PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44330/FUL
APPLICANT:
J Coffey
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent No 2 Sharp Street Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of detached house with integral garage including the creation
of new vehicular access
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a rectangular shaped plot, 0.4 hectare in size, situated to the south of number 2
Sharp Street. To the rear is the rear garden of 22 Firfield Grove. To the south of the site there is a ginnel
that runs along the back of the properties fronting Manchester Road. The site has a frontage of 15.6m
increasing to 21.4m at the rear boundary and has a depth of 24m.
The site is currently overgrown and vacant. There is a derelict garage at the rear and the site is subject to
occasional fly tipping. There have previously been three trees on the site which were protected by Tree
Preservation Order Worsley No.1 (1969). There are three other mature trees on the site situated towards the
back of the plot.
The proposal is for the erection of a single dwelling with a detached double garage. The front main wall of
the property would be 6m from the highway and level with the porch of the adjacent properties on Sharp
Street. The property would measure 12.5m and 8.2m deep and would be level with the rear main wall of the
adjacent properties on Sharp Street. The rear main wall would therefore be over 10m from the common
boundary with the adjacent house on Firfield Grove. A double garage would be situated close to the rear
common boundary on the site of an existing semi-derelict single garage.
The application has been amended since it was first submitted. The revisions moved the garage and
reduced the size of the property slightly. As a result of my concerns regarding tree planting the applicant
has agreed in writing to the planting that is referred to in condition 5 and the species and location and means
of protection necessary has been agreed by the City Council’s arboricultural officer.
SITE HISTORY
The site has a complicated but relevant history.
During the construction of the houses on the land to the north (now Firfield Grove), a planning application
was submitted for an amendment to the approved plans requesting an additional house attached to the gable
wall of 2 Sharp Street. This proposal was refused due to the close proximity and resulting prejudicial effect
the development would have upon the protected trees and a consequent loss of amenity (E/29326).
Following completion of the housing to the north an application was considered for the felling of two trees
and the pruning of three trees to the rear of 22 Firfield Grove (94/33204/TPO). The application was
approved subject to two beech trees being planted as replacements. These two trees have been planted.
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
In 1995 an outline application was refused for the erection of one pair of semi-detached houses on the site
(95/34397/FUL). This application was refused on the grounds that the proposed development would be
detrimental to the amenity of the area by virtue of the loss of a protected tree and its close proximity to and
prejudicial effect on the requirement for replacement planting in accordance with application reference
94/33204/TPO. The appeal was dismissed. In his report the Inspector stated that the tree was a prominent
feature in the street scene and formed part of a line of mature trees which acted as a visual break between the
properties of Manchester Road and the modern housing development to the north. He concluded, “the loss
of the tree, which has the potential for further growth, would seriously harm the character of the area which
has a densely developed and close knit form…The loss of the protected tree and the failure to retain an
adequate area of land for replacement tree planting would cause unacceptable harm to the street scene and
the character and appearance of the area.”
In April 1999 the sycamore tree referred to in the Inspector’s report was felled as it was in an unstable
condition as a result of a fire.
In January 2000 an application was refused for the erection of a two storey building comprising four flats.
This application was refused for the following reasons:The proposed development would be contrary to Policy EN7of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan as it would be detrimental to the amenity of the area by virtue of its prejudicial effect on the
requirements for replacement planting.
The proposal would result in an over-development of the site by virtue of its size and siting and would not
provide sufficient space about the proposed building to the detriment of the future residents.
The appeal was dismissed. The Inspector concluded that the proposal would be an over-development of the
site, which is not sufficiently large to accommodate the flats and replacement planting with suitable species
in locations that would restore the visual effect of the lost trees. In consequence the proposal would be
harmful to the street scene and the character and appearance of the area. The Inspector also concluded that
the development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of 22 Firfield Grove,
with particular reference to privacy and visual impact.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections but requests that a condition regarding site
investigation be attached.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of both the original application and the amended plans:2, 4 and 1 to 11 Sharp Street
222 to 234 Manchester Road
22 and 24 Firfield Grove
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The applicant has submitted
a copy of the petition in favour of the development of the site that had previously been submitted for the last
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
application on the site for the erection of four flats. In addition the neighbours on Sharp Street have written
saying that they would like something done with the land.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of matters when considering
applications. Such matters include the effect on neighbouring residents, the visual appearance of the
development and its relationship to its surroundings and the impact on trees.
I consider that the main issues are whether or not the proposal is sufficiently different to that previously
refused to warrant any different recommendation.
The previous application was for four flats and a building that was 9m from the common boundary with 22
Firfield Grove and measured 15.65m wide with a height of 7.5m to the ridge. The current proposal is sited
10.2m from the common boundary, is 12.5m wide and is 7m high. The previous proposal had living rooms
at first floor level facing the rear garden of 22 Firfield Grove, this proposal has two bedroom windows, a
landing window and a bathroom window at first floor.
The proposal also has kitchen and dining room windows at ground floor that face the ginnel. The rear of
properties on Manchester Road are 19m away and their ground floor windows are set behind 2m high
boundary walls. I consider that this is acceptable and that there would not be any loss of amenity as a result
of the two windows in the gable.
The site is overgrown and is not maintained. The closest neighbour has written saying that the site is used
for the dumping of rubbish and that they are concerned about its state.
With regard to the issue of the trees two replacement trees have been planted to replace the two that were
felled under application 94/33204/TPO. These trees are approximately two years old and are still saplings.
There has been no replacement of the tree that was removed as it was unstable. The City Council’s
arboricultural officer is satisfied that two heavy standard Silver Birch trees can be planted as replacements
for the two saplings on the site. I consider that these would have a more significant impact in the street
scene than the two saplings that have been planted.
I consider that the character of the area does not benefit from the site remaining in its present state and I am
of the opinion that a single dwelling would be appropriate. Replacement trees can be planted to the front
and side of the property. The applicant has reduced the size of the proposed building as a result of my
concerns, although this reduction is not particularly significant. I am satisfied that the current proposal is
sufficiently different from the four flats to warrant a different recommendation. I am satisfied with the
appearance of the development and I have no objections on highway grounds. I consider that there will not
be any significant detrimental effect on any neighbouring property as a result of this development and I am
of the opinion that on balance the character of the area will be enhanced by the new property and
appropriate new tree planting.
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
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 facing materials to be used for the walls and roof
of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
3. Prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall submit a site investigation report for
the approval of the local planning authority. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and
distribution of contamination and underground gases on the site and its implications on the risk to
human health and controlled water receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990,
Part IIA. The investigation shall also address the health and safety of the site workers, also nearby
persons, building structures and services, landscaping schemes, final users on the site and the
environmental pollution in ground water. The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the
local planning authority prior to the start of the survey, and recommendations and remedial works
contained within the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of site.
4. During the first available planting season following the removal of the two saplings in the centre of the
site hereby granted consent, they shall be replaced by "heavy standard" Silver Birch trees in accordance
with British Standard 3936:Part 1:1965 (Specification for Nursery Stock Part 1:Trees and Shrubs) and
shall have a clear stem height from the ground of 2.5m, a minimum overall height from the ground of
4.0m, a minimum circumference of stem at 1m from the ground of 12cm and the tree(s) shall be root
balled. The location of the replacement trees shall be agreed in writing by the Director of Development
Services prior to the removal of the trees. The replacement trees shall be protected by a root barrier
system that shall be submitted to and agreed in writing prior to the trees being planted.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
3. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/44340/FUL
APPLICANT:
Peel Investments (North) Limited
LOCATION:
Land To The West Cadishead Way Irlam
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
PROPOSAL:
Application for the development of land for residential purposes
without complying with condition 32 of planning permission
99/40056/FUL
WARD:
Irlam
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to approximately 25 hectares (64 acres) of land bounded by Cadishead Way to the
south, Fairhills Road and the existing Kwik Save store to the east, the Old River Course and existing
housing to the north and the newly developed housing on the former margarine works site to the north.
The site is made up of two parcels of land, separated by Ferry Road. The area to the south of Ferry Road
comprises approximately 15 hectares of elevated land, raised as a result of excavations for the construction
of the Ship Canal. There are steep slopes to the Old River Course, a Site of Biological Importance. The land
to the north of Ferry Road is made largely of the former Ferry Hill Tip.
Planning permission is sought for the implementation of planning permission 99/40056/FUL, the erection
of 350 dwellings, without complying with condition 32 of that permission. Condition 32 stated that
“Surface water run-off from the housing development must be directed to the Manchester Ship Canal and
not to the old river course”. Permission is sought therefore, to develop with the opportunity to have surface
water run-off to the old river course as well as the Manchester Ship Canal.
SITE HISTORY
In 1990, planning permission was granted in outline for the removal of fill material from the site between
Fairhills Road and Ferry Road, levelling and regrading of land and the development of the site for
residential purposes including the provision of landscaped open space adjacent to the Old River Course
(E/24685). This permission was renewed in 1994 (E/32641).
In 1999, planning permission was granted for the erection of 346 houses on the site and for the provision of
a recreational facility on land to the north of Ferry Road (97/36894/FUL).
In 2000, planning permission was granted for the erection of 350 dwellings (99/40056/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Manchester Ship Canal Company – No comment
Trafford MBC – No comment
Environment Agency – No objection, state the removal of condition has been agreed with applicant.
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – No objection subject to a monitoring condition of water quality.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by way of site notice on the 10th July 2002.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
The Irlam and Cadishead Community have resolved to object to the application.
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H9/44 Sites for New Housing, R12/15 Provision of Recreation Land and Facilities
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Both the principle and the detail of this development have already been approved by the City Council.
Condition 32 of permission 99/40056/FUL stated surface water run off must be directed to the Ship Canal
and not the Old River Course for the reason of safeguarding the Old River Course. This condition was
originally applied to the 1999 approval, 97/36894/FUL, and was recommended by the Environment
Agency.
The Greater Manchester Geological Unit have not objected to the application as long as water quality
within the Old River Course is monitored. The Irlam and Cadishead Community have resolved to object to
the application due to consequences to the Old Course of the Irwell.
The Environment Agency have also commented that interceptors would not be effective at reducing
potential discharges caused as a result of incorrect foul drainage corrections and that the Environment
Agency does not normally request the provision of interceptors on surface water drainage from residential
developments. The Environment Agency, the drainage authority for the Old Course, have commented that
they have no objections to the discharge of surface water to the Old Course.
Although objection has been raised by the Community Committee I consider that as the Environment
Agency are the statutory regulator with regards to the Old River Course of the Irwell, and as the
Environment Agency were the body who originally proposed the condition, I consider that the proposal
would be acceptable. The surface water run off into the Old River Course would not result in flooding and
the Environment Agency consider that pollution of the Old Course would not result, the Ecology Unit do
not object, and as such I do not object to the removal of condition 32 of 99/40056/FUL.
This permission will stand in its own right from 99/40056/FUL as such all other conditions will be transfer
over from the previous approval to this new permission as no other matters have changed from the previous
application. In addition the existing legal agreement under 99/40056/FUL will need to be transferred to this
permission.
RECOMMENDATION
1.
2.
3.
That the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to amend the Section 106 legal agreement
entered into under planning application 99/40056/FUL.
That the applicant be informed that the Council is minded to grant planning permission subject to
the conditions stated below on completion of such legal agreement.
That authority be given for the decision notice to be issued subject to the conditions stated below on
completion of the legal agreement.
Conditions:
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
2. This permission shall relate to the amended plans received on 29th February 2000 that show revised
access arrangements and to the Supporting Statement issue 2 dated 11th March 1998 on application
97/36894/FUL and to all details (other than the housing and road layout) shown on the Chris Blandford
Associates 1:1250 landscape masterplan 2008901 revision B.
3. No housing development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to
be used for the walls and roofs have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
4. The housing 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 the housing development is
started. Such a scheme shall include full details of the following:
_ trees and shrubs to be planted;
_ walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment;
_ the two play areas within the housing site including the equipment and its siting, surface materials and
boundary treatments.
These works shall be carried out within 18 months of the commencement of the housing development
and shall thereafter be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or
shrubs dying within 10 years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of
Development Services.
5. The public open space including the Old River Course shall be treated in accordance with a landscape
scheme which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services
within three months of the commencement of development. Such a scheme shall include full details of
the following:
_ trees, shrubs and grass and wild flower seed mixes to be planted;
_ walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment including all footpaths and the boardwalk;
_ siting and design of the fishing pegs, seating and litter bins;
_ siting and design of the bird boxes and amphibian hibernaculars;
_ the trim trail, its siting and any associated equipment;
_ the interpretive panel and seating around the trim trail;
_ measures restricting vehicle or motorbike access to all footpaths around the recreational areas.
A fence to mark the boundary between the open space and private gardens shall be erected within 6
months of commencement of development and the works along the Old River Course and the adjoining
land shall be carried out within 9 months of the commencement of development unless otherwise
agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services. All other works shall be carried out within
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
18 months of the commencement of any development and all works shall thereafter be maintained to
the satisfaction of the local planning authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within 10 years of planting
shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
6. No earth moving works shall commence until all trees to be retained have been surrounded by
substantial fences that shall extend to the extreme circumference of the spread of the branches of the
trees (or such positions as may be agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services). Such
fences shall be erected in accordance with a specification to be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Director of Development Services and shall remain until all development is completed and no work,
including any form of drainage or storage of materials, earth or topsoil shall take place within the
perimeter of such fencing.
7. An establishment, maintenance and management plan for all existing and proposed planting shall be
submitted, together with the landscape scheme for the area of open space, including the Old River
Course, and approved by the Director of Development Services, within three months of the
commencement of development. Future management of the public open space shall take place in
accordance with the approved plan.
8. The windows of all habitable rooms of all elevations of properties facing Cadishead Way, Kwiksave
and Barber Kingsland on the plots listed below shall be acoustically double glazed to the standards of
the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (as amended). An alternative would be to install sealed double
glazed units comprising glass 10mm and laminated 8.4mm with a 12mm air gap. The unit shall be
installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations to avoid air gaps when fitting the
frame. Alternative means of ventilation, which must be sound attenuated, should be provided. The
plots that shall be subject to works are 1, 183 - 195, 203 - 208, 230, 231, 241 - 269, 286 - 292, 310 - 313,
337 - 347, 350.
9. Works specified in the amphibian survey dated November 1998 and approved under application
97/36894/FUL shall be undertaken prior to the commencement of development of the site.
10. The landraising at the Ferry Road site shall be carried out in accordance with paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2
and with Appendix A of the Wardell Armstrong Slope Stability Assessment report dated October 1999
and approved under application 97/36894/FUL.
11. Further chemical sampling and testing shall be carried out for ground contamination on the housing site
at a depth level with the proposed ground surface, prior to the commencement of the housing
development as shown in drawing number FM9.5040.P1 on application 97/36894/FUL submitted by
Tom Freake Associates, to ensure coverage of the site on a roughly 25m grid spacing, in accordance
with the guidance given in DD175 Code of Practice 4 for Identification of Potentially Contaminated
Land and its Investigation. Results of these tests shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services as shall the details of any necessary remedial works, prior to the
commencement of development.
12. The landfill gas monitoring programme shall be carried out in accordance with the details approved
under application 97/36894/FUL.
13. The landfill gas regime within the Fairhills Road housing site shall be re-assessed by means of a
comprehensive and detailed gas investigation once site levels have been reduced to the proposed
ground level, and the results of this assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of the housing development. Any
remedial works contained within the approved report shall be implemented prior to the first occupation
of the development.
14. Any variation to the proposed location and dimensions of the temporary stockpiles of excavated fill and
soils, as shown on drawings 20 to 23/LE 5006/13A on application 97/36894/FUL, shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.
15. Wheel washing facilities and facilities for the sheeting of vehicles shall be provided on site for the
duraction of the earthworks contract and full road sweeping shall be undertaken during the period of
material import to and export from the site to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services
16. The existing pedestrian crossing access onto Cadishead Way at the end of Ferry Road shall be operated
in accordance with the method statement from Jim Ennis Construction Limited dated 12th May 2000
and approved under planning application 97/36894/FUL.
17. There shall be no access to the site or contractors facilities from Ferry Road.
18. Measures to minimise damage to planting along Cadishead Way shall be carried out in accordance with
the details approved under application 97/36894/FUL prior to the commencement of any housing
development and development of the site shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.
There shall be no building up of soil levels by these plants from soil slipping down the new slopes.
19. The housing shall be Secure by Design approved.
20. The leachate control system approved under application 97/36894/FUL shall be in place before any
works placing 'non-engineered fill' begins.
21. Details of the proposed foundation gas exclusion measures for the housing shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of construction. These
measures shall take into account the results of the landfill gas assessment of the site, referred to in
Condition 12 and shall be designed in accordance with the guidance given in the BRE report
"Construction of New Buildings on Gas Contaminated Land" that supplements approved document C
of the Building Regulations.
22. Prior to the commencement of landraising, long-term settlement stations shall be constructed adjacent
to the residential area and Cadishead Way in accordance with the details approved under application
97/36894/FUL. The results of the monitoring shall be submitted to the Director of Development
Services and monitoring shall not cease without his prior written approval.
23. Should any ground movement be detected outside the limits of the landfill, then landraising shall be
suspended whilst remedial action is taken, the details of which shall be submitted to and approved by
the Director of Development Services.
24. The best practical means of minimising noise and vibration from the site shall be employed at all times
and special consideration shall be employed at all times and special consideration shall be given to BS
5228:1984 Code of Practice for Noise Control on Constructiuon and Open Sites, especially:
_ noisy plant, vehicles or equipment shall be sited as far away as possible from noise sensitive
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
buildings;
_ the use of barriers, eg soil mounds, site huts, acoustic sheds and partitions to deflect noise away
from sensitive buildings shall be employed wherever possible;
_ plant, vehicles or equipment shall where possible be fitted with silencers, acoustic hoods or
covers which must be kept in good order and used at all times that the plant vehicles or equipment are in
use;
_ care must be taken when loading or unloading vehicles or moving materials etc. to reduce impact
noise;
_ access to the site shall be determined so as to ensure a minimum of disturbance to persons in noise
sensitive buildings from vehicles entering or leaving the site (noise sensitive buildings shall be deemed
any premises outside the site used as a dwelling, school, hospital, place of worship or for any other
purpose likely to be affected by site noise);
_ mobile dust suppression equipment shall be available and used on the site at all times;
_ all haulage roads shall be sprayed with water during dry periods as necessary to prevent nuisance
from windblown dust;
_ plant parking and servicing areas shall be located as shown on drwaing number 8/LE 5006/13A
on application 97/36894/FUL;
_ secondary access roads shall not run along the western boundary of the site where possible.
25. A temporary buffering arrangement of the Old River Course and Town's Gate Marsh SBIs to afford
additional protection when earthmoving is undertaken, in accordance with the details approved under
application 97/36894/FUL, shall be implemented prior to the commencement of development.
26. The hours of work on site shall be between 8am and 5.30pm Monday to Friday and from 9am to midday
on Saturdays. There shall be no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
27. A fence shall be erected along the boundary of the site to the rear of the properties on Harewood Road
during all construction works, details of which shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of
Development Services prior to the commencement of development.
28. All site preparation works shall be undertaken in accordance with the phases as outlined in the
Construction Impact Management Plan submitted by Wardell Armstrong as part of the Supporting
statement dated march 1998 on application 97/36894/FUL.
29. The site compound shall be constructed in accordance with the details approved under application
97/36894/FUL.
30. Hazard warning signs to alert people of the possibly hazarous nature of the site shall be positioned to
the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services for the duration of the earthworks.
31. In order that restoration of the landfill fulfills the relevant objectives set down in Schedule 4 of the
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994, a suitable programme of works for placement and
compaction of the 'non-engineered fill' should be submitted to and approved in writing prior to the
commencement of development. Typically this should include an evaluation of the suitability of the
'non-engineered fill' for capping, its quality and homogenity; a method statement detailing the
processes by which the materials will be placed and the quality assurance procedures which will be
applied to ensure that the required standard of construction is achieved. The capping layer should be
designed to cover the whole landfill site and just the flanks of the site as shown in drawing number
18/LE 5006/13A - generalised section of proposed leachate control system.
32. Pedestrian access from Ferry Road to Cadishead Way shall be made available outside of the permitted
working hours during all construction works to the satisfaction of the Director of Development
Services.
33. No dwelling shall be occupied until the through estate route and the accesses onto Fairhills Road and
Cadishead Way has been completed to adoptable highway standards unless otherwise agreed in writing
by the Director of Development Services.
34. So far as they lie within the site, visibility splays of 9.0m by 90m shall be provided at the junction of the
estate roads with Fairhills Road and Cadishead Way and shall thereafter be maintained free of any
obstruction over 1.0m in height above the adjacent carriageway.
35. Before the housing development commences details of the roundabout construction and highway
alterations including the accommodation works for a reduction of the speed limit on Cadishead Way to
30 mph shall be submitted for the approval of the Director of Development Services and such details
shall be implemented before any dwelling is occupied.
36. Prior to the commencement of the development the applicant shall undertake monitoring of the water
quality within the Irwell Old Course to establish base line data. The method and techniques to be used
for the water quality monitoring shall be agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services
prior to monitoring being undertaken. The results shall be provided to the Director of Development
Services. Following the connection of the surface water drainage system to the Irwell Old Course the
applicant shall at three monthly intervals undertake the same method of monitoring of water quality and
the results shall be submitted to the Director of Development Services within 14 days of the end of the
3 month period . Any deterioration of water quality from the base line results shall be mitigated by the
applicant in a manner and timescale to be agreed with the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
3. Reason: To ensure the development fits in with the existing buildings in the vicinity.
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
8. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
9. To protect and retain any amphibians within the SBIs.
10. In the interests of amenity and public safety.
11. In the interests of amenity and public safety.
12. In the interests of amenity and public safety.
13. In the interests of amenity and public safety.
14. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
15. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
16. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
17. In the interests of amenity and public safety.
18. To safeguard existing planting.
19. In the interests of amenity and public safety.
20. In the interests of amenity and public safety.
21. In the interests of amenity and public safety.
22. In the interests of amenity and public safety.
23. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
24. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
25. To safeguard and protect the SBIs.
26. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
27. In the interests of public safety.
28. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
29. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
30. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
12
7th November 2002
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
31. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
32. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
33. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
34. Standard Reason R025A Intervisibility of users of highway
35. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
36. To monitor the quality of water in the Irwell Old Course.
APPLICATION No:
02/44596/FUL
APPLICANT:
Fairdeal Furnishings Limited
LOCATION:
2/2A Bloom Street Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a five storey building comprising ground floor car parking
and seven apartments with associated car parking and alterations to
existing vehicular access. (Resubmission of 01/43037/FUL)
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a small plot on Bloom Street within the Chapel Street Regeneration Area. The
plot has a frontage to Bloom Street of just 12.5m and is 15.4m deep. The former building on the site has
been demolished except for a small two storey building to the rear of the site. To the south lies the yard to
the Salford Arms public house, to the east the rear yard of the Chapel Street and Hope United Reform
Church. To the immediate north is a single storey hot food takeaway beyond which is a ginnel and Salford
House, a listed building which has been recently converted into flats. To the west on the other side of
Bloom Street is the recently completed first phase of the Bellway City Point development.
It is proposed to erect a five storey building that covers almost all of the plot. There would be two
apartments on each of the first, second and third floors with a single apartment on the top floor and three
parking spaces and an entrance lobby on the ground floor. Principal windows would face Bloom Street and
over a void measuring 4.25 by 7m to the rear of the car parking at ground floor level. The building would be
faced in brick with a limited use of other materials.
As recommended by the Director of Environmental Health a small 200mm air gap has been provided to the
takeaway.
The elevations have been amended following consultation with the City Council’s architectural service.
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
SITE HISTORY
A similar application was withdrawn in February this year (01/43037/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – The proposed development is situated near to the busy A6 main road
and noise from traffic may affect the amenity of the residents. Other noise sources include the public house
in very close proximity where noise may arise from functions and events, the attached church hall with
associated noise from worship, events and possibly a church organ and the attached Chinese takeaway with
associated noise from inside (banging of pots and pans etc) and outside (noise from customers and their
vehicles). In addition to the above, this Directorate has recently received complaints about the Chinese
takeaway regarding noise and odours. Although action may be taken to reduce the noise and odours, it is
likely that these problems will remain to a degree and may well affect the amenity of the proposed
development.
The site is currently used for the storage of vehicles and diesel tanks are visible from Bloom Street. The
previous use of the site is not known. A variety of materials may have been used to fill cellars and voids at
the time of demolition of previous buildings and hence it can not be discounted that potentially
contaminated materials could have been brought on site for this purpose. It is therefore recommended that
conditions be attached with regard to contaminated land and sound insulation.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of a site notice
The following neighbours were notified of both the application and the amended plans:Salford House Bloom Street
Chapel Street and Hope United reform Church, 1 to 22 City Point, 148, 150 and Salford Arms
Chapel Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Overdevelopment
Loss of light
Loss of sunlight
Loss of value
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EC14/1 Improvement Proposals, CS3 Greengate South, DEV1 Development Criteria,
DEV2 Good Design
PLANNING APPRAISAL
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
Policies EC14 and CS3 relate generally to the improvement to industrial and commercial areas. Policy
DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering applications.
These factors include the location and nature of the proposed development and its relationship to existing
uses, the amount of parking provision, the potential level of noise, the effect on neighbouring residents and
the visual appearance of the development. Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant
planning permission unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance of the development.
Since the adoption of the UDP the general approach towards the Chapel Street Corridor has evolved and
now residential developments are considered to be an important factor in the regeneration of the area. In the
context of the policy framework I do not consider that the proposal amounts to a departure which would
prejudice the implementation of the UDP.
With regard to the objections that have been received I do not share the view that this represents an
overdevelopment of the site. The building would be comparable with the first phase of City Point which is
four storeys and would be much lower than Salford House. The plot is small and I consider that in this
location, within the heart of the city, a development of fewer storeys would not be appropriate, nor would it
be in line with Government advice as contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 on Housing and the
need to make the best use of land and maximise densities where appropriate.
The proposed building is approximately 10m from Salford House and 11m from City Point. I consider that
in this urban location these distances are sufficient in terms of protecting existing residents of these two
developments from loss of light, direct sunlight and loss of privacy. As the objector points out himself, loss
of value is not a material planning consideration that I can take into account.
I am satisfied also that due to the location, so close to the city centre, three parking spaces is sufficient and
in line with Government advice on reducing reliance on the car. I am satisfied that there would be no
significant effect on the amenity of both existing neighbouring residents or future residents of this
development and I am satisfied that the design and appearance of the development is appropriate to its
location.
I therefore recommend that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
3. Standard Condition M05 Site investigation
4. The developer shall undertake an assessment to determine the external noise levels that the residents in
the apartments will be subjected to (day and night). The assessment shall take into consideration the
expected noise from surrounding development and expected noise from the proposed development and
associated traffic movements. The developer shall detail what steps are to be taken to mitigate any
disturbances. The assessment shall have due regard to Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 - Planning
and Noise. A report shall be submitted for the approval of the Director of Development Services prior
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
to the commencement of the development and any mitigation measures are to be implemented prior to
occupation.
5. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for insulating the development against
sound/vibration from the takeaway and the Church shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services. Any works that form part of the approved scheme shall be
implemented prior to any occupation of the development.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
3. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
4. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This application shall relate to the amended plans received on 21 October 2002.
APPLICATION No:
02/44602/FUL
APPLICANT:
MDA Partnership
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By Liverpool Road, Legh Street And Henry Street
Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a two storey block of ten flats together with creation of new
vehicular access and associated car parking
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant site adjacent to the Kwik Fit premises on Liverpool Road, Eccles.
The proposal is to erect a two-storey building comprising ten two-bedroom flats. The building would be
orientated to front Legh Street. The footprint of the building is 31.5 metres by 10.5 metres. The building
would be set back approximately 14 metres from Liverpool Road.
A total of 11 car parking spaces are proposed at the site. 9 would be located on the Legh Street frontage and
two on the Henry Street frontage. The parking spaces would be accessed via a continuous dropped kerb on
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
Legh Street. Each ground floor flat would have a 4 metre garden to the rear. No amenity space is identified
for the first floor flats.
The site is located in a wholly industrial/ commercial area. On the opposite side of Liverpool Road is an
Esso petrol station and to the north is a shop-fitting business. The adjacent site, to the east, is occupied by
Kwik Fit and planning permission was recently granted for the use of the premises for the sale and fitting of
tyres, exhausts, brakes and other repairs and MOT testing. The Kwik Fit premises are ‘L’ shaped, the
minimum distance to the application site is 7 metres. The Kwik Fit service bays are located 17 metres from
the application site.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – The proposed dwellings are located on the A57 Liverpool Road,
Eccles - road traffic noise is a material consideration. The proposed premises will be located in close
proximity to the Kwik Fit, car repair workshop. The workshop has five car repair bays facing onto the
proposed properties, the work shop hours of operation are: Monday – Wednesday 8:00 – 18.00, Thursday
8.00 – 20.00; Friday 8.00 – 18.00; Saturday 8.00 – 18.00; Sunday
10.00 – 16.00. It is reasonable to
forsee that the amenity of future occupiers will be affected by such operations in close proximity. The site
falls within Noise Exposure Category C: “Planning permission should not normally be granted. Where it is
considered that permission should be given, for example because there are no alternative quieter sites
available, conditions should be imposed to ensure a commensurate level of protection against noise”. The
developer shall detail what steps are to be taken to mitigate any disturbance. The assessment shall have due
regard to BS4142 Method for Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrail Areas and
the Department of the Environment Guidance PPG 24 – Planning and Noise and also BS8233 – Sound
insulation and noise reduction for buildings – Code of Practice. If the dwellings are constructed in close
proximity to the Kwik Fit premises, then the boundaries of statutory nuisance may be affected and may
result in Kwik Fit suffering formal enforcement action with regards noise. At this point in time there is
insufficient information submitted with this application in order for this Directorate to reach a decision.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – No objections.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – The Unit have made a number of comments. The
main concern would appear to be the position of car parking spaces 1 and 2, which are not overlooked from
the dwellings and as such cars parked there would be at risk.
Environment Agency – No objection in principle.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 22.08.02
A site notice was displayed on 27.08.02
The following neighbours were notified of the application:314 – 316, Liverpool Road
Kwik Fit, Liverpool Road
PBH Shopfitters Ltd, Henry Street
Esso, Liverpool Road
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations or letters of objections in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EC14/4 – Improvement Proposals – Patricroft, Barton/Eccles
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
T13 – Car Parking
EN15 – Environmental Improvement Corridors
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy EC14/4 states that in addition to the general improvements to industrial
and commercial estates as set out in Policy EC4, the City Council will specifically seek improvements in
specified industrial and commercial areas. In order to complement and extend existing improvements, the
City Council will seek to maintain ICIA status in the Patricroft area for as long as this action is effective.
This policy is not site specific and relates to general improvements in industrial /commercial areas. It refers
back to policy EC4, which is a strategic policy concerning the improvement of employment areas. Neither
policy EC14/4 or policy EC4 specifically relate to residential development.
UDP policy DEV1 states that regard should be had to a number of issues when determining applications for
planning permission, including the relationship to existing and proposed land uses; the amount, design and
layout of car parking provision; the visual appearance of the development and the provision of open space.
Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant planning permission, unless it is satisfied
with the quality of design and the appearance of the development. Furthermore, UDP policy DEV4 states
that the City Council will have regard to the detailing of the building, the relationship of car parking to
buildings and the layout of landscaped areas in the design of new development. UDP policy T13 states that
the City Council will ensure that adequate parking provision is made where necessary. The City Council’s
car parking standards for flats with communal parking (1.25 spaces per dwelling) would require a minimum
of 12.5 car parking spaces to be provided at the site. UDP policy EN15 states that the City Council will
promote environmental improvements along its main road, rail and waterway corridors. The A57,
Liverpool Road, has been identified as an Environmental Improvement Corridor. Within the corridors,
there is an emphasis on the encouragement of high standards of design.
With regards to parking at the site, a total of 11 car parking spaces have been identified and although this is
substandard, I consider that this level of provision would be adequate in this location adjacent to the A57. In
relation to the location of the parking spaces and access to them, I am concerned that parking bays 3 to 11
on Legh Street incorporate too large a dropped crossing and that this would be unsatisfactory in terms of
both pedestrian and highway safety, in particular given the close proximity to the junction with Liverpool
Road. Furthermore, the proposed location of parking bays 1 and 2 is such that they would not be overlooked
by the dwellings and as such the Police Architectural Liaison Unit is concerned that cars parked there would
be at risk.
With reference to private amenity space, although gardens have been identified for the ground floor flats, no
specific private amenity space has been identified for the occupants of the first floor flats. Furthermore,
there is no communal amenity space at the site. I do not consider that this would be acceptable, in particular
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
as the dwellings would be two bedroom-flats and can therefore be considered as family accommodation, for
which some element of amenity space should be provided.
A further concern relates to the design and siting of the development. Liverpool Road is identified in the
UDP as an Environmental Improvement Corridor, with an emphasis on high standards of design for new
development. The development would be set back from Liverpool Road with the gable-end fronting the
main road. The gable design is bland and lacks interest and comprises bathroom and kitchen windows only.
I consider this design to be of poor quality and that the importance of the site’s Liverpool Road frontage has
not been reflected in the building’s design or orientation.
My principle concern relates to the amenity of future residents. The uses surrounding the site are all
industrial and commercial. I have serious concerns in relation to the orientation and siting of the proposed
building and the impact of the existing uses on future residential amenity. The main area of concern is the
relationship between the proposed development and the surrounding uses, in particular the Kwik Fit
premises. The business operates seven days a week and is open as late as 8.00 in the evening. Kwik Fit has
five car servicing/fitting bays that directly face the proposed development. There would be a distance of
approximately 21 metres between the service bays and the bedroom windows. My concern relates to this
relationship and the impact in residents, in terms of both visual amenity and disturbance. It is reasonable to
foresee that the amenity of future occupiers will be affected by such operations in close proximity.
A further concern identified by the Director of Environmental Services relates to noise.
On balance, I have a number of serious concerns relating to this proposal and do not consider that planning
permission should be granted.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The position of the proposed parking spaces on Legh Street would be detrimental to pedestrian safety
and would be detrimental to the safety and free flow of traffic on the adjacent highway as a result of
vehicles, slowing and turning in the vicinity of the site, contrary to policies DEV1 and T10 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
2. The proposed development would be incompatible with the predominantly industrial/commercial
nature of the surrounding area to the detriment of the amenity of future residential occupiers of the
development and policies EN20 and DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/44615/FUL
APPLICANT:
K Grewal
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
LOCATION:
Hazeldene Hotel Bury New Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a three storey extension to provide additional bedrooms and
function room
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing hotel on Bury New road situated close to the crossroads at Singleton
Road. To the north beyond The Drive are houses while to the south is a synagogue. To the rear are flats and
houses on land approximately 1m lower.
It is proposed to replace a single storey side extension to the hotel with a part three storey part single storey
extension that would be ‘L’ shaped and would project forward adjacent to the common boundary with the
synagogue to a point 12m from the highway. At ground floor the extension would measure 28m by 13m.
The three storey element would be 6.5m wide and would be 13m high, just 0.5m lower than the height of the
existing building. The proposed extension would provide a large function room at ground floor with 20
additional bedrooms on the upper floors.
The development would result in the removal of one lime tree that is protected by Tree Preservation Order.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections in principle but requests that conditions be attached
regarding noise.
The Coal Authority – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:Roseville and 1 to 22 (incl.) The Mount Moor Lane
1 to 6 (incl.) The Drive
1 to 4 (incl.) Kersal gardens
16 to 22 Kersal Crag
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Overbearing
Noise and disturbance from the hotel and during construction
Loss of value
Loss of light
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands, T13 Car Parking, DEV1 Development
Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EN7 encourages the conservation of trees and woodlands. Policy T13 states that the City council
will ensure that adequate and appropriate provision is made for car parking and servicing. Policy DEV1
states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering applications for
planning permission. Such factors include the size of the development, the amount of car parking
provision, the potential for noise nuisance, the effect on neighbours and the impact on existing trees.
With regard to the objections that have been received loss of value cannot be taken into account as a
material planning consideration. Noise during construction is an inevitable consequence of any building
works and I do not consider that this justifies refusal of development. I am mindful of the comments of the
Director of Environmental health regarding the need for a condition regarding noise. I do, however, agree
with the objectors with regard to the overbearing nature of the proposals. The development would be just
3m from the common boundary with the flats to the rear. The living room windows to these flats would
directly face this proposed three-storey extension. The hotel is on higher ground than the flats and this
development just 3m from the common boundary would appear overbearing when viewed from the
apartments.
I am also concerned that insufficient car parking would be provided. City Council standards require one
space per unit of staff accommodation and one space per three employees as well as one space per bedroom
and one space per 5sq.m of public area. I estimate that there is room for no more than ten cars within the
curtilage of the site. This falls significantly short of the necessary level of parking required.
Finally I am concerned at the loss of the protected tree. Although set back from the highway its loss would
have a significant detrimental effect on the amenity of the area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would, by reason of its size and siting, seriously injure the amenity of
nearby residents and as such would be contrary to policy DEV1 and DEV3 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
2. The proposed development would not provide adequate accommodation within the curtilage of the site
for the parking, loading and unloading of vehicles in connection with the use of the site. As such the
development would be contrary to policies T13 and DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan.
3. The development would result in the loss of the tree numbered T45 in the City of Salford Tree
Preservation Order No.5 which would seriously injure the amenity of the area and insufficient evidence
has been provided to justify the removal of a protected tree. As such the development would be
contrary to policies EN7 and DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44645/COU
APPLICANT:
Benchmark Properties Ltd
LOCATION:
Moorfield Childrens Home 2A Moorside Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from childrens reception centre to offices (B1(a)
Business)
WARD:
Swinton South
BACKGROUND
Members should be aware that the following two consecutively numbered applications are related to each
other, and should be read in conjunction with each other.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the existing Moorfield children’s care home. It is proposed to change the use of
the property to offices. The property would provide approximately 470sq.m of floorspace. The site is
bounded by residential properties to the north and by the Medical Centre to the south. To the rear is the
vacant remainder of the former Moorfield house site.
A new access would be provided off Moorside Road and this aspect of the development is dealt with more
fully under application 02/44646/FUL.
A total of eleven car parking spaces would be provided.
SITE HISTORY
In March 1998 planning permission was granted for the demolition of the existing building and the erection
of a two storey, 10 bedroomed children’s reception unit, health centre, ancillary offices and pharmacy
together with landscaping, car parking and alteration to existing vehicular access (98/37568/FUL).
Members will be aware of the decision that has been taken following an inspection of the home to close the
facility and provide alternative accommodation elsewhere.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:15 to 59 Ashley Drive
1A to 7A, 2 and 4 Norwood Drive
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
17 to 31, 8 The Stables, 1 to 15 The Hollies, The Limes, Moorfield Cottage, 10 and 12 Moorside
Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a total of three representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity
including an objection from the Moorside South Residents Association. The following issues have been
raised:Proposed access would be dangerous
Lack of information
Increased traffic congestion on Moorside Road
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the nature of the proposed development and its relationship to existing
land uses, the likely scale and type of traffic generation and the effect on neighbouring residents.
With regard to the objections that have been raised by local residents I consider that the proposed access has
been sited to maximise available visibility. However, the amount of traffic generated by this proposal
would not be so significant as to cause either a problem at the new junction or significant congestion on
Moorside Road.
With regard to the lack of information the application is speculative. With regard to the number of people
working at the premises the City Council’s car parking standards are based on the floorspace of a building
and not on expected numbers of staff. These standards would normally require a total of 16 car parking
spaces to be provided. However, the property is located close to public transport routes and therefore I do
not consider that this shortfall is significant or likely to lead to problems of congestion or parking on the
highway.
I do not consider that the proposed use would have any significant detrimental effect on any neighbouring
property or on the street scene. I therefore recommend that permission be granted subject to the following
conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R013A Use of parking areas
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This permission shall relate to the amended plans received on 21st October 2002.
APPLICATION No:
02/44646/FUL
APPLICANT:
Benchmark Properties Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent 2A Moorside Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection four semi-detached houses, two - two storey buildings each
comprising four flats and seven garages together with associated
landscaping, car parking and alteration to vehicular access
WARD:
Swinton South
BACKGROUND
Members should be aware that the previous report is related and should be read in conjunction with each
other.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the land to the side and rear of the existing Sides Medical Centre. It is proposed
to erect two pairs of semi-detached houses and 8 apartments in two separate two-storey buildings. A total
of six garages would be provided for the flats with an additional two parking spaces. Two of the houses
would have two car parking spaces and the other two would have one. A new access would be provided
onto Moorside Road that would also provide access to the former children’s home. The houses would be
located to the rear of the former children’s home with the flats located to the rear of houses on Ashley Drive
with the garage block between the two blocks of apartments. The houses would each have three bedrooms
and the apartments two. The site slopes from front to back and from north to south. The majority of the
trees are located on a slight bank. A topographical survey and arboricultural report have been submitted
with the application.
The site is bounded by residential properties to the north, east and south and by the medical centre and
children’s home to the west. Members will recall that the mature trees on the site are protected by Tree
Preservation Order 255 that was made in February 2002 and confirmed with minor modifications in August
of this year. A total of 54 trees on the site are protected. Trees not included in the order include fourteen
fruit trees as well as eight other trees. Of those trees that are protected by the TPO it is proposed to fell
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
eleven. Forty-three of the protected trees would be retained. Of the eight other trees on the site, two would
be felled and six retained. It is proposed to remove all the fruit trees.
The application has been amended since it was submitted in a number of respects:- the roofs of all the
buildings which are now hipped rather than gabled; a block of four properties has been split to create two
pairs of semi-detached houses; these houses have been moved away by a further 2m from the common
boundary with the houses to the rear and the internal road has been moved a further 1m away from the trees
that are to be retained.
SITE HISTORY
In March 1998 planning permission was granted for the demolition of the existing building, Moorside
House, and the erection of a two storey, 10 bedroomed children’s reception unit, health centre, ancillary
offices and pharmacy together with landscaping, car parking and alteration to existing vehicular access
(98/37568/FUL).
An application for a revised medical centre was approved in December 1998 (98/38678/FUL).
There have been no previous applications that relate to this piece of land but members will be aware of
recent applications on the medical centre itself for a gym, new entrance and signage.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Environment Agency – No objections
The Coal Authority – No objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Concern is expressed about the lack of a number of
basic security details. These concerns have been passed to the applicant and a condition has bee appended.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbours were notified of both the application and the amended plans:15 to 59 Ashley Drive
1A to 7A, 2 and 4 Norwood Drive
17 to 31, 8 The Stables, 1 to 15 The Hollies, The Limes, Moorfield Cottage, 10 and 12 Moorside
Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a total of eighteen letters of objections and two petitions of a total of 172 signatures in
response to the application publicity including an objection from the Moorside South Residents
Association. The following issues have been raised:Loss of protected trees
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
Proposed access would be dangerous
Substandard turning circle for refuse vehicles
Loss of green space
Other trees removed previously by the applicant have not been replaced
Loss of wildlife
Loss of privacy
Increase in traffic
Internal road is dangerous
Increased traffic congestion on Moorside Road
Noise and disturbance
Loss of outlook
Drainage problems caused by old stream
Development would be out of character
Loss of light
Block of four properties would be overbearing
Development is contrary to Council policy
Councillor Upton has written to say she has received several letters from residents of Moorside Road
objecting to the development and the removal of protected trees.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the nature of the proposed development and its relationship to existing
land uses, the likely scale and type of traffic generation, the potential for noise nuisance, the visual
appearance of the development, the impact on existing trees and the effect on neighbouring residents.
Policy EN7 states that the City Council will encourage the retention of trees and woodlands.
With regard to the objections that have been raised by local residents the issue raised most relates to the loss
of protected trees. Many refer to the fact that these trees have only recently been protected by TPO. I must
point out that the report that was considered by the Panel when the Order was confirmed stated that the TPO
was made because at the time an application for the development of the land for residential purposes was
imminent which could have lead to a loss of some or all of the trees on the site. The eleven trees protected
by TPO that it is proposed to remove are either very close to the line of the access road or are on or very
close to one of the proposed apartment buildings. Members will be aware that the City Council has recently
adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance with regard to trees. This states that a certain level of
information is required with any application that involved the felling of trees. In this instance some of that
information has not been supplied, particularly with regard to the disposition of all drives, sewers, drains
and services as well as finished floor levels. The applicant has been made aware of this and will supply this
information. I do not consider that in this instance the information that has not been supplied has a
significant bearing how many trees would be removed. Members should also be aware that of those trees
that are to be retained, the canopies of two trees lie within the footprint of buildings. In addition, two of the
trees lie within 2m of the proposed access road. The applicant has stated that he proposes to use ‘geoweb’
surfacing to form the access road and that this technique has been used successfully elsewhere with trees
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
even closer to roads. The City Council’s opinion is that this may be possible in practice but it is dependent
on the quality of workmanship and the care taken when constructing a road such as this.
Some objectors have referred to trees to the road frontage that should have been replaced as a result of
earlier tree removal. The applicant has stated that trees planted previously have been vandalised and stolen
but that replacement trees will be planted. I do not consider that this matter can form part of my
consideration on this current application.
I am of the opinion that a significant majority of the trees on the site are to be retained, just a quarter of the
protected trees would be lost and I consider that the value that this group of trees provides would not be lost
as a result of this development. Significantly, a letter written on behalf of the Moorside Road Residents
Association specifically with regard to the tree issue is in accordance with the applicant’s proposals in all
respects except for one tree (excluding the fruit trees, which are not protected).
The access has been positioned to maximise available visibility and although it does not fully meet with
standard requirements I am satisfied that the access on to Moorside Road is acceptable in terms of highway
safety. I have no objections on highway grounds to the application and do not consider that this will result
in a significant increase in the amount of traffic or congestion on Moorside Road or that the internal access
road is dangerous. The turning head is acceptable for refuse vehicles.
Whilst this area of land is very attractive when viewed from the properties that surround it I must point out
that it is not a public space. I cannot therefore agree with those who have objected to the loss of green
space. With the majority of the trees on the site being retained and new trees being planted I do not consider
that there would be a significant loss of wildlife.
The applicant has moved the proposed houses away from the common boundary with houses on Ashley
Drive so that there is now a distance of 10.5m to the common boundary. There is now a distance of at least
24m to the houses and I consider that this is sufficient to ensure that there is no loss of privacy. The
apartment blocks are positioned so that the gables face the houses, in addition the apartments are in excess
of 20m from these houses, and so again I do not consider that any significant loss of privacy will result from
this development.
The level of development proposed is not significant and I do not therefore consider that neighbouring
residents will suffer from noise and disturbance as a result of this proposal. With regard to loss of outlook
I am of the opinion that the treescape that exists will be seen above the apartment buildings and while
residents views will change I do not consider that the change in outlook will result in a significant loss of
amenity to neighbouring residents.
As a result of amendments to the design of the roofs and the creation of two pairs of semi-detached
properties I do not now consider that the proposed development would be out of character with its
surroundings. The apartment buildings are both two storey and surrounding houses are all semi-detached
properties with hipped roofs. I agree with those who considered that the block of four houses originally
proposed would have been overbearing. This has now been amended and I no longer consider that any
aspect of the development would be overbearing to any neighbouring property. Interface distances are such
that there will be no significant loss of light to any neighbouring property. The applicant is aware of the
drainage problems on the site and I consider that these can be satisfactorily addressed.
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
None of the consultees have objected to the proposal and the concerns of the Architectural Liaison Unit
relate to detailed matters that have been passed to the applicant and would be dealt with by planning
conditions.
I consider that the main planning issue relates to the loss of protected trees. I am satisfied that the TPO was
made not with the intention of retaining every tree on the site but with the intention of giving the City
Council the ability to control the level of development and minimise the tree loss. The applicants have
amended their proposals significantly as a result of pre-application discussions with officers. I am of the
opinion that, on balance, the loss of trees in this instance is not significant in relation to the overall site and
the contribution that the group of trees provides and is therefore not contrary to policies EN7 or DEV1 of
the UDP. The overall effect of the groups of trees will not be lost as a result of this development and I am
therefore confident in recommending that this application be approved subject to the following conditions
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
3. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
4. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls and roofs
of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
5. Standard Condition J04X Bin Stores
6. Prior to the commencement of development an arboricultural method statement shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The report shall address the road
and building construction, protective fencing, positioning of scaffolding and shall detail those measures
necessary to protect those trees shown to be retained on the approved plan. The development shall be
implemented in accordance with such details as are approved.
7. No development shall commence until full details of finished floor levels have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The development shall be implemented
in accordance with such details as are approved.
8. No development shall commence until details of the disposition of all sewers, drains and services have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The development
shall be implemented in accordance with such details as are approved.
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
9. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a plan showing security measures
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services and the
development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved particulars in the accordance of
DEV4 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
4. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
6. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
7. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
8. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
9. In order to provide security for the occupiers of this development.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The developer is advised to contact the City Council's Main Drainage Section with regard to floor
levels and the potential for flooding.
2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Greater Manchester
Police Architectural Liaison Unit.
APPLICATION No:
02/44663/FUL
APPLICANT:
A Lee
LOCATION:
112 Vicars Hall Lane Boothstown Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of one two storey building
comprising six apartments together with associated car parking and
construction of new vehicular access
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing bungalow situated at the junction of Vicars Hall Lane and Vicars Hall
Gardens. It is proposed to demolish the existing bungalow and erect a two-storey block comprising six
apartments. These would all be two storey and there would bedroom accommodation in the roof space. Six
parking spaces would be provided to the rear of the property. The building would measure 13m by 14m and
would have a hipped roof with dormers to the front and rear elevations.
The site is approximately 40m deep and has a road frontage of 18m to Vicars Hall Lane. It surrounded by
residential property.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – The site lies north of a large landfill site. Previous testing on a nearby
site indicated significant levels of methane and carbon dioxide. There is the potential for landfill gas to
exist in the vicinity of this site and therefore it is recommended that a site investigation be carried out. In
addition the development is close to an established residential area. Schemes of this nature often include
lighting for communal parking areas and access between properties and car parking areas. Any such
lighting would to be installed and maintained so that there was no loss of amenity to neighbours.
Environment Agency – No objections in principal but requests conditions.
The Coal Authority – no objections.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1 to 7 and 2 to 8 Vicars Hall Gardens
63 to 69, 82 to 88, 110 and 120 to 134 Vicars Hall Lane
3 to 8 (incl.) Ridgegreen
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 19 letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Loss of privacy
Out of character
Noise and disturbance
Increase in traffic and loss of highway safety
Loss of light
Overlooking
Disturbance during building works
Insufficient car parking
Overdevelopment of the site
Loss of trees
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the size and density of the proposed development, the likely scale and
type of traffic generation, the amount of car parking, the potential for noise nuisance, the effect on
neighbours and the visual appearance of the development. Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will
not normally grant planning permission unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance of
the development.
With regard to the objections that have been raised I do not consider that the development would give rise to
such an increase in traffic that would lead to a loss of highway safety. The level of car parking is in
accordance with Government advice regarding reducing reliance on the private car. The proposed building
would be 25m from the house to the rear. Although this property is a bungalow it is set on rising ground
approximately 1.5m above the applicant’s site. I do not therefore consider that there would be any loss of
privacy to this dwelling. The proposed building would also be between 12m and 14m from the gable of the
house opposite and I consider this distance in itself to be acceptable.
I do not consider that a development of six apartments would give rise to an unacceptable level of noise and
disturbance. Similarly I do not consider that noise and disturbance during construction works is sufficient
grounds to refuse development. Although trees would be removed I do not consider that the largest tree
removed contributes to the street scene as it is located over 12m from the nearest road frontage. Other trees
removed are either dead or not mature specimens.
I am, however, concerned about the design, scale and massing of the development. The building almost
fills the width of the plot. I consider that the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the plot that would
be out of character with the surrounding area. The proposed building is just 0.9m from the common
boundary with the neighbouring property. There is no entrance to the flats from Vicars Hall Lane. I
consider that the overall design of the building is poor and is contrary to policy DEV2.
The proposed building would also have a significant detrimental effect on the adjacent residential property.
This property has habitable room windows facing the site and although the siting of the proposed building
has been amended to bring the front main wall behind these windows this has resulted in the building
projecting approximately 5m beyond the rear main wall of the neighbour’s property. I consider that the
building would be both overbearing and result in a loss of light to the neighbours dwelling.
I consider that the main planning issues relate to the design, scale and siting of the proposed building. I
consider that the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the plot and that as a result it would not only be
out of character with the neighbourhood but would also have a significant detrimental effect on the
neighbouring property. I therefore recommend that the application be refused for the following reasons.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would by reason of its size and siting represent an overdevelopment of the
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
site that would be out of character with the surrounding area and which would have a significant
detrimental effect on the amenity of neighbouring residents contrary to policy DEV1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
2. The proposed development is poorly designed, by virtue of the incongruous elevational treatment, and
would cause demonstrable harm within the street scene and as such is contrary to policies DEV1 and
DEV2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/44684/FUL
APPLICANT:
Hallmark MSO
LOCATION:
Verdant House Verdant Lane Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of extension to side of the warehouse
WARD:
Winton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to former Council owned warehouse premises on Verdant Lane off Brookhouse
Avenue. The site is surrounded on three sides by residential development and is opposite Peel Green
cemetery. The site lies approximately 0.5m to 1m lower than residential properties to the rear.
The planning application is for the rebuilding and extension of the existing extension to the warehouse
building following demolition of the existing extension. The existing extension measures 8.2m to the ridge
whilst it is 15.2m wide and extends 23m from the parent building toward the rear of properties on Senior
Road. The proposed building is the same maximum height of 8.4m although there would be two ridges
separated by a valley roof. The proposal would extend 21.4m from the parent building toward the rear of
properties on Senior Road, less than the existing extent. The width of the proposed extension would be 18m.
SITE HISTORY
In June 2002, planning permission was granted for the retention of 3m high palisade fencing to front
boundary, 3m high palisade fencing to three other boundaries set in one metre from existing concrete
boundary wall together with enlarged vehicular accesses to Verdant Lane (02/44039/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 4th September 2002
The following neighbours were notified of the application:21 to 35 Brookhouse Road
1 –71 Senior Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one representation in response to the application publicity, stating that the writer is relying
on The Council to make a balanced judgement with regards to residential amenity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: n/a
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV3 Alterations/Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 seeks to ensure development fits in with surroundings and does not interfere with residential
amenity. DEV1 also makes reference to access and servicing. Policy DEV2 requires all development to be
built to a good standard. Policy DEV3 requires extensions to respect the scale and style of the parent
building.
The proposal would be no higher than the existing extension and would result in a reduced building line
however the proposed extension would be wider than the existing extension. As the extension would be
further away from residential properties I consider there would no negative amenity impacts upon local
residents and that the increase in width would be negated by the reduction in length.
I consider that the 15 parking spaces on the site are ample in terms of staff parking with respect to the
parking standards in the UDP. I also consider that the proposal will not interfere with the existing servicing
arrangements for the warehouse, deliveries are accessed from the other side of the building to the proposed
extension. I have no highway objections. I consider that the proposal will not effect the character of the
surrounding area or the residential amenity subject to the materials of the extension matching the parent
building.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roofs of the development shall be the same type,
colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director
of Development Services.
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/44687/FUL
APPLICANT:
T Hall
LOCATION:
Car Park Of Red Lion Public House Ellenbrook Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Retention of one temporary cabin to accommodate a pharmacy
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the car park of the Red Lion public house in Ellenbrook. The proposal is to retain
a portable building for a temporary period. It has been sited to the front of the site, adjacent to the side of the
existing pub building, and is not actually located on any of the designated parking area.
The proposal is to accommodate the pharmacy until the applicant can move into the new local centre across
the road, which has just been completed. The applicant is now seeking a temporary permission for a total of
12 months. The opening hours are Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm, with half day closing on Wednesday.
HISTORY
In March 2002, planning permission was granted for a temporary cabin for this pharmacy on the car park of
the nearby Boundary Stone public house. (ref. 01/43452/FUL). This has not been implemented because of a
withdrawal of agreement by the landowners.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objection
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 13 September 2002
The following neighbours were notified :
13-41 (odd) Oriole Close
15-21 Bunting Mews
491 Ellenbrook Road
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
20 Mallowdale
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of objections, one from a local resident, the owners of the adjacent centre and
another firm of pharmacists, Timms and Parker, who have agreed the tenancy of the unit within the centre.
The objections are:






an approval for this pharmacy in the cabin would affect the ability of the Timms and Parker to
trade, which in turn affects the viability of the new local centre.
There is no need to grant planning permission for the temporary use on a site that it unallocated
for retail when a new local centre has been constructed on the adjacent site and is ready for
occupation
It makes the already scruffy and littered car park look worse
The cabin would not be secure for the storage of drugs and therefore be an invitation to
criminals
There would be conflict between users of the car park and the cabin by
encouraging pedestrian traffic into the car park
The location on a bend close to a busy junction would create dangers for pedestrian traffic from
the doctors surgery on the neighbourhood development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: SC2 Social and Community Facilities by Private and Voluntary Agencies, SC9 Healthcare
Provision
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The applicant initially was granted temporary planning permission to site a cabin for the pharmacy on the
nearby Boundary Stone car park while the local centre was being built as the Health Authority had granted
him the pharmacy license. When the landowners withdrew their consent, he sited the cabin in its current
position before his license expired, in August, and he is now seeking permission for its temporary retention.
I am aware that since being granted the Health Authority license, the owners of the local centre have agreed
terms to lease the new pharmacy unit to another firm of pharmacists. However, I understand that they would
not be granted a pharmacists licence by the Health Authority because the applicant is now trading in the
vicinity. Both the owners of the centre and the alternative firm have objected. I appreciate the situation that
all parties are now in, but it would appear that on the whole these are commercial pressures which would
need to be resolved amongst themselves.
I would consider that the main issues to be considered therefore is the impact of the building and its use
upon the pub, the issue of the car parking spaces in particular and also the general amenity of the area.
The cabin is located immediately adjacent to the pub, which is rendered in design. Although the cabin is
sited in a prominent position on the frontage of the site, I would not consider that its appearance unduly
affects the visual amenity of the area.
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
As the cabin is set at the side of the pub and does not directly remove any parking spaces from the car park.
One objector has highlighted that the pharmacy would normally require 2 spaces of its own and that there
would be insufficient spaces remaining on site. The pub has a large curtilage with ample parking. I am
satisfied that there should not be undue conflict with the pub use and its requirement for parking as the
pharmacy would only be open during the day and five days a week which are not the busiest of times for a
pub. As the car park is large I consider that the remaining spaces would be sufficient. I have no objections
to the proposal on highway grounds.
As I do not consider that the cabin for the pharmacy, in itself, would be seriously detrimental to the area I
would not object to its retention for a temporary period of 12 months only. I would consider that this would
be more than sufficient time for all the parties involved to resolve the problem of the commercial conflict in
one way or another.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The cabin hereby approved shall be for a temporary period of 12 months only and shall be removed on
or by 7 November 2003.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/44701/FUL
APPLICANT:
Prestigious Living NW Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Adjoining Summerhill Mansion Nursing Home Chaplin Close
Salford
PROPOSAL:
Erection 18 dwellings and one three storey building comprising nine
apartments (Amendment to planning permission 01/42421/FUL)
WARD:
Claremont
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site of 0.52ha (1.28 acres) lies directly to the rear of Summerhill Mansion Estate, which is a
Grade II listed building. The rear gardens to Castleway abut the site to the east whilst to the west lie the rear
gardens of houses on Keystone Close. At present the site is bound by a 2m high brick wall along the west
and far north eastern part of the rear boundary, a 1.5m brick wall along the remainder of the rear boundary,
and finally a 2m high fence along the east. Along the north boundary there are various established trees
beyond which lies Chaseley Fields and, there is also a small group of trees within the site in the far north
west corner comprising Acacia, Cherry, Laburnum and Sycamore.
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
The land is level at the rear of the site, however it slopes downwards by approximately 4m towards the
entrance and along the boundary with Keystone Close, where the land rises slightly towards the site road.
Those properties on Castleway are considerably lower than the site, whereby the first floor windows of
27-33 (o) lie just above ground level. A plan of site levels has been provided by the applicant, which shows
that the finished floor levels will be approximately 10.2/3m for all buildings, indicating that the ground
throughout the site will be made level.
Planning permission is sought for the alteration to a previously approved planning permission
01/42421/FUL, which was approved for the erection of 16 dwellings, comprising 3 x 4 bed houses and 13
three storey townhouses, and one four storey building containing 11 self-contained flats, together with
associated landscaping and car parking. This current application proposes to amend six of the dwellings
previously approved. The six dwellings to be amended are the three - two storey detached dwellings that
back onto Keystone Close and also the three townhouses sited at a 90 degree angle to Keystone Close.
There are no proposed changes to the siting of the residential units. The distances between the existing
residential properties on Keystone Close and the dwellings subject of this application would be the same as
the previous approval 01/42421/FUL.
SITE HISTORY
In 2001, planning permission was granted for the erection of sixteen dwellings, one - three storey building
comprising nine flats, and one gatehouse comprising two flats, together with associated car parking
(01/42421/FUL).
In 1995, planning permission was granted for the erection of 22 x 1 and 2 bed apartments, 10 x 3 and 4 bed
town houses, and 33 sheltered apartments, together with associated car parking and landscaping (ref:
95/34256/FUL). The development was of high density, with the townhouses sited along the boundary with
Keystone Close and Chaseley Fields, apartments within the north west corner, and the sheltered apartments
adjacent to Castleway. Both the townhouses and apartment blocks were effectively four storey, with a
height of just over 11m. The planning permission involved the construction of an access road, which has
been constructed and therefore the permission is extant.
In November 1994 planning permission was granted for the erection of 8 houses and 13 flats, together with
the associated works and construction of a new vehicular access (ref: E/32926).
In 1993 planning permission was approved for the erection of 57 retirement apartments, a 40 bed nursing
home and the conversion of the existing mansion to 8 flats (ref: E/30952).
In April 1991 planning permission was approved for the erection of 10 houses together with associated car
parking and construction of new vehicular access (ref: E/32046).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections
Environment Agency – no objections
Greater Manchester Police- no comments received.
British Coal Authority – no objections
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by way of press and site notices.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified
2 – 12 (e) Keystone Close
1 – 11 (o) and 15 Chaplin Close
1-19 (inc) Bogart Court, Monroe Close
17 – 21 (o) Blyborough Close
23 – 39 (o) Castleway
Summerhill Mansion Nursing Home, Chaplin Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 2 representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main
issues identified are as follows:


Objection if the development moves nearer to properties on Keystone Close than the existing
permission 01/42421/FUL.
Comments made regarding the distances to the proposed developments.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H9 Sites for New Housing
Other policies: DEV 1 Development Criteria
DEV 2 Good Design
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Given the recent approval for the development of this site for housing and that this proposal is for minor
changes to the approval I consider the relevant policies are DEV1 with respect to the character of the
development and its relation to surroundings and DEV2 concerning good quality design.
The detached dwellings in the north west corner of the site would have chimneys added and the plot sizes
are the same except for the forward extension by 1.4m of theses dwellings. This forward extension comes
further into the site and does not decrease the minimum 21m distance to properties on Keystone Close. I do
not consider the addition of chimneys or the small forward extension, which is still set behind the forward
garage extension, would harm the character or appearance of the area detrimentally. I also consider that
proposed changes to these units will not effect the amenity of nearby residents.
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
To the side of the townhouse block facing Keystone Close a skylight is to be deleted from the ground floor
roof slope. Other changes at this level involve the addition of one single door and one window and the
enlargement of another two windows which are below the height of the boundary wall. To the front and rear
of the block pediments are removed. The garage doors are changed in design to the front. The side elevation
facing Summerhill Mansions itself has a change involving the moving of the second and first floor windows
to first and ground floor level. To the rear of this block french doors are changed to windows, the location of
a door is changed, and the balustrading is changed to railings. Again I do not consider that the changes will
effect the character or appearance of the area detrimentally. Again the separation distances are to remain the
same and I consider that the amenity impact upon nearby residents will not be changed.
I consider the objections with regard to distances have been resolved. The distances of the dwellings
approved under 01/42421/FUL have been measured on site by my Officers and these distances have been
found to correspond accurately to the approved plan.
I consider that the approval of this planning application will not result in any detrimental impact upon
neighbouring residences. I have no highway objections and recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition M01 Removal of Permitted Development Rights
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 within three months of the date of this permission.
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 six 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. The group of five trees comprising 1 Fig, 1 Prunus, 1 Locust and 2 Laburnum, situated in the north west
corner of the site shall be replaced, with a group of five extra heavy standard size trees of the same
species as the original group within the curtilage of plot 6, in a position to be agreed in writing to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
5. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
6. A detailed scheme of working around those trees protected by T.P.O. shall be submitted to and
approved in writing prior to the commencement of development, and shall thereafter be adhered to, to
the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
7. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the external
elevations, roofs and boundary walls of the development have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Director of Development Services.
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
8. Standard Condition J04X Bin Stores
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R037A Additional measure of control
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
6. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding details
of drainage.
APPLICATION No:
02/44702/FUL
APPLICANT:
Pembroke Homes
LOCATION:
Land Between 232 (Lancaster House TA Centre) And 240 Manchester
Road Clifton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two - two/three/four storey buildings comprising 44
apartments together with alterations to existing vehicular and
pedestrian accesses and creation of new pedestrian access with
associated car parking and landscaping
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a derelict and vacant site to the north of the M60 opposite St Anne’s Church. The
site is bounded by residential properties to the north and east and by a Territorial Army centre to the south.
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
There is open land to the west that lies within the Green Belt. The M60 runs to the south of the site beyond
the TA centre.
It is proposed to erect two blocks of apartments on the site. A total of 44 flats would be provided. Both
blocks would be parallel to Manchester Road. The block closest would be part four storey and part three
storey, it would measure approximately 48m wide by 13m deep and would be set back between 6m and
10m from Manchester Road. The second block would be set back 27m from the first and would be part
three storey and part two storey. A total of 44 car-parking spaces would be provided. The curtilage of the
site extends into the Green Belt but all car parking and formal garden areas would be outside of the Green
Belt. That part of the site that would be in the Green Belt would be planted with a wild flower seed mix and
that part directly to the rear of the second block would be mounded and planted with native trees to act as a
screen to the M60.
Access would be from a widened existing access onto Manchester Road. This access is existing and is a
public footpath, it also provides access for farm vehicles to the fields to the rear of the site. This access
would be maintained and pavements would be provided on one side. The applicant proposes white-lining
to Manchester Road.
Each block would be designed so that the massing would be minimised with facades being staggered and
with different roof heights. The elevations would comprise brickwork and render.
The applicant has submitted a noise impact assessment with his application. This recommends that
double-glazing is required to all habitable rooms and that additional ventilation is required to bedrooms
facing Manchester Road.
SITE HISTORY
In September 1989 planning permission was granted in outline for the erection of a nursing home
(E/24947/OL).
In July of this year a similar application was withdrawn by the applicant while negotiations took place with
the Highways Agency.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – The noise impact assessment report undertaken by Hepworth
Acoustics Ltd states that standard thermal double glazing will provide adequate noise reduction for all
habitable rooms. However, this is dependent on these windows being closed, so it will therefore be
necessary to provide forced mechanical ventilation to certain elevations so that an adequate ventilation rate
can be achieved in warm weather. I therefore recommend that acoustic trickle ventilation and forced
mechanical ventilation shall be installed to the rooms specified below which is capable of providing both
the background and rapid ventilation requirements of the Building Regulations. The specified rooms are
the bedrooms facing Manchester Road in block one and all the bedrooms in block two.
Highways Agency – No objections
The Coal Authority – No objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections but provide advice.
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices
The following neighbours have been notified of the application:1 to 18 (incl.) Clifton Court, 199 to 213, 237 to 241, 293 to 301, 240, 248 to 284 and the TA centre,
Manchester Road.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:
The name of the development is inappropriate
Highway safety
Landscape proposals would compromise security
Detailed requests from the neighbouring property regarding privacy and overlooking
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EN1 and EN22 Green Belt, EN26 Clifton Moss, EN2 Development Within Green
Belt.
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Green Belt policy states that the character of the Green belt will be preserved by protecting its visual
amenity by resisting proposals for development within or conspicuous from the Green Belt which, although
they would not prejudice the purposes of including land within the Green belt, might be visually detrimental
by reasons of their siting, materials or design. Policy EN26 states that the Council will seek to conserve and
enhance Clifton Moss as an area of ecological and landscape value.
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include traffic generation and parking provision, the effect on neighbours and
the visual appearance of the development.
With regard to the objections that have been received the name of the development is not a material
planning consideration. I have however, passed the residents concerns on to the applicant. I have no
objections to the proposal on highway grounds subject to appropriate conditions. Similarly I have passed
on the concerns of the TA regarding security and consider that this issue can be addressed by a landscaping
condition.
The proposal has been sited so that all built development as well as all formal garden areas are outside of the
Green Belt. It is common that the Green Belt boundary will back on to gardens and in this case the rear of
the second block will be 18m from the Green Belt boundary. This block comprises two and three storey
elements and I consider therefore that the proposal would not be conspicuous from the Green Belt.
Similarly I do not consider that the development would have any detrimental effect upon Clifton Moss. I
am satisfied that the provision of one parking space per flat is appropriate on this main road that is well
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
served by bus services. The neighbouring dwelling has a very small rear garden but I am satisfied that as
the second block is 25m away and is two storey closest to the neighbouring property, there should be no
significant problems regard with regard to loss of privacy or overlooking.
I am satisfied that the public footpath would be enhanced and made safer as a result of this proposal.
One part of the block that fronts the road would be four storey. I am of the opinion that as this would be the
middle section of the block and would be flanked by three storey elements that this would not be out of
character with properties in the vicinity. I am satisfied that the proposed design of the blocks is acceptable
and that there would be no significant detrimental effect on any neighbouring property as a result of this
development.
I have no objections on highway grounds subject to a condition regarding details of the works necessary on
Manchester Road. I recommend that the application be approved subject to the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Windows in the gable of block one facing 240 Manchester Road shall be obscure glazed and shall
remain as such at all times.
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 12 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
4. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls and roofs
of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
5. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
6. Standard Condition J04X Bin Stores
7. Prior to the commencement of development details of a scheme of acoustic trickle ventilation and
forced mechanical ventilation, which is capable of providing both the background and rapid ventilation
requirements of the Building Regulations, for bedrooms facing Manchester Road in block one and all
bedrooms in block two shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services. The development shall be implemented in accordance with such details as are approved, and
maiantained thus thereafter.
8. Prior to the commencement of development full details of the proposed works on the A666 Manchester
Road and the site entrance, including proposed white lining, shall be submitted to and approved in
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
writing by the Director of Development Services. Such approved scheme shall be implemented in full
prior to the occupation of any apartment.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
5. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
7. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
8. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The landscaping scheme refered to in condition 3 shall include a heavy standard tree, of a species to be
agreed, adjacent to the common boundary to the rear of the adjacent property 240 Manchester Road.
APPLICATION No:
02/44725/OUT
APPLICANT:
Castlefield Properties Ltd
LOCATION:
5,7 AND 9 Wellington Street East Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for the erection of 10 town houses
together with associated alteration to an existing highway and
landscaping
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to three large Edwardian terraced properties that form the majority of a terrace of
five. The properties were previously used as flats but have been vacant for some time. The site is not
fenced and is now subject to fly tipping. The properties are generally in a poor condition.
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
It is proposed to demolish the properties and erect 10 dwellings on the site. The application has been made
in outline and the application amended so that approval is not sought for any reserved matters at this stage.
However an indicative layout has been submitted.
The site lies close to the junction of Wellington Street east and Rigby Street. The adjoining property is in
residential use as are properties on the opposite side of Wellington Street East. The adjacent property is in
use as a school and to the rear are the Northumberland Street playing fields. There are a number of trees to
the rear of the site that appear to be self seeded.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Environment Agency – No objections in principle but requests conditions
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1, 3, 11, 13 and 2 to 12 Wellington Street East
100 and The Greek Church Rigby Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objections in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Increase in traffic
Loss of highway safety
Loss of privacy
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the relationship to existing and proposed land uses and buildings, the
effect on neighbouring properties and the impact on existing trees. Policy EN7 encourages the conservation
of trees and woodlands.
With regard to the objection that has been received I do not consider that the proposed development would
limit use of the school site or necessarily result in a loss of privacy. I do not consider that the amount of
traffic generated by this development would be dissimilar to that generated by the existing properties. I
cannot agree that there would be a loss of highway safety and I have no highway objections to the proposal.
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
Although the application is in outline with all matters reserved for further consideration the application
does include an indicative plan demonstrating how a layout could be achieved on this site for ten dwellings.
This layout clearly indicates that the majority of the trees to the rear of the site would be removed or that if
they were retained would dominate rear gardens, contrary to the recently approved Supplementary Planning
Guidance on Trees. These trees have been inspected by the City Council’s arboricultural officer and he
does not consider that they are worthy of protection either individually or as a group.
In addition the layout shows that in order to accommodate 10 dwellings on the site the rear gardens of the
properties would be just 6m from the common boundary with adjoining sites. I do not consider that this is
satisfactory as any redevelopment of any adjoining site would be compromised by this distance with regard
to complying with the necessary interface distances that ensure adequate levels of privacy. The layout of
the site itself also indicates that the dwellings would not comply with the City Councils normal interface
distances of 21m and 13m.
I am concerned that the development of this site in isolation would hinder the comprehensive
redevelopment of both this and surrounding sites. Although indicative the proposed layout of the site does
not lend itself to further extension to include other sites.
I consider therefore that the application is contrary to policies DEV1 and recommend that the application be
refused on the following grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the site is of sufficient size to accommodate 10 town houses
without having a significant detrimental effect on future occupiers of the development and on future
neighbouring developments. As such the development would be contrary to Policy DEV1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/44736/FUL
APPLICANT:
George Wimpey Manchester
LOCATION:
Former 'Restawhile Beds' Factory Worsley Road North/ Devonshire
Road Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing factory, erection of 135 residential dwellings
together with associated alteration to existing highway and creation of
new access and landscaping
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
7th November 2002
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of the Restawhile Beds factory situated on Worsley Road North between
Devonshire Road and Hirst Avenue. The factory ceased manufacturing in November 2000. The building is
single storey with two storey offices to the front of the site. The site covers an area of 3.2 hectares and
forms a part of the Oakhill Trading Estate which lies to the north and west of the site. There are industrial
premises opposite on Worsley Road North with residential properties to the south beyond Hirst Avenue.
It is proposed to demolish the factory and erect a total of 135 dwellings on the site. The proposal comprises
a broad mix of house types including two bedroom apartments, two and three bedroom terraced houses,
three bedroom semi-detached houses and three and four bedroom detached houses. All properties would be
two storey with the exception of three linked blocks of four storey apartments located at the junction of
Hirst Avenue and Worsley Road North. Access to the site would be from two points on Devonshire Road
An area of informal open space of 0.3 hectare has been provided at the junction of Devonshire Road and
Worsley Road North and an area for equipped childrens’ play has been provided within the site adjacent to
Hirst Avenue. The most prominent trees on the site are those on the main road frontage and these would be
lost as a result of the proposed development.
A supporting statement, traffic impact assessment and noise report have been submitted with the
application.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Objects to the proposal on the grounds that the proposed children’s
equipped play space would be too close to proposed residential properties and that there would be a serious
detrimental effect upon the amenity of those properties within 30m of the play area.
Environment Agency – No response received to date
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – A number of concerns have been raised and these
have been passed on to the applicant.
The Coal Authority – No objections but provide advice.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1 to 39 Hirst Avenue
1 to 16 (incl.) Gorton Grove
Units 15B, 23, 19, 16, 20 and 30 Oakhill Trading Estate Devonshire Road
1 to 27 and 2 to 16 Arthur Avenue
1 to 15 and 2 to 12 Albert Avenue
115 to 125 Worsley road North
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:No formal objection in principle to housing but the occupiers of two industrial units want to point
out that they operate 24 hours a day and there is a regular flow of vehicles on and off the site. No
complaints have been received from any neighbours and future occupiers must understand that
there is an industrial users with prior rights of access and egress to Devonshire Road. In addition
one states that his company is expanding and that in two years he will be wanting to move to a
larger unit and that currently there is nothing available locally that is large enough or suitable. If
the Restawhile site was to be redeveloped for large industrial units then there would be interest in
them.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EC3 Re-Use of Sites and Premises, EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands, H1
Meeting Housing Needs, H6 and H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments, DEV1
Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EC3 states that where existing industrial premises become vacant, the City Council will seek to
re-use or redevelop them for similar uses, except where one or more of three criteria apply. These criteria
include that the site could be used for other purposes without a resulting material or unacceptable shortfall
in the range of sites and/or premises available for economic development. EN7 encourages the
conservation of trees and woodlands. Policy H1 relates to the provision of an adequate supply of housing
stock. Policies H6 and H11 require a provision of both informal open space and equipped play space for
developments incorporating dwellings designed predominantly for family accommodation. Policy DEV1
states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when dealing with applications for
planning permission. These factors include the location of the proposed development and its relationship to
existing land uses, the relationship to the road network, the potential for noise nuisance, the visual
appearance of the development and the effect on trees. Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not
normally grant planning permission unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance of the
development and policy DEV4 encourages greater consideration of crime prevention in the design of new
development.
I am mindful of the comments of the Director of Environmental Services. The backs of five of the proposed
houses directly border the proposed play area. I consider that this would result in a considerable detrimental
effect on neighbouring residents that would result in the removal of the play equipment. This would not
satisfy policy H6 and the loss of amenity to residents would be contrary to policy DEV1 of the UDP. With
regard to the concerns of the Police Architectural Unit I share their concerns regarding the layout of the site
and the lack of consideration that has been given to crime reduction. There are a number of important
security issues that should be addressed prior to any scheme being considered favourably and I consider that
this proposal is therefore contrary to policy DEV4.
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
With regard to the objections that has been received I am of the opinion that a scheme of acoustic insulation
would adequately ensure that there was no significant detrimental effect on neighbouring residents as a
result of the activities on the adjacent industrial estate. I do however, note with interest the comments made
regarding future interest in the site and the current lack of large premises.
I have considerable concerns regarding the loss of this 3.2hectare site. The Oakhill Trading Estate is the
‘premier’ industrial estate in Walkden and Little Hulton and substantial improvements to the estate have
been supported through Single Regeneration Budget funding. The loss of this site further erodes the
opportunities for new companies requiring a site of that size to come to the area and provide job
opportunities for local people. The loss of this important frontage site would result in the Oakhill Trading
Estate becoming less attractive to future industrial users. It is accepted that there is a significant level of
vacant properties on the Estate I consider that the loss of this site would represent a material shortfall in the
range of sites that are available for economic development. I therefore consider that the proposal would be
contrary to policy EC3 of the UDP.
The layout of the site would result in the loss of almost all trees on the site including those on the main road
frontage that make a significant contribution to the street scene and the character of the area. I consider that
this loss would be contrary to both policies DEV1 and EN7.
I have objections on highway grounds to the proposal as I consider that the proposed layout would result in
cars backing out on to Devonshire Road close to bends in the road. This would lead to a significant loss of
highway safety that would be contrary to policy DEV1 of the UDP.
Finally I have concerns regarding the quality of the layout of the site. The proposed layout is bland,
uniform and provides little interest. Little thought has been given to providing a good layout design and I
consider that the proposal is contrary to policy DEV2.
The applicant has stated that the development conforms with Government policy as contained in Planning
Policy Guidance Note 3 on Housing that seek to direct development to previously developed sites in urban
areas, make more efficient use of land, restrict the provision of car parking spaces and create sustainable
residential environments. Whilst the development is in accordance with PPG3 in some respects I would
point out that it also refers to developments not compromising the quality of environments and to design
issues.
I consider that this application falls significantly short of the standard that is required in a number of
respects. The applicant demonstrates that little thought has been given to this development. I consider that
the principal of housing development on this site is unacceptable and the applicant has not demonstrated
that this development is not contrary to policy EC3. No thought has been given to the effects of a play area
on future occupants or to basic highway safety issues and little thought has been given to crime reduction.
Finally the applicant has submitted a layout that is of obviously poor quality.
I recommend therefore that for the following reasons the application be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed equipped childrens play area would seriously injure the amenity of future occupiers and
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
neighbouring residents by reason of its layout and siting. As such it would be contrary to both policies
DEV1, H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
2. The layout of the proposed development does not adequately address crime prevention and as such is
contrary to policy DEV4 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. The proposed development would result in the loss of an employment site leading to a material shortfall
in the range of sites available for economic development. As such the proposal would be contrary to
Policy EC3 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. The proposal would result in the loss of a mature tree protected by City of Salford Tree Preservation
Order 299 that would have a significant detrimental effect on the amenity of the area. As such the
development would be contrary to both policies DEV1 and EN7 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
5. The proposed development would be detrimental to highway safety and the free flow of traffic on
Devonshire Road as a result of cars backing out of car parking spaces accessed of that road. As such
the development would be contrary to policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/44782/FUL
APPLICANT:
Quays Campus Limited
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By Trafford Road, Ordsall Lane, Archie Street And
Craven Drive Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Erection of three storey office building together with associated car
parking and landscaping
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to part of the site of the former Quays Campus of Salford College. Originally built
as a high school, the premises were used as a further education college between 1988 and 1998. The site
also contained the Ordsall Youth Club and a sports pitch. The buildings were demolished in 1999. Part of
the site is in Council ownership.
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
The whole site is bounded by Craven Drive to the north and east, Trafford Road to the west and Ordsall
Lane to the south. The site includes the car park of the Ordsall Recreation Centre, but excludes the building.
Metrolink cuts through the south west corner of the site and the application also excludes the existing Shell
petrol filling station and a small site to the south of Archie street on the Trafford Road frontage, which is in
separate ownership.
This application has been submitted in full for the erection of a three storey office building with associated
car parking and landscaping on land identified as plot 3. Permission was approved in outline on the 29th
April 2002, under 01/42541/OUT, for this use and for a mixed use development comprising offices, hotel,
retail units, retail/food/drink units, new vehicle access and car parking. A change in the siting of this office
has meant that a separate full planning application was required rather than a reserved matters application.
This office block would be located between Craven Drive the Ordsall leisure centre and Trafford Road and
would be bounded by Craven Drive to the east and would be surrounded by other developments approved
under the outline permission including a hotel to the north and another office to the south. The office is
three storey and has a floorspace of 3463 sq.m. The building would be designed with a metal vaulted roof
whilst the walls would include a mixture of masonry, cladding, render and glass.
The boundary treatment includes landscaping incorporating trees of varying type and size within plot 3.
This soft landscaping would be distributed around the plot and its 110 car parking spaces.
In compensation for the loss of the existing sports pitch, the applicants have proposed a package of works
designed to allow greater use of the underused grass pitch in Ordsall Park, as such a section 106 obligation
was signed in relation to the outline application. This includes the provision of additional changing room
accommodation in the Recreation Centre and improved drainage to the pitch.
SITE HISTORY
In April 2002, planning permission was granted in outline for mixed use development- offices (19,081sq.m
- max.7 storey), hotel (3548sq.m - max 4 storey), retail units (779 and 407sq.m), retail/food/drink units (687
and 389 sqm) new vehicle access and car parking (01/42541/OUT).
In 2001, outline planning permission for office development was renewed for the site to the south of Archie
Street (01/42550/OUT).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Proposes conditions to protect residential amenity.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – no objection to the development.
United Utilities – no objections.
Environment Agency – no objections but provides advice and requests a condition.
Trafford MBC – No comments received to date.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Generally support the scheme but make a number
of detailed recommendations with regard to security issues.
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both press and site notices.
The following neighbours were notified:
1 to 4 Capital Quay
Vanguard House, Frobisher House and Renown House Merchants Quay
Burger King and the Shell petrol filling station and 211 Trafford Road
Copthorne Hotel Clippers Quay
100 to 104 Ordsall Lane
1 to 31 Weedall Avenue
1 to 13 and 2 to 16 Gledhill Avenue
1 to 11 and 2 to 14 Paris Avenue
1 to 57 Craven Drive
1 to 9 Lord Napier Drive
1 to 13 and 24 to 44 Clarke Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter commenting that the site at present is untidy and requests that the site be
developed.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: SC16/1 Sites for the Provision of Education Facilities
Other policies: EN3 Protected Open Land, DEV1 Development Criteria, T13 Car Parking, R1 Protection
of Recreation Land and Facilities, EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The principle of the development of this site for an office block was approved under the outline permission
01/42541/OUT, as such I consider the site specific policies have already been considered and also other
policies including the location and nature of the office development. I consider that the re-orientation of the
siting of the proposal has little bearing on the principle of an office development being acceptable.
Policy R1 states that development on existing formal or informal recreation land and facilities will not
normally be allowed unless an equivalent replacement site is provided and laid out within the local area.
Policy EN3 seeks to protect all areas of open land not protected by the Green Belt; however, an exception to
the policy could allow development on open land that is development required by or in conformity with the
UDP as a whole. The sports pitch within the site has not been in use for several years and there is an
underused pitch in Ordsall Park. A package of measures that represent an equivalent replacement of the
former pitch on the site has been provided by the applicant and the proposal is therefore in conformity with
policy R1. As the proposal is within the investment priority area, with its emphasis on securing urban
regeneration, development of the part of the recreation land is considered to be acceptable.
The proposed office block is designed in an L shape with a footprint of 1235sq.m. The main body of the
building lies on an east-west axis with the return part being on a north-south axis. The three storey block is
13.8m to the eaves and 17.4m to the ridge of the vaulted roof. The closest elevation to Craven Drive is the
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
smallest elevation of the block at 16m wide. I consider that given the 40m distance to residential properties
on Craven Drive will minimising overlooking onto those properties. The external fire escape fronting
Craven Drive adds interest to the building however the Architectural Liaison Officer requests that the
ground floor section be enclosed as such I propose to impose a condition ensuring this security measure is
addressed.
I consider that the buildings design greatly benefits from the standing seam vaulted roof which is set a top
elevations consisting mainly of brick with architectural block, there is also a small amount of metal
composite panel. The architectural block covers the ground and lower first floor levels whilst the upper
parts to eaves level are finished in brick. The window pattern and design provides the building with
functional points of interest. The lower ground level provides undercroft paring which will be the subject of
a lighting scheme to the secure by design standard, indeed the applicant has stated that the whole scheme is
to be put forward for secure by design status.
The layout of the external parking area, to be interspersed with trees and shrubs, is to a high design
standard. I consider that the building and intensive landscaping will add value and quality to the built
environment of the immediate and wider area.
I am satisfied that given their separation from the nearest houses on Craven Drive and the provision of on
site parking this proposal would not be contrary to the provisions of policy DEV1 of the UDP. I do not
intend to recommend opening hours restrictions on this office development but have imposed a condition to
ensure background noise levels are respected at nearby dwellings.
Policy T13 requires developments to include appropriate and sufficient car parking Current government
and council policy is to restrict the amount of parking provision on new developments, as part of the
strategy of minimising the use of the car and planning policy guidance note 13 establishes maximum
parking standards for a variety of uses. I consider that the level of parking provision is acceptable for such
an office scheme in this location close to public transport links including buses and the Metrolink. I have
imposed a condition to ensure a reasonable level of disabled parking spaces are provided. I have no
highway objections.
No objections have been received by any resident although a letter of support has been received. I am
satisfied that the development of the site would be in conformity with the provisions of policy DEV1 and
that there would be no detrimental effect on any neighbouring property as a result of this development. I am
satisfied that the development conforms to both local and national policy and that it makes a significant
contribution to the successful regeneration of Salford Quays and Ordsall. I therefore recommend that the
application be approved subject to the following legal agreement and conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
a
That the Director of Corporate services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under Section
106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the following:
i.
the provision of additional changing room accommodation in the Ordsall
recreation centre
ii.
the provision of drainage to the existing grass pitch in Ordsall Park.
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
b
That the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded to grant planning permission on
completion of such legal agreement
c
That authority is given for the decision notice relating to the application to be issued, subject to the
conditions and reasons stated below, on completion of such legal agreement.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
3. Prior to the commencement of the development the developer shall submit a report for the approval of
the Director of Development Services that that details the design/location specifications of plant and
equipment that are necessary to achieve the calculated noise levels that are listed below. The submitted
report shall detail fully the calculations used to demonstrate compliance. The plant and equipment shall
be installed according to the submitted and approved specifications and any mitigation measures shall
be implemented prior to use.
Calculated noise levels at 1 metre from the facade of numbers 1 - 57 (inclusive) Craven Drive:
- 25dBA from 23:00 to 07:00
- 29dBA from 19:00 to 23:00
- 38dBA from 07:00 to 19:00
Calculated noise levels at 1 metre from the facade of the Copthorne Hotel, Trafford Road
- 35dBA from 23:00 to 07:00
- 39dBA from 19:00 to 23:00
- 48dBA from 07:00 to 19:00
All the above noise levels are LAeq (5mins) values as calculated from the building facade.
4. Prior to the commencement of the development the developer shall submit a site investigation report
the approval of the Director of Development Services. The investigation shall address the nature,
degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an
identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act
1990, Part IIA, focussing primarily on risks to human health and to controlled waters. The investigation
shall also address the implications of ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on
nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental
receptors including ecological systems and property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Director of Development Services prior
to the start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the
approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.
5. Refuse collection shall be restricted to 07:00 to 20:00 MoNdays to Saturdays and 10:00 to 18:00 on
Sundays.
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
6. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
7. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of
foul and surface waters has been approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such a
scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans.
8. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakway system, all surface
water drainage from parking areas shall pass through an oil interceptor designed and constructed to
have a capacity and details compatible with the site being drained. Roof water shall not pass through the
interceptor.
9. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit for the written approval of the
Director of Development Services an Arboricultural Implication Study. Such a study shall specify the
tree protection measures and measures to mitigate the impact on the trees that have been identified as
being retained. Such a study shall in addition indicate those measures that may be imposed should the
development be carried out in phases. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with
the recommendations and measures contained in the approved study.
10. Fumes, vapours and odours shall be extracted and ducted from the premises in such a manner as to
prevent nuisance to the occupiers of neighbouring properties, in accordance with a scheme to be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services before the use hereby
permitted commences. Such a scheme, when approved, shall be implemented prior to the use being
commenced.
11. Deliveries by HGVs shall be restricted to between the hours of 07:00 to 20:00 Mondays to Saturdays
and 10:00 to 18:00 on Sundays.
12. A minimum of 1 in 20 of the parking spaces shall be for use by disabled drivers.
13. No development shall commence until full details of a scheme for traffic calming within the site and in
particular to restrict the movement of HGVs into and out of the application site via Archie Street has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such scheme
shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details within two months of the first occupation
of the first unit.
14. The development shall be carried out in substantial accordance with the Detailed Planting Proposals
plan no. 5267.2.332 dated 11th September 2002 and the Tree Pit Details plan no. 5267.2.335 dated 11th
September 2002.
15. Notwithstanding the submitted drawings prior to the commencement of the development the developer
shall submit detailed plans and elevations showing the part enclosure of the external fire escapes for the
approval of the Director of Development Services. The fire escape enclosures once approved by the
Director of Development shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the development.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
7. To ensure a satisfactory means of drainage.
8. To ensure a satisfactory means of drainage.
9. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
10. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
11. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
12. To ensure the needs of disabled persons are met in accordance with Policy T13 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
13. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
14. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
15. Standard Reason R040A Secured from crime
APPLICATION No:
02/44783/REM
APPLICANT:
Quays Campus Limited
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By Trafford Road, Ordsall Lane, Archie Street And
Craven Drive Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Details of the design and external appearance of two retail units,
security lodge, internal road layout, re-configured parking for leisure
centre, perimeter treatment to site together with associated landscaping
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
This application relates to the site of the former Quays Campus of Salford College. Originally built as a
high school, the premises were used as a further education college between 1988 and 1998. The site also
contained the Ordsall Youth Club and a sports pitch. The buildings were demolished in 1999. Part of the
site is in Council ownership.
The whole site is bounded by Craven Drive to the north and east, Trafford Road to the west and Ordsall
Lane to the south. The site includes the car park of the Ordsall Recreation Centre, but excludes the building.
Metrolink cuts through the south west corner of the site and the application also excludes the existing Shell
petrol filling station and a small site to the south of Archie street on the Trafford Road frontage, which is in
separate ownership.
This reserved matters application has been submitted for the approval of details of design, external
appearance and landscaping of two retail units, security lodge, internal road layout, re-configured parking
for leisure centre and boundary treatment for the site. The two retail units are shown as plot 8 and are
located next to the existing Shell petrol filling station on Trafford Road. The security lodge is located within
the centre of the Quays Campus Site. Outline permission was approved in outline on the 29 th April 2002,
under 01/42541/OUT, for a mixed use development comprising offices, hotel, retail units, retail/food/drink
units, new vehicle access and car parking.
In compensation for the loss of the existing sports pitch, the applicants signed a legal agreement under the
aforementioned outline approval for a package of works designed to allow greater use of the underused
grass pitch in Ordsall Park. This includes the provision of additional changing room accommodation in the
Recreation Centre and improved drainage to the pitch.
SITE HISTORY
In April 2002, planning permission was granted in outline for mixed use development- offices (19,081sq.m
- max.7 storey), hotel (3548sq.m - max 4 storey), retail units (779 and 407sq.m), retail/food/drink units (687
and 389 sqm) new vehicle access and car parking (01/42541/OUT).
In 2001, outline planning permission for office development was renewed for the site to the south of Archie
Street (01/42550/OUT).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Proposes conditions to protect residential amenity.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – no objection to the development.
United Utilities – no objections.
Environment Agency – no objections but provides advice and requests a condition.
Trafford MBC – No comments received to date.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Generally support the scheme but make a number
of detailed recommendations with regard to security issues.
PUBLICITY
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
The application has been advertised by means of both press and site notices.
The following neighbours were notified:
1 to 4 Capital Quay
Vanguard House, Frobisher House and Renown House Merchants Quay
Burger King and the Shell petrol filling station and 211 Trafford Road
Copthorne Hotel Clippers Quay
100 to 104 Ordsall Lane
1 to 31 Weedall Avenue
1 to 13 and 2 to 16 Gledhill Avenue
1 to 11 and 2 to 14 Paris Avenue
1 to 57 Craven Drive
1 to 9 Lord Napier Drive
1 to 13 and 24 to 44 Clarke Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter commenting that the site at present is untidy and requests that the site be
developed.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: SC16/1 Sites for the Provision of Education Facilities
Other policies: EN3 Protected Open Land, DEV1 Development Criteria, T13 Car Parking, R1 Protection
of Recreation Land and Facilities, EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The principle of the development of this site for a this mixed use scheme was approved under the outline
permission 01/42541/OUT, as such I consider the site specific policies have already been considered and
also other policies including the location and nature of the various uses.
I consider that the design of the single storey semi-detached retail units benefits from the corner tower,
which is positioned at the junction of Ordsall Lane and Trafford Road. I also consider that the cornet tower
adds interest to the building and complements the brick, architectural block and panel clad building. The
elevation has windows to the Trafford Road and Oldfield Road elevations whilst the main shopfront
window faces the car park. I consider the retail block will provide a good quality addition to the Trafford
Road corridor.
The single storey security lodge to be positioned within the Quays Campus development on the spine road,
although a functional building it is designed with brickwork walls and metal roof will provide an acceptable
small scale building within the overall development. The proposed boundary treatment consists of a dwarf
brick wall with brick pillars and simple railings along the Trafford Road and Ordsall Lane frontages. I
consider this will enhance the Trafford Road corridor and improve the appearance of the area. A wire mesh
fence system is proposed on the boundary along Craven Drive, I consider this security type fencing
acceptable along the rear of this development with residential properties across Craven Drive.
The access road sweeps around the leisure centre from Archie Street in a southerly direction with spurs off
for access to the leisure centre and other developments approved under the outline application. I consider
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
the road layout to be of a suitable design and size and have no highway objections. Retractable bollards are
proposed at entrances to the various developments however at a height of 1m or less these would not require
planning permission. The site layout includes soft landscaping consisting of trees and shrubs which will
complement the development and improve the appearance of the area.
The layout of the external parking area, to be interspersed with trees and shrubs, is to a high design
standard. I consider that the building and intensive landscaping will add value and quality to the built
environment of the immediate and wider area. I am satisfied that given their separation from the nearest
houses on Craven Drive and the provision of on site parking this proposal would not be contrary to the
provisions of policy DEV1 of the UDP. I do not intend to recommend opening hours restrictions on this
office development but have imposed a condition to ensure background noise levels are respected at nearby
dwellings.
Policy T13 requires developments to include appropriate and sufficient car parking Current government
and council policy is to restrict the amount of parking provision on new developments, as part of the
strategy of minimising the use of the car and planning policy guidance note 13 establishes maximum
parking standards for a variety of uses. I consider that the level of parking provision is acceptable for this
scheme in this location close to public transport links including buses and the Metrolink. I have imposed a
condition to ensure a reasonable level of disabled parking spaces are provided. I have no highway
objections.
No objections have been received by any resident although a letter of support has been received. I am
satisfied that the development of the site would be in conformity with the provisions of policy DEV1 and
that there would be no detrimental effect on any neighbouring property as a result of this development. I am
satisfied that the development conforms to Unitary Development Plan Policies with regard to design,
external appearance and landscaping. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
2. Prior to the commencement of the development the developer shall submit a report for the approval of
the Director of Development Services that that details the design/location specifications of plant and
equipment that are necessary to achieve the calculated noise levels that are listed below. The submitted
report shall detail fully the calculations used to demonstrate compliance. The plant and equipment shall
be installed according to the submitted and approved specifications and any mitigation measures shall
be implemented prior to use.
Calculated noise levels at 1 metre from the facade of numbers 1 - 57 (inclusive) Craven
Drive:
- 25dBA from 23:00 to 07:00
- 29dBA from 19:00 to 23:00
- 38dBA from 07:00 to 19:00
Calculated noise levels at 1 metre from the facade of the Copthorne Hotel, Trafford Road
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
- 35dBA from 23:00 to 07:00
- 39dBA from 19:00 to 23:00
- 48dBA from 07:00 to 19:00
All the above noise levels are LAeq (5mins) values as calculated from the building facade.
3. Deliveries by HGVs shall be restricted to between the hours of 07:00 to 20:00 Mondays to Saturdays
and 10:00 to 18:00 on Sundays.
4. The development shall be carried out in substantial accordance with the Detailed Planting Proposals
plan no. 5267.2.231 and 5267.2.334 dated 11th September 2002.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/44792/FUL
APPLICANT:
Quays Campus Limited
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By Trafford Road, Ordsall Lane, Archie Street And
Craven Drive Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey retail unit (A1,A2,A3) together with associated
car parking and servicing and new boundary treatment
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to part of the site of the former Quays Campus of Salford College. Originally built
as a high school, the premises were used as a further education college between 1988 and 1998. The site
also contained the Ordsall Youth Club and a sports pitch. The buildings were demolished in 1999. Part of
the site is in Council ownership.
The site is bounded by Craven Drive to the north and east, Trafford Road to the west and Ordsall Lane to the
south. The site includes the car park of the Ordsall Recreation Centre, but excludes the building. Metrolink
cuts through the south west corner of the site and the application also excludes the existing Shell petrol
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
filling station and a small site to the south of Archie street on the Trafford Road frontage, which is in
separate ownership.
This application has been submitted in full for the erection of either a retail unit, office that members of the
public visit or a restaurant unit with associated car parking and servicing and alterations to the boundary
treatment. Permission was approved in outline on the 29th April 2002, under 01/42541/OUT, for this use
however a change in the siting of the unit has meant that a separate full planning application was required.
This retail unit would be located between the Ordsall leisure centre and Trafford Road and would be
bounded to the north by Craven Drive. The unit is single storey and has a floorspace of 381 sq.m. The
building would be designed with a vaulted roof whilst the walls would be a mixture of brickwork, glazed
shopfront and composite panels. The boundary treatment includes dwarf wall with brick pillars and simple
steel railings to the west and south, to the east the site is enclosed by the leisure centre. To the north the plot
is enclosed by a close boarded timber fence inside the same detailed brick pillars and simple steel railings
enclosing the rest of the site. The shopfront would wrap around the frontage from Trafford Road to the
twenty car parking spaces of this plot.
In compensation for the loss of the existing sports pitch that occupies part of the wider site, the applicants
have proposed a package of works designed to allow greater use of the underused grass pitch in Ordsall
Park, as such a section 106 obligation was signed in relation to the outline application. These comprise the
provision of additional changing room accommodation in the Recreation Centre and improved drainage to
the pitch.
SITE HISTORY
In April 2002, planning permission was granted in outline for mixed use development- offices (19,081sq.m
- max.7 storey), hotel (3548sq.m - max 4 storey), retail units (779 and 407sq.m), retail/food/drink units (687
and 389 sqm) new vehicle access and car parking (01/42541/OUT).
In 2001, outline planning permission for office development was renewed for the site to the south of Archie
Street (01/42550/OUT).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Proposes conditions to protect residential amenity.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – no objection to the development.
United Utilities – no objections.
Environment Agency – no objections but provides advice and requests a condition.
Trafford MBC – No comments received to date.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Generally support the scheme but make a number
of detailed recommendations with regard to security issues.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both press and site notices.
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
The following neighbours were notified:
1 to 4 Capital Quay
Vanguard House, Frobisher House and Renown House Merchants Quay
Burger King and the Shell petrol filling station and 211 Trafford Road
Copthorne Hotel Clippers Quay
100 to 104 Ordsall Lane
1 to 31 Weedall Avenue
1 to 13 and 2 to 16 Gledhill Avenue
1 to 11 and 2 to 14 Paris Avenue
1 to 57 Craven Drive
1 to 9 Lord Napier Drive
1 to 13 and 24 to 44 Clarke Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter commenting that the site at present is untidy and requests that the site is
developed.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: SC16/1 Sites for the Provision of Education Facilities
Other policies: S2 Location of New Retail Development, SC3 Education Land and Buildings, S5 Control
of Food and Drink Premises, EN3 Protected Open Land, DEV1 Development Criteria, T13 Car Parking, R1
Protection of Recreation Land and Facilities, EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands, S4 Local
Shopping.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The principle of the development of this site for a retail unit was approved under the outline permission
01/42541/OUT, as such I consider the site specific policies have already been considered and also other
policies including the location of new retail development, food and drink premises and local shopping. I
consider that the re-orientation of the siting of the proposal has no bearing on the principle of this
development being acceptable.
Policy R1 states that development on existing formal or informal recreation land and facilities will not
normally be allowed unless an equivalent replacement site is provided and laid out within the local area.
Policy EN3 seeks to protect all areas of open land not protected by the Green Belt; however, an exception to
the policy could allow development on open land that is development required by or in conformity with the
UDP as a whole. The sports pitch within the site has not been in use for several years and there is an
underused pitch in Ordsall Park. A package of measures that represent an equivalent replacement of the
former pitch on the site has been provided by the applicant and the proposal is therefore in conformity with
policy R1. As the proposal is within the investment priority area, with its emphasis on securing urban
regeneration, development of the part of the recreation land is considered to be acceptable.
As Salford Quays is not identified as an existing district centre, the retail element of the development would
be regarded as of out centre. However, the comparatively small element of retailing makes a significant
contribution to the overall content of the previously approved mixed-use scheme, which would be less
attractive for its absence. The area is also under provided with convenience shops and the proposal would
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
help meet local need making provision for neighbouring residents and the business community. The closest
existing shopping centre to this site is Ordsall district centre. However, the district centre does not
adequately serve the needs of the area or the growing population at Salford Quays. The supermarket at this
centre has been closed for several years and three of the twelve smaller shop units are vacant. Because of its
location in the heart of the estate, this centre does not attract passing trade. The proposed development, on
Trafford Road, is more centrally located to serve the needs of the area and, because it can also capture
passing trade, will be more sustainable. I therefore consider that the provision of retail floorspace in this
area is strongly supported by policy S4 that seeks to encourage local shopping provision. Furthermore
having regard to the size and format of the proposed retail development it is likely to meet a purely local
need and as such would not be at odds with policy S2.
The unit whilst only single storey the proposed retail unit is 6.2m in height to the ridge of the vault. I
consider the mixture of materials and the proportions of the building will create a visual presence on
Trafford Road whilst not dominating surrounding property. The single storey nature would ensure the
impact upon the park would be minimal. I consider that when viewed from within the site and also when
viewed from Trafford Road the proposal would be appear as a high quality addition to the street scene.
I am satisfied that given their separation from the nearest houses on Craven Drive and the provision of on
site parking this proposal would not be contrary to the provisions of policy S5 of the UDP. I do not intend to
recommend opening hours restrictions on the possible A3 unit but have imposed a condition to ensure the
installation of fume extraction equipment.
Policy T13 requires developments to include appropriate and sufficient car parking Current government
and council policy is to restrict the amount of parking provision on new developments, as part of the
strategy of minimising the use of the car and planning policy guidance note 13 establishes maximum
parking standards for a variety of uses. Maximum parking standards for retail development apply to
development exceeding 1,000 sq. m. The proposed unit does not exceed this threshold. I consider that the
level of parking provision is acceptable for a retail scheme in this location. I have imposed a condition to
ensure a reasonable level of disabled parking spaces are provided. I have no highway objections.
No objections have been received by any resident although a letter of support has been received. I am
satisfied that the development of the site would be in conformity with the provisions of policy DEV1 and
that there would be no significant detrimental effect on any neighbouring property as a result of this
development. I am satisfied that the development conforms to both local and national policy and that it
makes a significant contribution to the successful regeneration of Salford Quays and Ordsall. I therefore
recommend that the application be approved subject to the following legal agreement and conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
a
b
That the Director of Corporate services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under Section
106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the following:
i.
the provision of additional changing room accommodation in the Ordsall
recreation centre
ii.
the provision of drainage to the existing grass pitch in Ordsall Park.
That the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded to grant planning permission on
completion of such legal agreement
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
c
7th November 2002
That authority is given for the decision notice relating to the application to be issued, subject to the
conditions and reasons stated below, on completion of such legal agreement.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls and roofs
of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
3. Prior to the commencement of the development the developer shall submit a report for the approval of
the Director of Development Services that that details the design/location specifications of plant and
equipment that are necessary to achieve the calculated noise levels that are listed below. The submitted
report shall detail fully the calculations used to demonstrate compliance. The plant and equipment shall
be installed according to the submitted and approved specifications and any mitigation measurtes shall
be implemented prior to use.
Calculated noise levels at 1 metre from the facade of numbers 1 - 57 (inclusive) Craven Drive:
- 25dBA from 23:00 to 07:00
- 29dBA from 19:00 to 23:00
- 38dBA from 07:00 to 19:00
Calculated noise levels at 1 metre from the facade of the Copthorne Hotel, Trafford Road
- 35dBA from 23:00 to 07:00
- 39dBA from 19:00 to 23:00
- 48dBA from 07:00 to 19:00
All the above noise levels are LAeq (5mins) values as calculated from the building facade.
4. Prior to the commencement of the development the developer shall submit a site investigation report
the approval of the Director of Development Services. The investigation shall address the nature,
degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an
identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act
1990, Part IIA, focussing primarily on risks to human health and to controlled waters. The investigation
shall also address the implications of ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on
nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental
receptors including ecological systems and property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Director of Development Services prior
to the start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the
approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.
5. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
foul and surface waters has been approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such a
scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans.
6. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakway system, all surface
water drainage from parking areas shall pass through an oil interceptor designed and constructed to
have a capacity and details compatible with the site being drained. Roof water shall not pass through the
interceptor.
7. Fumes, vapours and odours shall be extracted and ducted from the premises in such a manner as to
prevent nuisance to the occupiers of neighbouring properties, in accordance with a scheme to be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services before the use hereby
permitted commences. Such a scheme, when approved, shall be implemented prior to the use being
commenced.
8. Deliveries by HGVs shall be restricted to between the hours of 07:00 to 20:00 Mondays to Saturdays
and 10:00 to 18:00 on Sundays.
9. A minimum of 1 in 20 of the parking spaces shall be for use of disabled persons.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
5. To ensure a satisfactory means of drainage.
6. To ensure a satisfactory means of drainage.
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
9. To ensure the needs of disabled persons are met in accordance with Policy T13 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The developer is advised to agree their proposed floor levels with the Manchester Ship Canal Company
who operate the sluices to control the water levels in the Salford Quays area. This will ensure that the
buildings are not subject to undesireable risk and can be set above any recorded flood levels.
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44794/FUL
APPLICANT:
Fledglings Limited
LOCATION:
2 Hazelfields Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Removal of existing temporary classroom and erection of single storey
extension to day nursery
WARD:
Worsley Boothstown
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Fledglings Nursery previously part of the grounds of Hazelfields Hall, which was
granted permission in 1993 to become a nursery, reference E/30701. Hazelfields is a small cul-de-sac of
seven large, detached properties off Hazelhurst Road with the nursery situated at the head. The boundary of
the green belt runs approximately in a north-east/south-west direction across the centre of the site so that the
play area at the rear and part of the southern section of the nursery building fall into the green belt.
Permission is sought for a single storey extension to the nursery. A corner of the proposed extension would
be inside the Green Belt. The extension would measure approximately 11m by 8m. and would provide an
additional 73sq.m of floorspace. Two additional car parking spaces would be provided. The extension
would replace a portable building situated to the rear of the property of approximately 50sq.m.
The proposed extension would be just 4m high and would have a hipped roof to match the existing.
SITE HISTORY
Planning permission was first granted for the construction of a day nursery on the site in February 1992
(E/29056). This building protruded to a greater extent into the Green Belt than does the extension now
proposed.
In March 1993 approval was granted for a day nursery in a revised location and of a smaller size than that
approved under application E/29056 (E/30701).
In November 1993 planning permission was granted for a further revised scheme (E/31793). It is this
scheme that was implemented.
Planning permission was granted in 1995 for an extension (E/34114) with a separate permission granted for
the siting of a temporary prefabricated classroom unit for use whilst the extension was being constructed
(E/35112).
In August 2000 planning permission was granted for an extension to the staff room (00/40931/FUL) and in
October 2000 permission was granted for a temporary period of approximately 2 years for the provision of
a portable building for use as after school care (00/40932/FUL). A condition stating that there shall be no
more than 100 children at the nursery at any time was attached to this permission.
Members will recall that approval was sought, subject to referral to the Government Office for the North
West, of an application for the renewal of the portable building for a further two year period
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
(02/44611/FUL). It is the intention of the applicant that should permission be granted for this extension that
this extension would be built so that there was no disruption to pupils or parents when the portable building
has to be removed.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services: no objections
Early Years Team: no objections in principle.
Coal Authority: - no objections
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified of the application:82 to 86 Hazelhurst Road
1 to 7 (inclusive) and Hazelhurst Hall, Hazelfields
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none.
Other Policies:EN1 Green Belt, EN2 Development within the Green Belt, EN22 Green Belt, SC2 Provision
of Social and Community Facilities by Private and Voluntary Agencies.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Although the proposed extension lies primarily outside of the Green Belt a small part of it is within and the
application has therefore been advertised as a departure to the development plan.
Green Belt policies maintain a general presumption against inappropriate development including new
buildings, unless ‘very special circumstances’ can justify otherwise, and seek to retain visual amenity
within and from the Green Belt.
In this case I am satisfied that this development would not prejudice the five purposes of including land in
the Green Belt.
I would consider that there are a number of ‘very special circumstances' that help justify this proposal:




The proposal is supported by policy SC2 (Priorities of Social and Community Facilities);
The applicant is an existing business that fulfils a local community need;
The scheme also comprises the removal of a temporary classroom, as opposed to being merely an
extension into the Green Belt; and
The extension barely protrudes into the Green Belt.
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
Other ‘very special circumstances’ centre on the scale and massing of the extension, and the retention of
visual amenity. These are as follows:




The extension is 1 storey (with roof lights) and 4m in height;
The area of the extension is around ¼ the area of the current building and consequently the extension is
‘limited’, so is not particularly visually intrusive from the Green Belt; and
I would consider the extension is less visually intrusive than the current modular classroom that it will
replace; and furthermore,
the differences in site levels help minimise the extent to which the extension is visible from the Green
Belt.
The site is relatively well screened by trees and shrubs along its rear boundary and is also at a considerably
lower level than the fields to the north, approximately 1.5m lower. Therefore the extension would continue
to be effectively screened and for this reason should not have a detrimental impact upon the visual amenity
of the green belt. I do recommend that some additional screen plating is provided.
The number of staff and children would remain essentially the same and for this reason I do not believe that
it would have a significant detrimental impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring residents. The
applicant has submitted figures that show that there are never more than 90 children at the nursery and that
the average occupancy is 74 children. I do not therefore consider that a further condition is required in this
instance. The numbers of children that can be accommodated in a nursery are controlled through the Early
Years Team. The applicant has revised the parking layout so that an additional two parking spaces would
be provided. I have no objections on highway grounds.
I am satisfied that a further grant of planning permission would not conflict with Council policy particularly
with regard to the Green Belt and I am mindful of the fact that no objections have been received by local
residents.
I recommend that this application be approved subject to referral to the Secretary of State owing to its
greenbelt location.
RECOMMENDATION:
a) That the Panel are minded to approve the application subject to the conditions
stated below and that the application is referred to the Secretary of State.
b)
Approved subject to the following conditions:
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.
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
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 six 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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
02/44803/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr C Whyman
LOCATION:
34 Welwyn Drive Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey rear extension
WARD:
Claremont
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property. The proposal is for the erection of a two-storey rear
extension. The extension would project 2.5m along the boundary with the adjoining property and be flush
with the existing two-storey extension on the rear of the dwelling. There is a single storey extension along
the boundary on the adjoining dwelling. The extension would be the same height with a flat roof similar to
the one on the existing rear extension. The garden narrows as it projects away from the rear of the dwelling
and there are no houses directly behind. There is an adjacent bedroom window in the rear main wall of the
adjoining dwelling, and there would be a ground floor and first floor main habitable window on the rear of
the proposed extension.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:19, 21 and 23 Runnymeade,
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
36 Welwyn Drive.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:Loss of light to bedroom at the rear of the adjoining property.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: Dev8 – House Extensions.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Dev8 states permission would be granted if the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse impact
on the amenity of the neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of
privacy or light.
The extension would project 2.5m along the boundary with the adjacent property that already has a single
storey extension along the same boundary. This complies with Guidance Note HH11 of the Supplementary
Planning Guidance for House Extensions (SPG) in that the maximum projection is 2.74m. Therefore I do
not consider that the proposed extension would have a significantly detrimental impact on the amenity of
these neighbours or loss of light to this bedroom.
The proposed extension would have a flat roof, which is contrary to the guidelines within the SPG.
However as the extension would be at the rear of the where it would not be directly overlooking any houses,
I do not consider the extension would be significantly detrimental to any properties at the rear and can not
be seen from the main highway.
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 of the development shall be the same type, colour and
texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44810/FUL
APPLICANT:
Oakwood Homes Ltd
LOCATION:
48 Chatsworth Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of three storey building
with two storey outrigger comprising eight apartments, basement car
parking and alteration to existing, and construction of new vehicular
access
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing detached dwelling. The house is set within a large garden that
measures approximately 70m by 21m. To the south of the site is Broadoak Park Golf Course and to the
north is the playing field to the Broadoak County Junior School. Residential properties are to the east and
west.
It is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling and replace it with a three and a half storey block
comprising eight three and two bedroom apartments with basement parking. The building would measure a
maximum of 16.2m wide by 27.2m deep and would have a height above ground level of approximately
12.3m. A total of 11 car parking spaces would be provided most of which would be in the basement but
with two to the front of the property and three to the rear in a sunken car park area. To the west the proposed
building would project beyond the rear main wall of the neighbouring property by 4.8m and would be
approximately 2.7m from the common boundary. Part of a line of tall leylandii as well as several trees
would be removed from this boundary. To the east the building would be a minimum of 3.6m from the
boundary of the neighbouring dwelling. A footpath runs between numbers 46 and 48 and the existing trees
and shrubs would be retained. An existing double garage that is right on the common boundary would be
removed.
SITE HISTORY
In August 2001 an outline planning application was submitted for the demolition of the existing dwelling
and the erection of two detached dwellings. This application was withdrawn before any decision was
reached (01/42979/OUT).
In December 2001 a full planning application was submitted for the demolition of the existing dwelling and
the erection of two detached dwellings. This application was also withdrawn before any decision had been
reached (01/43487/FUL).
In July 2002 a full planning application was submitted for the demolition of the existing house and the
erection of a three-storey block of nine apartments with basement parking. This application was also
withdrawn before any decision had been reached (02/44486/FUL).
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections but requests a condition regarding lighting.
The Coal Authority – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:
3 and 4 to 8 Broadlands
42 to 46, 50, 52, 47, 72, 74, 94, 71, 75, 77 and 6 Chatsworth Road
Broadoak Junior School Fairmount Road
1, 2, Thornleigh and Dunelm Haddon Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 12 letters of objection in response to the application publicity one of which has been signed
by 33 residents. The following comments having been made:
Overbearing
Out of character
Noise and disturbance during construction
Overdevelopment of the site
Loss of privacy
Increase in traffic and loss of highway safety
Lighting pollution
Lack of parking
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands, DEV1 Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EN7 encourages the conservation of trees and woodlands. Policy DEV1 states that the City Council
will have regard to a number of factors when considering applications for planning permission. These
factors include the size of the proposed development, the likely scale of traffic generation, the amount of car
parking, the effect on neighbouring residents, the visual appearance of the development and its relationship
to its surroundings and the impact on trees.
With regard to the objections that have been received I note the comments of the Director of Environmental
Services with regard to lighting pollution. Noise and disturbance during construction cannot be considered
as justification for the refusal of development. I consider that the scheme has been revised such that loss of
privacy to neighbouring properties would not now be significant.
I do, however, have concerns regarding the overall size, siting, appearance and design of the development.
Chatsworth Road is characterised by large detached two storey dwellings set back from the highway in
large grounds. Dwellings on the north side of Chatsworth Road present an informal but well-defined
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
building line, with frontages that are set back approximately 18m from the front boundaries. A strong and
mature planting framework places housing in soft surroundings, which screen the ground and part of the
first floor of most dwellings from public view at street level. Planting and setbacks create a very particular
street scene along this length of Chatsworth Road, with mature front boundaries affording partial views of
individual properties set behind, glimpsed through dense vegetation.
The proposal stands approximately 5m forward of the existing building line on Chatsworth Road and is less
than 13m from the front boundary. The design is such that the development, with its pedestrian entrance to
the side of the property and shuttered car park entrance central within the front elevation, would have the
obvious appearance of a large apartment block. It would be approximately 3m higher than neighbouring
properties and would almost fill its plot. The building would dominate the street scene rather than blend
harmoniously with adjoining properties. The projection of the building from the front and rear established
line of dwellings along Chatsworth road would make the development more prominent and would serve to
emphasise the difference in design compared with the established character. I consider that the
development would be an overdevelopment of the site that would be out of character with the area.
The proposed development provides 11 car parking spaces and although this figure is in accordance with
Government guidance I am of the opinion that some of the basement spaces will prove difficult to access. I
consider than this, and the lack of additional curtilage parking within the site would lead to frequent parking
on Chatsworth Road. This road is private and has no pavements. I consider that this parking would
contribute to the detrimental effect that this development would have on the character of the area. In
addition, of the six trees that exist to the front of the existing property, the applicants intend to remove two
and it is the opinion of the City Council’s arboricultural officer than a third would be lost as a result of the
development. This further contributes to the detrimental impact that this development would have on the
street scene and the character of the area.
Of relevance to this application is Government advice as set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 on
Housing. This promotes higher densities in sustainable locations. This development would achieve a plot
density of approximately 57 dwellings per hectare. PPG3 does not preclude densities higher than 50
dwellings per hectare but it states that planning authorities should seek greater intensity of development at
places with good public transport accessibility such as city, town, district and local centres or around major
nodes along good quality public transport corridors. It is considered that developments that propose an
intense use of land should be assessed having regard to their impact on the surrounding area and to their
specific location. The objectives of PPG3 are not to achieve an intensification of development on every site
at any cost, but to promote an efficient use of land, through high density development on suitable sites in
suitable locations.
PPG3 clarifies that there should be a balanced approach to providing new housing so that a more efficient
use can be made of land without compromising the quality of the environment. It states that new housing
development of whatever scale should not be viewed in isolation. Considerations of design and layout must
be informed by the wider context, having regard not just to any immediate neighbouring buildings, but the
townscape and landscape of the wider locality. The local pattern of streets and spaces should help to
determine the existing character of the locality and planning authorities are called on to create places that
are attractive, but which also enhance and respect the local character.
With regard to the effect of the development on the neighbours while I do not consider that there would be
any loss of privacy I do consider that the development would be overbearing as a result of its size and siting,
extending as it does both forward and backwards beyond the main elevations of both neighbouring
properties.
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
I consider that the main planning issues relate to the effect on the development on the character of the area
and on neighbouring residents. The site is located in a residential area and therefore the principle of
development for residential purposes is acceptable. The issues relate to the impact of the development on
the character of the area, in particular on the street scene, the impact on the residential quality of adjoining
properties and the appropriateness of the design in terms of scale, massing and responsiveness to the
context. Although PPG3 promotes higher densities in residential development and efficient use of land, the
site is not suitable to achieve these objectives. The proposal also fails to comply with sustainability and
design criteria contained in PPG3. Firstly, the site does not lie in a sustainable or particularly urban location
and secondly its design is not responsive to the context. Given the character and appearance of the area
there is not scope, in this location, for such an intensive residential development.
The proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site, and by reason of its bulk and siting would detract
from the character and appearance of the street scene and would form an unduly overbearing feature. The
proposal is therefore contrary to City Council policy and I recommend that permission be refused on the
following grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development by reason of its size and siting would seriously injure the amenity of
neighbouring residents and as such would be contrary to policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
2. The proposed development, by reason of its design, size, siting, restricted parking and loss of trees,
would be an overdevelopment of the site that would be obtrusive in the street scene and would be out of
character with the surrounding area. As such it would be contrary to policies DEV1 and DEV2 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/44811/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr Bromley
LOCATION:
25 Brackley Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing garages and erection of new garage with
storeroom in roof space at rear of dwelling
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
This application relates to a semi-detached property. The proposal is for the demolition of existing garages
and the erection of a new garage with storeroom in the roof space at the rear of the dwelling. The garage
would measure 5.5m x 7.5m and be approximately 5.5m in height to the ridge of the roof. The garage would
be sited 8.5m from the rear wall of 14 Monton Green. It would be located along the boundary with 14
Monton Green. There would be a storeroom in the roof of the garage and a dormer extension at right angles
to the boundary with 14 Monton Green.
There is a large garage to the rear of the property in the rear of 16 Monton Green that stretches along the
length of the rear garden of 14 Monton Green.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal - No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:23 and 27 Brackley Road.
10 – 16 Monton Green.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 2 letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:




The structure will destroy the rear aspect to14 Monton Green, fencing in the garden by brick
structures and completely eroding the enjoyment of the rear garden.
The structure would out of keeping with the style of the property and would over develop the
area.
The garage would block the outlook and light to the garden.
Overbearing.
The applicant has built an identical garage at 16 Monton Green that already blocks the light to
the garden.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: Dev8 – House Extensions.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Dev8 states that permission would be granted if the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse
impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents be reason of over looking, over shadowing,
dominance, loss of privacy or light.
The objectors cite loss of amenity of the rear gardens of 12 and 14 Monton Green as a concern. The garage
would project approximately 5.5m along the adjoining boundary with 14 Monton Green, along half the total
width of the garden. There is already a large garage measuring approximately 5.5m in height, along the
boundary between 14 and 16 Monton Green that dominates the garden to the east and restricts mid morning
75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
/ early afternoon light. I consider therefore, that to allow the proposed garage, which would be almost twice
the height of the existing detached garage at the property, would mean unacceptable overshadowing and
dominance of the garden at 14 Monton Green. The garden already suffers from loss of light in the early part
of the day and if the garage was constructed then further light would be lost in the morning. Coupled with
the loss of light from the detached garage at no 16, therefore the garden at no 12 would seriously suffer loss
of amenity and enjoyment of the garden would be diminished considerably as a result.
The kitchen window provides some light to the dining room of 14 Monton Green via an adjoining door. The
dining room does have another window, however the garage at no16 has already affected the light to this
room. The dining room is used throughout the day as the occupant works from home. I am concerned
therefore that the erection of a taller garage than the existing along the boundary would result in further loss
of light in the dining room and so result in a further loss of amenity for these residents.
I consider that the garage is too large and that its construction would have an adverse impact on the amenity
of the neighbours at 14 Monton Green. It would result in a detrimental impact on the enjoyment, light and
amenity of the garden of the property. There is already some detrimental impact caused by the garage at 16
Monton Green, the erection of a further garage, if coupled with this, would box in the garden and reduce the
amenity and enjoyment significantly. The proposal would also result in further reduced light to the dining
room via the kitchen. Therefore I consider the proposal to be contrary to the provisions of Dev8 in the UDP
and recommend the proposal be rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. Standard Reason RR34C Neighbouring Residents - Size/Siting
APPLICATION No:
02/44816/FUL
APPLICANT:
Biffa Waste Services Limited
LOCATION:
Clifton Hall Landfill Site Lumns Lane Clifton Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Construction and installation of a landfill gas utilisation system
comprising flaring equipment, two electricity generating engines and
associated equipment and electricity sub-station.
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing landfill site, known as Clifton Hall. The site commenced operations in
1997 and is in operational year 5/6 (i.e. the second year of filling phase 3 out of 4). The landfill site lies
within the Croal Irwell Valley and the Green Belt.
76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
The proposed landfill gas utilisation system would be located on the site of an existing gas flare and landfill
gas management compound. This lies to the immediate north-west of the completed first phases at the
bottom of the ‘domed’ restored site levels. The nearest houses to the compound area are located on higher
ground approximately 385m to the south at Kersal and Rivington Avenues. To the west is the former GM
landfill. The nearest houses in this direction are some 500m away across an undulating and planted
landscape. To the east over the other side of the domed landfill are industrial uses and two sites with
planning permission for housing (some 400-500m away).
It is proposed to expand the existing compound to an area of some 463 square metres to provide additional
plant, comprising:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Two generating sets each with an acoustically enclosed flat roof container with approximate
dimensions of 12.5m long by 3.5m wide by 5.5m high (includes the roof mounted silenced exhaust
system). The enclosure can be coloured green.
Two low voltage high voltage transformers;
Two self bunded clean/dirty oil storage tanks;
Gas delivery pipelines
An emission abatement facility;
1.8m high palisade fence enclosing the compound
A 9m high flare
A small brick built sub station to interface between the generating sets and the National Grid. This
is located further north close to the existing site cabins
In their supporting statement the applicant provides background information on landfill gas
management, the regulatory and energy policy framework and national and local planning policy. They
have also provided a comprehensive noise and emission survey together with an analysis of the visual
impact of the scheme, traffic generation and so on.
Essentially the primary concern at landfill sites is the control of lateral migration of landfill gas by
removing the potential health and environmental risks associated with methane and carbon dioxide.
Apart from the environmental benefits to be gained by the conversion of landfill gas by combustion to
less harmful green house gases the utilisation of gas has the added advantage of offsetting the
requirements for power generation from fossil fuel sources.
The Kyoto protocol establishes targets for world governments to achieve, with the UK being committed
to reaching its goal through the promotion of renewable energy and the real reduction in CO2
equivalent emissions. In addition the EU Landfill Directive imposes a requirement to capture and to
utilise landfill gas produced from waste repositories. Hence the applicant wishes to develop flaring and
generation via landfill at Clifton Hall.
It is stated by the applicant that the gas flares will be used to burn any surplus landfill gas not being
utilised by the generators. Once operational the facility will have the capacity to produce up to 1.5 MW
of electricity. In terms of its operation gas will be drawn under suction from the site and fed through the
gas collection manifolds into the environmental gas compound. The gas will be treated and will then
pass into the generation equipment. Here it will be converted into electricity and the power generated
fed into the local electricity supply network.
SITE HISTORY
77
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
In March 1996 planning permission was granted for the current land filling operations with restoration to a
country park.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections and recommends a noise condition
Environment Agency: No comments received to date.
British Coal: No objections and give advice.
Greater Manchester Geological Unit: No comments received to date
PUBLICITY
A press notice has been published and a site notice displayed.
The following neighbours were notified of the application: 273-313 Rivington Crescent
1-11 and 2-10 Rivington Avenue
1-19 and 2-14 Kersal Avenue
1-23 Ethel Avenue
1-18 Clively Walk
20-38 and 49-53 Pendlecroft Avenue
1-11 and 2-12 Crescent Avenue
313, 343-357 Bolton Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one email response. The following issues have been raised: Visual impact of the flares and the compound
Noise from the generators
Heath risk from the electricity sub station
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: R11/3 Provision of Country Parks; EN2 Green Belt; EN17 and EN23 Croal Irwell
Valley
Other policies: EN20 Pollution Control; MW12 Methane/ Biogas and MW15 Development Control
Criteria –Waste.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider the main issues in this case are whether the proposal is appropriate development in Green Belt
terms; whether its visual impact/intrusion is acceptable given its Green Belt, Croal Irwell Valley and
proposed country park location; whether it has an unacceptable impact on residential amenity by reason of
noise and emissions and its visual impact.
Turning to Green Belt (GB) policy first new buildings in the GB are inappropriate unless they are essential
facilities for uses of land, which preserve the openness of the GB and do not conflict with the purposes of
78
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
including land in it. I would argue that landfill gas management is an essential component of any landfill
site and as a use landfilling operations do preserve the openness of the GB. I therefore consider that the
proposed plant is appropriate development in the GB. The appearance of the proposed plant and equipment
is incongruous with its immediate surroundings. However it is sited in a fairly low-lying area. With colour
treatment to the generators and palisade fence (i.e. likely to be a dark green) and an extensive restoration
plan for the whole of the landfill site I would conclude that the facility would not be prominent and as the
landscaping matures it would be become less intrusive. I do however consider it appropriate that the
approved restoration plan is revisited to ensure landscaping within close proximity of the compound is
sufficiently robust to screen and assimilate it into the emerging landscape. This would screen the lower
lying equipment and assist in masking the existing and proposed flare stacks.
The modifications to the restoration plan described above would in my view satisfactorily mitigate any
undue adverse impact on the outlook from houses in the area. The site is sufficiently remote from
neighbouring houses although long range views can be gained particularly from the houses to the south that
overlook the landfill site.
The applicant’s noise survey comprehensively examined the ambient noise levels currently experienced by
occupants within a 500m radius of the site compound. A number of scenarios were developed to ascertain
the impact of the operation of the site. The survey concluded that the existing flares and gas plant were
noisier than the proposed generators. Under prevailing southwesterly winds noise from the generators
would be substantially below the background level in residential areas situated to the south and south west
of the landfill. Even under a light downwind (worst case scenario) ambient noise levels would not be
exceeded at all locations surveyed. The Director of Environmental Services concurs with the findings but
has recommended a condition to ensure those predicted noise levels are not unduly exceeded. This would
ensure that those as yet undeveloped housing sites to the east and north east are similarly protected from
undue noise disturbance. It is similarly concluded that emissions from the flare stacks and generators would
not result in any substantial change.
So having regard to the concerns expressed by one local resident I consider that with appropriate conditions
the proposed facility would not be unduly intrusive and as the site is restored it would become progressively
less so. Noise and emissions levels would be within acceptable limits such that complaints are unlikely. The
electricity sub station is sufficiently remote (some 400m from the nearest houses) to warrant any perceived
concern over health risks. Furthermore the facility would be utilising a renewable energy source and
reducing harmful greenhouses gases.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The 1.8m high palisade fence hereby approved shall be treated in a colour, the details of which shall
have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services, prior to
its erection on site or within one month of it first being erected on site the prior date of which having
being notified to the Director of Development Services in writing. The agreed colour shall be
maintained thereafter.
3. The plant and equipment associated with the landfill gas management compound and electricity sub
79
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
station shall be removed and the sites restored in accordance with the agreed Restoration Management
Plan at such a date when the plant and equipment is no longer required for the purposes of landfill gas
management and the generation of electricity.
4. The Restoration Management Plan first submitted and approved under planning permission
95/33963/FUL shall be amended so as to ensure the landscaping regime screens the landfill gas
management compound during its operational life and results in its assimilation into the restored
landscape as a proposed country park. The details of such changes shall be submitted to the Director of
Development Services within six months of the date of this permission. The agreed details shall be
implemented and managed in accordance with the Restoration Management Plan as amended.
5. The Restoration Management Plan first submitted and approved under planning permission
95/33963/FUL shall be amended to show details of the landscaping and management of the gas
compound area following decommissioning. The details of such changes shall be submitted to the
Director of Development Services within six months of the date of this permission.The agreed details
shall be implemented in accordance with timescales in the agreed Restoration Management Plan as
amended
6. The rating level for noise emitted from the applicaltion site shall not exceed the background levels at
those representative locations identified in table 10 of the ATL Noise Report by more than 5dB(A). The
measurement and assessment shall be made according to BS4142:1997 'Rating Industrial Noise
Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas'.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 8 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/44837/REM
APPLICANT:
Eccles College
LOCATION:
Land At Eccles College Chatsworth Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Details of the means of access in respect of residential development
(planning application 00/41483) - (Not including internal site layout and
80
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
means of access to individual properties)
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land along Bradford Road abounding Eccles College, a further education
establishment (aimed at the 16-18 age group) situated at the end of Chatsworth Road to the north of
Ellesmere Park.
The college (to the north-east) has around 1,200 students at present. The only vehicular access to the
College is from Chatsworth Road and runs through an entirely residential area. The south and west of the
site is also entirely residential.
To the north of the site a 2.4 hectare part of the College playing fields has recently been approved for
residential development. The application (00/41483/OUT) was submitted in outline with all matters
reserved for further approval. The means of access relate directly to this reserved matters application.
Bradford Road adjoins Cavendish Road which, connects to nearby Monton Road. There is to be no access
to Bradford Road from Chatsworth Road.
The proposal is to provide an access road off Bradford Road to the above mentioned housing development.
This will require construction of the access road over Folly Brook and through approximately 20m of
young/ semi-mature trees, some 25 trees in total. The junction is intended as at approximately half the
distance along Bradford Road, opposite house numbers 5 and 7. The residential application has a frontage
to Bradford Road of some 200m. Along this boundary the Folly Brook runs parallel to Bradford Road and is
set in approximately 14m from the boundary with Bradford Road.
SITE HISTORY
In 2000 to the North of the site, a 2.4 hectare part of the College playing fields was approved for residential
development. The application (00/41483/OUT) was submitted in outline with all matters reserved for
further approval. The means of access relate directly to this reserved matters application.
No other planning permissions relate to this site since the present records began.
CONSULTATIONS
Ellesmere Park Residents association – No comments received
Arboricultural Officer – Would prefer access at either end of Bradford Road to avoid breaking line of trees
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 1st October 2002.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:
81
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
1-11(0) 1a, 1b Bradford Road
82, 84 &59 Cavendish Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received four representations/letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:




Loss of tree-screen (planted by former Lancashire County Council when the Sixth form college was
built) and subsequent exposure to college activities. (loss of copse)
Vehicle headlights shining onto houses opposite due to slight gradient up from Folly Brook.
Suggestion that the access road be alternatively sited as a continuation of Cavendish Road or Welbeck
Road.
Traffic – concern about increase in hold ups and accidents
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: NA
Other policies:
DEV1– Development Criteria
EN7 – Conservation of trees and woodlands
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EN7 refers to the conservation of trees and woodlands. This states that the City Council will support
the retention of trees and woodlands. This contributes to opportunities for wildlife conservation.
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will normally have regard to a number of factors when
determining applications. This includes the need to consider the proposal in relation to existing and
proposed land uses (residential, education, public open space). Also relevant is the likely type and scale of
traffic generation; this will primarily consist of private cars and pedestrians. Access is also required for
cyclists as a further alternative option to the private car.
Further to this DEV1 states the need to consider the visual appearance, landscaping, and the impact on
existing trees. This relates to the visual amenity as perceived from neighbouring properties, the ends of
Bradford Road, and within the subsequent residential development.
Comments made by the arboricultural officer suggest the need to retain a continuous border of trees (eg.
Along the boundary of Bradford Road) as over-riding the need to protect the actual number of trees. Thus it
is preferred that if the line of trees is to be broken up, this is best done at either end rather than in the middle.
However upon inspection of alternative options put forward by residents, any continuation of Cavendish
Road is not possible due to land-ownership at this junction remaining in ownership of Eccles College and
thus not forming any part of this application.
This proposed access point at the middle of Bradford road offers visibility splays to the East and West. The
applicant has signed as part of their application for residential development (00/41483/OUT) a section 106
agreement; this includes contributions to traffic calming on Bradford Road and Cavendish Road.
82
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
This reserved matters application complies with traffic calming proposals including those at Bradford
Road/ site access comprising of a table junction, using block paving (including drainage and gullies as
required). Specification for the traffic calming works (agreed as part of application 00/41483/OUT)
includes the following:
Location
Cavendish Road
Cavendish Road
Bradford Road
Bradford Road/ Site Access
Welbeck Road
Description
Gateway Feature, using red surfacing and 20mph entry signs
4 x round top road humps
1 x round top road hump
Table junction, using block paving (including drainage and
gullies as required)
2 x round top road humps
Residents point out that when the 6th form college was built the former Lancashire County Council planted
the existing tree belt to provide complete screening, following representations made by residents at that
time. Removal of trees presents a significant concern among residents along Bradford Road. While the area
of removal proposed is relatively significant at approximately 224m.sq, a condition can be applied to
request replacement of trees on a 2 for 1 basis.
I consider the proposal to be acceptable. This view is taken in light of the concerns put forward, particularly
those relating to copse removal, highway safety and junction location. Highway access over Folly Brook
will be subject to a reserved matters application at a later stage.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition C07C Replacement of Trees
2. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme shall be submitted to the Director of
Development Services detailing provision of the replacement tree planting on a 2:1 basis. Such a
scheme shall include details of tree species, height, density and location. The approved scheme shall be
implemented within 12 months of the commencement of any development on the site. Any trees that
are damaged or die within five years of planting shall be replaced.
3. The developer shall submit for the approval of the Directior of Development Services a scheme to show
details of pedestrian access to the site. Such approved scheme be implemented prior to the occupation
of any dwelling.
(Reasons)
1. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
83
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44838/DEMCON
APPLICANT:
Housing Services Directorate
LOCATION:
100/114 Langworthy Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Prior notification for the demolition of existing shop/residential
properties
WARD:
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the demolition of eight terraced dwellings/ existing shops 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 temporarily grass the site,
protected by a barrier/ knee rail. The Director of Development Services (Building Control Section) would
supervise all demolition, 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.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 9th October 2002.
The following neighbours were notified of the application:



131+133-149 (0) Langworthy Road
60-80 (e) Fir Street
22 Wall Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one representation/letter of objections in response to the application publicity. The
following issue has been raised:
84
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

7th November 2002
Position of yellow-line road markings – these may be better situated if swapped with the opposite side
of the road as delivery vehicles no-longer deliver to shops, thus allowing residents to park outside their
homes.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H7/2 – Langworthy & Seedley
Other policies: H2 – Maintaining and Improving Public Sector Housing
Other policies: Dev3, Dev4 – Alterations, Design & Crime
S3 – Key Local Centres - Langworthy Road
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy H2 states that the City Council will seek to maintain and improve public
sector housing by promoting a number of measures including the selective clearance of housing where
appropriate and improving the housing environment through the provision of public open space. Policy
H7/2 states that the City Council will promote the 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.
There is only one objection. This relates to the road markings and is a highways issue. These comments
have been passed on to my Traffic and Transportation section.
No objections have been made regarding the visual appearance of the site. However I am satisfied that the
site aftercare, comprising of grassing of the site and the positioning of a knee-rail around its perimeter,
would not be detrimental to the visual amenity of the locality. All properties identified for demolition are
presently vacant.
The properties are in a poor state of use and I am satisfied that their demolition is in accordance with
Unitary Development plan policies H2 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)
85
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
02/44839/TPO
APPLICANT:
L Binder
LOCATION:
St Pauls Rise St Pauls Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
20% crown thin and crown raise by 2m two horse chestnut trees
(T1,T2)
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to two mature horse chestnut trees situated to the front of St Paul’s Rise on St Paul’s
Road.
The two trees are approximately 15m in height and can be seen from all along St Paul’s Road. The request
is to crown raise to 2m and crown thin by 20% both the trees to allow more light into St Paul’s Rise.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1 to 7 (odd), 1A and 4 St Pauls Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have been
raised:The trees are not dangerous or an inconvenience and so work is unnecessary
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands.
86
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EN7 states that we will encourage the conservation of trees and woodland by supporting the
retention of trees, woods, copses and hedgerows.
Although the trees are not dangerous I am of the opinion that the branches below 2m are an inconvenience
to people using the public footpath. A 20 percent crown thin of both the trees would also allow more light
into the residential premises of St Paul’s Rise and would not damage the trees. The City of Salford’s
Arboriculturalist has inspected the trees and has no objections to the proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition C08T Time Limit - tree work
2. Standard Condition C09T British Standard - tree work
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R035A Situation to be reviewed
2. Standard Reason R036A Good aboricultural practice
APPLICATION No:
02/44846/FUL
APPLICANT:
Quays Campus Limited
LOCATION:
Ordsall Leisure Centre Craven Drive Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Alternations to external elevations
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the Ordsall Lesiure Centre located on the former Salford College site. The leisure
centre is bounded by Trafford Road to the west, Ordsall Park to the north, Craven Drive to the east and the
rest of the former college site to the south.
Planning permission is sought for alterations to the external elevations involving the removal of cladding
and treatment of the elevations with render. This application has been submitted in conjunction with three
87
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
other applications, also on this agenda, relating to the redevelopment of the former Salford College Site.
Signage is shown on the drawings however this would be the subject of a separate advertisement consent
application.
The part owner of the former Salford College (Quays Campus) site has undertaken an agreement with the
City Council to fund the works proposed in this application.
SITE HISTORY
In April 2002, planning permission was granted in outline for mixed use development- offices (19,081sq.m
- max.7 storey), hotel (3548sq.m - max 4 storey), retail units (779 and 407sq.m), retail/food/drink units (687
and 389 sqm) new vehicle access and car parking (01/42541/OUT).
In 2001, outline planning permission for office development was renewed for the site to the south of Archie
Street (01/42550/OUT).
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 1st October 2002
The following neighbours were notified of the application:44 Clarke Avenue
1 – 7 odd Craven Drive
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 seeks, inter alia, to ensure development fits in with surrounding buildings and uses and that
development will have a suitable visual appearance. Policy DEV2 requires that development enhances the
environment.
At present the recreation centre has a standard functional appearance. The proposal involves the application
of a two colour render system to all four elevations. There are no proposed changes to the roof. I consider
that the addition of rendered walls to the recreation centre would significantly enhance the appearance of
the building and thus the surrounding area. I also consider that the proposal would enhance the areas future
redevelopment. I have no highway objections and recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of render to be used for the
88
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
walls of the leisure centre 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
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This permission does not grant consent under the Town and Country Planning (Control of
Advertisements) Regulations 1992 for the advertisement(s) shown on the submitted plan, nor does it
imply that such consent would be forthcoming.
APPLICATION No:
02/44873/TEL56
APPLICANT:
O2 (UK) Limited
LOCATION:
Site At Junction Of Clifford Street And Bolton Road Pendlebury
PROPOSAL:
Prior notification of the installation of one telecommunications pole
with operational lighting arm, five antenna and two associated
equipment cabinets
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a piece of land at the junction of the A666 Bolton Road and Clifford Street,
Pendlebury. To the east of the site are residential properties. To the west, beyond Clifford Street, is a parade
of 4 takeaways.
The proposal seeks to erect a 12.1m high telecommunications column with operational lighting arm and
two equipment cabinets on the pavement fronting Bolton Road. The column would be designed to
resemble the surrounding street lamps. The equipment cabinets would be dark green in colour.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
1-18 Cliveley Walk
1-21 (O) Ethel Avenue
330-354 (E) Bolton Road
REPRESENTATIONS
89
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
I have received three letters of objection in response to application publicity and a petition of 55 signatures.
The main issues identified are as follows:
The appearance of the proposed development
The potential health risks
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: SC14 Telecommunications
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy SC14 states that the Council will normally grant approval for telecommunications development
unless it would have an unacceptable effect on visual and residential amenity.
I consider that in visual terms this proposal is acceptable. The site lies adjacent to a major arterial road,
where the proposed column would be viewed in conjunction with existing lamp posts. It would not appear a
significantly unsightly feature in the street scene, as it would be similar in appearance to the lamp posts.
Similarly, the proposed equipment cabinets would also be viewed in conjunction with existing street
furniture. Consequently, I do not believe that it would appear an incongruous or intrusive feature.
The applicants have submitted a declaration which shows that the proposed equipment complies with
ICNIRP public exposure guidelines. Therefore, I am satisfied that sufficient information has been provided
to show that there should be no adverse health implications. The applicants have demonstrated that other
potential sites have been investigated in the surrounding area, but were considered either not feasible,
available or would not have the required coverage. The applicants state that the proposed development is
required to improve coverage in the area. I am satisfied that this justification meets the criteria of SC14.
Therefore, on balance I consider that the proposal would not significantly harm the visual amenity of the
area or neighbouring occupiers and recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
90
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
APPLICATION No:
02/44756/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Education And Leisure Services
LOCATION:
Winton Nursery Centre Brindley Street Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey side extension and extended canopy to external
play area, erection of freestanding canopy to front elevation and
provision of two additional parking spaces
WARD:
Winton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Winton Nursery. The proposal is erect a single-storey infill extension of 6.8
metres by 8.2 metres and a free-standing canopy projecting 4.2 metres at the north-west of the building. The
extension would principally provide a crčche, with ancillary laundry, toilet and kitchen facilities. To the
south of the building, a freestanding canopy 6 metres by 7 metres is proposed to cover part of the existing
play area. Two additional car parking spaces would be located to the south-west of the site, adjacent to the
rear garden of 14 Lothian Avenue.
The extension would be constructed from materials to match the existing building and the two canopies
would be glazed. The proposal would necessitate the removal of three small trees to the north-west of the
site.
The surrounding area is residential. Vehicular access to the site is via Brindley Street. The nursery car park
is located to the rear of the site.
SITE HISTORY
E/15501 – Erection of a nursery centre together with associated car parking and alteration to existing
vehicular and pedestrian accesses. Approved 5.6.93
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours were notified of the application:46, 48, 60 – 75 (odds) Sutherland Street
2 – 10 (evens) 2a, 4a, 6a Sutherland Street
181 – 205 (odds), 211 Worsley Road
9 – 17 (odds), 12 – 16 (evens) Lothian Avenue
91
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:


concern raised regarding proposed two additional car parking spaces and their location adjacent to the
garden fence of 14 Lothian Avenue. Concern relates to noise from car doors slamming, car radios and
nuisance from exhaust fumes
problems may be exacerbated by early opening hours
noise during construction period
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that regard shall be had to a number of factors in
determining applications for planning permission including the visual appearance of the development and
the design and layout of car parking provision.
The objection raised relates to the location of two additional car parking spaces adjacent to the garden fence
of 14 Lothian Avenue and the effect on the amenity of these residents. There is a 1.8 metre high concrete
panel fence to the side boundary of this property. I consider that this will provide an effective screen to the
proposed parking spaces. The Applicant has indicated that they will provide landscaping to further screen
the parking from this property. I do not consider that the location of these spaces would lead to any
significant increase in nuisance from noise or fumes above that already experienced, in particular as the
proposed parking spaces are located alongside the existing vehicular access. The Applicant has stated that
the parking spaces would generally be used between 8.00am and 5.00pm. Additional car parking cannot be
satisfactorily located elsewhere within the site. The parking spaces would assist in reducing parking on
adjacent streets.
I consider that the design of the proposed extension is in keeping with the existing building. I do not
consider that the floorspace created would amount to any significant additional traffic generation. I have no
objections on highway grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be used
for the walls and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
3. No development shall be started until full details of the type of materials to be used for the canopy have
92
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.
4. The area adjacent to the proposed car parking spaces shall be treated in accordance with a landscape
screening scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Development Services
before development is started. Such scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted
and shall be carried out within 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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding details
of drainage.
APPLICATION No:
02/44800/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Development Services Directorate
LOCATION:
The Quays Road Salford Quays Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Display of banners on street lighting columns
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the Quays loop road. The proposal is to display banners from the lamp column
along the road, to advertise the Designer Outlet Village. Each banner would be 0.9m by 3.6m. Banners
would be displayed on every alternate column except facing the entrance to the Designer Outlets’ car park,
which would be on every 4th column. The design of the banners and the on-going maintenance of the
banners would be managed as part of the agreement with the Council for their display.
SITE HISTORY
93
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
In April 2001, permission was granted for the display 8 banners on poles at the entrance into the road from
Trafford Road and outside Ontario House. (ref. 01/42069/ADV).
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 3 October 2002
Site notice were displayed on 25 September 2002
The following neighbours were notified of the application:1- 20 St. Laurence Quay
1-37 Vancouver Quay
1-54 Winnipeg Quay
Peel Holdings
Grain Wharf Residents Association
Ward Councillors
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a letter from the Grain Wharf Residents Association saying that they would like assurances
that the banners are firmly secured top and bottom and they are regularly checked and maintained, in order
to prevent them becoming tattered and unsightly.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
PLANNING APPRAISAL
During the Commonwealth Games, banners were temporarily displayed on most of the lamp columns
within the Quays. This permission is now sought for advertisement banners, in connection with the
Designer Outlet Village. In order to reduce the visual impact and possible cluttered appearance it is
proposed now that the banners would only be on alternate columns, with less around part of the residential
properties.
I appreciate the concerns of the residents association that they would want to ensure the banners are not only
secured but are also checked and maintained regularly. As the banners would be displayed with the
agreement of Development Services who own the columns, the legal agreement would include a
requirement to ensure maintenance as well as the need for the specific designs to be approved.
I would consider that the display of some banners within this area would provide colour and interest within
the street scene. I am satisfied that by using a maximum of alternate columns, the impact of the banners
would be achieved but it would reduce the possibility of clutter within the street scene.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
94
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th November 2002
1. Standard Condition K01S Standard Advertisement Condition
2. At any one time, banners shall only be displayed on every alternate lighting column on columns no. 139 and 51 - 121, and only on one in four on columns 40 - 50.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R034 Advert
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
95
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
96
7th November 2002