PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/43522/FUL
APPLICANT:
G. Weilding
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To Hill Top Road Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Raising of land for drainage purposes to allow horses to graze, together
with associated planting
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application was withdrawn from consideration at the meeting of the Planning and Transportation
Regulatory Panel on 4th July 2002 to allow further consultation with neighbouring residents and additional
information to be submitted from the applicant about the proposal.
The application relates to grazing land at the eastern end of Hill Top Road, set back off the road, which is in
council ownership and currently has the benefit of a grazing licence. There are residential properties to the
west of the site and also opposite to the north, with the Blackleach Country Park beyond this. To the south
west are the industrial properties of Barlow Street. Directly between the field area and the road there is an
open grassed area.
The application has been submitted by the licence holder for the grazing of the field. It is proposed to raise
the levels of part of the field by approximately 1m over an area measuring approximately 25m by 50m, to
bring the field level above the level of the water table to improve the site’s drainage and improve grazing.
The edge of the raised area would be graded down to the existing levels to form a small slope. The hardcore
has already been deposited onto the field which would be soiled and grassed. It is anticipated that
approximately 200 tonnes of top surface soil would be required which would take between 1 – 5 days to
bring onto site.
A 4m wide access would be created down to the field off the road and this would be gated. It was
originally proposed to erect a section of post and wire fencing 1.2m high around the turning head at this end
of Hill Top Road, as a means of reducing both fly tipping and the overrun of vehicles when turning but this
has now been removed from the consideration of this proposal.
A further meeting has also been held with the applicant who has clarified that the aim of the application is to
improve the drainage within the field and this would include repairing the existing land drains that are on
the site. The amended plan indicates the area of the existing drains that would be repaired to the south and
west of the proposed raised area. A 10 stage schedule of proposed works has also been submitted which it
is anticipated would take place over a six month period including the repair of the field drains. A
commencement date for these works has not been submitted.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections.
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – recommend that a visual inspection of the material on site is made,
that the material should be assessed for its effectiveness in providing drainage and that fully detailed
existing and final contours are submitted with appropriate scaling.
Environment Agency – no objections in principle but request that the applicant be advised that a waste
management licence or exemption may be required.
Worsley Civic Trust and Amenity Society - are concerned that the material that has been tipped on the site
is not hardcore but general industrial waste comprising bricks, concrete beam sections, metal, metal rods,
wire, control equipment, rubber, plastic sacking and general waste. They are also concerned that there may
be asbestos on site. They note that the site is allocated under policy R11 Recreation, and are concerned that
the nature of the land may change and its value with future redevelopment for industrial use or housing.
Alternatively, they wish that if this permission is granted there will be no implicit presumption that a livery
operation or other commercial operation will be allowed by a further planning application.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 31 January 2002.
The following neighbours were notified :
2 – 16 and 25 – 59(O) Hill Top Road
234 Bolton Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
The main areas of concern are as follows:
Unsuitable waste already tipped on the site
No need for a road access to the field
Field drainage is not that poor and has been grazed previously without the need of improvement
works
Inconvenience caused whilst bringing the material onto the site
Eyesore
Traffic generation
The application is retrospective
Applicant has no regard for neighbours and is continually changing his plans
The applicant must have longer term plans for the site which haven’t been disclosed to date
Work undertaken hasn’t been supervised to date, how can it be ensured that the applicant will do as
he says he will?
I have also received a response from the Campaign for Planning Sanity on behalf of the local residents.
They have made the following comments and requested that greater consideration be given to the proposed
conditions to restrict the types and quantities of materials required to complete the job without causing harm
and visual harm to the environment. They are particularly concerned about contamination of the
environment from the nature of the material brought onto the site.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: R11 Provision of Country Parks
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
Other policies: none
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider the main issues for this application relate to the resulting visual impact once work has been
completed and the potential impact upon the amenity of the residents of Hill Top Road from the nature and
degree of traffic generated from vehicles in association with the work.
I have received three individual letters of objection from residents who have a number of concerns not least
because some hardcore material has already been deposited on the site. In relation to the proposal being an
eyesore, I would agree that at the present time, the site is unattractive and an eyesore, but this is partly
owing to the fact that work has stopped during the consideration of this application. It is proposed that
should permission be granted, soil would be placed on top of the hardcore and the whole area would be
grassed. This would retain the green open field character and I do not believe that from a distance it would
be possible to identify that any raising of levels had occurred. The field has historically suffered from
drainage problems and the work is proposed as a means of improving this. I do not consider that the actual
raising of the levels would have a significant detrimental impact, especially as it would be grassed.
Both the Worsley Civic Trust and the local residents were concerned about the materials that have been
deposited on site. The Environment Agency have inspected the hardcore and have requested that any tyres
and plastic film be removed if necessary. On this basis they now have no objections to the proposal
although a waste management licence may be required and it is recommended that a note be attached to any
permission to this effect.
Another concern was the creation of an access road to the raised area. Following further clarification from
the applicant this would not be a tarmaced access road but would be of a similar surface and finish as the
raised field area without the grass seed. Hardcore would again be laid with soil and chippings to be laid on
top of this and this would enable the horses to be taken easily into the field without churning up the grassed
area off the road. Similarly, it would also enable the machinery necessary to access the field to undertake
the necessary repair to the field drains.
Whilst the hardcore was brought onto the site, it is clear from the objections that some inconvenience was
experienced by residents from the nature and amount of traffic bringing the material to the site. Similar
types of vehicles would probably bring the top soil to the site which again could lead to some inconvenience
to residents, but this would be relatively shortlived and would result in the improved appearance of the site
which would be beneficial.
From the objections it is also clear that residents are sceptical and cautious over the longer term plans for the
site, taking into account that part of this application is retrospective. I am not aware of any longer term
plans for the site and if something were to be proposed it would be subject to a planning application which
would be assessed on its merits at that time. I do not consider that this proposal now being considered
would be detrimental to policy R11 and the Blackleach Country Park.
The applicant wishes to improve the grazing on the land which at present is suffering from considerable
drainage problems, for his horses. I acknowledge that some work has occurred with some inconvenience
and disturbance to residents, but once finished, I am satisfied that the proposal would not have any
detrimental impact. I therefore recommend that this application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. This permission shall relate to the plans received on 22 May 2002 which show cross section and levels
details for the proposal and the supporting information contained within the letters from the applicant
dated 25 March and 12 July 2002.
3. Full details of the fence to be erected around the raised area of the field and the gate to be erected at the
head of the 4m wide access to the field shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services prior to the commencement of development.
4. The top surface soil material shall be brought onto the site and any associated working shall take place
between the hours of 8am - 6pm Monday to Saturday ONLY.
5. The works hereby approved shall be completed within 3 months of the date of this permission and to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
6. Fully detailed contour plans of existing and proposed contours for the final landform shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of
development.
7. Full details of the depth and type of all material covering the hardcore, including sand and the top soil
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the
commencement of development.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
3. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
6. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
7. To ensure that there is sufficient material covering the hardcore to enable topsoil to grow.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached letter from the Environment Agency dated 23 April
2002 and in particular to the informative regarding a waste management licence.
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
APPLICATION No:
02/44057/HH
APPLICANT:
Matthew Harrison
LOCATION:
7 Cumberland Avenue Clifton Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 1.8m high perimeter fencing
WARD:
Pendlebury
19th September 2002
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a corner end terrace in a residential area.
The proposal is for the erection of 1.8m fencing down the side of the property.
SITE HISTORY
In 1989 an application for the retention of fencing in the same position as the proposal was approved
(E/24856/HH)
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 6th July 2002
The following neighbours were notified :
5, 9, 8, 10, 12, 14, 46 Cumberland Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one verbal objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
The proposal would create loss of car parking in the area
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria, T13 – Car Parking
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The fencing approved in 1989 was later set back 6m from the carriageway, the proposal intends to site the
fencing in the previously approved position.
The area is currently used by local residents for car parking, however the area of land is within the curtilage
of No.7. I have checked the history of the development and the area is not highlighted as a car parking area
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
and it seems that the car park was intended as a temporary arrangement by the developer prior to the garage
courts being built. I do appreciate that the proposal would cause considerable inconvenience to local
residents, but it would appear that they have been enjoying the benefit of parking on the applicants private
land for some considerable time.
Residents cannot park in front of there own properties due to the design of the area but there are more than
fifty garages in the vicinity to provide car parking for the development. The provision of garages was
deemed to be acceptable at the time the development was built. The applicant has hardstanding to the front
of the property which is adequate to park a car, I therefore cannot support the objection and consider the
proposal to be acceptable as it was when it was last approved in 1989.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
02/44225/TPO
APPLICANT:
The Lancashire Theatre Organ Trust
LOCATION:
Sunday School Annex Alexandra Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Fell two silver birch trees
WARD:
Barton
At a meeting of the Panel held on the 5th September 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORT REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are stated below:
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.
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
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
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:
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
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".
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
At a meeting of the Panel held on the 5th September 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORT REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are stated below:
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).
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
In 2002, outline planning permission was granted for the erection of 13 dwellings (01/43186/OUT).
CONSULTATIONS
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.
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
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
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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Although the report states there were seven objections received there were in fact an additional four
attached to an email, therefore, in total there were eleven objections received. No new additional comments
were identified than those discussed above.
I have also received an additional letter from one of the original seven objectors stating that parking spaces
7 and 8 are not feasible and that any development is done in a safe manner. As discussed above I consider
the layout of the parking spaces is acceptable and the introduction of a footpath will improve safety on the
highway. The road width would be the same as the existing situation. Safety in construction/demolition is
covered by the Building Regulations.
The poplar trees as mentioned above are currently the subject of a TPO (number 101), as such I recommend
a condition to ensure the replacement, two for one, of these trees. As stated above I consider the
replacement to be acceptable.
I have also proposed an additional condition in relation to the design of the bin stores.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RECOMMENDATION:
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
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 untill 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
commencemnet of the development.
6. The construction of the development shall not commence until a scheme for additional signage for the
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.
8. A scheme for the replanting of trees, two planted for every one taken down, shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of development. Such
scheme shall include details and location of the species of replacement trees and shall be implemented
within twelve months of the commencement of development.
9. The detailed design of the bin stores shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Development
Services prior to the commencement of the development. The approved design for the bin stores shall
be implemented prior to the occupation of the development.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
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
8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
9. 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:
02/44370/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Cohen
LOCATION:
37 Broom Lane Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side/rear extension and single storey rear
extension
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing semi-detached house. The proposal is to construct a 2 storey side
extension which would run the length of the house and follow the angled line of the boundary. The two
storey element then would wrap around part of the rear of the house. This would all have hipped roofs to
reflect the design of the existing house.
To the rear of the 2 storey extension, it is proposed to building a single storey kitchen extension, projecting
out a further 3.5m. It is also proposed to construct a single storey succah along the party boundary with no.
37a Broom Lane.
SITE HISTORY
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
In February 2002, permission was refused for a large two storey side/rear extension and single storey rear
extension, because of the serious impact on the neighbours. (ref. 02/43569/HH).
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
32, 35, 37a Broom Lane
Jewish synagogue, Cheltenham Crescent
The Lodge, Waterpark Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received an objection to the proposal from the occupiers of the adjoining semi. He objects to the
succah proposal, as the wall would be built up to the boundary and there would be a small part of the roof
overhanging his property. He is concerned that should he wish to extend in the future he would not easily be
able to do so.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV 8 – house extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The Council’s policy DEV8 is now supported by the Council’s supplementary planning guidance for house
extensions. I have assessed the proposal against these policies, particularly in how the proposal relates to 35
Broom Lane, because the bulk of the extension would be towards this boundary. Although it would be a
large extension, no. 35 does not have any principal windows on the part of their house that is closest to the
extension. Therefore I would consider that any impact on the principal windows would be reduced, because
they are further away. I am aware that the ground floor kitchen extension does extend out further still, but
this would be mainly obscured by the neighbours’ own garage.
I have considered the proposed succah to the adjoining property, particularly as it is this neighbour that
objects. The succah would only extend out 2.74m from the main wall of the house, which again would
comply with Council policy. I am mindful that the objectors main concern is the proposed overhang which
would make any future extension on their side more difficult. However, the applicant has agreed that they
can amend the detailing on the boundary in order to remove any overhang. This should remove the problem
for the adjoining neighbours.
Although the proposed extension would be large, I am satisfied that it would comply with the Council’s
policies, and there should not be any significant impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roofs of the development shall be the same type,
colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director
of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
02/44390/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 was deferred for investigation into the concerns of the neighbour and an update is to be
provided verbally.
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
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
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
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
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
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
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
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The Developer should consult United Utilities on 0161 609 7512 regarding connection to the public
sewer.
APPLICATION No:
02/44401/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr J Chilton
LOCATION:
6 Sunflower Meadow Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing garage and erection of double garage at side of
dwelling
WARD:
Irlam
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a corner detached property in a residential area.
The proposal is for the erection of a double garage to replace a single garage. The proposal would project
5.1m X 6m with a total height of 4m wit a hipped roof. The proposal would be set back 3.8m from the front
elevation.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
4, 8 7, 9 Sunflower Meadow
2 Dairydale Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection from the occupiers of the property to the rear in response to the
application publicity. The following comments having been made:
The proposal would not be built on the applicants land
Would be very close to the road and there are no pavements
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions, Supplementary Planning Guidance
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Supplementary Planning Guidance States that permission for side extensions on corner properties will only
be granted if the proposal would be a minimum of 2m from the side boundary.
The first objection point is not a planning consideration. The second objection relates to the proximity to
the carriage, the proposal would be 1.5m from the side boundary. I would consider the proposal to have a
detrimental impact on the street scene and the proposal would be contrary the Supplementary Planning
Guidance
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed garage would be within 2m of the side boundary and would be an unduly obtrusive
feature in the street scene and be contrary to HH14 of the City of Salford Supplementary Planning
Guidance and DEV8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/44426/FUL
APPLICANT:
George Wimpey Manchester Limited
LOCATION:
Former Oakwood Public House Lancaster Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing public house and erection of four storey block of
68 apartments together with associated landscaping, car parking and
alterations to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Claremont
At a meeting of the Panel held on the 15th August 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORT REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are stated below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of the Oakwood Public House at the junction of Lancaster Road and
Welwyn Drive. The Oakwood covers the south east corner of the 1.29 acre site, with the remainder of the
site being covered in hardstanding for parking. The site is bounded by varying levels of hard and soft
landscaping including a line of mature poplars fronting Lancaster Road.
Planning permission is sought for the erection of two blocks of flats containing 68 flats in total. One block
would be in an L shape form and would be part three storey and part four storey and wraps around the
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
corner of Welwyn Drive and Lancaster Road covering the position of the existing public house structure.
The other block, rectangular in shape, would be three storeys high with two flats in the loft space and is
located in the centre of the former car parking area. Vehicle access would be from Lancaster Road and a
right hand turn facility would be provided using the existing highway.
The three storey part of the L-shape building is 20.6m long by 14m deep and is 12m high to the ridge. There
are two four storey sections of the L-shape building left, the section fronting Welywn Drive is 12.4m deep
by 22.4m long and is 15.5m high. The section fronting Lancaster Road is 12.6m deep by 23.8m long and is
12.5m in height. The other building, the three storey rectangular section is 12.6m deep and 44m long and is
12.4m in height.
The proposed roof of the development varies between 6.9m to 10m in height from eaves to ridge level. The
applicant proposes 68 parking spaces and three bicycle parking spaces. The proposal includes two bin
stores which are proposed to be brick built. The application also includes a revised right hand turning lane
into the site. The applicant has supplied a supporting statement that runs through the site area, discusses
planning policy including Government guidance PPG3 (Housing), discusses the proposed layout and
detailed design. This statement concludes that the proposal would make an attractive addition to the
housing stock of the area.
SITE HISTORY
In 2002 (16th May), planning permission was refused for the erection of two residential blocks
incorporating 72 residential units (02/43990/FUL).
In 1993, planning permission was granted for new vehicle gates, pedestrian gates and boundary fencing
(93/31735/DEEM3).
In 1990, advertisement consent was granted for four external illuminated wall signs and two pole signs
(E/27343/ADV).
In 1985, advertisement consent was granted for internal and external illuminated signage (E/18687).
In 1982, planning permission was granted for a single storey extension at the rear of the property
(E/136766).
In 1981, advertisement consent was granted for five box signs and a post sign (E/12763/ADV).
In 1981, planning permission was granted for external fire escapes (E/12165).
In 1979, temporary planning permission was granted for 5 years for a garage to house a car (E/8288).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Objections to the layout submitted
British Coal – No objections
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 11th July 2002
A site notice was displayed on 11th July 2002.
The following neighbours were notified :
2 – 26 Clintonville Drive
1 – 24 Welwyn Drive
1, 2 & 3 Branksome Drive
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
174 & 177 Swinton Park Road
234, 236 & 251 Lancaster Road
Lancaster Lodge, Lancaster Road
2 –10 even Cranford Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received ten letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Objection to the height of the development
Objection on privacy grounds
Object as no childrens play facilities included
Object to the bin stores
Object to lack of parking
Object over security
Object to boundary treatment
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EN9 Derelict and Vacant Land, H1 Meeting Housing Needs, H6 & H11 Open Space
Provision Within New Housing Developments, DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4
Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy H1 relates to the adequate supply of housing. I consider that the intended use conforms to this policy
and also to Governments guidance for higher density sites and the re-use of previously developed land. The
site was occupied by a large public house, that had been vacated and vandalised considerably, and a large
car park. The vandalised building detracted from the character of the area, thus appropriate residential
redevelopment in accordance with other policies in the plan should be encouraged. The building has now
been demolished.
Objection has been raised to the size of the blocks and to possible detrimental privacy impacts. The
proposal seeks a high density development and includes 68 flats over mostly three floors with high roof
space atop. The northern, three storey block, has been sited in a position some 40 metres from the existing
two storey residential houses on Cliftonville Drive. Although the site is elevated above Cliftonville Drive I
am of the opinion that the reduced height, previous application height was 15.8m whilst the current
proposed maximum height is 12.4m, and distance away from residential properties is such that a
detrimental impact would not ensue upon residential properties. Although the proposed L-shape block
would be higher than the rectangular block the distance to the nearest residential property, on Welwyn
Drive of 32m and to the nearest on Lancaster Road of 32.8m, and given the proposal does not face directly
toward habitable rooms of existing property I consider amenity of the existing properties would not be
detrimentally affected. To the north of the site the gable end of Lancaster House facing this site has no
habitable windows as such I do not consider any negative amenity would arise.
Objection has been raised to the lack of childrens play facilities on the site. The proposal has been submitted
with no private amenity space on site. There is provision within policies H6 and H11 for a contribution
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
under a commuted sum to be made for appropriate facilities off site. The applicants have agreed to sign up
to a commuted sum for additional facilities within the Oakwood Park, which is across Lancaster Road. The
sum is ₤110,250; ₤70,000 capital plus ₤40,250 to cover annual maintenance for ten years. It is anticipated
that this sum will go toward improving childrens play facilities within the park. I consider the propsal would
be in line with Policies H6 and H11. In addition to a commuted sum the applicants have provided an
increased amount of land around the development for residents to dry clothes and space to separate the
buildings and car parking since the last submission.
I consider this submission has a dramatically improved design in comparison to the previous submission.
The corner of the site has a half decagon feature which I consider contributes to the site as a key feature and
represents in scale the previous public house, which had an imposing presence within the street scene. A
mixture of brick and render helps to break up the elevations with a more sympathetic design to the street
scene than the previous submission. Window size and design in addition to a stepped building line and
rendered bays express a vertical emphasis in the building that would introduce a visually interesting and
compatible development within the area. Although the corner plot is four storeys I consider that the design
and siting would not detrimentally harm the character of the area as such I consider the development
respects the character of the surrounding area as intended within policy DEV2 and DEV1.
Objection has been made on security grounds in addition to the Greater Manchester Police Architectural
Liaison Unit objecting to the layout of the development. Amongst the comments received include
appropriate site security, appropriate lighting scheme in the car park and a secure access to be created in the
inner lobbies. These are issues important security issues which should be addressed prior to such a scheme
being considered favourably. As such the applicant has amended the scheme to introduce a brick wall and
railing to the site boundary and other security measures including electronic entrance gates.
The proposal includes 100% parking (68 spaces one per flat) and revised access. Objection has been made
on lack of on-site parking. I consider that this level of parking coupled with bicycle stands and proximity to
public transport links is acceptable and is in line with the City Councils and Governments recommended
parking standards.
The applicant has submitted a tree report which states that the majority of the poplar trees on site are of poor
quality and should be replaced with better quality species more appropriate to the location. I would agree
with the observations of this tree report subject to a satisfactory landscaping scheme being agreed. The
applicant has agreed to the City Of Salford’s Senior Arborist advice to introduce a mixture of Quercus rubra
(oak), Quercus coccinea (oak), Alnus rubra (beech)and Robinia Frisia as these trees are considered to be
more appropriate to the location than the existing species.
The redevelopment of this site is desirable and would enable the introduction of a residential use compatible
with surrounding uses. I consider the distance to neighbouring properties is sufficient to maintain privacy
and levels of sunlight and daylight.
I consider the detailed design of this planning application to be greatly improved from the previous
submission, both in terms of the reduced bulk and the evident attention to detail that this scheme
encompasses. I consider the height and massing of the development to be appropriate to the location
especially considering the dominant presence of the public house that previously stood on the site. The
scheme includes replanting of appropriate tree species on the site and for the provision of childrens play
facilities or other local environmental improvements through a section 106 legal agreement.
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
RECOMMENDATION
That the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement for the sum of
£110,250 for off site play facilities and/or environmental improvements in the adjacent Oakwood Park, and
its vicinity and give authority for the decision notice to be issued on completion of the agreement.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Since writing my report I have received five letters from nearby residents reaffirming their objection to the
proposal. I have also received one additional letter of objection to the proposal raising objection to the
points mentioned above and to highway safety. A proposed condition (condition 10) requires a scheme to
protect highway safety is implemented prior to occupation of the development. I have reworded this
condition since writing the report.
The Director of Environmental Health has advised of a change in the wording of condition number three
with regard to acoustically glazed windows.
I have also received confirmation from The Greater Manchester Police that the previous objection has been
withdrawn.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
3. The windows of all habitable rooms to the elevations specified below shall be acoustically dual glazed
to the standards of the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (as amended). An alternative would be to
install sealed double glazed units comprising glass of 10mm and laminated 6.4mm with a 12mm air
gap. The unit shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturers recommendation to avoid air gaps
when filling the frames. Alternative means of mechanical ventilation, which must be sound attenuated
must be provided.
Specified elevations are:
Plots 13 - 28: elevations facing Welwyn Drive and Lancaster Road
Plots 29 - 42: elevations facing Lancaster Road and gable
Plots 43 - 68: elevations facing Lancaster Road and both gables.
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
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and
property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Director of Development Services prior
to the start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the
approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.
5. Replacement semi-mature trees, consisting of a mixture of species Quercus rubra, Quercus coccinea,
Alnus rubra and Robinia pseudoacacia " Frisia" shall be planted prior to first occupation of the
apartments. The number and location of the replacement trees shall be agreed in writing by the Director
of Development Services prior to the commencement of the development. This condition shall not be
considered to have been complied with until the replacement trees, as approved by the Director of
Development Services, have been established to the satisfaction of the Director of Development
Services. Any trees that are lost or die within five years of planting shall be replaced on a like for like
basis.
6. Standard Condition C01X Landscaping
7. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved the developer shall submit detailed
plans of the cycle parking scheme for the approval of the Director of Development Services. The
approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the development and shall thereafter
be maintained to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
8. For each flat prior to occupation a parking space shall be made available within the development at all
times.
9. Prior to the commencement of the development the developer shall sumbit details of the following
security measures for the approval of the Director of Development Services; electronic remote control
entrance gates (both vehicular and pedestrian), video entry security systems to each block and details of
a lighting scheme for the development. The aforementioned details, once approved, shall be
implemented prior to the first occupation of the development.
10. The construction of the development hereby approved shall not commence until appropraite widening
and a dedicated right turn lane scheme has been submitted to and approved by the Director of
Development Services. Such approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the first occupation
by the developer, to allow safe entrance to the site from Lancaster Road.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
4. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
7. Reason: To provide adeqaute provision for cycle parking in accordance with Policy T11 and PPG13.
8. Standard Reason R014A Parking of vehicles - each dwelling
9. Standard Reason R040A Secured from crime
10. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding details
of drainage.
2. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under Section 106
of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, prior to the granting of planning permission.
3. This permission shall relate to the amended plans as received on the 30th July 2002 and the letter
received on the 26th July 2002.
APPLICATION No:
02/44462/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr D Yates
LOCATION:
10 Clandon Avenue Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Demolish side garage and erection of two storey side and rear extension
WARD:
Winton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property in a residential area with St Patrick’s High situated to
the rear.
The proposal is for the erection of a two-storey rear extension and a two storey side extension. The rear
extension would project 2.7m and run the full length of the rear elevation with a single storey element
projecting 1.2m beyond the side. The proposal would have total height of 6m with a hipped roof.
The two-storey side extension would replace an existing single storey garage. The ground floor element
would be flush with the existing bay window and the first floor element would be set back 2m from the front
elevation. The proposal would project 2.4m up to the side boundary and run the full length of the side
elevation with the rear elevation of the first floor being supported by a pillar. The proposal would be 7.2m
at its highest point with a hipped roof.
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
8, 11, 12, 13 and 15 Clandon Avenue
St Patricks High School
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received five letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Two similar proposals have been refused in the vicinity
Proposed garage would not be wide enough to fit a car in
Potential terracing effect
The proposal would need to be built with access to the neighbouring property and would cause
disruption
Future maintenance and repair would need to be carried out from the neighbouring property
Foundations may need to extend to neighbouring properties
Loss of light to kitchen and landing windows
Out of character with the area
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions, Supplementary Planning Guidance
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 of the Unitary Development Plan states that permission will only be granted for extensions that
would not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of
overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light and the extension would not have an
unacceptably adverse impact on the character of the street scene.
There are several Supplementary Planning Guidance policies that relate to this proposal: HH13 – planning
permission for two storey side extensions that lie within 1m of the side boundary will not normally be
granted unless the first floor is set back 2m from the front of the house.
HH4 – planning permission will not normally be granted for two-storey extensions that do not maintain a
minimum of 13m between its blank gable wall and facing habitable room windows
HH17 – Planning permission will not normally be granted for any extensions that do not maintain a
hardstanding of 4.8m in length to accommodate at least one car clear of the highway.
All of the objections relate solely to the two-storey side extension and not the two-storey rear extension.
The rear extension complies with Supplementary Planning Guidance.
The first objection relates to the refusal of two similar proposals within the street. The first application was
refused at appeal stage in 1966 and related to a two-storey flat roofed extensions that was flush with the
front elevation at both ground and first floor at 11 Clandon Avenue The second application was refused by
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
committee after a visit in 1991 and related to 9 Clandon Avenue for the erection of a two storey side
extension with a hipped roof and the first floor was set back 2m from the front elevation. The current
application is very different from the application that was refused in1966 in that the proposal has a hipped
roof that matches the existing and the first floor is set back 2m from the front elevation to avoid potential
terracing effects. The current application is very similar to the proposal that was refused in 1991 however
the current proposal does comply with the current Supplementary Planning Guidance.
There is an existing garage on the site and there is 4.8m of hardstanding to the front of the property.
The first floor of the proposed extension would be set back 2m from the front elevation, which complies
with our current terracing policy.
Any access from the neighbouring property would need consent from the occupier of the neighbouring
property.
The proposed extension is completely contained within the curtilage of the dwelling including the
foundations any encroachment onto adjoining land would have to be agreed with the owners of that land.
The proposal would be approx. 2.6m from No.8’s kitchen and landing window, neither of these windows
are habitable room windows and therefore we do not protect the light to these windows.
The proposal would be built in materials to match the existing, it would have a hipped roof to match the
existing and complies with our Supplementary Planning Guidance therefore I would not consider it to have
a detrimental impact on either neighbouring properties or the street scene.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
3. The garage hereby approved shall be installed and maintained with roller shutter doors to the
satisfaction of Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
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
At a meeting of the Panel held on the 5th September 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORT REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are stated below:
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.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – house extension
PLANNING APPRAISAL
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
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:
02/44490/FUL
APPLICANT:
Elite Homes North Ltd
LOCATION:
Monton Lodge 3 Parrin Lane Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 10 apartments together with associated car parking
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
19th September 2002
Winton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a 0.13 hectare site which currently has a three storey office block within the site.
Surrounding uses are mainly residential, a three storey block of flats lies to the west, two storey housing to
the south and a public house lies to the east. Parrin Lane, slightly elevated lies to the north. The current
building, which would be demolished, has a northerly aspect with car park and access from Montonfields
Road.
Planning permission is sought for the erection of ten two bed flats in one two storey block. The proposal
consists of four flats at ground level, four at first floor and two within the roof space. The site slopes up from
south to north as such the northern half would be built one metre above the southern half. Permission is also
sought for ten car parking spaces and landscaping. Access would as existing.
SITE HISTORY
In 1997, planning permission was granted for a three storey extension for offices (97/36507/FUL).
In 1989, planning permission was granted for the erection of a two storey extension (E/25036).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections
British Coal – No objections
United Utilities – No comment
Manchester Ship Canal Company – No comment
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by way of press notice and site notice.
The following neighbours were notified :
1 –6 consecutive Bridge Court, Montonfields Road
1-21 odd Montonmill Gardens
7 – 13 odd Parrin Lane
Public House, 1 Parrin Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 Meeting Housing Needs, DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy H1 relates to meeting housing needs whilst DEV1 seeks, inter alia, to ensure development fits in
with the locality. Policy DEV2 requires a good standard of design. The area is residential and I consider that
the redevelopment of the site for residential will be compatible not only with surrounding uses but also with
neighbouring residential amenity. The siting of the proposal is such that a minimum of 16m is maintained to
the gable end of Bridge Court to the west and 20m is maintained from the gable end of the proposal to the
rear of properties on Montonmill Gardens. Although the development proposed is close to the rear
boundary of the site I consider it is sufficient distance from the United Utilities sub station, which is
unlikely to be redeveloped, in order that amenity would be maintained.
I consider that the design of the development has interest with large glazed entrances and a good standard of
finished design including contrasting brick courses throughout the elevations. Eight of the flats benefit from
balustrading to enhance design and amenity whilst the proposal includes communal amenity spaces.
The existing access is proposed to be utilised and ten parking spaces are proposed for the ten flats. I
consider this level of parking to be acceptable given the good public transport links with bus services and
train services from Patricroft station. I have no highway objections. I consider the proposal would
complement other uses and buildings in the area and recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within 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.
3. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding details
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
of drainage.
APPLICATION No:
02/44508/COU
APPLICANT:
D Matthews And N J Fleury
LOCATION:
52 Manchester Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from residential care home to childrens day nursery,
provision of ramp to rear and construction of 8 car parking spaces to
the rear of the property
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a large detached property on the A6 Manchester Road opposite the Children’s
hospital. The site is bordered by residential properties. The property is currently in use as a residential care
home and it is proposed to change the use of the property to a nursery catering for 56 children. The
application also includes the construction of a vehicular ramp from street to garden level and the provision
of eight car parking spaces within the rear garden. The application has been amended by reducing the
number of car spaces at the rear of the property from eleven to eight and keeping the trees in the rear garden.
Amendments were also made to the pick-up and drop-off facilities at the front of the property.
SITE HISTORY
In February 1991, planning permission was granted for the change of use of the property from a single
family dwelling house to a residential care home. This application also included a ramp to garden level and
the provision of five car parking spaces in the rear garden. This was conditional on the access being
widened to 3.2m and this would have involved the demolition of a two storey part of the building
(E/26907).
In November 1991 an amendment to the above permission was approved which did not involve any parking
in the rear garden and therefore no ramp (E/28916).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – The play area to the proposed use is located at the rear of the property
and in close proximity to gardens belonging to adjacent residential properties. There is insufficient space at
the rear of number 52 to provide a suitable buffer zone between the play area and the boundary of the
nearest property to limit the disturbance caused to nearby properties from the noise of children playing
outside. The proposed numbers of children are fairly considerable and I believe that a large part of the day
will comprise children playing outside. It is reasonable to foresee that the amenity of the nearby residential
properties will be affected by noise should the application be approved. The applicants supporting
information states that the noise from children will be no more than that of passing traffic. This may
possibly be true but the noise from children playing comprises a very different spectrum of sound to that of
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
passing traffic. The noise from the children will also contain impulsive characteristics that would be quite
intrusive to surrounding properties. In addition, people generally become used to the continuous drone of
traffic and accept this kind of noise. I therefore strongly recommend the refusal of this application
The Early Years Team – no objections but provide advice.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of both the original application and the amended plans:48, 50, 54 to 64 and 85 Manchester Road
2 to 12 The Westlands
7 Kingsway
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a total of 15 letters of objection from 9 properties in response to the application publicity.
The following comments having been made:Loss of highway safety
Traffic congestion
Noise and disturbance
Loss of security
Loss of trees
Access too narrow/damage to neighbouring property
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
application. These factors include the likely scale and type of traffic generation, car parking provision, the
potential level of noise nuisance, the effect on neighbouring residents and the impact on trees.
I share the concerns of residents with regard to the impact of this development on highway safety, traffic
congestion and noise and disturbance. The applicant has not provided safe and adequate off-street pick-up
and drop-off and parking facilities for parents. Manchester Road is a principle route with a very high
volume of traffic including a high percentage of HGVs. There are waiting restrictions in the vicinity of the
site and site visits on a number of occasions have revealed that at times, all available kerbside parking
spaces are taken up by the nearby Hospital users. Therefore the increase in requirement for on-street
parking will result in double parking, congestion and conflicts within the carriageway which will be
detrimental to highway safety.
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
With regard to noise and disturbance I note that the Director of Environmental Services strongly
recommends that the application be refused.
I do not consider that the application would result in any significant loss of security to neighbouring
residents and with regard to trees the City Council’s arboriculturalist has made a site visit and is satisfied
that the amended plans would result in the retention of all the mature trees at the rear of the site providing
that appropriate measures are taken with regard to the construction of the parking areas.
I do not consider that there are sufficient grounds to refuse the application with regard to the access to the
rear garden and the effect that this has on the neighbouring property. This access has previously been
approved and I cannot agree that the narrowness and steepness of this access would in itself result in a loss
of amenity to the neighbours.
There are clear highway and noise objections to this application and therefore I must recommend that the
application be refused on the following grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development, without the provision of adequate off-street facilities for the dropping off
and picking up of children would be unsatisfactory and detrimental to highway safety, contrary to
policy T13 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
2. The proposed use of the property would result in a significant loss of amenity to neighbouring residents
as a result of noise and disturbance contrary to policy EN20 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/44509/FUL
APPLICANT:
Orange PCS
LOCATION:
Land Off Brunel Avenue Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Installation of a 20m high telecommunications tower, six antenna, four
dishes, 10 equipment cabinets and associated equipment
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land off Brunel Avenue and a site located between industrial units and the
Manchester to Bolton railway line. Planning permission is sought for the erection of a twenty metre
telecommunications monopole, six antenna, four dishes and ten equipment cabins. The antenna and
microwave dish would form the top part of the monopole, the diameter of which would be 1.3 metres. The
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
application includes 2.5 metre high palisade fencing surrounding the site area which measures 11m long by
6.8m wide.
SITE HISTORY
In 2002, planning permission was refused for the installation of a 20m high lattice tower and six antennas,
four dishes, 10 equipment cabins and associated equipment (02/43885/FUL). Reasons for refusal were
concerned with lack of consideration of mast sharing, not justified the need for the development and the
poor design.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by way of a press notice and site notice.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Effects upon employees of HHS from the perceived hazard of electromagnetic fields causing
cancer
Size of the structure detracting from the character of the area
Development would attract vandals
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: SC14 Telecommunications
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy SC14 states that the City Council will normally grant planning
permission for telecommunications development where such development would not have an unacceptable
impact on visual amenity. Through this the City Council aims to balance the needs of the
telecommunications industry with the need to preserve amenity. The policy also highlights the importance
of site sharing and the erection of antennae on existing buildings or other existing structures. Furthermore
Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 (PPG8) on Telecommunications sets out the main issues concerning the
installation of such development, highlighting the importance of siting and design and health and safety
issues.
One of the main issues to consider with regards to this application is the health implications of the proposed
development on employees at nearby sites. Whilst it is clear from the objection received that a local
employer believes there would be significant health implications, in terms of radio frequency output the
proposed apparatus would be below the ICNIRP guidelines as recommended by the Stewart Report. As
such I am satisfied that the proposed development would be in accordance with the precautionary approach
adopted by the City Council.
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
The applicant has included supporting information, coverage plots and supporting statement, to show the
need for the development within the national network. Although the previous application did not provide
sufficient information I would conclude that the supporting information for this application proves there is a
need for the development. Evidence of site search and alternatives has been supplied.
In support of the application the applicant has submitted photographs showing the view from the intended
site at a height of 20m and 15m, the applicant draws conclusions that a 15m high development would not be
high enough to propagate around surrounding buildings. Information has been submitted in support of this
statement in that mobile phone masts/stations need a line of sight between other masts/stations so that the
network can operate. I do consider that the need for the telecommunications development at this site and
height has been proven.
The objector raises concerns over the visual appearance of the mast. The previous application refused
earlier this year involved a very visible lattice mast 2m wide at the base 1.4m wide at the top with a large
headframe 4m wide by 2m high. The current application 1.3m wide at the top including antennae is a much
less harmful and intrusive design than the previously refused scheme. The design of the mast and antennas
is not too dissimilar from that of surrounding street furniture on the A6. Although this current proposal
would still be visible from surrounding areas the simplicity of the monopole structure and its similarity to
street furniture lead me to conclude that the proposal would not result in a detrimental intrusion upon the
surrounding area.
I have no highway objections. Given that the need of the development has been justified, the height has
been justified, that possibilities for site/mast share have been examined and the design and scale has been
considered with regard to surrounding areas I recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
02/44513/HH
APPLICANT:
I Halpern
LOCATION:
33 Tetlow Lane Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension, single storey rear extension and
front porch
WARD:
Broughton
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached house. The proposal is to erect a two storey side extension which
would project out 4.05m in width from the side of the house (retaining 4m to the boundary), and would be
9.24m in length so that 2.7m would project to the rear of the house. It is also proposed to erect a single
storey rear kitchen and succah extension, which would project out 2.7m to the rear and tie in with the two
storey extension. A front porch extension is also proposed.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
20, 31, 35 Tetlow Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection from the occupier of the adjoining semi who does not wish to have to
view the proposal.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – house extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I have considered the possible effect on the neighbouring residents, particularly the occupier of the
adjoining semi, who has objected to the proposal. However, all of the proposals meet with the Council’s
supplementary planning guidance and I would not consider that there are any individual circumstances that
would suggest that the extension would be unduly detrimental to the neighbouring residents. I do not
consider that the neighbours would suffer a significant loss of light or overbearing appearance.
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 roofs of the development shall be the same type,
colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director
of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44514/FUL
APPLICANT:
A Gore
LOCATION:
299-301 Manchester Road Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of acoustic enclosure and retention of heat exchanger/air
conditioning units
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the rear of a Costcutter store. Members will recall that planning permission was
refused in January of this year for the retention of four refrigerator motors by reason of the level of the noise
generated and its impact on the neighbouring residential amenity. This application is for the erection of an
acoustic enclosure and retention of heat exchanger/air conditioning units. The refrigerator motors are
currently located on the side of a garage underneath a metal staircase, which leads to a flat above the shop,
facing the neighbouring property (297 Manchester Road). The enclosure around the motors would measure
2.3m (w) X 2.6m (l) and would match the height and shape of the staircase.
SITE HISTORY
In January 2002, planning permission was refused for the retention of four refrigerators (01/43213/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services is satisfied that the acoustic enclosure proposed would be sufficient to
reduce the noise generated by the refrigerator motors to an acceptable level.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
297 & 303 Manchester Road
4 Marsh Street
8 Crompton Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
19th September 2002
None
DEV1
PLANNING APPRAISAL
UDP Policy DEV1 ‘Development Criteria’ covers the general matters to which the City Council will have
regard in determining applications for planning permission.
The main issues to consider with regard this application is the noise and visual impact of the proposal on the
neighbouring residential properties. The Director of Environmental Services is satisfied that this proposal
will reduce the noise nuisance to an acceptable level.
In terms of the visual impact, the siting of the motors and acoustic enclosure will not have a significant
effect upon the neighbouring property, due to the presence of a 2m fence along the boundary, which is tall
enough to mitigate the visual impact of the scheme. Similarly, to the rear is situated a 2m wall which is also
sufficient to mitigate the visual impact.
Therefore I am of the opinion that this scheme will not have any detrimental impact upon the neighbouring
properties and should be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The erection of the acoustic enclosure shall be completed within 3 months of the date of decision
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
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
At a meeting of the Panel held on the 5th September 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORT REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are stated below:
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
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
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.
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
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.
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
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
02/44521/COU
APPLICANT:
Awais Steffa
LOCATION:
213 Bolton Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from shop to hot food takeaway
WARD:
Claremont
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an end terraced property, located within the Bolton Road Key Local centre.
The proposal is to change the use of the premises from a shop to a hot food takeaway. The first floor of the
premises would continue to be used for storage. The proposed hours of opening are 11.00am to 11.00pm
Monday to Thursday and 11am to 12.00 midnight Friday to Sunday. 3 staff would be employed at the
premises. There is car parking available to the front of the premises.
Surrounding uses are mixed. There are residential properties to the rear and south-east of the premises – a
narrow alley separates the application site and the dwelling at 213 Bolton Road. The properties to the rear
on Fairfield Street are separated from the application site by a rear alley. The adjacent property at 215
Bolton Road is currently a fish and chip shop with storage at first floor. The remainder of the terrace provide
a variety of A1, A2 and A3 uses.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objection. Recommend two conditions to restrict the hours of
operation and to provide fume extraction details for approval.
Coal Authority – Report on mining circumstances provided.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified:
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
203 – 211; 215 - 223 (odds); 223A Bolton Road
14 – 30 Fairfield Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received seven letters of objections in response to the application publicity, in addition to a 52 name
petition. The following comments having been made:
1. rear entries and streets are constantly an area for children and adults to eat and drink, leaving unwanted
bottles and takeaway food wrappings strewn around (leaving residents with rats and untidiness)
2. local youths hanging around causing nuisance
3. shops do not clean up the area the day after, nor do they site bins and empty them regularly
4. there is rubbish and vermin
5. there are already 2 x cake shops, 1 x pizza shop, 1 x Indian takeaway, 1 x Chinese takeaway, 2 x chip
shops at this end of Bolton Road – residents do not require any more takeaway shops
6. competition to existing takeaways
7. smell of the food cooking constantly and coming through vents into homes
8. noise late at night
9. don’t want late night opening
10. would produce strong smells
11. enough problems at present with the existing takeaways without creating any more
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None.
DEV1 – Development Criteria
S5 – Control of Food and Drink Premises
S3 – Key Local Centres
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy S5 states that the City Council will only permit proposals for the sale of
hot food for consumption off the premises where the use would not have an unacceptably adverse impact on
the amenities of surrounding residential occupiers by reason of noise, disturbance, smells, fumes, litter,
vehicular traffic movements, parking or pedestrian traffic. Policy S3 seeks to retain, consolidate and
improve Salford’s key local centres. The City Council will normally permit development of appropriate
scale to the local area involving changes of use to Classes A1 and A2 of the Town and Country Planning
(Use Classes) Order 1987. Class A3 uses will be granted planning permission subject to there being no
unacceptable effect on the amenity, environment, vitality or viability of the key local centre either
individually or by the cumulative effect of such development.
The main issues raised by objectors relate to the potential impacts on amenity resulting from litter, odours,
noise, disturbance and the presence of a number of hot food takeaways already in the vicinity. Objections
were raised in relation to increased competition for existing businesses, this is not however a material
planning consideration. In terms of the potential impacts upon local amenity, due regard should also be
paid to the existing impacts of neighbouring uses. In the vicinity of the application site there are already a
number of hot food establishments. I consider that there is evidence to suggest an existing level of activity
in the vicinity throughout the day and into the evening associated with the existing uses, and as such I
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
believe that the addition of a further hot food take-away would cause an increase in noise, disturbance and
litter above that already experienced and as such would impact upon local amenity, in particular that of the
residents at 211 Bolton Road.
Development Control Policy Note No. 2 (Hot Food, Cafes and Snack Bars) states that take away food shops
will not be allowed where the premises would be immediately adjacent to and sharing the same floor level
as other residential properties. 211 Bolton Road, although separated by a narrow alley (2.6 metres wide), is
considered to be immediately adjacent to the application site. Furthermore, I consider that the close
proximity of the application site to 211 Bolton Road would result in an unacceptable reduction in residential
amenity by way of noise from the general activity of people travelling to and from the proposal would cause
nuisance.
With regards to policy S3, the Key Local Centre survey of 2001 notes that 213 Bolton Road has been vacant
since a survey undertaken in 1995/6. Consequently, the filling of a vacant property can be viewed as
beneficial to the vitality, viability, and the environment of the Key Local Centre. I do not consider that the
proposal would be prejudicial to the safety of pedestrians and road users as there is a wide pavement to the
front of the properties and there is designated on-street parking for the Key Local Centre on Bolton Road.
It is considered that the proposal would by virtue of general movement of people and cars especially late at
night, and also noise from ventilation systems, cause unacceptable disturbance to adjacent residential
properties and as such is contrary to policy S5.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would be seriously detrimental to neighbouring residents, in particular 211
Bolton Road and would injure the character and amenity of the area by reason of smell and fumes,
noise and disturbance and general activity and thus would be contrary to policy S5 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
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
At a meeting of the Panel held on the 5th September 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORT REGULATORY PANEL.
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
My previous observations are stated below:
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:
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
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
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
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
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
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:
02/44524/OUT
APPLICANT:
Ms D Grech
LOCATION:
Land At The Rear Of 8 Higher Croft Barton Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for the erection of one detached bungalow
with detached garage together with alterations to existing access and
associated landscaping
WARD:
Barton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an overgrown plot of land to the rear of 8 Higher Croft. Outline planning
permission for siting and means of access is sought for a detached bungalow. The site measures 26 metres
in length by a maximum of 11.5 metres in width. The dwelling would be positioned centrally within the site
and would be located to the rear of 13 and 15 Higson Avenue. It would be 10 metres in length by 6 metres in
width. Vehicular access would be from Higson Avenue. There are a number of very tall conifer trees on the
boundary to the site. The Applicant intends to remove these trees as part of the proposal.
The site is located within a wholly residential area. There is a distance of approximately 17 metres between
the proposed dwelling and the kitchen extension to 8 Higher Croft and a distance of 10 metres to the rear of
13 and 15 Higson Avenue. To the north of the application site is the side garden of 14 Ashford Avenue.
SITE HISTORY
E/9966 – Outline planning application for the erection of a detached bungalow and garage. Approved
16.4.80.
E/8163 – Outline planning application for the erection of a detached bungalow. Approved 15.8.79.
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified:
1 – 29 (odds) Higson Avenue
8 – 22 (evens) Higher Croft
10 – 18 Ashford Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity and one verbal objection. The
following comments having been made:
concern regarding the siting of the bungalow and the design of the gable in relation to 14 Ashford
Avenue
loss of light to properties on Higson Avenue
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none.
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that regard must be had to a number of factors when
determining applications for planning permission including the layout and relationship of existing and
proposed buildings and the effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for neighbouring properties.
With regards to the proposed use of the site for residential development, the principle of residential use on
this site has been established with the approval of two previous outline planning permissions for detached
bungalows in 1979 and 1980. This current application relates to the same site and seeks permission for
matters of siting and access. The issues to be addressed therefore relate to the proposed siting, access and
any material changes in circumstances since the previous planning approvals. Since the previous planning
approvals, a kitchen extension has been erected to the rear of 8 Higher Croft.
The objections received relate to the siting of the proposed dwelling in relation to 14 Ashford Avenue and
the properties on Higson Avenue, essentially in relation to loss of light. Because this is an outline planning
application, no details have been submitted for the design of the property and for example, its height, design
and the position of windows. With reference to the concerns raised by 14 Ashford Avenue, I consider that
the orientation of this property is such that, providing that careful attention is paid to the design of the
bungalow at the reserved matters stage, I am satisfied that it could be designed in a manner that would not
result in a significant loss of light or impact on the amenities of these residents.
With regards to the issue of loss of light to the properties on Higson Avenue, I believe that these residents
will already suffer from loss of light as result of the tall conifer trees within the application site. I consider
that the removal of the trees would allow more light to enter the Higson Avenue dwellings. I am, however,
concerned that the position of the proposed dwelling is such that it does not comply with the separation
distances that are normally required for residential developments. The side elevation of the bungalow is
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
such that it would be 10 metres from the dwellings on Higson Avenue, some 3 metres short of the 9 metres
normally required. I am of the opinion that given that the proposal is for a bungalow and not for a
two-storey dwelling, it could be designed in a manner, that with careful attention to the height, design of the
roof and gable for example, would not be overbearing. With regards to privacy, I do not consider that the
residents on Higson Avenue would suffer any loss of privacy, providing that there are no windows on this
elevation. In addition, planning permission has been approved for two dwellings on this site, in a similar
position and although these were in 1979 and 1980, I do not consider that the circumstances have changed
significantly.
The distance between the proposed bungalow and the ground floor kitchen extension at 8 Higher Croft
would be 17 metres, whilst the first floor bedroom windows of this dwelling would be at a distance of 20
metres. Although this would be 1 metre short of the required 21 metre distance, I do not consider that there
would be any loss of privacy because the proposal is for a bungalow and not a two-storey dwelling and as
such the principle windows would not directly face each other.
The proposal would improve the appearance of the overgrown site. I am satisfied that providing careful
attention is paid to the design of the property and that no windows are inserted into the southern elevation,
there would be no significantly detrimental impacts upon the amenities of surrounding residents. I consider
that the use of the site for residential purposes is acceptable in this location. I have no objections to the
proposal on highway grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been submitted
to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
- plans and elevations showing the design of all buildings and other structures;
- the colour and type of facing materials to be used for all external walls and roofs;
- a landscape scheme for the site which shall include details of trees and shrubs to be planted, any
existing trees to be retained, or felled indicating the spread of the branches and trunk positions, walls,
fences, boundary and surface treatment.
3. There shall be no windows to the habitable rooms inserted on the southern or northern gable of the
dwelling.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
3. To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/44553/HH
APPLICANT:
M Stewart
LOCATION:
53 Kingsway Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey side extension
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached property and is for the erection of a single storey side extension to
provide a garage, dining room, garden tool store and garden storage area.
The side extension would project 3.6m close to the boundary with 79 Broadway, which is protected by a
1.5m fence. It would extend back 14.5m to within 0.15m of the common boundary with 81 Broadway. The
garage and dining room elements would be attached to the side of the house, with the garden tool store and
storage area extending off the back of the proposed dining room. The proposal would be kept entirely
within the curtilage of the applicant’s property.
A hardstanding of 5.9m would be provided at the front of the proposed garage, and a new vehicular access
3.5m wide would be constructed.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – no objections
Traffic – no objections
United Utilities – Object to the proposal as a public sewer crosses the site.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
51 Kingsway
50-52 Kingsway (even)
79-83 Broadway (odd)
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the application. The following comments having been
made:
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
Loss of view
Loss of light
Creation of terracing
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV 8 – House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that planning permission will only be granted where there would be no unacceptably
adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and where an extension would not have
an unacceptably adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, by reason of its siting, height, massing,
design and appearance.
The first objection relates to loss of view. This is not a planning consideration.
The second objection refers to loss of light. The proposed development comes to within 4m of the adjacent
property at its closest. This distance increases to 7.2m due to the properties being angled away from each
other. Although this is contrary to Supplementary Planning Guidance, I do not consider that there will be
any significant loss of light for the adjacent property (79 Broadway). This is because of the existing
boundary treatment and the fact that the properties are angled away from each other.
The third objection relates to the creation of terracing. Due to the applicant’s property being set
perpendicular to 79 Broadway, and because the proposal is for a single storey extension only, the Council
do not believe that a terracing effect will be created.
United Utilities is also opposed to the development. In order to protect the amenity of the public, an access
strip of at least 6m must be provided for maintenance and replacement, which is encroached by the proposal
and I therefore recommend refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following reason:
The proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of the public by reason of preventing the
maintainence and/or replacement of a main public sewer contrary to Policy DEV8 of the Unitary
Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/44565/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs H Roberts
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
LOCATION:
4 Guilford Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension
WARD:
Winton
19th September 2002
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property. The proposal is for the erection of a part two-storey,
part single-storey side extension. The first floor would be set back 2m from the front elevation of the
property, and 2m from the existing rear wall of the outrigger. There is a kitchen window in the opposite wall
of No.6, 2.8m away from the proposed extension. The extension would have a hipped roof, approximately
7.1m at its highest. There would be bedroom windows in the front and rear first floor walls, a double garage
with roller shutter doors at the front and a door in the rear wall single-storey element.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified:
2, 6 Guilford Road
St Patricks High School
32 Hatherop Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 7 representations in response to the application publicity. The following comments having
been made regarding the proposal:
Compromises the appearance of the houses on Guilford Road.
Negative effect on street scene.
Negative effect on the character of the area.
Possibility of future terraced effect.
Possible tunnel effect along the adjoining boundary with no 6 Guilford Rd.
Driveway is too narrow to provide sufficient parking.
Loss of light to neighbours.
Past refusal for Planning Permission in Clarendon Avenue, off Guilford Road and for Garages at 10
and 14 Guilford Road.
Access to rear of property will be refused for building and maintenance of the extension.
Safety issues with regards to access of Emergency Services to the rear of the properties.
Decline in house value.
One objection with no reason sited.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8-House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
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.
A number of the objections relate to the two-storey side extension compromising the appearance of the
houses on Guilford Road, the effect on street scene, the character of the area and the possibility of a future
terraced appearance of the road. However as the side extension would not be entirely two-storey, but set in
2m from the front main wall (complying with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on House
Extensions: Guidance Note HH13) and 2m from the rear main wall of the property, the issue of terracing
would be minimised and the character of the area maintained. I would not therefore consider the proposal to
have a significantly detrimental impact on the appearance of the street scene and the character of the area or
that it will lead to a possible terraced effect on Guilford Road.
Objections also site the possibility of the proposal creating a tunnel effect along the adjacent boundary with
No 6 Guilford Rd, in the area by the kitchen window and side door. I do not consider the proposed extension
would have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of those neighbours, as the two-storey element
of the extension does not project entirely to the rear main wall of the existing building. Instead it projects
only approximately 1.8m along the boundary from the rear wall of the Garage of no 6. Therefore only
approximately half of their kitchen window would be affected by the two-storey element. If the extension
was to be completely two-storey to the rear wall of the outrigger I may be concerned regarding a tunnel
effect. However in this case, I consider there would be little tunnel effect created. Also the window in the
gable of No 6 is non-habitable, therefore the proposal complies with the Council’s policy as detailed in the
Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions.
A further objection is that the driveway is too narrow and does not provide sufficient room to support
parking needs for the increased size of the property. I consider that the extension is in proportion with the
dwelling and maintains sufficient hard-standing in front of the Garage to allow a vehicle to stand,
(complying with Guidance Note HH17 of the Supplementary Planning Guidance). The proposal also
includes a Garage to provide further parking for the residents. I have no objections to the extension on
highway grounds and I do not consider that the proposal would result in a “cluttered” appearance on the
street.
Objectors also raised the issue of loss of light to the neighbours. However the extension complies with the
Supplementary Planning Guidance on House Extensions and as such I do not consider it will have a
significant detrimental affect on the light of the neighbours.
The proposal meets with the Council’s requirements therefore I recommend the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the brickwork and roofing 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.
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
02/44594/COU
APPLICANT:
Orbit Investments (Salford) Limited
LOCATION:
Unit F32 Salford Quays Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Change of use of first floor and mezzanine floor retail unit to offices
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to part of the first and mezzanine floors at the south west corner of the Lowry
Designer Outlet development, facing the Plaza.
SITE HISTORY
In 2002, planning permission was granted for the change of use of ground floor retail unit to retail and/or
professional services and/or restaurant at lower ground floor level and change of use from retail to office on
the ground, first and first mezzanine floors (02/44182/COU).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objection but have requested a noise survey which I consider to be
unnecessary.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 15th August 2002
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, TR5 Protection of Existing and Potential Assets, EC1 A
balanced Portfolio of Sites.
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 relates to the proposed use and its relationship to existing and proposed uses. Policy TR5
requires the protection of existing tourism interest and explains that potential tourism will be deemed as
being a material consideration. Policy SC5 states that food and drink uses will be acceptable where this
would not interfere with residential properties or the highway whilst EC1 requires sufficient supply of
office accommodation.
I consider the office accommodation on the ground, first and first mezzanine floors would facilitate the
further supply of office accommodation within the Salford Quays area and would create a further mix of
uses on the site. I do not consider the loss of retail space to be detrimental to the Quays area, especially as an
employment generating use is proposed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
02/44595/FUL
APPLICANT:
O2 (UK) Limited
LOCATION:
J Fletcher (Engineering) Lansdowne Road Monton Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 17.5m high telecommunications mast with nine antennas
and two 0.6m dishes together with equipment cabinet and ancillary
equipment
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land at J Fletcher Engineering which is located at the southern end of Lansdowne
Road, adjacent to the M602 motorway. The development would be on industrial land adjacent to the
motorway, the nearest residential properties being situated on Lansdowne Road some 50m from the site.
Permission is sought for the erection of a 15m monopole structure with antennae above taking the total
height to 17.5m. The application includes nine antennae in total with two microwave dishes and an
equipment cabin measuring 3.7m by 2.5m by 2.8m high. The applicant proposes to colour treat all elements
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
of the proposal. The development would be positioned on the former railway embankment with trees
surrounding the site to all sides.
CONSULTATIONS
Highways Agency – No objections.
PUBLICITY
The application has been published by way of a press notice and site notice.
The following neighbours were notified :
1 –23 odd Carlton Street
54 – 104 even Lansdowne Road
31 – 48 Greenside Court
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments having been
made:
Concerns over health especially for children
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: SC14 Telecommunications
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy SC14 states that the City Council will normally grant planning permission for telecommunications
development where an unacceptable result would not ensue upon visual amenity; residential amenity; areas
of high ecological, archaeological or geological value; and conservation areas, listed buildings and ancient
monuments.
The applicant has submitted a statement and coverage plot as justification of the need of this proposal, the
main function would be to provide coverage on the M602. The site is 50m from the nearest residential
properties on Lansdowne Road and is screened by trees between the properties. As the site is well screened
by trees to the west, south and east and to the north by the Engineering works of J Flethcher, I do not
consider the proposal will have a detrimental impact upon residential amenity or the surrounding area. The
top section of the tower would be visible over the trees however the proposed green colour treatment would
result in the proposal having a minimal impact. As the the applicant has not submitted a sample of the
colour I propose a condition to deal with this element.
The objector is concerned over health implications especially for children. The applicant has submitted a
declaration that the development will be in accordance with the ICNIRP guidelines and following guidance
contained within PPG8 Telecommunications I consider that there would be no detrimental health
implications resulting as the development is below levels of the precautionary principle. I have no highway
objections to this mast sharing proposal and recommend approval.
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The mast, antennas, dishes and ancillary equipment hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which
is to be agreed in writing prior to the commencement of the development by the Director of
Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding details
of drainage.
APPLICATION No:
02/44600/FUL
APPLICANT:
P Clare Building Services
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To Fountains Nursing Home Swinton Hall Road
Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey office building, siting of two storage containers
together with associated parking area
WARD:
Pendlebury
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant site on Swinton Hall Road that is owned by the City Council and that
was last used for storage purposes. The site is located at the junction of Swinton Hall Road and Temple
Drive and is bounded by The Fountains Nursing Home to the east and south, the FEB premises to the north,
Victoria Park to the south west and entrances to the nursing home and park to the west.
The site measures approximately 50m deep and has a road frontage of approximately 12m. The site is
bounded by a 3m high brick wall. The office building would have a pitched roof and would be 2.65m high
to the eaves and 3.9m at the ridge.
It is proposed to continue the use the site for storage purposes and erect offices and storage containers in
connection with the applicants building contracting work. The offices would be single storey and would
measure 16m by 9m and would be located to the rear of the site. Two steel storage containers measuring 6m
by 2.4m would be located on the eastern boundary. 15 car parking spaces would be marked out. The
proposed hours of working would be from 8am to 4.30pm with occasional working on Saturdays until 1pm
and no working on Sundays.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Coal Authority – No objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 29th August 2002
The following neighbours were notified :
The Fountains Nursing Home
FEB
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. Such factors include the effect on neighbours and the visual appearance of the development.
The site is surrounded by a high brick wall and was previously used for storage uses. Only the top of the
roof would project over the brick wall. I am satisfied that the proposed development will not have a
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
significant detrimental effect on any neighbouring property. I have no objections on highway grounds and
am satisfied that the visual appearance of the proposed development is acceptable.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
02/44604/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs S Murphy
LOCATION:
51 Wilton Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Erection of first floor side extension and rear conservatory
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property within a residential area. The proposal is in two parts.
The first element is for the erection of a first floor side extension over the garage. The extension would
measure approximately 4.35m x 5.3m and would be set 1m back from the boundary with 49 Wilton Road.
Secondly, the proposal is also for the erection of a conservatory at the rear of the property behind the
existing garage and adjacent to the kitchen. The conservatory would measure approximately 2.75m x 2.9m,
be 3.5m at its highest and 1.7m away from the boundary with 49 Wilton Road. The conservatory would
come no further back than the existing rear wall of the property. 2m fencing currently separates the
properties along the boundary.
Located at the rear of the property is a mature Beech tree that would need removing for the work to
progress. The tree is not protected and is not visible from the highway.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified:
49 and 53 Wilson Road
3 Orvietto Avenue
4 Oakland Avenue
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one representation in response to the application publicity. The following comments having
been made:
Unbalanced appearance of the extension with the existing extension on 49 Wilton Road.
Removal of large tree at the rear of the property.
Lack of sufficient room for construction, repairs and maintenance of properties.
Neighbour does not want their land to be used for access.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: Dev8- House Extensions.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Dev8 states that permission would be granted if the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse
impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance,
loss of privacy or light.
The objection sites the possibility of an unbalanced appearance of the house with the neighbouring property
at 49 Wilton Road. These properties are not joined as a semi-detached, although they do have adjoining
garages. No 49 have previously built an extension over their garage that is in back 2m from the boundary
with the applicant’s property. The proposed extension would be set in 1m from the boundary thereby
complying with Guidance Note HH13 of the Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions and
I do not consider that the resulting dwellings would be unbalanced or detrimental to the area.
The objector also sites an objection to the need to remove the large tree in the back garden for the proposal
to be carried out. The tree is not visible from the highway and so does not add to the character and amenity
of the area. Therefore I would consider that the tree is not worthy of a Tree Preservation Order and that it
would not be detrimental if it were removed to allow the proposal to be built.
The other objections sited; lack of sufficient room for construction, repairs and maintenance of the property
are not planning considerations. Neither is the fact that the neighbour does not want their land to be used for
these reasons.
I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds.
As the proposal is in keeping with the Council’s policy set out in DEV8 and the Supplementary Planning
Guidance for House Extensions, of an acceptable design and would not have a detrimental impact on the
amenity of the neighbours, residents or the street scene I recommend the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the brickwork and roofing of the development shall be the same
type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
3. The glazing for the element of the conservatory facing the party boundary shall be obscured, and shall
be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44560/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Development Services Directorate
LOCATION:
Shopping Parade Brookhouse Avenue Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Installation of new roller shutters to shop fronts and security fencing
and gates to rear service area
WARD:
Barton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the shopping parade on Brookhouse Avenue. The proposal is to remove the
existing roller shutters to all of the units, with the exception of 100 Brookhouse Avenue and replace with
new roller shutters. In addition, a 2.4 metre high welded mesh panel fence with pedestrian gate would be
erected to the rear of the shopping parade, to the boundary with the dwellings at 2 Boddington Road, 96a
Brookhouse Avenue and 24 Cardwell Road. The existing vehicle gates would be retained and their height
increased to 2.4 metres in height. The fencing, gates and roller shutters would be colour treated.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified:
2 Filey Road
94, 96, 96a, 83 – 93 (odds) Brookhouse Avenue
1 – 7 (odds), 2, 4 Boddington Road
22, 24 Cardwell Road
St Gilberts Catholic Church, Northfleet Road
1 Northfleet Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV4 Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account
when determining planning applications, including the visual appearance of the development and its
relationship to its surroundings. DEV4 states that the City Council will have regard to the position and
height of fencing and gates.
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
With regards to the appearance of the proposed fencing, the fencing would be located to the side and rear of
residential properties. I consider that the weld mesh design of fencing provides a better alternative to a
palisade design, for example, and consider that it would be acceptable in this residential location, providing
that it is colour treated. The roller shutters would replace existing shutters, most of which are galvanised
steel and as such they would also improve the appearance of the front of the premises, providing that they
are colour treated.
I consider that the fencing and roller shutters would provide increased security for the shopping parade and
do not consider that the proposal would have any significant detrimental impact on the visual amenity of
neighbouring residents. I have received no objections to the proposal and have no objections on highway
grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The roller shutters, fencing and gates hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed
in writing prior to the commencement of the development by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Please contact the Director of Development Services (Highways Maintenance Section) regarding the
need for a licence under Section 177 of the Highways Act 1980 for any elements of the shutters which
overhang the footway.
APPLICATION No:
02/44610/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Development Services Directorate
LOCATION:
Highway Services Depot Swinton Hall Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Outline application for the erection of a two storey modular office
building, new car parking and erection of boundary fencing
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
This application relates to the Council’s own storage depot on Swinton Hall Road and is an outline
application for the erection of a two storey modular office building new car parking and erection of
boundary fencing. The applicant is not seeking approval for any reserved matters. The majority of the site
is bounded by light industrial uses. The south of the site, along Swinton Hall Road, comprises a mixture of
residential, a public house and the Kingdom Hall. Planning permission has recently granted for eighteen
apartments on the site of Haligan’s P.H.
This proposal would be situated at the corner of Swinton Hall Road and Dawson Street. It would provide
approximately 300m2 of office space and would retain the 2m brick boundary wall along the Swinton Hall
frontage. New fencing would be provided along the boundary of Dawson Street. Car parking provision
would be provided on the adjacent site with access via Dawson Street.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 29th August 2002
A site notice was displayed on 21st August 2002
The following neighbours were notified :
228 Swinton Hall Road
Kingdom Hall, Swinton Hall Road
Fountains Nursing Home
95 – 109 (odd) & 90 - 106 (even) Park Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
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.
The applicant has stated that car parking would be provided to accommodate 30 spaces within the adjoining
site with access via Dawson Street. As the area comprises a mixture of uses, I consider that the principle of
offices in this location is acceptable. I recommend that the application be approved given all other matters
are reserved.
RECOMMENDATION:
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition A02 Outline
3. Standard Condition B01X Reserved Matters
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
3. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
APPLICATION No:
02/44648/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Moorside Primary School (FAO Mrs M Gadsby)
LOCATION:
Moorside Primary School Holdsworth Street Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Siting of a steel container
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the existing primary school, which faces on Holdsworth Street, and which has a
rear boundary onto the East Lancashire Road. This application is for the siting of a steel container which
would measure 6.1m (l) X 2.5m (w) X 2.65m in height.
SITE HISTORY
In 2001, planning permission was granted for the erection of a boundary fence (01/43152/DEEM3)
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 28 August 2002
The following neighbours were notified :
40 – 50 Broadbent Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations to date in response to the application publicity.
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th September 2002
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
SC4 – Improvement/ Replacement of Schools
DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The proposal is in general accordance with the aforementioned Unitary Development Plan policies, in
particular policy SC4, which seeks to improve school facilities to meet educational needs.
I do not consider that the proposed container would have any significant impact on the visual amenity of
neighbouring residents as it would be almost completely screened from the residential properties by the
height and position of the existing school building and trees along the rear of Broadbent Street.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D05B Colour treatment
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
66
19th September 2002