PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44452/FUL
APPLICANT:
Collinson Grant Limited
LOCATION:
Ryecroft 10 Aviary Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two 4m high metal posts for security cameras
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
BACKGROUND
Members will recall that at the Panel meeting on 15 August 2002 consideration of this application was
deferred to investigate the recent tree felling and disturbance to other protected trees.
I have visited the site with the City Council’s arboricultural officer and met with the applicant and I have the
following comments to make.
Trenches have been dug on the site in connection with the electricity supply to the two cameras that are
proposed. At the front of the site a trench has been dug close to a tree that had already been made unstable
by the applicant as a result of the removal of an earth mound on which the tree was growing. The opinion of
the arboricultural officer is that the damage caused by the trench is incidental to that already done. The
applicant does not know why this earth was removed but it is suspected that is related to the site contractor
being able to park vehicles. The applicant has now instructed the contractor not to park vehicles under the
trees at the front which was compacting the soil and has fenced off this area.
With regard to the trees at the back, one tree has been removed that was not included in the tree preservation
order, another has been removed as it had been damaged by the machine that had been used to dig the trench
for the electricity supply. The trench has been filled and it is not possible to state whether the work has
caused any significant or lasting damage to any trees. It is therefore recommended that these trees are
inspected annually and that should any exhibit signs of premature decline then they should be replaced.
The applicant is aware of the sensitivity of this site and the need to take care with regard to any work, he has
apologised for the damage that has been caused and it appears clear that the damage is not wilful but results
from a combination of ignorance and carelessness on behalf of site workers. The applicant has agreed the
replacement of the two TPO’d trees with four new trees at least one of which would be a heavy standard
tree.
The remainder of my report is unchanged except for the response from Worsley Civic Trust that we have
now received. The points that the Trust makes are already addressed in my report.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a large detached property in use as offices set within substantial grounds at the
end of Aviary Road. The site which amounts to some 3 hectares is bordered by St Mark’s CE Junior and
Infants School to the east; a public footpath and the rear garden boundary of houses on The Warke to the
west; and the mainly single carriageway road that leads to The Aviary, to the north. The site has a frontage
to Aviary Road. Vehicle access to the site is off Aviary Road, opposite where it forms a junction with
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
Crossfield Drive and where the public footpath emerges. There are parking restrictions in place at this
location. There are a number of mature trees to most of the site boundaries and a wooded area to one corner
of the site close to the southern boundary. All trees, except those due to be felled are protected by a Tree
Preservation Order. A 2m high close-boarded fence surrounds the entire site.
Planning permission is sought to erect two 4m high poles to be used as mounts for security cameras. One
would be located on the Aviary Road frontage in the opposite corner to the site entrance. The other would
be located 4m in from the side boundary of the premises with the footpath that runs to the rear of houses on
The Warke at the common boundary with numbers 7 and 9.
SITE HISTORY
In September 2001 planning permission was granted to change the use of the property to offices
(01/42688/COU). Consent was also granted to fell 22 trees and prune 72 others on the site (01/42740/TPO)
In February 2002 permission was granted to make alterations to the rear of the property and provide a new
entrance to the property (01/53457/FUL)
In July 2002 permission was refused to erect a 3m high boundary wall on the boundary with St Mark’s
School (02/44131/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Worsley Civic Trust – whilst we objected to the original application we are now supportive of them as being
an asset to the community. However, the placement of the cctv cameras may not be ideal and should be
reconsidered. It should be possible to locate cameras, and their field of vision, to ensure that they do not
look into other properties. We are reflecting the views of neighbours who may not have written to the
Council but who have contacted the Trust and expressed a view.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours have been notified of the application:1-15 The Warke
7 and St Mark’s School, Aviary Road
St Mark’s Rectory, Walkden Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to application publicity. The main issues identified are as
follows:
At the meeting of the Panel in September 2001 where the original change of use was allowed the
applicants stated that security cameras would not be required.
The cameras will be unsightly and will result in a loss of privacy.
If the beech hedge were to be retained then the situation would be improved.
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: Policy EN18 and EN25 Worsley Greenway
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The application property is located within the Worsley Greenway where the general thrust of policy is to
preserve its open character and to improve the appearance and use of the Greenway for amenity, wildlife,
conservation, agriculture and recreational purposes. In particular there is emphasis on the conservation of
trees and woodlands. Policy DEV1 states that in considering applications the City Council will have regard
to a number of factors that include the effect upon neighbouring residents.
I do not consider that the fact that the applicant had previously not considered that security cameras would
be necessary to be a material planning consideration to which I should attach much weight. Any applicant
has the right to submit an application and have that application considered on its own merits.
I do not consider that the camera and post would be unsightly. The post to which the objector refers will be
located 4m inside the site boundary and will be screened by mature trees and the beech hedge. I have,
however, attached a condition requiring the painting or powder coating of the post. With regard to the issue
of privacy, the cameras do have the potential to invade privacy and therefore I have attached a condition
that should ensure that neighbours gardens are not within the line of sight of the cameras.
Similarly I consider that the beech hedge does provide an important screen and I have attached a condition
ensuring that if the hedge is removed then the post closest to the neighbouring houses would also have to be
removed.
I have also attached a condition preventing the posts being used for security lights in the interests of the
amenity of neighbouring residents.
I am satisfied that there will be no significant detrimental effect on any neighbouring property as a result of
this proposal and subject to the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The metal posts shall be powder coated or painted a colour to be agreed by the Director of Development
Services prior to their erection.
3. The security cameras shall be so directed so that they only overlooking the car parking and office
building, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
4. Should that section of beech hedge, that screens camera post number 2 from the houses on The Warke,
be removed or reduced below 2m in height, within 10m of the post then the post and camera shall be
removed within 48 hours.
5. No independent light source shall be attached to either post or incorporated into either security camera.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
APPLICATION No:
02/44471/FUL
APPLICANT:
Environment Agency
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To Whitewater Drive/Mervyn Road/Jubilee Footpath
And Littleton Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Alterations to flood storage basin comprising relocation of earth
embankments as part of the River Irwell flood control scheme
WARD:
Kersal
BACKGROUND
This application relates to the River Irwell Flood Control Scheme which was granted planning permission
in 1995, reference 94/33011/FUL. The proposals considered at that time included the creation of flood
storage basins at Littleton Road playing fields and on the land within the loop of the river at Castle Irwell. In
addition, works were approved along several sections of the river bank and on land adjacent to the river
bank. The application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement which examined in detail the effect
of the proposed development on the environment, and proposed mitigation measures to deal with the
impacts that had been identified.
The first half of the Littleton Road basin was completed in Autumn 1997 with the tree and shrub planting
implemented in1998. A total of 9 football pitches were reinstated on the floor of this phase of the basin.
The playing fields are now the responsibility of the City Council.
THE APPLICATION
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
In the original environmental statement, it had been intended to construct two flood storage basins, one at
Littleton Road and another on Salford University land at Castle Irwell. It is no longer viable to construct the
Castle Irwell basin and therefore it has now been excluded from the proposal.
This application has been submitted to complete the second phase of the basin works including minor
changes to the permission granted in 1995. These minor changes include modifications to the form of the
embankment and an extension to the storage basin towards Whitewater Drive. Overall the application
includes the following elements of work:
Engineering embankment;
Landscape mounding proposals
Extension of basin towards Whitewater Drive
Temporary haul routes and site compound
Pitch restoration
Planting proposals.
The proposed embankment would extend along the edge of the Jubilee footpath which runs along the
southern boundary and return along Littleton Road in a northerly direction before returning to the existing
embankment, to the west of the former leisure centre. The full length of this new embankment would be
750m. It would comprise an engineering core to provide the water holding capacity for the storage basin
and would have side slopes of 1:2 on both the inner and outer faces. The engineering core would be
constructed from material excavated from the area of cut ground to the north east of the site having
engineering qualities suitable for construction of a flood storage basin. The edge of the cut area would also
have slopes of 1:2. The mound would be approximately 4m high with a crest width of 4m and an overall
footprint width of 20m.
On the outer face of the embankment there would be planting. A native tree mix is proposed at the corners
of the basin where the landscape fill reaches a depth of 1m over the top of the engineering mound. The
proposed tall growing species, together with the increased height of the mound proposed would ultimately
provide an emphasis to the corners of the basin. A lower growing tree and shrub mix is proposed on the
banks to the embankment in single species groups, mass planted to create a dense thicket. A thorny shrub
rose species mix is proposed as a ground cover where the landscape fill reaches a depth of 600mm.
On the embankment side, periphery of the pitches and the strip of land between the embankment and the
Littleton Road footway would be topsoiled and seeded using a combination of amenity grass seed and
wildflower seed mix.
The main access route for pedestrians and vehicles would be via a ramp at the corner of the embankment
adjacent to the former leisure centre site. It would be of a tarmacadum construction with a gravel surface.
Thorny planting would be used to discourage pedestrians from taking short cuts across the embankment.
A chicane style barrier would be erected off the Littleton Road footway at the location of the access point to
the existing site compound.
From the crest of the ramped walkway, a pedestrian route would extend along the embankment to a viewing
area on the proposed promontory. The viewing platform would be surfaced using a decorative gravel,
edged by brick soldier course which would allow both pedestrian and vehicle usage.
The proposals would result in landscape impacts through the loss of individual speciman trees and groups
of young/semi-mature trees along the frontage to Littleton Road and loss of an area of young trees around
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
the edge of the basin. A 400m length of hawthorn hedge would also be removed to allow the construction
of the embankment.
The basin would also extend into the higher ground at the corner of the site, close to Whitewater Drive. An
additional 6623 square metres would be excavated, as compared to the existing basin layout, to create the
necessary fill for use in the construction of the embankment. It would also create the necessary volume for
the flood storage basin. At its closest point, the edge of the basin would be 20m from the kerb to
Whitewater Drive. It has been designed to ensure the retention of the existing hedge and trees along
Whitewater Drive.
It is proposed to have a site compound for the duration of the works. This would be sited directly opposite
Hillside Avenue and have a gated entrance into a 2m high barbed wire topped chain link fence enclosure.
Within the compound there would be 5 portacabins for use by staff involved in the construction of the
works along with materials and construction plant.
A haul route would link the high ground in the north east corner of the site to the lower ground in the south
east corner of the site. This would be 4m wide and have a stoned surface capable of withstanding frequent
passage by earth moving vehicles. The temporary haul route would be located outside the former
All-4-Sport site to avoid placing any unnecessary constraints on the future development of this site.
The flood storage basin is likely to operate when river flows exceed a 1 in 40 year return period. Routine
maintenance operations, including a “dry run” would be carried out on a bi-weekly basis. Two additional
football pitches would be created, providing a total of 18 pitches and there would also be four cricket
pitches.
Since the original planning approval a number of issues have had a bearing on the design of the outstanding
portion of the Littleton Road flood storage basin. These have included:
Shortage of material with suitable engineering qualities to construct the flood defence embankments, as
well as a greater level of compaction in the construction of the first phase embankments than could have
been anticipated;
Preference of the City Council to retain the existing pitches which currently drain well and therefore if
possible should be left alone;
Experience in responding to vandalism, gained from phases of works constructed to date;
Ability to compensate for the flood storage volume of the basin lost, as a result of retaining the pitches,
by excavating into higher ground towards the corner of Littleton Road and Whitewater Drive;
Need to retain important site features including trees and hedges;
Need to soften the appearance of the Littleton Road frontage of the embankment as this is where the
main visual impact would be evident;
Acknowledgement that the inner face of the embankment can be constructed with minimal landscaping
mounding.
SITE HISTORY
In 1995 permission was granted for the construction of flood storage basins and channel improvement
works as part of the River Irwell flood control scheme, ref 94/33011/FUL.
In May 2002 permission was granted for the construction of flood defence embankments and walls as part
of the River Irwell flood control scheme, ref 00/40577/FUL.
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
CONSULTATIONS
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections.
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – There are no very major ecological issues on the application site but it
is recommended that no trees/hedges are removed during the bird nesting season (March to July). The
clearance of the wetland scrape and pond should be cleared of debris and litter during October/November
and avoided during spring and summer.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – are satisfied that archaeological considerations have been
addressed as part of this scheme.
Director of Environmental Services – No objections but recommends that a risk assessment report be
submitted which shall assess the liklihood of any underground gases.
Peak and Northern Footpath Society – no comments received.
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Society – no comments received.
PUBLICITY
A number of site notices were displayed on24 July 2002.
The following neighbours were notified:
1 -21 Tideway Close
2 – 28 (E) Whitewater Drive
1 – 22 Isis Close
142 – 280 (E), 317 - 319 Littleton Road
2 – 4 Grindon Avenue
2 ,4 Bradley Avenue
1 and 2 Illona Drive
2 South Mesnefield Road
199 and 202 Oaklands Road
134 and 151 South Radford Street
41 and 42 Northallerton Road
St Philips R C Church
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EN23 Croal Irwell Valley
Other policies: EN17 Croal Irwell Valley, EN10 Landscape, EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodland
PLANNING APPRAISAL
In 1995 permission was granted for a flood storage basin to be created at Castle Irwell and also on the
Littleton Road playing fields, the site of this application now being considered. It has subsequently been
found to be unviable to create a basin at Castle Irwell and there remains a serious risk of flooding in the
Lower Kersal and Lower Broughton areas of the City. Given that the scheme consists of alterations to the
approved flood storage basin, the principle has already been established, and also partially implemented.
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
Additional works are now required at the playing fields to accommodate greater capacity and the issues to
be considered for this application relate to the differences between the original scheme and that now
proposed and the additional impacts that may be experienced by local residents.
A 4m high landscaped embankment was proposed around the boundaries to the playing fields at the time of
the original application although this was more fluid in shape and form. The embankment now proposed
along its full run would be wider in depth – some 20m into the playing field area but would be a similar
height and again landscaped, although native trees would only be planted at the “corners” of the site. I
consider that these changes are relatively minor with regards to the impact upon the amenity and outlook in
particular of the residents living in close proximity to the site. The variation and patterning of the species
mixes on the planting plans would provide interest and soften any formality.
A sports centre was previously proposed on the site, between the junctions of Littleton Road with South
Radford Street and Oaklands Road with an embankment surrounding it. The sports centre is no longer
proposed but the area has been retained for future development with the embankment again surrounding the
area on two sides. Along this section of the embankment there would now be an access ramp for
pedestrians and maintenance vehicles. I do not consider that there would be any detrimental effect from
this.
In order to hold greater capacity, the basin has had to be enlarged with the affected area adjacent to
Whitewater Drive. Material would be cut away from this part of the site to the same level as the remainder
of the site and the embankment would continue to run parallel to Whitewater Drive itself. Again, this would
be 4m in height approximately and would be planted. The residents of Whitewater Drive would be most
affected by these proposals, but the embankment would be 20m back from the road frontage and planted
and therefore the residents would retain the benefit of a green outlook although it would be less open with
shorter views.
During the works there would be a site compound on the frontage to Littleton Road and from this there
would be a temporary haul route. This would allow vehicular movements around the site whilst earth works
are on going without effecting the traffic flow on Littleton Road itself. This route would run around the site
of the former proposed sports centre and would be over 150m from the nearest residential dwellings and
separated by Littleton Road. Therefore the residents here should not experience unnecessary noise and
disturbance although I acknowledge that there will be disturbance caused whilst work was being
undertaken.
I have received no objections from local residents and the applicant has also undertaken extensive publicity
in relation to the proposal, including the production of a newsletter/leaflet and display. In relation to the
original permission, I do not consider the changes now proposed would have a significant additional impact
and on this basis I am satisfied that the proposal is acceptable and therefore recommend that this application
be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Full details of the reinstatement works and proposals for the temporary haul route and the site
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
compound area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.
These proposals shall then be implemented within three months of the completion of the flood basin
scheme unless otherwise agreed in writing.
3. A fully detailed landscape scheme indicating existing landscaping and proposed landscaping works
which shall include some areas of rough grassland of similar species composition to that lost, shall be
submitted to and approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started.
Such a scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and
surface treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and
thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs
dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development
Services.
4. An archaeological watching brief shall be undertaken during ground works for the extension to the
flood storage basin as detailed in the watching brief drawn up by the Greater Manchester
Archaeological Unit dated 9 August 2002.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. To safeguard the amenity of the area following the completion of the approved works in accordance
with policy EN10 of the UDP.
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. To enable archaeological records to be made in accordance with policy EN14 of the UDP.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Any hedges, trees and shrubs and bird breeding habitat shall only be removed outside of the bird
breeding season which is March to July inclusive.
2. Any debris and litter clearance works to the wetland scrape and pond shall only be undertaken in
October/November and avoided during spring and summer.
APPLICATION No:
02/44501/COU
APPLICANT:
ALIH (Farms) Ltd
LOCATION:
Barton Grange Fiddlers Lane Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Conversion of existing barn into five residential units together with
associated car parking and alterations to existing vehicular access
(re-submission of planning application 02/43544/FUL)
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
3rd October 2002
Irlam
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land and farm buildings at Grange Farm situated at the northern end of Fiddlers
Lane within the City’s greenbelt. The application site is to the west of the farm house, separated by Fiddlers
Lane itself. There are currently four detached buildings on the site, two of a modern construction
(corrugated steel/cladding construction) to the front (adjacent to the road) and rear, a stable building and an
“L” shaped, two storey brick barn within the central area of the site. The three barns are now predominantly
unused but the stables are in use.
The proposal is for the conversion of the “L” shaped brick barn to five residential units with access as
existing off Fiddlers Lane. The remaining two barn buildings and stables would be demolished and the area
would be grassed. Eleven parking spaces would be provided within a communal parking area to the front of
the new units.
In support of the proposal the applicant has submitted a survey of the structural appraisal of the brick
outbuildings which has found the building generally suitable for conversion. A noise impact assessment
has also been undertaken to assess the external noise levels that future residents of the barns would be
subjected to. Finally, the applicant has confirmed that there are no proposals to erect another barn
elsewhere on the holding.
SITE HISTORY
In April of this year an identical application was withdrawn to allow additional information to be gathered
in relation to the drainage and a structural appraisal to be undertaken, planning reference 02/43544/FUL.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to acoustic dual glazing to all main habitable
rooms, the imposition of mechanical ventilation and the erection of 2m high perimeter fencing along the
SW and NW boundaries facing the M62.
Environment Agency – no objection in principle.
Campaigning for the Countryside (CPRE) Lancashire Branch – have reservations about the proposal as
they consider that in effect a new and unplanned rural hamlet would be created, sufficiently remote from
services and facilities so as to be car-dependent and unsustainable. They consider that the proposal would
have an unacceptable impact on the countryside character which would be inappropriate in this greenbelt
location.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 30 July 2002.
A site notice was displayed on 30 July 2002.
The following neighbours were notified:
Grange Bungalow, Fiddlers Lane
1A Barton Grange Farm, Fiddlers Lane
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
Barton Grange Farm
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EN22 Green Belt
Other policies: EN1 Green Belt, EN2 Development within the Green belt,
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The barns are sited within the City’s greenbelt and therefore policy EN2 is of particular relevance. PPG2
“Greenbelts” states that the most important features of the greenbelt is its openness and its permanence and
this is reflected in policy EN2. There is a general presumption against inappropriate development in both
EN2 and PPG2. However, there are occasions where development may be considered to be appropriate one
of which includes the re-use of buildings which are capable of conversion without any major reconstruction
works. It is therefore essential to ascertain if this application constitutes appropriate development. If it is
found that it is appropriate, the associated impacts from any development of this nature need to be taken
into consideration, particularly in relation to the impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring residents and
the character of the area.
The applicant has confirmed that the barn buildings were previously used by the tenants of the adjoining
land to the east but the majority of their other agricultural land has now been converted to a golf course and
therefore they did not require the barns of this application. Since then the barns are currently being partially
used but only on a short term, annual basis. There is no security of tenure and the current user has no
agricultural tennants rights attached to the buildings. Furthermore, as there is no contract of tenancy the
buildings do not form part of an agricultural holding. On this basis in accordance with PPG2 there is no
requirement to justify the removal of the buildings or to provide evidence of redundancy.
Both PPG2 and EN2 are clear in their approach to the re-use of buildings. They state that the re-use of
buildings will not be considered inappropriate providing “the buildings are of a permanent and substantial
construction and are capable of conversion without major or complete reconstruction”. In this respect the
applicant has submitted a structural appraisal of the condition of the buildings and having studied this I am
satisfied that the barn building is suitable for conversion.
The existing hardstanding area in front of the barn would be retained as existing.
The existing hardstanding between the barn to be converted and the barn at the rear to be demolished, is to
become garden area. As such I do not consider that the proposal would have a materially greater impact
than the present use and I do not agree with CPRE. I would also recommend that should this application be
approved the permitted development rights are removed from each property as well as the agricultural
permitted development rights from the adjoining farm land. The applicant has agreed to these conditions if
required.
The farm buildings are located to the northern end of Fiddlers Lane, opposite Grange Farm itself. The
proposal would create five dwellings and I am of the opinion that this would not create a significant increase
in vehicular traffic than if the farm was still fully operational. I do not consider that the amenity of the
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
existing residents would be detrimentally effected from the proposal and as it would be utilising an existing
access I have no objections on highway grounds.
In conclusion therefore, I am minded to be of the opinion that the proposal would not affect the visual
amenity of the greenbelt and is not therefore inappropriate development. I am aware that at present the
main barn is of an acceptable condition to sustain conversion and I am also aware that an alternative may be
to leave the buildings vacant to then become prone to vandalism and dereliction. On this basis I consider
that the proposal is acceptable and would result in a development that was in keeping with the area which
would not have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring residents. I therefore
recommend approval for this proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The windows of all habitable rooms shall be acoustically dual glazed to the standards of the Noise
Insulation Regulations 1975 (as amended)
3. Continuous mechanical extract ventilation shall be provided in each dwellings to ensure that adequate
ventilation is maintained (in accordance with BRE 398) in order to allow external windows to be closed
against the external noise environ.
Prior to the commencement of the development the LPA must be furnished with details of the "whole
house" mechanical ventilation system to be provided in each dwelling as recommended in the noise
mitigation measures (ADT, Acoustic Consultancy Report 685/ENIA)
4. An imperforate fence, not less than 2m high, surface density not less than 10kg/m2, shall be erected
along the gardens to the SW and NW boundaries facing the M62 motorway. If a timber fence is used it
shall be treated to give a minimum design service life of 20 years in accordance with the requirements
for fencing timber in BS 5589.
5. Standard Condition M01 Removal of Permitted Development Rights
6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)
Order 1995 no agricultural building shall be erected on the adjoining farm land to the east as indicated
on the plan by RH and RW Clutton and titled "Chat Moss Estate - Barton Grange Buildings".
7. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such a
scheme which shall include full landscaping screening the acoustic fence along the SW and NW
boundaries to the M62, shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences,
boundary and surface treatment and shall be carried out in 12 months of the commencement of
development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the
Director of Development Services.
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
8. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be used to
seal the existing openings on the barn have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
9. No development shall commence until full details of the proposed replacement windows have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
3. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
4. To reduce noise pollution to the future residents of the proposed dwellings, in accordance with policy
EN20 of the UDP.
5. Standard Reason R037A Additional measure of control
6. To safeguard the amenity and visual openness of the City's greenbelt in accordance with policy EN2 of
the UDP.
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
8. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
9. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached letter from the Environment Agency dated 6
September 2002 and in particular the informatives outlined therein.
APPLICATION No:
02/44529/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr C Tonge
LOCATION:
21 Wrenswood Drive Ellenbrook Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of side extension at first floor level and erection of detached
garage at the front of the property (re-submission of planning
application 02/43930/HH)
WARD:
Walkden South
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached property and is for the erection of a first floor side extension and a
detached garage at the front of the property. The application is a resubmission of application 02/43930/HH,
which was refused because the proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring
residents by reason of its size and siting (first floor element of the application). This application, however,
is supported by additional photographs that highlight similar extensions within the same neighbourhood to
that that is being proposed.
The garage would be located on part of the garden that sweeps around the rear garden of No. 91 Ellerbeck
Crescent, which is currently landscaped and adjoins the highway boundary to Wrenswood Drive. The
garage would be of brick construction with a tiled, pitched roof, measuring 5.83m (l) X 2.95 (w) and a
maximum height of 4.7m.
The first floor side extension would provide additional bedroom space. It would be designed to maintain
the current hipped roof style of property. The new gable would measure 5.1m and would increase the
overall height of the main roof to 8.4m. The relationship to 91 Ellerbeck Crescent is such that almost the
whole length of the side elevation extends beyond the rear elevation to No. 91. This is currently a single
storey construction.
SITE HISTORY
02/43930/HH: May 2002. Planning permission was refused.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
12 & 14 and 15 – 19 (odd) Wrenswood Drive
89 & 91 Ellerbeck Crescent
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a letter of objection (not from the adjoining neighbour). The following comments having
been made:
Loss of view
Loss of light from street lamp
Reduction in commercial value
Loss of pedestrian footpath
Contrary to restrictive covenant
Loss of light for No 91 Ellerbeck Cresent
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV 8 – House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
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 letter of objection makes reference to five issues with regard to the detached garage(and one with
regard to the first floor extension):
The proposed garage would be off set approximately 18m from No.14 and 11m from the rear of No. 91
Ellerbeck Crescent.
The construction of a garage in this location would not result in a reduction of pedestrian safety as
there would be a minimum of 2m to the highway.
There are similarly located garages within the street.
Street Lighting have no objections to the proposed garage.
The reduction in commercial value and issues raised regarding a restrictive covenant are not material
planning considerations.
However there is a planning issue in terms of the impact of the first floor side extension upon the
neighbouring property. The construction of a first floor one metre from the boundary, extending 8.8 metres
beyond the adjoining property would have a dominant effect upon the rear of No.91 Ellerbeck Crescent.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of
its size and siting, contrary to policy DEV8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and
Supplementary Planning Guidance House Extensions.
APPLICATION No:
02/44539/FUL
APPLICANT:
R.M.B.I.
LOCATION:
Ecclesholme Vicars Street Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Construction of new lift shaft and alterations to the front entrance.
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the construction of a lift shaft and alterations to the entrance of the existing
nursing home to incorporate a ramp to allow disabled access. The existing three storey nursing home known
as Ecclesholme is accessed from Vicars Street to the south of the site. Surrounding uses to all sides are two
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
storey residential properties. There are emergency access gates to the east of the site that front Bindloss
Avenue.
The proposed lift shaft measures some 2.2m wide and extends 2.9m from the original building. The shaft
would extend up the side of the building to the height of the original roof, 11.2m high to the ridge. The lift
shaft is proposed next to the original access road through the site and would leave a gap of 4m to the
adjacent boundary.
SITE HISTORY
In 1975, planning permission was granted for the erection of a residential home for aged people (E/850).
In 1996, planning permission was granted for the erection of a first floor extension to provide eight
additional bedrooms (96/34942/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No comments
Nursing Home Directory – No comments
PUBLICITY
The application has been publicised by of a press notice and site notice.
The following neighbours were notified :
1 to 31 odd and 2 to 52 even Bindloss Avenue
1 to 9 Crawley Avenue
4 to 8 Doughty Avenue
1 to 7 Emerson Avenue
Masonic Hall, Half Edge Lane
7 The Polygon
1 – 31 odd and 12 to 46 even Vicars Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 47 letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Safety of residents and children to increased traffic
Parking problems including parking on the footpath
Bindloss Avenue gates being open for access
Existing safe and quiet streets around Bindloss Avenue
Loss of sunlight and sense of enclosure
Lift Shaft would stop a fire tender passing around the building.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
Other policies: SC2 Provision of Social and Community Facilities by Private and Voluntary Agencies,
DEV1 Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 ensures that development fits in with the character of the area and that it should not block
sunlight/daylight. Policy SC2 states the City Councils support for social and community facilities.
The majority of objections received relate to the application as originally submitted and the opening of the
gates onto Bindloss Avenue and the cutting down of trees in the garden of 52 Bindloss Avenue. The
proposal has been amended, since it was originally submitted, the applicant has deleted the originally
proposed additional parking that involved the loss of trees of amenity value. The applicant has also
withdrawn from the application the opening of the gates onto Bindloss Avenue. As members may recall the
1975 permission had a condition attached that stated “The access to the development hereby approved from
Bindloss Avenue shall be closed and locked at all times except in cases of emergency”. As the applicant no
longer wishes to open the gates, this condition would still apply, and although I have received no letters
withdrawing objections I consider this element of objections has been resolved. I also consider objections to
the loss of trees has been resolved.
Objection has also been raised to the proposal on sunlight and daylight grounds to the shaft. I consider that
the proposed shaft which has no windows, to the north and west of residential properties is sufficient
distance away not to cause residential properties a loss of amenity through loss of sunlight daylight. I would
recommend a condition to ensure the materials of the proposed shaft match the existing building as such I
consider the proposal would be in accordance with Policy DEV1.
The proposal would involve the improvement of facilities for the care of elderly persons through the lift
shaft and the disabled ramp, as such I consider the proposal to be in accordance with Policy SC2. Objection
has also been raised to the proposal as a fire tender would not be able to access the site. I have consulted
with a Building Control Officer who informs me that as there is emergency access to the site the proposed
application conforms to the Building Regulations. I have no highway objections and recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D01B Materials to Match
3. This permission shall relate to the amended site layout and letter dated 15th August 2002 and the letter
dated 11th September 2002.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/44559/COU
APPLICANT:
Miss J Durrant
LOCATION:
Former Public Convenience At Junction Of Liverpool Road/ Peel
Green Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from public convenience to cafe with take-away
WARD:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former public conveniences located at the junction of Peel Green Road,
Liverpool Road and Hardy Street which are currently in council ownership. The area is mixed in character
with The Unicorn pub adjacent to the west, commercial uses opposite and to the east with residential
integrated as well.
The proposal is to use the building for a café which would operate between 8am and 6pm Monday to
Saturdays only. There would be four members of staff employed and alterations to the premises would be
made to provide a servery counter on the frontage to Liverpool Road with a takeaway section and sitting
area inside.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections in principle but recommends a condition restricting the
hours of operation to those proposed.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 19 August 2002.
The following neighbours were notified :
556 – 574, 521 Liverpool Road
240 – 260 Peel Green Road
The Unicorn Public House
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Already sufficient number of hot food takeaways in the area
Poor location – adjacent bus stop with increased traffic and congestion
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
Youths likely to gather
Increase in noise
Increase in litter
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none.
Other policies: S5 Control of Food and Drink Premises
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy S5 states that permission will only be granted for the sale of food or drink where there would not be
an adverse impact upon the amenities of surrounding residential occupiers by reason of noise, disturbance,
smells, fumes, litter and also that it would not be prejudicial to the safety of pedestrians and road users with
respect to car parking, servicing or the effect on the free flow of traffic. These issues are all relevant for this
proposal.
The premises are detached and sited on a small island, separated by at least 20m to the nearest residential
property. I do not consider therefore that there would be a significant detrimental impact upon the amenity
of any neighbouring resident from noise, especially taking into account the proposed hours of operation and
the location on this busy main road into Eccles.
There is a bus stop outside the premises on the Liverpool Road frontage and it may be that users are inclined
to park immediately outside the premises to pick up something to eat from the takeaway. However the
island itself has double yellow lines surrounding it but elsewhere along Peel Green Road and off Liverpool
Road there is some on-street parking in the vicinity although I would acknowledge that this is limited.
However, in this respect I consider that the proposed hours of operation are important because the premises
would be shut during the evenings when it is likely that parking is more of an issue with residents at home
and therefore needing to park themselves. Therefore I am not inclined to agree with the objector that this
should increase congestion and conflict with the bus stop as I consider there is sufficient provision
elsewhere to deter this.
In terms of youths gathering, this may occur anyway, regardless of the use but I would consider that with
the early closing at 6pm this is unlikely to occur during the evening when it’s shut. If permission were to be
granted, I would ensure that a litter bin be provided.
The premises are vacant but if in use may contribute to the character and general amenity and vitality of the
area, instead of falling into a state of dereliction. There are other takeaways in the vicinity but as
competition is not a valid planning consideration I do not consider this a reason to refuse this proposal. I
have no objections on highway grounds and therefore recommend that this application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The use hereby approved shall operate between the hours of 8am and 6pm Monday to Saturday ONLY
and there shall be no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
3. Standard Condition G09X Extraction of Fumes etc.
4. Standard Condition G12F Provision of bin
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/44580/HH
APPLICANT:
M Smith
LOCATION:
10 Chapel Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a two storey side extension
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property in a residential area.
The proposal is for the erection of a two-storey side extension. The proposal would project 2.6m up to the
side boundary X 5.9m with a total height of 7.3m with a hipped roof.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
8, 12 , 14 ,17 and 19 Chapel Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received letter of objection from the occupier of the neighbouring property in response to the
application publicity. The following comments having been made:
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
Loss of light
Lack of access to the rear
Garden shed close to proposal
Inconvenience of driveway while building is in progress
Devaluation of property
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 states that planning permission would be granted if the extension did not have an unacceptably
adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing,
dominance, loss of privacy or light.
Supplementary Planning Guidance (HH13) states that two storey side extensions that lie within 1m of the
side boundary of the dwelling will not normally be acceptable unless that first floor element is set back by
2m.
The proposal would be set back 2m from the front elevation and the garage would be installed with a roller
shutter door as the driveway length is slightly less than 5.5m, the proposal meets with the Supplementary
Planning Guidance.
The neighbouring property (No.8) has a kitchen window on the side elevation, kitchen windows are not
considered to be habitable rooms and as such we do not protect to the light to them. There is also a 2 nd
window to the kitchen on the rear elevation.
The proposal would be contained within the curtilage of the dwelling, if the applicant wants to build in such
a way that restricts access to the rear of his property then I would not consider it to have a detrimental
impact on neighbouring properties. The neighbouring property also has a shed close to the proposal again
this should not be affected as the proposal is contained within the curtilage of the dwelling.
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 door of the extension hereby approved shall be installed and maintained with a roller shutter
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
door 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 R015A Safety-users of highway
APPLICATION No:
02/44608/HH
APPLICANT:
C Ridgeway
LOCATION:
145 Wyre Drive Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a two storey side extension
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property. The proposal is to erect a two-storey side extension.
The ground floor front wall of the extension would be flush with the existing main front wall. The first floor
would be set back 2m from the front wall of the property. The extension would measure approximately
10.2m x 2.4m and be 6.5m at its highest The rear element would project approximately 2.1m from the
existing rear wall. There is a shared detached garage to the rear built along the boundary with no143 Wyre
Drive.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No objections.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified:
143, 147, 98 and 100 Wyre Drive.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one representation in response to the application publicity. The following comments having
been made:
The extension is out of proportion to the property and out of place within the street scene.
Possibility of terracing effect.
Concerns over guttering/footing encroaching onto the neighbour’s property.
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
Neighbour does not want their land to be used for access or future maintenance.
Possibility of building over sewers.
Removal of the garage.
Loss of privacy and light (Verbal objection).
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 objector is concerned regarding the size of the extension. He feels it is too big for the existing dwelling
and that it will significantly change the appearance of the street scene. I do not consider this is the case as
the proposal is in proportion with the dwelling both in its size and siting. Also the extension to the rear of
the property projects 2.1m which is within the guidelines set out Guidance Note HH9 of the Supplementary
Planning Guidance (SPG) for House Extensions that states rear extensions should not project more that
2.74m or they should lie within a 45-degree line drawn from the mid point of the closest main habitable
window.
After speaking to the objector, he has also shown concern with regards to the loss of privacy and light to the
kitchen window of no143 due to the erection of the two-storey extension. There is a kitchen window on the
gable wall directly opposite the extension. However there are two light giving windows and it is not a main
habitable room. Therefore I do not consider the extension will be contrary to the guidelines in the Council’s
SPG and therefore I do not need to protect light in this instance.
The objector is also concerned with the possibility of a terracing effect. The side extension would not be
entirely two-storey, as the first floor would be set back 2m from the front main wall. Therefore I do not
consider the proposal would cause a terracing effect as it complies with Guidance Note HH13 of the
Council’s SPG which states that the first floor of a two storey side extension must be set back 2m if it comes
within 1m of the boundary with the adjacent property.
After speaking with the objector it became clear that he is also concerned that guttering and footings would
encroach onto his land. However I do not consider this is the case as the extension is set back from the
boundary to provide for this. The agent has also confirmed this over the phone.
The further concerns, over maintenance, access, building over existing sewers and the removal of the
detached garage are not planning considerations.
Therefore as the proposal meets entirely with Council policy set out in the Supplementary Planning
Guidance and Dev8 of the Unitary Development Plan, I have no objections to the application and
recommend it for approval.
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
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.
(Reasons)
1. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. Reason: To ensure the development fits in with the existing building in accordance with policy DEV3 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/44611/FUL
APPLICANT:
Fledglings Limited
LOCATION:
Fledglings 2 Hazelfields, Off Hazelhurst Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Retention of modular building for use as after school care without
complying with condition 1 (Limited Period) on planning permission
00/40932/FUL
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Fledglings Nursery previously part of the grounds of Hazelfields Hall, which was
granted permission in 1993 to become a nursery, reference E/30701. Hazelfields is a small cul-de-sac of
seven large, detached properties off Hazelhurst Road with the nursery situated at the head. The boundary of
the green belt runs approximately in a north-east/south-west direction across the centre of the site so that the
play area at the rear and part of the southern section of the nursery building fall into the green belt.
Permission is sought for the retention of the portable building at the rear of the property for a further two
year period. The building measures 12.3m by 4.25m and is single storey.
The applicant has submitted indicative proposals for an extension to the existing building and it is intended
that the retention of the existing portable building would, if planning permission was to be granted for an
extension to the building, result in minimal distruption to children, staff and parents.
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
SITE HISTORY
Planning permission was granted for the nursery in March 1993 (E/30701).
Planning permission was granted in 1995 for an extension (E/34114) with a separate permission granted for
the siting of a temporary prefabricated classroom unit for use whilst the extension was being constructed
(E/35112).
In August 2000 planning permission was granted for an extension to the staff room (00/40931/FUL) and in
October 2000 permission was granted for a temporary period of approximately 2 years for the provision of
a portable building for use as after school care (00/40932/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services: no objections
Early Years Team: no objections in principle.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified of the application:82 to 86 Hazelhurst Road
1 to 7 (inclusive) Hazelfields
Hazelhurst Hall
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none.
Other Policies:EN1 Green Belt, EN2 Development within the Green Belt, EN22 Green Belt, SC2 Provision
of Social and Community Facilities by Private and Voluntary Agencies.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The site lies just within the Green Belt and the application has therefore been advertised as a departure to
the development plan. The principle of this building in this location has already been accepted under the
previous application.
Green Belt policies maintain a general presumption against inappropriate development including new
buildings, unless ‘very special circumstances’ can justify otherwise, and seek to retain visual amenity
within and from the Green Belt.
The ‘very special circumstance’ under which the previous application was approved was that the building
was a temporary structure for use until the nursery was moved to Broad Oak School. With this application
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
the ‘very special circumstances’ rest on the fact that the portable building is again temporary, and is only
likely to be retained until a permanent extension to the main building is complete.
The site of the portable building is relatively well screened by trees and shrubs along its rear boundary and
is also at a considerably lower level than the fields to the north, approximately 1.5m lower. Therefore the
building would continue to be effectively screened and for this reason should not have a detrimental impact
upon the visual amenity of the green belt.
The number of staff and children would remain essentially the same and for this reason I do not believe that
it would have a significant detrimental impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring residents. I have no
objections on highway grounds.
I am satisfied that a further grant of planning permission would not conflict with Council policy particularly
with regard to the Green Belt. However, this must be for a limited period only and I would want to make
clear to the applicant that no further temporary permissions for portable buildings would be justified.
I recommend that this application be approved subject to referral to the Secretary of State owing to its
greenbelt location.
RECOMMENDATION:
a)
That the Panel are minded to approve the application subject to the conditions
stated below and that the application is referred to the Secretary of State.
b)
Approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The building hereby permitted shall be removed on or before the expiration of a period ending on 3
October 2004 when the site shall be restored to its condition immediately prior to the siting of the
building.
2. There shall be no more than 100 children at the nursery at any time.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R043 Application for temporary consent
2. To protect the amenity of neighbouring residents and in the interests of highway safety on Hazelfields
in accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44616/FUL
APPLICANT:
Boys And Girls Welfare Society
LOCATION:
Greenbank 470 Bury New Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Construction of pitched roofs over existing flat roofs, alterations to
existing openings and construction of extension to existing car park
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing care home that is owned by the City Council. The home has been
vacant for some months but previously provided care for six teenage boys. The property is bounded to the
south by a dwelling and to the north by a seminary.
It is proposed to provide hipped pitched roofs to all existing flat roofs at the property. The tiles would
match those of the existing main building. It is also proposed to extend the existing parking are at the front
of the building to provide parking for 12 cars and to make some minor elevational changes that mainly
relate to the replacement of existing doors with windows.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
472, 468b Bury New Road
12 and 14 Rutland Drive
1 to 7 Park Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 12 letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Loss of security
General nuisance, intimidation, vandalism and fear
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV4 Design and Crime
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the effect on neighbouring residents. Policy DEV4 seeks to encourage
greater consideration of crime prevention and security in the design of new development.
This application relates to those issues outlined at the beginning of my report and not to the principle of the
use of the property. I am satisfied that the application would not lead to any loss of security to residents and
in the replacement of existing flat roofs is likely to improve security to neighbouring properties.
While I am sympathetic to the concerns raised by students at the adjacent seminary I cannot take these into
account. I have instead, with the permission of the seminary passed their objections to the applicant.
The parking is set back at least 11m from the highway. I have no objection on highway grounds and am
satisfied that the level of parking is not excessive. I am satisfied that the development would not have any
significant detrimental effect on any neighbouring property and therefore recommend that permission be
granted.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
02/44651/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs R Graham
LOCATION:
32 Egerton Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of detached garage and retention of boundary fencing
(Resubmission of 02/43684/HH)
WARD:
Walkden North
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property that is on the corner of Wilbraham Road and Egerton
Road, Walkden.
The proposal is for the retention of fencing and the erection of a detached garage. The fencing would vary
in height being 1.5m at its highest and 1m at its lowest. The garage would be situated 0.7m from the side
elevation of the existing property and a minimum of 2m from the side boundary and 13.8m from the front
boundary. The garage would be 4.9m X 6m with a total height of 2.3m with a flat roof.
SITE HISTORY
In February 2002 an application for the retention of fencing and the erection of a garage was refused after a
site visit (02/43684/HH). The garage is situated in the same position but the height of fencing has been
reduced by 0.5m.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified:
5, 7 and 30 Egerton Road
1 and 3 Wilbraham Road
1 Donnington Gardens
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a petition, which represents thirteen households in response to the application publicity. The
following objections having been made:
The garage will enhance a car repair business
The fence should be reduced to allow visibility.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House extensions, Supplementary Planning Guidance
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that the City Council will only grant planning permission where the extension would
not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents, the character and
appearance of the street scene, the character of the dwelling or the appearance of the site.
The garage meets with all our policies in that it is more than 2m from the side boundary and it is 13m from
the front boundary.
The first objection relates to a commercial car repair business that is being run from the premises, I have
contacted the applicant who assures me all the cars in the garden are family owned and no commercial car
repairs are taking place. However if the situation changes and commercial repairs begin taking place then
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
that would be dealt with as a separate enforcement issue. As proposed the garage is consistent with normal
domestic use.
The fencing has been reduced from 2m to 1.5m at its highest from the previous application and I have
received an amended plan that shows the widening of the vehicular gates to 4m. I have no objections on
highway grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 19th September 2002 which shows the
widening of the vehicular gates to 4m.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
APPLICATION No:
02/44667/OUT
APPLICANT:
J Glover
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To 43 Lawefield Crescent Clifton Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for the erection of a detached dwelling
and construction of new vehicular access
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a large garden of a semi detached property. The area comprises semi-detached
two storey dwellings and bungalows. The estate as a whole slopes from a south-westerly direction
northwards towards the Croal Irwell Valley.
Outline permission is sought for the erection of a detached dwelling, all matters are reserved. The site
measures 12m wide X 26.5m in length. In 1996 planning permission was granted for the erection of two
dwellings opposite this site (96/35574/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Coal Authority – Advice provided
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
45 – 49 (odd) & 40 – 44 (even) Lawefield Crescent
38A, 38B, 38C, 39 and 41 Lawefield Crescent
1 – 7 Wakefield Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Loss of view
Loss of value
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
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.
The objections received relate to loss of view and loss of commercial value, neither of which are material
considerations.
With regard to the proposed use of the site for residential development, the principle of residential use on
this site is acceptable in view of the nature of the area. I am satisfied that the site is capable of
accommodating a dwelling without there being any significant detrimental affect on the amenities of the
surrounding residential properties.
I consider that the use of the site for residential purposes is appropriate in this location and could be
provided in a manner as to meet the Council’s normal separation distances. I have no objections to the
proposal on highway grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
2. Standard Condition B01X Reserved Matters
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
APPLICATION No:
02/44670/FUL
APPLICANT:
Six Continents Retail Ltd
LOCATION:
The Barton Arms Stablefold Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Extension of existing patio and use as an external drinking and eating
area and construction of new door to south elevation
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the Barton Arms public house and seeks an extension of existing patio for use as
an external drinking and eating area and construction of new door to south elevation.
It is located within the Worsley Village, just to the south of the Conservation Area along the banks of the
Bridgewater Canal. The public house faces onto Barton Road across Worsley Brook with car parking to the
side and rear. The site is within an area of residential properties.
The proposal would provide outdoor seating for approximately forty-two people.
SITE HISTORY
Planning permission was granted in 1995 (93/31609/FUL) gave approval for a public house on the site but
condition 8 stated that “no beer garden shall be laid out within any part of the site, the subject of this
planning application”.
In 1996 and 1997 planning permission was refused (96/35430/FUL & 97/36954/FUL) for the formation of
a beer garden and erection of wall.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Advice provided
Worsley Civic Trust
- No comments to date
Worsley Village Community Association - No comments to date
PUBLICITY
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
The following neighbours were notified:
4 – 8 (e) Stablefold
63 – 71 (o) Barton Road
1-15 (inc) Lower Brook Lane
4 – 7 The Chase
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received five letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Noise from customers
General disturbance
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
N/A
S5 – Control of Food and Drink Premises
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy S5 states that the City Council will only permit proposals for the sale of food and drink where it
would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenities of surrounding residential occupiers by
reason of noise, disturbance, smells, fumes, litter, vehicular traffic movements, parking or pedestrian
traffic.
I have received three letters of objection in response to the application publicity, which identified issues of
noise, general disturbance and anti-social behaviour. The proposed beer garden has been designed so it
would only be accessible from the grounds of the public house and would be visually acceptable within the
street as it would be landscaped. However, I am concerned about the effect that the use of the garden would
have on the amenity of the residents.
When the application for the public house on this site was considered at Committee there was concern that
the amenity of residents would be unduly harmed by noise from customers within the pub, outside it and
entering and leaving. To prevent unacceptable disturbance Condition 8 of that planning permission
prohibited a beer garden within the grounds
I consider that the use of land outside the public house by customers, especially at night and weekends,
would cause unacceptable disturbance to nearby residents and I recommend that the application is refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
1. The proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of
the noise and disturbance created by customers, contrary to policy EN20 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44272/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
All Souls Primary School
LOCATION:
All Souls Primary School Kintyre Avenue Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two sections of 2.4m high railings and one section of 2.4
metre high palisade fencing.
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the All Souls RC primary School. The proposal is to erect 2.4 metre high
Crusader style railings to the Kintyre Avenue and Cemetery Road boundaries of the school. A section of 2.4
metre high palisade fencing is proposed on the western boundary. The fencing be set in 1.5 metres from the
western boundary and 1.5 metres from the stone wall on the Cemetery Road boundary. Vehicle and
pedestrian gates would be erected on the Kintyre Avenue frontage. A further gate is proposed on the
Cemetery Road boundary, adjacent to the cemetery.
There are a number of trees close to the three site boundaries, it is not however intended to fell, lop or top
any trees as part of the development.
There are residential properties to the north and east of the school on Kintyre Avenue and Cemetery Road.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified:
3 – 29 (odds) Cemetery Road
1, 2 , 4, 6, 27 – 39 (odds) Cumbrae Gardens
2 – 14 (evens) Kintyre Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter from a resident on Kintyre Avenue in response to the application publicity. They
have no objection to the proposal for fencing, but would be concerned if the fencing is an eyesore as their
property overlooks the school.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none.
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV4 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account
when determining planning applications, these include the visual appearance of the development and its
relationship to its surroundings. DEV4 states that will have regard to the position and height of fencing and
gates.
With reference to DEV1 and the appearance of the proposed fencing, the application has been amended
from palisade fencing on all three boundaries to a railing design, Crusader, on the Kintyre Avenue and
Cemetery Road boundaries. With regards to the concerns raised by the Kintyre Avenue resident, I consider
that the proposed section of railings would be of a similar design to the existing railings on this boundary
and I do not consider that it would be visually obtrusive, providing that it is colour-treated.
The proposed section of railings on Cemetery Road would be set behind a stone wall and the Grade II Listed
railings and although the top of the proposed railings would be visible from Cemetery Road, I do not
consider that their siting or design would affect the setting of the Listed structure on the cemetery approach.
I consider that the proposed fencing would provide increased security for the school premises. I do not
consider that the proposal would have any significant detrimental impact on the visual amenity of
neighbouring residents. I have no objections on highway grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The fencing hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior to the
commencement of the development by the Director of Development Services.
3. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 25th July 2002 which shows the position
of proposed vehicle and pedestrian gates and the amended fenceline.
4. This permission shall relate to the submitted planning application as amended by e-mail from the Agent
dated 17th September 2002, which states that railings, as opposed to palisade, would be erected on the
Kintyre Avenue and Cemetery Road boundaries.
5. The vehicular and pedestrian gates hereby permitted shall not open out onto the highway and shall open
inwards ONLY.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
APPLICATION No:
02/44394/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Development Services Directorate
LOCATION:
Irlam And Cadishead, From S.W. City Boundary At Cadishead Bridge,
Glazebrook To Brinell Drive Brinell Drive Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Construction of Cadishead Way Stage 2 including junctions with
existing highways and improvements to associated side roads
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
Planning permission is sought for a 2.4 kilometre single carriageway extension to the existing Cadishead
Way Stage 1 at Brinell Drive to the boundary of the City of Salford with Warrington Borough Council. The
proposed route would pass through part of the Northbank Industrial Estate before running parallel with the
Manchester Ship Canal for much of the 2.4km length before returning to the existing A57 route just to the
east of the Glaze Brook. The route, known as Cadishead Way (Brinell Drive to city boundary), would
provide a new route for the A57 which currently passes through the centre of Cadishead along Liverpool
Road.
Existing land uses include industrial land and informal recreational use. Part of the proposed route passes
over the former mineral railway, which is now used informally as a footway. This is not however a public
right of way. Bobs Lane (footpath Irlam No. 70) is a definitive right of way. To the north of the industrial
uses lie residential and retail areas of Cadishead. To the south of the Manchester Ship Canal the residential
area of Partington is visible.
The proposed Cadishead way would start at the existing spur off the roundabout at Brinell Drive and would
proceed westwards through Northbank Industrial estate approximately 40 metres to the north of the
Manchester Ship Canal. The route would involve the construction of a tunnel underneath the disused
Glazebrook to Altrincham railway beyond which it would emerge and continue westwards between the
Manchester Ship Canal and various industrial sites before crossing through a wooded area and joining the
existing carriageway just before the western city boundary.
The route would incorporate a single carriageway, 9.3m wide, and includes widening of local junctions.
The proposal includes a 3.0m wide joint footway and cycleway, to the north of and separated by a 1.0m
strip from the main carriageway, along its entirety. A 5.0m wide landscaping strip is also proposed to the
north of the footway/cycleway. To the south of the carriageway a strip is proposed to provide
access/maintenance for the Manchester Ship Canal Company. Junction improvements and landscaping are
proposed at the western end of Liverpool Road near Mytholme Avenue, Victory Road and Graham
Crescent. Also included are revised accesses to some industrial sites including Hayes Lane and within
Northbank.
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
A scheme justification for the Cadishead Way route has been submitted to the Department of Transport by
the City of Salford. This justification details existing traffic levels within Cadishead on the existing
Liverpool Road A57 and forecasts traffic levels on both the proposed Cadishead Way once opened and also
the existing Liverpool Road through Cadishead. Traffic levels on the existing Liverpool Road are predicted
to be 7,500 vehicles per day lower if the proposed road is opened which is a reduction of about 50%.
Economic, Environmental and Social impacts are discussed.
As this proposal is considered Schedule 2 development in accordance with the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, 1999 this planning application has been submitted with
an Environmental Statement. The purpose of the Environmental Statement is to describe the significant
environmental effects of the proposed planning application. I have provided a summary of the
Environmental Statement.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
The environmental statement (ES) was prepared for the City of Salford by Ove Arup & Partners Ltd and is
dated August 2002. The ES has been prepared through a variety of on site surveys/investigations and desk
research. The ES includes a non technical summary whilst the main body is divided into the following
sections:













Introduction
Project Description
Assessment Method
Policy Framework
Landscape and Aesthetics
Noise and Vibration
Air Quality
Ecology
Ground Conditions & Land Contamination
Human Beings
Water Quality and Drainage
Cultural Heritage and Archaeology
Interaction of Effects/Cumulative Effects
A number of appendices are also included. I shall now summarise the following sections.
Landscape and Aesthetics
It is concluded that the landscape quality of the area is generally low given the predominance of industry
upon the route. The area can accommodate a large degree of change without an adverse visual impact
ensuing upon the local landscape. Residential and retail areas of Cadishead would not be subject to direct
views however views would occur from the Canal and from residences to the south of the canal. Existing
vegetation and proposed landscaping would mitigate any harmful visual impacts of the proposal. Benefits
of improved views resulting are considered within Cadishead given the numbers of vehicles per day
removed from Liverpool Road.
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
Noise and Vibration
With regard to noise the highest source in the area is from traffic. Reduced traffic levels upon Liverpool
Road would result in significant positive benefits to properties within Cadishead close to Liverpool Road. A
detrimental increase in noise levels of between 1 and 3 dB(A) would occur to 52 properties as a result of the
Cadishead way extension however many more properties, 951 would have a beneficial change of between 1
and 3 dB(A) in noise levels. A further 206 residential properties would have a beneficial change of between
3 and 5 dB(A). If residential properties are subject to a noise increases above 68 dB(A) then those properties
would be entitled to noise insulation measures however no properties would be subject to this. Turning to
vibration no properties would be subject to groundborne vibration and some residential properties would
benefit from a reduction in vibration.
Air Quality
Air quality is discussed with and without the Cadishead Way scheme. Air quality is also discussed through
the construction phase. The City of Salford’s Air Quality Review is discussed and conclusions are drawn
that both with and without the scheme nitrogen dioxide air quality objectives would be exceeded by 2005 in
some places. At one location nitrogen dioxide levels would be met with the scheme but not without the
scheme. At various locations along Liverpool Road future breaches of air quality would be avoided if the
Cadishead way were built.
Ecology
The ecological value to the area is considered to be moderate, although of local significance to wildlife is
the loss of the existing mixed scrub along the Canal banks. No Great Crested Newts were found on site
although there were bats and birds including; kingfisher and mallard on the Canal, a passing Osprey, crow,
wren, pigeon, chiffchaff, and also blue, long-tailed and great tits noted during the ecological survey. The
existing linear nature of the mixed scrub is noted and comparisons are drawn to the proposed linear nature
of the Road. Invasive species were noted including Japanese Knotweed and Himalayan Balsam. It is noted
there are no statutorily designated habitats or species within the application boundary. Limited restoration
of habitat on site is proposed due to short supply of land, but alternative mitigation is suggested through
partnership with the Red Rose Forest Group at nearby locations along banks of the Canal and Glazebrook.
Recommendations are also made to ensure trees and shrubs are not removed in breeding seasons especially
between March and September.
Ground Conditions and Land Contamination
Due to the industrial context of the site and surrounding area significant contamination is present in soils
and groundwater beneath the site. Underlying geology is discussed which being permeable could allow the
off site movement of soil and water pollutants, this would require careful mitigation. Tests have proved
groundwater contamination is limited however the site itself is considered to be the predominant receptor
for potential contamination, principally hydrocarbons, due to the surrounding current and historic
petrochemical and chemical industries. Conclusions are drawn that contamination can be taken off site
during construction.
Human Beings
The former mineral railway line is identified as an existing recreation facility in the area but as not having
definitive right of way status. Although this facility would be lost the replacement footway/cycleway is
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
considered to be a positive benefit particularly for pedestrian and cycle safety. The removal of traffic on
Liverpool Road is also listed as a positive impact.
Water Quality and Drainage
The proposed scheme and extensive hardstanding is considered to give rise to pronounced periods of water
run-off during rainfall. Conclusions are drawn for the need to safeguard the Ship Canal through
implementation of effective drainage in terms of water quality and volume entering the canal.
Cultural Heritage & Archaeology
Conclusions are given that extensive industry throughout the 20th Century has meant any potentially early
remains are unlikely to remain. There may however be limited remains at the western end of the site and as
such an archaeological watching brief is recommended.
Interaction of Effects/Cumulative Effects (Conclusions)
Negative short term construction impacts are discussed along with the impact of the proposed road upon the
built and natural environment. Conclusions are left to professional judgement. All impacts whether
negative or positive are considered to impact locally only.
SITE HISTORY
In 1991, planning permission was granted for a similar proposal by the City of Salford (E/28621) and by
Trafford Park Development Corporation (E/28620).
CONSULTATIONS
1. Peak and Northern Footpath Society – Raise questions over impact upon Bobs Lane Irlam Footpath
No. 70. and how this would link to the proposed footpath/cycleway.
2. The Coal Authority – No objections.
3. Railtrack – No objections subject to the safeguarding of the disused Glazebrook/Altrincham
Railway.
4. G.M. Fire Service – Request Hydrants and water main laid along the by-pass.
5. English Nature have expressed concern over limited information of survey methodologies in the
Environmental Statement.
6. Trafford MBC – Various general comments.
7. Director of Environmental Services – No objections conditions proposed.
PUBLICITY
The proposal has been advertised by means of a press notice and site notices.
The proposal has been advertised as a departure from the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan as the
route of the proposal varies from that adopted within the Plan.
The following neighbours have also been consulted:
2 – 42 even Green Lane
1 – 11 odd Green Lane
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
1 – 39 odd Hayes Road
2 – 42 even Hayes Road
280 – 312 Liverpool Road
1 –22 inclusive Graham Crescent
2 – 34 Victory Road
1a – 19 Victory Road
7 – 25 odd Rosebank Road
Mountview, Rosebank Road
Silvermore, Rosebank Road
Wynott, Rosebank Road
Craigmore, Rosebank Road
Karingal, Rosebank Road
Overdale, Rosebank Road
Holly Bank, Rosebank Road
Fourways, Rosebank Road
Bryansway, Mytholme Avenue
Melidan, Mytholme Avenue
Springfield, Mytholme Avenue
Oldacre, Mytholme Avenue
Willow Bank, Mytholme Avenue
Tree Tops, Mytholme Avenue
Alpine View, Mytholme Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
The Irlam and Cadishead Community Committee have resolved to support the planning application.
To date I have received no letters in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site Specific Policy: T16/3 Major Road Schemes (A57 Cadishead Way).
Other Policies: T1 A Balanced Transport Network, T3 Highways, T10 Pedestrians, T11 Cycling, EN5
Nature Conservation, EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands, EN10 Landscape, EN15 Environmental
Improvement Corridors, EN20 Pollution Control.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Although the route of the proposed Cadishead Way deviates from the line shown on the Adopted Unitary
Development Plan, it is a very slight deviation due to the finalised engineering decision of the route. As
originally planned and as shown on the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and approved in 1991, the route
went under the existing viaduct of the disused Glazebrook/Altrincham Railway Line. The route is now
planned to pass underneath the disused railway in a tunnel next to the existing viaduct thereby making a
straighter route.
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
This proposal clearly conforms to aims and objectives of policy T16/3 to relieve traffic congestion on the
A57 and to enhance the environment along the A57 corridor. The proposal is also in accordance with other
transport policies mentioned above including T1, the provision of a balanced transport network and T3 by
allowing the quick and efficient movement of goods and alleviating traffic problems and consequential
conflicts from residential and retail areas in Cadishead. The proposal would also allow for the provision of
a joint walkway and cycleway along its length, part of which is a private means of access owned by the
Manchester Ship Canal Company, with non vehicular access points between both ends (including Bobs
Lane and Hayes Road). Bobs Lane (footpath No.70) would join the footway/cycleway allowing access
along the route of the road. Bobs Lane definitive right of way extends into the proposed carriageway and as
such part of the right of way would be lost, however, there would be a continued connection for walkers and
an additional facility for cyclists would be provided where presently there are no facilities. The proposal
would therefore be in accordance with policies T10 and T11. The route for walkers alongside the canal
would change in character from its current mixed rural/industrial views to a more formalised landscaped
area which would screen industrial sites and allow views across the Canal. The line of the disused
Glazebrook/Altrincham railway and its future re-instatement would not be jeopardised by the proposal, as
the route proposes a tunnel underneath the line.
As discussed within the Environmental Statement (ES) there are a number of impacts, both negative and
positive on the natural and built environment. With regard to policies EN5, EN7, EN10 and EN15 the
proposed mitigation within the ES would help to ensure that the broad aims of these policies are upheld.
Trees and bushes are to be lost as a result of the proposal however a planting scheme could be beneficial
through screening of industry on the north bank from residential properties on the south bank of the canal.
Replacement vegetation would bring wildlife back into the corridor and cutting down of vegetation prior to
construction should be timed to avoid breeding. Clear benefits of the scheme would result in a reduction of
pollution, both air and noise, to hundreds of residential properties within Cadishead and as such I consider
the proposal would be in accordance with policy EN20.
I consider that the proposal is in accordance with Regional and National Planning Guidance. The proposed
route was adopted within the current development plan, aside from a small variation in the current scheme,
which underwent extensive consultation and although there has been limited support formally for the
application I consider the proposal to conform to policies within the Unitary Development Plan. Members
will also recall this scheme has already been granted permission in 1991. The application has demonstrated
that the proposal would provide an effective improvement in the quality of environment along Liverpool
Road in Cadishead. I consider that the reduction of traffic by 7,500 vehicles per day would improve the
quality of residents lives and businesses along the Liverpool Road corridor as well as aiding commerce
within Northbank industrial estate. Subject to the imposition of conditions to ensure environmental impacts
are mitigated I recommend the application favourably.
RECOMMENDATION:
a)
That the Panel are mined to approve the application subject to the conditions stated below and that
the application is referred to the Secretary of State.
b)
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
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
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 opening of the road 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. A full quantitative risk assessment shall be undertaken which shall include an identification and
assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA,
focussing primarily on risks to human health and to controlled waters. The investigation shall also
address the implications of ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby
occupied building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental
receptors including ecological systems and property.
4. Plant or machinery shall not be operated on the construction site before 0800 on Mondays to Fridays
and 0800 on Saturdays, nor after 1800 on Mondays to Fridays and 1300 on Saturdays, nor at any time
on Sundays, Bank Holidays or Public Holidays unless by prior agreement with the Director of
Development Services. Consideration should be given to the provisions of BS5228:Code of Practice for
Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites at all times.
5. Before development is commenced, the applicant shall secure the implementation of a programme of
archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which shall have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services
6. Prior to the commencement of the development a scheme for the drainage of the proposeal shall be
submitted to and approved by the Director of Development Services. The approved scheme shall be
implemented prior to the construction of the development.
7. Prior to the commencement of the development the developer shall submit for approval by the Director
of Development Services a scheme to show in detail the shared footway/cycleway. The scheme shall
include details of measures to stop vehicular traffic utilising footways and cycleways. Such approved
scheme shall be implemented by the developer prior to the development being used by the public.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Due to the contaminated nature of the material that will be encountered during the site works and the
close proximity of the Manchester Ship Canal, it is essential that a suitable and effective surface water
capture scheme is put in to place so that any contaminated run-off is prevented from entering the Canal.
Failure to prevent contaminated run-off from entering the Canal may lead to prosecution by the
Environment Agency for the pollution of controlled waters under the Water Resources Act, 1991.
APPLICATION No:
02/44541/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Director Of Education And Leisure Department
LOCATION:
Site At London Street Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a two storey building to provide a young people and
community resource centre
WARD:
Pendleton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of the former Charlestown Youth Centre within part of the Albion High
School site which was granted planning permission last year (ref 01/42281/FUL) and which is currently
under construction. The whole of the school site is bordered to the west by houses on the opposite side of
London Street; Charlestown Primary School and further housing to the south on the opposite side of an
access road; university accommodation (part of the Irwell Valley Campus) and industrial/warehousing
units to the east and Cromwell Road to the north.
It is proposed to erect a community resource centre to replace the Youth Centre which has now been
demolished. The new centre would be in a similar location opposite the houses on London Street and the
access to Penrod Place. It would comprise an atrium, a family/community room, a music/dance/general
games area, an exercise and weights areas, an IT training area and a recording studio together with ancillary
offices and facilities. It would be constructed from red brickwork to match the Albion building with blue
banding for detail and shutters would be erected at the ground floor windows for security purposes. The
atrium section of the building would be of circular construction with a diameter of 23m with an additional
element to the side/rear which would squared off.
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – no comments received.
New Deal for Communities – no comments received.
Coal Authority – no objections.
Director of Environmental Services – no objections in principle subject to conditions safeguarding the
amenity of neighbouring residents against noise pollution.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 30 July 2002.
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
The following neighbours were notified :
44 – 58(E) 53 – 117(O) Blandford Road
24 –42 Cromwell Road
119 – 133 (O) Gerald Road
69 – 83 Lichfield Street
2 – 20(E) London Street
1, 7, 11 – 19, 2 – 12 Mark Avenue
1 – 7(O), 24 – 42 Penrod Place
15 – 24 Rockley Gardens
2 – 24 Rugeley Street
Charlestown Primary School
University of Salford.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection and signed by 23 local residents in response to the application
publicity. The following comments having been made:
Already been subjected to 15 years of nuisance and disturbance from the youth centre
Noise and general disturbance experienced from construction traffic
Number of children on the campus
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: SC1 Provision of Social and Community Facilities
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy SC1 states that the City Council will “maintain and improve” social and community facilities within
the City, and as the proposal is to erect a replacement facility it directly accords with this policy. The
relevant issues for consideration relate to the impact of the proposal upon the amenity of the neighbouring
residents and those in particular of London Street.
I am conscious of the concerns of local residents. If this permission were to be granted there would be more
disturbance for these immediate residents but this would be for a limited time period and at the same time as
the school construction continues, and therefore should not be significantly greater than currently being
experienced. It is also important to consider the benefits to the wider community from the proposal. The
proposal would provide a replacement centre with new and improved facilities which would be available
for the benefit of all of the community and not just the younger population.
The proposed building would be positioned slightly forward of the previous centre, towards London Street
but would be of a modern design and construction. Against the backdrop of the new school buildings, I
consider that the amenity of the environment would be enhanced as well as the facilities for the local
residents improved. I have no objections on highway grounds and therefore recommend that this
application be approved.
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be used
for the walls and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
3. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 20.9.02 which shows revised layout.
4. Noise from amplified music shall not be audible at the boundary of the nearest noise sensitive dwelling.
5. The windows of the music/dance room and the recording studio shall be kept closed when any noise
generating activity is taking place in these rooms.
6. The windows to the music/dance room and the recording studio shall consist of sealed double glazed
units comprising glass of 10mm and laminated 6.4mm with a 12mm air gap. The unit shall be installed
in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations to avoid air gaps when fitting the frames.
Alternative means of ventilation shall be provided.
7. The rating level of the noise emitted by any fixed plant or equipment eg ventilation equipment shall not
exceed the existing background noise level by more than 5dB. The noise level shall be determined at
the boundary of the nearest noise sensitive premises. The measurement and assessment shall be made
according to BS4142:1997 "Rating Industrial Noise Affecting MIxed Residential and Industrial
Areas".
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
6. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
7. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
APPLICATION No:
02/44620/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Development Services Directorate
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
LOCATION:
Irlam Town Football Club Silver Street Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Erection of alternative fence type (concrete panel fence) around
football pitch and amendment to position of railings opposite 73 to 81
Silver Street.
WARD:
Irlam
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the Irlam Town football pitch on Silver Street. The proposal is to erect a 2.1
metre high concrete panel fence around the pitch, as an alternative to the 2.1 metre high palisade fencing
that was approved in the same position in 1999. Gates are proposed to be inserted in the east and west
sections of fencing to facilitate ball retrieval. Landscaping would be planted around the perimeter of the
fencing. In addition, a section of 2.1 metre high railings is proposed around the site of the former changing
room building to the south-west of the site, this constitutes an amendment to the line of railings previously
approved in this location.
There are residential properties to the south and west of the football pitch on Silver Street and Leyland
Avenue. There are a number of semi-mature trees on the Silver Street boundary. To the east of the football
pitch is a playing field, beyond which are the dwellings on Hartley Grove. The area to the north of the site is
agricultural land.
SITE HISTORY
99/39542/DEEM3 - Erection of single storey building to provide changing rooms, showers and messroom,
and erection of 2.1m high railings and fencing around boundary. Approved 2.9.99.
CONSULTATIONS
None.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 30th August 2002
The following neighbours were notified:
71 – 105, 110 – 114 Silver Street
68, 70, 125 Fiddlers Lane
Gladwyn Farm, Fiddlers Lane
9 – 27, 14 - 16 Hartley Grove
1 – 5 Keal Drive
1 – 23 Leyland Avenue
Fallows Farm, Fiddlers Lane
96 Merlin Road
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
concerns regarding the type of fencing (concrete panel), in no time the fences will be covered in graffiti
as was the case with the previous fencing
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that regard will be had to a number of factors in determining
applications for planning permission, including the visual appearance of the development and its
relationship to its surroundings.
The objection raised relates to the type of fencing proposed and the appearance of it. I do have some
concerns in relation to the appearance of concrete panel fencing. The Applicant has stated that a palisade
fence would no longer be appropriate because it is the ambition of the club to gain promotion to a higher
league which has a requirement for a solid fence to allow for possible paying spectators. The Applicant has
considered alternatives such as a timber fence, which would not be sufficiently durable; an aggregate finish
to the concrete panel fence, which would not significantly improve its appearance; and painting the fence,
which would peel and could be easily vandalised and as such would be unsatisfactory. In order to lessen the
visual impact of the fence, the Applicant proposes to implement a scheme of planting immediately adjacent
to it. I consider that planting would provide an effective screen and should also assist in preventing future
graffiti.
I have no objections to the amendment to the position of the railings, provided that they are colour-treated.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The areas adjacent to the four outer boundaries of the fencing 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
and shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
3. The railings hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior to the
commencement of the development by the Director of Development Services.
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
4. This permission shall relate to the submitted planning application as amended by e-mail from the Agent
dated 10th September 2002.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/44627/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Housing Services Directorate
LOCATION:
Blackfriars Court And Whitefriars Court Blackfriars Road Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Construction of extension to existing car park, provision of new gate,
CCTV cameras and street lighting
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to two landscaped areas within an enclosed housing estate, which is comprised of
two residential tower blocks (Blackfriar Court and Whitefriar Court) together with a complex of
semi-detached houses. The site is enclosed by 2m high railings with security gates at both the pedestrian
and vehicular access points. The main area to which the application relates to is a communal landscaped
area adjacent to the junction with Blackfriars Road and St. Simon Street. There are a number of semi and
mature trees within the landscaped area, together with various flower beds and seating areas that are
focused around the edge of the site. The other landscaped area to the south east of the site consists primarily
of shrubs and there are no trees that may be affected.
Planning permission is sought for the construction of an extension to the existing car park. There are 39
parking spaces already existing. 18 parking spaces are proposed within the main landscaped area, with the
improvements to the existing provision. As a result of those spaces proposed in the main landscaped area 6
trees would be lost. The majority of them are semi-mature however there is one mature tree that is unable to
be kept.
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
SITE HISTORY
In November 2001, planning permission was granted for the extension of the existing car park.
(01/43109/FUL)
In April 1991, planning permission was granted for the construction of fencing, security gates, car parking,
access road improvements and environmental works (E/27939).
In April 1991, planning permission was granted for the erection of a single storey side extension to the
existing entrance hall (E/28031).
In 2000, planning permission was granted for the installation of 10 microwave dishes, 12 pole mounted
antennae, one equipment cabin and associated equipment (00/40613/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
United Utilities – No comments to date
PUBLICITY
Two site notices were displayed on 28th August 2002
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any representation in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
CS2 – Greengate North
DEV1 Development Criteria, H2 Maintaining and Improving Public Sector
Housing
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main policy to consider within the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) is that of H2. The policy states the
City Council will seek to maintain and improve public sector housing by improving access and providing
adequate parking facilities, together with the provision of private gardens, public open spaces and
improving the quality of landscaping. This also supported by DEV 1, which states that when determining
planning applications due regards must be paid to the amount, design and layout of parking, landscaping
and open space provision, and the impact of the development on existing trees.
The main issues to consider with regards to this application are the need for additional car parking and the
potential impact of the proposed development on the environment and the existing trees. The proposal
would necessitate the removal of six trees within the middle of the site. Although the trees collectively have
some amenity value, the remaining trees and shrubs around the perimeter of the site would be retained, thus
minimising the impact of the removed trees and would provide screening of new parking provision.
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
3rd October 2002
Planning permission was recently granted for a larger number of car parking spaces within this site, this
proposal would reduce the number of additional spaces within the main landscaped area, from 28 to 18.
Additional space has been provided to the east by creating one parking area with one access point and
through the improved layout of existing provision.
With regards to the impact on the environment and the existing trees, the majority of the flower beds and
seating areas are focused around the edge of the site, which would be maintained together with the
connecting walkway. As such I believe that the proposed development would not lead to a significant
decline in the amount or quality of amenity space within the grounds of the complex. None of the trees are
protected and those that would be removed are primarily quite young, semi-mature trees.
On balance, I am of the opinion that the benefits of this proposal out weigh the loss of part of the grassed
area. I have no objections on highway grounds and I am satisfied that the proposed development would not
unduly impact on the amenity of local residents or the character of the area. Therefore I would recommend
that this proposal be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such a scheme shall include full details
of the location and type of six standard replacement trees, and shall be carried out within 6 months of
the commencement of development, and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority. Any trees dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of
the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
52
3rd October 2002
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
53
3rd October 2002