility that any park and ride facilities may not be used, but I would
suggest that without one provided then I would certainly have to agree that parking on-street in the vicinity
of stops along the route may well occur. Users can only be encouraged to use such facilities and it may be
that in the future the highway authority may have to consider imposing waiting restrictions on local roads to
deter motorists parking up for the day.
Moorside South Residents were also concerned about the location of the park and ride site under the M60
and associated safety implications. Following further discussions with the police and agreement that there
shall be no vehicle parked within 5m of the M60 pier, the Highways Agency have now accepted in principle
the park and ride in this location. In moving the location, the applicant has tried to address the concerns of
the local residents of Ellenbrook in particular. The location under the M60 is away from residential
dwellings and therefore has the benefit of reducing any impact upon residential amenity.
In relation to the size of the park and ride there were originally three options for the site. These included the
site of this application, providing a site on the other side of the carriageway directly opposite this
application site, and thirdly for the provision of facilities on both sides of the A580 providing somewhere in
the region of 5 – 600 spaces. It was considered that it would be most appropriate to install the facilities on
the site of this application in the first instance and subject to demand, provision could be made at a later date
on the opposite side of the carriageway. In this way, the impact upon the greenbelt and the impact of the
proposal generally would be kept to a minimum.
There was also concern about the safety and security of both the park and ride site and also the buses
themselves with objectors of the opinion that the buses would not be used as people do not feel safe on
them. I am not able to agree or disagree with this statement but the Architectural Liaison Officer has no
objections to the proposal and I therefore do not consider that this is a reason for refusal. In relation to the
park and ride, there would be floodlighting around the site for evening use which would improve its
security. Furthermore, the majority of the existing landscaping would be removed with new planting
undertaken. This could be designed with security in consideration.
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
The park and ride site would have to be levelled and therefore the whole site together with the landscaping
would have to be cleared. None of the trees on the site are covered by Tree Preservation Orders and the
applicant has indicated that the loss of this vegetation would be partly mitigated by new landscape planting.
The Ecology Unit do not consider that the ecological value of the site is outstanding and it is suggested that
any proposed landscaping should be designed to provide ecological benefits. I consider that this would
compensate for any habitat losses, although I acknowledge that there may be a time delay whilst any
planting becomes established.
In relation to the objection about the loss of greenspace resulting from the park and ride, I cannot disagree
that a green area would be lost. The aim of the scheme is to encourage as many users as possible to use the
busway and I consider the provision of the park and ride is another asset to encourage this. If there were no
provision potential users would simply continue using their car to get into Manchester or their destination.
It is a longer term issue and one that is generally fully advocated by central government. In this respect the
applicant has indicated that landscaping would be carried out on the site which would also include areas of
grass thereby retaining as much of the current “green” appearance of the area as possible. Furthermore, I
would suggest that owing to its landlocked location it is not an area of green space which is currently
utilised for recreation purposes.
PPG2 states that the visual amenity of the greenbelt is an important attribute and should not be injured by
proposals either within or conspicuous from the greenbelt by reason of their siting, materials or design. The
site is situated in the southern half of the green belt area which extends north as far as Linneyshaw Moss on
the City’s boundary, between the A580 and the slip road from the M61. At this point the trunked A580 has
two lanes in both directions and the slip road also has two lanes. The M60 crosses above the A580 on
concrete column supports and for these reasons I agree with the applicant and consider that the immediate
vicinity does have more of an urban character. Whilst recognising that the site would have to be cleared of
all vegetation and levelled, I am minded to consider that any landscaping measures could take into account
this greenbelt location, making suitable use of surface materials which would complement the area, and
careful planting, which would then reduce the impact of the proposal considerably. Furthermore, it has
been indicated that the proposed terminal building would not be a large structure and therefore should not
dominate the site.
In conclusion the principle of the scheme is fully supported by central government policy and it would
provide an integrated transport system within the Greater Manchester area, giving residents an effective
transport choice. It would help to reduce congestion and increase travel opportunities between Leigh to
Manchester. For these reasons I consider that any harm to the greenbelt is outweighed by the advantages
that would benefit the residents of Salford and the Greater Manchester area generally. I therefore
recommend that this application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development pursuant to this planning application shall commence unless and until the developer
has submitted the following full design and construction details of the required improvements to the
access with the A580 and grade-separated junction of the M61 Eastbound off-slip/A580 (T) East
Lancashire Road, such details to be agreed by the local planning authority, in consultation with the
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
highway authorities and shown in outline in drawing 4847/NWD/089 Rev P1, dated 29th July 2002,
prepared on behalf of GMPTE.
i) How the scheme interfaces with the existing highway alignment, details of the carriageway markings
and lane destinations.
ii) Confirmation of full compliance with current Departmental Standards (DMRB) and Policies (or
approved relaxations/departures from standards),
iii) An independant Stage One and Stage Two Road Safety Audit carried out in accordance with current
Departmental Standards (DMRB) and Advice Notes.
3. No development shall be brought into its intended use, unless and until the highway improvements, in
accordance with Condition 02 have been implemented to the satisfaction of the local authority in
consultation with the highway authorities.
4. Emission standards of buses using the guided busway and the dedicated bus lanes shall meet EURO III
or better, emission standards.
5. Full details of the proposed lighting columns and their siting on the park and ride site shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of
development.
6. Full details including proposed siting and elevational details for the interchange building as indicated
on Figure 56 in the Environmental Statement Volume 2, Part I shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of development.
7. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such a scheme shall
include full details of existing and proposed trees and shrubs to be planted which shall be designed on
ecological principles to provide compensation for habitat losses, walls, fences, boundary and surface
treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and
thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs
dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development
Services.
8. Full details of the existing and proposed levels for the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of development.
9. All development and associated works shall take place in full accordance with the Environmental
Statement.
10. No development shall take place within the proposed area until the applicant has secured the
implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of
investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
2. To ensure that the M61 Motorway and A580 trunk road might continue to fulfil their purpose as part of
a national system of routes for through traffic, in accordance with Section 10(2) of the Highways Act
1980, maintaining the safety of traffic on the road.
3. To ensure that the M61 Motorway and A580 trunk road might continue to fulfil their purpose as part of
a national system of routes for through traffic, in accordance with Section 10(2) of the Highways Act
1980, maintaining the safety of traffic on the road.
4. To maintain air quality standards in accordance with policy EN20 of the UDP.
5. To safeguard their impact in terms of light pollution and their visual impact within the greenbelt in
accordance with policies EN20 and EN2 of the UDP.
6. To safeguard the amenity and visual impact of the site within the city's greenbelt in accordance with
policy EN22 of the UDP.
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
8. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
9. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
10. To record remains of archaeological interest in accordance with policy EN14 of the UDP
APPLICATION No:
02/43744/FUL
APPLICANT:
GMPTE
LOCATION:
Land Between Newearth Road And The A6, East Lancashire Road
Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Construction of bus lanes and associated development
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown, Walkden South, Swinton North, Swinton South,
Claremont, Pendlebury, Pendleton and Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application has been submitted in association with the proposal for a Leigh to Manchester Bus
Corridor. This would include a guided section which would run between Leigh and Newearth Road, with
approximately only the last 200m within Salford. After this the busway would run on-highway into
Manchester. The proposed busway utilises a kerb guidance system comprising a concrete trackway
bounded on either side by upright kerbs approximately 18cm in height. The position of the bus between the
kerbs is maintained by small horizontal guidewheels permanently fixed on the buses front wheels.
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
The total scheme in Salford is divided into three sections; the guided section, the A580 trunk road section
from Newearth Road to the M60 bridge, and the A580 non-trunked section from M60 bridge to Irlams o’
Th’ Height and continuing along the A6 into Manchester.
BACKGROUND
The guided section is approximately 7km long and would run from Leigh through to Ellenbrook along the
path of the disused former railway line which is well vegetated with a mix of younger native woodland
trees. To the east of City Road (Wigan), the route would run on the old railway track bed. This would be
widened including the removal of the adjacent recreation route and a10m wide area of woodland. Initially
the busway would run approximately 0.3m below the level of the existing embankment but further east the
embankment would be lowered and eventually removed to allow the bus to join Newearth Road at grade.
At it’s greatest this would require a depth of 5.7m of material removed. There would be a stop just before
the junction with Newearth Road and buses would join the road system via a signal controlled junction.
The existing 15m wide band of existing vegetation would be retained along the southern boundary which
would screen the houses to the south.
As much of the natural vegetation as possible would be retained in this area and in particular the mature
trees. The regraded banks would be designed to incorporate a mix of diverse grassland, locally native scrub
and trees. This aspect of the proposal would mean that the existing formal and informal paths following the
former railway corridor would be lost. However, a new recreational route would replace these which would
run parallel to the busway, including an all weather, 3m wide footpath/cycleway with segregation for
pedestrians and cyclists
The guided section of the route would be constructed under the Transport and Works Act and is subject to a
public inquiry in September of this year. The City Council will be attending at this Inquiry.
The second and third elements of the route would require a series of bus priority measures to be introduced
to improve the speedy movement of buses along congested parts of the existing road. This would be
achieved through a combination of:
New bus-only lanes running alongside the existing carriageway
Bus movements on existing carriageway which will be converted to bus lanes,
Buses using existing lanes, and
Junction improvements which assist bus operators, including new signals which give buses priority.
Along the trunked A580 a new carriageway would be built alongside the existing highway. The majority of
these works would be within the highway boundary but there would be some minor encroachment (strip of
some 2 – 3m in width maximum) onto the area of open space to the rear of the properties from Newearth
Road to Godwall Close.
This land is part of a wider area of open space which was part of a S106
agreement at the time of the original housing application. Use of the carriageway would be subject to a
traffic regulation order which would restrict access to buses and certain other modes of sustainable
transport all the time. A combined footway and cycleway would be realigned alongside the bus lane which
would be 3m wide to the junction with Walkden Road. At this junction the bus lane would have separate
signals to allow buses access to the A580.
The A580 lies on the northern edge of the City’s greenbelt between the junctions with Newearth Road and
Walkden Road.
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
The third element would comprise the inner lane of both inbound and outbound carriageways being
converted into bus lanes leaving the two outer lanes for general traffic. As the scheme passes through
Irlams o’th Height it would link in with the existing bus lanes on the A6. At the approach to junctions the
bus lanes would be discontinued to provide three lane approaches to traffic signals.
The scheme has recently been amended along the section from the M60 slip road to the junction with
Moorside Road following concern from the Highways Agency about the potential impact upon the slip road
and length of queues that would build up. The amendments include the use of the hard-shoulder on the M60
slip during peak periods for a distance of approximately 450m back from the junction with the A580. On
the A580 to the east of the slip road as far as the junction with Moorside Road, a third traffic lane would be
created within the existing central reservation. This would result in the central reservation, which is
currently landscaped, reduced in width to 5m along the majority of its length until the junction with
Moorside Road where it would reduce to 1m. It is likely that all of the landscaping would be disturbed in
connection with these works but replacement planting would be undertaken as soon as possible.
After the guided section there would be 11 bus stops provided along the route between Newearth Road and
Salford University for the busway buses. These would be adjacent to existing stops where possible. They
have been designed for disabled access (low boarding) and would include tactile and coloured paving for
disabled users and would also include a shelter with bus time information. Several of these would be
interchange stops which would permit transfer between the quality buses and the local buses.
Along the route there would be a number of new signals and crossings installed for pedestrians and cyclists
including new pedestrian crossings adjacent to Woodstock Drive and Runneymeade, immediately to the
east of West Meade and East Meade, the junction with Old Clough Lane and there would also be a new
signalised crossing at the bottom of Moorside Road.
OPERATION
Buses are expected to operate from 6am to midnight, six days a week, about every 6 minutes during the
working day (Monday to Saturday) and about every 12 minutes outside of these times. On Sundays buses
will operate about every 15 minutes throughout the day.
The applicant has put forward the following in support of the application which are relevant to the section
within Salford:






Reliable, frequent service giving maximum accessibility to surrounding communities with minimum
interference from traffic congestion;
Bus stop locations with disabled access;
journey time between Leigh and Manchester City Centre of about 40 minutes
use of modern, comfortable low floor, low emission buses;
all-weather recreation route for cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians including the disabled;
design sympathetic to the environment with integrated landscape proposals to minimise visual and
environmental impacts; and
Independent consultants have appraised alternatives to a bus corridor as a public transport option between
Leigh and Manchester, including trams, alternative bus and interchange strategies and new interchange
systems. The busway provides the most cost effective and efficient transport system with minimum
environmental impact.
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
In association with the application a full environmental statement has been submitted which has addressed a
number of issues, at various points along the route.
A section of the proposed route passes through, or is in parts adjacent to, the City’s greenbelt as it passes
along the A580 and the approach to the M60 slip road. PPG2 “Greenbelts” maintains a general
presumption against inappropriate development within the greenbelt unless there are very special
circumstances to justify a proposal. It states that it is for an applicant to demonstrate why the proposal can
be justified. PPG2 also states that once land has been defined as greenbelt, its use should fulfil the
following objectives:
“to provide opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban population
to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation near urban areas
to retain attractive landscapes, and enhance landscapes, near to where people live;
to improve damaged and derelict land around towns;
to secure nature conservation interest; and
to retain land in agriculture, forestry and related uses.”
The visual amenities of the greenbelt should also not be injured by proposals for development within or
conspicuous from the greenbelt.
In this respect the applicant has justified the proposal in the following way in relation to the section that
applies to the City of Salford greenbelt.
Creating a sustainable transport infrastructure, which will provide improved access to the countryside;
Providing a significantly enhanced recreation route in and around urban areas;
Creating a sustainable environmental and landscape situation for the route in the long term;
Taking significant care to secure nature conservation interests of those sites/areas of sensitivity.”
In relation to the visual amenity aspects, the applicant considers that extensive steps have been taken to
minimise any adverse landscape or visual effects the proposal may have. The combination of tree planting,
hedgerows and earthworks, contained within the proposals, have been carefully designed to integrate the
busway into its setting and ensure minimal disturbance to the visual amenity of the surrounding landscape.
The proposals will have no adverse effects on the visual amenity of the wider landscape, including the
greenbelt.
In association with the busway scheme a park and ride site is proposed along the A580, immediately before
the junction of the M60 slip road and under the area where the M60 crosses the A580. This has been dealt
with under a separate application which is also on this same agenda, planning reference 02/43739/FUL.
This application now being considered within this report shall therefore relate to all aspects of the scheme
as described above, other than the park and ride site.
CONSULTATIONS
British Waterways – the original line of the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal passes beneath the A6 at
Windsor Bridge but the proposal should not have any direct affect upon the restoration proposals for the
canal.
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
Peak and Northern Footpath Society – if permission is granted they request that a condition is attached to
ensure that no public right of way is obstructed, or if this is unavoidable then no development shall take
place until a diversion order has been confirmed and the diversion route is available for public use.
Wigan Council – no objections.
The Countryside Agency – no comments made.
The Ramblers Association– object to the scheme as a whole, particularly the use of the old railway line
from Ellenbrook to Leigh for the route of the busway. However, in relation to the section on the A580
including the construction of the car park there are no comments except they would like to see more bus
stops along the route to serve areas of high population.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – there are no archaeological implications from the Park and Ride
scheme and only limited archaeological interest for the bus route. Where there is limited land take there
may need to be an archaeological watching brief. This can be secured through a condition.
Moorside South Residents Association – have objected to the proposal on behalf of the 6 local residents
associations, Worsley and Boothstown Community Committee, and the citizens of Leigh. They consider
that the proposal will exacerbate the existing traffic situation and also threaten the existing bus services.
They consider that any reduction of traffic lanes or disruption of traffic flow on the A580 between
Newearth Road and Irlams o’th’Height junction will lead to a build up of stationary traffic which will lead
to drivers seeking alternative routes to avoid delays which will in turn lead to build up and delays
throughout the Boothstown, Worsley and Swinton South area. These area are already heavily congested at
peak times. The M60 JETTS Study is considering the closure of all or some of the slip roads at Junction 13
and this would increase the traffic demands on the A580 and also the number of junctions the guided
busway would have to cross. In relation to the park and ride, they understand that it is not accepted practice
to have car parking under the motorway flyovers and they also consider it impractical to have car park
entrances at busy road junctions. An alternative to the busway scheme would be to utilise the existing
railtrack in the area and at a fraction of the cost.
Worsley Civic Trust and Amenity Society – object to the whole scheme as they do not consider the
proposals are compatible with Government policy on transportation. Pedestrians and cyclists will be
hindered. There is no evidence to enhance the key policy area of “safer routes to schools”. There is no
evidence to support the notion that traffic crossing the A580 will not be further hindered or inconvenienced.
It will exacerbate rather than cure the traffic and transportation in the Worsley area. They do not consider
that the proposal should be considered until the M60 JETTS multi-modal study report is published.
Worsley Civic Trust Roe Green Branch – object to the proposals. They do not consider that the proposals
will solve the current congestion on the A580 – it will increase it by being limited to a small percentage of
the traffic on the whole length. It will hamper local traffic which mainly moves in a north – south direction.
They consider that the monies involved could be better spent. They would however support the
re-connection of the rail route between Leigh and Manchester.
United Utilities – no objection in principle.
Busway – Noway – (Leigh to Tyldesley Residents) object to the proposal. They consider that the park and
ride application and the associated on-road bus-lane scheme are an integrated and cannot be isolated in the
decision making process. They wish the City Council refer the matter to the Secretary of State as a
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
development of more than local importance. In this respect they consider that the application for the park
and ride is premature as there is no clear “need” for it. They do not consider that in reality the scheme will
take that much traffic off the roads and will in fact result in worsening of congestion in the local area
surrounding the park and ride. This will have the knock-on effect of increasing traffic delays on the A580
which will be further exacerbated by the additional junction for the park and ride. They quote research from
Graham Parkhurst of the University of London Centre for Transport whose studies demonstrate that park
and ride is only viable with subsidies and that facilities only have a limited capacity for reducing traffic and
in some cases even increase congestion locally to the facility.
Boothstown Residents Association – object to the scheme and consider that the decision should be delayed
until the JETTS study scheme, looking at means of improving traffic flows along the M60 through the
Worsley gap, is determined. There would be a loss of amenity for cyclists and pedestrians and the
intersection of the A580 and Newearth Road is already very busy and the scheme will only add to
congestion in the locality. They also consider that the location of the park and ride is poor and will result in
people parking in Ellenbrook for free rather than using the park and ride. Finally, they believe that people
are afraid of using buses for security and safety reasons and therefore are not convinced that the scheme
would be fully utilised.
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – consider that the proposals are unlikely to have a major ecological
impact. They note that the majority of the bus lane construction is within the highway and therefore
unlikely to have an additional ecological impact. The loss of grass verge will have a very limited impact
upon wildlife. The park and ride site is semi- natural in character with common spotted orchids and marshy
grassland which is moderately rich in species but is not outstanding. Provision should be made within the
scheme for the replacement of any grassland lost and any landscape planting should be designed to provide
ecological benefits to compensate for habitat losses. With minimal amount of tree and shrub loss, the
impact on birds will be minor but any clearance work should be avoided during nesting. The mitigation
proposals put forward for bats is acceptable and they agree with the precautionary principle outlined in the
Environmental Statement in respect of newts and any additional vegetation clearance.
Environment Agency – no objections in principle.
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – no objections in principle.
Director of Environmental Services – No objections in principle and has provided comments in relation to
the various aspects of the proposal. Briefly these include; for the most part the bus route will run along the
A580/A6 which is a heavily trafficked route and the increase in noise would not be sufficient to trigger any
mandatory noise insulation measures to nearby houses. In relation to contaminated land issues should the
developer discover/suspect adverse ground conditions not previously identified by site investigations, work
should cease until further soil samples are analysed. The bus corridor is utilising existing road space and
therefore substituting current bus stock with new cleaner vehicles. There would be little or no change in air
quality. They also recommend that a survey using nitrogen dioxide diffusion tubes to validate the study is
recommended. The Council has a statutory duty to prepare action plans to reduce pollution levels to meet
the standards in Air Quality Regulation (2000). Increasing levels will make attainment of these targets
more difficult unless users are persuaded to move to more environmentally friendly forms of transport.
English Nature – support the proposal in principle owing to its contribution towards a sustainable transport
option in the Greater Manchester Area.
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
Worsley Village Community Association – object to the proposal on the following grounds: many local
roads are at capacity and the bus lane will cause gridlock; busway is not readily accessible for local
residents; parking problem on nearby roads as users will be wary of using the proposed parking areas; the
park and ride area is isolated and further congestion will be caused by traffic trying to reach them; park and
ride is not safe for vulnerable groups; likely to be more congestion in Worsley village; the numbers of
passengers produced by GMPTE do not add up, especially since the Xanadu application was refused;
increase in accidents; impact on the environment; alternative modes of transport should be considered.
Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections to the scheme.
Highways Agency – no objections in principle to the whole scheme subject to a Stage 1 Safety audit to be
commissioned and reviewed by the Agency and any works implemented on the trunk road or motorway
network may only be constructed under a S278 (Highways Act 1980) agreement. Following further
discussions with the GM Police and agreement that there shall be no vehicle parked within 5m of any M60
pier, they have now accepted in principle the location of the park and ride.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published in May 2002.
Site notices were displayed on 22 May 2002.
All properties fronting onto the East Lancashire Road have been notified about the proposal.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a total of 20 letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following
comments having been made:
Increase in pollution
Increase in noise levels especially during unsociable hours
No real need for the busway – traffic moves freely as it is
Increased danger to pedestrians
Loss of existing footpath and cycleway
Park and ride car park not big enough for the numbers of cars using the A580
The busway will not relieve the situation – train is better alternative and the infrastructure is already
in place for this
Loss of greenspace from the park and ride
Park and ride will cause additional traffic and congestion
Reduction to two lanes will slow traffic down significantly
Safety issues from increased traffic
Loss of privacy
Loss of wildlife
Eyesore from having to look out to bus lane and buses going past
Close proximity of bus lanes to properties
Disruption caused during works
Devaluation of properties
Scheme is not financially viable with buses operating on 24hour basis
Increased traffic chaos around Swinton and Worsley
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
I have also received a letter of objection from Councillor Garrido who objects on the following grounds:
Many of the existing local roads are at capacity and the provision of the bus lane on the A580 will cause
gridlock
Bus way is not readily accessible to local residents
Residents in Boothstown and Worsley village will have to drive in order to reach an embarkation point
thus causing a parking problem on side roads.
The proposed park and ride areas are isolated and further congestion will be caused by traffic trying to
reach them
Park and ride site is not safe for vulnerable groups
There is little or no public support for this proposal which indicates that the scheme will fail
Severe congestion will be caused at the point where the buses cross the motorway slip roads
The figures produced for the numbers of passengers do not add up, especially since the Xanadu
application was refused
The narrowing of the traffic lanes on the A580 is likely to cause accidents
The impact on the environment will be devastating
When the buses reach Chapel Street a bottleneck will occur
Alternative modes of transport should be considered along with increased local bus services
The likely number of users is not likely to justify the huge investment.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EN22 Green Belt, EN2 Development within the Green Belt,
Other policies: T1 A Balanced Transport Network, T2 Network of major roads of more than local
importance, T3 Highways, T4 public transport, T7 Traffic restraint, T9 equality of access, EN5
Nature conservation, EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands, EN10 Landscape, EN20
Pollution Control, DEV1 Development Criteria, R1 Protection of recreation land and facilities, T11
Cycling
PLANNING APPRAISAL
In 1998 the white paper “New Deal for Transport Better for Everyone” recognised that unless real changes
were made to people’s travel habits there would be dramatic increases in traffic levels. It was also predicted
that car traffic would grow by more than a third over the next 20 years. The paper introduced the concept of
integrated transport policy which would enable people to make the appropriate transport choice in response
to the demands of their journey and also noted that buses could play a significant role in the reduction of
traffic. A similar reliance was also expressed in Transport 2010 – The Ten Year Plan and said “bus priority
measures, traffic management measures such as Home Zones, and traffic calming, parking strategies and
new walking and cycling routes can be individually or collectively improve transport choices and make a
significant difference to the quality of the local environment”. It also continued “reallocating road space to
buses, allowing them to avoid the worst congestion spots, can greatly improve journey times and
reliability.”
It is important that these two government papers are borne in mind when considering this, and also the park
and ride application. Within the UDP there are a range of policies which are relevant and should be taken
into consideration. Policy T1 seeks to provide a blanced transport network giving equal status to both
highway and public transport schemes and T4 seeks to encourage greater use of the public transport
network by supporting improvements to the quality and attractiveness of services. Policy T9 seeks to assist
travellers with impaired mobility by improving accessibility.
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
Associated pollution from the proposal is also of importance in terms of noise and air quality in particular
and in this respect policy EN20 is relevant. This states that the City Council will not normally encourage
development if it is likely to cause an unacceptable increase in existing air pollution, noise or vibration
levels. Similarly, policy EN7 encourages the conservation of trees and woodland and encourages that any
new tree planting is designed to contribute to wildlife conservation, recreation as well as landscape quality.
Development on existing formal/informal recreation land would not normally be allowed under policy R1
unless an equivalent replacement site is provided and laid out within the local area.
As the scheme runs parallel to and also through part of the City’s greenbelt, PPG 2 “Greenbelts” and
policies EN2, EN22 of the UDP must be taken into consideration. This states that the essential
characteristic of green belts is their permanence and their most important attribute is their openness. The
general presumption is against inappropriate development and it states “Very special circumstances to
justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any
other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations”. It also states that the visual amenity of the
greenbelt is important and should not be injured by proposals either within or conspicuous from the
greenbelt by reason of their siting, materials or design.
I consider that it is very important when assessing this proposal, to take into consideration the whole
scheme and its overriding purpose to provide a sustainable form of transport and to encourage the use of
public transport thereby reducing car traffic.
The proposal has generated a number of objections which are listed above and which I shall now address in
turn. The main concerns from residents in my opinion, relate to the increase in traffic and the associated
increase in pollution both in terms of noise and air quality, and also traffic safety issues. They are also of
the opinion that the proposal would be very costly to implement with little or no benefit, especially when
congestion only really occurs during peak times at the start and end of the day.
The underlying aim of the scheme is to encourage people to use bus transport to get into Manchester and
thereby reduce car traffic along this route. It may appear that traffic would be heavier in volume but this
may be owing to the fact that at present there are three traffic lanes along the majority of the route. The
proposal would reduce this to two in order to provide a specific lane, restricted to use by buses only in the
inner bound lane which would allow them more speedy progress along the route. In the longer term, it is
hoped that commuters into Manchester will realise the benefits of the scheme and be encouraged to leave
their cars at home and use the buses thereby reducing traffic or maintaining at similar levels as present. In
relation to the cost issue, the applicants have stated that the busway would provide the most cost effective
and efficient transport system and the junctions would be signalled to ensure that current journey time into
Manchester is not detrimentally affected. The guided section is required to justify and support the costs that
would be involved in relation to the non-guided section.
As part of the application, the environmental statement addressed issue of air quality and noise pollution
including an operational noise assessment. The proposal may result in slight increases to pollution and
particularly at specific points along the route. However, in relation to noise pollution the A580/A6 are both
already heavily trafficked and the Director of Environmental Services is satisfied that the increase in noise
would not be of a significant level to justify any mandatory noise insulation provisions to nearby houses.
Furthermore, the scheme would use modern, low emission diesel buses which would conform to the future
Euro V standard.
For any proposal of this nature there may be an increase in accident risk, especially where there is a new
junction onto any road as at Newearth Road. However, the new junction would assist with reducing traffic
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
speeds and would also provide a dedicated pedestrian and cyclist crossing facility affording them greater
protection. Similarly, the provision of new, additional crossings along the route would provide additional
safety and protection to pedestrians and cyclists. If the proposal were to be implemented the speed
restriction along the A580 would be reduced to 40 mph therefore reducing accident risk still further.
The route does pass through areas of informal/formal recreation routes in the guided section adjacent to
Newearth Road, and through wildlife corridors and greenbelt along the A580. There will therefore be some
impact upon the landscape and also wildlife. In relation to works along the A580, except for the area of the
park and ride (application reference 02/43739/FUL) the majority of works are within the highway. I do not
consider that the loss of the grass verge would have a significant visual impact as it is immediately adjacent
to an existing three lane carriageway which already has an urban, hard character to it. In terms of wildlife
the Ecological Unit consider that there would be little impact in this aspect of the proposal.
The Boothstown Residents Association are concerned that the proposal would result in a loss of amenity for
pedestrians and cyclists. Along the guided section and the route of the former railway line it is proposed to
provide a 3m wide all-weather, combined footpath/cycleway which would be segregated for pedestrians
and riders/cyclists. In addition, after the junction with Newearth Road along the A580, it is proposed to
again have a dedicated, combined footpath/cycleway as far as Old Clough Lane. Both of these would
provide improved and additional facilities for cyclists and pedestrians and furthermore, there are also a
number of pedestrian and cyclist crossing points proposed at intervals along the A580. Therefore
pedestrians should actually benefit from the proposal, making the A580 generally safer for them.
The three local residents groups all consider that any consideration of the busway should be deferred until
the outcome of the M60 Jetts Study which, amongst other things, is considering the closure of the slip roads
at Junction 13 thereby diverting traffic elsewhere. In response to this, I would point out that the JETTS
Study proposals are not yet confirmed and will form the basis of a 15 – 20 year congestion management
strategy for the M60. Given that the busway appears on all the options plans, it can be assumed that it will
form part of the final strategy proposed by the study.
The same residents groups were also concerned about the necessary costs to implement the proposed
scheme and considered that the use of the existing railway lines would be much more beneficial. As part of
the Environmental Statement and legislative requirements, the applicant had to consider alternative
schemes including their environmental effects. The types of scheme that were examined included the use
of disused railway lines within the Leigh to Manchester transport corridor, a light rail option and alternative
bus based schemes. All possible alternatives had associated problems. These included for example the
inability of the heavy rail to run to Manchester Oxford Road or Manchester Picadilly, or the ability to
provide as regular a service provision as the busway. In terms of a lightrail option, this would be very
difficult to integrate into the existing Metrolink network. No practical alternative was found.
There will be an impact in the guided section adjacent to Newearth Road with a significant area of
vegetation clearance necessary as well as levels reduced. In this respect I consider it is the longer term
vision that needs to be assessed in terms of the benefits that would accrue. Areas of woodland and planting
would be lost but the applicant has indicated that extensive replanting with native species to the area would
be undertaken and in terms of any tree removed, 2 new trees would be planted as replacement. Once this
has become established wildlife would again develop. Currently there are no protected species located
along the route which would be detrimentally effected. The Ecological Unit are also satisfied with the
mitigation measures put forward by the applicant to ensure minimal impact upon any vegetation or wildlife.
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
Elsewhere along the route, minimal clearance work would be undertaken and therefore there would be
minimal amount of tree and shrub loss, with minimal resulting impact upon birds. New planting would be
replanted within the central reservation on the approach to the junction with Moorside Road which would
take time to become established. However in terms of the wider, longer scale picture, this would be a
relatively short-lived impact.
In relation to other objections, devaluation of property is not a planning consideration and I would agree
that there may be significant disruption caused during construction works. However, again this is a
short-term dis-benefit and it is important to consider the longer term benefits from the scheme once fully
operational.
Whereas I agree with the objectors that there will be short term traffic re-routing around Swinton and
Worsley during the works, I am firmly of the opinion that if something is not done to improve public
transport facilities across the City, car traffic is going to have a much greater impact in the future. During
construction and immediately after the works have been completed, traffic may try and find alternative
routes, however, this should settle down after a few weeks when it is recognised that journey times have not
been detrimentally affected by the proposal.
Part of the City’s greenbelt lies adjacent to the A580 between the junctions with Newearth Road and
Walkden Road. Along this section of the route, an additional carriageway would be constructed within the
highway which would require the removal of the existing grass verge. As the majority of this work
however, is within the existing highway and would not encroach onto the greenbelt itself, I do not consider
that this aspect of the proposal would detrimentally effect the greenbelt or its visual amenity.
Further east, between the M60 crossing the A580 and Shield Drive the A580 actually passes through the
greenbelt area. I have addressed the impact of the park and ride in the report for application 02/43739/FUL
and therefore it is just the impact of the busway itself that I shall address here. At this section of the route,
the busway would utilise the inner carriageway in both directions and therefore there should not be any
significant detrimental impact upon the greenbelt than is currently experienced. In this respect I consider
that the proposal is acceptable.
In summing up this proposal I would acknowledge that there would be some detrimental impacts upon local
residents and upon the amenity of the environment but it is the overriding benefits that would be
experienced by the residents of Salford and the Greater Manchester area generally that are important. The
proposal would help provide an integrated transport system within the locality and improve choice for
people. The buses proposed to be used would be to European standards and thus hopefully aid the reduction
in pollution. I firmly believe that this proposal is needed to reduce the amount of traffic on the A580 into
Manchester and it is fully supported by central government in its aims.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 29 July 2002 which shows a third traffic
lane from M61 slip to Moorside Road.
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
3. No development shall take place within the proposed area until the applicant has secured the
implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of
investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
4. All development and associated works shall be undertaken in accordance with the principles set out in
the Environmental Statement.
5. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of
development. Such a scheme shall include full details of existing and proposed trees and shrubs to be
planted which shall be designed on ecological principles to provide compensation for habitat losses,
walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months of the
commencement of the development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
6. Emission standards of buses using the guided busway and the dedicated bus lanes shall meet EURO III
or better emission standards.
7. No development pursuant to this planning application shall commence unless and until the developer
has submitted the following full design and construction details of the required improvements to the
grade-separated junction of the M61 Eastbound off slip/A580 (T) East Lancashire Road, such details to
be agreed by the local planning authority, in consultation with the highway authorities and shown in
outline in drawing 48474/NWD/089 Rev P1, dated 29th July 2002, prepared on behalf of GMPTE.
i) How the scheme interfaces with the existing highway alignment, details of the carriageway markings
and lane destinations.
ii) Confirmation of full compliance with current Departmental Standards (DMRB) and Policies (or
approved relaxations/departures from standards),
iii) An independant Stage Two Road Safety Audit (taking into account any Stage One Road Safety
Audit recommendations) carried out in accordance with current Departmental Standards (DMRB) and
Advice Notes.
(Please note there are two Stage 1 Safety Audits.
The first,
ref:500221/012/AJP/571.9956, relates to the section of highway including the M61 slip road and A580
to Moorside Road. The second, ref: 500221/012/AJP/571.10049, relates to the A580 between
Ellenbrook Road and the M60).
8. No development shall be brought into its intended use, unless and until the highway improvements, in
accordance with Condition 07, have been implemented to the satisfaction of the local authority in
consultation with the highway authorities.
9. The scheme shall not be implemented until final scheme details, following the full safety audit of the
scheme have been received and agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services.
10. The prior written assessment of the potential for pedestrian crossing facilities at Worsley Road shall be
submitted and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services and prior to the
implementation of the scheme.
11. Full details of the programme of works for the guided section adjacent to Newearth Road including
details timing and of the transportation of the material from the site and the route this would follow
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the
commencement of the guided section of the route.
12. The development shall NOT commence until the necessary approval for any footpath/road closures as
required under the necessary legislation has been secured.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
3. To record remains of archaeological interest in accordance with policy EN14 of the UDP.
4. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. To safeguard the air quality along the A580 and A6 in accordance with policy EN20 of the UDP.
7. To ensure that the M61 Motorway and A580 trunk road might continue to fulfil their purpose as part of
a national system of routes for through traffic, in accordance with Section 10(2) of the Highways Act
1980, maintaining the safety of traffic on the road.
8. To ensure that the M61 Motorway and A580 trunk road might continue to fulfil their purpose as part of
a national system of routes for through traffic, in accordance with Section 10(2) of the Highways Act
1980, maintaining the safety of traffic on the road.
9. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
10. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
11. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
12. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
APPLICATION No:
02/43789/COU
APPLICANT:
B M And H P Parker
LOCATION:
30/32 Wellington Street West Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from shop to five self contained flats
WARD:
Broughton
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former Co-op shop within this predominantly residential area. The property
has most recently been used for offices and a workshop. The proposal is now to change the use of the
property to five self-contained flats. This would involve some internal alterations, and the installation of
new windows. There would be four spaces available on the forecourt of the property.
SITE HISTORY
In January 2000, planning permission was granted for the change of use of the property to 6 one-bedroom
apartments. This proposal also involved alterations to the elevations and forecourt parking.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
31-35(odd) Manley Street
26, 28, 34, 36,11A, 15, 17, 19-25(odd) Wellington Street West
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received an objection from the ward Councillor on the grounds that there would be little demand for
flats and that there would be problems with car parking in the area.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV2 – Good Design
PLANNING APPRAISAL
In determining this proposal I would be mindful that in 2000, planning permission was granted for the use
of the building for 6 one-bedroom apartments. It was considered at the time that the proposal would not be
particularly detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring residents and it would benefit the area by ensuring
the vacant building was bought back into use. I would be particularly keen to see this building in use as it is
on the local list of buildings of architectural or historic interest. I had no highway objections to the previous
proposal.
I am mindful of the concerns of the ward Councillor, who feels that flats here may be inappropriate and
cause a nuisance for the surrounding residents because of the increase in the intensity of the use and the
increase in traffic to the area. However, I would consider that this particular proposal would differ little in
character from that previously approved as it would for 5 flats instead of the 6 smaller ones already
approved. It would still be a residential use, which would reflect the surrounding residential character of the
area, and there would be some car parking provision on the forecourt, which is currently not available. I
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
would also consider that the revised plan for the new windows would be in keeping with the existing design
and therefore would not be detrimental to the appearance of this street scene. As this application does not
differ significantly from that already approved, it would ensure that this building is brought back into use
and maintained, and I would not consider that it would have a seriously detrimental effect on the amenity of
neighbours, I would recommend that the proposal be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 29 May 2002 which shows amended
elevations.
3. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use not less than 4 car parking spaces shall be
provided within the curtilage of the site to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services and
such spaces shall be made available at all times the premises are in use.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
3. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
APPLICATION No:
02/44095/FUL
APPLICANT:
The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints
LOCATION:
Former Care Home, 196-200 Partington Lane Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a Church and meeting house together with associated car
parking
WARD:
Swinton North
fjDESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to part of the former Swinton Hospital site adjacent to 186 – 194 Partington Lane,
which was previously sheltered accommodation but this has now been demolished. The site is 0.2 hectares
in size with a frontage of 36m. The site drops away from the road and is bounded by a high brick wall along
the eastern boundary with railings and a hedge along the frontage to Partington Lane. The residential
properties of Blackcroft Close, and Everton Street lie to the north and west of the site separated by an
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
unsurfaced access, with the gable end of no. 194 Partington Lane standing directly on the western boundary
on the frontage. To the east, is the site where permission has recently been granted for a medical centre,
offices and a playing field, reference 00/40700/FUL.
Permission is sought for the erection of a church building for a meeting house for the Mormons, as a
replacement to their existing meeting house in Eccles. It would have a congregation of 200. The building
would be “L” shaped and would measure 21.6m wide on the frontage by 29.6m at its deepest point. It
would stand just over 8m in height with a spire to approximately 9m above the ridge and would comprise of
a worship area on the ground floor with classrooms and a room for the bishop at first floor level at the front.
The main use of the building would be for Sunday worship and Sunday school teaching activities although
there would be activities during the weekday evenings. At these times the classrooms would be utilised and
the meeting hall adapted to be used for badminton or basketball. The building would be positioned within
the centre of the site, 9m back from the frontage to Partington Lane, some 22m from the gable of the
properties of Blackcroft Close and 3.2mm from the boundary to the western boundary at its closest point,
increasing to 8.1m at the rear. Thirty two car parking spaces would be provided within the site, the majority
of which would be at the rear. The existing access off Partington Lane would be utilised.
In August 2000 permission was granted for a very similar proposal but with a slightly smaller footprint,
planning reference 00/40952/FUL. The building again was “L” shaped but measured 17.3m wide, by 29m.
It was sited 10m back from the frontage to Partington Lane, 20m from the gable of the properties of
Blackcroft Close and 6.5m from the western boundary and the gable wall of 194 Partington Lane.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to the imposition of a condition to ensure that
any floodlighting would not cause nuisance to any neighbouring property and would not exceed 20 LUX
maximum.
Coal Authority – no objections.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 16 May 2002.
A site notice was displayed on 22 May 2002.
The following neighbours were notified :
186 – 194 Partington Lane
2 – 30 Everton Street
1 – 6 Blackcroft Close
The Deans Primary School
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objections in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
The proposed building is considerably larger than the previous permission
Close proximity of the church building to their dwelling
Loss of privacy
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none.
Other policies: SC1 Social and Community Provision, SC2 Provision of Social and Community
Facilities by Private and Voluntary Agencies, DEV2 Good Design, T13 Car Parking
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The permission granted in August 2002 established the principle of a church building on this site.
However, the details of the siting of this application have now changed and it is the impact of these changes
that must be considered. The proposal accords with policies SC1 which seeks to maintain and improve the
quality and distribution of social and community facilities and is also supported by SC2 and SC3 which
state the broad intention to support the provision of social and community facilities.
I shall seek to address the objections received from the occupier of 194 Partington Lane whose gable wall
stands along part of the western boundary with four windows within the gable wall. These include two
kitchen/morning room and two bedroom windows.
Previously the proposed church was to stand 10m back from the site frontage and 6.5m at its closest point to
the gable wall of no. 194. This was almost an identical footprint to that of the former nursing home on the
site and for these reasons was considered acceptable. In contrast, this proposal is seeking to amend the
siting and would bring the church closer to the front curtilage with Partington Lane by 1.5m and also
significantly closer to the gable wall of no.194 by 3.1m to stand just 3.4m from it. The combination of these
two amendments would result in the proposed church standing directly in front of two of the windows and
directly in front of half of the second two windows (the two closest to Partington Lane). I am concerned
about the impact of the proposal upon the amenity of the residents at no.194.
I have expressed my concerns to the applicant but he wishes that the application be considered as it stands.
The proposed church would be much closer to their main habitable room windows than the former nursing
home and I consider that the proposal would have an overbearing impact and also result in a loss of light. I
therefore agree with the objectors and consider that the proposal as submitted is not acceptable. I therefore
recommend that this application be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development by virtue of its size, siting and close proximity to no. 194 Partington Lane
would have a significant detrimental impact upon the amenity of these residents by reason of loss of
light, privacy and would result in a development which would have an overbearing impact and is thus
contrary to policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/44135/OUT
APPLICANT:
Wren Properties Limited
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
LOCATION:
Land At Rear Of Kersal Avenue Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Variation of conditions relating the commencement of development in
respect of outline application for the erection of 22 dwellings with
communal areas and 33 car parking spaces. ( ref 98/38245/OUT)
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant site off Kersal Avenue and to the rear of properties on Bolton Road. In
June 1999, outline planning permission was granted on appeal for the construction of 22 two bed roomed
houses with communal area. This application is for the renewal of this outline permission
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services –raised the site history of tipping and the problems of contamination on
the site
Environment Agency – has no objection in principal but would recommend surface water is controlled
because of the proximity to Slack Brook.
GMGU – no comments received
British Coal – has raised no objections but has commented on previous workings
Railtrack – encloses their schedule of recommendations/comments in respect of development near to the
railway
PUBLICITY
The proposal has been advertised in the local press and a site notice was displayed.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
295-313 (odd) Bolton Road
2-14 (odd), 1-17(even) Kersal Avenue
1-11(odd) Rivington Avenue
275-293 (odd) Rivington Crescent
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 5 letters of objection to the proposal. The main issues identified are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
overdevelopment of the site
developing the site would release chemicals present in the soil, which would be a health hazard
no. 2 Kersal Avenue is up for sale and therefore access could not be gained into the site
the slope at the side of the site may be unsafe and therefore the stability of the site could affect existing
properties
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
5. the site continues to remain a focus for flytipping, and the appearance of rats means that it is dangerous
for children and animals in the area.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I am mindful that this particular site has an extensive history both with previous tipping, and with
applications for developing the site. There is concern about the site amongst neighbouring residents, which
is reflected in responses to neighbour consultation. However, this specific application is simply for a
renewal of the previous grant of outline planning permission and therefore this previous approval can only
be reconsidered if there has been any significant changes in circumstances.
I am aware that no. 2 Kersal Avenue is currently on the market, and the access into the site would be gained
from Kersal Avenue including the demolition of no. 2. However, the fact that this house may change
ownership does not constitute any change in circumstances as far as planning considerations are concerned.
It would simply be for the new owner to agree with any developer, in order to facilitate any access into the
site.
I would not consider that there have been any material changes in circumstances since the Planning
Inspectorate approved the previous outline application. Therefore I would recommend that this application
for renewal be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the buildings, and the
landscaping of the site which shall include land in the applicant's control shown edged blue on the
submitted plan (hereafter called the "reserved matters") shall be obtained from the local planning
authority in writing before any development is commenced and such development shall be carried out
as approved.
2. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority before the
expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
3. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the
date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the
reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.
4. This permission shall only relate to dwellings within communal managed gardens and does not give
permission for individual private curtilages.
5. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a scheme for the treatment of the
gable end of no. 4 Kersal Avenue shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
authority. The approved scheme shall be carried out prior to the commencement of the construction of
any dwellings.
6. Development shall not begin until a scheme to deal with gas migration affecting the site has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; the scheme shall include an
investigation and assessment to identify the extent of gas migration and the measures to be taken to
avoid risk to occupiers of the proposed and surrounding houses. Development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved scheme.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
2. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
3. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
4. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
6. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
APPLICATION No:
02/44142/OUT
APPLICANT:
Davison And Robinson Limited
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By Everard Street/Ordsall Lane And Woden Street
Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Outline application for the development of land for residential
purposes
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land bounded by Woden Street, Ordsall Lane, Everard Street and The River
Irwell. To the south of the site are industrial buildings while to the north is a mix of uses including
residential. Beyond the river is a high railway embankment and arches that now carry the Metrolink. There
are four storey flats on the opposite side of Ordsall Lane. The site covers approximately 1.2 hectares.
Outline planning permission is sought for residential development with all matters being reserved.
SITE HISTORY
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
In 1995, a renewal of outline planning permission was granted for the erection of a
Cash and Carry Warehouse and associated offices together with car parking, servicing and landscaping
(95/34014/TPDC).
In 1992, planning permission was granted for the erection of a Cash and Carry Warehouse and associated
offices together with car parking, servicing and landscaping (E/29993).
In 1984, a Circular 18/84 application was submitted, the City Council did not object, to the erection of TA
Centre (E/19077).
In 1980, permission was granted for temporary office accommodation (E/11712).
In 1980, permission was granted to demolish a boilerhouse (E/11711).
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – no objections in principle but provides advice and requests that a condition be
attached regarding floor levels.
United Utilities – no objections in principle and provides advice.
Director of Environmental Services – The proposed development is situated in a busy inner city area where
the residents will be subjected to noise from the nearby main road, industrial estate and railway that will
disturb sleep. It is therefore considered residents may well suffer loss of amenity due to various noise
disturbances. It is recommended that a number of conditions be attached that will satisfactorily mitigate
existing background and future internal noise levels with regard to noise as well as one regarding
contaminated land.
Manchester City Council – no comments received
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – no objections
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – support the application
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices
The application has been advertised as a departure from the Unitary Development Plan
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
148 and 217 Ordsall Lane
1 –15 odd Woden Avenue
24 and 26 Freya Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EC13/8 Sites for Industry and Warehousing
Other policies: EC3 Re-Use of Sites and Premises, T10 Pedestrians, T13 Car Parking, DEV1
Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EC13/8 relates to the protection of the site for industrial and warehousing. Policy EC3 states that
where existing industrial and commercial sites become vacant the City Council will seek to re-use them for
similar or related uses except where the site could be used for other purposes without a resulting material or
unacceptable shortfall in the range of sites available for economic development. Policy T10 states that the
City Council will ensure that the needs of pedestrians are given greater attention and policy T13 requires
that adequate and appropriate car parking is made where necessary. Policy DEV1 states that the City
Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering applications, these factors include the
relationship to existing land uses, road and public transport networks, the amount of car parking provision,
the visual appearance of the development and open space provision. Policy DEV2 states that the City
Council will not normally grant planning permission unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and
appearance of the development.
There has been a change of circumstances since the UDP was adopted in November 1995, which I consider
justifies a departure from the allocation for industry and warehousing. There has been a boom in the
Regional centre housing market, and both Chapel Street and Salford Quays have seen considerable mixed
use development. The Ordsall Lane corridor provides and important link between these two areas, and its
development for a mix of uses could also benefit the continuing regeneration of the Ordsall area. The
granting of planning permission for residential development at nearby Gresham Mill also alters the context
of the allocation.
PPG1 encourages the development of mixed-use areas, and PPG3 states that local planning authorities
should review all of their non-housing allocations and consider whether some of this land might better be
used for housing or mixed developments. The applicant has stated a difficulty in attracting employment
uses and therefore I consider the proposal to be consistent within the spirit of PPG3. Furthermore EC3 states
where sites are vacant change of use will be acceptable where sufficient supply of similar uses exists, there
is a similar supply of sites many already constructed, within Salford and Trafford Park and the applicants
have advised there has been no firm demand in the site for industrial purposes for five years. In addition the
site is vacant and in a poor state, to the extent the Enforcement Officer is investigating serving a notice
under Section 215, as such I consider the proposal would improve the amenity of the area without
detrimentally effecting the supply of this type of unit, as such I consider the proposal acceptable even given
the requirement of policy EC13/8.
The applicant has confirmed existing rights of way over the site would be maintained. The site is accessible
by a number of modes of travel including, foot, cycle, bus, metrolink and private car. As there is a mix of
uses in the area including vacant industrial premises I consider the principle of residential development to
be acceptable. I recommend that the application be approved given all other matters are reserved. The
applicant has agreed to enter into a Section 106 legal agreement for environmental improvements, the
precise amount will depend upon the number of units in either a reserved matters application or future full
planning application.
RECOMMENDATION
That Government Office be informed that the City Council is minded to approve this proposal subject to the
following:
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
a) that the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106
of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the payment of ₤500 per residential unit for local
environmental improvement;
b) that the applicant be informed that the Council is minded to grant planning permission, subject to the
conditions stated below, on completion of such legal agreement;
c) that authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application to be issued, (subject to the
conditions stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned legal agreement.
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
2. Standard Condition B01X Reserved Matters
3. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the protection of
the existing landscaped buffer strip and riparian walkways as part of any future development in the
riverside location has been agreeed by the Director of Development Services. Such a scheme shall be
completed in accordance with the approved plans.
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. Prior to the approval of the application, the developer shall undertake an assessment to determine the
external noise levels that the residents will be subjected to (daytime and night). The developer shall
detail what steps are to be taken to mitigate the disturbance from the above. The assessment should
have due regard to the Department of the Environment Guidance PPG24 - Planning and Noise and also
BS 4142-Rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas. The assessment and
mitigation measures shall be submitted for the approval of the Director of Development Services prior
to occupation.
6. The windows of all habitable rooms to elevations facing Everard Street 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 recommendations to avoid air
gaps when fitting the frames. Alternative means of forced mechanical ventilation, which must be sound
attenuating, shall be provided.
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
7. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until details of the existing and
proposed floor levels have been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme
shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. To protect and conserve the existing wildlife corridor and riparian walkway.
4. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
6. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
7. To ensure that the development is subject to minimum risk of flooding.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. No building material or rubbish must find its way into the watercourse.
2. All downspouts should be sealed directly into the ground ensuring the only open grids present around
each dwelling are connected to the foul sewage system.
3. No rainwater contaminated with silt/soil from disturbed ground during construction, must drain to teh
surface water sewer or watercourse without sufficient settlement.
4. The developer should consult United Utilities regarding a 3m easment either side of a public sewer on
the site.
APPLICATION No:
02/44133/FUL
APPLICANT:
Allied London Properties
LOCATION:
River Irwell Between Irwell Square (Manchester) And Stanley Street
Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Erection of new pedestrian footbridge
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
This application relates to a new pedestrian footbridge over the River Irwell linking the new Spinningfields
development in Manchester to Salford. The footbridge would lie between the Albert and Irwell Street
vehicular bridges.
The bridge would cross the river at an angle and would land at Stanley Street between the Mark Addy and
the Raleigh Quay offices. It would be constructed using an underslung cable supporting a structural steel
deck with lightweight aluminium decking. It would have a curved span of 44m which would be 4.5m wide
at its centre point. The bridge would provide a pedestrian and cycle link across the river, and would have an
8m long bench at the centre of the main span. The bridge would be lit at night with tube lighting contained
within the balustrade to light the main deck and lights to the underside to illuminate the structural features
of the bridge. A key function of the bridge would be to improve pedestrian linkages between Salford
Central Station and central Manchester and the Spinningfields development.
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – No objections in principle but provides advice
United Utilities – Objects to the application on the grounds that the northern support for the bridge appears
to conflict with a surface water sewer.
Manchester City Council – Supports the development
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of a site notice and the following neighbours were notified :
Duke’s 92, Stanley Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV2 Good Design, T10 Pedestrians, T11 Cycling
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant planning permission unless it is satisfied
with the quality of design and the appearance of the development. Policies T10 and T11 seek to improve
facilities for pedestrians and cyclists respectively.
With regard to the objection from United Utilities the applicant is in correspondence regarding their
objection and has explained that there should not be any problem due to the bridge’s construction but has
informed United Utilities that should there be an obstruction the they will pay for the existing sewer to be
relocated or diverted as necessary.
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
Policies T10 and T11 fully support the application and I am satisfied that the bridge is of a contemporary
design that uses high quality materials and lighting. I am satisfied that the bridge will both improve the
appearance of the local environment and be of significant benefit to our city in general.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment Agency.
APPLICATION No:
02/44225/TPO
APPLICANT:
The Lancashire Theatre Organ Trust
LOCATION:
Sunday School Annex Alexandra Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Fell two silver birch trees
WARD:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to two mature silver birch trees situated to the front of a former Sunday School on
Alexandra Road, which doesn’t have many other trees along it.
The two trees are approximately 13m in height and can be seen from all along Alexandra Road. The trees
are healthy and have a high site amenity value and a very high visual impact. The Lancashire Theatre
Organ Trust have recently taken the building over as they wish to base there regional headquarters there.
The request for the removal of the trees is to ensure that the building is secure and that CCTV and security
lighting can be installed and used effectively.
SITE HISTORY
In April 2002 an application for the felling of the two trees was refused.
CONSULTATIONS
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
Director of Environmental Services – There is no arboricultural reason for the felling of the trees.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
11-21 (odds) and 2 Alexandra Road
1 and 3 Green Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of support in response to the application publicity from Councillor Clarke. The
following comments having been made:
The project has massive implications for the whole area with what could possibly amount to a
multi-million pound project.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EN7 states that we will encourage the conservation of trees and woodland by supporting the
retention of trees, woods, copses and hedgerows. The loss of mature trees can be particularly damaging,
given the length of time required for trees to reach this condition.
The Lancashire Theatre Organ Trust is a registered charity that hope to house an original and historic
Wurlitzer Theatre Organ at the above premises. There needs to be a certain amount of security to the
building to house the said organ. The trees in question would obscure any proposed CCTV or lighting to
the front of the property making it impossible for security to be maintained. The trees also obscure the front
of the property making it more attractive to potential criminals. However the trees are healthy and provide
a visual amenity along Alexandra Road, there are no arboricultural reasons for the removal of these trees,
therefore I recommend that the application is refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed felling of the two Birch trees numbered T3 & T4 in the City of Salford Tree Preservation
Order No. 217, would seriously injure the amenity of the area and insufficient evidence has been
provided to justify the removal of protected trees. The removal of trees without a sufficient reason
contradicts the City of Salford's Unitary Development Plan Policy EN7 "Conservation of Trees and
Woodlands".
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44332/FUL
APPLICANT:
Dimora Construction Limited
LOCATION:
Land Adjoining St John's Vicarage Broomfield Pendlebury Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two detached dwellings
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a piece of land surrounding St. John’s Vicarage on Broomfield. St John’s Church
and graveyard is to the south of the site, the Church Hall is to the west and there are houses to the east. The
land in question wraps around the Vicarage in a U-shape and there would be two entrances onto
Broomfield.
This proposal would erect two, 4 bedroom detached dwellings to the side and rear of the vicarage. The
previous outline application was for the erection of two, 3 bed properties and a bungalow. The proposal
would provide an additional access between the Vicarage and 2 Broomfield and would improve the existing
access.
SITE HISTORY
In 1978 an outline application for one detached dwelling at the rear of 2 Broomfield was refused
(ref.E/6440). The reasons for refusal were

The building of a dwelling behind another without proper road frontage would interfere with the
privacy of neighbouring properties and would create difficulties for collecting and delivery services.

The proposed access to the site is unsatisfactory because of its length and proximity to No.2 Broomfield
and would adversely affect the residential amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of that
property.
In 2001 an outline application was approved for three detached dwellings, two 3 bed properties and a
bungalow to the rear of 2 Broomfield (00/41198/OUT).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – the site lies within 250m of a former landfill site. Therefore a report
must be undertaken to determine the presence of any landfill gas or sources of contamination and if
necessary provide adequate measures of protection.
Environment Agency – no objections
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
Coal Authority – advice provided
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 27th June 2002
The following neighbours were notified :
85 & 148 Broomhall Road
2-10 (e) and 1-7 (o) Broomfield
St John’s Vicarage, Broomfield
375 Worsley Road, Swinton
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Safety during construction
Loss of light
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV1 – Development Criteria
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.
This site is in a predominantly residential area, so that the character of the proposed use would be in keeping
with the area. The site is bounded to the south by St John’s Church, a Grade II listed building, but I am
satisfied that because the dwellings would be within the grounds of the existing vicarage, they would not
have a significant impact on the setting of the Church.
I have received one letter of concern in response to the application publicity, which makes reference to two
issues. Safety during construction would be an issue dealt with by Building Control. The second point
relates to a potential loss of light to the south facing elevation of the vicarage.
I consider that in this situation, the main issues for consideration would be any potential effect on the
neighbouring properties. An outline application has been approved for two detached dwellings in this
location. However, this proposal would provide larger dwelling types that those that have been approved.
The proposal has been sited in such an arrangement as to allow adequate separation from the existing
properties. The gable of plot 1 would be 13m from the front elevation of the vicarage. Plot 2 would be set
in 4m from the common boundary and has been moved more to the west than that which has already been
approved, and as such would not be directly behind the vicarage.
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
The scheme as proposed would result in the loss of 3 or 4 trees that are on the site, currently along the
boundary between the application site and the neighbouring church yard. However, these are young
sycamore trees that are currently unprotected by any Preservation Order and appear to be self seeded trees
that have had the opportunity to grow in the uncultivated vicarage garden. Although they could be seen
from outside the site, they are not mature road frontage trees and therefore I do not consider that their loss
would have a severe impact on the amenity of the area.
In balancing the details of this application and the issues raised, I do not consider that any adverse effect
from the proposal would cause a severely detrimental effect on the amenity of either neighbouring
properties or on the area generally. Therefore I do not consider that it would justify the refusal of this
proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition M01 Removal of Permitted Development Rights
3. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the
approval of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and
distribution of contamination and underground gases on site and its implications on the risk to human
health and controlled water receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part
IIA. The investigation shall also address the Health and Safety of the site workers, also nearby persons,
building structures and services, and landscape schemes, final users on the site and the environmental
pollution in ground water.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the
start of the survey and recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report shall
be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.
4. There shall be no additional windows inserted into the eastern elevation of plot 1 or the northern
elevation of plot 2
5. Standard Condition C01X Landscaping
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R037A Additional measure of control
3. In the interests of the safety of future occupiers of the development, as the site is in close proximity to a
former landfill site.
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/44348/FUL
APPLICANT:
Bluetree Estates Limited
LOCATION:
Hulmes Farm Ferry Road Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Erection of three part two storey/part three storey blocks comprising a
mix of 12 houses and 10 apartments including alteration to existing and
creation of new highway accesses
WARD:
Irlam
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former Hulmes Farm site off Ferry Road, Irlam. The site consists of two
detached dwellings and occupies a corner site on the west of Ferry Road at the Junction of Boat Lane and
Ferry Road. The surrounding area is characterised by two and also some two/three storey residential
dwellings along with a number of mature trees.
Planning permission is sought for twenty two dwellings, comprising twelve houses and ten apartments, and
the alteration of existing and creation of new highway access. The proposed houses are a mix of two and
three storey with the apartments being in two three storey blocks. The two storey buildings are 7.3m high to
the ridge whilst the three storey blocks are 10.3m high to the ridge.
The development is designed in a mews style with varying heights and 31 parking spaces. The spaces are
located as thus, fifteen parking spaces in the central courtyard, eight spaces behind the apartments, two
beside each plots 1 and 22 and also four spaces, for visitors, behind plots 20 and 21. Parking spaces are
proposed to be laid out in concrete paving whilst footpaths are segregated with contrasting brick paviour.
SITE HISTORY
In 1987, planning permission was refused for the change of use from wholesale storage to part retail part
wholesale (E/29713).
In 1992, planning permission was granted for the erection of two detached bungalows (E/22694).
In 2002, outline planning permission was granted for the erection of 13 dwellings (01/43186/OUT).
CONSULTATIONS
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Comments received in relation to parking spaces
and windows
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 4th July 2002
A site notice was displayed on 3rd July 2002
The following neighbours were notified :
4 & 1 – 7 odd Ferry Road
46 – 54 even and 21 – 33 odd Ferry Road
Calybank and Bellcraig, Ferry Road
1 –12 inclusive Olympia Court
14 – 18 inclusive Gerrards Close
117 & 119 Liverpool Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received seven letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Concern over vehicle access
Overlooking
Diminished sunlight/daylight
Eyesore
Protection of Trees
Street Lighting Pollution
Loss of existing buildings
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The principle of this land being used as housing was established with the above mentioned outline
permission. I consider that the two existing dwellings on the site are not of architectural or historic merit to
be worthy of retention. Policy DEV1 requires that developments fit in with the surrounding uses and
buildings and that regard is had to the effect upon privacy/sunlight/daylight of neighbouring property and of
the visual impact of the development. Policy DEV2 requires that development consists of a quality design
whilst DEV4 requires developments to have regard to crime prevention.
I have received a number of points of objection from members of the public in relation to matters of a
detailed planning nature including overlooking, privacy, trees, eyesore, access and light pollution. I am of
the opinion that the actual distance to neighbouring property, of 26m from habitable room to habitable room
and 13m habitable room to gable end, conforms to the City Councils policies with regard to privacy and
sunlight/daylight. The fact that the development is in part three storey has raised objection, this alone I
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
consider is not sufficient reason for refusal. Government guidance within PPG3 calls for higher densities
and redevelopment on brownfield land subject to respecting residential amenity. I consider that the proposal
meets these requirements of PPG3 and also those of Policy DEV1 with respect to amenity.
Furthermore I do not consider the varied height of the building would detract from the character of the
surrounding area. I also consider that the detailed design with part rendered sections on main elevations and
roof styles to match surrounding residential property will enhance the character of the surrounding area.
The proposal includes the loss of poplars on the site and some smaller tree specimens. The Senior Arborist
considers that amenity of the area will be maintained with some of the existing trees being retained. A
landscaping condition is proposed to be attached to further maintain the amenity of the area.
The applicant has amended the scheme to include additional security measures, including additional gates
and an increase in the height of fencing and internal shutters to some ground floor windows. Car spaces 1 to
4 are intended for visitors to the site and are overlooked by existing properties on Ferry Road. Spaces 5 and
6 are overlooked by plot 22 and 7 and 8 are overlooked by plot 1. These additional measures have overcome
the objections from the GM Police on crime prevention.
Given the sites current vacant status and contribution toward the housing stock the re-use as housing land
would confirm to policies within the Unitary Development Plan. I consider that the site at 0.38 hectares is
large enough to accommodate the proposed dwellings and that a residential use would conform to
surrounding buildings and uses. I also consider the design of the buildings to be of a good standard. I have
no highway objections and recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
3. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of
foul and surface waters has been approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such a
scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved scheme.
4. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakway system, all surface
water drainage from impermeable parking areas and hardstandings for vehicles shall be passed through
trapped gullies with an overall capacity compatible with the site being drained.
5. No development shall take place until all reasonable steps have been taken to investigate the presence
or otherwise of landfill gas, and migrating landfill gas affecting the site. A copy of the results and
method of the site survey shall be submitted to the Director of Development Services. If the presence of
landfill gas is confirmed development shall not commence until satisfactory remedial measures have
been agreed with the Director of Development Services. Details of the site survey methodology, and
remedial measures shall be submitted prior to the Director of Development Services prior to
commencement of the development.
6. The construction of the development shall not commence until a scheme for additional signage for the
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
one way system around the development has been approved by the Director of Development Services.
Such a scheme, to be funded by the developer, shall be implemented prior to the commencement of
construction.
7. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme, which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within twelve of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. To ensure a satisfactory means of drainage.
4. To prevent pollution of the water environment.
5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
6. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The developer is advised to contact United Utilities regarding connection to the sewer system.
APPLICATION No:
02/44378/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr Rowlett
LOCATION:
7 Parkstone Lane Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey side extension and conservatory at rear
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a proposed side/rear single storey extension to a semi-detached property. There
is an existing single-storey rear extension that has recently been built under permitted development.
The side element would project 2.4m from the side to be very close to the side boundary, it would run the
full length of the existing side elevation projecting 1.8m beyond the existing rear elevation and then angling
in at 45 degrees. The total projection of the rear element would be 3.5m X 5.6m. The total height of the
proposal would be 3.8m.
CONSULTATIONS
The Coal Authority – No Objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
5, 9, 12 and 14 Parkstone Lane
11 Edenfield Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objections in response to the application publicity from the occupiers of both
neighbouring properties. The following comments having been made:
The proposal is out of proportion to the existing property
Possible smells from the mechanical ventilation system for the W.C.
The applicant may build bigger than indicated on the plans and in the future may build at first floor
level
The measurement for the 45 degree angle should be taken from the end of the window opening
The dining room extension originally needed planning permission
The applicant may want to build future extensions to the property
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance 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.
Supplementary Planning Guidance states that planning permission would be granted for a single-storey rear
extension to a semi-detached property if the proposal does not project beyond a 45 degree line drawn from
the mid point of any ground floor habitable room window of an adjoining/adjacent dwelling.
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
The property has recently been extended at the rear and the addition of the proposal would increase the
ground floor area to more than double the original dwelling house. The properties have large rear gardens
with the proposal being more than 22m from the rear boundary. I would not consider the size alone to have
a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties, the proposal is also at the side and rear so has little impact
on the street scene.
There is an existing W.C. in the property that would have a mechanical ventilation system that would lead
into the proposed garage and not the adjacent property.
I have considered the proposal as indicated on the plans, if the applicant were to increase the size without
planning permission then the appropriate enforcement action would be taken. If the applicant were to apply
for a first floor side extension then it would be considered at that time on its merits.
The Supplementary Planning Guidance states that the 45 degree angle should be measured from the
mid-point of the window. The adjacent property has a lounge bay window on the rear elevation close to the
boundary. The proposal is within a 45 degree angle draw from the mid-point of the window.
The dining room extension did originally require planning permission but the applicant removed his
existing garage extension and the proposal was built under permitted development rights. The dining room
extension is already built and as such cannot be dealt with as part of the current planning application.
If the applicant submits further applications they will be determined on their merits. The proposal complies
with current supplementary Planning Guidance therefore 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.
3. No windows shall be inserted in the side elevation facing No.5 of the extension hereby approved
without the written approval of the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44390/REM
APPLICANT:
C Tomkinson
LOCATION:
Land Between 13/15 Brackley Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Details of the external appearance and landscape in respect of the
erection of a two storey dwelling house.
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a small garage site measuring approximately 40m by 6.5m. The site is bounded to
the north and south by large semi-detached Victorian properties and also has residential properties to the
front and back.
This application is submitted for approval of the previously reserved matters of the outline application
granted on the 16th November 2000 (00/41211/OUT) for the erection of a two storey dwelling. Reserved
matters of the planning permission for the erection of the detached dwelling were (i) the colour and type of
facing materials to be used for all external walls and roofs; and (ii) a landscape scheme for the site to
include details of trees and shrubs to be planted. All other matters of the two storey building have already
been approved under the previous outline including the siting, design including height and position of
windows and means of access.
SITE HISTORY
In 1970, planning permission was granted for a three storey dwelling.
In 2000, outline planning permission was granted for the erection of a detached dwelling.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Environment Agency – No objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 9th July 2002
The following neighbours were notified :
2 –8 & 8A even Brackley Road
1, 3, 9 – 25 odd Brackley Road
The Lodge and 2A Broad Oak Park
REPRESENTATIONS
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
I have received five letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Loss of privacy to rooms and garden areas
Loss of sunlight/daylight to properties
Design objectionable
Colour of brick not fit in with area
Inaccuracies in plans
Quality of plans
Loss of trees
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 seeks, inter alia, to protect privacy for neighbouring properties and to have regard to the
impact of the visual appearance of the development upon its surroundings. As members will recall the
objections received with respect to the design, size, impact upon trees of the proposal relate to matters that
have already been granted outline planning permission. The visual appearance of the building in terms of
the proposed materials are at this stage under consideration. Objection has been raised to the initial buff or
yellow colour brick as this was considered dissimilar to nearby properties. The applicant has amended the
proposed brick type to a darker red brick, nostell melton amber multi brick, which I consider conforms to
the colour of the surrounding properties. I consider the aluminium roof of the property ties in with the
already approved design of the building. Likewise, I consider that, the aluminium window frames and
exposed steel work add to the interest of the building.
The balcony at the rear of the approved dwelling is shown with obscure glazed windows to the gable cheeks
to maintain privacy over a large part of the rear gardens of neighbouring properties. Objection has been
raised to the loss of privacy in neighbouring rear gardens. I am however of the opinion that the proposal
including the obscured glazing would not have a significant impact upon the privacy of neighbouring
gardens as only a small part of numbers 13 and 15 Brackley Road would be overlooked from the first floor
balcony.
As the siting has already been approved the submitted tree report discusses the amenity value of trees and
recommends that most trees should be retained. The reports survey findings also makes recommendation
that certain trees could be removed if development requires but this is not a necessity as with the findings of
the previous outline approval, as Members will recall. The City Councils Senior Arborist has visited the site
and confers with the recommendations of the report.
Objection has been raised to the quality of the plans submitted and to inaccuracies within those submitted
plans. The submitted plans are I consider of sufficient quality to determine the application and copies have
been made available for any interested party to view. The plans have been amended to rectify an inaccuracy
with the scale.
I consider this proposal will ensure the privacy of neighbouring residents through the imposition of an
obscured glazing condition. I also consider that the approved dwelling will be finished in materials that
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
respect its design and also the colour and texture of the dominant buildings on either side. I therefore
recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within twelve months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
2. The glazing to the elevations facing 13 and 15 Brackley Road shall be etched/obscure glazing and shall
be maintained as such to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1, Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The Developer should consult United Utilities on 0161 609 7512 regarding connection to the public
sewer.
APPLICATION No:
02/44440/FUL
APPLICANT:
Sherlock Developments Limited
LOCATION:
Halligans 228 Swinton Hall Road Swinton M27 4UA
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing public house and erection of a three storey block
of 18 apartments together with creation of new vehicular access
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Haligans P.H. on Swinton Hall Road and is for its demolition and erection of a
three storey residential block to provide eighteen apartments. The site measures approximately 43m X
23m. To the rear of the site is a semi-detached property, the gable of which fronts this site. The site is
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
bounded by a walkway (Park Avenue) to the east and the Kingdom Hall. The western side of the site
comprises of a three storey residential block. Directly opposite the site is the Council’s Highway Services
depot.
The elevation fronting Swinton Hall Road would be 3.8m from the road and would include a 0.6m
boundary wall with 0.9m decorative railings. A car park would be provided at the rear to accommodate 22
vehicles. Access to the properties would be from the rear.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services - No objections but provide advice
Greater Manchester Police – No objections but provide advice
Coal Authority – Advice provided
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published in the local press
A site notice was displayed on 15th July 2002
The following neighbours were notified :
55 & 57 Park Street
86 – 106 Park Street
Kingdom Hall, Swinton Hall Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design
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, 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.
The main issues with regard this application relate to the relationship and design of this proposal in relation
to the neighbouring uses. This proposal would maintain 23.4m to the two storey gable of No. 57 Park
Avenue. The existing residential flats adjacent are also three storey and have a flat roof. The Kingdom Hall
is a single storey property with a high pitched roof. There are no habitable windows within any gable that
fronts this site. I am of the opinion that there is sufficient separation between the single family dwelling at
the rear and that the height of this proposal would be appropriate within the street.
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
The site is located between a residential area and an area used predominantly as storage. I am satisfied that,
together with acoustic measures incorporated into the windows of the dwellings that front Swinton Hall
Road, as recommended by the Director of Environmental Services, that the proposal is acceptable in this
respect.
I am of the opinion that policy H6 – Open Space Provision within New Housing Developments, is not
relevant in this instance as the proposed development is not suitable for family accommodation.
Therefore I am of the opinion that this proposal would not have any detrimental impact upon the
neighbouring properties and should be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until full details of a scheme for the acoustic double glazing of the
windows of all living rooms and bedrooms on houses affected by traffic on Swinton Hall Road have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such scheme
shall thereafter be implemented concurrently with the building works to ensure that no dwelling is
occupied until such time as the associated acoustic double glazing has been installed to the satisfaction
of the Director of Development Services.
3. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
4. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use that part of the site to be used by vehicles
shall be laid out, drained, surfaced and sealed to the satisfaction of the Director of Development
Services and shall thereafter be made available at all times the premises are in use.
5. Standard Condition J04X Bin Stores
6. Standard Condition C01X Landscaping
7. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 14 August 2002 which shows correct
elevations and boundary treatments.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
3. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
4. Reason: To encourage drivers to make use of the parking and servicing areas and to ensure that the use
of the land shall not give rise to hazards at the entrance/exit points in the interests of public safety and
in accordance with policy T13 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
7. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Connection to the public sewer would require consent from United Utilities
APPLICATION No:
02/44474/HH
APPLICANT:
Tony Wallwork
LOCATION:
57 Moorside Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of part single/part two storey rear extension
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached house within a residential area. The proposal is to erect a part single
storey and part two storey rear extension. The ground floor element would be 5.6m wide, project out 13.9m
from the rear of the house and would accommodate a swimming pool. The first floor element would be
above part of the ground floor, and only project out 3.59m from the rear of the house.
SITE HISTORY
In 1999, planning permission was granted for a 2 storey side extension (99/39039/HH).
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
34, 34a, 36, 55 59 Moorside Road
6-8 (even) Norwood Drive
Harlor Homes (developing adjoining site)
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection from the occupier of 55 who is concerned that he would suffer a loss
of light and it would spoil his view, and that the various additions to the house make to the overall building
just too big. He is also concerned that he has already been inconvenienced as the extension approved has not
been finished, in terms of gutters, painting and such like.
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – house extension
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I understand that the objector is concerned about the effect on his property. However, the proposed
extension would be set on the far side of the house from the objector. Although it is a large extension, I
would consider that there would be a reasonable separation distance and the existing high boundary fence
and a garage within the objector’s property would reduce any impact.
I am, however, concerned abut the possible effect on the future occupiers of the properties under
construction on the other side of the house, closest to the proposed extension. Harlor Homes are currently
constructing a block of apartments on the site which is separated from the applicants by the access to the
recreation ground to the rear. The rear elevation of this new building includes a ground floor bedroom
window which would be regarded as a principal window. Although there is some separation, I would
normally consider the possible impact on this habitable window. The supplementary planning guidance
identifies that in such a relationship, extensions would normally be acceptable up to a point on a 45 degree
line taken from the window on the adjoining house. In measuring this proposal, the extension exceeds this
size and indeed would need reducing by about 7m in length. Therefore, I would consider that the size of the
proposed extension would certainly have a detrimental affect on the amenity of the neighbours with a
possible loss of light and overbearing effect.
I have considered that the applicants have a 2m high boundary fence and the neighbours will probably have
a high boundary fence or wall once construction is completed. However, the proposed single storey
extension would be larger than this with eaves to a height of 2.55m and the overall ridge being 3.3m. I
would not consider that any boundary treatment would completely screen the proposed building and
therefore I am of the opinion that there will still be a detrimental effect on the future occupiers of the flat
under construction.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of
its length, height and position, contrary to the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan Policy DEV8
and the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions.
APPLICATION No:
02/44489/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr Neden
LOCATION:
1 Sefton Drive Swinton
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey rear extension
WARD:
Swinton South
5th September 2002
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached house within a residential estate on Sefton Drive Swinton. The
proposal is to erect a single storey rear extension of the lounge. The proposed extension would project out
2.62m along the adjoining boundary, and 2.85m back to attach onto, and run flush with, the existing
kitchen.
CONSULTATIONS
The Coal Authority – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
44 to 48 Houghton Lane
17 Knowsley Drive
3 Sefton Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection from the resident of the adjoining property in response to the
application publicity. The following comment has been made:
Loss of light into dining room which gives access to the garden. Loss of light to patio area.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV 8 – 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 extension conforms with the Council policy in that it projects 2.62m and hence I do not consider that
the extension would significantly affect the amenity of the adjoining occupier. There are no windows on the
side elevation of the proposal, and the boundary treatment at present is a 1.5m fence. I do not envisage the
proposal to have a significant impact on the adjoining property in terms of loss of light, and do not see it as
a reason for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Reason: To ensure the development fits in with the existing building in accordance with policy DEV3 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/44493/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr H Sharpe.
LOCATION:
12 Broadway Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached house within a residential area. The neighbouring
property is a detached house. The proposal is to erect a two-storey side extension in order to
provide two first-floor bedrooms. The ground floor extension would be open, providing a
drive-through for a vehicle to access a detached garage at the rear. The extension would project
out 2.965m to the adjacent boundary, and extend back 9.4m. The first floor would be flush with
the front main wall.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified:
10, 16, 7a and 7b Broadway
1 Normanby Road
REPRESENTATIONS
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
The gutters and foundations would encroach onto neighbours land.
The large extension in close proximity, in particular the proposed rear bedroom window, would
result in loss of privacy for neighbours when in their garden.
The large established bushes, trees and plants would be damaged beyond repair as a result of
the extension.
Foundation work, building and scaffolding would encroach onto neighbours land and be a
hazard when neighbours, and in particular their grandchildren, are in garden.
The proposal would lead to a loss of light into the applicant’s kitchen.
The extension would be out of character with surrounding properties as no other properties on
Broadway have extensions that are built on brick stilts.
The extension would have a diverse and detrimental effect on the life and environmental
standards of the neighbours.
The extension would have a diverse effect on local property values and would effect future
planning applications on neighbouring land.
The design of the extension would have the potential to cause a terracing effect if similar
extensions were built on neighbouring land.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Salford’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP), Policy DEV8, will only allow planning permission where the
extension would not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by
reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, and loss of privacy or light. The Councils
Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) also identifies specific design requirements, accompanied by
discrete measurements, which are in force to prevent developments that may lead to a terracing effect
(HH13).
The proposed extension projects along the common boundary and does not have the first floor element set
back 2m in accordance with the SPG. Although there is a distance of 19.6m between 12 and 16 Broadway
(which have the same orientation), there is still the potential for a terracing effect in the future.
Following further discussion with the applicants regarding the terracing policy, they disagree. They are
arguing that, because they have a kitchen/diner room on the side of their property, which is frequently used,
and which they consider to be a habitable room, no terracing could take place because a minimum
separation distance of 13m would have to be maintained.
Some of the objections that relate to this proposal are not planning considerations. These include the
hazards that may be caused during the construction phase, the neighbours concern for the applicants loss of
light (this is the applicants right of choice), and the devaluation of properties.
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
I would consider that the proposed extension would have no significant impact on number 16 Broadway or
any other neighbours.
However, the proposal conflicts with Guidance Note HH13 of the House Extensions SPG which aims to
prevent a terracing effect.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse for the following reason:
1.
The proposed two storey side extension would, in conjunction with a similar extension to the
neighbouring house, seriously injure the amenity of the area because it would result in the creation
of a 'terraced' effect which would be out of character with the general street scene and therefore
conflicts with Guidance Note HH13 of the City Councils adopted Supplementary Planning
Guidance for House Extensions.
APPLICATION No:
02/44507/FUL
APPLICANT:
Parents Association (Bridgewater) Limited
LOCATION:
Bridgewater School Drywood Hall Worsley Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Provision of temporary classroom
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Bridgewater School, Worsley Road and seeks the provision of a temporary
classroom for the period of 2 years. The school comprises a Grade II listed building with several additional
two storey buildings along three of its elevations. It is within the area designated as Worlsey Greenway and
is well screened along Worsley Road and Sefton Drive by groups of mature trees.
The proposal itself would be located to the west of the existing buildings, some 60m from Worsley
Road and 75m from the boundary of the nearest residential properties on Sefton Drive, 30m from
the listed building and would measure 9.6m (l) X 6m (w) X 2.4m in height.
SITE HISTORY
In 1995, planning permission and Listed Building Consent was granted for the demolition of a temporary
building and the erection of a two storey classroom annexe. (95/33588/FUL & 95/33587/LBC)
CONSULTATIONS
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
Worsley Civic Trust – no response to date
Worsley Village Community Association - no response to date
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
9 – 21 (con) Sefton Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Traffic problems
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
EN25 Worsley Greenway
DEV1 Development Criteria; SC4 Improvement/Replacement of Schools
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 requires that regard should be had to the standard of design; location and nature of the
proposal within its surroundings. Policy SC4 seeks to make good any deficiencies in school buildings
through new development or replacement facilities. EN25 seeks to maintain the openness of the Worsley
Greenway.
There has been one letter of objection received in response to the application publicity. The objector
acknowledges the modest size of this proposal and that the proposal is for a temporary period. However,
the issues raised within the letter refer to the traffic problems experienced at present during school drop off
and collection and are not specific to the siting of this proposal.
The school acknowledges the issue of traffic problems during drop off and collection and has submitted a
separate application (02/44427/FUL) to widen an existing vehicular access and to install control barriers.
The school is actively looking at ways to reduce traffic congestion at key times of the day.
The main issue to consider with regard to this application relates to the size and siting and its
appropriateness within the Greenway. This proposal would site a temporary building within the grounds of
the existing buildings and sports provision and as such would not detract from the openness and character of
the Worsley Greenway nor would it affect any of the trees within the site. The proposal would not affect the
setting of the listed building. The school has identified a short fall in its classroom provision and policy
SC4 supports the schools need to improve its facilities. The building itself would be approximately 60m
from Worsley Road and approximately 75m from the boundary of the nearest residential property, it would
also painted to minimise its impact within the area.
Therefore I am of the opinion that this proposal would not have any detrimental impact upon the
neighbouring residents and should be approved.
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The building hereby permitted shall be removed on or before the expiration of a period ending on 5th
September 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.
2. The classroom 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 and shall be treated
within 2 months of its installation.
3. The classroom shall not be used until the provision of adequate access has been provided for people
with impaired mobility
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R043 Application for temporary consent
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R041A Access for people with disabilities
APPLICATION No:
02/44518/HH
APPLICANT:
J Steele
LOCATION:
10 Cringlebarrow Close Boothstown Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension and single storey rear extension
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the end house on a terraced block at the head of a cul-de-sac. The proposal is to
erect a two-storey side extension, which would provide a dining room and study at the ground floor level,
and an en-suite master bedroom at the first floor level. This proposal would project out 2.75m near to the
adjacent boundary, and extend back 9.4m. The ground floor element would run flush with the existing
porch, and the first floor element would be flush with the front main wall. In addition, the applicant
proposes to erect a single storey rear extension to provide a morning room. This would project back 3.1m
from the existing gable wall of the house, and across 4.9m to the adjoining boundary.
PUBLICITY
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
The following neighbours were notified :
2, 8 and 12 Cringlebarrow Close
47 and 49 Highclove Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 5 letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Loss of light into main bedroom of number 12 Cringlebarrow Close.
The proposal would be built over manholes.
There would be overhang on the proposed roof that would cross the neighbours boundary.
A distance of only 95cm would remain between the gable walls of the applicant and the
adjacent neighbour. It is thought this may be a fire risk.
The narrow distance between the applicants and adjacent properties gable walls would make it
difficult for maintenance works to be carried out on either of the houses.
The rear extension would lead to a loss of light into the garden of number 8 Cringlebarrow.
The side and rear extensions would both lead to a loss of privacy for the properties to the rear.
The side extension would lead to a loss of light for the properties to the rear.
The proposals are being put forward for the sole purpose of increasing the value of the
property, as the house is currently for sale.
Loss of view.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House extensions. SPG – 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 the neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance,
loss of privacy or light.
With regard to the rear extension, objections have been lodged about the loss of light that would result into
the garden of number 8 Cringlebarrow Close, and a loss of privacy for the properties to the rear. The
proposed rear extension conforms with the Council policy in that, although it projects 3.1m, it falls within
the area cut by a 45 degree line drawn from the centre of the main-habitable window of the adjoining
property. There are no windows on the side elevation of the proposal, and the boundary treatment is a 2m
fence. Due to the existing nature of the boundary treatment I do not envisage the proposal would have a
significant impact on the adjoining property in terms of loss of light, and do not see it as a reason for refusal.
The distance that would remain between the proposed rear extension and the properties to the rear would be
approximately 17m which exceeds the 9m requirement as set out in the Council’s SPG. Therefore, I do not
consider that this proposal would lead to a loss of privacy for the properties to the rear.
The proposed side extension would come within 20m of the properties to the rear, but as it would not extend
past the existing rear wall, light and privacy for the neighbours to the rear would not be significantly
impacted upon. This is not, therefore, a reason for refusal.
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
Although it is likely that the proposed side extension would block a significant amount of light entering into
the side bedroom window of number 12 Cringlebarrow, this is a secondary window and is not the main
source of light for the room. The main window is located on the front elevation of the house.
Although there has been an objection that the proposed roof of the side extension would overhang the
adjacent boundary, this is incorrect, the plans show the extension and overhang to be within the curtilage.
A number of objections that have been expressed are not planning considerations: the proposal would be
built over manholes; a distance of only 95cm would remain between the gable walls of the applicant and the
adjacent neighbour - it is thought this may be a fire risk; the narrow distance between the applicants and
adjacent properties gable walls would make it difficult for maintenance works to be carried out on either of
the houses; the proposals are being put forward for the sole purpose of increasing the value of the property,
as the house is currently for sale; loss of view.
The proposed side extension projects out to within 5cm of the adjacent boundary, and back 9.4m to run
flush with the existing rear wall. Due to the offset nature of the applicant’s property to the adjacent
neighbour the proposed rear extension would extend 1.9m past this neighbours main rear wall. This
conforms to the Council’s SPG, and is not a reason for refusal.
The proposed side extension does not have its first floor element set back 2m from the main front wall to
prevent a possible terracing effect. However, due to there being only 90cm of extension space for the
adjacent detached property, it is unlikely that any further development will take place along this boundary.
For this reason, and due to the applicant’s property being terraced, I do not see a reason for the terracing
policy to be applied. Therefore, I consider the proposed side extension to conform to Council policy.
Both the proposed rear and side extensions conform to Council policy, and although they represent
substantial development, I would recommend approval.
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
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44522/FUL
APPLICANT:
Recomac Surfacing Limited
LOCATION:
Land Opposite 1-13 Parsonage Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey office building
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the existing Recomac site at the junction of Parsonage Road and Hilton Lane and
to a small adjoining piece of land that fronts Hilton Lane that is currently occupied by a dilapidated single
storey garage building. Recomac have acquired this small site and it is proposed to construct a new office
building for the company. The proposed two storey building would measure 20m by 8m and would provide
a total of approximately 300sq of office floorspace. Parking spaces for 12 cars would be laid out within the
Recomac site adjacent to the new building and a footpath link would be provided from the car park to the
office. The building would front Hilton Lane, set back 3m from the highway and would be constructed of
brick with a hipped roof.
The site is bounded to the east by open land and a footpath beyond which is residential property some 30m
away. There is residential property on Parsonage Road and a car dealership opposite on Hilton Lane.
SITE HISTORY
In November 1997 planning permission was granted for the refurbishment of the existing Recomac
premises (97/36946/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – The previous use of the site is unknown and the potential
contaminating use of the adjacent site require a condition to be imposed regarding a contaminated land
survey.
The Coal Authority – no objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours have been notified :
489 to 509, 521, 440 and 444 Hilton Lane
1 – 13 Parsonage Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received five letters in response to the application publicity. The following comments having been
made:
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
Noise and disturbance from the existing operation
Concern at expansion of the business
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, traffic generation, the potential for noise nuisance and the effect on
neighbouring residents.
The site is long established and is not subject to planning conditions that restrict hours of working. The
offices themselves will not result in any noise and disturbance to neighbouring residents and I am informed
by the applicant that the proposals will not have any effect on the amount of non-office vehicles visiting the
site. The new offices are required as a result of the applicants taking over an existing firm with an existing
operating base elsewhere.
I am satisfied that the proposal will result in a significant improvement in the local environment and I am
satisfied that there will be no increase in the type of operations that are causing concern to residents as a
result of this proposal. I have no objections on highway grounds but have attached a condition regarding
drainage.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall submit a site investigation report for
the approval of the local planning authority. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and
distribution of contamination and underground gases on the site and its implications on the risk to
human health and controlled water receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990,
Part IIA. The investigation shall also address the health and safety of the site workers, also nearby
persons, building structures and services, landscaping schemes, final users on the site and the
environmental pollution in ground water. The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the
local planning authority prior to the start of the survey, and recommendations and remedial works
contained within the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of site.
3. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls and roof
of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
4. No development shall commence until a detailed report on the existing site drainage has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such report shall address the
measures required to prevent run-off from the site. Vehicle servicing areas shall be isolated and run-off
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
connected to foul sewers via an oil interceptor. Buildings and hardstanding surface water should
discharge to Ellen Brook culvert adjacent to the building hereby approved. Such works as are identified
in the approved report shall be carried out within six months of the commencement of development.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
3. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
4. In the interests of the local water environment.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This permission shall relate to the amended plans received on 14 August 2002 that show a footpath link
from the car park to the office building.
2. Any lighting provided in the scheme should be erected and directed so as to avoid nuisance to
residential accommodation in close proximity, it is recommended that the lighting be designed to
provide a standard maintained illumination (LUX) of between 5 and 20 LUX with the lower level being
the preferable one.
APPLICATION No:
02/44538/FUL
APPLICANT:
C Morris
LOCATION:
Newearth Florist 4 Newearth Road Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey rear extension and construction of external
staircase to first floor flat
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Newearth Florist and is for the erection of a single storey rear extension and
construction of an external staircase to first floor flat. The property is a mid terrace and is bounded by retail
and residential uses.
The extension would project 8.5m along the boundary of No. 6 Newearth Road and would wrap around the
existing 2 storey element. It would be set in 0.2m and would be 3.3m in height with a further 0.8m
balustrade. The staircase would project beyond the proposed rear elevation.
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
CONSULTATIONS
Coal Authority – Advice provided
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
2 and 6 Newearth Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Overwhelming , overbearing and imposing
Loss of privacy
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 seeks to ensure that due regard is given to the size and density of
the proposed development and the effect on privacy of neighbouring residents.
A retail unit and a residential property bound the site. At present both retail units have a two storey
‘outrigger’ on their common boundary, which is on the opposite side to the residential property. The
proposal has generated one letter of objection from adjoining residential neighbour, and the main issues to
consider with regards to this application relate to; loss of privacy and the impact upon the amenity of the
neighbouring residents.
I am of the opinion that a single storey extension projecting 8.5m along the common boundary would have
a dominant impact upon the neighbouring property.
The proposal would also provide access via an external staircase to a first floor flat. The applicant has
shown that access would be provided over the flat roof of the proposed extension with a 0.8m surrounding
balustrade. This in itself would provide an 8.5m first floor balcony which would result in a loss of privacy
to the adjoining garden and would allow anybody using the first floor flat to look directly into the first floor
bedroom of the neighbouring property.
If this proposal were to be approved it would also result in the loss of a potential commercial car parking
space due to the overall length of the proposal and the additional staircase.
Therefore I would recommend that this proposal be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. Standard Reason RR34C Neighbouring Residents - Size/Siting
2. Standard Reason RR41C Loss of Privacy
3. The proposed development would not provide adequate accommodation within the curtilage of the site
for the parking of vehicles in connection with the use of the site contrary to T13 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan
APPLICATION No:
02/44544/COU
APPLICANT:
Mr Lloyd Keith Bell
LOCATION:
202/204 Moorside Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from sandwich bar to restaurant
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to two properties on Moorside Road and seeks to change the use from a sandwich
bar to a restaurant. The site is bounded by the car park of Moorside Social Club and an unadopted street.
The area generally, comprises residential terrace properties.
Opposite this proposal is Moorside Social Club. Outline planning permission has been granted for a
residential development to the east.
SITE HISTORY
In 1990, planning permission was refused to change the use of the first floor from residential to restaurant
(E/26140)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
194 – 200 (even) Moorside Road
1 – 13 (inclusive) Moorside Lodge
Moorside House, Moorside Road
RRG Garage, Moorside Road
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
195 – 223 (odd) Moorside Road
St Charles Hall, Victoria Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Car parking
General noise and odours
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV1 – Development Criteria, T13 – Car Parking
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 requires that regard should be had to the likely scale and type of traffic generation; the
amount, design and layout of car parking provision. Policy T13 ensures that adequate and appropriate car
parking and servicing provision is made where necessary.
There has been two letters of objection received in response to the application publicity. The objections
refers to the car parking provision identified by the applicant, the current parking problems in the area and
the previous use and the potential of noise and odour nuisance.
The area consists mainly of residential terrace properties, the majority without any off ‘street car’ parking
provision. There is also a social club, car sales garage and community centre integrated within the
immediate area. With regard to the issue of noise and odour, I am of the opinion that this could be
controlled with the use of conditions.
The main issue to consider with regard to this application is car parking provision. The applicant has stated
that 4-5 spaces would be provided within the Moorside Social Club car park, which is adjacent. The
Council’s own Unitary Development Plan car parking standards would seek ten additional spaces if this use
were to be approved. The social club car park and the surrounding un-adopted streets within the area are
heavily congested during the opening hours of the social club, particularly during weekends. This proposal
would be an intensification of the existing use and would conflict with busiest hours of the social club. The
applicant has not provided any supplementary information into the space available on the car park and it
would not be appropriate to “double count” the existing limited provision.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that is proposal would not provided sufficient off street car parking which
would have a detrimental impact upon the safety of pedestrians and highway users in the area, and
subsequently should be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
1. The proposed development would make no provision for off-street parking facilities within the
applicant's control. This would lead to further on-street parking and congestion in an area with
existing traffic circulation problems.
2. The proposed development would increase the concentration of vehicles in the vicinity of the site which
would be likely to result in vehicles parking on the highway to the detriment of highway safety and the
amenity of neighbouring residents
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44487/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Housing Services Directorate
LOCATION:
1-49 Hough Walk, 1,3 And 9-15 Sirius Place, 1-25 Antares Avenue, 1-15
Cygnus Avenue And 2-64 Riverside Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Environmental and security improvements to gardens including new
drives, paving, timber boundary treatments, tree planting, new roads
and re-aligned roads
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to proposed environmental and security improvements in the vicinity of Hough
Walk, Sirius Place, Antares Avenue, Cygnus Place and Riverside, a large residential area and part of the
Spike Island area. The proposed improvements will comprise improvements to gardens and will involve
the addition of new driveways, fencing and tree planting, with new and realigned roads.
The existing estate suffers from significant levels of crime and generally has a poor physical environment.
Existing car parking provision is to the rear of houses, situated within exposed courtyards. Car crime is
significant in the area, and the existing arrangements do not provide secure parking for residents.
Eighteen trees, of various maturity and species will be removed as a result of the scheme, with 83 new trees
proposed.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections
Environment Agency – No objections but provides advice
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:
1 to 49 Hough Walk
13 to 45 Pegasus Square
8 to 16 Sirius Place
37 and 39 Lower Broughton Road
66 to 80 Riverside
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
Site specific policies:
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
H2 – Maintaining and Improving Public Sector Housing
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan Policy DEV1 states that in determining planning applications the City Council
should pay due regard to a number of issues, including the visual appearance of a development; the amount,
design and layout of car parking provision, landscaping and open space provision and the impact on trees
within or adjacent to the development site. In addition, Policy H2 states that the City Council will seek to
maintain and improve public sector housing stock through improving security, improving the general
housing environment and through the provision of adequate car parking facilities.
I am satisfied that this development will lead to a significant improvement in the housing environment in
the area. The proposed improvements will improve security for residents, and will also improve car parking
facilities. The development involves the removal of a number of mature and semi-mature trees, however,
their removal is required in order to facilitate the environmental and security improvements. I am satisfied
that their replacement with 83 trees will mitigate any negative impacts.
I am satisfied that the proposed works will improve visual and residential amenity in the area, and serve to
combat crime and vandalism in the housing environment. I therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This permission shall relate to the amended plan L1516/B01-2 revision C.
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44362/ART10
APPLICANT:
Peel Investments (North) LTD
LOCATION:
Lands Of Manchester Road, Partington Trafford (Article 10)
PROPOSAL:
Article 10 consultation from Trafford MBC in respect of erection of
buildings and composting tunnels and formation of hardstanding area
to accommodate a sustainable waste management centre.
WARD:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a 2.33ha site within the administrative area of Trafford Metropolitan Borough
Council. The site is located adjacent to the Manchester Ship Canal and is opposite Northbank Industrial
estate. The application site was until recently used as part of an oil tank farm – Partington Oil Storage
Terminal. Salford’s residential areas of Cadishead and Irlam are situated to the north west of the proposed
site at 1km and 2 km respectively.
The proposal is to develop a sustainable waste management centre which would briefly comprise a building
housing waste processing facilities, together with a composting area comprising a reception building,
composting tunnels with associated ventilation equipment and a concrete slab for the storage of the final
product. Site infrastructure would include weighbridges, office accommodation, roads, surface water
drainage and perimeter fencing.
The waste management building would receive a range of wastes including construction, demolition,
commercial, industrial, trade and municipal waste. These wastes would be subject to a range of processes
that could include: crushing and screening of construction material, mechanical sorting and treatment of
recyclable materials and sorting by hand. A range of materials could be recycled including glass,
aggregates, metals, paper, cardboard, wood, plastics, soils and textiles.
The composting process is based on tunnel composting, where the green organic waste is deposited in a
series of concrete walled tunnels. The main elements to the composting operation comprise a filling hall,
composting tunnels, air-washer, bio-filter and water tanks, together with a concrete pad. Green waste and
other organic materials would be delivered to the site and would be stockpiled on one part of the concrete
slab. The accumulated waste for composting would then be shredded once a week by a mobile shredder
with the shredded waste stored within the reception building. Shredded waste would then be loaded into the
composting tunnels.
SITE HISTORY
A planning application for a very similar sustainable waste management centre on a site to the south of this
was refused by Trafford in July 2001. 01/41813/ART10 - Article 10 Consultation received from Trafford
MBC in respect of use of land as a Sustainable Waste Management Centre. Objection 2001.
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services: – There are three main concerns regarding this development: odour,
dust (particulate matter) and noise nuisance emanating from the proposed development. Odour emanating
from the compost slab (open windrows) as a result of the decomposition of putrescible waste will result if
the composting process is not effectively managed. Dust arising from a number of activities on the
proposed sites, breakdown of materials and from the handling of previously broken down materials.
If Trafford MBC are minded to approve the application, the Director of Environmental Services requests
that the inclusion of the following conditions is considered:
In order to control particulate matter affecting Salford residents:- As part of proper supervision and
management, the operator shall undertake frequent visual assessments of particulate emissions, at least
once a day. Remedial action shall be taken immediately in the case of abnormal particulate emissions.
Where there is repeated evidence of airborne particulate matter being deposited off-site the operator
shall undertake monitoring to identify the source. The monitoring shall be in accordance with BS1747
Part 1, or by a method approved in writing with the local enforcing authority.
It is possible that the composting element of the proposed process maybe exempt from regulatory
control by the Environment Agency under the Waste Management Licensing scheme. In order to
prevent odour from the site giving rise to a statutory nuisance to Salford residents, it is recommended
that an ‘odour’ boundary condition is applied to any planning permission granted for this development:
All odour emissions from the handling and processing of waste shall be free from offensive odour
outside the process site boundary. The operator shall undertake frequent olfactory assessments, at least
once a day. Remedial action shall be taken immediately in the case of abnormal odour emissions.
Where there is repeated evidence of odour emissions outside the process boundary, the operator shall
undertake monitoring to identify the source. The monitoring shall be in accordance with a method
approved in writing with the local enforcing authority.
A noise measurement exercise has been undertaken as per the accompanying Non-Technical Summary.
The results indicate that noise from the proposed operation is unlikely to give rise to justifiable
complaints from local residents. However to guard against noise intrusion arising from plant or
machinery that may have been overlooked in this assessment or maybe introduced post construction of
the development, this Directorate recommends the inclusion of the following condition: The rating
level of noise emitted from operations on the proposed site shall be lower than the background noise
level by at least 5 dB (A) when determined at the nearest noise sensitive premises. The measurement
and assessment shall be made in accordance with BS4142:1997 ‘Method for Rating Industrial Noise
Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas’.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection :
When the wind blows from the south the residents of Irlam and Cadishead will get the smells and
pollution that the plant will generate.
TRAFFORD UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES
Trafford’s adopted UDP (1996) policies: ENV20 – Landscape Improvement Areas
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
E7 – Main Employment Areas
WD3 – Waste Treatment and Recycling
Trafford’s revised Deposit Draft (2001): ENV32 – Derelict Land Reclamation
ENV16 – Areas of Landscape Protection
E16 –Priority Regeneration Area:Carrington
E7 – Main Industrial Areas
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The proposal raises a number of policy issues, however, it is broadly in keeping with national policy
guidance in that it would assist in meeting national targets to increase the recycling and composting of
municipal waste.
With reference to Trafford’s adopted UDP (1996), the site lies within a landscape improvement area
(ENV20) and a main employment area (E7). ENV20 encourages the improvement of both the built and
natural landscape, Trafford Council is seeking to secure improvements in the quality of the landscape in
such areas. This policy can be viewed as supporting the proposal, given that the land is brownfield. E7 states
that Trafford Council will normally permit development for business, industry, storage/ distribution and
similar appropriate uses, so long as the proposals do not conflict with other policies of the UDP and can be
satisfactorily accessed/ serviced. In addition, Policy WD3 (Waste Treatment and Recycling) supports the
development of plants for the treatment and recycling of waste in appropriate locations (this policy remains
unchanged in the Revised Deposit Draft UDP).
With reference to Trafford’s Revised Deposit Draft UDP (2001), although not formally adopted, this plan
has undergone public consultation, and so a degree of weight should be attached to it. Within this revision of
the UDP, the majority of the site is allocated as a Site for Reclamation (ENV32). This policy supports the
proposal, stating that Trafford Council will seek to secure the reclamation or improvement of areas of
derelict, neglected or unsightly land, and support measures which will bring them into productive use.
The site is also located within an Area of Landscape Protection (ENV16), Priority Regeneration Area:
Carrington (E16), and a Main Industrial Area (E7). ENV16 (Areas of Landscape Protection) states that
development will not be permitted unless the proposal maintains or enhances the local distinctiveness of its
immediate and wider setting; and the policy specifies a number of criteria used to assess the proposal, such
as; the degree and quality of landscaping, the appropriateness of design and construction materials, and the
impact on the landscape quality of the immediate area and wider setting. In respect of ENV16, the proposed
facility will be placed within a well-landscaped area; however, the proposal does not include any additional
landscaping to further shield the development. In terms of materials, it could be said that the proposal would
be in keeping with the landscape, given the colour materials selected for its construction. Finally, in terms of
its impact on landscape quality, the development could be viewed as an improvement as the site is part of
the former (now demolished) Partington Oil Storage Terminal, and furthermore, it appears that it would be
relatively well visually shielded from most directions, as indicated in the Environmental Statement (ES).
With regard to E7, the policy remains only slightly amended from the adopted plan, it now emphasises the
necessity of development to be accessible by all modes of transport. The proposal has the potential to be
accessible by water (Manchester Ship Canal), rail and road; however, the current planning application
solely involves transport of materials to the site by road. Furthermore, the proposed access is via the existing
access from Manchester Road. Greater emphasis on improving access and transportation by alternative
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
methods to road may be required. Policy E16 further elaborates on development in Carrington and holds
limited support for the proposal.
This proposal raises a number of implications for the City of Salford. Given the proximity of the proposal to
the Northbank Industrial Park, and Cadishead (and Irlam), there is the potential for the proposal to
significantly impact in terms of noise, smell, dust and visibility. In terms of both noise and smell the
Environmental Statement states the residential developments of Cadishead (and Irlam) would be largely
unaffected due to their distance from the source (>1km), and screening. No clear indication is given of the
impact on Northbank Industrial Park.
In terms of visibility the ES indicates the industrial buildings eliminate views from properties in Cadishead,
but there are distance views of the site obtained from the Southern fringe of the industrial areas of
Cadishead (there are additionally limited views from various points within Trafford MBC, however, the
affect on residential properties is minimal given their distance from the source). The colour of materials the
buildings are to be constructed of, so they blend into the landscape, would further ameliorate visibility of
the proposed facility. Consequently it would appear the impact on Salford would be small in relation to its
residential properties, however, I do not believe the impact on Northbank Industrial Park is fully disclosed
in the ES document.
With regards to sustainable waste management, the Draft North West RTAB Waste Management Report
identified that there is only 5 years landfill capacity left, and consequently there is an urgent need to provide
for more sustainable methods of waste management such as composting and recycling to accord with Waste
Strategy 2000 and the European Landfill Directive. It was identified that the Greater Manchester
requirements over the next 20 years would be 12-18 Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs), 10-18
composting facilities and 4-5 Energy from Waste facilities. Therefore there is a clear need for facilities like
this proposal for a sustainable waste management facility.
Due to the need and urgency for changes in waste management practices, such types of facilities should be
encouraged, particularly in established industrial areas where the impact on the amenity of local residents
may be marginal. I do however have concerns regarding the potential impact of this proposal on Salford’
residents, in particular in relation to odour, noise and dust. In view of this, I consider that Trafford MBC be
advised that the City of Salford should raise significant concerns regarding the proposed development on
the grounds of the effect upon residents and businesses in Salford due to the potential for noise, dust and
odour pollution. If, however, Trafford were minded to approve the proposal, I would encourage them to
impose conditions relating to odour, noise and dust (as detailed by the Director of Environmental Services),
in addition to conditions to prevent open storage, or alternatively limiting its height, to improve the visual
appearance of the development, and the impacts of smells and dust. I would also encourage Trafford to
impose a condition to restrict the removal of landscaping which would visually shield the development, so
as to prevent the development from becoming more visually intrusive.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Trafford MBC be informed that the City of Salford raises significant concerns in relation to the
planning application on the grounds of the effect of the proposed development upon residents and
businesses in Salford due to the potential for noise, dust and odour pollution.
Objection For the following Reasons:
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th September 2002
1. That Trafford MBC be informed that the City of Salford raises significant concerns in relation to the
planning application on the grounds of the effect of the proposed development upon residents and
businesses in Salford due to the potential for noise, dust and odour pollution.
74