SITE HISTORY

Document Sample
SITE HISTORY Powered By Docstoc
					APPLICATION No:             03/45870/FUL

APPLICANT:                  Cooper Clarke Group PLC

LOCATION:                   Cooper Clarke Morpeth Street Swinton

PROPOSAL:                   Retention of external cantilever racking system

WARD:                       Swinton South

At a meeting of the Panel held on 17th July 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY
PANEL.

My previous observations are set out below:

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to Cooper Clarkes on Morpeth Street, Swinton. The proposal seeks to
retain an external cantilever racking system used for the storage of timber.

The site has been used as a builders merchant for many years and is surrounded by residential
accommodation. The site comprises of a mixture of single and two storey buildings along the
eastern boundary to the rear of properties on Campbell Road. The southern side of the site is used
of the storage of external materials. Access is via the north of the site off Morpeth Street.

The racking system comprises of three sections and measures 16.8m in length X 6.4m in height
and projects 11.5m from the existing building. It is 7.9m from the access and maintains 12.2m
from the western boundary.

The boundary treatment around the site is varied. The western boundary comprises of 1.8m waney
lap and concrete sectional fencing with a mixture of bushes, hedges and landscaping within the
residential gardens.

SITE HISTORY

E/984     -   Extension of 5 year consent for storage of building materials, discontinued 31/1/80
E/5840    -   Established use certificate for land on south side, 1978
E/5954    -   Outline consent for DIY retail outlet, refused 1978
E/6927    -   Erection of extension, approved 1978
E/8936    -   Retention of on-site servicing road, approved 1985
E/8949    -   Demolition of exiting offices and erection of extension to warehouse and two storey
              extension to provide offices and canteen, approved 1979
E/9917    -   Continued use certificate




                                                1
E/14830 -      Erection of extension to provide warehouse and two storey office accommodation,
               approved 1982
E/15085   -    Temporary canteen, approved 1983
E/18279   -    Erection of single storey extension to provide new trade counter, approved 1985
E/18765   -    Retention of covered storage area and sandbagging machinery, approved 1985
E/23549   -    Erection of single storey extension to provide transport office, approved 1988
E/30905   -    Construction of a temporary access in conjunction with Swinton re-sewage scheme,
               approved 1993
E/31021 -      Construction of obscured glass window on 1st floor elevation, approved 1993
E/34024 -      Retention of three security cameras, approved 1996

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objections

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 17th June 2003

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       16 – 22 (e) Firswood Drive
       2 – 16 (e) Folly Lane
       1 – 3 (o) Morpeth Street

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received four letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:-

       Height of the structure
       Noise
       Visual Impact
       Stacking restrictions
       Parking problems

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies:         DEV1 Development Criteria, EC7 Industry and Commerce in Residential
                        Areas, T13 Car Parking

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None




                                                2
Other policies:       DES1 Respecting Context, A10 Provision of Car Cycle and Motorcycle
                      Parking in New Developments

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV1 requires that regard should be had to the likely scale and type of traffic generation;
the amount, design and layout of car parking provision. Policy EC7 states that the City Council
will support employment initiatives with residential areas where they do not have an unacceptable
effect on the character, environment or amenity of these areas. Policy T13 ensures that adequate
and appropriate car parking and servicing provision is made where necessary.

The replacement plan policies are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.

A total of four letters of objection have been received in response to the application publicity. The
letters received are from neighbouring residents in close proximity of the access and racking
system.

With regard the representation received regarding the stacking of materials within the site,
condition 04 of planning approval E/09917 states “No materials, goods or pallets shall be stored
or deposited in the open to a height exceeding 2.0m within a distance of 10.0m from the south, east
and west boundaries of the site”. The racking system subject of this application is 12.2m from the
western boundary and as such I am satisfied that it does not conflict with the condition of a
previous approval.

I am of the opinion that the main issues to consider with regard this application is visual
appearance of the structure, the potential loss of car parking and noise and disturbance.

I do acknowledge that there is an amount of on street car parking in the area of Morpeth Street and
Campbell Road. I have assessed the planning history of the site and there are no conditions
relating to the provision and retention of car parking on site. The applicant’s agent has provided a
before and after photograph of the area used for the racking system. The before photo clearly
shows that area was already used for the storage of timber. Notwithstanding this, the area is
unlikely to be able to accommodate car parking provision as access is required for those materials
stored internally. I have no highway objection, therefore, I am of the opinion that although there
are parking problems in the area, this racking system has not resulting in the loss of spaces through
its siting or added to the current problem.

The majority of the racking is located adjacent to the main building and behind a section of
building fronting Morpeth Street. Although the structure is visible once on Morpeth Street, the
neighbouring residential properties do not directly front the structure. The properties on Firswood
Drive, which face onto the site, maintain approximately 40m to the closest part of the structure.
Therefore, I do not consider that the structure would have a detrimental effect on the neighbouring
residential properties.




                                                 3
I have no objections from the Director of Environmental Services to the scheme as submitted.
Furthermore, with regard noise and disturbance, condition 02 of planning approval E/09917 states;
“There shall be no movement of materials on, off or within the site except between the hours of
08.00am and 6.00pm, Mondays to Friday, and 9.00am to 1.00pm on Saturdays. There shall be no
movement of materials on, off or within the site at any time on Sunday or Bank Holidays.” I have
attached the same condition with regard this proposal and as such I am of the opinion that this
proposal would not have any additional impact upon the neighbouring properties.

Having considered all the issues raised by this proposal, I consider that this proposal would not
have any additional effect on the residential amenity. Therefore I would recommend this proposal
be approved subject to the following condition.


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. There shall be no movement of materials on, off or within the site except between the hours of
   08.00am and 6.00pm, Mondays to Friday, and 9.00am to 1.00pm on Saturdays. There shall be
   no movement of materials on, off or within the site at any time on Sunday or Bank Holidays

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours




APPLICATION No:            03/46238/HH

APPLICANT:                 Mr And Mrs Lawrence

LOCATION:                  32 Alfred Avenue Worsley

PROPOSAL:                  Erection of single storey rear extension to detached garage

WARD:                      Worsley Boothstown

At a meeting of the Panel held on 17th July 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY
PANEL.

My previous observations are set out below:

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL




                                               4
The application relates to a detached house in an open plan estate. The proposal is to erect a rear
extension to an existing double detached garage located to the side of the house. The rear
extension would provide a store room separate to the main garage. Along the rear boundary of the
applicant’s house are several mature trees approximately 15m in height.

The existing garage is 5.6m wide and extends back 5.7m. The garage is located 0.9m from the side
of the house, is set back 2.8m from the front main wall, and is at present flush with the rear main
wall of the house. The proposed rear extension would increase the length of the garage by 3.6m
(9.3m total length).

The existing garage is situated 3m from the adjacent neighbours house and extends 5.4m past the
rear main wall of this property. With the addition of the rear extension the garage would project
9m past the rear of the adjacent neighbour’s house.

CONSULTATIONS

British Coal – No objections

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       30 and 34 Alfred Avenue
       26 Mabel Avenue

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 6 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:-

              Loss of Privacy
              Overbearing impact on the adjacent neighbour’s rear garden and a loss of light to
               their garden and dining room.
              Obtrusive feature out of character with the local area.
              The garage extension would lead to an increase in the number of vehicles being
               stored at the applicant’s house and, as a result, an increase in congestion on the
               avenue and increase in danger for local children.
              Negative impact on local property values.
              Loss of View

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies:         DEV8 – House Extensions
                        Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions



                                                5
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies:         DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV8 states that development must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the
amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of
privacy or light. This is reiterated in Policy DES7.

The garage extension would introduce windows (leading into the store room) 19.6m from the
gable of 26 Mabel Avenue and 9m from their side garden. Large mature trees and a 1.8m fence
protect this boundary. These separation distances are in accordance with ‘Supplementary
Planning Guidance – House extensions’, and given the boundary treatment I am of the opinion that
would be no significant loss of privacy for this neighbour. No windows would overlook any other
neighbouring properties.

With regard to the second issue raised, Guidance Note HH9 of ‘Supplementary Planning
Guidance – House Extensions’ stipulates that planning permission will normally be granted for
extensions provided that they do not project beyond a 45 degree line drawn from the mid point of
any ground floor habitable room window of the adjacent dwelling. Given the size and siting of the
proposed garage extension, the proposal would be contrary to this policy. However, given the
distance that the habitable room window of the adjacent neighbour is set in from the common
boundary and the distance the garage is set in from this boundary, the proposed extension would
only project beyond the 45 degree line a minimum distance of 10m away. I am of the opinion that
this distance is sufficient for there to be no significant loss of light for the adjacent neighbour, and
do not believe the policy should be applied.

With regard to the development being overbearing, I hold the view that, as the garage is set in 1.8m
from the common boundary and given that the roof slopes away from the adjacent neighbours
property, it would not have an overbearing impact on this neighbour.

The rear extension would not be clearly visible from the highway and as a result would not have a
significant impact on the character of the area.

With regard to the fourth and fifth issues raised, they are both speculative in nature and are not
material planning considerations. Also, the sixth issue is not a material planning consideration.

Given the siting and design of the proposed garage extension, I am of the opinion that it would not
have a significantly detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents or local
character. The City’s arboricultural officer has been consulted with regard to the impact of the
extension on the mature trees in the applicant’s rear garden and has stated that they would not be
significantly affected. Therefore, I recommend the proposal for approval.




                                                   6
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same
   type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by
   the Director of Development Services.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building




APPLICATION No:             03/46263/COU

APPLICANT:                  Deborah Whelan

LOCATION:                   26 Bolton Road Pendlebury

PROPOSAL:                   Change of use from a single family dwelling to a residential home
                            for a maximum of five children

WARD:                       Swinton South

At a meeting of the Panel held on 17th July 2003 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY
PANEL.

My previous observations are set out below:

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a dwelling close to the Irlams O’Th’ Height roundabout and opposite St
John’s Church. Apart from the church the area is entirely residential in nature.

It is proposed to change the use of the property to a care home for a maximum of five residents.
The applicant proposes to cater for children aged between 8 and 13 years of age. There are only
four bedrooms in the property and the applicant has stated that it is unlikely that the number of
children cared for would exceed four as five could only be accommodated if two brothers or sisters
shared a room.


                                                 7
In a supporting letter the applicant has stated that the house will be run like a family home and will
be registered with The Care Commission. It will be staffed at all times to adequately parent and
supervise the children in care.. There is ample play space in the grounds and the garden is
adequately screened and securely gated. A games room in the basement is proposed which will
ensure the children have plenty of space for recreational activity.

Staffing levels at the busiest time would be one staff per two children plus a manager and a teacher.

SITE HISTORY

Planning permission was refused in July 1989 for the change of use from a dwelling to offices.
The application was refused on the following grounds:-

       The access to the site, because of its position on the exit from the roundabout, is inadequate
       and below the minimum standard necessary to ensure the safety of pedestrians and
       motorists.

       The proposed development would introduce a business use into a predominantly
       residential area which would detract from the character of the area in general and the
       amenity of local residents in particular.

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Community and Social Services – No comments

Director of Education and Leisure (Early Years Team) – The home would be registered by the
Care Commission.

Director of Environmental Services – No objections.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       28 to 42 Bolton Road
       1 and 2 to 18 Parksway
       77 and 58 to 64 Kingsway
       St John’s Vicarage, Broomfield

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received twelve letters of objection and a petition signed by 202 people in response to the
planning application publicity. The following issues have been raised:-

       Highway safety



                                                  8
       Increase in crime and vandalism
       Loss of value

Councillors Maureen and Bernard Lea raise concern about highway safety and access to the
property.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: SC12 Residential Care Homes and Nursing Homes

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H6 Residential Social and Community Uses

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy SC12 states that the City Council will only grant planning permission for the conversion of
an existing property where a number of criteria can be satisfied. These criteria include that the site
is located within a residential area and is close to facilities; that the property should normally be of
a large detached type no longer suitable for single family occupation; that the proposal would not
have an unacceptably adverse effect on the amenity of local residents or on the character of the
surrounding area by reason of noise and general disturbance, loss of privacy, the cumulative effect
of the over concentration of such uses or the parking, servicing and access requirements; that the
proposal would not have an unacceptably adverse effect on amenity or highway safety by reason of
the traffic generated by the use; that adequate provision is made for access, car parking and
servicing; and that adequate provision is made for private amenity space and open space within the
curtilage of the site.

Policy H6 of the replacement plan updates and is generally similar to policy SC12.
Taking into account the residential use of the site and limited amount of staff involved, I
do not consider the use would generate significant levels of traffic to warrant highway safety
concerns.

Loss of value is not a material planning consideration that can be taken into account in the
determination of this, or any, planning application.

The applicant has supported her application by submitting the Inspection Reports from the Care
Commission on her two existing care homes in Scotland. She has stated that the children who it is
likely to be cared for will have a broad range of needs but that children who sexually abuse others,
who have diagnostic mental health and psychiatric difficulties and who have severe autistic
tendencies and learning difficulties will not be accommodated. The children are likely to have
varying degrees of emotional and behavioural difficulties usually due to having experienced
emotional, sexual, physical and psychological abuse.




                                                   9
I consider that the home is well located in terms of being within a residential area, on a major
public transport route and close to facilities. Although it is not a large property policy SC12 does
allow for other properties to be considered providing that the development complies with other
criteria. I do not consider that four or five children would have a detrimental effect on neighbours
as a result of noise and disturbance or loss of privacy. There is no concentration of homes in this
area and sufficient car parking and manoeuvring space exists within the site for the numbers of
staff proposed. The access is not ideal but given the staffing levels I am satisfied that the number
of traffic movements generated by this development would be low.

The home would cater for a small number of children. The applicant has submitted a considerable
amount of information in support of her application. I am satisfied that there would be no
significant detrimental effect on the amenity of neighbouring residents or road safety and therefore
recommend that the application be approved.


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91




APPLICATION No:             03/46300/FUL

APPLICANT:                  Westbury Homes Holdings

LOCATION:                   Agecroft Hall Residential Site Agecroft Road Pendlebury
                            Swinton

PROPOSAL:                   Erection of 55 dwellings and 47 apartments (amendment to
                            Planning Application 02/43597/REM)

WARD:                       Pendlebury

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL




                                                10
This application relates to the former Thermalite site on the corner of Lumms Lane and Agecroft
Road which was granted outline permission for residential development following a public
inquiry, reference 97/36504/OUT. A reserved matters application was approved in July last year,
reference 02/43597/REM for the erection of 287 dwellings erected around a central village green
area within the site surrounded by a green open swathe. Westbury Homes have now commenced
building in the southern part of the site.

This application is in two parts. Firstly permission is sought for an amendment to the layout within
the north western corner of the site. Within this part of the site there was originally 55 dwellings
comprising a mix of two and three storeys, detached, semi-detached and terraced dwellings. There
was a footpath link from the circular access road through the dwellings to the central village green
area. The proposed amendments would reduce the number of dwellings by one but retain a similar
mix of property types. At “corner” locations there would be more dwellings onto the road frontage
with the use of parking courts to the rear and there would be minor revisions to the siting of other
dwellings. The footpath link through to the village green area would be retained.

The second aspect to the application proposal relates to the apartments in the south western corner
of the site, adjacent to the main site entrance. At the reserved matters stage 45 apartments were
proposed in this area within three apartment blocks. It is now proposed that 47 are provided within
two, four storey “U” shaped blocks. They would be sited to ensure adequate separation between
habitable windows whilst retaining the 20m landscaping buffer that was required as part of the
outline approval following the public inquiry.

SITE HISTORY

 In December 1998 permission was granted in outline and following a public inquiry for
comprehensive regeneration including residential development and environmental improvements.
In April 2002 permission was granted for the construction of a new access road, creation of new
surface water drainage system, alterations to existing site levels and importation of additional fill
material and landscaping works, reference 00/41574/FUL.
In July 2002 planning permission was granted for the erection of 287 dwellings, reference
02/43597/REM.
In June of this year permission was granted to George Wimpey for an amendment to the original
layout for the erection of 37 dwellings within the north eastern corner of the site, planning
reference 03/45890/FUL

CONSULTATIONS

The Environment Agency – no objection in principle subject to a condition requiring the approval
of a surface water regulation system.
Director of Environmental Services – no objections but recommends that noise mitigation
measures are undertaken to habitable room windows and a site completion report is submitted to
validate that ground protection measures have been incorporated within the site.




                                                 11
British Coal – no objections.
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Officer – is concerned about the recessed parking court
between plots 427/428 which may be taken over by youths making people too frightened to park
there.

PUBLICITY

A press notice was advertised on 11 June 2003.
A site notice was displayed on 17 June 2003.

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       40 – 82 (E) Agecroft Road
       Manor Lodge, Agecroft Road
       1 and 2 Dauntesy Avenue

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received no response to the application publicity.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: EN17 Croal Irwell Valley
Other policies: DEV2 Good Design, DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV4 Design and Crime, H6
and H11 Open Space Provision with New Housing Development

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES11 Design and
Crime

PLANNING APPRAISAL
The application relates to part of a larger site which was granted permission last year and therefore
the main issues to be addressed relate to the impact of the proposed amendments, particularly in
relation to DEV2 and DEV4 of the UDP and policies DES11, DES1 and DES2 of the draft UDP.
Policies DEV4 and DES11 are both seeking to ensure that design does not encourage crime or anti
social behaviour within a development. Policy DES1 seeks to ensure that any development
responds to its physical context whilst DES2 ensures that any new development is fully accessible
to all people including the disabled or those with limited mobility, pedestrians and cyclists. It also
states that a development must enable pedestrians to orientate themselves and navigate their way
through an area by providing appropriate views, vistas and visual links.

I consider that the proposed changes to the housing part of the site have respected the context of the
previous permission but have improved upon the original layout, presenting more dwellings on the




                                                 12
street frontage and creating a more logical layout. However, the overall character of the site once
completed would be retained.

Similarly, the four storey flats would complement those on the opposite side of the main access
and have been sited to ensure that there is no direct overlooking between the two blocks. The
landscape buffer on the frontage has been retained and consequently I do not consider that there
would be any detrimental impact from these revisions. Overall there would only be a minor
change to the number of dwellings, retaining the density and housing mix of the reserved matters
application.

The proposed layout is very similar to that previously approved. I consider that it respects the
character of the remainder of the layout and therefore would contribute towards local identity in
accordance with policy DES1. In relation to the concerns of the Architectural Liaison officer there
were parking courts within the previously approved scheme and I do not consider that this proposal
would exacerbate any situation further. Furthermore, the entrance to the parking court is flanked
either side by dwellings and is accessed through an archway which is formed with part of a
dwelling above. The area would be surrounded by 1.8m high fencing and the dwelling at the
entrance to the parking court would overlook the courtyard area. I consider therefore that there
would a good degree of natural surveillance of this area which should reduce the likelihood of the
concerns of the architectural liaison officer being realised. I have no objections on highway
grounds and I therefore recommend that this application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. Standard Condition D02X Details of Materials

3. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the
   provision and implementation of a surface water regulation system has been approved by a
   Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved
   plans.

4. Prior to occupation, the developer shall submit a Site Completion report to the Directorate of
   Environmental Services, to validate that ground gas protection measures have been
   incorporated within the site. Proposals for the cover material (subsoil and topsoil) to be
   provided in all garden and landscaped areas shall also be submitted to the Directorate of
   Environmental Services for approval. The Environmental Services Directorate requests
   details of the composition and source of the cover material provided, together with details and
   justification of the sampling density used, which should be in accordance with BS3882:1994
   "Specification for Topsoil".

5. The windows to all habitable rooms of the elevation specified below shall have installed sealed
   double glazed units comprising of glass of 10mm and 6mm with a 12mm air gap.



                                                13
   The unit shall be installed with the manufacturer's recommendations to avoid air gaps when
   fitting the frames. Alternative means of mechanical ventilation also equivalent to the
   standards of Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (as amended) which must be sound attenuated,
   should be provided to these rooms:

   Elevations specified:

   103 - 114   -    SW, SE, NE
   115 - 126   -    SW, NE
   127 - 138   -    SW, SE, NE
   139 - 150   -   SW, NW, SE, NE

   Unnumbered property between 115 - 126 and Agecroft Road - SW, SE

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

3. To reduce the increased risk of flooding in accordance with policy DEV11 of the UDP.

4. Standard Reason R028A Public safety

5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents


Note(s) for Applicant

1. This permission shall relate to the amended plans received 7th August 2003 which show
   revised access, parking and layout details for the proposed apartments.



APPLICATION No:            03/46356/HH

APPLICANT:                 Mr And Mrs Foy And Mr And Mrs O'Connell

LOCATION:                  24 AND 26 Lumber Lane Worsley

PROPOSAL:                  Erection of two storey side extension, first floor rear extension
                           and conservatory at rear of 24 and two storey side extension at 26
                           Lumber Lane

WARD:                      Worsley Boothstown




                                             14
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to two neighbouring detached houses located within a row of detached
properties. The proposal is for the erection of a two storey side extension, first floor rear extension
and a conservatory at the rear of 24 Lumber Lane together with a two storey side extension at 26
Lumber Lane.

The ground floor element of the two storey side extension at 24 Lumber Lane would project 3.3m
from the front of the house and back 13.5m to the rear main wall of the house. It would be set in
0.5m from the common boundary with 26 Lumber Lane. The first floor element would be set back
2m from the front main wall and would extend back 9m.

The first 3.4m of the first floor rear extension adjacent to 22 Lumber Lane would project 1.4m
from the existing rear and would step out to meet the two storey side extension. It would be a
distance of 2m from the gable wall of 22 Lumber Lane and would extend 1.8m past the rear of this
property.

The conservatory would measure 3.6m X 3.6m and would be located 1.2m from the common
boundary with 22 Lumber Lane. It would extend a distance of 8.7m past the rear of this
neighbour’s house.

The ground floor element of the two storey side extension at 26 Lumber Lane would be set forward
0.7m from the front of the house. It would measure 2.7m X 12.8m. The first floor element would
be set back 2m from the front main wall of the house and would extend back 6.5m.

SITE HISTORY

03/45851/HH (26 Lumber Lane) – The application was withdrawn as it did not meet Council
Policy.

CONSULTATIONS

British Coal – No objections but concerns are raised.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       22, 28, 51-55 (odd) Lumber Lane
       12 Pine Grove
       3 Peel Grove

REPRESENTATIONS




                                                  15
I have received 1 letter of objection from the occupier of 22 Lumber Lane in response to the
planning application publicity. The objector is of the opinion that the first floor rear extension of
24 Lumber Lane would lead to a loss of light into their kitchen and bedroom.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies:         DEV8 – House Extensions
                        Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies:         DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV8 states that development must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the
amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of
privacy or light. This is reiterated in Policy DES7.

The first floor rear extension would conform to Supplementary Planning Guidance – House
Extensions in that its projection past the rear of the objector’s house (1.8m) is less than its distance
from the gable of the objector’s house (2m). I am therefore of the opinion that the proposal would
not lead to a significant loss of light for this neighbour.

All elements of the proposed extensions to 24 and 26 Lumber Lane conform to Supplementary
Planning Guidance – House Extensions and would not, in my opinion lead to a significant loss of
amenity for neighbouring residents or the local area.


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same
   type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by
   the Director of Development Services.

3. The domestic extensions to 24 and 26 Lumber Lane hereby approved shall not be occupied
   until they have been completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.

(Reasons)




                                                  16
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building

3. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents


Note(s) for Applicant

1. This approval relates to the amended plans that were received on 23rd July and which shows
   the projection of the first floor extension of 24 Lumber Lane adjacent to 22 Lumber Lane
   reduced from 2.475m to 1.375m.

2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Coal Authority.




APPLICATION No:              03/46382/OUT

APPLICANT:                   Caledonia Motor Group

LOCATION:                    Site Of Former Caledonian Motors Manchester Road Swinton

PROPOSAL:                    Outline planning application for the erection of three - three
                             storey buildings comprising 18 apartments together with
                             associated carparking and construction of new vehicular access

WARD:                        Swinton North

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a former car showroom, the last premises on the northbound side of
Manchester Road before the greenbelt when travelling towards Walkden. The single storey
showroom is now vacant and boarded up. Adjacent to the site to the east is the Morning Star pub,
with residential dwellings to the north and south. The greenbelt adjoins the site to the west.

Permission is sought in outline with only landscaping to be dealt with at the reserved matters stage,
for the erection of three, three storey buildings comprising 18 apartments. All three blocks would
have a footprint measuring 12m by 12m and stand 7m to eaves level and 10m to the roof ridge.
Two blocks would front onto Manchester Road, either side of a central access into the site, with the
third block sited at the rear. There would be 100% parking provision with landscaping and
amenity area around the three blocks. The applicant has indicated that there would be extensive
planting along the western boundary to the greenbelt.




                                                 17
Taking into account the reasons why the last application on the site was refused the applicant has
submitted the following in support of his proposal.

   By splitting the accommodation into three blocks, the visual impact is considerably reduced
    relative to a single building.
   By providing the third storey within the roof area as opposed to a full three storey design, the
    visual impact is reduced further.
   The inclusion of overhanging eaves, dormer windows and recessed central bays reduces the
    apparent bulk of the individual pavilions.

SITE HISTORY

 In March of this year permission was refused for the erection of 24 apartments within a part 3/part
4 storey building, reference 02/45315/FUL, as it was considered that four storeys would be
overbearing and have an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of neighbouring residents.

CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections in principle subject to a site investigation and a
PPG24 and BS4142 noise survey.
British Coal – no objections.
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Officer – recommends that the blocks are sited with
defensible space and sited to overlook each other and the parking area with a pavement to direct
pedestrians. The site should be secured by gating and railings to a minimum height of 2.1m.
Environment Agency – no objections.

PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 3 July 2003.
A site notice was displayed on 25 June 2003.

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       13, 15, 16 Worsley Campus Grasmere Avenue
       555, 569, - 579 Manchester Road
       Morning Star Public House, Manchester Road
       1 – 3 Tamarin Close
       Eckersley Joinery, Bagot Street

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 2 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:-

       Loss of light and sunlight
       Loss of privacy

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY


                                                 18
Site specific policies: none.
Other policies: EN2 Green Belt, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Crime and Design

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none.
Other policies: DES1 Respecting context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES7 Amenity of
Users and Neighbours, A10 Provision of Car, Cycles and Motorcycle parking in New
Developments,


PLANNING APPRAISAL
The site is situated on the edge of the greenbelt and therefore any proposal must consider its impact
upon the visual amenity of the greenbelt in order to retain its character in accordance with policy
EN2. In this respect policy DES1 is also relevant in that it requires development to respond to its
physical context and the character of the surrounding area. The impact of the proposed apartments
upon the amenity of the residents to the rear, must also be considered in accordance with DEV1.

The neighbouring residents of Tamarin Close to the east of the application site are concerned that
the proposal would result in a subsequent loss of privacy and also sunlight whilst residents of
Grasmere Avenue are concerned about a loss of early evening sunlight. I understand these
objections to relate specifically to block C, at the rear of the site. This block stands 22m from the
rear of the properties on Tamarin Close and the applicant has arranged the internal layout on the
third storey so that there are no main habitable room windows facing these specific properties.
Block C also stands 5m from the rear boundary of the site to the property on Grasmere Avenue and
17m to the closest part of the dwellinghouse itself but is off-set at a 45 degree angle, thus
overlooking the side garden to the dwelling. Along this elevation at the second and third floor
levels there would be bedroom windows and secondary lounge windows. The applicant has
indicated that there would be landscaping along this boundary and I am satisfied that there would
not be an undue loss of privacy owing to the relationship of the two properties to each other. In
relation to the evening sunlight issue, there may be a period during the day which affects the rear
gardens of these properties along Grasmere Avenue but owing to the angle and relationship of the
building to these properties, this would only be for a short period. I am satisfied therefore that the
proposal would not have a significant and unacceptable detrimental impact upon any of the
neighbouring residents.

There was also concern that the parking was at the rear of the site and that the existing residents
would experience car headlights shining into their properties. The car parking provision is within
the centre of the site with landscaping along all boundaries and block C between the car park and
the properties at the rear. I am not convinced therefore that this concern of the neighbouring
residents would be realised.

The Architectural Liaison officer recommended that the three blocks should be sited to overlook
each other. This has been achieved, with the main entrances into each block off the rear of blocks
A and B and the front of block C ie off the car parking. Each of these elevations have habitable



                                                 19
windows thus ensuring that there is surveillance of entrances as well as the parking area itself. The
details of the boundary treatment which would also ensure the security of the site would be the
subject of the reserved matters application. I have passed the full comments of the Architectural
Liaison officer to the applicant.

The site lies outside of, but adjacent to the boundary of the greenbelt, and therefore its impact upon
the visual amenity of the greenbelt must be considered. The development comprises three blocks
which are positioned at right angles to the boundary and the greenbelt. A previous application on
the site comprising four storey accommodation was refused as it was considered that this would
appear too overbearing and also have a detrimental impact upon the greenbelt. These blocks
would all be three storey with the third storey within the roof and stand 10m to the ridge of the
roof. The boundary would be landscaped which would also provide a degree of screening. Taking
into consideration all of these factors I do not consider that this proposal would be detrimental to
the visual amenity of the greenbelt.

The proposal would provide 18 car parking spaces and 2 disabled spaces and there would also be 5
secure cycle stores. Current government guidance is seeking to encourage a reduced reliance on
motor vehicles and parking provision within accessible locations and I am satisfied that this site
which is located on a main bus corridor is one such location. The provision of the cycle stores will
also aid to encourage residents to use another means of transport. I therefore have no objections on
highway grounds subject to the provision of a right turn facility within Manchester Road and I
have thus appended a condition to this affect.

If granted, the proposal would realise the redevelopment of this vacant brownfield site with a
development which would be of a high standard of design and would not have a detrimental impact
upon the character of the greenbelt or the amenity of the neighbouring residents. I therefore
recommend that this application be approved.


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A02 Outline

2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been
   submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:

   - a landscape scheme for the site which shall include details of trees and shrubs to be planted,
   any existing trees to be retained or felled, indicating the spread of the branches and trunk
   positions, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatments.

3. 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.




                                                 20
4. Standard Condition M03 Contaminated land

5. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall undertake an assessment
   to determine the external noise levels from surrounding roads, trams and industrial uses that
   the proposed residential elements will be subjected to (daytime and night). The developer shall
   detail what steps are to be taken to mitigate the disturbance from the above. The assessment
   shall have due regard to the Department of the Environment Guidance PPG24 - Planning and
   Noise and also BS 4142 1997 - Rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and
   industrial areas. The building envelope shall be capable of attenuating the external noise to
   BS8233 (Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings - Code of practice) and World
   Health Organisation recommendations for a reasonable standard for living rooms/sleeping
   accommodation. The assessment and mitigation measures shall be submitted for the approval
   of Development Services prior to the commencement of development. Any approved
   mitigation measures are to be implemented prior to occupation.

   Prior to the discharge of this condition a completion report shall be submitted to the LPA for
   approval. The completion report shall validate that all works undertaken on site were
   completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.

6. A right turn refuge to the specification and satisfaction of the Director of Development
   Services shall be provided on Manchester Road at the applicant's expense prior to the
   occupation of any of the units hereby approved.

7. Full details of the secure cycle lockers and the refuse area shall be submitted and approved in
   writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of development.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters

2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters

3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

4. Standard Reason R028A Public safety

5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

6. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety

7. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt


Note(s) for Applicant

1. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 31 July 2003 which indicates a



                                               21
   right turn refuge within Manchester Road and secure cycle parking and also plans received on
   7 August 2003 with revised elevation details.

2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the comments from the Architectural Liaison Officer
   dated 1 July 2003.



APPLICATION No:              03/46383/OUT

APPLICANT:                   Caledonia Motor Group Ltd

LOCATION:                    Land Between 555 And 569 Manchester Road Swinton

PROPOSAL:                    Outline planning application for the erection of one - two storey
                             building comprising four apartments together with associated
                             carparking and construction of new vehicular access

WARD:                        Swinton North

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a site situated on the southern side of Manchester Road between an end
terraced property, 569 Manchester Road, and the Greys Colour Lab site on the corner with
Holloway Drive. The site, which measures 23.5m x 23m previously formed part of the former
Caledonian Motors and was used for displaying vehicles for sale. It is accessed off Pelton Street
between the site and Greys Colour Lab. The Eckersley Joinery site lies to the rear, currently
accessed off Bagot Street. The main Caledonian site and showroom was located on the opposite
side of Manchester Road and an application for the development of this site for 18 apartments is
also on this agenda, reference 03/46382/OUT.

Permission is sought in outline with only landscaping to be dealt with at the reserved matters stage
for the erection of four apartments within a two storey building. This would be set back 3.5m from
the back of pavement and adjoin the gable of 569 Manchester Road, extending across the full site
frontage. There would be a central arch providing access to the rear and the car park for 4 vehicles.
The building would be constructed from local brick with artstone cills with an artificial slate roof.

CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections in principle but requests that a noise
assessment and site investigation are undertaken prior to the commencement of any development.
British Coal – no objections.
Environment Agency – no objections in principle.

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 25 June 2003.


                                                 22
The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       555, 569 – 579 Manchester Road
       1, 2, 1a Bagot Street
       Eckersley Joinery, Bagot Street
       Morning Star public house, Manchester Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received one letter of objection from Eckersley Joinery in response to the planning
application publicity. They are concerned that as the owner of the freehold to the site they should
have received formal notification of the proposal from the applicant but this has not been received.
Secondly they are also concerned that the proposal would impede access to their site which lies
adjacent to the application site and the Greys Colour Lab site.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none.
Other policies: DEV2 Good Design,

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none.
Other policies: DES1 Respecting context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES7 Amenity of
Users and Neighbours,

PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider the main issues to be addressed for this proposal relate to the visual impact of the
proposal upon the street scene and in this respect policies DEV2 and DES1 are both relevant. DEV
1 and DES7 both seek to ensure that a proposal does not have an unacceptable impact upon the
amenity of neighbouring residents and should also come into consideration.

One of the concerns of the objector was that as freehold owner of the application site he should
have received notification of the proposal from the applicant. However I have been informed by
the applicant that he currently holds a long lease (900 years) on the site and therefore legally he is
not required to notify the freehold owner. I am satisfied that the correct notification and certificate
has been signed in relation to the application.

The second concern of the objector was that the proposal may impede access to his site at the rear.
There is an existing access alongside the application site known as Pelton Street, which currently is
not used to access his site. This application proposal would not encroach onto this access or
compromise the existing visibility at the junction of Pelton Street and Manchester Road and
therefore I do not foresee that it should impede his access in any way.




                                                  23
Four car parking spaces and garden area would be provided at the rear of the apartments, accessed
through a central archway. I am satisfied that this provision is acceptable in this location along
Manchester Road, and I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds.

The proposed building would adjoin an existing row of terraced dwellings. As it would be of a
modern construction the roof line would be approximately 1m lower than this terrace but I do not
consider that this difference or the general design would be detrimental to the street scene. It is
also important to note that on the adjacent Colour Lab site permission has recently been granted in
July, reference 03/46057/FUL for a three storey development. This would be separated from the
application proposal by Pelton Street and with this separation I do not consider that there would be
any detrimental impact arising from the relationship of these two proposals. I am of the opinion
that residents do not expect a uniform roofline and also consider that variety and interest would
result if built which would enhance rather than detract from the character of this area. As the
building would only extend the same depth as the adjacent terraced properties there would be no
impact upon these existing residents and similarly, it should not jeopardise any future
redevelopment of the site at the rear.


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A02 Outline

2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been
   submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:

    - a landscape scheme for the site which shall include details of trees and shrubs to be planted,
   any existing trees to be retained or felled indicating the spread of branches and trunk positions,
   walls, fences boundary and surface treatment.

3. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials

4. Standard Condition M03 Contaminated land

5. Prior to the commencement of development, the developer shal undertake an assessment to
   determine the external noise levels from surrounding roads, trams, and industrial uses that thte
   proposed residential uses will be subjected to (daytime and night). The developer shall detail
   what steps are to be taken to mitigate the disturbance from the above. The assessment shall
   have due regard to the Department of the Environment Guidance PPG24 - Planning and Noise
   and also BS 4142 1997 - Rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial
   areas. The building envelope shall be capable of attenuating the external noise to BS8233
   (Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings - Code of Practice) and World Health
   Organisation recommendations for a reasonable standard for living rooms/sleeping
   accommodation. The assessment and mitigation measures shall be submitted for the approval
   of the Development Services prior to the commencement of development. Any approved



                                                24
   mitigation measures are to be implemented prior to occupation.

   Prior to discharge of this condition, a Completion Report shall be submitted to the LPA for
   approval. The Completion Report shall validate that all works undertaken on site were
   completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92

2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters

3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

4. Standard Reason R028A Public safety

5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents




APPLICATION No:             03/46389/FUL

APPLICANT:                  C Aiyegbusi

LOCATION:                   355/363 Liverpool Road Eccles

PROPOSAL:                   Removal of condition 03 (No open storage of goods or materials
                            outside the buildings) on Planning Permission 01/42093/FUL

WARD:                       Barton

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application is for the ‘removal of condition 03’ (No open storage of goods or materials
outside the buildings) on Planning Permission 01/42093/FUL. The existing property is a store for
the sale of domestic appliances, and the applicant has stated the application will allow goods to be
moved on a more regular basis, and stored out of sight.

This proposal relates to land at 355-363 Liverpool Road, Eccles (total site area is approx.
825sq.m), which is presently comprises four terrace shops combined into one store, for sale of
furniture/domestic goods. There are four flats upstairs and parking for up to 3 cars/LGV’s, while
Eldon Place itself is otherwise entirely residential, including other adjacent streets.




                                                25
The site is located in between Peel Green and Patricroft (not within a specified district centre),
along Liverpool Road, which is generally retail but with many adjoining residential streets, and
two churches opposite.

The Panel is informed that this application is being assessed at this Panel alongside that of
03/46150/FUL which was deferred.

SITE HISTORY

03/46150/FUL: At committee on 3rd July 2003 an application was DEFFERED till Panel on 21st
August 2003. This was for the Erection of single storey rear extension (re-submission of planning
application 03/45399/FUL).

In March 2003 an application was refused for the erection of single storey rear extension
03/45399/FUL.

In 2001 an application was approved for the erection of single storey extension at rear of existing
shop (01/42093/FUL).

In 2000 an application was approved for the retention of 2.4m high fence at the rear of existing
shop (00/40362/FUL).

In March 2003 an application was approved for the erection of a single storey rear extension to
provide sales and storage area at 355-361 Liverpool Road Eccles (98/38038/FUL).

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 25th June 2003.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
        9-23(o) Eldon Place
        4-12(e) Eldon Place
        1 Woodfield Grove
        Church Of The Holy Cross
        Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received three (3) letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised: -

      Neighbours property will overlook proposed storage yard
      Site is full of unsightly domestic appliances
      Building is not inline with the street [open storage is already obvious]
      General appearance of the site has become an eyesore
      Loss of residential amenity



                                                  26
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None

Other policies:
MW15 – Development Control Criteria - Waste
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV4 – Design & Crime
EN20 – Pollution Control
EC7 – Industry & Commerce in Residential Areas
T13 – Car Parking

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None

Other policies:
ST9 – Retail, Leisure, Social and Community Provision
ST16 – Sustainable Waste Management
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES11 – Design & Crime
S1 – Provision of New Retail and Leisure Development

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that regard must be had to a number of factors
when determining applications for planning permission including the layout and relationship of
existing and proposed buildings and the effect on neighbouring properties with regard to
residential amenity.

Policy MW15 (Development Control Criteria – Waste) makes reference to the need to ensure that
waste disposal occurs only where there is no undue detriment to environmental, amenity, and
safety considerations. This includes criteria (among others) which explains that planning
permission is not normally granted for proposals that have an unacceptable impact on significant
residential properties (in terms of visual amenity, contamination, noise, smells or other nuisances),
and also that the site should include satisfactory provision for screening and landscaping.

With the above policies in mind I consider there will be a significant detrimental impact on
neighbouring residential amenity. There are at least 10 dwellings directly overlooking the site, and
this will increase in future upon the construction of flats at the former club at no.333 Liverpool
Road (02/45170/FUL), approved 2002. It is clear from both the general public and elected
members as to the extent of the existing open storage of goods, clearly representing the degree of
impact upon the residential neighbourhood.




                                                 27
I have put to the applicant my concerns with regard the visibility of the open storage and have
requested a site plan to indicate the specific location of open storage. However neither has any plan
been provided, nor is there any evidence of screening or landscaping to help enclose the visual
impact of storage. Such a plan might help indicate the location of open storage as well within the
existing building line and any boundaries that help provide screening. Even with the visual impact
reduced, I consider that problems would remain due to smells and noise from the yard, and this
would have the greatest impact on the occupants of no.4 Eldon Place, separated only by an adopted
highway (rear lane).

Further to my analysis above I consider the applicant has not provided sufficient reasons for the
condition to be removed, nor is it clear of any circumstances that have changed since the condition
was originally applied. Indeed the approval of open storage would potentially risk the loss of 5
parking spaces and service area as approved in application 03/46389/FUL to which this
application relates. The applicant has also failed to provide any plans indicating the siting of open
storage. I therefore conclude that this proposal has an unacceptable impact on neighbouring
residential amenity and should be refused.


RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:

1. The proposed development would be incompatible with the predominantly residential nature
   of the area to the detriment of the amenity enjoyed by neighbouring residents and the
   character of the locality in general contrary to Policy DEV1 f the City of Salford Unitary
   Development Plan.

2. The proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of the area because it would risk
   the loss of parking and servicing previously approved within the site, which would be likely to
   result in vehicles parking on the highway, detrimental to highway safety and thereby contrary
   to policy T13 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.




APPLICATION No:              03/46392/FUL

APPLICANT:                   R Bradburn

LOCATION:                    Land Adjacent To 63 Crawford Street Monton Eccles


                                                 28
PROPOSAL:                   Erection of a two storey detached dwelling including alterations
                            to existing vehicular and pedestrian access (Resubmission of
                            application 03/45858/FUL)

WARD:                       Eccles

At a meeting of the Panel held on 7th August 2003 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.

My previous observations are set out below:

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the side garden and site of a former detached garage of 63 Crawford
Street, an end-terraced dwelling. Planning permission is sought for the erection of a two-storey
detached dwelling.

The dwelling would be set back 4.6 metres from the front building line of Crawford Street. There
is a single storey rear extension at 63 Crawford Street which wraps around the side of the dwelling,
the proposed dwelling would be sited 1.0 metre from this extension and 2.7 metres from the
original gable of this dwelling. The main habitable room windows would be located on the
north-west (front) and south-east (rear) elevations.

One car parking space would be provided to the front of the dwelling. Garden areas are proposed to
the front, side and rear of the dwelling.

The surrounding area is predominantly residential. To the south-west, are terraced dwellings on
Stanier Avenue which are separated from the application site by a public footpath.

SITE HISTORY

03/45858/FUL - Erection of a two storey detached dwelling including alterations to existing
vehicular and pedestrian access. Application withdrawn.

01/42817/FUL - Erection of a detached bungalow and alteration to existing vehicular access.
Refused 4.10.01. Reason 1) The proposed development by reason of its size and siting would
create an unduly overbearing and dominating structure which would adversely affect the amenity
of neighbouring occupiers. As such it does not accord with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford
Unitary development Plan. Reason 2) The proposed development by reason of its size, siting and
design, allied to the configuration of the site, would create an unduly obtrusive feature which
would be out of character with the streetscene, to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area.
As such the proposal conflicts with policies DEV1 and DEV2 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.




                                                29
CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objections. Guidance on construction site noise
provided.

The Coal Authority – Report on Coal Mining Circumstances provided.

PUBLICITY

Site Notice displayed 25th June 2003

The following neighbour addresses have been notified:

38, 59, 61, 63 Crawford Street
2 – 6 (e), 1 – 9 (o) Stanier Avenue
70 – 84 (e) Lansdowne Avenue

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received five letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The main issues
identified are as follows:

      disruption from building work in terms of noise, site traffic and privacy
      work materials stored on application site
      two storey property will block the sun to back garden of 63 Crawford Street in the
       afternoons
      the living rooms of houses on Stanier Avenue all look out onto the application site, the
       view is currently a pleasant one and light will be lost
      1 and 5 Stanier Avenue have conservatories, views will be obscured

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 - Development Criteria
                DEV2 - Good Design
                T13 - Car Parking

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
                DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
                A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments

PLANNING APPRAISAL




                                                30
Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that regard should be had to a number of issues
when determining applications for planning permission, including the effect on sunlight, daylight
and privacy for neighbouring properties 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. Policy T13 states that
the City Council will ensure that adequate parking provision is made where necessary and that the
car parking standard for a new dwelling should be 2 spaces. The First Deposit Draft Replacement
Plan stipulates that there should be a minimum average of 1.5 spaces per dwelling, in line with
national planning guidance contained within PPG13. Other policies of the First Deposit Draft
Replacement UDP are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.

I do not consider that there would be any significant loss of privacy to dwellings on the opposite
side of Crawford Street and dwellings to the rear on Lansdowne Road as there would be separation
distances in excess of 21 metres. With regards to 63 Crawford Street, the applicant has confirmed
that the internal walls of the ground floor have been removed to create a single room, with the main
windows to the front - the lounge window to the side of this property is therefore considered to be
a secondary window. At the rear of 63 Crawford Street, the window at first floor which would be
just inside the 45 degree line is a bathroom window. I am satisfied that the siting of the proposed
dwelling would not result in any significant loss of privacy or light to 63 Crawford Street. The
proposed dwelling would be set forward 1.6 metres beyond the kitchen extension at 63 Crawford
Street, I do not, however, consider that this would result in any significant loss of sunshine or light
to this garden area.

A minimum distance of 13 metres would be maintained between the proposed dwelling and the
habitable room windows of 1 – 5 Stanier Avenue. There are conservatories to the rear of 1 and 5
Stanier Avenue, but the proposed dwelling is positioned so that it is not directly to the rear of either
of these dwellings and as such, I do not consider that it would be overbearing or lead to any
significant loss of light. The only windows proposed on the elevation facing the dwellings on
Stanier Avenue are for the bathroom and kitchen, so I do not consider that these residents would
suffer from any loss of privacy.

I do not consider that the erection of one additional dwelling would result in any significant
increase in traffic generation. With regards to car parking, the boundary to the application site
would allow two car parking spaces to be provided at 63 Crawford Street. The proposal would
allow for one space to be provided within the application site. I consider that this is acceptable for
a two-bedroom dwelling and is in accordance with current standards for car parking provision.

With regards to the objections raised in relation to noise and disruption during the during
construction, as the construction period would only be for a limited period, I consider that this
would not be unacceptable in the short-term. I have attached a note to the applicant regarding
construction site noise and hours that works can be undertaken, as recommended by the Director of
Environmental Services.

A two-storey dwelling would be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and I
consider that the proposed design and external appearance are acceptable. I consider that the



                                                  31
reasons for the refusal for the previous application for residential development at this site have
been overcome.


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. No development shall be started until full details of the existing and proposed finished floor
   levels of the ground floor of the proposed dwelling have been submitted to and approved in
   writing by the Director of Development Services. Such floor levels shall thereafter be
   constructed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

3. To ensure that the ground floor of the property is not flooded with sewage.


Note(s) for Applicant

1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Coal Authority.

2. Please contact United Utilities regarding the requirement for approval for sewer connections.

3. Please see attached guidance on construction site noise. Please note that work shall only be
   carried out between 0800 and 1800 hours Monday to Friday (excluding bank holidays) and
   0800 and 1300 hours on Saturday.

4. Please note that there is serious foul flooding on Crawford Street and in the adjacent properties.
   It is essential that floor levels are at least 300mm above carriageway/ footway level to ensure
   ground floor is not flooded with sewage. (Please see condition no. 3)



APPLICATION No:              03/46413/FUL




                                                 32
APPLICANT:                 Mr Richards

LOCATION:                  Land Adjacent 76 New Moss Road Cadishead

PROPOSAL:                  Erection of two detached dwellings together with alterations to
                           existing pedestrian access and alterations to and construction of
                           new vehicular access

WARD:                      Cadishead


DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This proposal is for the erection of two detached dwellings with a double garage, together with
alterations to existing pedestrian access and alterations to and construction of new vehicular
access, on land adjacent to 76 New Moss Road and the rear of 1-7 Heather Avenue, Cadishead.

The land (539sq.m including both plots and the public right of way) was formerly part of a larger
plot, previously under the ownership of British Rail but was purchased at auction by residents of
Heather Avenue, garden sections were then extracted and the remainder became the site of
subsequent planning applications (resident information).

Two new vehicular access points (one for each dwelling) are proposed via New Moss Road
11metres from the railway bridge abutment, which is also a road with restricted visibility. Plans
submitted show a visibility splay of 33m x 2.4m as required. The public footpath (right of way)
will be retained over the private driveway to be constructed for access to dwelling no.2.

Also proposed is a new soakaway (for surface water drain) and septic tank set apart 20metres from
the nearest property at 7 Heather Avenue. Alongside the new driveway/ right of way there will be
a 2m high acoustic fence, installed to reduce excessive noise from the adjacent railway.

SITE HISTORY

In 1990 an outline application was refused for the erection of two detached dwellinghouses with
garages at land to the rear of Heather Avenue, Cadishead (E/26809/OUT).

In 1987 an application was approved for the erection of a detached dwellinghouse and garage on
land adjacent to 76 New Moss Road, Cadishead (E21839).

In 1987 an application was refused for the erection of a detached bungalow and garage on land
adjacent to 7 Heather Avenue, Cadishead (E21838).

CONSULTATIONS

Peak and Northern Footpaths Society         - No objections, provided there is no obstruction of
                                            public right of way



                                               33
Ramblers Association                     - Minded not to object provided that an undertaking
                                         is given to provide new signposting and maintain the
                                         original route or a suitable diversion at all times
                                         during construction
Network Rail                             - Comments provided on need for suitable crash
                                         barriers adjoining the railway cutting in respect to
                                         the access/drive.
The Greater Manchester Pedestrian Assoc. - No comments received
The Open Spaces Society                  - No comments received

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 8th July 2003.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
        5, 8 Brentwood Avenue
        1-7(o) Heather Avenue
        2-6(e) Heather Avenue
        72-76(e) New Moss Road
        155-165(o) New Moss Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 4 (four) letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised: -

      Privacy – proposal will overlook rear of existing properties
      Proposed house is large and imposing – a bungalow would be more appropriate
      No shortage of property within the area
      Site Access – recent traffic increase due to other nearby developments will increase traffic
       hazard risk at new access
      Visual - views across the moss will be obscured and replaced with buildings
      Loss of trees and greenery - Lack of attention given to the natural environment
      Location of septic tank and soak away – likely offensive odour and siting on a level higher
       than the nearest property will cause drainage problems
      Flooding – proposed soak away will only worsen the existing situation
      Soakaway area is too close to the railway embankment – septic tank would be better sited
       at the rear of plot no.2.
      Land along proposed driveway is unstable and there is little space between the boundary
       fence [at rear of Heather Avenue] and railway fence/ cutting edge
      Acoustic fence – will attract graffiti – should have a solid hedge placed in front
      Drainage – condition written into title details of land that suitable drainage must be
       provided for
      If permitted the LA must take opportunity to re-route/re-pipe the surface water from the
       Mossland

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY


                                                 34
Site specific policies:
EN6 – Conservation of the Mosslands
EN24 - Conservation of the Mosslands

Other policies:
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV11 – Development and Flood Risk
EN3 – Protected Open Land
T3 – Highways
T10 - Pedestrians
T12 – Public Rights of Way
SC8 – Cultural Facilities

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:
EN8 – Mosslands

Other policies:
ST2 – Housing Supply
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
H2 – Location of New Housing Development
EN3 – Greenfield Land
EN7 – Nature Conservation
EN12 – Unstable Land
EN16 – Flood Risk and Surface Water

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The principle of residential use on plot no.1 within this site has previously been established with
the approval in 1987 of an outline planning permission for a detached dwelling in E21839.
However, this application has since expired and has now been superseded by the adopted UDP of
1995. Thus it cannot be assumed that this previous application can contribute any weight towards
the existing proposal.

Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that regard must be had to a number of factors
when determining applications for planning permission including the layout and relationship of
existing and proposed buildings and the effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for neighbouring
properties.

Policy EN3: Protected Open Land, relates to all open land not protected by the Green Belt. This
states that planning permission will normally be refused for all development except those uses



                                                35
consistent with open land status, working of minerals, re-use of buildings which would help
diversify the rural economy, essential development connected with an established source of
employment, limited infill around existing settlements, development essential to the provision of
public services and utilities. Any development must have regard to other UDP policies as a whole
and respect the scale & character of the proposal. With this regard I am not satisfied that the
proposal meets the above criteria or that the infill of land for two large properties could be
constituted to be of limited scale and character.

While dwelling no.1 is within the general building line of New Moss Road, dwelling no.2 is
effectively a stand-alone structure and would have a potentially detrimental impact on the open
land and character of the locality, with particular regard to the existing open space as viewed
across the allotments.

Policy EN6 and EN24: Conservation of the Mosslands identifies that the council will recognise the
need to protect and enhance the Mosslands, also giving consideration to protecting the area from
peat extraction, an essential characteristic for many species of plant and animal traditionally found
within mosslands.

Upon consideration of objections received it is clear as to the degree of public opinion. Of
particular concern is the location of the proposed septic tank and soak away, which is sited 20m
away from the nearest habitable building rather than the 7m minimum required. However I have
received comments from Environmental Health stating that the location of the septic tank is
considered acceptable, although the applicant would be required to seek further advice from
Building Regulations.

Other objections relate to the impact of the proposed dwellings overlooking existing properties,
however I have checked the distances between habitable windows and I consider these to meet the
required guidelines of the ‘SPG on House Extensions’.

Other concerns were mentioned which I do not consider to be a planning matter; these include a
condition written into title details of subject land that suitable drainage must be provided for, and a
request that the LA must re-route/re-pipe the surface water from the Mossland [to prevent
flooding]. I consider these to be a matter for Building Regulations. Objections have also been
made with regard to the potential of the proposed soak away to worsen the situation; however this
drainage issue must be approved to the satisfaction of the National River Authority.

I have also considered the possible increase in traffic hazard at the proposed access via New Moss
Road, which itself does not lead to any particularly highly frequented land-uses north of the
railway. The proposal incorporates only for two dwellings (the impact of which will be minimal)
and the applicant has provided plans showing a visibility splay of 2.4m by 33m as required; I
therefore have no objections on highway grounds.

Having analysed this proposal as above, I consider that the development as existing, would be
contrary to policy EN3 (protected open land) and EN6 (mosslands). These policies are also very
similar to EN3 (Greenfield land) and EN8 (mosslands) of the deposit UDP. The development
would be detrimental to the mossland scene with regard to wildlife and loss of peat, and would be



                                                  36
effectively an isolated stand-alone structure within an otherwise open environment. I do not
consider the proposal as existing to be of limited infill and acceptable character within this locality.
I also share the concerns of local residents that views across the allotments and countryside will
become obscured and replaced with buildings not complimentary to the rural environment. I
therefore recommend refusal.


RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:

1. The site lies within the Mosslands and the proposed development would conflict with the Local
   Planning Authority's policy of strict control, in accordance with Policies EN6, and EN24 of the
   City of Salford Unitary Development Plan, with particular regard to the sitting of the proposed
   dwelling in plot no.2.

2. By virtue of the proposed sitting of the dwelling on plot no.2 the proposed development would
   be contrary to policy EN3 (protected open land) and would seriously injure the visual amenity
   of the area by encroachment onto the open space between the allotments and the greenbelt.


APPLICATION No:               03/46422/FUL

APPLICANT:                    S K Construction

LOCATION:                     Land At Prescott Street Little Hulton Worsley

PROPOSAL:                     Erection of two-four storey buildings comprising 28 apartments
                              together with bin store boundary fencing/gate associated car
                              parking and construction of a new vehicular access

WARD:                         Little Hulton

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a vacant and overgrown piece of land on Prescott Street, Little Hulton.
The application seeks to erect two-four storey buildings comprising twenty eight apartments
together with bin store, boundary fencing/gate associated car parking and construction of a new
vehicular access.

The site is bounded by Prescott House to the north, a single storey structure providing health care.
The eastern side of the site provides access to the rear of the terrace properties on Hilton Lane. The
southern boundary comprises of a 1.8m waneylap fence, beyond which are the rear gardens of the
bungalows on Ellis Crescent. St Andrews Methodist Primary School, a single storey building
bounds to the west.




                                                  37
This proposal would provide two symmetrical four storey buildings located to the east and western
sides. Car parking for twenty six cars would be provided between the buildings. Amenity space
would be provided immediately adjacent to the buildings with the majority provided to the west.

Each building would provide fourteen, two bedroom flats. Both Buildings would measure 12.4m
in height at the ridge. The fourth storey would utilise space within the roof. The new buildings
would measure 11.8m wide by 18.2m in length across the main elements with a rear element of
block A extending to within 9.6mm of the boundary with houses on Ellis Crescent, block B would
be 6.4m from the same common boundary and 22.6m from the gable of the No.6 Ellis Crescent.
Block B would maintain approximately 7m to the eastern boundary, some 29m to the rear of the
properties on Hilton Lane.

The windows of both rear elevations are angled in an attempt to reduce the impact upon the
neighbouring properties.



SITE HISTORY

In 1989, outline planning permission was granted for residential purposes (E/25224)

In 1992, outline planning permission was granted for the erection of a single/two storey nursing
home (E/30028)

In 1993, planning permission was granted for the erection of a single/two storey nursing home
including external appearance (E/30613)

In 1996, planning permission was granted for the erection of a 37 bed nursing home together with
associated car parking and landscaping

CONSULTATIONS

British Coal – Provide advice
Environmental Agency – No objections
Greater Manchester Police – Recommends a number of security measures be added including
gating and secure access controls. The advice has been forwarded to the applicant.
Director of Environmental Services – No objection but

PUBLICITY

A press notice was published in the Advertiser 17th July 2003
A site notice was displayed on 8th July 2003

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       1 – 7 (con) Ellis Crescent



                                               38
       20 – 54 (even) Hilton Lane
       Prescott House & St Andrews Methodist Primary School, Prescott Street

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received fifteen letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:-

       Overbearing
       Too high
       Increase in traffic / congestion
       Highway safety concerns for neighbouring school children
       Overlooking
       Loss of light
       Out of character

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies:         DEV1 – Development Criteria, DEV2 – Good Design, T13 Car Parking

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies:         DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES4
                        Relationship of Development to Public Space, DES5 Tall Buildings, DES7
                        Amenity of Users and Neighbours, A10 Provision of car, cycle and
                        motorcycle in new developments

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining
applications, including the visual appearance of the development, its relationship to its
surroundings and the amount, design and layout of car parking provision. Policy DEV2 seeks
quality through good design. T13 seeks to ensure adequate and appropriate car parking and
servicing.

The replacement plan policies are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.

National planning policy guidance is also relevant. PPG3: Housing highlights the need to develop
previously developed brownfield sites and where appropriate higher densities should be
considered. Therefore the principle of a residential flatted infill development in this location is
acceptable and conforms to the general emphasis of PPG3. However, the principle of PPG3 must
be balanced against the merits of the application and relationship to existing neighbouring uses.




                                                39
A total of fifteen letters of objection have been received in response to the application publicity.
The majority of the letters received are from the adjoining neighbouring residents and raise issues
of overbearing, character and highway safety issues.

The proposed siting of block A (the closest to the properties at the rear) would maintain 24.2m to
the neighbouring gable. The design and position of the windows closest to this boundary have
been designed so that the future occupiers could not look directly over the neighbouring properties
and as such I do not believe that the proposal would result in a loss of privacy.

However, with regard to issues of character and over bearing. There is a change in levels of this
site with those properties to the rear of the site. The bungalows on Ellis Crescent are
approximately 1.4m lower than the proposed blocks. This change in levels, coupled with the
proposed four storeys, would result in a negative and overbearing impact upon the those
bungalows to the rear. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that four storeys would also be out of
character with the existing single storey buildings on Prescott Street.

With regard car parking the applicant’s agent has provided a scheme for twenty six spaces. PPG13
seeks to encourage more sustainable development through lower levels of car parking provision
where the site can be easily accessed by alternative means of transport. However, although Little
Hulton is serviced by a local bus service, I am of the opinion that less than 100% car parking
provision would not be supported by the guidance contained within PPG13 in this instance.

Likely
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the principle of a residential use on this site is appropriate.
However, the proximity of this proposal to the common boundaries and surrounding residential
properties, would in my opinion, result in an over bearing impact and have a detrimental impact
that upon the privacy of neighbouring residents and their ability to enjoy their private garden area.
I therefore consider that this application be refused on the following grounds.


RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:

1. The proposed development would be out of character with the surrounding area because of its
   size and siting contrary to policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development

2. The proposed car parking provision is below the standard normally required by the Local
   Planning Authority for this type of development and set out in policy T13 of the City of Salford
   Unitary Development Plan

3. The proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents
   resulting in a overbearing and dominant impact by reason of its size and siting contrary to
   policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan




                                                  40
APPLICATION No:              03/46452/FUL

APPLICANT:                   Yesiuas Ezras Torah

LOCATION:                    33 Northumberland Street Salford 7

PROPOSAL:                    Change of external wall finish to front and side elevations

WARD:                        Kersal

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to 33 Northumberland Street, Salford 7. The property is currently in use as
a residential college. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character. It is proposed
to change the external wall finish to the front and side elevations of the single storey rear extension
from brown/red brickwork to painted render.

In 1997, planning permission was granted for the erection of a single storey rear extension to
provide a kitchen/dining room. The approved plans showed that the external walls of the extension
would be constructed from red/brown brick to match the existing rear of the property. The
extension is currently under construction but is not being undertaken in accordance with the
approved plan with respect to the materials. The applicant has therefore submitted this application
to amend the details of the proposed external wall finish from brick to painted render to match the
existing painted render to the front and side of the existing property. The rear of the property is
constructed predominantly of brick, although there is some render on the rear elevation.

SITE HISTORY

In 2002, planning permission was granted for the erection of a basement store extension (ref:
02/43960/FUL)

In 2000, planning permission was refused for the retention of 1m high boundary wall (ref:
00/41114/FUL)

In 2000, planning permission was refused for the erection of brick piers and gates (ref:
00/40715/FUL)



                                                  41
In 1999, planning permission was refused for the retention and alteration of front boundary wall
and installation of gates (ref: E/39637)

In 1999, planning permission was refused for the retention of a single storey detached lecture room
building at the rear (ref: E/38856)

In 1997, planning permission was granted for the erection of a single storey rear extension to
provide a kitchen/dining room (ref: E/36378)

In 1996, planning permission was granted for the change of use to a college with accommodation
for 20 students (ref: E/35413)

PUBLICITY

The following neighbours have been notified of the application:

31, 35, 86-90 (E) Northumberland Street
2A, 2B, 2 Cheltenham Crescent
8 Broom Avenue

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received one objection to this application. The issued raised are as follows:

The proposed materials would not match those of the existing building

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting context

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV1 of the Adopted UDP sets out a number of criteria to which regard should be had
when assessing applications for planning permission. Of most relevance to this application is the
visual appearance of the development and its relationship to its surroundings.

Policy DES1 requires applications to respond to their physical context. It states that where there is
no discernable or well-developed local character or distinctiveness, developments will be required
to adopt high design standards to ensure that the proposal is appropriate to the local area.



                                                 42
The objection received relates to the materials proposed by this application, claiming that they are
inappropriate. I am of the opinion however that the materials proposed are appropriate in this
location for a number of reasons. The extension is currently under construction and some of the
property is already rendered. I do not therefore consider that the external finish now proposed
would be unduly out of keeping with the remainder of the building. The proposed extension is at
the rear of the property and is not therefore highly prominent or visible from the surrounding area.
I am also of the opinion that this proposal would not detract from the character or the appearance of
the area.

On the above basis, I consider that the proposal complies with the provisions of the relevant UDP
policies. I therefore recommend approval.


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91




APPLICATION No:              03/46461/CON

APPLICANT:                   Development Services Directorate

LOCATION:                    The Brewery Tavern Adelphi Street Salford 3

PROPOSAL:                    Conservation area consent for demolition of former tavern and
                             adjacent former brewery

WARD:                        Blackfriars

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the former Brewery Tavern and the Cleminson Street Works, Adelphi
Street, Salford 3. The site is owned by the Council. The site is bounded by Cleminson Street to the
north and Adelphi Street to the west. To the east is the car park for the residents of the Old
Courthouse. To the south is an area of vacant land, beyond which is the former Salford Royal
Hospital which has been converted into apartments.




                                                 43
The application is for conservation area consent to demolish the existing buildings on the site. The
site is location within the Adelphi/Bexley Square Conservation Area.

SITE HISTORY

In 2000, Conservation Area Consent was granted for the demolition of a single storey element of
the engineering works (ref: 00/40562/CON)

In 2000, planning permission was granted for the conversion of the existing factory building and
the erection of a new-build element to provide 12 apartments with 12 integral parking spaces (ref:
00/40563/FUL)

CONSULTATIONS

English Heritage – no comments to date

PUBLICITY

A site notice was posted on 4th July 2003

A press notice was published on 10th July 2003

The following addresses have been notified:

       25 Wilton Place
       8-11, 15-35, The Old Courthouse, Encombe Place

REPRESENTATIONS

I have not received any representations in response to the application publicity

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: CS1 – Trinity
Other policies: EN11 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
                EN13 – Works to Listed Buildings and Buildings within Conservation Areas

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: CH5/3 – Works within Conservation Areas (Adelphi/Bexley Square)
                        MX1/2 – Development in Mixed Use Areas – Chapel Street West
Other policies: CH6 – Demolition of Buildings within Conservation Areas

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy CS1 of the Adopted UDP relates to the Trinity area, stating that emphasis will be placed on
a number of factors, including improving the local environment.


                                                 44
Policy EN11 states that when assessing an application for development within a conservation area,
the extent to which the proposal is consistent with the desirability of preserving or enhancing the
conservation area will be considered. In doing so, the Council will have regard to a number of
issues, including encouraging the retention and improvement of existing buildings and promoting
environmental improvement and enhancement programmes.

Policy EN13 sets out the criteria to which the Council will have regard in considering proposals for
the demolition of unlisted buildings within conservation areas. These include the importance of the
building, the condition of the building (including the cost of its repair and maintenance and the
provision of evidence that steps have been taken to secure its re-use) and the importance of any
alternative uses for the site (including whether, in a rundown area, limited redevelopment might
bring about new life to the area and make other listed buildings economically viable).

Policy CH5/3 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP states that development within
conservation areas will only be permitted where it preserves or enhances the character or
appearance of the area. In determining this, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the
extent to which the proposal retains or improves features which contribute to the character or
appearance of the area and secures environmental improvements.

Policy MX1/2 identifies Chapel Street West as a vibrant and mixed use area and development
within the area should contribute to this range of activities.

Policy CH6 states that demolition within a conservation area will only be permitted where the
structure to be demolished makes no positive contribution to the character or appearance of the
area, where it can be demonstrated that there is no viable use of the structure, and the cost of
repairing and maintaining it is prohibitive or where the proposals would make a vital contribution
to the regeneration of the local area or would secure the redevelopment of a larger, neglected site.

In reaching my recommendation on this application, I have undertaken an assessment in line with
the guidance contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic
Environment relating to the demolition of a non listed building within a Conservation Area. My
conclusions are set out below.

Local Planning Authorities are required by PPG15 to pay special attention to the desirability of
preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area in question; and,
as with listed building controls, this should be the prime consideration in determining a consent
application. In the case of conservation area controls account should clearly be taken of the part
played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is
proposed, and in particular of the wider effects of demolition on the building’s surroundings and
on the conservation area as a whole.

The two buildings constitute the remains of the former Adelphi Brewery and the adjacent Brewery
Tavern. Both buildings, together with a filtering pond on the opposite side of Cleminson Street,
formed the complex of buildings and structures known as the Adelphi Street Brewery, which dates
back to at least 1850. During the years that followed, significant alterations took place, and the



                                                 45
single storey building fronting Adelphi Street adjacent the Brewery Tavern is not the original
brewery building. Likewise, the two storey building, to the rear of the Tavern fronting Cleminson
Street is also not the original brewery building. It can be concluded therefore that there is not as
much historic significance to the buildings as might have been assumed.

Architecturally there is little embellishment except for window detailing around the elevation
fronting Adelphi Street of the single storey building. There is a single chimney stack to the rear of
the Tavern as well as large windows at first floor level fronting Cleminson Street.

I do not consider the building in question to make a significant contribution to the character of the
Conservation Area, unlike the former Salford Royal Hospital, the former County Court or the
former Town Hall in Bexley Square, which are all prominent and significant buildings within the
Conservation Area.

The general presumption should be in favour of retaining buildings that make a positive
contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation area. The building can be treated as
a listed building if it does make a positive contribution to the character of the area.

As stated above, I do not consider that the buildings contribute greatly to the character of the
conservation area and I do not feel that the property could be considered as listed for the benefit of
the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

In assessing the contribution of the buildings to the Conservation Area and determining the
appropriateness of this application, it is essential to consider the buildings’ surroundings. There are
a number of other large, vacant sites in the vicinity, including the Farmer Norton site on the
opposite side of Cleminson Street and the site to the rear of the former Salford Royal Hospital. The
character of this part of the conservation area.

The UDP sets out the circumstances where demolition in conservation areas is acceptable,
including where the building does not makes a positive contribution to the character or appearance
of the area and where the proposals would make a vital contribution to the regeneration of the local
area or would secure the redevelopment of a larger, neglected site. Due to the size and shape of the
site, it does not lend itself easily to redevelopment and the previous scheme for conversion did not
prove viable. Whilst there are no redevelopment proposals at present, it is possible that the site
would be redeveloped in conjunction with the site to the rear of the former Salford Royal Hospital.
On balance, I am of the opinion that, in this instance, a vacant, cleared site is preferable to
buildings in a poor condition with no real prospect of restoration and which detract from the area
and limit its redevelopment potential.

In conclusion, I do not consider that the buildings make a significant contribution to the character
or appearance of the Conservation Area. They are of limited architectural and historic value and
are in an extremely poor condition at present. I consider that their demolition provides an
opportunity to remove what are currently derelict and unattractive buildings which will in turn
improve the appearance of the area. I therefore recommend approval.




                                                  46
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. Prior to the demolition hereby approved, a scheme detailing the boundary treatment to the
   adjacent car park of the Old Courthouse shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
   Director of Development Services. The approved scheme shall be implemented immediately
   following the demolition hereby approved.

3. Within one month of the demolition hereby approved, the site shall be grassed and a timber
   knee rail provided, the details of which shall be submitted in advance to, and approved in
   writing, by the Director of Development Services.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R038 Section 18

2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours

3. To safeguard the character of the Adelphi/Bexley Square Conservation Area and to prevent
   unauthorised access onto the site.


Note(s) for Applicant

1. All drains should be plugged to prevent debris entering the public sewer



APPLICATION No:             03/46462/FUL

APPLICANT:                  Mr D Gaffey

LOCATION:                   Land Adjoining 6 Park Lane Salford 6

PROPOSAL:                   Erection of one detached dwelling and garage together with
                            associated creation of a new access

WARD:                       Weaste And Seedley

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the curtilage to the side of the existing two-storey dwelling at 6 Park
Lane, where there is presently a double garage and carport. The proposal is to erect a 3 bedroom,


                                                47
two-storey detached dwelling with integral garage. The property would be ‘L’ shaped and would
be 10.3 metres in length by 7.3 metres in width. The front of the proposed dwelling would be in
line with the adjacent dwellings at 6 and 4a Park Lane, but it would extend approximately 4.4
metres beyond the rear building line.

Garden areas are proposed to the rear and side of the site and there would be car parking provision
for two cars. The proposed materials are brick and render with concrete roof tiles. The application
site is located within a predominantly residential area.

SITE HISTORY

02/44542/FUL - Erection of one detached dwelling and garage together with creation of new
access. Application Withdrawn.

01/42297/FUL - Erection of a detached dwelling and construction of new vehicular access.
Application Withdrawn.

CONSULTATIONS

The Coal Authority – Report on coal mining circumstances provided.

Director of Environmental Services – No objections.

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 15th July 2003

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       1 – 17 Rattenbury Court (Saxby Street)
       8, 10, 20 – 30 (e) Park Lane
       8, 10 Godfrey Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received one letter of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised:-

      development will block any natural sunlight to rear of the dwelling at 22 Park Lane, thus
       having an adverse impact on the residents environment
      will completely dominate the rear of 22 Park Lane – the car port already has a detrimental
       effect on light, this larger structure will obliterate this light completely
      loss of privacy to 22 Park Lane

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY




                                                48
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
                DEV2 – Good Design

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
                DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that regard should be had to a number of issues
when determining applications for planning permission, including the effect on sunlight, daylight
and privacy for neighbouring properties 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. The policies of the First
Deposit Draft Replacement UDP are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to
this development.

The objections raised relate to the impact of the proposed development on the residents of 22 Park
Lane, to the side of the site, in terms of loss of privacy and loss of light to habitable room windows.
On the side elevation of the proposed dwelling facing the dwellings on Park Lane there would be a
small secondary window to the lounge at ground floor and a bathroom window at first floor. There
would be a distance of approximately 13.5 metres between the rear of 22 Park Lane and the
proposed dwelling. This distance is in accordance with the minimum distance of 13 metres
normally required by the City Council. I do not therefore consider that the proposal would result in
any loss of privacy or light for the residents of the dwellings on Park Lane. I am, however,
concerned about the siting of the proposed dwelling in relation to the properties on Rattenbury
Court, to the rear of the site. There would be a distance of just 13.8 metres between the habitable
windows of 11, 12 and 14 Rattenbury Court and the bedroom and dining room windows of the
proposed dwelling. A minimum distance of 21 metres between the facing main windows of
habitable rooms is required by the City Council. I therefore consider that the siting of the proposed
dwelling is such that it would directly overlook the dwellings on Rattenbury Court and would
result in a significant loss of privacy for these residents.

With regards to car parking and highway matters, a garage and driveway have been identified
which would accommodate parking for two cars. With reference to site access, there is presently a
low wall with railing above and a dense conifer hedge behind. The current boundary treatment
does not allow the required pedestrian/vehicular visibility splays to be achieved at the site access,
which would be detrimental to highway safety.

Whilst I consider that the principle of residential development would be acceptable in this
residential area and that a two-storey dwelling would be in keeping with the character of the area,
I consider that the siting of the proposed dwelling would have an unacceptable impact on the
amenity of neighbouring residents.



                                                  49
RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:

1. The proposed development would result in loss of privacy for neighbouring residents contrary
   to Policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

2. The proposed access to the site, because of existing boundary treatments is inadequate and
   below the minimum standard necessary to ensure the safety of pedestrians and drivers
   contrary to policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.




APPLICATION No:             03/46463/FUL

APPLICANT:                  General Practice Investment Corporation Ltd

LOCATION:                   Former Swinton Market Place, Junction Of Worsley Road,
                            Manchester Road And Chorley Road Swinton

PROPOSAL:                   Erection of two storey building comprising doctors surgery and
                            pharmacy together with associated landscaping, car parking and
                            alteration to existing vehicular access

WARD:                       Swinton North

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the former Swinton Market and seeks the erection of two storey building
comprising doctors surgery and pharmacy together with associated landscaping, car parking and
alteration to existing vehicular access.

The site is approximately 0.22ha. and it comprises the sites of the former Swinton Market and a
recently demolished sauna building (formerly a cinema). The former market site has been in use as
a car park for many years. Properties opposite the site and to the north and east, on Manchester
Road and Chorley Road, are mainly commercial, but there are residential properties to the rear in
New Cross Street.

The main elevation of the building fronting the junction will follow the curve of Chorley Road.
The two storey element would be sited adjacent to the back of the footpath and would measure
7.7m in height at its highest point. The single storey element would be set back 2m from the back
of the footpath where it would continue to match the curve of the road. A landscaping scheme
would be incorporated into the area. Both the single storey and two storey elements would have


                                                50
extended eaves and would be constructed using brickwork, aluminium and wooden panelling. The
remaining 16m of frontage adjacent to the Far Pavilion restaurant would comprise a wall of the
same brick work as the main building. The height of the wall would increase from 2.4m to 3m and
would screen the staff car park from the junction of Chorley and Manchester Road. A 2m
landscaping area would continued to be provided in front of this wall.

Pedestrian access to the pharmacy would be accessed directly from Chorley Road and the car park.
The medical centre would be accessed directly from both the car park and Chorley Road. The
scheme has been to allow for additional hard and soft landscaping.

The car park would located to the rear of the building and sufficiently sized to accommodate thirty
four spaces, ten staff, nineteen public, four pharmacy and one ambulance space. The access would
continued to be provided off New Cross Street.

CONSULTATIONS

British Coal – No objection but provide advice
Greater Manchester Police – Recommends a number of security measures to be added including
additional security fencing around the public car park. However, I am of the opinion that the need
for accessible public car parking in the evenings out weights the need for additional fencing. The
advice has been forwarded to the applicant.
Environment Agency – No comments to date
Director of Environmental Services – No Objection

PUBLICITY

A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser 10th July 2003
A site notice was displayed on 8th July 2003

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       12 – 34 (e), 12A, 23 – 25 (o), 25A and 2 Chorley Road
       8 – 18 Cottam Grove (Dorning Road)
       243 – 251 (o) and 232 – 242 (e) Manchester Road
       9 – 18 (con), 2 Nigel Grant, 2 Atmostherm, 4 D C Autos, 4 Market Service Station, New
       Cross Street
       1 and 4 Worsley Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received one representation in response to the planning application publicity. The following
issues have been raised:-

       Loss of car parking during construction

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY



                                                 51
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:         DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and
                        Crime, T13 Car Parking, SC9 Health Care

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies:         DES1 respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and movement, DES7
                        Amenity Users and Neighbours, DES11 Design and Crime, DES13 Design
                        Statements, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
                        Developments, ECH1 Provision and Improvement of Education, Health and
                        Community Facilities

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining
applications, including the visual appearance of the development, its relationship to its
surroundings and the amount, design and layout of car parking provision. Policy DEV2 seeks
quality through good design. T13 seeks to ensure adequate and appropriate car parking and
servicing. Policy SC9 encourages the safeguarding, maintenance, and improvement of health care
provision throughout the City.

The replacement plan policies are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.

I have received one representation in response to the application publicity. The letter does not
object to the principle of the development on this site but raises concerns as to the potential loss of
car parking during the construction of the proposal.

With regard to the representation received there will be some disturbance and loss of car parking
facility during construction. However, I believe that the provision of nineteen public car parking
spaces will continue to benefit the users of the wider uses within the area once the construction
phase of the scheme is complete.

I am of the opinion that the proposed use of the site for use as a medical practice and pharmacy is in
accordance with policy SC9 of the adopted UDP and ECH1 of the first deposit draft replacement.
Therefore, the main planning issues to consider is the design of the building within the context of
the site and the level of car parking provision.

Turning to car parking provision, Members will no doubt be aware of the Government’s aim to
reduce reliance on the car and to reduce car parking provision within new developments. Planning
Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport, issued in 2000, outlines the Government’s advice on car
parking. It states that local authorities should not require developers to provide more car parking
spaces than they themselves wish, other than in exceptional circumstances, for example where
there would be significant road safety issues. Members will also be aware of the replacement



                                                  52
Regional Planning Guidance for the North West, RPG13, produced earlier this month, Appendix 4
of which encourages local authorities to adopt lower car parking standards within urban
conurbation areas. I have no highway objection and am of the opinion that the level of car parking
is sufficient for both staff and customers and is in accordance with the above guidance and the
standards with both UDP’s.

The design of any scheme on this site will take advantage of the location and provide a building
both prominent and of sufficient impact.

I am of the opinion that the siting of the building adjacent to the footpath and directly opposite
Worsley Road would provide a visually prominent building. Furthermore, I believe that the
combination of single and two storey, the curve of the main elevation and recessed single storey
element helps provide not only a prominent building, but an interesting feature which joins up the
existing buildings on Manchester Road and Chorley Road. I am also of the opinion that design
features including a ‘Y form’ roof structure and extended eaves, along with modern materials
provides an attractive and modern looking building which will provide a high visual impact and
add to the street’s vertical and horizontal rhythms.

In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the principle of this use on this site is appropriate and the
siting of this proposal to the common boundaries and surrounding residential and commercial
properties is acceptable, and would in my opinion, not have any detrimental impact upon
neighbouring properties. I therefore consider that this application should be approved.


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a site investigation
   report for the approval of the LPA. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and
   distribution of 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, focusing
   primarily on risks to human health. The investigation shall also address the implications 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 LPA 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. Prior to
   discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to
   the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall validate that all
   works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.

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



                                                 53
   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. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason R028A Public safety

3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

4. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage




APPLICATION No:             03/46467/FUL

APPLICANT:                  Eagle Star Assurance Co Ltd

LOCATION:                   The Market Centre The Mall Eccles

PROPOSAL:                   Erection of new entrance features and security shutters at
                            entrances to market centre with closure of right of way and
                            environmental improvements including construction of planters

WARD:                       Eccles

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the Market Centre in Eccles town centre. The proposal is to erect new
entrance features and security shutters at the four entrances to The Mall. New steel entrance
feature structures incorporating roller shutters would be erected at the Southway and Church Street


                                                54
entrances to the centre. Roller shutters will be built into the existing structures at the Boothway
entrance to the centre and the entrance adjacent to the multi-storey car park. The entrance shutters
would be opened approximately one hour before trading and closed approximately one hour after
closing on Monday to Sunday inclusive.

Environmental improvements are also proposed – the mall would be repaved and nine brick
planters erected, each planter measuring 1.5 metres by 1.5 metres and 1.1 metres in height. The
proposed development would necessitate the closure of a right of way, which would be progressed
under separate legislation.

SITE HISTORY

01/42657/FUL - Construction of new structures and security shutters at entrances to the Market
Centre. Approved 19.09.01

01/42656/ADV - Display of non-illuminated retail centre signage at the Southway and Church
Street entrances to the Market Centre. Approved 20.08.01

CONSULTATIONS

The Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – No comments received.

Ramblers Association (Manchester Area) – Objection. Positively welcome the environmental
improvements, but, are concerned about the loss of pedestrian permeability that would result from
the closure, outside trading hours, of the four entrances to the Mall and Boothsway.

The Open Spaces Society – No comments received.

Peak and Northern Footpaths Society – No comments received.

Eccles Town Centre Manager – No comments received.

PUBLICITY

A press notice was published on 24th July 2003

Site notices were displayed on 15th July 2003

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       1 – 15 (o), 2 – 6 (e) Boothway (Church Street)
       54/56, 58, 84/86, 88/90 Church Street
       1 – 5 (o), 11 – 37 (o), 28 – 40 (e) The Mall
       12/14, 11 – 15 (o) Southway

REPRESENTATIONS



                                                 55
I have received one letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:-

      The opening and closing of the four entrances one hour before opening and one hour after
       closing will take away the flexibility of trading from the adopted public highway and
       potentially restrict the hours upon which Peacocks and Bon Marche intend to operate if this
       is against the consensus of other neighbouring occupiers and the managing agent. In order
       to take advantage of seasonal and future trading conditions the above proposal would be a
       hindrance and have a negative effect on out customers.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: S6/4 – Maintenance and Improvement of Town Centres (Eccles)
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
                DEV4 – Design and Crime

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: S2/2 – Location of New retail and Leisure Development
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context




PLANNING APPRAISAL

Unitary Development Plan policy S6 states that the City Council will encourage the refurbishment
and improvement of Eccles town centre, including the refurbishment of the shopping precinct.
UDP policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors in
determining applications for planning permission, including the visual appearance of the
development and its relationship to its surroundings. Policy DEV4 states that the City Council will
encourage greater consideration of crime prevention and personal and property security in the
design of new development and that regard will be had to the provision of security features. The
policies of the First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP are generally similar to those of the adopted
plan in respect to this development.

The objection raised relates to the hours that the entrances to the centre would be opened and
closed and the impact that this would have on flexible working/opening for business premises and
seasonal changes in trade. I consider that the precise hours of the opening and closing of the roller
shutters is a matter to be agreed between the landowner and their tenant businesses. The Ramblers
Association welcome the proposed environmental improvements, but are concerned about the loss
of pedestrian permeability that would result from the closure of the centre out of trading hours. The
closure of the right of way through the centre would need to be progressed under the appropriate
legislation and no closure would be authorised until the appropriate Order has been made. With
regards to the Ramblers Association’s concerns, I consider that there are nearby alternative



                                                 56
pedestrian routes which can be used when the shutters are closed. Furthermore, I consider that the
installation of roller shutters will improve security at the centre and assist in the reduction of crime
and vandalism attacks outside business trading hours.

Members should be aware that planning permission has already been approved in 2001 for the
installation of the four roller shutters and entrance structures. I consider that the scale and design of
the structures would be in keeping with the Market centre, providing that they are colour treated.
The proposed resurfacing works and planters will enhance the character and appearance of the
Market Centre.


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. The entrance features and roller shutters hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is
   to be agreed in writing prior to the commencement of the development by the Director of
   Development Services.

3. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the planters
   have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.

4. No development shall commence until the required consents for the closing of the public right
   of way have been obtained.

5. Notwithstanding the submitted plans the roller shutters hereby approved shall be constructed
   with vision panels which shall be agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services
   prior to the implementation of the scheme.

6. No development shall be started until samples of the materials to be used for the repaving of
   the Market 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

3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

4. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt

5. Reason: To ensure that the development is appropriately secured from crime in accordance



                                                   57
   with policy DEV 4 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

6. Standard Reason R028A Public safety


Note(s) for Applicant

1. Public services pass through the site, therefore easements may need to be agreed with United
   Utilities as part of the right of way closure process.



APPLICATION No:              03/46474/HH

APPLICANT:                   Dr T Garg

LOCATION:                    16 Thornway Ellenbrook Worsley

PROPOSAL:                    Erection of a single storey side extension and a first floor
                             extension to front

WARD:                        Walkden South

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to a detached property in a residential area.

The proposal is for the erection of a first floor front extension over the existing utility room and a
single storey side extension.

The front extension would be situated over part of the garage and would project 1.9m from the
main front elevation towards the existing garage forward of the main house. It would have a
hipped roof to match a similar feature on the opposite side of the property.

The single storey side extension would be located on the boundary with No.14. The proposal
would be set back 7m from the front garage wall and 2m from the main front elevation with a
height of 3.6m.

SITE HISTORY

 96/34894/HH - Erection of two storey rear extension to provide dining was approved and is now
built.
00/40680/HH - Erection of conservatory at rear of dwelling house was approved and is now built

CONSULTATIONS




                                                 58
British Coal – No objections

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       5. 7, 9, 14 and 18 Thornway
       24 and 26 Arkholme

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received one letter of objection from the neighbouring occupier in response to the planning
application publicity. The following issues have been raised:-

       Loss of privacy
       Creation of wind tunnel
       Terracing effect

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions
                Supplementary Planning Guidance

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
                DES8 Alterations and Extensions

PLANNING APPRAISAL

DEV8 states that planning permission will not be granted for extensions that have an unacceptable
adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking,
overshadowing, dominance loss of light or privacy nor would it have an unacceptably adverse
impact on the character of the street scene, this is re-iterated in policy DES7.

The objection is in relation to the single storey side extension only. With regards to the first floor
front extension. I would consider it to be in keeping with the characteristics of the existing house
and street scene.

The side extension would not have any windows on the side elevation and No.14 has no windows
on the side elevation. No.14 has a conservatory close to the boundary at the rear. The proposal
would not project beyond the rear elevation of the conservatory and would have a patio door on the
rear elevation, I would not consider the proposal to have an impact on the privacy of the
neighbouring occupiers.



                                                 59
I would not consider the introduction of a single-storey side extension in an area of two-storey
properties to have the potential to create a terracing effect. There is no evidence to suggest that the
proposal would create a wind tunnel nor would I consider it to be a significant material
consideration. Therefore I would not consider the proposal to have a detrimental impact on the
street scene or the occupiers of neighbouring properties.


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same
   type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by
   the Director of Development Services.



(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building




APPLICATION No:              03/46477/HH

APPLICANT:                   Mr C Cheadle

LOCATION:                    7 Chessington Rise Swinton

PROPOSAL:                    Erection of a part two storey/part single storey side extension and
                             single storey rear extension (Resubmission of Planning
                             Application 03/46061/HH)

WARD:                        Pendlebury

At a meeting of the Panel held on 7th August 2003 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.

My previous observations are set out below:


                                                  60
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to a semi-detached house. The proposal is to construct a two storey side
extension and a single storey rear extension. The two storey side extension would be 3.16m in
width and would be the length of the house, although the first floor element of the extension has
been set back 2m from the front main wall in order to ensure that there would be terracing effect.
There would also be a single storey rear extension across the whole of the house and the proposed
side extension which would project out 2.3m from the back of the property.

SITE HISTORY

In June this year planning permission was refused for a two storey side and single storey rear
extension, on the grounds that it could result in a possible terracing effect.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses have been notified

       2, 4, 5 & 9 Chessington Rise
       1 & 3 Ellerby Ave

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received two letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The objections are
the same that was raised previously and are as follows:

          the occupiers of the house to the rear are concerned that the two storey extension would
           block sunlight from their property, especially the patio
          the occupier to the side is concerned that a loss of light will be to the kitchen/ dining
           room and bedroom
          the extension would shadow the patio, where time is spent owing to poor health
          the proposal would leave no driveway and add to problems of cars parking on the street
           and blocking the drive, which already happens
          the extension would affect the sale of the property
          the noise and disturbance during construction would cause considerable anguish and
           exacerbate poor health.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None


                                                61
Other policies: DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours

PLANNING APPRAISAL


Policy DEV8 states that development must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the
amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of
privacy or light. This is reiterated in Policy DES7.

The previous application, which is very similar to this current application, was refused because it
did not meet the Council’s policy regarding a possible terracing effect. The scheme has been
amended to resolve this issue. However, as the neighbours have once again objected to this
proposal, I have reconsidered their grounds of objection and the possible effect on the neighbours.
The neighbour to the rear is concerned that they will suffer a loss of sunlight, particularly to their
garden. I understand their concern as the application property is located to the south east of their
house and the two storey extension may have some effect on sunlight that currently affects their
garden. However, the orientation of their house and other surrounding houses also would have an
affect on the direct sun that they can benefit from. I am satisfied that the proposed extension
provides adequate separation from the house to the rear, at over 9m to the nearest part particularly
given the angled relationship between the two houses. Therefore I do not consider that this would
have an adverse impact in terms of loss of light or overbearing impact on the house to the rear.

I am mindful that the neighbouring property is concerned, particularly given that the applicants
property is set back in relationship to her house. However, the projection of the 2 storey extension
would be equal to the distance that the neighbours house is from the boundary. Therefore I would
consider that this extension would comply with the Council’s SPG and would not have a seriously
detrimental impact on the neighbours house in terms of loss of light, overlooking or overbearing.
As the objector’s patio is set on the far side of her property I do not consider that the extension
would have such an overshadowing or overbearing impact on her garden.

The proposed extension would still provide a drive of at least 6m in length and therefore the
applicant could still achieve off-road parking for at least one car, which is what I would normally
require.



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.




                                                 62
(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building




APPLICATION No:             03/46483/HH

APPLICANT:                  D.P Newton

LOCATION:                   29 Granary Lane Worsley

PROPOSAL:                   Erection of a single storey rear extension and first floor rear
                            extension

WARD:                       Worsley Boothstown

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to a detached property located within a row of predominantly
semi-detached properties. The proposal is to erect an infill extension at ground floor level, and a
first floor rear extension.

The infill extension would measure approximately 1.3m X 2.4m and would be contained within
existing building lines.

The first floor rear extension would measure 4m X 6m and would be set in 1.8m from the common
boundary shared with 27 Granary Lane. The extension would not project beyond the rear of this
neighbour’s house.

This application is being considered by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel as the
applicant is an employee of the City Council.

CONSULTATIONS

British Coal – No objections




                                                63
PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       27 and 31 Granary Lane
       1 Ryecroft Lane
       ‘Elmwood’ Barton Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received no letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies:         DEV8 – House Extensions
                        Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies:         DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV8 states that development must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the
amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of
privacy or light. This is reiterated in Policy DES7.

Both elements of the proposal conform to Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions
with regards to the relevant projection distances and so I am of the opinion that they would not lead
to a significant loss of amenity for neighbouring residents. The proposed extensions would not be
visible from a public highway and so they would not have an adverse impact on the street scene or
amenity of the area.


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same
   type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by
   the Director of Development Services.




                                                 64
(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building




APPLICATION No:               03/46501/HH

APPLICANT:                    D Peers

LOCATION:                     45 Houghton Lane Swinton

PROPOSAL:                     Erection of single storey rear extension

WARD:                         Swinton South

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to a semi-detached property in a residential area. The site has a single
storey rear element away from the adjoining semi. The adjoining semi (No. 47) has a rear
conservatory along the boundary with the application site.

The proposal would project 2.6m X 3.4m with a height to the eaves of 2.9m and a total height of
3.8m with a pitched roof. The proposal would be situated between the boundary with the adjoining
semi and the existing single storey rear element. The rear garden of the application site is
surrounded by a fence approximately 2m in height.

CONSULTATIONS

British Coal – No objection

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       43 and 47 Houghton Lane
       21 and 23 Warren Drive


                                                65
REPRESENTATIONS

I have received one letter of objection from the adjoining occupier in response to the planning
application publicity. The following issues have been raised:-

       Loss of light due to the extension being constructed from brick
       Due to the proximity of the proposal to the boundary maintenance would be difficult to
       carry out
       Extensions should not be built any closer than 12 inches to boundaries

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions
                Supplementary Planning Guidance

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
                DES8 Alterations and Extensions

PLANNING APPRAISAL

DEV8 states that planning permission will not be granted for extensions that have an unacceptable
adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking,
overshadowing, dominance loss of light or privacy nor would it have an unacceptably adverse
impact on the character of the street scene, this is re-iterated in policy DES7.

Policy HH9 states that planning permission will not normally be granted for single storey rear
extensions located along the boundary that exceed 2.74m measured from the rear elevation of the
adjoining property.

The proposal which would be in line with the neighbouring conservatory would be slightly higher
than the conservatory and would be of a brick construction. There is a 2m high fence on the
boundary between the two properties. The proposal does meet with Policy HH9, therefore I would
not consider it to have an unacceptable adverse impact on the loss of the light to the conservatory.

It would be the responsibility of the applicant to maintain their extension and if access was
required from the adjoining property it would be a private matter and not a planning consideration.

The proposal is in line with Supplementary Planning Guidance therefore I would consider any
effect on the neighbouring property to be acceptable.




                                                66
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same
   type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by
   the Director of Development Services.



(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building




APPLICATION No:             03/46507/COU

APPLICANT:                  D A Abassi

LOCATION:                   189 Littleton Road Salford 6

PROPOSAL:                   Change of use from commercial to residential

WARD:                       Kersal

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to 189 Littleton Road, Salford 6. It is proposed to change the use of the
ground floor of the property from commercial to residential. The first floor of the property is
currently used as a flat. The ground floor has not been used for commercial purposes for a number
of years.

The property is located in a parade of shops, all of which are currently occupied. They include a
hairdressers and a DIY shop. On the opposite side of Littleton Road is the Racecourse Hotel which
is currently vacant. The surrounding properties are predominantly residential.

SITE HISTORY

In 1987, planning permission was granted for the change of use from a shop to a solicitors (ref:
E22094)


                                                67
CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – no objections

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       185-195 (O), Racecourse Hotel, Littleton Road
       The Club, Stamford Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received three letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:

       Residential is inappropriate
       Insufficient car parking
       Security would be compromised due to an increase in activity in the area

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV1 of the Adopted UDP outlines a number of criteria to which regard should be had in
the determination of planning applications. Of most relevance to this application are the visual
appearance of the development.

Policy DES1 of the First Deposit UDP requires development to respond to its physical context and
respect the character of the area.

In will deal with each of the objections received in turn. Whilst I acknowledge that the adjoining
premises are currently used for commercial purposes, as the application property is not located
within one of the City’s town or neighbourhood centres, Policy S3 of the First Deposit Draft
Replacement UDP, which outlines the presumption against the loss of shops in such areas, does
not apply. I therefore consider the principle of the proposed use to be acceptable.




                                               68
In terms of car parking, the premises has operated as a shop for a number of years and I do not
consider that a flat would create any greater demand for car parking than a successful commercial
property. Parking is available on Littleton Road in a dedicated parking area. I do not therefore
consider this to be a matter of concern in this instance.

Finally, I do not consider that the proposal would compromise the security of the surrounding area.
There are a large number of residential properties in the immediate vicinity of the application site
and I do not consider that an additional flat would result in a significant increase in activity in the
area.

Notwithstanding the above, in order for the ground floor of the property to be converted to
residential accommodation, alterations to the front elevation, including amendments to the
positioning of the door and windows, would be required, as at present, the property does not lend
itself to becoming a flat. The applicant has however failed to supply this information within the
specified time limit. I do not therefore have sufficient information to determine the application,
particularly in terms of the appearance of the property in relation to the surrounding premises. I
therefore recommend that the application be refused.


RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:

1. Standard Reason RR43C Insufficient Details




APPLICATION No:              03/46509/HH

APPLICANT:                   J Phipps

LOCATION:                    13 Kirkstone Avenue Worsley

PROPOSAL:                    Erection of two storey side extension

WARD:                        Walkden South

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to a semi-detached property located within a row of semi-detached
properties. The applicant’s house is set back approximately 1.6m from the adjacent house but
there is approximately 4m to the gable wall of this property. The proposal is to erect a two-storey
side extension.




                                                  69
The proposal would project out 2.5m from the gable wall, be flush with the front main wall and
extends back 7.7m to adjoin the rear main wall. The extension would maintain a distance of 1m to
the adjacent boundary.

CONSULTATIONS

British Coal – No objections



PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       11, 14, 15, and 16 Kirkstone Avenue
       10 Dales Grove

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity from the
adjacent neighbour. The objector is concerned the proposal is too close to her property and, as a
result, would lead to a loss of light for her.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies:         DEV8 – House Extensions
                        Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies:         DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV8 states that development must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the
amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of
privacy or light. This is reiterated in Policy DES7.

Although the applicant’s house is set back from the adjacent neighbour’s house, the separation
distance is such that, in my opinion, the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the light
or amenity of this neighbour. Furthermore, there are no habitable room windows on the gable
elevation of the adjacent neighbour’s house and the proposal is in accordance with all the relevant
sections of Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions. The proposal is adequately




                                                70
designed and would not have a detrimental impact on the street scene or any other neighbouring
residents.


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same
   type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by
   the Director of Development Services.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building


Note(s) for Applicant

1. The approval relates to the amended plans that were received on 28th July 2003 and which
   show a minimum gap of 1m to the adjacent boundary.



APPLICATION No:             03/46522/COU

APPLICANT:                  Burtonwood Brewery Plc

LOCATION:                   Unit 10 Hulton District Centre Manchester Road East Little
                            Hulton Worsley

PROPOSAL:                   Change of use of vacant unit to extend floor area of adjoining
                            Public House

WARD:                       Little Hulton

ESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a single storey unit within the Hulton District Centre and seeks to
change the use of a vacant shop to extend the floor area of the adjoining two storey public house.
The existing shop front would be altered to provide a single window within the elevation with
access from the existing public house.


                                                71
The extension of the pub into this unit would provide an enlarged bar and pool room.

The adjoining properties to the south are three storey with residential dwellings occupying the first
and second floors. Unit 12a, a residential property above the adjoining shop, has an enclosed
access directly adjacent to this unit.

The proposed hours of operation would be the same as those for the existing pub; 11.00am until
11.00pm Mondays to Saturdays and closing at 10.30pm on Sundays.

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – no objections

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:
       Units 2 – 6 (e), 12, 12a, 14, 14a, 16, 16a and ;
       1 – 17 (o) Hulton District Centre, Manchester Road East

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received one letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:-

       Noise
       Proximity of entrance
       Increase in vandalism, criminal damage

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies:         S3 Key Local Centres, S5 Control of Food and Drink Premises

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: S2 Location of New Retail And Leisure Development,
Other policies:         S3 Loss of Shops

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy S3 seeks to retain, consolidate and improve Salford’s key local centres. Policy S2 of the
first deposit draft replacement plan identifies the centre as a neighbourhood centre and is similar to
policy S3 of the existing plan. Policy S3 of the draft plan states that changes of use from Class A1
retail will only be permitted where it would not have an unacceptable impact on the vitality or
viability of the centre.



                                                 72
Policy S5 states that the Council will normally only permit proposals for A3 uses where they
would not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenities of surrounding residential
properties or significantly prejudice highway safety. Where an A3 use would directly adjoin a
residential unit, it is normally considered unacceptable as noise, disturbance, fumes and odours
adversely affect the occupiers.

The objection received refers to the noise, disturbance currently experienced by the residential
accommodation above the existing retail units. Concerns have also been raised as to the shared
veranda. I can confirm that the scheme incorporates a new shop front which would remove the
existing entrance provision and would provide only a window within the frontage. The access to
the unit would be from within the public house utilising the existing entrance facilities to the north,
as such I am confident that there would not be any conflict between the users of the public house
and neighbouring residential property around the existing residential entrance.

Therefore, the main planning issue with regard this application is the potential for noise and the
loss of an A1 use. Firstly, with regard noise I am of the opinion that the extension of an existing
use with activities wholly within the property would not result in any additional noise.
Furthermore, I have not received any objections from the Director of Environmental Services
subject to the submission and approval of a noise report containing appropriate noise attenuation
measures and the restriction of amplified equipment.

Therefore, I am of the opinion that this change of use would not have an unacceptable impact upon
the adjoining neighbouring residential properties or on the vitality and viability of the centre.


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 of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
   Director of Development Services.

3. An assessment shall be submitted for written approval to the Local Planning Authority which
   details the levels of internal noise likely to be generated from the proposed use of the site. This
   assessment shall be used to identify and determine appropriate noise mitigation measures
   (such as soundproofing) required to protect the amenity of adjacent noise sensitive properties.
   Any noise mitigation measures identified by the assessment shall be implemented prior to the
   commencement of the proposed use and retained thereafter.

4. No amplified equipment shall be used within the premises on any occasion

(Reasons)



                                                  73
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity

3. To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring occupants of the development in accordance
   with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

4. To ensure that the amenities of nearby residents are not adversely affected by noise and
   nuisance in accordance with policy S5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.




APPLICATION No:             03/46526/FUL

APPLICANT:                  Woodford Homes Ltd

LOCATION:                   Former Shopping Centre Liverpool Road Irlam

PROPOSAL:                   Erection of 18 dwelling houses and one-three storey block of 21
                            apartments, associated car parking, construction of new
                            vehicular access and provision of wall/railings along the
                            boundary with Liverpool Road (Resubmission of 03/45704/FUL)

WARD:                       Irlam


DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This site is the former Irlam Shopping Centre situated on the north side of Liverpool Road adjacent
to Woodbine Terrace, Irlam. The site has a rectangular shape and ground level of the site rises
gradually from Liverpool Road to the existing houses at the rear of the site on Sandiway. The area
is mainly residential with two storey residential properties surrounding the site to the north and
west on Sandiway, to the east on Turner Avenue and Woodbine Terrace and to the south on
Liverpool Road, where two storey flats are located next to the site and across Liverpool Road.
Some commercial units are located to the south west of the site on Liverpool Road and a petrol
filling station is located across Liverpool Road to the south. The site at present consists of scrub
vegetation and self-seeded trees.

Planning permission is sought for the erection of 39 residential units in a mixture of flats and
houses at a density of 58 units per hectare. To the front of the site facing Liverpool Road a three
storey block of 21 two bed flats is proposed, the third storey being half in the roofspace, which
would be 10m high to the ridge and 6.8m high to the eaves with a footprint of 12.5m by 46.5m.
This block would be set behind the footpath of Liverpool Road by 4m and set 12m from the back
of footpath on Woodbine Terrace.


                                                74
Permission is also sought for the erection of 18 houses, seven of which are two storey and eleven
are three storey. The three storey properties include the third storey in the roof space with windows
being formed with dormers in the roof. The 18 houses are split into three terraces. Two terraces are
at right angles to Liverpool Road and one terrace is parallel to Liverpool Road. At either end of
these terraces are two storey houses whilst in the middle are the three storey houses. The three
storey houses (third storey in roof space) would be 8.9m high whilst the two storey houses would
be 7.7m high.

A total of 61 parking spaces are proposed for the 39 residential properties proposed, with an
additional ten spaces being proposed for existing residents of Woodbine Terrace. Fencing is
proposed around the ten spaces for Woodbine Terrace. The existing vehicular access is to be
utilised and extended into the site to facilitate the development. The development includes the
closing of an unadopted narrow footpath which connects the northeast of the site and Sandiway.

The application is a resubmission of the previous application for 42 residential units
03/45704/FUL which members refused on the 6th June 2003 for the following reason: ‘The
proposed development would amount to an over development of the site by reason of the proposed
height and the relationship to neighbouring properties, to the detriment of the residential amenity
and character of the area and is contrary to policy DEV1 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan’. This current application has been amended to include a reduction in the
number of units by three and the reduction in the size of the apartment block facing Liverpool
Road. The apartment block has been reduced in width by 2.5m. All other matters remain
unchanged from the original application except that the passageway from the site to Sandiway is
not proposed to be closed.

SITE HISTORY

In June 2003 planning permission was refused for the erection of 42 residential units
(03/45704/FUL).
In 1992, outline planning permission was refused for the erection of a retail unit (non food)
(E/29668).
In 1991, outline planning permission was refused for an A1 retail unit (E/27817).

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objections but recommends conditions
Environment Agency – No objections
GMP Architectural Liaison Unit – Concern over access to9 rear gardens – the applicant has
amended the proposal to take these factors into account
British Coal – No objections

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses have been notified




                                                 75
       18 – 36 even Sandiway
       39 – 40 odd Sandiway
       13 –21 odd Turner Avenue
       2 – 12 even Woodbine Terrace
       160 – 190 even Liverpool Road
       91 – 119 odd Liverpool Road
       87, 87A, 87B, 89A Liverpool Road

Press notices were published on the 24th July 2003.
Site notices were displayed on the 22nd July 2003.

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received four letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The applications
are similar and the comments received on the last application should also be considered. The main
issues identified are as follows:

       Too many units on the site
       Three storeys too high
       Privacy reduced as a result of the development
       Sunlight/daylight reduced as a result of the development
       Flats are too near properties on Woodbine Terrace
       Pastiche development not appropriate
       Traffic problems in Cadishead/Irlam exasperated by more housing and public transport
       should be improved
       Not enough parking spaces on the site
       The footpath should be closed between Sandiway and the site
       Alleyways at back of proposed and existing houses could lead to crime
       Application not been submitted with levels
       Requests that Councillors visit the site

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: H9/42 Sites For New Housing
Other policies: H4 Housing Land Allocation, H6 & H11 Open Space Provision Within New
Developments, DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime and
T10 Pedestrians

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none
Other policies: ST2 Housing Supply, H1 Provision of New Housing Development, H2 Location of
New Housing Development, H8 Open Space Provision Associated With New Housing
Development, DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours.




                                                76
PLANNING APPRAISAL

The site is allocated for housing in the adopted UDP and I consider that the principle of housing on
this site to be acceptable with regards to planning policy. Policies contained within the proposed
replacement UDP require housing developments to be located close to services and public
transport, the site is close to the Higher Irlam neighbourhood centre and is on a bus route through
the centre of Irlam. Policy H1 of the proposed replacement UDP, as with guidance in PPG3,
requires a minimum density for new types of housing subject to the development being in context
with the surrounding area. Policies in both UDP’s require that proposals respect surrounding
amenity and street scape. Policies H6, H11 and H8 require that an appropriate amount of open
space is proposed either on site or through an off site contribution. Policies DEV1, DEV2, DES1
and DES7 require developments to be of a scale and appearance that fit in with its surroundings,
whilst policy DEV4 requires developments to limit opportunities for crime.

The three storey houses have the third floor within the roof space utilising dormer windows instead
of windows at eaves level and along with the reduction in height I consider a reduction in the visual
impact of the proposal has resulted. The siting of the three storey houses is at a minimum of 24m
away from the rear of facing two storey houses on Sandiway, this is in line with normal City of
Salford guidelines. Where three storey town houses back onto the rear of Turner Avenue a distance
of 24m is maintained. I consider that the two storey houses also respect surrounding residential
amenity. Where gable ends face existing dwellings 13m is mainateined which is within Cityof
Salford guidelines. The apartment block, with third floor at eaves level also maintains City of
Salford privacy distances to both Woodbine Terrace, an additional 3m away from properties on
Woodbine Terrace than the last application and maintains appropriate distance properties across
Liverpool Road. Amendments since the last application have reduced the footprint and the
amended siting has helped reduce the impact of the apartment block. I consider that the siting and
size of the houses and apartments will not have a detrimental impact upon neighbouring residential
amenity by way of loss of sunlight/daylight or privacy. I also consider the scheme complies with
on site constraints including sewer easements.

Policy H1 requires there are a minimum of 30 units per hectare on a site of 0.2 hectares and a
minimum of 50 per hectare where the site adjoins mixed use areas, town centres or public transport
nodes. The proposed 39nits on this site which, is 0.676 hectares, equates to 58 units per hectare. I
am satisfied that the site is large enough to accommodate the proposal without impinging on
existing residential amenity and being close to services shops and public transport is able to
support a development of such density. This proposal is also a reduced density than the previous
submission.

I consider that the variation in ridge height and the mixture of house types with brick finish, stone
cills and brick arch’s will provide a good quality development. Likewise I consider that the
proposed apartment block including feature bays facing Liverpool Road to be acceptable given the
level of detail and elevation treatment proposed. I also consider that scale and bulk of these
apartments would be in proportion with the existing buildings fronting onto Liverpool Road. The
applicant has shown that areas will be enclosed to reduce the opportunities for crime to occur.




                                                 77
Concern has been expressed over the increase in traffic in the area and that there are not enough car
parking spaces on the site. The proposed 39 units would have 61 parking spaces which works out
at 1.5 spaces per dwelling, which is in accordance with parking standards in the first deposit
replacement UDP and Government guidance. Limiting the number of spaces on site to one space
each unit plus general visitor spaces is considered by Government as a tool to achieving a
reduction in the reliance on the private car. The site is located on Liverpool Road and is close to a
local shopping area and to a major bus route and is near to Irlam train station. A further 10 spaces
are to be dedicated to existing residents on Woodbine Terrace. I consider the proposed parking
level to be acceptable for the site. The existing access onto the site is to be utilised and I have no
highway objections. I consider that the reduction in the number of units, from the previous
application, will reduce the numbers of vehicles entering and leaving the site. The existing
passageway from Liverpool Road to Sandiway is not now being closed however the applicant has
advised that he is willing to meet with local residents to discuss a possible future closure of this
footpath if all parties are agreed.

The proposal involves each of the flats sharing some communal outside amenity space around the
block and each house has its own private rear garden. In compliance with policies H6, H11 and H8
the applicant has agreed to make a financial contribution of £77,552 for children’s play space/local
environmental improvements through a legal agreement.

The proposal has been altered since the last application was refused by reducing the number of
units and reducing the footprint and amending the positioning of the apartment block fronting
Liverpool Road. I consider that the impact of the proposal upon the street scene has been reduced
and that along with a reduction in density a reduction in traffic will ensue. I am satisfied that the
proposal complies with the above mentioned planning policies of both Adopted and First Deposit
Draft UDP’s and also national guidance. I have no highway objections and recommend approval
subject to the signing of a legal agreement and subject to the attached conditions.

RECOMMENDATION

-      that the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under
       Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the payment of a
       commuted sum for off site contributions to play space and environmental improvements in
       the local area.

-      that the applicant be informed that the City 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 relating to the application be issued, (subject
       to the conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned legal
       agreement,

-      that authority be given to refuse the application if the applicant fails to complete the S106
       agreement within a reasonable period on the grounds that the proposals do not support the
       aim and objectives of policies H6 and H11 of the Adopted UDP and policy H8 of the
       proposed alterations to the UDP.



                                                 78
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. 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 Local Planning
   Authority. Such a scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved
   plans.

4. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakway system, all
   surface water drainage from car parking areas shall be passed through trapped gullies with an
   overall capacity compatible with the site being drained.

5. Standard Condition M01 Removal of Permitted Development Rights

6. Prior to the first occupation of the proposed dwellings on the Liverpool Road frontage, the
   windows of all habitable rooms to the elevation facing Liverpool Road shall be acoustically
   dual glazed to the standards of the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (as amended). An
   alternative would be to install sealed double glazed units comprising glass of 10mm and
   laminated 6.4mm with a 12mm air gap. The unit shall be installed in accordance with the
   manufacturers recommendations to avoid air gaps when fitting the frames. Alternative means
   of ventilation, which must be sound attenuated should be provided.

7. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
   and approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such
   scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and
   surface treatment and shall be carried out within twelve of the commencement of development
   and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any
   trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the
   Director of Development Services.

8. Prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall submit full details of the
   ground gas protection scheme for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. This scheme
   should be based upon current best practice guidlines for protecting development from landfill
   and other ground gases. The strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior
   to the commencement of development, and all recommendations and remedial measures
   contained within the approved scheme shall be implemented by the developer prior to the
   occupation of the site. In order for this condition to be discharged a site completeion report
   confirming that the remedial measures have been put in place shall be submitted to the Local
   Planning Authority for approval.




                                                79
9. Standard Condition F05D Provision of Parking

10. Ten parking spaces, as shown on the submitted plan 03/515/AL-02/C, shall be made available
    at all times in connection with the use of the existing residential premises at Woodbine
    Terrace.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

3. To ensure a satisfactory means of drainage in accordance with Policy DEV1.

4. To prevent poluution of the water environment in accordance with policy DEV1.

5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

6. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

8. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

9. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

10. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area


Note(s) for Applicant

1. Please note that a separate system of drainage is required for this development.

2. The Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding
   details of drainage.



APPLICATION No:             03/46541/HH

APPLICANT:                  Mr And Mrs P Manton

LOCATION:                   30 Brotherton Drive Salford 3

PROPOSAL:                   Erection of two storey side extension (re-submission of planning
                            application 03/46068/HH)


                                               80
WARD:                        Blackfriars

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to a semi-detached property in a residential area. The properties are
slightly staggered with the application site set back slightly from the neighbouring property.

The proposal is for the erection of a two-storey side extension. The ground floor element of the
proposal would be the full length of the existing side elevation. The first floor would be set back
2m from front elevation and would be 1.3m short of the rear elevation with a height slightly lower
than the existing roof but with a gable end to match the existing.

SITE HISTORY

03/46068/HH – In June 2003 planning permission for the erection of a two-storey side extension
was refused due to the effect it would have on the occupiers of No 28. The first floor element was
flush with the rear elevation, the current application shows that the first floor element is 1.3m short
of the rear elevation.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses have been notified

       11,15,28,32 Brotherton Drive

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 1 letter of objection from the adjacent neighbour in response to the application
publicity. The objector has made the following comments:

              Loss of light to the garden area
              The proposal would create an imbalance of space to the neighbourhood

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies:         DEV8 – House Extensions
                        Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies:         DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours

PLANNING APPRAISAL



                                                  81
Policy DEV8 states that development must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the
amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of
privacy or light. This is reiterated in Policy DES7.

Policy HH9 states that planning permission will not normally be granted for single storey rear
extensions located along the boundary that project beyond a 45 degree angle drawn from the mid
point of the closest habitable room window.

The first floor element of the proposal would project 2m beyond the rear elevation of No.28 and
would be a distance of approximately 3m from the gable wall of No. 28. No 28 has a bedroom
window on the first floor close to the application site and a non habitable room on the ground floor
(on the rear facing elevation). Both the first floor and ground floor elements of the proposal would
be within 45 degree angle drawn from the mid point of the closest habitable room windows at each
corresponding floor.

I am of the opinion that the proposal respects the size and character of the existing dwelling and
surrounding houses and does not represent development that would be visually intrusive. The
objector mentions that a hipped roof would be more acceptable than the proposed gable end. All of
the properties in the surrounding area have gable ends, I would consider the introduction of a
hipped extension to be out of character with the surrounding area.

The proposal complies with existing policy and the design of the proposed extension is in keeping
with the characteristic of the existing and surrounding properties. I would therefore not consider
the proposal to have a detrimental impact on the residents of neighbouring properties or the
character of the area.


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same
   type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by
   the Director of Development Services.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building




                                                82
APPLICATION No:             03/46554/HH

APPLICANT:                  Mrs Nolan

LOCATION:                   27 Oaklands Road Swinton

PROPOSAL:                   Erection of single storey rear/side extension and erection of
                            conservatory to the rear of the property

WARD:                       Swinton South

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to a semi-detached house. The proposal is to build a rear conservatory on
the party boundary. It would project out 2.8m parallel to the party boundary but would be set in
250mm from the boundary. It would then be shaped into the site and would project out a maximum
of 3.6m. It is also proposed to erect a single storey side and rear extension around the original
single storey outbuilding. This would measure 2.8m out from the rear of the house, would be 1.6m
out from the side main wall of the house, and it would be 3.2m along the side of the original house.
This would all have a hipped roof.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       25, 28, 29 Oaklands Road
       22 & 24 Knowsley Drive



REPRESENTATIONS

I have received one letter objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:-

        The height of the conservatory, with the drop in garden level, would result in a loss of sun
to her patio and affect the light into their back room.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – house extensions

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY




                                                83
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV8 states that development must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the
amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of
privacy or light. This is reiterated in Policy DES7.

The Council’s SPG for house extensions identified that extensions would normally be acceptable
along the party boundary where it does not exceed 2.74m. In this particular instance the
conservatory is set in 250mm in from the side boundary and therefore the conservatory does not
exceed an amount on a 45 degree line taken from the 2.74m point. Therefore I would consider that
the conservatory would comply with the SPG.

I am mindful that the gardens to these properties do slope away from the rear of houses so that the
brickwork to the conservatory would have to be built up approximately 0.9m to line up with the
internal floor level. However, I would consider that the impact on the neighbours rear room would
result in an unreasonable loss of light or overshadowing as the conservatory would not appear
particularly high when seen from inside the adjoining house.

I do not consider that the proposal would have an adverse impact on either of the other
neighbouring residents.


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. Standard Condition D01B Materials to Match

3. Standard Condition B06A Glazing Element

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2. Reason: To ensure the development fits in with the existing building in accordance with policy
   DEV3 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours




                                                84
APPLICATION No:              03/46556/HH

APPLICANT:                   Mr N Boyden

LOCATION:                    10 Kiveton Close Walkden

PROPOSAL:                    Remove existing rear conservatory and erection of two storey
                             rear extension and erection of rear conservatory

WARD:                        Walkden South

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to a detached property located at the end of Kiveton Close. To the north is
the adjacent neighbour’s house (8 Kiveton Close) and to the south is a small valley which is open
for public access. Number 8 is set back 1m from the applicant’s house and has erected a
conservatory on the rear of their property which projects a further 3.8m (located 1m from the
common boundary).

The proposal is to remove the existing rear conservatory and to erect a two-storey rear extension in
its place. The conservatory would then be re-built adjoining the rear extension.

The two-storey rear extension would project 3.3m from the rear of the existing house and would
extend across the full width of the property. This element of the proposal would project 2.3m past
the neighbour’s main rear wall. The applicant’s conservatory would be set in 2.5m from the
common boundary at which point it would project 2.7m from the rear of the two-storey extension.
The side of the applicant’s conservatory closest to the common boundary would project 1.2m past
the adjacent neighbour’s conservatory.

CONSULTATIONS

British Coal – No objections

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       8 Kiveton Close
       8-12 (even) Kinsley Drive

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity from the
occupiers of the adjacent property. They are of the opinion that the proposal would lead to a loss of
light into their bedrooms, conservatory and dining room and that it would lead to a loss of privacy



                                                 85
into their garden and side aspect following the insertion of a new window. Finally they raise
concerns over the impact the development would have upon their views, property value, possible
damage due to construction activity, means of access during construction, and the possibility of
future damage.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies:         DEV8 – House Extensions
                        Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies:         DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV8 states that development must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the
amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of
privacy or light. This is reiterated in Policy DES7.

Both the two-storey element and the conservatory element of the proposal conform to
Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions with regards to the relevant projection
distances and so I am of the opinion that they would not lead to a significant loss of light or
amenity for the adjacent neighbours.

With regard to the insertion of a new window into the existing wall at first floor level, it is work
that can be carried out without the requirement of planning permission and so should not be
considered as part of this application.

The remaining issues raised are not material planning considerations.


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same
   type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by
   the Director of Development Services.

(Reasons)




                                                86
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building




APPLICATION No:              03/46578/FUL

APPLICANT:                   R Sami

LOCATION:                    297 Liverpool Road Eccles

PROPOSAL:                    Variation of condition 02 (opening hours) on planning approval
                             00/40347/COU

WARD:                        Barton

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This proposal is for the variation of condition 02 (opening hours) on planning approval
00/40347/COU at 297 Liverpool Road, Eccles.

Approved hours are 1100 – Midnight each day; while proposed hours are 1100 – 0030 on Monday
– Wednesday, 1100 – 0130 on Thursdays, 1100 – 0200 on Friday and Saturday, and 1100 – 0100
on Sunday (00/40347/COU).

The property is a mid-terrace shop (A3 hot food use approved). The buildings at either side are a
public house at no.295 and a similar but vacant retail unit at no.299. The remaining building in the
terrace is no.301 and is occupied by New Lyle Cars (no public access). With regard to residential
properties, there is a flat immediately adjacent, above the public house at no.295, a short terrace at
no.280-286, and fire officers accommodation immediately opposite.

SITE HISTORY

In March 2000 an application was approved for the change of use from shop to shop for the sale of
hot food at 297 Liverpool Road Eccles (00/40347/COU).

CONSULTATIONS

Environmental Health           - No comments received

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 29th July 2003.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:


                                                 87
       2 Eliza Ann Street
       295, 299-301(o) Liverpool Road
       GM Fire Station

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received one (1) letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised: -

      The business already opens well beyond permitted hours of operation
      Much public disturbance during the late hours
      Much litter left around exterior of premises
      Adjacent taxi-rank [cited as having 24hr public access] is now closed to the public and
       Therefore does not help the applicant’s case
      Nearby pubs all close by 11.45pm every evening
      Too many staff employed on site
      Other takeaways on Liverpool Road survive without having to open late
      Surrounding streets used for public relief
      Taxis frequently block the road and fire-station

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None

Other policies:
S5 – Control of Food & Drink Premises
DEV1 – Development Criteria
T10 - Pedestrians

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None

Other policies:
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
S1 – Provision of New Retail and Leisure Development
S2 – Location of New Retail and Leisure Development
S4 – Amusement Centres and Food & Drink Uses

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The primary concern is the relationship of the proposal site to neighbouring residential dwellings,
with regard to Policy S5 (control of food & drink premises) and Policy DEV1 (development
criteria). This states that such proposals must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on



                                                 88
surrounding residential amenity, or be significantly prejudicial to the safety of pedestrians and
road users.

Of those policies outlined in the Draft Deposit UDP the most important are DES7 and S4; these
relate to the appropriate provision and aspect of hot-food retail development and also the impact on
neighbours and the surrounding environment.

With regard to adopted policy S5, there is an adjacent flat above no.295 Liverpool Road at the
public house, there is also a short terrace close by at no.280-286 Liverpool Road. I therefore
consider the proposal would adversely affect the amenity of the occupant(s) in the adjacent flat,
and is contrary to Hot Food Policy S5 in the view of the Local Planning Authority.

In terms of opening hours I am unconvinced whether the circumstances have chanced since the
previous application upon which the restrictions on operating hours were placed. These were
originally applied due to relatively high levels of residential amenity, and with nearby pubs
opening under normal licensing hours it would thus be unreasonable to allow a hot-food takeaway
with significantly longer opening hours where this may have a negative impact on residential
amenity.

I have also considered a letter from the applicant stating a willingness to reduce Sunday hours if
this favours the application, and also consideration that existing residents may be used to the
activity caused by late evening licensing at nearby pubs and hot food outlets. However, none of
these are open later than Midnight and objections are received that express concern of extensive
public disturbance into the late hours.

I have also received objections relating to the parking of taxis [while drivers pick up their food]
along the main road and in front of the fire-station immediately opposite. However I consider this
to be a matter of parking enforcement.

Having analysed this application as above, I conclude that variation of the opening hours, extended
up to 2am at weekends and after midnight during the week would be unacceptable with particular
regard to adopted policy S5 (and deposit polices DES7 and S4) and therefore recommend refusal.


RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:

1. The proposed variation of operating hours would give rise to noise, nuisance, smells and
   disturbance to the detriment of residential properties contrary to Policy S5 of the City of
   Salford Unitary Development Plan.




APPLICATION No:             03/46581/FUL


                                                89
APPLICANT:                    Orange PCS Limited

LOCATION:                     Land At Leonard Bailey Mode Wheel Road South Salford 5

PROPOSAL:                     Installation of a 20m telecommunications column with equipment
                              cabinets and associated equipment

WARD:                         Weaste And Seedley

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to an industrial site fronting Mode Wheel Road. The proposal is to erect a
20 metre high telecommunication column to support six dual polar antenna and four 600mm
diameter dishes. Ten equipment cabinets would be located at ground level. The site would be
enclosed by 3 metre high palisade fencing. There is currently a steel container located at the site,
this would be removed as part of the proposal.

The site is located within an industrial area. The site compound is approximately 26 metres from
Weaste Cemetery and 120 metres from All Souls Primary School.



SITE HISTORY

02/44273/FUL - Installation of 20m telecommunications mast with six polar antennae and four
600mm dishes together with equipment cabin and associated equipment. Refused 15.07.02, for the
following reasons: 1) The proposal by virtue of its siting and its height, size and design would have
a significant detrimental effect upon the amenity of Weaste Cemetery. As such the proposal is
contrary to Policies SC14 and EN12 of the Adopted City of Salford University Development Plan;
2) The applicant has failed to demonstrate, by virtue of the insensitive siting, that a full site search
was conducted in accordance with guidance contained within PPG8 and Policy SC14. As such the
proposal is contrary to Policy SC14 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

02/44686/FUL - Installation of 20m telecommunications mast with six polar antennae and four
600mm dishes together with equipment cabin and associated equipment (Re-submission of
planning application 02/44273/FUL). Refused 17.10.02, for the following reason: The proposal by
virtue of its siting and its height, size and design would have a significant detrimental effect upon
the amenity of Weaste Cemetery, which is included on the Register of Historic Parks and Gardens.
As such the proposal is contrary to Policies SC14 and DEV1 of the Adopted City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan and PPG15.

CONSULTATIONS

None.




                                                  90
PUBLICITY

A press notice was published on 31st July 2003.

A site notice was displayed on 29th July 2003.

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       All Souls Primary School, Kintyre Avenue
       Pickering Plant Hire, Mode Wheel Road
       Mancunian Glass, Daniel Adamson Road
       42 Chomlea Manor
       44 Branksome Drive
       113 Derby Road
       30 The Mead
       16 Emerson Street

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity to date.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: SC14 – Telecommunications.

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 - Telecommunications

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Unitary Development Plan policy SC14 states that the City Council will normally grant planning
permission for telecommunications development where such development would not have an
unacceptable impact on visual amenity. The City Council will also take into account whether there
are any satisfactory alternative sites for telecommunications development available and whether
there is any reasonable possibility of sharing existing telecommunication facilities. Planning
Policy Guidance Note 8 (PPG8) – Telecommunications, sets out national policy in relation to
telecommunication development. The Government's policy is to facilitate the growth of new and
existing telecommunications systems whilst keeping the environmental impact to a minimum. The
Government also has responsibility for protecting public health. The Stewart Report (2000)
recommended that the Government adopt ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Iodising
Radiation Protection) guidelines to limit public exposure from telecommunication developments.
Policy DEV1 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP is broadly similar to that of the adopted



                                                  91
plan. This policy states that such proposals will only be permitted where there is no unacceptable
impact on health and the operator has demonstrated compliance with all relevant ICNIRP
standards, taking into account any cumulative emissions from other nearby telecommunications
development. Greater emphasis is also placed upon the extent to which the design, siting and
colouring of development minimises its visual impact on the local area.

Members will recall that an identical proposal was considered by the Panel in October 2002. The
application had an officer recommendation for approval, but Members refused the application
because of concerns over its siting and its height, size and design and the detrimental effect it
would have on the amenity of Weaste Cemetery, which is included on the Register of Historic
Parks and Gardens. The application has not been amended in any way which would lessen the
impact on the cemetery. Furthermore, I do not consider that the applicant has provided sufficient
information in relation to alternative sites and site sharing. A site share at the One-2-One site on
Mode Wheel Road South has been considered by the applicant, but discounted because this facility
could only provide antennas at a height of 17m – a height of 20m is required to provide the best
coverage. The Applicant has not submitted a certificate to indicate that the proposed equipment
would be ICNIRP compliant.


RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:

1. The proposal by virtue of its siting and its height, size and design would have a significant
   detrimental effect upon the amenity of Weaste Cemetery, which is included on the Register of
   Historic Parks and Gardens. The applicant has failed to demonstrate the need for a
   development of such height or considered innovated design solutions as advocated within
   PPG8. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies SC14 and DEV1 of the Adopted City of
   Salford Unitary Development Plan and PPG15.

2. The applicant has failed to demonstrate, by virtue of the insensitive siting, that a full site
   search was conducted in accordance with guidance contained within PPG8 and Policy SC14.
   As such the proposal is contrary to Policy SC14 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary
   Development Plan.

3. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that they have adopted the precautionary principle in
   that they have not demonstrated that the output characteristics of the installation are within
   those prescribed by the ICNIRP and advocated by the findings of the Stewart Report. As such,
   the application is contrary to policy DEV1 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development
   Plan that seeks, inter alia, to safeguard public safety.




                                                92
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                          21st August 2003




APPLICATION No:             03/46378/DEEM3

APPLICANT:                  Mrs T M Dillon (Head Teacher)

LOCATION:                   St Andrews Methodist Primary School Prescott Street Little
                            Hulton Worsley

PROPOSAL:                   Erection of 2.4m high perimeter fencing

WARD:                       Little Hulton

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to the boundary of St Andrews Methodist Primary School, Little Hulton.
The proposal is to erect three sections of 2.4m high palisade fencing and one section of 2.4m high
crusader fencing to fully enclose the school with security fencing. The four stretches of fencing
would link up to existing 2.4m high palisade fencing that was approved in June 2002
(02/44102/DEEM3).

One stretch of palisade fencing is proposed at the rear of properties on Manchester Road East, a
second section of palisade fencing is proposed at the side of properties on Harrop Street, and a
third stretch of palisade fencing is proposed adjacent to a public footpath at the rear of houses on
Ellis Crescent and adjacent to a linear wildlife corridor to the south of the school. The section of
Crusader fencing is proposed along the common boundary that runs along the rear of houses on
Harrop Street. All of the fencing would be powder coated dark green to match the existing
fencing.

Numerous trees and shrubs are located around the boundaries of the school. It is not proposed to
fell any trees as part of the development although some pruning will have to take place to
accommodate the fencing.

SITE HISTORY

02/44102/DEEM3 (approved) – Erection of 2.4m high palisade perimeter fencing

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 26th June 2003.

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       189-235 (odd) Manchester Road East
       2-4 Ellis Crescent
       15-29 (odd) Harrop Street


                                                 93
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                           21st August 2003


       8, 11 Roxby Close
       2-6 (even) Elsham Drive
       16, 21 Mere Fold

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received no letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none relevant
Other policies:         DEV1 – Development Criteria
                        DEV4 – Design and Crime
                        EN5i - Nature Conservation

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None relevant
Other policies:         DES1 – Respecting Context
                        DES11 – Design and Crime
                        EN7 – Nature Conservation

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining
planning applications, these include the visual appearance of the development and its relationship
to its surroundings. Similar issues are raised in policy DES1. DEV4 states that regard must be
given to the position and height of fencing and gates. DES11 supports this and stipulates that
development would not be permitted if it would create a fortress style atmosphere. The
south-western boundary of the school is parallel to the linear walkway which is a Wildlife Corridor
and as such, regard should be had to policy EN5i and EN7 which states that development will not
normally permitted where it would significantly impair the efficient functioning of a wildlife
corridor.

With regards to the appearance of the proposed fencing, the fencing would be located to the side
and rear of residential properties. I do not therefore consider that the fencing would be visually
obtrusive in this location, providing that it is colour-treated. Where the fencing would run along
the common boundary shared with residential properties on Harrop Street, crusader type fencing
has been proposed as it is more decorative and hence more suitable for the occupiers of the houses.
With reference to the Wildlife Corridor, it is not proposed to remove any trees and I do not
consider that the proposal would have any significant detrimental impact on the functioning of the
corridor.

I consider that the proposed sections of fencing would provide increased security for the school
premises and do not consider that the proposal would have any significant detrimental impact on


                                                 94
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION                         21st August 2003


the visual amenity of neighbouring residents. I have received no objections to the proposal and
have no objections on highway grounds.


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. The perimeter fencing shall be powder coated RAL6005 prior to it's erection and shall be
   maintained as such at all times.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area


Note(s) for Applicant

1. Please note that there is a public sewer that runs through the site which should not be damaged
   nor access blocked by the fencing. Please contact United Utilities for more information as to
   the locations of those sewers on 0161 6080431.




                                               95
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION   21st August 2003




                                        96

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:8
posted:4/27/2012
language:English
pages:96