PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44038/FUL
APPLICANT:
Hydraulic Transmission Services Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By Silk Street, Flax Street, River Irwell And Blackfriars
Road Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Erection of sales & storage of hydraulic transmission systems &
servicing & assembly of specific parts together with associated
landscaping, car parking, servicing & new accesses (Variation of
condition No. 1 of permission 97/36979/FUL)
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This site is a large cleared site, formerly occupied by a Renault Dealership, and was left vacant when they
relocated to Trinity Way. The current applicant cleared the site to facilitate redevelopment.
The site is adjoined by existing residential development to the south and west. The commercial properties
across Blackfriars Road to the east have the benefit of outline planning permission for residential
redevelopment. The River Irwell forms the northern boundary.
The application is seeking a continuation of the current permission which expires on the 16th October 2002.
In all other respects the proposed development is the same as that granted in 1997.
The proposal comprises a single large (4,500 sq.m.) industrial building within which there would be a
mechanical repair workshop, assembly areas storage areas and associated offices. Access would be taken
off Silk Street via Flax Street which would be closed to through traffic onto Angora Drive. The applicant
has indicated verbally that the proposed closure may not now proceed but that this would be subject to
modification at a later stage. 96 car parking spaces would be provided together with a service yard fronting
Flax Street.
SITE HISTORY
In October 1997, planning permission (97/36979/FUL) was granted for the development now being
proposed.
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Services: The development is located close to residential properties and there is a potential for
a loss in residential amenities arising from the commercial/industrial activity. Conditions are suggested to
control noise and nuisance.
Environment Agency: No objections subject to conditions.
PUBLICITY
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
Site and press notices have been displayed. And the following neighbours were notified:
Angora Drive : 2-14, 18-28, 30-104, 25-29.
Brocade Close: 2-8
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 3 representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity:
The surrounding residential development has proved successful and hence the context of the site
has changed since 1997.
An industrial development would detract from the improving residential amenities of the area.
The site would be a source of noise and disturbance.
The site access via Silk Street is inadequate to cope with turning commercial vehicles.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
Allocated for housing (H9/1)
H3 Maintain and Improve Housing
EN15 Environmental Improvement Corridor.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The previous decision to allow industrial development was taken contrary to the Development Plan. This
decision was made having regards to the specific needs of the applicant who had outgrown their current
premises and were keen to relocate in the immediate area to retain their workforce. The adjoining
residential development was nearing completion but was not considered to be fully established and the
further demand for residential development in the area was not known.
The details of the scheme remain as approved and I have no objections to the arrangements proposed
including the highway arrangements. I do however consider that the situation has changed since 1997 and
that the land use considerations need to be revisited.
The applicant’s case remains the same and this site is seen as being ideal for their purposes located, as it is,
so close to their existing premises. Furthermore they already own the site. The applicant has however
confirmed that at this moment in time a start is not imminent and that development would only take place
when the economic climate was right.
The draft review of the UDP proposes to re-affirm the site’s allocation for housing and this is within the
context of the growing demand for residential within this locality. This is consistent with the current advice
in PPG3 to seek out brown field sites for residential use.
Apex House, across Blackfriars Road, was granted permission (01/42911/OUT) for residential
redevelopment earlier this year. This development would reinforce the residential character of the locality
and evidences the growing demand for residential uses in the area, particularly associated with river
frontage.
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
Since 1997 river frontages have become increasingly important to successful regeneration. In such
locations schemes of a high standard of design can be achieved which result in significant improvement to
the environment. This is a view supported by UDP policy EN15.
The industrial nature of the use is not the best suited to this site having regard to neighbouring land uses and
the 1997 decision was a finely balanced being significantly influenced by the business needs of the
applicant. These needs however have not been manifested by action and I must now therefore give less
weight to this argument.
On balance therefore I consider that adequate opportunity has been given to meet any special needs of the
applicant but that in the context of the current situation this can no longer be justified.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed industrial use would be contrary to Policy H9/1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan, which allocates the site for housing development and prejudicial to the
implementation of the Plan
2. The land uses adjoining the application site are currently in or proposed for residential use. The nature
of the proposed industrial uses would be inconsistent with the adjoining land uses and would give rise
to a loss of residential amenity and character, by reason of noise, nuisance and appearance, and be
contrary to Policy H3 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. The application site is located with a significant riverside frontage to the River Irwell and the proposed
nature of the development would be inconsistent with and detrimental to the future development and
improvement of the riverside contrary to Policy EN15 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/44462/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr D Yates
LOCATION:
10 Clandon Avenue Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Demolish side garage and erection of two storey side and rear extension
WARD:
Winton
At a meeting of the Panel held on 19th September 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are as set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
This application relates to a semi-detached property in a residential area with St Patrick’s High situated to
the rear.
The proposal is for the erection of a two-storey rear extension and a two storey side extension. The rear
extension would project 2.7m and run the full length of the rear elevation with a single storey element
projecting 1.2m beyond the side. The proposal would have total height of 6m with a hipped roof.
The two-storey side extension would replace an existing single storey garage. The ground floor element
would be flush with the existing bay window and the first floor element would be set back 2m from the front
elevation. The proposal would project 2.4m up to the side boundary and run the full length of the side
elevation with the rear elevation of the first floor being supported by a pillar. The proposal would be 7.2m
at its highest point with a hipped roof.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
8, 11, 12, 13 and 15 Clandon Avenue
St Patricks High School
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received five letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Two similar proposals have been refused in the vicinity
Proposed garage would not be wide enough to fit a car in
Potential terracing effect
The proposal would need to be built with access to the neighbouring property and would cause
disruption
Future maintenance and repair would need to be carried out from the neighbouring property
Foundations may need to extend to neighbouring properties
Loss of light to kitchen and landing windows
Out of character with the area
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions, Supplementary Planning Guidance
PLANNING APPRAISAL
DEV8 of the Unitary Development Plan states that permission will only be granted for extensions that
would not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of
overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light and the extension would not have an
unacceptably adverse impact on the character of the street scene.
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
There are several Supplementary Planning Guidance policies that relate to this proposal: HH13 – planning
permission for two storey side extensions that lie within 1m of the side boundary will not normally be
granted unless the first floor is set back 2m from the front of the house.
HH4 – planning permission will not normally be granted for two-storey extensions that do not maintain a
minimum of 13m between its blank gable wall and facing habitable room windows
HH17 – Planning permission will not normally be granted for any extensions that do not maintain a
hardstanding of 4.8m in length to accommodate at least one car clear of the highway.
All of the objections relate solely to the two-storey side extension and not the two-storey rear extension.
The rear extension complies with Supplementary Planning Guidance.
The first objection relates to the refusal of two similar proposals within the street. The first application was
refused at appeal stage in 1966 and related to a two-storey flat roofed extensions that was flush with the
front elevation at both ground and first floor at 11 Clandon Avenue The second application was refused by
committee after a visit in 1991 and related to 9 Clandon Avenue for the erection of a two storey side
extension with a hipped roof and the first floor was set back 2m from the front elevation. The current
application is very different from the application that was refused in1966 in that the proposal has a hipped
roof that matches the existing and the first floor is set back 2m from the front elevation to avoid potential
terracing effects. The current application is very similar to the proposal that was refused in 1991 however
the current proposal does comply with the current Supplementary Planning Guidance.
There is an existing garage on the site and there is 4.8m of hardstanding to the front of the property.
The first floor of the proposed extension would be set back 2m from the front elevation, which complies
with our current terracing policy.
Any access from the neighbouring property would need consent from the occupier of the neighbouring
property.
The proposed extension is completely contained within the curtilage of the dwelling including the
foundations any encroachment onto adjoining land would have to be agreed with the owners of that land.
The proposal would be approx. 2.6m from No.8’s kitchen and landing window, neither of these windows
are habitable room windows and therefore we do not protect the light to these windows.
The proposal would be built in materials to match the existing, it would have a hipped roof to match the
existing and complies with our Supplementary Planning Guidance therefore I would not consider it to have
a detrimental impact on either neighbouring properties or the street scene.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
3. The garage hereby approved shall be installed and maintained with roller shutter doors to the
satisfaction of Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
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)
WARD:
Irlam
At the meeting of the Panel held on 3rd October 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are as follows:
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
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
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
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
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
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
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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ADDITI
ONAL OBSERVATIONS
Since writing my report I have received one letter of objection to the proposal from the owner of the access
road who states that he will not give his consent for the development. In response to this the applicant has
confirmed that he has reserved all access rights across the relevant section of Fiddlers Lane.
I have also amended the wording on Condition 06 to incorporate plan 48/029 which shows the adjoining
land more fully and clearly.
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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 48/029 "Land at Barton Grange" and dated 26 September 2002.
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.
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)
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
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:
02/44527/FUL
APPLICANT:
Orange Pcs
LOCATION:
Land At Web Lighting Ltd Ravenscraig Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Installation of telecommunications equipment including 20m lattice
tower, 10 cabinets together with associated equipment and 2.4m high
fencing
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land to the rear of the Web Lighting premises close to the Aston Fields Colliery
site. It is proposed to site the mast close to the rear boundary of the site on land that is approximately 3m
higher than the ground level around the building.
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
The former colliery surrounds the site on three sides with the nearest residential accommodation being the
Showman’s Guild site at the junction of Cleggs Lane and Ravenscraig Road approximately 70m away.
The mast would be 20m high and would be in the form of a lattice tower. The site compound would
measure approximately 7m square and would be surrounded by 2.4m high palisade fencing that would
match the existing Web Lighting perimeter fence.
SITE HISTORY
In July 2000 planning permission was given for a 25m high mast to the rear of the Web Lighting building.
The mast was to have been sited closer to the building on ground approximately 3m lower than the current
application (00/40773/FUL).
In December 2000 permission was granted for a 15m high tower to the rear of the building also on ground
approximately 3m lower than the current application (00/41637/TEL42)
Neither of these masts has been erected.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of a site notice.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objections in response to the application publicity one of which has been
signed by 22 local residents. The following comments having been made:
Health concerns
Mast is too close
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies: SC14 Telecommunications
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy SC14 states that the City Council will normally grant planning permission for telecommunications
development where such development would not have an unacceptable impact on visual amenity. Through
this the City Council aims to balance the needs of the telecommunications industry with the need to
preserve amenity. The policy also highlights the importance of site sharing and the erection of antennae on
existing buildings or other existing structures. Furthermore, Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 on
Telecommunications sets out the main issues concerning the installation of such development, highlighting
the importance of siting and design and health and safety issues.
One of the main issues to consider with regards to this application is the health implications of the proposed
development on residents living near the site. Whilst it is clear from the objections that have been received
that local residents believe that there would be significant health implications, in terms of radio frequency
output, the proposed apparatus would be below the ICNIRP guidelines as recommended by the Stewart
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
Report. The nearest residential properties are approximately 70m away. I am satisfied that the proposed
development would be in accordance with the precautionary approach adopted by the City Council.
The applicant has submitted supporting information that includes other sites searched.
Permission has been granted for two other masts at the same general location and therefore there is the
potential for three masts to be sited at these premises. I consider that this would be detrimental to the visual
amenity of the area. I must therefore recommend that permission be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would by reason of its size, appearance and potential cumulative impact
would give rise to an unduly obtrusive impact in the area to the detriment of the visual amenity of the
area contrary to policy SC14 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
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
At a meeting of the Panel held on 3rd October 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR
AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORATION REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
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,
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
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
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.
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
The letter of objection makes reference to five issues with regard to the detached garage(and one with
regard to the first floor extension):
1. The proposed garage would be off set approximately 18m from No.14 and 11m from the rear of No. 91
Ellerbeck Crescent.
2. 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.
3. There are similarly located garages within the street.
4. Street Lighting have no objections to the proposed garage.
5. 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:
02/44545/OUT
APPLICANT:
Moylan Homes
LOCATION:
Land On Fereday Street Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for the erection of two buildings
comprising 24 flats together with associated car parking and
construction of new vehicular access
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a plot of land, approximately 0.1 hectares in size with a frontage of 21m onto
Brackley Street and 85m to Fereday Street. The site is currently vacant and has become rather derelict and
overgrown in parts. In April 2001 permission was granted in outline for the erection of 9 dwellings,
including 3, three storey dwellings fronting onto Brackley Street with two pairs of semi-detached dwellings
onto Fereday Street, planning reference 00/41728/OUT.
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
Permission is now sought in outline with only landscaping to be reserved for the erection of two blocks of
flats comprising a total of 24 flats (14 in one and 10 in the second). One block would be sited on the
frontage to Brackley Road and measure 15m by 19m and stand 7.5m to the eaves and 12m to the roof ridge.
The site level would be 1m lower than the road level and therefore the height of the building to the ridge
from street level would be 11m. It would be three storey with two dormers in the front and four in the rear
providing fourth storey accommodation within the roof level. The main entrance would be off Fereday
Street. There would be a separation of 13.5m to the rear of the properties on Bolton Road.
The second block would be sited at the southern end of the site adjacent to the car park for Total Fitness
with a footprint measuring 17m by 18m. It would stand 14.5m from the rear main walls of the properties on
Bolton Road and this block would be part two storey and part three storey, with the two storey element
closest to the rear of the properties on Bolton Road. There would be an amenity area at the rear of block 2
with the entrance into both flats facing into the site, separated by a communal parking area for 24 vehicles
including 2 disabled spaces. The access to this would be from the mid-point of the site frontage off Fereday
Street which would be gated and surrounded by 1.8m high railings.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Officer – has no objection in principle to the proposal but makes
a number of recommendations including that 1.8m high railings are erected around the boundary with
prickly shrubs planted as part of the landscaping scheme. It is also proposed that the pedestrian access is
clearly visible with access controls to each building.
Environment Agency – no objections in principle subject to the imposition of conditions relating to a site
contamination survey, and surface water drainage.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 15 August 2002.
A site notice was displayed on 19 August 2002.
The following neighbours were notified:
173 – 213(O) Bolton Road
31 – 41(O) Brackley Street
8 – 14 Wesley Court
2 – 30(E) Dagmar Street
25 – 31(O) Fereday street.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection and a petition signed by sixteen residents, in response to the
application publicity who would like the land to be developed but have the following comments having
been made:
Loss of light owing to height of block one
Loss of privacy through unobstructed views down into the terraced houses
Loss of access to rear of properties on Bolton Road from the siting of block 2 causing problems for
bin access and emergency vehicles.
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none.
Other policies: DEV2 Good Design,
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The principle of the residential use has already been previously established with the granting of the outline
permission in April 2001. However, the scheme now under consideration differs from this approved
scheme not least because it is for two blocks of residential flats as opposed to dwellinghouses. The main
issue to be addressed for this application relates to the impact upon amenity in terms of the visual amenity
and street scene, the amenity of the neighbouring residents on Bolton Road and Brackley Road and also the
amenity of the future residents of the flats.
The objectors to the proposal are concerned about loss of both light and privacy owing particularly to the
height of the blocks. In relation to block 2 at the southern end of the site, this would stand 14.5m from the
rear main wall of the Bolton Road terraced properties. The closest element of this block would only be 2
storey. I am therefore satisfied that this aspect complies with council policy in terms of separation and
would not result in an undue loss of light and privacy, especially as any windows on this facing elevation
would be obscure glazed.
In contrast to this, block one at the northern end towards Brackley Street, would be sited only 13.5m from
the rear main walls of the terraces and would be four storey, albeit that the fourth storey would be provided
in the roof area. The applicant has amended the scheme to increase this separation to the 13.5m,
incorporated a hipped roof and also lowered the ground level to 1m below the level of Brackley Street.
However, despite these amendments I remain extremely concerned about the impact of this block in terms
of its sheer size with a gable elevation of 15m deep and 12m high. It would have a significant and
detrimental impact upon the amenity of these residents. I am also inclined to agree with the objectors that
owing to the height of this block and also the three storey element to block 2, that the residents on Bolton
Road would experience a loss of privacy to an unacceptable degree.
The visual impact upon the amenity and character of the street is also of consideration. I recognise that
Brackley Street has a variety of properties and building heights along it and there are the three storey flats
opposite the site at Wesley Court. However, the fourth floor accommodation of the proposed flats in block
one would actually be higher than the third floor flats at Wesley Court. The proposed block would also
tower above the adjacent modern dwellings to the west and would dominate over the older terraced housing
on Bolton Road. I am concerned that the block would be highly prominent and overly dominating within
the street scene which would be detrimental to its character. Furthermore, in relation to block 2, this
southern part of the site is clearly visible from Bolton Road when travelling north, and I am concerned that
the design of the flats with the mix of two and three storey against the backdrop of the two storey terraced
housing on Fereday Street and Dagmar Street would be extremely prominent, overbearing and detrimental
to the character of the area.
I have also highlighted that the amenity of the future residents of the proposal is important. The car parking
provision has been reduced to 24 spaces and I am satisfied that this is acceptable owing to the site’s close
proximity to Walkden town centre and also taking into account current advice given in PPG 3 Housing, to
reduce car dependency. This reduction in car parking has enabled some additional landscaping and amenity
area to be provided but this only amounts to some 7m at the rear of block 2. This is no usable sitting out
area for block one. I do not consider that this provision is acceptable for a scheme of this number of flats
and possible future occupiers.
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
Another concern of the residents was the loss of the access at the rear of the properties on Bolton Road.
Currently these residents can walk from Fereday Street to the access at the rear of the properties as the
application site is currently open and vacant. The proposal would retain this access between the Bolton
Road properties. However, residents would not be able to circulate around the application site from the
access onto Fereday Street. However, this is not a right of way and as such I do not consider that it should
be protected.
The principle of residential use on the site has been accepted and owing to current guidance given in PPG3
to encourage higher density provision on brownfield sites, especially in close proximity to town centres, I
recognise that a higher level of development may be expected on this site. However, I do not consider that
this should be at the expense and detriment of the amenity of existing residents within the area or the
character of the street scene. This scheme would result in this, as well as providing little amenity for future
residents. As such it would result in an overdevelopment of the site and I recommend that this application
be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development by reason of the size, siting and design of the proposed apartment blocks
would have an extremely significant and detrimental impact the amenity of the neighbouring residents
and as such would be contrary to policy DEV1 of the UDP.
2. Owing to the sheer size and height of the proposed blocks the proposal would be overly dominating and
overbearing and as such would be detrimental to the amenity and character of the area generally,
contrary to policy DEV1 of the UDP.
3. The proposed development would provide insufficient usable amenity space for the future residents to
enjoy and would result in an overdevelopment of the site.
APPLICATION No:
02/44554/HH
APPLICANT:
S Skurok
LOCATION:
12 Ellendale Grange Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of extension to existing detached garage
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
The application relates to a detached property. The proposal is to erect an extension at the rear of the
existing detached garage at the rear of the property. The extension would be angled away from no12 and
project 5m along the boundary with 14 Ellendale Grange. The roof would be hipped and 4m at its ridge. The
property is separated from no14 by a 1.5m boundary fence. There are large conifers along the boundary to
the rear of the site.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified:
10,14 Ellendale Grange
15, 17, 19 Ladymere Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one representation in response to the application publicity. The following comments having
been made:
Loss of light to the garden of no14, resulting in dampness and darkness in flowerbeds and moss
growth on the lawn.
The building will dominate the garden at 14 Ellendale Grange curtailing enjoyment of garden and
patio.
Discouragement of wildlife within the garden of no14.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: Dev8- House Extensions, SPG-House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Dev8 states that permission would be granted if the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse
impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, over shadowing, dominance,
loss of privacy or light.
There is a main habitable room in the rear of no14 approximately 10m from the extension. However this is
set at an angle to the proposed garage extension and as a result, I do not consider it would have a significant
detrimental impact on the light to this room, especially as the garage extension is angled away from the
room.
The objector is also concerned that the extension to the existing garage would dominate the garden. The
extension would project 5m further along the boundary, be single storey and angled away from no14. Due
to this angle and also the hipped roof sloping away from no14, I do not consider the extension would be any
more overbearing or dominating to the neighbouring garden than the existing garage. I do not consider
either that the extension would be overbearing or dominating to the properties on Ladymere Drive at the
rear of no 12.
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
In summary, I do not consider the proposal would be significantly detrimental to the residents of no14, or
any other of the neighbouring properties.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the 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. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
02/44564/FUL
APPLICANT:
Swinton Glass Glazing And Joinery Ltd
LOCATION:
Swinton Glass Glazing And Joinery Ltd 153/159 Swinton Hall Road
Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4m high security fence and gates
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a light industrial premise on Swinton Hall Road. The property is bounded by
light industrial units to the north and residential properties along the frontage of Swinton Hall Road.
The proposal is to erect a 2.4m high security fence and gates across St Johns Street, an un-adopted road.
HISTORY
In 2001 planning permission was granted for alterations to the front of the premises (00/41655/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – No comments to date
Peak and Northern Footpath Society – No comments to date
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
The Open Space Society – No comments to date
The Ramblers Association – No observations
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
154, 160 and 151 Swinton Hall Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Restricted access (emergency service, utilities)
Inconvenience
Restricted parking
Eyesore
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV1 – Development Criteria, DEV4 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account
when determining applications, including the visual appearance of the development and its relationship to
its surroundings. DEV4 states that the City Council will have regard to the position and height of fencing
and gates.
The applicant’s agent has amended the scheme in response to the objection received and advice from our
highway engineers. The proposed fence would now be erected beyond the highway and I am of the opinion
that this amendment addresses three of the concerns, namely restricted access; inconvenience; and
restricted parking.
The fencing would be of the fine mesh design powder coated green to match the existing fencing fronting
Swinton Hall Road and as such would not represent an eyesore from within the street scene.
Therefore I am of the opinion that this proposal would not have any detrimental impact on the 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
(Reasons)
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received 26th September 2002 which shows the
position of the fence behind the rear boundary of 151 Swinton Hall Road
APPLICATION No:
02/44565/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs H Roberts
LOCATION:
4 Guilford Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension
WARD:
Winton
At a meeting of the Panel held on 19th September 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property. The proposal is for the erection of a part two-storey,
part single-storey side extension. The first floor would be set back 2m from the front elevation of the
property, and 2m from the existing rear wall of the outrigger. There is a kitchen window in the opposite wall
of No.6, 2.8m away from the proposed extension. The extension would have a hipped roof, approximately
7.1m at its highest. There would be bedroom windows in the front and rear first floor walls, a double garage
with roller shutter doors at the front and a door in the rear wall single-storey element.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified:
2, 6 Guilford Road
St Patricks High School
32 Hatherop Close
REPRESENTATIONS
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
I have received 7 representations in response to the application publicity. The following comments having
been made regarding the proposal:
Compromises the appearance of the houses on Guilford Road.
Negative effect on street scene.
Negative effect on the character of the area.
Possibility of future terraced effect.
Possible tunnel effect along the adjoining boundary with no 6 Guilford Rd.
Driveway is too narrow to provide sufficient parking.
Loss of light to neighbours.
Past refusal for Planning Permission in Clarendon Avenue, off Guilford Road and for Garages at 10
and 14 Guilford Road.
Access to rear of property will be refused for building and maintenance of the extension.
Safety issues with regards to access of Emergency Services to the rear of the properties.
Decline in house value.
One objection with no reason sited.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8-House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Dev8 states that permission would be granted if the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse
impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance,
loss of privacy or light.
A number of the objections relate to the two-storey side extension compromising the appearance of the
houses on Guilford Road, the effect on street scene, the character of the area and the possibility of a future
terraced appearance of the road. However as the side extension would not be entirely two-storey, but set in
2m from the front main wall (complying with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on House
Extensions: Guidance Note HH13) and 2m from the rear main wall of the property, the issue of terracing
would be minimised and the character of the area maintained. I would not therefore consider the proposal to
have a significantly detrimental impact on the appearance of the street scene and the character of the area or
that it will lead to a possible terraced effect on Guilford Road.
Objections also site the possibility of the proposal creating a tunnel effect along the adjacent boundary with
No 6 Guilford Rd, in the area by the kitchen window and side door. I do not consider the proposed extension
would have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of those neighbours, as the two-storey element
of the extension does not project entirely to the rear main wall of the existing building. Instead it projects
only approximately 1.8m along the boundary from the rear wall of the Garage of no 6. Therefore only
approximately half of their kitchen window would be affected by the two-storey element. If the extension
was to be completely two-storey to the rear wall of the outrigger I may be concerned regarding a tunnel
effect. However in this case, I consider there would be little tunnel effect created. Also the window in the
gable of No 6 is non-habitable, therefore the proposal complies with the Council’s policy as detailed in the
Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions.
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
A further objection is that the driveway is too narrow and does not provide sufficient room to support
parking needs for the increased size of the property. I consider that the extension is in proportion with the
dwelling and maintains sufficient hard-standing in front of the Garage to allow a vehicle to stand,
(complying with Guidance Note HH17 of the Supplementary Planning Guidance). The proposal also
includes a Garage to provide further parking for the residents. I have no objections to the extension on
highway grounds and I do not consider that the proposal would result in a “cluttered” appearance on the
street.
Objectors also raised the issue of loss of light to the neighbours. However the extension complies with the
Supplementary Planning Guidance on House Extensions and as such I do not consider it will have a
significant detrimental affect on the light of the neighbours.
The proposal meets with the Council’s requirements therefore I recommend the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the brickwork and roofing of the development shall be the same
type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
02/44639/FUL
APPLICANT:
Clifton Properties
LOCATION:
Land Forming Former Swinton Liberal Club Milner Street Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two blocks of four town houses together with associated
creation of new access and alterations to existing access
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
This application relates to the former Swinton Liberal Club, Milner Street and seeks the erection of two
blocks of four town houses together with associated creation of new access and alterations to existing
access.
The club and associated bowling green is presently vacant and in a run down state of repair and frequently
suffers from vandalism. The remainder of Milner Street comprises predominately of semi-detached
residential properties. Opposite the site is St Mary’s RC primary school.
The design of the dwellings would provide an integral garage and drive space within each curtilage. They
would be two storey in height with bedrooms located within the roof space.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Environment Agency – No objection
Sport England – Objection, unless applicant can demonstrate no proven need for a bowling green and
ancillary facilities in the area
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 27/8/2002
The following neighbours were notified :
St Mary’s RC Primary School
18 & 20 Cherry Drive
2 – 8 (even) Milner Street
47 – 59 (odd) Milner Street
116 – 128, 136 – 142 and 160 – 166 (even) Swinton Hall Road
11 – 19 (odd) Milner Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one representation in response to the application publicity. The following comments having
been made:
Detailing of boundary treatments
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV1 – Design Criteria, DEV2 – Good Design, R1 – Protection of Recreation
Land and Facilities, T13 Car Parking.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that due regard must be paid to a number of factors, including size and density, amount
and layout of car parking effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for neighbouring properties and impact on
existing trees. Policy DEV2 seeks to ensure a high quality of design in new development. Policy R1 states
that development on existing formal or informal recreation land and facilities will not normally be allowed
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
unless:- ‘an equivalent replacement site is provided and laid out within the local area to the satisfaction of
the City Council.’
I have received an objection from Sport England regarding the loss of a community sports facility. There is
at present an over prescription of bowling green facilities with the area. I have also received one
representation from a neighbouring property with regard possible boundary treatments along the rear
boundary. I have attached a landscaping condition to ensure that this issue is clarified prior to
commencement.
The main issue to consider in this case is policy R1 and the potential impact of this development within the
street scene. Development on recreational land is contrary to policy R1 unless an equivalent replacement is
provided. In terms of local need for provision of bowling greens within the area:- at present there is
adequate provision within the area. However, to satisfy the policy the applicant has offered to enter into a
legal agreement to provide monies to improve existing recreational facilities in the area to the value of
£24,000.
The monies provided would improve existing facilities within the area to ensure their future viability, I am,
therefore satisfied that policy R1 has been satisfied.
The site itself is bounded by residential properties. This scheme would continue the existing building line
and would also maintain adequate separation to the properties at the rear. Both properties adjacent to the
site (No.’s 19 & 47) have no habitable windows within the facing gables. There are several hawthorn trees
along the rear common boundary which are not subject to a Tree Preservation Order, however the trees are
approximately 18m from the proposed rear elevation and as such would not be affected by this proposal.
There is also a small self seeded tree to the south eastern corner of the site which is to be retained, I am of
the opinion that this tree is not worthy of the protection of a TPO.
I am happy that the design of the scheme is appropriate within the area and the provision of individual
garages and driveway space is sufficient with regard to the Council’s car parking standards. I have attached
a condition removal permitted development rights with regard to roof alterations to safe guard the future
privacy of the neighbouring residential properties to the rear.
Having considered all the issues raised by this proposal, I consider that this proposal would not have a
detrimental effect on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties and should be approved.
RECOMMENDATION
1.
That the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement for the sum of
£24,000 to improve existing recreational facilities within the local area and give authority for the
decision notice to be issued on completion of the agreement.
2.
In view of the objection from Sport England, this application should be deferred to the Secretary of
State for consideration.
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition C01X Landscaping
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
3. Standard Condition D02X Details of Materials
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
02/44643/FUL
APPLICANT:
Abbotsound Ltd
LOCATION:
The Widows Rest PH 433 Eccles New Road Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from public house to fourteen self contained flats and
office and ground floor and retention of railings and gates.
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant public house at the junction of Eccles New Road and Cemetery Road.
The building currently comprises lounge and bar areas at ground floor and residential lodgings at first floor.
The proposal is to convert the ground floor, first floor and attic of the property into fourteen one bedroom
self-contained studio flats. Access to the flats would be via a shared access to the front of the building. It is
the Applicant’s intention that the self-contained flats will initially be made available as supported housing
and as such, a small office is proposed at ground floor level to oversee the management of the development
and to provide 24 hour on site support staff cover. Each resident would be provided with a minimum 1 hour
support session on a weekly basis, to ensure that the resident’s needs are met and to promote independence.
The Applicant states that the proposal has the support and funding of “Supporting People”, a Government
led housing initiative.
There are no external alterations proposed to the elevations of the building. It is proposed to locate bin
stores in the yard area to the rear of the premises. Car parking for six cars and an area of private amenity
space has been identified in the existing parking area to the front of the premises. Access to the car park is
from Cemetery Road. Permission is also sought for the retention of 2.4 metre high railings and gates which
have been erected around the car park and amenity space.
The surrounding area is predominantly residential. To the rear of the premises, separated by a narrow,
gated, rear alley are terraced properties on Smyrna Street. To the east of the site is an area of open space.
SITE HISTORY
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
02/44265/COU - Change of use of public house to six residential units. Application Withdrawn.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – The proposed development is located in very close proximity to the
busy Eccles New Road and noise from passing traffic is most likely to cause a loss of amenity should
mitigation measures not be implemented. A noise assessment and mitigation measures condition is
therefore recommended.
Environment Agency – No objection in principle.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Fully support the planning application.
Recommendations regarding automatic/ lockable gates, video controlled pedestrian gates, alarmed fire
exits and lighting to rear. Letter to be forwarded to Applicant for information.
Greater Manchester Police Crime Reduction Office – Has concerns regarding the proposal. Tension is
already extremely high in the local vicinity, with tenants against the proposals concerning the change of use
of the building. This has resulted in a backlash by local youths with numerous incidents occurring. In the
past 3 months there have been 9 incidents which include a vehicle being rammed into the premises and
torched, resulting in a serious arson attack. Men working on the renovations have also been subject to
attacks. A number of questions are posed - How would ‘acceptable behaviour’ be assessed and monitored?
Will these measures be sensitive to the community’s needs and be properly evaluated? In relation to the
implementation of these controls, will full co-operation with the Police be actively encouraged by the
management?
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 5th September 2002
A site notice was displayed on 27th August 2002
The following neighbours were notified:
3 – 7 (odds) Cemetery Road
8 – 32 (evens), 84 Cumbrae Gardens
1 – 6 Nelson Street
2 – 32 (evens) Smyrna Street
121 – 143 (odds) Stowell Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations or letters of objections to date in response to the application publicity.
Members should be aware that a 222 name petition was received in respect of the previous planning
application which was withdrawn, but no further petition or letters have been received to date.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV4 – Design and Crime
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 location and nature of the proposed development and
the amount, design and layout of car parking provision. DEV4 states that regard will be had to the position
and height of fencing and gates and the provision of security features. UDP policy T13 states that the City
Council will ensure that adequate parking and appropriate car parking and servicing provision is made
where necessary. The City Council’s car parking standards (1.25 spaces per dwelling) would require a
minimum of 21car parking spaces to be provided at the site.
Firstly, with regards to the principal of the proposal, I consider that the change of use to self-contained flats
is an appropriate use in this predominantly residential area. The application has been made for
‘self-contained flats’ and although an element of on-site support has been identified, I consider that the use
would fall within Class C3 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes Order) 1987. With regards to
the relationship to existing uses, the building is located approximately 6 metres from the rear of dwellings
on Smyrna Street. None of the dwellings on Smyrna Street have windows to the rear of their outrigger
extensions and no new windows will be inserted into the proposed development. Given the existing uses of
the property are as a public house at ground floor and residential/living accommodation at first floor and
bearing in mind the position of the windows, I do not consider that the residents of Smyrna Street would
suffer any further loss of privacy. The proposal will bring a vacant building back into use, which is currently
subject to vandalism attacks and will improve the general appearance of the site. I consider that the railings
and gates that have been erected are of a good standard of design and will secure the parking area.
With regards to car parking provision at the site, the parking identified is considerably below UDP
standards. I do have some concerns in relation to car parking, but I believe that the site is located in an
excellent position for access to public transport, being adjacent to the Metrolink line and main bus routes on
Eccles New Road. The Applicant has stated that none of the tenants would own their own vehicle and that at
any one time there would only be two members of staff at the property and as such only two spaces would
be required. The parking area that would be provided is approximately half the size as was associated with
the public house use, this is because an area of private amenity space is required. I consider that as one bed
studio flats, the properties are likely to be single person households only. For these reasons, I believe that
six parking spaces in this location would be acceptable, although below UDP standards.
The design of the development is fully supported by the Police Architectural Liaison Unit, however, the
Crime Reduction Officer has raised concerns regarding the nature of the development and the implications
for policing. I consider that although crime and disorder is a material planning consideration, there is not
sufficient evidence to indicate that planning permission should be refused on these grounds. Furthermore, I
do not consider that the occupancy of self-contained flats can be controlled by the planning process.
I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds and I consider that residential use would be in
keeping with the surrounding area.
RECOMMENDATION:
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. This permission shall relate to the submitted planning application as amended by fax from the Agent
dated 20th September 2002, showing the vehicular access gates set back a distance of 13.6 metres from
Eccles New Road.
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within 6 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. Standard Condition J04X Bin Stores
5. The Developer shall undertake an assessment to determine the external noise levels that the residents
will be subject to (daytime and night). The Developer shall detail what steps are to be taken to mitigate
the disturbance from the above. The assessment should have due regard to the Department of the
Environment Guidance PPG 24 - Planning and Noise. The assessment and mitigation measures shall
be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the
development. Any approved mitigation measures shall be implemented prior to occupation.
6. 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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
3. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
4. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Greater Manchester
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
Police Architectural Liaison Unit dated 11th September 2002.
2. The Development Services Directorate (Highways Section) should be consulted regarding the
construction of a footway crossing, the cost of which will be the responsibility of the developer.
APPLICATION No:
02/44657/OUT
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs R Howarth
LOCATION:
241 Mosley Common Road Boothstown Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for 8 self-contained flats and associated
car parking
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land currently occupied by a 2 storey house and adjoining granny flat at 241
Mosley Common Road. To the north of the site at 239 Mosley Common Road is a surgery. 241a Mosley
Common Road is a bungalow. The surrounding area is predominantly residential, comprising properties of
varying types and sizes.
The application is in outline, and approval is sought for siting and means of access at this stage. The
application proposes the demolition of the existing house and flat and the redevelopment of the site to
accommodate a part 2 storey, part 3 storey building comprising 8 flats, with associated parking.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
British Coal Authority – Advice provided
Environmental Health – No response to date
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
43 – 59 Border Brook Lane
1,2, 239, 241a, 243, 243a and Homelea Mosley Common Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues identified
are as follows:
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
The potential loss of privacy; and
The proposed development would not be in keeping with the surrounding area.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV1 - Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that due regard must be paid to a number of factors, including size and density, amount
and layout of car parking effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for neighbouring properties and impact on
existing trees.
The objector is concerned that the proposed development may overlook her garden, resulting in a loss of
privacy. She is also concerned that the proposal is not in keeping with the character of the area.
I am of the opinion that there are two issues to consider with regard this application. The first is the
potential size and massing that a development would require to accommodate eight flats on this site. The
second issue would be the likely impact of a three storey building upon the adjacent bungalow.
The scheme has been proposed in a way as to minimise the potential privacy impact upon the neighbouring
bungalow by proposing a two storey element adjacent to the common boundary, similar to the existing
family dwelling. However, although the height of the scheme has been reduced to two storey along the
boundary of the neighbouring property I am of the opinion that the scheme as a whole would be an over
development of the site. I am also of the opinion that even a two storey development in the position shown
would result in a negative upon the front elevation of the neighbouring bungalow.
Within the rear garden is a horse chestnut tree which is the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. This
proposal would maintain approximately 30m to the proposed development and 18m to the car parking area,
therefore I am of the opinion that this scheme could be accommodated without detriment to the TPO’d tree.
Having regard to the above I am of the opinion that this scheme would have a detrimental impact upon the
neighbouring property and should be refused on the following grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development of eight flats would be an over development of the site by reason of its size
and massing which would have a detrimental impact on the character of the area and the neighbouring
properties contrary to policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
2. The proposed development would, by reason of its size and siting, have an unacceptable detrimental
effect upon the amenity of the occupiers of 241a Mosley Common Road due to the overbearing nature
of the development contrary to policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44658/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr M Dahan
LOCATION:
15 Welbeck Grove Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Retention of two steel posts to support sliding succah roof at the rear.
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property and is for the retention of two steel posts to support a
sliding succah roof at the rear.
The two steel posts are located 2.4m out from the playroom/succah extension which in itself projects 2.74m
along the adjoining boundary. Joining the steel posts to the succah extension are two steel tracks.
SITE HISTORY
In 2000, planning permission was approved for the erection of a first floor rear extension above the kitchen
to provide a bedroom, and a single storey rear extension to provide a succah/playroom (00/41747/HH).
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
13 Welbeck Grove
1 Norman Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 1letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments having
been made:
Visual monstrosity
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV8 – House extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that planning permission will only be granted where there would be no unacceptably
adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and where an extension would not have
an unacceptably adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, by reason of its siting, height, massing,
design and appearance.
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
Although the two steel posts are erected a total distance of 5.14m along the adjoining boundary, their
impact is minimal. Giving consideration to the applicant’s religious beliefs, and to the fact that the sliding
roof will only be used for a few days a year, I am of the opinion that the steel posts should remain.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The volume contained by the steel posts, steel track and succah extension shall not be enclosed by any
means (other than by the sliding roof) at any time in the future without the prior consent of the Local
Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
APPLICATION No:
02/44686/FUL
APPLICANT:
Orange PCS
LOCATION:
Land At Leonard Bailey Mode Wheel Road Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Installation of 20m telecommunications mast with six polar antennae
and four 600mm dishes together with equipment cabin and associated
equipment (Re-submission of planning application 02/44273/FUL)
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an industrial site fronting Mode Wheel Road. The proposal is to erect a 20 metre
high telecommunication column to support six dual polar antenna and four 600mm diameter dishes. Ten
equipment cabinets would be located at ground level. The site would be enclosed by 3 metre high palisade
fencing. There is a steel container located at the site, this would be removed as part of the proposal.
The Applicant has submitted a certificate indicating that the proposed equipment and installation would be
ICNIRP compliant. Two alternative sites and a site share have been considered, but have been discounted.
The site is located within an industrial area. The site compound is 26 metres from Weaste Cemetery and
approximately 120 metres from All Souls Primary School.
SITE HISTORY
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
02/44273/FUL - Installation of 20m telecommunications mast with six polar antennae and four 600mm
dishes together with equipment cabin and associated equipment. Refused 15.07.02, for the following
reasons: 1) The proposal by virtue of its siting and its height, size and design would have a significant
detrimental effect upon the amenity of Weaste Cemetery. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies SC14
and EN12 of the Adopted City of Salford University Development Plan; 2) The applicant has failed to
demonstrate, by virtue of the insensitive siting, that a full site search was conducted in accordance with
guidance contained within PPG8 and Policy SC14. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy SC14 of the
Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 12.09.02
A site notice was displayed on 12.09.02
The following neighbours were notified:
All Souls Primary School, Kintyre Avenue
Pickering Plant Hire, Mode Wheel Road
Mancunian Glass, Daniel Adamson Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received five letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
health and safety concerns
while the slightest doubt remains due to inconclusive research into the health and safety of mobile
phone masts, this mast should not be installed within the vicinity of the school as it may affect the future
health of the children
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none.
Other policies: SC14 - Telecommunications
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy SC14 states that the City Council will normally grant planning
permission for telecommunications development where such development would not have an unacceptable
impact on visual amenity. The City Council will also take into account whether there are any satisfactory
alternative sites for telecommunications development available and whether there is any reasonable
possibility of sharing existing telecommunication facilities. Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 (PPG8) –
Telecommunications, sets out national policy in relation to telecommunication development. The
Government's policy is to facilitate the growth of new and existing telecommunications systems whilst
keeping the environmental impact to a minimum. The Government also has responsibility for protecting
public health. The Stewart Report (2000) recommended that the Government adopt ICNIRP (International
Commission on Non-Iodising Radiation Protection) guidelines to limit public exposure from
telecommunication developments.
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
With regards to the objections raised, the main issue relates to the health and safety implications of the
proposed development, in particular in relation to All Souls Primary School. The Applicant has submitted
information indicating that the proposed development would be below the ICNIRP guidelines, as
recommended by the Stewart Report. As such I am satisfied that the proposed development would be in
accordance with the precautionary approach adopted by the Government. Furthermore, the school is located
at a distance of approximately 120 metres and does not directly face the site.
The applicant has provided evidence that other sites and site sharing has been investigated. I am satisfied
that there is a need for this development and that alternatives have been investigated. Planning permission
was recently refused (02/44273/FUL) for an identical telecommunications development, set back 30 metres
to the east. Planning permission was refused because of the impact on the amenity of Weaste Cemetery
(reasons for refusal detailed above). I do not consider that the siting of this development would be
detrimental to Weaste Cemetery, given that it would be set 30 metres from the cemetery wall. The site is
located within an industrial area and I am satisfied that the design of the structure would not impinge on the
visual amenity of the area. I have no objections on highway grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The telecommunications development and 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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/44700/HH
APPLICANT:
J Bolton
LOCATION:
3 Argyle Street Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey side/rear extension
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
This application relates to a semi-detached property. The proposal is to erect a single storey extension to
replace the existing single brick kitchen outrigger to the rear of the house, together with a single storey side
extension.
CONSULTATION
British Coal – no objection
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
1, 5, 6 & 8 Arglye Street
2 & 4 Westbrook Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a letter of objection in response to the application publicity. They object on the following
grounds
Loss of light
Overbearing nature
Loss of privacy
Loss of value to their property
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – house extensions, SPG – House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that permission would only be granted for an extension where the City Council can be
satisfied that the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring
residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light.
The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for house extensions would seek to maintain a minimum
of 9m separation between a principal window and a single storey blank gable wall. In this situation the
neighbours at no. 1 have their dining room window facing sideways across towards the application
property. The distance between the two houses is currently less than 9m, but if permission is granted then
there would be less than 4m between the neighbours window and the new blank gable.
Therefore I would consider that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the occupiers of this property,
in terms of loss of light and in having an overbearing appearance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
1. The proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of a
loss of light and overbearing character, contrary to the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
Policy DEV8 and the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions.
APPLICATION No:
02/44728/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs R Burke
LOCATION:
37 Parksway Pendlebury Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of part single and part two storey side and rear extension
(re-submission of planning application 02/44247/HH)
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached property on a corner plot. The proposal is to erect a two storey side
extension to provide a garage and utility room with a bedroom above. To the rear of this extension would a
single storey extension running the full length of the garden to provide a games room for the house. This
would be 11.2m in length, and an overall height of 3.3m to the ridge of the hipped roof. It would be located
on the side of the adjoining property, rather than on the side nearer to Westwood Drive.
SITE HISTORY
In July 2002, planning permission was refused for a two storey side extension and single storey rear
extension behind the side extension but larger than the current scheme. It was refused because of the
overbearing effect on the neighbouring residents and because of a potential terracing effect.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
35, 37, 54 & 56 Parksway
18 & 20 Danesway
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received an objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments having been
made:
1. the two storey extension would give a terraced appearance to the property
2. the extension right up to the rear boundary would be a dominant feature that would be visually
intrusive
3. the neighbour has experienced problems of noise and disturbance from this property in the
past, particularly from parties. She believes that the proposed games room could encourage
more visitors which could in turn create more problems of disturbance.
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
In relation to the two storey element, the applicant has stepped the front part back 2m from the front main
wall of the house, to prevent a possible terracing effect. Therefore this part of the proposed extension
complies with the Council’s SPG and I would not consider that it would have any detrimental effect on any
of the neighbouring residents.
I have also considered the proposed single storey extension and the possible effect on neighbouring
properties. I am mindful that the objector is concerned that the use as a games room would attract more
friends round which would lead to an increase in noise and disturbance. However, I would consider that the
proposal is for a domestic extension and concerns about noisy behaviour would not be a planning matter.
The extension would run the full length of the garden but its impact on the adjoining property at 39
Parksway would be somewhat limited, because there is an existing 2m high fence and the neighbour has an
existing garage which provides screening for the proposed extension. As the neighbour has a kitchen
window nearest to the boundary, I would consider that the possible impact on his nearest habitable room
would be reduced. I am aware that the garage would be up to the rear boundary with the houses behind but
there is an existing boundary fence and both properties have their own garage or shed which are situated in
their rear gardens, which would reduce the impact. There would also be more than 9m from the proposed
garage to any habitable windows in the neighbouring properties so that the proposal would comply with the
Council’s SPG for house extensions. Although I am aware that this would be a large extension, it does
comply with Council policy and therefore I would not consider that the objections would justify refusing
the proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44735/FUL
APPLICANT:
Mr Sinitsky
LOCATION:
39 Leicester Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey extension to the rear of existing shop
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing retail unit within the Leicester Road Key Local Centre and seeks the
erection of a single storey rear extension
This proposal would fill the remaining area of rear yard. Beyond the rear boundary is a access way with
residential properties beyond that.
SITE HISTORY
In February 1991, planning permission was granted for a part single storey, part two storey extension at
37/39 Leicester Road.(ref. E/27683).
In November 1991, planning permission was granted for a full two storey rear extension across the whole of
37/39 Leicester Road. (ref. E/28850).
In March 1995, planning permission was refused for a single storey rear extension, on the grounds that it
would be detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring residents as well as on highway safety grounds on a
busy road junction that already suffers congestion.(ref. 94/32938/FUL). This application was dismissed on
appeal.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
37 & 41 Leicester Road
4 – 8 (even) Cleveleys Grove
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 2 letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Increase in commercial activity
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
General size and siting
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account
when determining applications, including the visual appearance of the development and its relationship to
its surroundings.
I consider that the circumstances surrounding this application have not changed from the previous planning
refusal. Therefore, I am still of the opinion that the property has been extended to its maximum already, and
that any further development would lead to an unacceptable intensification of the business use of the site
which would seriously harm the amenity of the residents of Cleveleys Grove. I recommend therefore that
the application be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed extension by reason of its size and siting would detract from the amenity of occupiers of
neighbouring houses contrary to DEV3 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
2. The proposed development would not provide any off street car parking or servicing provision within
the curtilage of the site contrary to T13 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
3. As the proposed development would not provide any off street car parking or servicing provision within
the curtilage, there would be an increase in the concentration of vehicles close to a busy road junction
in an area with existing traffic congestion problems, to the detriment of highway safety and contrary to
T2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
APPLICATION No:
02/44739/COU
APPLICANT:
Risebrook Properties Ltd
LOCATION:
724 Bolton Road Pendlebury
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from Class A1 (shops) to Class A3 (food and drink)
WARD:
Swinton North
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a two storey vacant property within a terrace of shops, on Bolton Road. The
property adjoins a newsagent and a vacant unit, and is in a mixed retail/residential area.
The proposal is to change the use of the property from retail (Class A1) to the sale of hot food (Class A3).
The proposed hours of opening are between 11.00am and 11.30pm from Monday through to Saturday, with
closing at 10.30pm on Sunday.
SITE HISTORY
In 1998, planning permission was refused for a change of use to A3 (98/38343/COU) and was subsequently
dismissed on appeal.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
726 – 734 and 714 – 722 (even) Bolton Road
16 – 30 (even) Grosvenor Street
1 – 7 (odd) Worsley Street
1 – 8 (inclusive) Ramsden Fold
719 – 721 (odd) Bolton Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two objections in response to the application publicity. The following comments having
been made:
Potential trouble generated
Nuisance late at night
Hours of opening
Vandalism
Competition
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
Local Importance
S3 Key Local Centres
S5 – Control of Food and Drink Premises, T2 Network of Major Roads of More
PLANNING APPRAISAL
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
Policy S3 seeks to retain, consolidate and improve Salford’s key local centres. Changes of use to A3 will
normally be permitted unless there would be an unacceptable effect on the amenity, environment, vitality or
viability of the key local centre either individually or by the cumulative effect of such a development.
Policy S5 states that the City of Salford will only permit proposals for hot food take aways where the use
would not have an unacceptably adverse impact of the amenities of neighbouring residential occupiers by
reason of noise, disturbance, smells, fumes litter, vehicular traffic movements, parking or pedestrian traffic
and where the use would not be significantly prejudicial to the safety of pedestrians and road users with
respect to car parking, servicing, or the effect on the free flow of traffic (particularly on private roads).
Policy T2 indicates that “proposals likely to have a materially harmful impact on the networks ability to
accommodate appropriate traffic flows will only be permitted if they include measures effectively dealing
with that impact.”
The shop unit is currently vacant, the proposal may have some benefit to the Key Local Centre in terms of
its effect on vitality, an environmental quality. The premises do not appear to immediately adjoin any
residential accommodation, although there is housing to the rear, on Grosvenor Street, and flats on the
opposite side of Bolton Road. Proximity of residential uses may therefore give rise to some concerns over
the potential impact of the development on residential amenity.
The objections received identified general nuisance issues and the proposed hours of opening. Nuisance
caused by smells can often prove to have a significant detrimental effect on premises close to A3 uses.
However, an adequate fume extraction could minimise smells to a point where there is no significant
detrimental effect on amenity. Competition between traders is not a material planning consideration.
However, I consider that the main planning issues to consider are whether the proposal would result in an
unacceptable loss of amenity to neighbouring residents and whether the imposition of conditions would be
sufficient to control the proposed use and its effect. Consideration must also be given to whether any
significant material change in circumstances has taken place in the time elapsed since the previous refusal.
There are no residential properties directly adjacent to the application premises. However, there is
residential accommodation over a number of premises on Bolton Road and to the rear of the premises and to
the front on the opposite side of the road. I consider that the proposal would have a cumulative adverse
impact on residential amenity by creating additional noise and general disturbance. Parking restrictions
along Bolton Road could lead to car parking in one or other of the adjacent residential side street, where the
movements of cars and the shutting of car doors would themselves be likely to disturb those residents.
The applicant has indicated that the hours of opening would be reduced from those on the previous
application. The hours of opening in this instance would be between 11.00am and 11.30pm from Monday
through to Saturday, with closing at 10.30pm on Sunday. Although the proposed hours have been reduced
by half an hour at closing time, I am of the opinion that this proposal would still attract custom from the
nearby public houses around closing time.
Having considered all the issues raised by this proposal, I still consider that the proposed take away would
have an unacceptable effect on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties by reason of noise and
general disturbance.
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed change of use would seriously injure the amenity of
neighbouring residents by reason of noise and disturbance and would
therefore be contrary to the City Council's policy for the control
of food and drink premises as contained in policy S5 of the Unitary
Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/44741/COU
APPLICANT:
The O'Connor Munro Group
LOCATION:
9 Scovell Street Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from single dwelling to house in multiple occupation
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a large end terraced property situated at the junction of Scovell Street and
Wellington Street West. The area is residential in nature. Opposite on Wellinton Street West is a large
church. The site lies within the Broughton renewal area.
It is proposed to convert the property to a house in multiple occupation with 9 bedrooms.
In spite of the applicant stating that no trees would be felled, all the trees within the site, including mature
trees that contributed to the street scene, significantly have been felled.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:33 to 45 Douglas Street
39 to 49 and 50 Wellington Street West
4 to 7 (incl) Scovell Street
39 Kipling Street
REPRESENTATIONS
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
I have received four representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Too many similar use in the area
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H5 Dwellings Sub-Divided into Self-Contained Flats or in Multiple Occupancy
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy H5 states that the City Council will only permit proposals for the provision of dwellings in multiple
occupancy where a number of criteria can be satisfied. These criteria include that the development makes
satisfactory provision for access, parking and servicing and that the proposal would not have an
unacceptably adverse effect on the amenity of neighbouring residents or on the character of the area by
reason of the cumulative effects of the concentration of such uses.
Although the property has been vacant for some time I am concerned that there are a significant number of
similar uses in the area. There is no space for parking of vehicles within the site. I agree with those local
residents who have responded to my notification and consider that the application would be contrary to
policy H5 of the UDP. I therefore recommend that permission be refused on the following grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. Satisfactory provision has not been made within the curtilage of the site for car parking and servicing
requirements for the residents of the development and as such the proposal would be contrary to Policy
H5 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
2. The proposal would by reason of the cumulative effect of the concentration of such uses in the area
have an adverse effect on the amenity of neighbouring residents and on the character of the area
generally and as such would be contrary to Policy H5 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/44743/FUL
APPLICANT:
R Sussman
LOCATION:
37 Leicester Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey rear extension
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
17th October 2002
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing commercial property within the Leicester Road Key Local Centre and
seeks the erection of a single storey rear extension. The application should be seen in conjunction with
application 02/44735/FUL for a single storey rear extension at the adjoining no. 39, which appears
elsewhere on this agenda.
SITE HISTORY
In February 1991, planning permission was granted for a part single storey, part two storey extension at
37/39 Leicester Road.(ref. E/27683).
In November 1991, planning permission was granted for a full two storey rear extension across the whole of
37/39 Leicester Road. (ref. E/28850).
In March 1995, planning permission was refused for a single storey rear extension, on the grounds that it
would be detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring residents as well as on highway safety grounds on a
busy road junction that already suffers congestion.(ref. 94/32938/FUL). This application was dismissed on
appeal.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
35, 39, 78,80,82 Leicester Road
2-16 (even) Cleveleys Grove
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 2 letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Increase in commercial activity
General size and siting
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account
when determining applications, including the visual appearance of the development and its relationship to
its surroundings.
I consider that the circumstances surrounding this application have not changed from the previous planning
refusal. Therefore, I am still of the opinion that the property has been extended to its maximum already, and
that any further development would lead to an unacceptable intensification of the business use of the site
which would seriously harm the amenity of the reside
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed extension by reason of its size and siting would detract from the amenity of occupiers of
neighbouring houses contrary to DEV3 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
2. The proposed development would increase the concentration of vehicles close to a busy road junction
in an area with existing traffic congestion problems, to the detriment of highway safety and contrary to
DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
APPLICATION No:
02/44757/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Mullally
LOCATION:
15 Crawford Avenue Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of first floor rear extension
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached house. The proposal is to erect a first floor rear extension over
the existing kitchen in order to provide an additional bedroom. The plans have been modified since the
previous refusal by relocating the proposed window onto the side wall.
SITE HISTORY
In June 2002, planning permission was refused for a first floor extension of an identical size because of the
proximity to properties at the rear and concerns about overlooking.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
11 and 17 Crawford Avenue.
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
21 and 22 Wesley Drive.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection from the adjacent property who is concerned that the proposed
window will now overlook their property.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV 8 House Extensions
SPG House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The extension would be within 19 metres of the bungalow to the rear and hence it was unacceptable to have
a rear facing window. The alternative however creates a different problem in that the proposed siting on the
side elevation now overlooks the property to the side.
The SPG for house extensions is clear (Policy HH2) in that extensions that introduce windows close to and
directly overlooking the gardens of neighbouring properties, are not acceptable.
The proposed first floor window would be sited 2.75 metres from the common boundary with the neighbour
overlooking the rear of the neighbour’s property and the rear garden.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of the adjoining residents at 11
Crawford Avenue by reason of loss of privacy and overlooking, contrary to Policy DEV 8 of the Unitary
Development Plan and the the Supplementary Guidance for House Extensions.
APPLICATION No:
02/44760/HH
APPLICANT:
Keith Heywood
LOCATION:
61 Sunningdale Drive Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Erection of conservatory at the rear of the property
WARD:
Claremont
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
This application relates to a semi-detached property in a residential area to the rear of the property is a
playing field.
The proposal would project 2.4m X 5.9m with a total height of 3m with a sloping roof.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:59 and 63 Sunningdale Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection from the occupiers of the adjoining semi in response to the
application publicity. The following issues have been raised:Loss of Light
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions
HH9 – 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.
Policy HH9 states that planning permission will not normally be granted for single storey extensions to
semi detached dwellings located along the common boundary that exceed 2.74m.
Both No.61 and 63 have had two-storey rear extension in the past, the proposal would project 2.4m past the
rear elevation of the No.63, the proposal meets with the Supplementary Planning Guidance I therefore
would not consider the proposal to significantly affect the light to the neighbouring property.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The windows on the elevation facing No.63 of the conservatory hereby approved shall be installed and
maintained with obscure glazing to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
APPLICATION No:
02/44778/FUL
APPLICANT:
Miss K Pheasant
LOCATION:
Sides Medical Centre Moorside Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Alterations to entrance to first floor fitness centre
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The proposal is to make alterations to the existing south-facing entrance to the first floor fitness centre. The
proposal includes:
1. The erection of a 4m long, 2.2m high wall to replace a section of an existing fence;
2. The erection of a canopy 3m long, projecting 1m from the south-facing building wall.
To the south of the site there are a number of terraced flats, and to the west are a number of semi-detached
properties. There are a series of mature trees to the west of the site alongside Moorside Road.
SITE HISTORY
In 1998, planning permission was approved for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a
two storey 10 bedroom children's reception unit, health centre, ancillary offices and pharmacy together with
landscaping, car parking and alteration to the existing vehicular access (98/37586/FUL & 98/37586/FUL).
In 2000, planning permission was approved for the display of an internally illuminated projecting sign and
non-illuminated fascia signs to the pharmacy (00/40340/ADV).
In 2002, planning permission was approved for a change of use of part of the first floor of the Sides Medical
Centre to a ladies only fitness/slimming centre (02/44217/COU).
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
1 to 13 Moorfield close (odd)
19 to 27 Moorside Road (odd)
Moorfield Cottage
Moorfield House, 2 Moorside road
The Stables, 8 Moorside Road
Sides Medical Centre
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Too many visitors to the site
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The principle of the first floor being used as a ladies only fitness/slimming centre was established by the
above mentioned planning permission.
The application is for alterations to the existing entrance by the construction of a canopy and side wall. The
number of people attracted to the centre will not be significantly influenced by the proposal. Furthermore,
the entrance to the fitness/slimming centre is approx. 25m from any residential properties and so I do not
envisage any significant impact on local residents from visitors to the centre.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the wall and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
02/44790/DEMCON
APPLICANT:
Housing Services Directorate
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
LOCATION:
128/134 Highfield Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Prior notification of the demolition of terrace block of four dwellings
WARD:
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the demolition of four terraced dwellings within the Seedley and Langworthy
Regeneration area. The properties are under the control of the Housing Services Directorate. The proposal
is to completely remove the dwellings down to ground level and consolidate the cellar space. All demolition
would be supervised by the Director of Development Services (Building Control Section), to accord with
Health and Safety requirements. Subsequent site treatment will be the subject of a separate planning
application.
The proposal has been submitted as part of the SRB5 Seedley and Langworthy Initiative. The surrounding
area is predominantly residential. Many of the properties in the vicinity are vacant and boarded up.
The following neighbours were notified:
120 – 126 (e), 135, 152 Highfield Road
61 – 77 Alder Street
4 Wall Street
92 Fitzwarren Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
dwellings on Alder Street would overlook derelict land and vandals would be able to throw stones
at windows
land would be used as a dog’s toilet and for dumping
the properties should be left up until the residents on Alder Street have their home swaps and pull
both streets down together
the houses due for demolition are approximately 40 years old and would cost less to renovate than
those being renovated now.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H7/2 – Housing Area Improvement and Renewal – Private Sector
Other policies: H3 – Maintaining and Improving Private Sector Housing
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy H3 states that the City Council will seek to maintain and improve older
private sector housing and its environment by promoting a number of measures including the selective
clearance of housing not capable of improvement. Policy H7/2 states that the City Council will promote the
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
improvement of the Langworthy/Seedley area which has been identified as suffering from a variety of
physical, environmental and social problems.
The Department of Environment Circular 10/95 ‘ Planning Controls over Demolition’ provides guidance on
controls over the demolition of buildings. The prior approval of the local planning authority is required for
certain types of demolition. In such cases, a developer must apply to the local planning authority for a
determination of whether their prior approval will be required to the proposed method of demolition and
any proposed restoration of the site.
The objections raised relate to the visual appearance of the site following demolition and the phasing of the
regeneration proposals and the overall programme of demolition. The site aftercare would comprise
grassing of the site and the positioning of a knee-rail around its perimeter, as such, I am satisfied that the
appearance of the site following demolition would not be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area. The
properties have been identified for demolition as part of ‘Stage 2’ of the regeneration programme in the
Seedley and Langworthy area. They have been selected for imminent demolition as each of the properties is
empty. With regards to residents’ concerns in relation to potential vandalism, it is the Applicant’s intention
to discuss such matters with the Greater Manchester Police Crime Prevention Officer.
The properties are in a poor state of repair and I am satisfied that their demolition is in accordance with
Unitary Development plan policies H3 and H7/2.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be levelled, grassed and surrounded by a knee rail fence within four months of the
commencement of development.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/44796/ADV
APPLICANT:
Miss K Pheasant
LOCATION:
Sides Medical Centre Moorside Road Swinton
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
PROPOSAL:
Display of one externally illuminated wall sign, two non-illuminated
wall signs and one flag pole
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The proposal is to display:i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
one externally illuminated wall sign (1.2m x 1.7m) on the gable elevation facing Moorside Road
an individual raised letters sign (unilluminated) covering a large area of the south elevation
(approx. 1.5m x 7.5m)
one flag pole next to the Moorside Road access.
One non-illuminated wall sign (1.2m x 1.7m) facing Moorside Road To be located on a new wall at
the entrance to the facility.
Adjacent to the site on Moorside Road is the Grade II listed Moorfield Cottage building. To the south of
the site there are a number of terraced flats, and to the west are a number of semi-detached properties.
There are a series of mature trees to the west of the site alongside Moorside Road.
SITE HISTORY
In 1998, planning permission was approved for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a
two storey 10 bedroom children's reception unit, health centre, ancillary offices and pharmacy together with
landscaping, car parking and alteration to the existing vehicular access (98/37586/FUL & 98/37586/FUL).
In 2000, planning permission was approved for the display of an internally illuminated projecting sign and
non-illuminated fascia signs to the pharmacy (00/40340/ADV).
In 2002, planning permission was approved for a change of use of part of the first floor of the Sides Medical
Centre to a ladies only fitness/slimming centre (02/44217/COU).
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
1 to 13 Moorfield close (odd)
19 to 27 Moorside Road (odd)
Moorfield Cottage
Moorfield House, 2 Moorside road
Sides Medical Centre
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received seven letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
Unnecessary and detrimental to the character of the area
Disturbing visual impact on the residents of the area
Flagpole will attract vandals and will create noise pollution on breezy days
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
Disturbances during development period
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The principle of the first floor being used as a ladies only fitness/slimming centre was established by the
above mentioned planning permission. PPG 19 requires that advertisements, including their cumulative
effect, fit in with the character of the neighbourhood where they are displayed.
The main concern of local residents is that the proposed adverts being unnecessary and detrimental to the
character of the area.
Only one of the four proposed adverts would be illuminated (on the gable elevation facing Moorside
Road), and the distance to the residential properties that it faces is approx. 38m. The means of illumination
is by an external over head fluorescent fitting shining down onto the sign. I would therefore consider that its
visual impact on the local residents would not be significant. Furthermore, it would be set back 20m from
the highway and so I envisage no significant impact with regard to highway safety.
The non-illuminated sign on the west elevation and the non-illuminated raised letters sign on the south
elevation would both be displayed within the mixed-use site, and would be 25m from any residential
properties. I envisage, therefore, that these adverts would have no significant impact on residents adjacent
to the site. The proposed flagpole would not interfere with any trees on the site and I am under the opinion
it is acceptable.
I feel that the attraction of the flagpole from vandals and the creation of noise pollution on breezy days are
negligible.
The proposed advertisements are suitably located within the Sides Medical Centre site, and are a significant
distance from any residential properties. Furthermore, only one of the proposed adverts would be
illuminated, and so I feel that they are in character with the mixed-use site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition K01S Standard Advertisement Condition
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R034 Advert
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44831/FUL
APPLICANT:
Clifton Initiative
LOCATION:
Land Off Whitehead Road Clifton Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Construction of skateboard facility including equipment, site furniture,
surfacing, fencing and landscaping (re-submission of planning
application 02/44617/FUL)
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land off Whitehead Road, Clifton known as Silverdale and is a large area of
informal open space, grassed areas, trees and walkways.
Silverdale links The Green in the north and expands south into the Slack Brook Valley. The east of the area
is bounded by the residential properties on Whitehead Road, Silverdale school and the Youth Centre bound
the western side. This proposal would be located along the western boundary adjacent to the playing fields
of Silverdale school.
It would cover an area of 25m by 11m and would provide various equipment such as jumps, ramps, ‘grind
rails’ and seating provision. It would utilise materials from the existing former roller hockey pitch. The
perimeter of the proposal would maintain a minimum distance of 44m to the rear boundaries of the
residential properties on Whitehead Road.
SITE HISTORY
Earlier this year planning permission was sought but subsequently withdrawn to convert the nearby former
roller hockey pitch to form a skate board facility (02/44617/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – not yet received
PUBLICITY
Two site notices were displayed on 30th September 2002.
The following neighbours were notified :
Silverdale School
57 – 63 (odd), 25 – 55 (odd) Whitehead Road
55A, 55B, 30 – 66 (even) Whitehead Road
Youth Centre, The Green
1 – 9 (odd), 2 – 10 (even) Dewes Avenue
17 – 35 (odd) Ridgeway
REPRESENTATIONS
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
I will report any representations at your meeting.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
R11/3 – Provision of Country Parks: Slack Brook Valley, EN17/23 – Croal Irwell
Valley and EN5 - Nature Conservation
DEV1 – Design Criteria, R2 – Provision of Formal Recreational Facilities, R10 –
Private Recreation Facilities
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan Policy R11/3 Provision of Country Parks: Slack Brook Valley lends general
support to the proposal through its emphasis on the potential for development of the area as a recreational
resource. En17/23 Croal Irwell Valley, can also be viewed as lending general support, stressing the
importance of improving the Valley as a recreation resource. EN5 (Nature Conservation) places emphasis
on the protection of wildlife corridors and habitates, and the resisting of development that would be likely to
impair the continuity of a wildlife corridor. It is considered that as a skate board facility and youth shelter
would largely replace an existing facility.
Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining
applications, including the visual appearance of the development and its relationship to its surroundings.
Policy R2 endeavours to ensure that all areas if the City are adequately provided with formal recreational
facilities. Policy R10 seeks to support the development and improvement of private sector facilities where
appropriate.
It is unlikely this proposal would generate additional traffic as it is envisaged that the scheme will be used
by the local youth and as such would visit the site by walking and public transport.
The reference to undesirables attracted to the site and general disturbance, I am of the opinion that the
scheme is now far enough away from local residents. The scheme has been amended from its previous local
to accommodate the concerns raised by local people and as such the proposal would now be some 44m from
the rear boundaries of the nearest residential properties. The costs of the scheme is not a material planning
consideration.
I consider that the main planning issue to consider is whether the proposal would result in an unacceptable
loss of amenity to neighbouring residents. The applicant identified this location for the proposal in view of
the objections received by local residents and environmental health in respect of the previous application.
The previous scheme was located some 20m from the nearest residential properties, this proposal would
increase this minimum distance to 44m to the curtilage of the nearest residential properties.
Having considered all the issues raised by this proposal, I consider that this proposal would not have an
unacceptable effect on the residential amenity and would provide a recreational resource on land allocated
for recreation in accordance with the Council’s own Unitary Development Plan. Therefore I would
recommend this proposal be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
57
17th October 2002
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44694/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Belvedere Nursery
LOCATION:
Belvedere Community Nursery Centre Belvedere Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Siting of a storage container
WARD:
Pendleton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing nursery within a predominantly residential area, although the site
stands next to Broadwalk Primary School. The proposal is to site a storage container within the grounds in
order to store play equipment. It would measure 6m long by 2.5m wide and be 2.5m high and would be
coloured green to match existing fencing around the area. It would be located to the rear of the nursery,
closer to the adjacent school and away from the site boundaries with perimeter roads.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 17 September 2002
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
Broadwalk Primary School, Belvadere Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV 1 – Development criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The container would be sited within the grounds, nearest to the boundary of Broadwalk Primary School and
away from the road boundaries. Therefore it would not be in a very prominent location within the site. Also
the school is now surrounded by palisade fencing that has been approved and this fencing would reduce the
visibility of the cabin somewhat. Consequently I do not consider that this storage container would have an
adverse effect on the appearance of the school or on the street scene. As it would be within the site, I also do
not consider that it would affect any of the surrounding residential properties.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The cabin hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior to the
commencement of the development by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/44712/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Housing Services Directorate
LOCATION:
Former Car Park Adjacent To 118 To 124 Riverside Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Change of use of land to temporary site compound together with the
erection of 2.2m high boundary fence
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a small car parking area and is for change of use of the land to provide a
temporary site compound. The compound would have a 2.2m high boundary fence and would be temporary
until September 2003.
The site is within a residential area and is immediately bounded by small pockets of grassed areas and the
River Irwell to the east.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified :
1 – 13 (odd) Meadow Road
82 – 92 & 118 – 124 (even) Riverside
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
N/A
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
Other policies:
17th October 2002
DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states regard must be had to a number of factors when determining
applications, including the layout and relationship of existing and proposed developments and the effect on
local and residential amenity.
The proposed compound would be provided on a small car park area and is immediately bounded by small
grassed areas. The roads surrounding the site have no parking restrictions.
I have received no highway objections to the application, and am satisfied that the use for a temporary
period may provide a short-term inconvenience, but will not injure local of residential amenity. I therefore
recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The compound hereby approved shall be removed by the end of September 2003,
unless a subsequent application is approved by the Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/44754/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Housing Services
LOCATION:
Site Of 1 - 4 St Bernards Close And Land Bounded By Gerald Road,
River Irwell, Holford Street And Seaford Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Temporary landscaping of former housing site (to be demolished)
WARD:
Pendleton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an area of back to back terrace property know locally as ‘Poets Corner’ and a
small area of land on St Bernards Close, Salford 6. The proposal would be landscaped for a temporary
period.
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
The housing is about to be demolished. The landscaped area would be bounded by the River Irwell, Gerald
Road, Seaford Road and residential properties on Carpricorn Way, Aquarius Lane and Pluto Close. Four
flats would also be demolished on St Bernards Close.
The landscaping would consist of grassed areas, wildflowers and trees. It would be bounded along Gerald
and Seaford Road with a knee rail. Railings would be provided at a height of 2m along the remaining
boundary section. The area would continue to be predominantly residential.
PUBLICITY
Four site notice was displayed on 18/9/2002
The following neighbours were notified :
1 – 15 (odd) Cairn Drive
2 – 14 (even) Collie Avenue
306 – 310 (even) Gerald Road
173 – 177 (odd) Gerald Road
13 – 15 (odd) St Bernards Avenue
5 – 8 (inc) St Bernards Avenue
175 Seaford Road
100 – 106 (even) Seaford Road
61 – 107 (odd) Seaford Road
1 – 12 (inc) Capricorn Way
5 – 7 (inc) Gemini Road
1 – 12 (inc) Aquarius Lane
1 – 19 (inc) Pluto Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two representations in response to the application publicity. The following comments
having been made:
General Support for landscaping
Potential Nuisance
Future development affect house prices
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
None
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The representations received are in support of the landscaping as it would improve the outlook of the area.
The issue of nuisance has been raised, however, I am of the opinion that the benefits of the area as open
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
17th October 2002
space out weight the potential nuisance. No proposals have been received to date as to the long term future
of this site. I must also point out that affect on house prices is not a material planning consideration.
Having considered all the issues raised by this proposal, I consider that this proposal would not have an
unacceptable effect on the amenity of the area. I have no highway objections, therefore I recommend that
this proposal be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the boundary treatments to be used have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
63
17th October 2002