Docstoc

Salford City Council - DOC

Document Sample
Salford City Council - DOC Powered By Docstoc
					PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006




APPLICATION No:              06/52559/COU

APPLICANT:                   Beis Hatalmud School

LOCATION:                    435 Lower Broughton Road Salford M7 2EZ

PROPOSAL:                    Change of use from residential care home to high school for
                             boys

WARD:                        Broughton


DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application site is located within the Cliff Conservation Area and is a Grade II Listed Building.
The property is detached with a large rear garden. The application site is surrounded by
residential properties.

The application seeks a three year temporary permission for the change of use from a care home
to a high school for boys. The applicant has applied for a temporary permission as they envisage
the capacity of students to increase and to re-locate within three years. The proposed school
would be used Sunday to Friday between the hours of 9am and 6pm. The application does not
include any internal or external alterations to the Listed Building. The application site would
accommodate three car parking spaces.

CONSULTATIONS

Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No objection but recommends a condition in
relation to the outside recreational areas

Cliff Residents Association – Objects increase in traffic, litter and noise

Central Salford URC – No Objection

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 9th May 2006.

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       400, 410, 412, 418, 427, 429, 431 and 439Lower Broughton Road
       1 - 4 Scarr Wheel Road
       12 – 48 (evens), 15 – 47 (odds) Rock Bank

REPRESENTATIONS

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


                                                  1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006




       Increase in traffic
       Increase noise
       Increase litter
       Out of character with the Conservation Area

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies:EN20 – Pollution Control
                T13 – Car Parking
                EN11-Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
                EN12 – Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings

DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:
Other policies:EN14 – Pollution control
                EHC0A – Provision and Improvement of Schools and Colleges
                A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
                CH5 – Works Within Conservation Areas
                CH2-Works to Listed Buildings

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether there would be a detrimental impact on residential amenity;
whether the proposed level of parking is acceptable; and whether the proposal complies with the
relevant policies of the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary Development
Plans. I shall deal with each of these issues in turn.

Adopted Policy EN12 states that that the City Council will only permit development that does not
detract from the architectural and historic character of a Listed Building. Draft Policy CH2 states
that proposals involving the alteration or change of use of a listed building will only be permitted
where they would preserve and enhance the character and features of special architectural or
historic interest that contribute to the reasons for its listing.

Draft Policy CH4 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would
have an unacceptable impact on the setting of any Listed Building.

Adopted Policy EN12 states that that the City Council will only permit development that does not
detract from the architectural and historic character of a Listed Building. Draft Policy CH2 states
that proposals involving the alteration or change of use of a listed building will only be permitted
where they would preserve and enhance the character and features of special architectural or
historic interest that contribute to the reasons for its listing.

Draft Policy CH4 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would
have an unacceptable impact on the setting of any Listed Building.



                                                 2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


Adopted Policy EN11 and Draft Policy CH5 states that the Council will seek to preserve and
enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.

The proposal would not entail any alteration to the internal or external fabric of the building I would
therefore consider the proposal to be acceptable and accord with the above policies.

Amenity

Adopted Policy EN20 and draft Policy EN14 state that development will only be acceptable if it
does not cause an unacceptable increase in noise etc. As mentioned the application site is
immediately surrounded by non-residential properties with residential properties beyond.

Draft Policy EHC0A states that planning permission will be granted for the provision of new
schools where the development would not have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity,
be accessible, not give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic and provide an adequate standard of
recreation facilities.

The proposed school would accommodate 22 children and there would be two teachers on the
site at any one time. The proposed school is of a modest size and would only be able to
accommodate a small number of children hence the request for a temporary permission. The
Director of Environmental Services has been consulted on the application and has no objections
to the proposal but recommends a condition restricting the outside recreation area‟s hours of use.
The application site is a detached property and I would therefore not consider the proposal would
have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the occupiers of neighbouring properties. I would
therefore consider the proposal would comply with the above policies.

Car Parking

Adopted Policy T13 states that the Council will ensure that adequate parking and servicing is
provided to meet the needs of new development, in accordance with the Council‟s standards and
that car parks are designed to a high standard, with particular regard to access arrangements,
surface materials, boundary treatments and security measures.

Draft Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists
and motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council‟s maximum standards. It also states that the
maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.

The application site would accommodate three car parking spaces including one disabled space
which would comply with the Council‟s maximum car parking standards. I would consider one
disabled space to be adequate on a site of this size. Due to the nature of the proposal there may
be some congestion at the beginning and end of the school day for small periods of time. I
therefore have no objections on highway safety grounds and would consider the proposal to be in
accordance with the above policies.

Conclusion

Overall, I would not consider the proposed development would not have an adverse impact upon
the residential amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents or upon the character of the
conservation area. I consider that the development accords fully with the provisions of the


                                                  3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


adopted unitary development plan and the revised deposit draft replacement plan. I therefore
recommend that the application be approved.


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions


1. The use hereby permitted shall cease on or before the expiration of three years from the date
   of decision unless a further permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority.

2. The use of the outside recreation areas shall ONLY be used between 9am and 5pm Monday
   to Friday, excluding Bank Holidays

3. Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the car parking provision
   shall be laid out and completed in accordance with the submitted drawing prior to first
   occupation.

Reason (s)


1. Reason: The application has been made for temporary consent only.

2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours

3. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage




APPLICATION No:            06/52281/FUL

APPLICANT:                 Fairclough Homes

LOCATION:                  Land On Clifton Road Eccles

PROPOSAL:                  Erection of two and a half and three storey buildings to provide
                           63 dwellings/apartments together with associated landscaping,
                           carparking and construction of new vehicular access


                                               4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


                             (re-submission of 05/49866/FUL)

WARD:                        Eccles


DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a 0.75hectare site located at the southern end of Clifton Road, Eccles.
Planning permission has already been granted for a residential scheme of 64 units
(05-49866/FUL). The site is currently unoccupied. To the south of the site, beyond a narrow tree
belt made up of self sown Goat Willows, is the M602 motorway. To the east and northwest of the
site are residential areas and adjacent to the west is a large engineering company (J Fletcher).
To the north is an existing commercial site which received outline planning permission for the
erection of 17 residential units (04/49622/OUT and 05/49866/FUL) and more recently received
planning permission from panel in May 2006 for a revised layout to the previous approval
(05/51074/FUL). The site is located approximately 150m to the south of the Monton Key Local
Centre.

The changes proposed from the previous approved application 05/49866/FUL are;
      Removal of plot 22 from previous application. Plot 23 is now sited there.
      Re-siting of plots 23-29 and 44-64 from previous application. There are now only 63 units
      proposed.
      Removal of car parking spaces from in front of plots 50-55 and re-siting them behind plots
      56-64 from previous application. This was due to United Utilities refusing consent to grant
      a Building Over Agreement of a sewer.

The applicant has confirmed in writing that they do not intend to implement the previous planning
permission (05/49866/FUL) and wish to have consent for the entire site in this planning
application.

The proposal would remove the existing industrial/employment uses and replace them with 63
dwellings (four 1-bedroom apartments, forty-five 2-bedroom apartments, three 3-bedroom
houses, and eleven 4-bedroom houses) along with associated landscaping and 67 car parking
spaces including 5 disabled spaces. In addition, 4 cycle stores are proposed, each one
measuring 4.5m x 2m.

The proposed development would be made up of a combination of 2, 2 ½, and 3 storey buildings.
The layout predominantly consists of 2 ½ storey townhouses and 3 storey apartments with some
flyover units to the rear of the site set back from Clifton Road. Traditional red brick and grey
concrete roofing tiles have been selected for all the properties throughout the development.

Fronting Clifton Road would be a 3 storey block comprising 18 apartments, together with a terrace
of three 2 ½ storey dwellings. They would be set back 9m from Clifton Road. The apartment
block would measure 14m x 28m and would have a height of 8m to the eaves and 11m to the
ridge of the roof. Central sections 9m in width would stand proud of both the front and rear
elevations by 1.5m. The detailing of the front and rear elevations would include soldier course
cills and arched soldier course lintels, patio doors with Juliet balconies at 1st and 2nd floor levels,
hipped roof structures extending above the main eaves line, and mock Tudor detailing. Entrances
would be provided to the front and rear of the block. Car parking would also be provided to both
the front and rear of the apartments, with an area of amenity space to the rear measuring


                                                  5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


approximately 19m x 13m. The adjacent terrace of dwellings would have varying roof heights
and similar window detailing to the apartment block. The second floors would be contained either
partially or wholly within the roof space. Integral garages are proposed for the middle two
properties and private gardens are proposed to the rear.

The remaining properties would form a U-shape, within which an access road would be
constructed. These properties would incorporate similar design features to those described
above and would also have varying roof profiles. Private gardens would be provided to the rear of
the houses (plots 22-29 and 35-37), with a large area of communal amenity space being provided
at the southern end of the site. Additional amenity space and landscaping is proposed between
the dwellings and the proposed access Road. Parking for the houses would be provided at the
front whilst parking for the apartments would be provided to the rear. Access to the rear parking
would be gained below two flyover units. Bin stores and cycles stores would be scattered across
the site in a number of locations.

There would be a distance of 24m to the 3-storey properties on the opposite side of Clifton Road,
and a minimum of 22.8m between the habitable room windows of the proposed properties which
face each other and which form the U-shape previously mentioned. There would be a distance of
14m from the frontages of plots 61-63 to the gable of plot 21 and a distance of 12.6m from the rear
elevation of plot 20 to the gable of plot 23. All buildings except for plot 61-63 would be located at
least 8m from the periphery of the site. Plot 61-63 would be 2m from the boundary.


SITE HISTORY

(05/49866/FUL) - Erection of two and half and three storey buildings to provide 64
dwellings/apartments together with associated landscaping, car parking and construction of new
vehicular access – Approved March 2005

CONSULTATIONS

United Utilities – No objection subject to suitable drainage. The presence of two public sewers
and necessary easements is highlighted which United Utilities will not allow building over. Further
general advice is also given.

Director of Environmental Services – no objection, recommendations made with regard to noise
and land contamination.

Environment Agency – no objections, recommendations made in connection with land
contamination.

Architectural Liaison Officer – Recommendations made in relation to accesses and concern is
raised over doorway recesses and revised car parking layout.

Highways Agency – no objection, advise for the developer given.

Chief Executive‟s (Economic Development) – objection received on loss of employment sites.




                                                 6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 29.03.2006

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       1-59 (odd), 36-54 (even), 59a, 67 and 141-147 (odd) Monton Road
       1-45 Greenside Court
       34-36, AK Plant Hire, Decorshade, Powergems and „A‟ Plant ACROW Clifton
       Road
       1-12 Clifton Avenue
       J Fletcher (Engineers Ltd) Lansdowne Road
       1-23 (odd) Carlton Street


REPRESENTATIONS

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

       Retention of a turning circle for HGVs in Clifton Road

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

Policies:      DP1 Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
               DP3 Quality in New Development
               SD1 The North West Metropolitan Area – Regional Poles and Surrounding Area


UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none
Other policies:         DEV1 – Development Criteria
                        DEV2 – Good Design
                        DEV4 – Design and Crime
                        EC3 – Re-use of Sites and Premises
                        H1 – Housing Supply
                        H6/H11 – Open Space Provision
                        T13 – Car Parking
                        EN7 – Conservation of Trees and Woodlands

DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none
Other policies:         ST11 – Location of New Development
                        DES1 – Respecting Context
                        H1 – Supply of Housing
                        H4 – Affordable Housing
                        H8 – Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing


                                                7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


                       Development
                       DES11 – Design and Crime
                       A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle, and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments.


PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the revised layout of the
development and its impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers is acceptable, and
whether the proposal is in accordance with the relevant policies of the Adopted and Draft
Replacement UDP.

The principle of development has already been established under the previous planning
permissions.

Policy SD1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy states that development should be focused within the
North-West Metropolitan Area, which includes Salford. The development would see the re-use of
brownfield land thus complying with criteria 1b of Policy ST11 and the guidance contained within
Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 – Housing (PPG3), which seeks to prioritise the development of
such land over land which has not been previously developed (greenfield land).

Policy EC3 states that, where existing non-retail commercial premises become vacant, the city
council will seek to re-use or redevelop them for similar uses except where one or more of three
criteria are satisfied. The first criterion states that development must not result in a material or
unacceptable shortfall in the range of sites available for economic development. This site is only
one of three employment sites in this otherwise residential road. I consider that the principle of
residential development has been established by the planning approval for residential
development on this site, which was granted in March 2005 (05/49866/FUL).

The surrounding area is predominantly residential, therefore I am satisfied that the proposal
would respect the character of the area.

Scale, design and layout of the development and impact on the amenity of neighbouring
occupiers

Policy DP1 seeks to ensure that development makes the most efficient use of land. Both H1
policies seek to increase the amount of housing within the City with the revised alterations to the
UDP requiring a minimum density of 30 units per hectare. These policies also seek to ensure that
the City‟s housing stock is able to meet the requirements of all groups within Salford by providing
a wide range of accommodation.

Taking account of the proposed density of 85 dwellings per hectare, I am satisfied the scale of
development is appropriate having regard for the sites characteristics and location close to
Monton Road. The mix of dwellings proposed would offer greater variety for the immediate
surrounding area and is acceptable in my opinion. Policy H4 states that where there is a
demonstrable lack of affordable housing to meet local needs, developers will be required to
provide an element of affordable housing. At present, no assessment of the City‟s housing needs



                                                 8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


is available and as such it is not possible for the City Council to require such provision to be
provided.

Policy DEV1 requires development to respect its local context and states that regard must be
given to a number of factors including the likely scale of traffic generation and the impact of
development on sunlight and privacy. Policies DP3 and DEV2 seek to encourage high standards
of design. Policy DES7 states that development will not be permitted where it would have an
unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers of other developments.

The variety in house types and roof heights proposed would provide interest in the street scenes.
The use of corner turning apartments within the development would provide a strong built form
and the detail of the dwellings is acceptable in my view. The use of traditional red brick and grey
concrete tiles would help relate the development to the local vernacular and the massing of the
buildings is comparable to existing buildings in the area.

Council guidance stipulates minimum separation distances that should be maintained between
facing habitable room windows of houses in order to prevent any serious loss of light / prevent
overbearing development. The separation distances that would be maintained between existing
properties and the proposed dwellings are in accordance with this guidance.

With regard to traffic generation, given the removal of large commercial premises, development of
the site for residential purposes would result in fewer HGV‟s using Clifton Road, which in my
opinion would make a positive contribution to the residential amenity of the area. Any
disturbances caused during the construction phase of the development are an acceptable
consequence in my view, especially given the longer term benefits that this development would
offer the area.

Policies T13 and A10 requires developments to include appropriate and sufficient car parking and
current government and council policy is to restrict the amount of parking provision within new
developments and to encourage greener modes of travel. I consider that the provision proposed
is acceptable for such a residential scheme in this location. Disabled parking spaces have been
located close to the entrances of the apartments. The Highway Agency has not objected to the
proposal and I have no objections with regard to highway safety.

Policies DEV4 and DES11 require development to be designed to minimise the risk of crime.
Following discussions with the Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer, the
scheme has been amended to incorporate secure gated accesses throughout the site. The
Council‟s Supplementary Planning Guidance – Designing Out Crime encourages natural
surveillance for new developments (i.e. windows overlooking parking areas and courtyards in
order to discourage criminal activity). The proposal would provide sufficient levels of natural
surveillance and so I consider the proposal to be in accordance with Policies DEV4 and DES11. I
have attached a condition requiring the developer to submit a crime prevention statement
detailing how the Police‟s advice has been taken account of and also how the scheme seeks to
apply the principles of the Police initiative Secured by Design

Policy EN7 encourages the conservation of trees and woodlands. The only trees on site are the
belt of self sown Goat Willows to the south. These are of poor form and offer minimal amenity to
the area. The tree survey provided encourages the removal of these trees in favour of Birch, Field
Maple and Rowan trees. The applicant has indicated an intention to follow this advice and provide


                                                9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


details as part of a landscaping scheme. A condition has been added for a landscaping scheme
to be submitted.

In response to the objection received from the Chief Executive‟s Department I am of the opinion
that the principle re-development of the site for residential purposes has already been established
by the previous and extant applications. Accordingly I am unable to afford any significant weight to
this objection.

Car Parking

Policies T13 and A10 require developments to include appropriate and sufficient car parking and
current government and Council policy is to restrict the amount of parking provision within new
developments and to encourage greener modes of travel. I consider that the revised provision
proposed is acceptable for such a residential scheme in this location particularly given that the
previous layout cannot be achieved given the location of a sewer that United Utilities would not
grant a Building Over Agreement for. Disabled parking spaces have been located close to the
entrances of the apartments. The rear elevations of plots 55-63 afford an acceptable level of over
looking to provide natural surveillance. I also consider that the condition requiring a crime
prevention statement should assist in helping to reduce the opportunities for crime. I have
recommended a condition to ensure that the access to the parking area and the associated
parking spaces are made available prior to the first occupation of the apartment building. I have
no objections with regard to highway safety. Cycle parking has been identified to the rear of the
site.

Amenity provisions for future occupants
Policy DES7 states that all new development will be required to provide potential users with a
satisfactory level of amenity in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout. With
regard to separation distances between the proposed dwellings, the only minor shortfall would be
between the rear elevations of plot 20 to the gable of plot 22. This distance would be 12.6m
whereas Council Guidance stipulates a minimum distance of 13m. However, the orientation is
such that a shortfall of 0.4m would have minimal impact on the light enjoyed by the future
residents of plot 20 and hence I consider the relationship to be acceptable. I consider the siting of
plots 58-62 to be acceptable as 14m separation distance is maintained between facing habitable
room windows and the blank gable elevation of plot 21. I am also of the opinion that the siting of
plots 55-57 is acceptable due to there being non-habitable rooms located on the front elevation
directly facing across to plot 22‟s habitable room windows. I consider that plot 22‟s habitable room
windows on the front elevation are not directly facing the habitable room windows of plots 55-57
as such I do not envisage any serious detrimental impact in terms of over looking or loss of
privacy. I am satisfied with the level of amenity space proposed within the development.

Policies H6 & H11 and also H8 require appropriate formal and informal open space within
developments. These policies also require a contribution for open space provision which is
outlined in Supplementary Planning Guidance – Provision of Open Space and Recreation Space
Associated with New Residential Development. As such the applicant is required to make
adequate provision for open space or contribute through a commuted sum payment to local
environmental improvements. A total sum of £122,043 is levied and the applicant has
acknowledged this payment. A condition has been attached to ensure the legal agreement is
signed prior to the commencement of development.



                                                 10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT

       A series of pre-application discussions took place with the developer to hone the details of
       the proposal.
       A financial contribution of £122,043 would be secured to enable improvements to existing
       open space and recreation space improvements in the local area.

CONCLUSION
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the layout of the development
and its impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, and the amenity provisions for future
occupants. The principle of residential development has already been established under the
previous planning approval. I do not consider the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the
amenities of neighbouring occupiers and that the proposal would provide future occupants with a
satisfactory level of amenity. I consider the application to be in accordance with the provisions of
the UDP and Draft Replacement Plan and therefore recommend approval.




RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that authority be given for the Strategic Director of Customer and Support
Services to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990.


Approve Subject to the following Conditions


1. Standard Condition A03 Three 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 Local
   Planning Authority.

3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
   and approved by the Local Planning Authority 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 12months of the substantial completion of the
   development hereby approved 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 Local Planning Authority

4. No dwelling shall be occupied until the associated provision for off street parking has been
   completed and made available for the use of that dwelling. Such spaces shall be available at
   all times for the parking of a private motor vehicle.



                                                11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


5. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme showing the
   provision of waste recycling facilities within the site shall be submitted to and approved in
   writing by the local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to
   first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing by
   the Local Planning Authority.

6. Prior to first occupation, glazing with a performance specification equivalent to or better than
   10/12/6mm glass/air/glass shall be provided to all habitable rooms with a direct line of sight
   with the M602 and shall be maintained as effective thereafter. In addition, prior to first
   occupation acoustic mechanical ventilation shall also be provided to all habitable rooms with a
   direct line of sight with the M602 and shall be maintained as effective thereafter. The acoustic
   mechanical ventilation provided shall comply with the standards of the Noise Insulation
   Regulations 1988 (as amended) and shall be capable of providing a ventilation rate of 37litres
   per second or 136m3 per hour.

7. Prior to the development commencing the applicant shall undertake a further acoustic
   assessment to determine the external noise levels from surrounding industrial and
   commercial noise sources that the proposed residential elements will be subjected to (day
   time and night time). The assessment should be carried out in accordance with BS4142:1997,
   and shall have regard to achieving BS8233:1999 in all habitable rooms The assessment
   should also detail the steps which need to be taken to mitigate the noise from these sources
   and shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Once the mitigation steps
   are agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority they shall be implemented prior to
   occupation of the development.

8. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a site
   investigation report for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation shall
   address the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site
   and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under
   the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health
   and controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of ground
   conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on
   services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological
   systems and property.The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Local
   Planning Authority 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 Local Planning Authority.

9. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be started by the
   undertaking of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4)(a-d) of the Town and Country
   Planning Act, 1990 until a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country
   Planning Act, 1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority, and the
   Local Planning Authority has given its approval in writing. The planning obligation will provide
   that a commuted sum as required by Policies H6 & H11 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP
   1995, H8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003 and SPG7 Provision of Open
   Space and Recreation Space Associated with New Residential Development will be paid to


                                                12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


    the Local Planning Authority for open space and recreation space purposes.
.

10. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme to reduce the vulnerability of the
    development to crime shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
    Authority. The statement shall examine all aspects of site security, including: site entrances,
    internal layout, car parking areas and external security measures to the ground floor
    apartments. The approved scheme shall form part of the development and shall be
    implemented prior occupation of the development hereby approved unless otherwise agreed
    in writing by the Local Planning Authority.




Reason(s)


1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

4. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage

5. In order to encourage waste recycling, in accordance with Policy MW11 of the Adopted City of
   Salford Unitary Development Plan

6. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

7. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

8. Standard Reason R028A Public safety

9. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space
   for future occupiers in accordance with policies H6 & H11 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP
   1995 and H8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003.

10. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance
    with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.


Note(s) for Applicant


1. Please find enclosed a copy of the letter from United Utilities which offers advice to the
   developer



                                                13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


2. Please find enclosed a copy of the letter from the Highways Agency which places restrictions
   on the developer

3. If the developer wishes to adopt the highway then a section 538 agreement would be required.
   Please note that the turning head does not conform to adoptable standards. For more
   information on this matter please contact John Proctor on 0161 7933808.


4. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be
   satisfied prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions
   precedent renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be
   taken by the Council.

5. Please find enclosed a copy of the letter from Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison
   Unit which offers advice to the developer

6. With regard to condition 10 and crime reduction measures, it is advised that the developer
   contacts the Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit to discuss Secured by
   Design (SbD) accreditation scheme. It is advised that the principles of SbD form the basis for
   the scheme which is to be submitted to the LPA. Any development which secures
   accreditation under the SbD scheme shall be considered to have satisfied the requirements of
   this condition.



APPLICATION No:             06/52676/HH

APPLICANT:                  Rabbi O Westheim

LOCATION:                   5 Castlefield Avenue Salford M7 4GQ

PROPOSAL:                   Erection of two storey side extension and single storey rear
                            extension (re-submission of planning application 06/51816/HH)

WARD:                       Kersal


DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a semi-detached property on Castlefield Avenue, Salford 7.

The proposal is for the erection of a two storey side extension and a single storey rear extension
to provide an extended kitchen, family and utility room on the ground floor and extended 2
bedrooms on the first floor.

The proposed two storey side extension would project a maximum of 4.5m to the rear and would
be situated along to the common boundary with 7 Castlefield Avenue, it would project a total of
10.8m in length to the rear of the property. The proposed two storey side extension would be 7m
in height with a hipped roof.


                                               14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006




The proposed single storey rear extension would be situated 0.1m away from the common
boundary with 3 Castlefield Avenue. The extension would be 5m. in width and would project 3m
from the rear elevation. It would be a maximum of 3.7m in height and would include a succah roof.
It would be attached to the proposed two-storey side extension.




SITE HISTORY

There are three relevant planning applications relating to the application site.

Planning permission (05/50565/HH) was refused in June 2005 for the erection of a two storey side
and single storey rear extension because by its size and siting it would be overbearing and result
in loss of light on the neighbouring residents at 7 Castlefield Avenue.

Planning permission (05/51166/HH) was approved in September 2005 for the erection of a single
storey side and two storey rear extension.

Planning permission (05/51816/HH) was refused in January 2006 for the erection of a two storey
side and single storey rear extension because by its size and siting it would be overbearing and
result in loss of light on the neighbouring residents at 7 Castlefield Avenue.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       2,4 Roston Road
       3,4,6,7,9 Castlefield Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have not received any letters in response to the planning application publicity. Councillor Wilson
has requested that it is determined by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel due to
the applicant‟s personal circumstances.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions


DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

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



                                                 15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006




PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the proposal would seriously
injure the amenity of existing residential properties and whether the proposal complies with the
relevant policies of both the Adopted and Draft Replacement UDPs.

Policy DEV8 of the Adopted UDP and Policy DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement
Plan state that development will not be permitted where it would have an adverse impact upon the
occupiers or users of other developments in the vicinity or an unacceptable impact on the
character and appearance of the street scene.

The Council‟s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) was adopted in December 2002 after
public consultation. It provides additional guidance on the factors to be considered and standards
maintained when determining householder applications.

This is the third application that the applicant submitted with the exact same size of the two storey
side extension. Councillor Wilson has requested that the applications determined by Members of
the Panel due to the applicant‟s personal circumstances, but the applicant has not submitted any
statement of personal circumstances for our consideration. Such circumstances can therefore not
be given any weight in this report.

Policy HH9 of the SPG states that single storey rear extension along the common boundary that
exceed 2.74m will not normally be granted planning permission. Extensions that exceed 2.74m
will normally be granted provided they do not project beyond a 45 degree line drawn from the mid
point of any ground floor habitable room windows. The proposed single storey rear extension
would project 2.9m from the rear of the house, which would line up with the adjoining single storey
rear extension at 3 Castlefield Avenue. I would therefore not consider this element of the
proposal to have a particularly overbearing impact or result in an unacceptable loss of light on the
occupiers of the neighbouring property and would comply with the SPG

Policy HH13 of the SPG states that two storey side extension that lie within 1m of the boundary of
the dwelling will not normally be granted unless the first floor element is set back 2m from the front
of the house. The proposed two storey side extension would be contrary to policy HH13 as the
two-storey side extension lies within 1m of the boundary of the dwelling and the first floor element
of the side extension would not be set back 2m from the front of the property. However, in this
instance, I consider that due to the orientation of the properties (7 Castlefield Avenue is set an
angle to number 5 Castlefield Avenue), there is no chance of terracing occurring with this element
of the proposal. I do not consider it necessary to require the first floor of the extension to be set
back 2m for terracing purposes.

Policy HH3 of the SPG states that planning permission will not normally be granted for extensions
that do not maintain a minimum distance of 13m between their blank gable end wall and facing
habitable room windows. The policy can be applied between ground floor windows and single
storey gable ends and first floor windows and two-storey gable ends. The current relationship
between the existing gable of 5 Castlefield Avenue and the front elevation of 7 Castlefield Avenue
is 9m. Both these separation distances are contrary to the 13m required by HH3. However, the
extension at 7 Castlefield Avenue was built before the introduction of the SPG on House
Extensions. The location and positioning of the proposed two storey side extension to No 5 is


                                                 16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


such that those at number 7 Castlefield Avenue would only have a distance of 5.5m between the
proposed side extension and their front habitable room windows. Although the existing
relationship is sub standard, I consider this extension unacceptable due to its size and massing
and that it is coming even closer to the ground floor and first floor front habitable room windows of
7 Castlefield Avenue. I consider that the proposed extension would have an over dominating
effect and result in a material reduction in daylight and sunlight on the neighbouring residents at 7
Castlefield Avenue which would worsen the existing substandard living conditions for existing and
future occupiers at No 7 Castlefield Avenue, contrary to policies HH3 of the SPG, Adopted Policy
DEV8 and Draft Policy DES7.

The relationship between the proposed two-storey front/side extension and the front elevation of 9
Castlefield Avenue is also sub-standard as it would only retain 10.5m, which is below the 13m
required by HH3. However, due to the orientation between the two properties (the front elevation
of No 9 Castlefield Avenue is set 30-degree facing away from the gable wall of the proposed
extension), I consider the two storey front/side extension would not have an unacceptable
overbearing impact to the residents at No 9 Castlefield Avenue.

Policy HH1 of the SPG states planning permission will not normally be granted for extensions that
do not maintain a minimum distance of 21m between the facing habitable room windows. The
habitable room windows of the proposed extensions are located in the front and rear elevations.
Given that there would be more than 21m between the proposed extensions and the properties to
the front and rear, I am satisfied that the proposal would not be any serious impact on the
residents at 2 Roston Road and 6 Castlefield Road in terms of privacy and visual amenity.


CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I believe the proposed extensions would create substandard living conditions for
existing and future occupiers at No.7 Castlefield Avenue as the two storey side extension would
be overbearing and result in a loss of light on the neighbouring residents living at 7 Castlefield
Avenue The proposal does not comply with Policy DEV8 the Adopted UDP, Policy DES 7 of the
Draft Replacement UDP and the Supplementary Planning Guidance-House Extension. It is
essential that the above policies should be upheld in this case in order that the residential amenity
that current and future tenants/owners of 7 Castlefield Avenue can reasonably expect to enjoy is
maintained. I therefore recommend it for refusal.



RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:


1. The two storey side extension would, by its size and siting, have an unacceptable overbearing
   impact and would result in an unacceptable detrimental impact to the neighbouring residents
   living at 7 Castlefield Avenue. This is contrary to Policy DEV8 of the adopted City of Salford
   Unitary Development Plan, Policy DES7 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement City of Salford
   Unitary Development Plan, and HH3 of Supplementary Planning Guidance - House
   Extensions.


                                                 17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006




APPLICATION No:             06/52239/REM

APPLICANT:                  Carmen Associates

LOCATION:                   Site Of Formers Builders Yard Brakesmere Grove/Haysbrook
                            Avenue Worsley

PROPOSAL:                   Details of the siting, design and external appearance of 10-three
                            storey town houses, 12- two storey dwellings and one three
                            storey building comprising nine apartments together with
                            associated landscaping, car parking and construction of new
                            vehicular access

WARD:                       Little Hulton


DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the site of a former builders yard at Haysbrook Avenue/Brakesmere
Grove close to the Little Hulton district centre. The site is bounded by residential property to the
east and west, to the north is an office building beyond which is Haysbrook Avenue and the district
centre. To the south is open land within the grounds of Woodlands Hospital. The access to the
site would be from Brakesmere Grove. The proposal comprises a mix of apartments, town
houses, detached and semi-detached properties.

Apartments -
There would be a three storey apartment block fronting onto Brakesmere Grove which would
have nine two bedroom apartments with car parking at the rear.

Town houses -
There would be ten three storey town houses located along the southern part of the site, all with
three bedrooms and an integral garage on the ground floor. Each house would also have a
driveway and a rear garden.

Corner houses -
Three two storey houses would be located in the south west corner. The central dwelling would
have three bedrooms and on either side there would be two bedrooms. All would have a car park
space at he front of the properties and a rear garden.

Semi-detached properties -
There would be four pairs of semi-detached properties with three bedrooms, a driveway and a
rear garden. Three pairs would be located to the west of the site and the other pair would be
located centrally within the site.



                                                18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


Detached properties –
There would be two detached properties which would each have three bedrooms and driveway
and a rear garden.

SITE HISTORY

Outline planning permission for the principle of residential development has been granted four
times over the last 10 years:

        1996 - 96/35560/OUT
        1999 - 99/40108/OUT
        2003 - 02/45282/OUT
        2006 - 05/51946/OUT

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – a condition for a contaminated land investigation report has
been recommended.

United Utilities – have no objections providing the site is drained on a separate system with only
foul drainage connected into the foul sewer. A pair of public sewers cross the site and United
Utilities would not permit building over them however the sewers could be diverted.

Environment Agency – no objections.

Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – comments and advice has been
provided on the lighting, landscaping, bin stores and the private amenity spaces.


PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 24th March 2006.

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       Court Welfare Service, Haysbrook Avenue
       2 to 6 Brakesmere Grove
       30 to 48A Hulton District Centre
       15 to 31 Armitage Avenue
       1 and 3 Haysbrook Avenue
       21 Haysbrook Avenue
       „Wicheves‟ Haysbrook Avenue




REPRESENTATIONS



                                               19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


I have received two letters of objection, one with signatures from eight households and the other
with signatures from four households in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:

       Increase in traffic
       Headlights shining into windows of existing properties
       Disruption during construction period
       Access should be from Haysbrook Avenue

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

Site specific policies: none
Other policies: none

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
                DEV1 – Development Criteria
                DEV2 – Good Design
                DEV4 – Design and Crime
                T13 – Car Parking
                H6 and H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments

DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
               A10 – Provision of car, cycle and motorcycle parking in new developments
               DES1 – Respecting Context
                DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
               DES13 – Design Statements
                ST11 - Location of New Development
                H8 - Open Space Provision Within New Housing Development

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The principle of residential development has been established through the previous outline
planning applications. The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the
proposed density and mix of dwellings is acceptable whether the design of the proposed
dwellings is acceptable; whether there would be an impact on the amenity of residents as a result
of the proposal; whether the proposed level of car parking is acceptable; and whether the
proposed development complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted and Draft Replacement
UDP. I shall deal with each in turn below.


Density and Dwelling Mix




                                               20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


Adopted Policy H1 states that the Council will endeavour to ensure that the city‟s housing stock is
able to meet the housing requirements of all groups within Salford by promoting a number of
measures, including the release of land to accommodate new house building.

Draft Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a
balanced mix of dwellings within the local area.

National Policy contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note number 3: Housing highlights the
need to develop previously developed brownfield sites. It also states that where appropriate
higher densities should be considered.

The density of the proposed development would be approximately 61 dwellings per hectare. The
proposal includes a variety of dwelling types and sizes including two bedroom apartments and
two and three bedroom houses for families. I am satisfied that this is an appropriate mix and
accords with policies H1.

The development site is within walking distance of Little Hulton District Centre, and food
supermarkets on Armitage Avenue. The site is accessible by public transport with bus stops
being located on Manchester Road and on Armitage Avenue. As such, I consider the density to
be acceptable and the proposal to accord with the thrust of the policies highlighted above.

Design

Adopted Policy DEV2 states that planning permission will not normally be granted unless the
Council is satisfied with the quality of the design and the appearance of the development.

Draft Policy DES13 requires applicants for major developments to demonstrate that the proposal
takes account of the need for good design. A written statement should be submitted which
explains the design concepts and how these are reflected in the development‟s layout, scale and
visual appearance, the relationship to the site and its wider context and how the proposal meets
the Council‟s design objectives and policies.

A design statement has been submitted with the application that demonstrates how the
development meets the design objectives and policies of the City Council. The existing properties
in the immediate area are a mix of semi-detached houses and terraced properties. This scheme
provides a mix of dwelling types to increase housing choice, which includes apartments at the
entrance to the site. The layout is such to allow accessibility and ease of movement whilst
maintaining separation distances and providing car parking provision and sufficient private
amenity space for future occupiers. The design of the front elevation of the apartments has been
amended to include additional detailing and mock entrance features (entrance at the rear from car
park) to improve the appearance of the entrance to the development and also provide a more
interesting outlook for the residents of Brakesmere Grove.

I have attached a condition requiring the submission of samples of materials to be submitted and
approved prior to the commencement of development to ensure that they accord with those of
surrounding buildings and that they are of a suitable high quality.

Amenity of Users and Neighbours



                                                21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


Draft Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the
character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this
policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings
and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.

Draft Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory
level of amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the
occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.

The neighbouring residential properties are located to the east and west of the site. The layout of
the proposed development ensures that the Council‟s minimum separation distances are
maintained. I am of the opinion that these distances are sufficient to ensure that the proposed
buildings would not be overbearing, reduce the amount of light existing residents currently receive
or result in neighbouring residents being overlooked. Consequently neighbouring residents would
not experience an unacceptable reduction in the residential amenity they currently enjoy should
the proposed development be implemented. This also ensures future occupiers will also have
privacy and not be overlooked by existing properties. Each town house, semi-detached dwelling
and detached dwelling has a rear garden and the apartments have amenity space for future
residents. I therefore consider the proposal accords with the above policies.

Car Parking

Adopted Policy T13 states that the Council will ensure that adequate parking and servicing is
provided to meet the needs of new development, in accordance with the Council‟s standards and
that car parks are designed to a high standard, with particular regard to access arrangements,
surface materials, boundary treatments and security measures.

Draft Policy A10 states that the maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.

The access cannot be directly from Haysbrook Avenue as this is not within the red line boundary
of the outline application. A total of 32 car parking spaces would be provided within the site and
ten of the properties would have integral garages. Given the total number of units proposed (32),
the proposed level of car parking is acceptable, particularly given the site‟s proximity to Armitage
Avenue and Manchester Road and a number of bus services. The proposed provision is in
accordance with the maximum car parking standards advocated by the government in PPG13
and in the Draft UDP. I have no highway objections and do not consider there would be an
unacceptable increase in traffic. I therefore have no objections to the application in this regard.

Open Space

Adopted Policy H6 requires adequate provision of informal open space and children‟s play within
new housing developments. This policy is linked to Policy H11, which sets out a sliding scale for
such provision.

Draft Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal
open space within housing developments.

In accordance with the above policies, the applicant is aware that a contribution towards the
provision and maintenance of an equipped children‟s playground and associated open space in


                                                22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


the vicinity is required. The total contribution in this regard would be £73,837. I have attached a
condition requiring such a contribution. I am therefore satisfied that the application therefore
accords with Adopted policies H6 and H11 and Draft Policy H8.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I consider that this proposal incorporates a mix of dwelling types and sizes, with
good design. I do not consider that there would be an unacceptable impact on the amenity of
existing residents. The application accords with the relevant policies of both the Adopted and
Draft Replacement UDPs. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.

It is recommended that authority be given for the Strategic Director of Customer and Support
Services to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act
to secure the future maintenance of the play area.


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions


1. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the materials
   for the external elevations and roof of all the buildings shall be submitted to and approved in
   writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved
   materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

2. Prior to the commencement of development a site investigation report (the Report) shall be
   submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The investigation shall
   address the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site
   and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under
   the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health
   and controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of ground
   conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on
   services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological
   systems and property. The investigation shall where appropriate include a risk assessment
   and an options appraisal including the remedial strategy.

   The proposed risk assessment, including the sampling and analytical strategy shall be
   approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of the site investigation
   survey.

   The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Report including its
   risk assessment, options appraisal and recommendations for implementation of the remedial
   strategy.

   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 were completed in accordance with those agreed by the Local Planning
   Authority.


                                                23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006




3. The landscaping scheme hereby approved shall be implemented within 12 months of the
   commencement of development unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning
   Authority.

4. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be started by the
   undertaking of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4)(a-d) of the Town and Country
   Planning Act, 1990 until a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country
   Planning Act, 1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority, and the
   Local Planning Authority has given its approval in writing. The planning obligation will provide
   that a commuted sum as required by Policies H6 & H11 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP
   1995, H8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003 and SPG7 Provision of Open
   Space and Recreation Space Associated with New Residential Development will be paid to
   the Local Planning Authority for open space and recreation space purposes.

Reason(s)


1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

2. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

4. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space
   for future occupiers in accordance with policies H6 & H11 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP
   1995 and H8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003.




Note(s) for Applicant


1. Construction works shall not be permitted outside the following hours:
   Monday to Friday 08:00 to 18:00
   Saturdays        08:00 to 13:00

   Construction works shall not be permitted on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays

   Access and egress for delivery vehicles shall be restricted to the working hours indicated
   above.

2. The contractor who demolishes the building shall contact Salford City Council's Building
   Control Unit to discuss demolition prior to work commencing.

3. The existing warehouse on the site has corrugated roof covering which is likely to be
   asbestos, removal of which is controlled under the Licensing Regulations and as such any
   work to remove these must be carried out by a contractor licensed by the Health & Safety


                                                24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


   Executive.

4. This planning permission relates to amended plans received on 23rd may 2006.



APPLICATION No:             05/51828/FUL

APPLICANT:                  Clifton Cricket Club

LOCATION:                   Clifton Cricket Club Manchester Road Clifton Swinton M27 6NB

PROPOSAL:                   Increase height of existing ball stop fence from 8m to 12m on
                            east boundary (Fielders Way), increase height of ball stop fence
                            from 6m to 10m on western boundary, construct a 6m high
                            ballstop fence on north boundary

WARD:                       Pendlebury



At the meeting of the Panel held on 18th May 2006 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.

My previous observations are set out below:



ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS

With regards to the visual impact of the proposed fencing it is necessary to clarify a point
mentioned in the report. It is considered the increase in fence heights would have a visual impact
on the area however it would not be considered to be unacceptable when weighed against the
need for these accident prevention measures.

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to Clifton Cricket Club on Manchester Road, Clifton, Swinton. The
application is to increase the height of the existing ball stop fence from 8m to12m on the eastern
boundary (Fielders Way), increase the height of the ball stop fence from 6m to 10m on western
boundary (The Boundary) and construct a 6m high ball stop fence on northern boundary adjacent
to Manchester Road. To the north, east and west are detached residential properties and to the
south is open green belt land.

SITE HISTORY




                                               25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


There have been previous planning applications for the erection of a two storey building to provide
a changing/meeting room facility (96/35372/FUL) and extensions to the clubhouse and changing
rooms (99/39765/FUL and 99/39768/FUL).

In August 1996 an application for the erection of 49 detached dwellings together with associated
landscaping, open space car parking and construction of new vehicular access was granted
planning permission on the former Avanti works site which comprised eight industrial units
(95/34668/FUL) to the east of the cricket club. There were numerous discussions during the
planning application stage between the Council, Bellway Homes and Clifton Cricket Club
regarding the issue of a ball stop fence being erected if the land was to be redeveloped for
residential use.

In correspondence from Clifton Cricket Club to the Council they expressed their opinion that a ball
stop fence should be erected along the entire length of the development. If such a fence was not
included in the proposal then they wished to lodge a formal objection to the application.

The planning application was approved subject to the following condition:

“Prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings which would be erected on plots 40 to 49 inclusive,
a fence not less than 8 metres in height, above ground level on the Cricket Club side, shall be
erected along the entire north western boundary of the application site. The details of the height,
design and materials of the fence shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City
Technical Services Officer prior to the occupation of the dwellings which would be erected on
plots 40 to 49”.

The fencing was erected at a height of 8m along the boundary of the cricket club and Fielder‟s
Way.



PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17, 19 and 21 The Boundary
       346, 348, 359, 361, 363, 365, 367, 369, 371, 371A and 373 Manchester Road
       2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 Fielders Way
       1 and 2 Dixon Drive
       2, 4, 6 and 6 Batsman Drive

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received four letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity, one of
which is anonymous. The following issues have been raised:

       Loss of light
       Increase in fence height would be intrusive
       Impact on views



                                                26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

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

DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

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

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the proposal would seriously
injure the amenity of neighbouring residential properties, whether there would be an unacceptable
visual impact and whether the proposal complies with the relevant policies of both the Adopted
and Draft Replacement UDPs.

Adopted Policy DEV1 and Draft Replacement Policies DES1 and DES7 state regard should be
had to factors such as the relationship to existing buildings and its surroundings, the character of
the area, the visual appearance of the development and the amenity of users and neighbours.

The cricket club has provided supporting evidence to justify the need for the increase in fence
heights and the new fencing along Manchester Road. The club proposed the height of a 12m ball
stop fencing when the planning application for the new housing development at Fielders Way was
under consideration. They believed it was the necessary height to minimise the number of cricket
balls being hit out of the ground and damaging neighbouring property or persons. Fencing has
been proposed along Manchester Road for the same reasons as increasing the heights. With the
submission of this application the club is aiming to “avoid any potential litigation which may occur
as a result of a stray cricket ball and which could be so financially crippling as to jeopardise the
continued future of the club”. Over the last two seasons the club has been taken to the small
claims court due to damage to neighbours‟ cars and damage to roofs of houses.

The playing season is from mid April to late September and consists of approximately 42 adult
games mostly on Saturdays and Sundays but also during the week. There are three adult senior
teams and five teams made up of under 9s, 11s, 13s, 15s and 18s. Games for junior teams are
played on evenings during the week. The playing and associate membership is approximately
500 and the club also runs activities on a voluntary basis for up to 60 children of all ages from
across the city to learn and develop an interest in sport. It would therefore have a wider impact on
the community if the club had to close. In the assessment of this application there is the issue of
whether there would be an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents all year
round when the season is five months long. It also seems to be the case that cricket balls hit out
of the ground are in the direction of Fielders Way more so than The Boundary and so another
issue is whether or not the fence height along The Boundary should be increased at all.

The fence itself is a mesh fence with metal struts at intervals to support it. The fence therefore
lets light through and I do not consider an increase in height would result in any further loss of
light. There are no standard heights for ball stop fences surrounding cricket pitches, as each
location is to be considered individually. An increase in fence height would result in an


                                                27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


unacceptable visual impact on the area as the fence height would be above roof heights and tree
canopies, however this needs to be weighed against the safety issues for the neighbouring
residents and their properties, as well as the users of Manchester Road. As the club has recently
been promoted into The Central Lancashire Cricket League and will therefore have better players
I consider it necessary for these precautions to be taken by increasing the heights of existing
fencing and erecting a fence along Manchester Road.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion I consider the proposed increase in height to existing fencing and the erection of
fencing along Manchester Road to be acceptable as the need for these safety precautions
outweighs the possible unacceptable visual impact to the area. I therefore recommend the
approval of this application.


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit

2. The proposed fencing shall be the same type as the existing and be colour treated to match
   the existing within two months of the date of erection unless agreed otherwise in writing by the
   Local Planning Authority.

Reason(s)


1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area




APPLICATION No:             06/52309/FUL

APPLICANT:                  G.M.W.D.A.

LOCATION:                   Civic Amenity Site Lumns Lane Clifton Swinton

PROPOSAL:                   Continued use of existing civic amenity site and recycling
                            centre

WARD:                       Pendlebury


DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL


                                                28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006




This application relates to the existing civic amenity site on Lumns Lane. It occupies a site of
approximately 0.23 hectare and lies adjacent to the access road to Clifton Hall Tip. It is proposed
to continue the present operation for a further three years. The current temporary condition which
had been granted for a three year period expires in July 2006. The site is within the Green Belt.

The site consists of a concrete hardstanding, individual areas for different types of waste and a
recycling centre. The site is surrounded by 2.4m high galvanised palisade fencing.

SITE HISTORY

 In 1980 the former Greater Manchester Council granted deemed planning consent for the Lumns
Lane Tip (E/11242). The site of that permission included the current civic amenity site, but it was
always envisaged that this would be a temporary facility as the site lies within the Croal-Irwell
Valley where environmental improvement and recreational policies were being pursued.

In 1994 planning permission was granted for the continued use of the site as a civic amenity site
(93/32031/FUL). That permission was for a period of six years and expired in July 2001. The
reason for only granting a temporary time period was so as not to prejudice the future
redevelopment of the area.

In 1997 an application was submitted to retain the existing civic amenity site and recycling centre
for an indefinite period (97/36893/FUL). The application was subsequently withdrawn. It was
established at that time that the existing site was well used and strategically placed but that it
suffered from physical shortcomings, principally involving inadequate environmental protection
measures and health and safety related issues.

In August 2001 planning permission was granted for a further two year period. At the same time
an application was submitted to build a modern fully landscaped facility on a nearby site. It was
stated in the report to members on this last application that temporary permission was sought to
continue the use until the new facility became available.

In July 2003 planning was granted for a further three year period. (03/46258/FUL).

CONSULTATIONS

Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No objection.
United Utilities – No objections
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – No objections
Environment Agency – No objection


PUBLICITY

The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received no response to the publicity notices.


                                                29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006




REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

Policy EQ4 – Principles Governing a Regional Approach to Sustainable Waste Management
EQ5 – A Regional Approach to Waste Management

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: EN22 Green Belt, EN23 Croal-Irwell Valley, R11/3 Provision of Country
Parks – Slack Brook Valley
Other policies: EN1 Green Belt, EN2 Development Within the Green Belt, EN17 Croal-Irwell
Valley, R5 Country Parks, MW9 Provision of Waste Disposal Facilities, MW11 Waste Recycling
and Bulk Reduction, MW14 Civic Amenity Sites, MW15 Development Control Criteria – Waste.



DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: EN1 Development Within the Green Belt, EN6 Irwell Valley, EN7 Nature
Conservation, R4/6 Key Recreation Areas – Slack Brook Country Park
Other policies: W1 Waste Management.

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy EQ4 of the Regional Spatial Strategy states that collection and disposal authorities should,
as a matter of priority, work with all stakeholders, to significantly reduce the volume of waste sent
to landfill.

The site of the civic amenity facility is situated in the Green Belt, the Croal-Irwell Valley and the
proposed Slack Brook Country Park, as identified in the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
UDP policies EN2, EN17, EN23, R5 and R11/3 are therefore all important, as are relevant policies
in the Minerals and Waste section of the Plan.

Adopted Policies EN17 and EN23 promote the conservation and improvement of the Croal-Irwell
Valley as an environmental, wildlife and recreational resource, and seek to re-establish the
countryside character of the Valley. Policy EN23 in particular requires waste disposal
applications in the Valley to accord with the Plan‟s waste disposal policies. Policy MW14 lends
general support to the provision of civic amenity sites, but the development would also need to
comply with specific development control criteria set out in Policy MW15.

Policy R5 promotes the development of Country Parks as key sites in the urban fringe and Policy
R11/3 identifies the Slack Brook Valley as one area that is specifically to be developed for this
purpose. The reasoned justification to Policy R11/3 specifically notes that waste disposal within
the Country Park will only be permitted where it forms part of a wider reclamation scheme and
satisfies Policy EN23 (Croal-Irwell Valley) and the UDP‟S policies on minerals and waste.

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



                                                 30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


Clearly the existing civic amenity site has existed in the Croal Irwell Valley and the Green Belt for
many years. However, there has been a longstanding intention to relocate the facility and
integrate it more fully into the Country Park. It has been in the past indicated that the City Council
would not be prepared to consider any further extensions of temporary permissions for the civic
amenity site unless this formed an integral part of a wider scheme designed to render the
development less visually and environmentally intrusive. This was the case before the previous
application for a two year extension was submitted in August 2001.

Since the time of the issue of the extension of the planning permission in July 2003, the Greater
Manchester Waste Authority has become involved in a major procurement exercise for the
provision of future waste management services. This has involved all of the Greater Manchester
Authorities, including Salford, in a fundamental review of the manner in which municipal waste is
to be collected, processed and recycled. The review is tied up with a new long term contract to be
awarded later this year that will include massive investment in new facilities for which £100 Million
has been awarded in PFI credits.

In addition to investment in major facilities, the contract will also need to cover the provision and
operation of household waste recycling facilities across Greater Manchester. The precise
number, scale, purpose and particularly the location of these facilities are bound up with the
procurement process and the discussions that are currently taking place with all of the councils
regarding their operational needs and service aspirations. The ultimate solution will be dependant
upon the selection of a preferred bidder by the Greater Manchester Waste Authority and
agreement with the councils. This will not be possible before September 2006 at the earliest.

In justification for a further extension of the temporary permission, the Greater Manchester Waste
Disposal Authority has stated that the project for the replacement facility has been problematic
and it has been unable to progress it. These problems have included the costs of the replacement
facility nearby, a lack of more affordable alternative sites and the opportunity of providing a more
technologically advanced facility and the costs involved in that. However, notwithstanding these
issues it would be prudent to put the relocation on hold until the PFI procurement reached the
stage when the future service provision for Salford was more clearer. If permission was not
granted for a further extension then the facility would close and the local community would have to
travel further to other facilities.

The wider area already has a number of other licensed waste disposal operations including
Clifton Hall Tip and the Magnesium Elektron tip, both also located on Lumns Lane. Planning
Permission for operations at Clifton Hall Tip expires in the short term and we can expect suitable
restoration in keeping with the country park proposals to be implemented in the coming years.
Taking a long-term view, the Council hopes to secure a significant reduction in such operations in
the coming years, in line with the eventual return of this land to a major recreational and
environmental asset. Clearly this cannot be achieved in the short term and the future of the Civic
Amenity Site needs to be considered in this context.

This site currently handles over 10,000 tonnes of waste per annum, in the mid range of civic
amenity operations across Greater Manchester. It is hard to imagine realistic alternatives for the
collection and disposal of these volumes of waste without proper and effective planning for them.
Another consideration may be the failure to meet national recycling targets, and the adverse
impacts on both the council and the Waste Disposal Authority for doing so. Recycling at the site



                                                 31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


has been improved significantly, benefiting from recent investment to achieve recycling /
composting rates of 34%, up almost 10% on the previous year.

With only two other such facilites in Salford, one located in Little Hulton and one located in
Pendleton failure to provide such a facility would undoubtedly lead to an increase in fly tipping,
which would be detrimental to the above polices, and the excellent recycling rates being achieved
would be undermined.

Conclusion

On balance, although the proposal is not wholeheartedly supported by planning policy, the future
waste needs of Salford are still under discussion and it would be prudent to allow one more
extension to ensure the future needs are met appropriately. In addition I have attached a
condition to ensure that the visual appearance of the site is improved for its remaining years.


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions



1. The use hereby permitted shall cease on or before the expiration of a period ending on 30th
   June 2009.

2. Before 30th September 2008 a scheme for the restoration of the site consistent with the aims
   of the formation of the Slack Brook Country Park shall be submitted to and approved in writing
   by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme as may be approved shall be implemented in full
   before 30th November 2009, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
   Authority.

3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
   and approved by the Local Planning Authority within 3 months of the date of this permission.
   Such scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences and
   boundary treatment and shall be carried out within 9 months of the date of this permission 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.

Reason(s)


1. The site lies in an area that is to be redeveloped for country park purposes and the granting of
   an unlimited planning permission would prejudice the eventual redevelopment of the site for
   these purposes in accordance with policy R11/3 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
   Plan.

2. To ensure that the site is restored in accordance with policy R11/3 of the City of Salford
   Unitary Development Plan.


                                                 32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006




3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area




APPLICATION No:             05/51931/FUL

APPLICANT:                  P Leigh

LOCATION:                   569 Manchester Road Wardley Swinton M27 9QL

PROPOSAL:                   Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a new dwelling
                            with dormer in roof space

WARD:                       Swinton North


At the meeting of the Panel held on 18th May 2006 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 is for the retention of an end-terraced dwelling in Wardley, Swinton. The original
property was demolished without consent and rebuilt without planning permission. It is part of a
row of six terraces that extend to the east. To the north of the site is a public house; there are
apartments to the south (Bellam Court) and apartments to the west (Wardley Mews).

SITE HISTORY

An application was received in July 2005 for the erection of a two storey rear extension to 569
Manchester Road (05/51070/HH). The property was demolished before the application was
determined and so the application is now invalid.

A complaint was reported to the Enforcement team concerning the demolition of the property and
a planning application for the retention of what was being built was subsequently submitted.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       565, 567, 571, 573 and 575 Manchester Road
       „Morning Star‟ PH 520 Manchester Road

REPRESENTATIONS


                                                33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006




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

       Loss of light
       Loss of privacy
       Dormer window is an eyesore

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV2 – Good Design

DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

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

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the development seriously
injures the amenity of existing residential properties, whether there is an unacceptable impact on
the street scene/character of the area and whether the development complies with the relevant
policies of both the Adopted and Draft Replacement plans.

Draft policy DES7 requires all new development to provide potential users with a satisfactory level
of amenity in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout without having an
unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments. There was
originally a single storey outrigger that was present at the rear of the property prior to demolition,
however the property has been rebuilt with the addition of a two storey element which projects
approximately 3.7m from the rear of the adjoining dwelling of 571 Manchester Road. This two
storey element of the new build accommodates a kitchen on the ground floor and a bedroom on
the first floor. There is no extension along the common boundary to the adjoining dwelling,
number 571, and the projection of the new property is not equal to the distance from the common
boundary as it projects 3.7m and there is only 1m to the common boundary. The new dwelling
therefore has an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of the residents of 571 and the
enjoyment of their rear garden. The application property now projects approximately 5m from the
rear of 565/567 Manchester Road. There is an apartment on the ground floor and an apartment
on the first floor, both of which have habitable room windows nearest the boundary with the
application property. This therefore results in overshadowing to these properties which is
contrary to policy DES7. There are more than 21m from the rear of the proposed extension to the
apartments of Bellam Court (off Bagot Street) which complies with Council‟s minimum separation
distances.

Adopted policy DEV2 states that planning permission will not normally be granted unless the
Council is satisfied with the quality of the design and the appearance of the development. Draft
policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the
character, scale and pattern of streets and the surrounding area. The property has been rebuilt in


                                                 34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


the same position as the original dwelling but now has a two storey rear extension. The property
has been rendered which is not out of keeping with the immediate vicinity as numbers 579 and
577 are also rendered. There is now a dormer in the front roof space of the property, however the
materials are in keeping with the roof and it is set below the ridgeline and set in from the eaves.
Although the neighbouring terraces do not have dormer windows in the front roof space an
apartment development approximately 25m to the west is three storeys in height and so I do not
consider the dormer has an unacceptable impact on the street scene. I am of the opinion the
application therefore complies with DEV2 and DES1. There is on street parking available for the
occupier of the property as per the previous situation.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion I recommend the refusal of this application due to the unacceptable detrimental
impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents in terms of overshadowing, overbearing and loss
of light which is contrary to Draft Replacement policies DES1 and DES7.

It is recommended that authority be given for the Strategic Director of Customer and Support
Services to take enforcement action to seek the removal of the two storey element, as this is the
unacceptable aspect of the development. The new dwelling would then have a footprint more
similar to that of the original dwelling prior to its demolition.



RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:



1. The rear two storey element of the new dwelling seriously injures the amenity of neighbouring
   residents living at 565, 567 and 571 Manchester Road by reason of its size and siting which is
   contrary to Draft Replacement policies DES1 and DES7.




APPLICATION No:             06/52358/HH


                                                35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006




APPLICANT:                  Mrs Carney

LOCATION:                   21 Entwistle Street Wardley Swinton M27 9SD

PROPOSAL:                   Retention of conservatory and erection of a staircase at rear of
                            dwelling

WARD:                       Swinton North


At the meeting of the Panel held on 18th May 2006 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

The application relates to a semi-detached property on Entwistle Street at Wardley.

The property is situated on a slope with the front elevation elevated 1.1m higher than the rear of
the property. The rear of the property is also elevated approximately 3m higher than the rear
boundary of the property.

The application property has an existing single storey rear extension which projects
approximately 3m from the rear wall of the property.

The application is for the retention of a conservatory to the rear of the property. The conservatory
is situated approximately 0.2 m from the common boundary with No 23 Entwistle Street. The
conservatory projects 4.36m from the rear main wall of the property. The conservatory is raised
from the sloping ground level to join with the living room floor level of the property. The
conservatory has a sloping roof and measures 4.5m in height from the ground level to its ridge.

A timber staircase would also be introduced connecting the conservatory with the ground. The
proposed staircase would protrude approximately 1.360m from the rear main wall of the existing
rear extension. It would be a maximum height of 1.6m from the ground level and a 1m high
handrail has been also proposed for the staircase.


PUBLICITY

The following addresses have been notified:
        19 Entwistle Street
        23 Entwistle Street


REPRESENTATIONS



                                                36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


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

Overlooking
Loss of natural light
Overbearing


REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

Site Specific Policies: None

Other Policies: None


ADOPTED UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site Specific Policies: None

Other Policies: DEV8 - House Extensions


DRAFT REPLACEMENT UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Site Specific Policies: None

Other Policies: DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours


PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are the siting and size of the conservatory,
and the impact on amenity of the neighbouring residents.

Policy DEV8 of the Adopted UDP and Policy DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement
Plan state that development will not permitted where it would have an adverse impact upon the
occupiers or users of other developments in the vicinity or an unacceptable impact on the
character and appearance of the street scene.

The Council‟s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) A Guide to House Extensions was
adopted in December 2002 after public consultation. It provides additional guidance on the factors
to be considered and standards maintained when determining householder applications.

There are no properties situated at the rear of the property. The existing kitchen extension
provides screening to the conservatory and it would not therefore have any unacceptable
overlooking or overbearing impact to the residents at No 19 Entiwstle Street.

The proposed conservatory is situated on the rear of the property 0.2m away from the common
boundary with 23 Entwistle Street. It projects a maximum 4.36m along the common boundary.


                                               37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


There is a habitable room window (Living room) at ground floor level on the rear elevation of 23
Entwistle Street, situated next to the common boundary. The floor level of No 23 Entwistle Street
is also elevated 1.1m from the ground level at the rear of the property, the same as the application
property.

HH9 requires that extension along the common boundary should not exceed 2.74m and in
circumstances where a proposal would exceed 2.74m, it will normally be considered to be
acceptable provided it does not exceed a 45 degree line drawn from the mid point of any habitable
room windows. The conservatory projects 4.36m along the common boundary. This
measurement exceeds 2.74m and the 45-degree splay from the middle of the neighbouring
habitable room window at No 23 Entwistle Street. It is therefore contrary to policy HH9 of the SPG.
Therefore its impact upon 23 Entwistle Street is unacceptable, contrary to DEV8 of the Adopted
UDP and DES7 of the Draft Replacement UDP.

There is an existing wooden panel fence situated along the common boundary between the
application property and No 23 Entwistle Street. These panels measure 2m in height. The 2m
high solid wooden panels separating the application property and No 23 step down with the slope
and given that the living floor level of No 23 is 1.1m above the ground level, this fence does not
provide sufficient screening to the living room at No 23 and the conservatory results in an
overbearing impact.

The windows of the conservatory along the side elevation facing No 23 are also not installed with
obscure glazing. The residents at No 23 are therefore overlooked by the occupiers of the
application property. However, the applicant has asserted that she would be happy to replace
those windows facing No 23 obscure glazing, I do not however consider that this overcome my
concerns in relation to the conservatory‟s overbearing impact.
Although the conservatory is erected higher than 4.5 meters from the sloping ground level to its
ridge, I do not consider in this instance that the height of the conservatory has an unacceptable
overbearing impact to the neighbouring properties at No 23. As aforementioned, the floor level at
No 23 is elevated 1.1m higher than the actual ground level. Therefore, when observed from the
living room floor level of No 23, the conservatory is less than 4m in height.

I consider the proposed staircase and handrail to be acceptable and would not have any adverse
impact to the neighbours.

Overall, I consider that the retention of the conservatory would have an unacceptable overbearing
effect, due to its size and siting, on the amenity of the residents at number 23. I therefore consider
the retention to be unacceptable and contrary to policies DEV8 of the Adopted Unitary
Development Plan and DES7 of the Draft Replacement UDP.


CONCLUSION

The conservatory by reason of its size and siting has an unacceptable overbearing impact on the
residents of 23 Entwistle Street. The conservatory would be considerably higher than the existing
fencing panels, thus having an unacceptable overbearing impact on the amenity of the residents
of 23 Entwistle Street. The proposal is contrary to policy HH9 of the SPG, DEV8 of the Adopted
UDP and DES7 of the Draft Replacement UDP.



                                                 38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


Therefore I recommend that the application be refused and it is recommended that authority be
given for the strategic Director of Customer Support Services to take enforcement action should
to secure the removal of the conservatory.



RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:


1. The conservatory by virtue of its size and siting results in unacceptable overlooking and
   overbearing impact for the occupants of 23 Entwistle Street. This application is therefore
   contrary to Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions, Policies DEV2
   and DEV 8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan, policies DES7 and DES8 of the
   Draft Replacement City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.




APPLICATION No:            06/52474/FUL

APPLICANT:                 John Hugh Fildes

LOCATION:                  22 Dorset Street Pendlebury Swinton M27 6FG

PROPOSAL:                  Erection of a detached concrete building for use as a dog
                           grooming service

WARD:                      Swinton North


At the meeting of the Panel held on 18th May 2006 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

The application site forms one half of a semi-detached pair of properties situated at the head of
Dorset Street which is a cul-de-sac. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in context
and the site is surrounded by two-storey, semi-detached and terraced properties. The site
benefits from a driveway to the front with space to park 1 vehicle.



                                               39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


The applicant seeks consent for the erection of a detached building for use as a dog grooming
service. The building would be situated in the northern corner of the rear garden 1.0 metre from
the boundary with Nos.12 and 14 Chelford Drive and 1.0 metre from the boundary with No.20
Dorset Street. The building would have dimensions of 6.0 metres wide, 5.0 metres deep and 1.9
metres high to eaves level with an overall height of 2.8 metres. The proposed hours of operation
would be 09:00 – 17:00 Monday to Friday.

2 letters have been received from the applicant providing the following additional information on
the proposed use:

   Pets would be collected and delivered by the applicant with no clients visiting the property;
   No more than 2 pets would be at the site at any one time with an average of 5 dogs per day.
   If a dog becomes noisy it will not be groomed again.
   Pet hair will be contained within the building and disposed of properly.

The grooming process takes approximately 2 hours and the dog would be contained within the
building during that time.

SITE HISTORY

99/39574/HH – Erection of conservatory at rear and two-storey side extension – Permitted.

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services advise that a check of the historical map records for the
area suggests that there are several former ponds and other significant excavations within a 250
metre radius of the site. These are no longer present on current maps. There is a significant
possibility that gas generation may occur from these, as a precaution it is recommended that a
gas membrane should be incorporated into the base of the building to protect against the possible
effects of gas migration. It is recommended that a condition to this effect be attached to any
planning consent.

The risk of dogs barking and causing a nuisance is another consideration, however, this cannot
be easily conditioned. It is recommended that a note to the applicant relating to the control and
supervision of dogs be attached to any planning consent.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       13 – 17 (odds) Dorset Street
       18 and 20 Dorset Street
       6 – 16 (evens) Chelford Drive
       25 – 29 (odds) Brindley Street

REPRESENTATIONS

5 letters of objection have been received in response to the planning application publicity, these
raise a number of concerns including the following:


                                               40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006




   Noise disturbance.
   Traffic/parking/access issues.
   Obstruction of view (not a material planning consideration).
   Adverse affect on property value (not a material planning consideration).
   Loss of sunlight.
   Building would be closer to neighbouring properties than the owners.
   Impact on health due to stress (not a material planning consideration).
   Storage of pet food and hair from the animals could attract vermin.

A letter of objection has been received from Councillor Hinds, this raises the following concerns:

   Nuisance from dogs coming and going.
   The size of the building would be overbearing.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

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

DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None.
Other policies:               DES1 – Respecting Context.
                              DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours.
                              A8 – Impact of Development on the Highway Network.

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The key issues to be considered in the determination of this application are the following:

       Would the design of the proposal be acceptable?
       Would the proposal cause harm to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers?
       Would the proposal be detrimental to highway safety?

Would the design of the proposal be acceptable?

Policy DEV1 of the adopted UDP considers that the City Council will have regard to a number of
factors including, the location and nature of the proposed development and the visual appearance
of the development and its relationship to its surroundings. Draft Policy DES1 considers that
development will be required to respond to its physical context, respect the positive character of
the local area in which it is situated, and contribute towards local identity and distinctiveness.

The proposed building would be clad in brick with a black slate or tile roof with one large garage
door on the front elevation. The proposal adopts a form and scale appropriate both in relation to
the parent dwelling and within the surrounding residential context. The location of the building
within the rear garden environment ensures that the proposal would be screened from the wider
public realm.


                                                41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006




The design of the proposal would be acceptable.

Would the proposal cause harm to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers?

Draft Policy DES7 states that all new development will be required to provide potential users with
a satisfactory level of amenity, in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout.

The building would be situated at the end of the rear garden maintaining at its closest point a
distance of approximately 10.0 metres from neighbouring properties within Chelford Drive. Whilst
the site is set at a slightly higher level than properties within Chelford Drive, at a height of 1.9
metres to eaves level and 2.8 metres overall, the impact of the proposal in terms of
overshadowing could not be considered as materially significant and would not justify a refusal of
planning permission. It should be noted that the proposed building sits at a distance of
approximately 8.0 metres from the parent dwelling and has a cubic content of approximately 70.5
cubic metres, the structure itself is thus not much greater than could be achieved through
permitted development rights.

In light of the above it is not considered that the proposal would materially harm residential
amenity. It is considered that any impact resulting from noise could be effectively controlled
through conditions restricting hours of operation to 09:00 – 17:00 Monday - Friday, a personal
condition restricting the use of the building and a condition restricting the delivery and collection of
pets to the site by clients/customers.

Would the proposal be detrimental to highway safety?

DEV1 of the adopted UDP considers that the City Council will have regard to the relationship to
the road and public transport networks and to the likely scale and type of traffic generation. Policy
A8 of the Draft Replacement UDP considers that development will not be permitted where it would
have an unacceptable impact on highway safety by virtue of traffic generation, access, parking or
servicing arrangement.

The application site can accommodate the parking of 1 vehicle on the driveway to the front of the
property. Comments from the Chief Engineer advise that highway parking by customers could
cause problems for other residents and details of the number of patrons is required. It is proposed
that 1 member of staff, the owner would be working at the premises and no members of staff or
clients would be visiting the site with pets being collected and delivered by the 1 member of staff.
The proposal would not therefore result in any further traffic generation. A condition would be
attached to any planning consent restricting the delivery and collection of pets to the site by
clients/customers.

It is not considered that the proposal would be materially harmful to highway safety.

CONCLUSION

The proposal would not be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area and nor would it be
materially harmful to the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of neighbouring properties either in
terms of general noise disturbance or overshadowing and no further traffic would be generated as
a result of the proposal. In light of the above, it can be concluded that the proposal would not


                                                  42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


compromise the aims and objectives of the relevant policies contained within the development
plan and there are no other material planning considerations that would justify a refusal of
consent. It is accordingly recommended that the application be approved.


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions


1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the
   date of this permission.

2. The building the subject of this planning permission shall be used only for the purposes of a
   dog grooming service and shall be used for no other purpose(s) whatsoever, unless otherwise
   agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

3. This permission does not allow the delivery or collection of pets to the site by
   clients/customers.

4. The permission hereby granted shall be personal to John Hugh Fildes only and shall not inure
   for the benefit of the land or any other person.

5. The building shall not be used for the purposes hereby permitted other than between the
   hours of 09:00 and 17:00 on Mondays to Fridays and not at all on Saturdays, Sundays, Bank
   or Public holidays without the prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

6. A minimum level of gas protection should be provided on the proposed development. This
   should follow best practice construction industry guidance such as CIRIA report 149,
   characteristic situation number 2. In order to meet this condition the protection should include
   ventilation of confined spaces within building, well constructed ground slab, proprietary gas
   membrane and minimum penetration of ground slab by services. Any membranes installed
   should strictly adhere to manufacturers recommendations. Should further authoritative,
   robust and scientific information be provided that proves there is no such gas risk then the
   need for such protection may be reviewed. The plans for the gas membrane should be
   submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences.


Reason(s)

1. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning
   Act 1990


2. To restrict the use of the premises to one compatible with the surrounding area and to enable
   the Local Planning Authority to exercise control over any future use not forming part of this
   application.

3. To limit noise and disturbance in the interests of residential amenity and to comply with Policy


                                                43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


   DEV1 of the adopted UDP and Policy DES7 of the Draft Replacement UDP.

4. To restrict the use of the premises to one compatible with the surrounding area and to enable
   the Local Planning Authority to exercise control over any future use not forming part of this
   application.

5. In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with Policy DEV1 of the adopted UDP and
   Policy DES7 of the Draft Replacement UDP.

6. To provide an adequate level of protection against gas.


Note(s) for Applicant


1. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the
   applicant/developer is advised to contact the Environmental Protection Team in the
   Environment Directorate (Tel: 0161 737 0551).




APPLICATION No:              06/52467/OUT

APPLICANT:                   M E Hazleden

LOCATION:                    Site Of 219 Eccles Old Road And 2 Devonshire Road Salford M6
                             8JH

PROPOSAL:                    Outline application for the siting, design and means of access
                             to one four storey and one three storey linked blocks
                             comprising 11 apartments with basement level car parking

WARD:                        Weaste And Seedley


DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application site is currently occupied by a large, three storey residential property, which is
sub-divided into 8 flats. The property is bounded on all sides by residential properties, including a


                                                 44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


terrace of three storey properties to the west and three storey block of flats to the east. There is
currently an area of hardstanding on site that is capable of accommodating 4 cars however the
spaces are not formally laid out. There are on street car parking restrictions with resident‟s only
car parking being permitted along the lower section of Devonshire Road and there is no parking
on Eccles Old Road.

This application is for the demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of 2 blocks, block A,
a four storey building that fronts onto Eccles Old Road and block B, a 3 storey block to the rear of
block A, which would be linked at first and second floor by a glazed corridor. The two blocks would
house 11, two bed, residential apartments. 11 car parking spaces, including 1 suitable for use by
disabled persons, would provided in an underground car park, which would be accessed off
Devonshire Road. The applicant is seeking permission for the siting, design and means of access
to the site. The external appearance of the building and landscaping details have been reserved
at this stage.

CONSULTATIONS

Environment Agency – No comments to date
Director of Environmental Services – No objections providing a number of conditions are attached
relating to noise and ground contamination
United Utilities – No objections in principle

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on the 13th of April 2006.

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       Flats 9 to 24 Regina Court, St Georges Crescent
       Flats 1 to 12 Tiverton House, Devon Close
       Flats 1 to 4, 219 Eccles Old Road
       221 to 225 (odd) Eccles Old Road
       221a and 221b Eccles Old Road
       Flats 1 to 7, 225 Eccles Old Road
       2, 2a, 4, 5 and 6 Devonshire Road
       2 Preston Close
       92 Half Edge Lane
       23 St Georges Crescent

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 8 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity, including 1
letter from the Reclaiming Our Community residents association which has 95 members. The
following issues have been raised:-

       Inadequate car parking provision
       Loss of privacy
       Increased noise pollution
       Loss of light


                                                  45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


       The proposed building would be out of character with the area

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DP3 Quality in New Development

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
                DEV1 – Development Criteria
                DEV2 – Good Design
                DEV4 – Design and Crime
                T13 – Car Parking
                H6 and H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments

DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
                DES1 – Respecting Context
                DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
                DES11 – Design and Crime
                A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
                ST11 - Location of New Development
                H8 - Open Space Provision Within New Housing Development

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of the residential
development, the impact of the development on the amenity of the area, neighbouring residents
and the amenity provisions for future occupiers and whether the proposed level of car parking is
sufficient. I shall deal with each of these issues in turn.

Principle of development

Policy DP1 seeks to ensure that development makes the most efficient use of land.

Policy H1 of the adopted and Draft Replacement plan state that the Council will endeavour to
ensure that the city‟s housing stock is able to meet the housing requirements of all groups within
Salford.

Policy ST11 of the Draft Replacement Plan advocates a sequential approach to development with
sites involving the reuse and conversion of existing buildings been the preferred location of
development, followed by previously developed land with Greenfield sites last.




                                               46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


The application site is currently occupied by a large residential property, which is sub-divided into
8 flats. The building does not have any architectural merit that would warrant its retention and
consequently I do not have any objections to its demolition.

Given the current use of the site for residential purposes and the fact that the wider area is
predominantly residential I do not have any objections to the redevelopment of the site for
residential purposes.

Design

Adopted Policy DEV2 states that planning permission will not normally be granted unless the
Council is satisfied with the quality of the design and the appearance of the development.

Draft Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the
character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this
policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings
and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.

In order to allow an assessment of the design of the proposed building to be undertaken the
applicant has submitted details of the proposed scale and massing of the building together with
the proposed floor plans. The details submitted show the proposed development as having a
scale and massing comparable to the existing building and that of neighbouring properties, in
particular 221 Eccles Old Road. The “elevational drawings” suggest a modern design however
the full details of external appearance are not given as the detailed design of the external
appearance will be considered at reserved matters stage. There are a variety of architectural
styles present within the vicinity of the site and consequently, should a modern being be
proposed, I would consider this to be acceptable in design terms.

Amenity

Adopted Policy DEV1 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 location of
the proposed development, including its relationship to existing and proposed land uses and the
impact on neighbouring residents.

Policy DES7 states that development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity
of the occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.

The occupants of 4 Devonshire Road would not, in my opinion, experience a reduction in the
residential amenity they can reasonably expect to enjoy for two reasons. Firstly as the property at
4 Devonshire Road does not have any habitable room windows in the gable end and secondly as
the scale and massing of the block B, which would run along the common boundary between the
application site and 4 Devonshire, is such that it would not, in my opinion form an overbearing
structure that would overshadow the property at 4 Devonshire Road as it is just 0.5m taller and
1.5m closer to the boundary than the existing block that runs along the boundary between the two
properties.

The occupants of 221 Eccles Old Road would not experience a reduction in the residential
amenity they can reasonably expect to enjoy either as they do of have any habitable room


                                                 47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


windows in the gable end of their property and block A, which would be located adjacent to the
boundary with 221 Eccles Old Road, would have an almost identical relationship to 221 as the
original building does, just being set 0.7m closer to 221 than the existing building. Block A would
be 2m taller than the existing building however this increase in height would not in my opinion
have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity those at 221 Eccles Old Road currently
enjoy as the footprint of the proposed block is such that it would not run along the garden area of
221 Eccles Old Road, nor would it project beyond any habitable room windows in the rear
elevation of 221 Eccles Old Road, unlike the existing buildings present on site.

Policy DES7 also requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory
level of amenity.

Future occupants of the proposed dwellings would be provided with a reasonable amount of
useable amenity space as a lawned area of 18m by 5.5m would be provided.

Overall, I would not consider the proposal to have a detrimental impact on the privacy or outlook of
the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings or the future occupants of the proposal and therefore the
proposed development is in accordance with Adopted Policy DEV 1 and Draft Policy DES 7.




Access

Adopted Policy T13 states that the Council will ensure that adequate parking and servicing is
provided to meet the needs of new development, in accordance with the Council‟s standards.

Draft Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists
and motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council‟s maximum standards. It also states that the
maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.

There would be a total of 11 car parking spaces, including 1 that is suitable for use by disabled
persons provided in a basement car park. In the light of national policy stance, which seeks to
encourage more sustainable forms of travel, I am of the opinion that this level of car parking is
adequate for the 11 apartments proposed.

The proposed access and car parking layout are acceptable to highways and therefore I do not
have any objections to the proposed development on highway safety grounds.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential purpose
is acceptable. I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of both the
Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs and there are no material considerations
that outweigh this finding. I therefore recommend that the application be approved


RECOMMENDATION:




                                                 48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


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:

   - external appearance

   - landscaping

3. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a preliminary risk
   assessment on the potential for on site contamination has been undertaken and agreed by the
   Local Planning Authority. If the preliminary risk assessment identifies potential contamination
   a detailed intrusive site investigation then prior to the commencement of development, the
   developer shall submit a site investigation report for the approval of the Local Planning
   Authority. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of contamination
   and ground gases on the site and its implications on the risk to human health and controlled
   water receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA. The
   investigation shall also address the health and safety of the site workers, also nearby persons,
   building structures and services, landscaping schemes, final users on the site and the
   environmental pollution in ground water. The sampling and analytical strategy shall be
   approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of the survey, and
   recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report shall be
   implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site. A site completion report
   including details of post remediation ground conditions for the site shall be completed and
   submitted to the Local Planning Authority prior to occupation of the site.

4. Prior to the commencement of the development an assessment of road traffic noise likely to
   affect the application site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
   Authority. This assessment should follow PPG24 guidelines towards assessing the noise from
   the surrounding road network including Eccles Old Road. The assessment shall identify all
   noise attenuation measures and alternative methods of ventilation required to reduce the
   impact of noise on the residential properties on site and achieve the requirements of BS8233
   for internal noise levels. The approved measures shall be implemented in full prior to the first
   occupation of any of the apartments hereby approved and retained thereafter.


5. The finished floor levels shall be 300mm above adjacent road level unless otherwise agreed in
   writing by the Local Planning Authority.


(Reasons)


1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91



                                                49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters

3. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

4. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

5. To reduce the risk of flooding




APPLICATION No:              06/52482/FUL

APPLICANT:                   North West Energy Ltd

LOCATION:                    Land To Rear Of 189 Eccles Old Road Salford M6 8HA

PROPOSAL:                    Erection of a two storey extension to existing incinerator to
                             provide storage of waste bins

WARD:                        Weaste And Seedley



At the meeting of the Panel held on 1st June 2006 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.

My previous observations are set out below:


ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS

Since writing of the original report 2 further letters of objection have been received, one of which is
from the Reclaiming Our Community Residents Association, these raise the following concerns:

       The existing incinerator creates smoke, smell and noise.
       The proposed site for the building is inappropriate and would be an eyesore.
       Would be detrimental to both business and local people.
       There are other sites that would accommodate such a facility.




                                                  50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


A letter of objection has been received from Councillor Ainsworth. His points are summarised
below in italics and their response is below.

1. Background –
    The nature of the fenestration shown on the east elevation of the outrigger to no 189 Eccles
    Old Road is incorrect.
    The scale indicated on the submission drawings is incorrect.
    The width of the proposed extension is dimensioned on the submitted drawings, and reported
    as 13.94 metres, it scales however at a larger distance.
    The submitted site plan fails to provide an accurate representation of the proposals for the
    whole of the plot on which it is sited, the associated access and egress arrangements and an
    accurate representation of adjacent structures including the siting of the Post Graduate
    Centre.
    The datum for the suggested 6 metre height of the proposed extension referred to in the report
    is unclear as is the actual height in relation to the adjacent shops and residential property.
    The height from the hospital car park (east) elevation scaled from submitted drawings is c 6.4
    metres. The indicative drawing of the northern elevation of the proposed extension clearly
    indicates that there is a significant levels difference, scaled at c 1 metre between the apparent
    heights of the west and east (higher) elevation of the proposed extension.
    The boundary division fencing between the site and 191 Eccles Old Road follows a straight
    line and not the „kinked‟ line shown on the site plan.
    There is no line and level drawing.
    There is no detail provided of the proposed boundary extent or detailing.

The door and window next to each other and the window on its own shown on the east elevation
of the outrigger to No.189 should be reversed. The 1:100 scale is correct and the width of the
proposed extension scales to approximately 13.9 metres.

The ground level slopes down slightly from the east to the west, this is shown on the proposed
north elevation, subsequently, the east elevation of the proposed extension has a height of 6.0
metres and the west elevation has a height of 6.7 metres.

Given the use of Pyracantha as a screening mechanism it is not considered necessary to
additionally provide details of the boundary treatment.



2. Point of Clarification –
It is assumed that the owner of the plot on which the proposed extension is to be sited, is the same
as the owner of no.189 Eccles Old Road and that the title of the land/property involved includes
the unmade (former) passage, running adjacent to the northern boundary of the existing
incinerator building.

Certificate B of the application form has been completed and notice served. Additionally the
applicant/agent has notified the Hospital Trust of the proposal.

3. Response to report comments on consultation
There have been periodic smoke emissions from the open vents located on the north elevation of
the existing storage building. Informal discussion with the Environment Agency suggests the


                                                 51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


phenomenon may have been in consequence of the storage area filling with heavy smoke during
periods of maintenance of the incinerator plant. The open nature of the storage area and the
proposed location of large natural ventilation grilles in the western elevation suggest there to be
the possible risk of future repeat of past instances of smoke/noise emission via the vents. It would
appear reasonable to request review of the prospect of ventilation of the installation being achieve
by appropriately (roof) sited mechanical means with associated acoustic performance
safeguarded imposed on the design of the vents. There should be sufficient space and
maintenance to ensure that the dust/deposits that collect on the vents are regularly cleansed.

No ventilation is proposed on the north elevation facing residential properties. Ventilation
proposed on the western elevation would not face residential properties.

4. Response to report appraisal
The need for the building is a consequence of legislative change. The consequential implications
are either that the present operational arrangements to not accord with legislative requirements or
the fact that the incinerator is presently achieving its operational efficiency limit means that the
total extent of proposed storage space required is not in fact the minimum required. The impact of
legislative changes appears to have been a fundamental determinant of the acceptability of the
proposal in principle.
No detail of the internal layout/storage arrangement has been submitted nor any evidence
provided that the total capacity of storage proposed is in the minimum required to meet
operational requirements.

The application proposes the storage extension of an existing incinerator, the principle is thus
already accepted.

5. Proposed conditions
The proposed condition ensuring that „no further waste be accepted or disposed of from the site‟
does not in fact stipulate any specified tonnage figures and might therefore be deemed to be
unenforceable. Further conditions are proposed in section 13.

It is not considered reasonable to attach a tonnage figure to any planning condition.


6. Impact of UDP Policies SC9 and EHC1
The relevance of these policies is questioned since neither the proposal itself nor the Incineration
Plant it serves provide or are required to support/service, any healthcare facility. The
plant/proposed storage is a commercially operated Incinerator, servicing hospitals and other
facilities across the North West, with operational arrangement independent of the Health Trust
which has a property interest in it. There exists a separate gas fired boiler plant apparently
capable of meeting the heating needs of Hope Hospital – which it is believed it does adequately
during the regular periods of „down‟/servicing time of the incinerator – the heat output of which is
used as substitute for, and not supplement to, the boiler output capacity.

Whilst not directly forming health care provision the incinerator forms a support service for
hospitals.

7. Factual (in) accuracy



                                                52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


The statement that „the habitable room windows of No.189 are restricted to the side elevation‟ is
factually inaccurate. The submitted drawings correctly show the fenestration on the main rear
elevation, facing and at a distance of 11.2 metres form the north gable of the proposed extension.
The usual overlooking distance of 13 metres could not be achieved. The statement regarding the
shadowline is also questioned, triangulation based on the usual standard sun inclination suggests
a significantly greater shadow line impact on adjacent property.

On further inspection, it is noted that although currently boarded up the window shown on the
block plan in the rear elevation of No.189 could serve a habitable room. This window is situated
some 11 metres from the proposal. The overlooking distance of 13 metres referred to relates to
householder guidance and given the nature of the site being currently overshadowed by the
existing incinerator building a distance of 11 metres is considered acceptable in this instance.

8. The proposal does not comply with replacement UDP policy ECH4 and risks compromising
hospital design quality by virtue of it constituting ad hoc development the alternative possible
configurations for which have not been fully appraised.
ECH4 requires all development proposals relating to the hospital site to be set in the context of an
approved masterplan. The proposals are not shown on any approved masterplan and do not form
not part of any presently declared coordinated programme of development. There has been no
apparent liaison in respect of the proposal between the Hospital Trust and with the appointed PFI
team responsible for progressing hospital redevelopment proposals. There appears to have been
no appraisal of the potential combined design impact of the PFI and Incinerator storage proposals
on each other or of the possibility of implementing a unified design/single building to
accommodate the respective proposals. This situation risks running contrary to achievement of
the high quality of design that the replacement UDP seeks to promote.
Similarly the Hospital Trust have recently declared that there has been no request by the
Operator/applicant to review the possibility of extension of the present storage eastward within
the present hospital site (over present hardstanding). Whilst the applicants have advised (me)
that they have not considered such option because of the siting of subterranean oil storage tanks
(relating to former boiler arrangements), separate advice suggests that as the boiler has now
been converted to gas operation these tanks are in fact redundant.

The design of the proposal matches that of the existing incinerator building and would therefore
blend in well with the existing site. Should the applicant seek to extend the incinerator to the east
this would create further issues such as the loss of car parking spaces.

9. There has been insufficient information provided to enable both full assessment of the
environmental impact of the proposals and the justification for the scale of them.
There has been no explanation of why for operational reasons it is necessary for the site to
accommodate a storage capacity of a believed c 23 tons of waste when the licensed rate of
incineration is a maximum of 1 ton/hour and the maximum period when there is restriction on
delivery of waste to the site is 9 hours (between 10pm and 7 am).

The need for the proposed extension is discussed within the main report below.

10. The proposal appears to present a contradiction with the requirements of DES7, Aim 4 and
ST8 of the replacement UDP.
In terms of overlooking distance, in the context of the relative height of the proposal, the building is
within the 45 degree angle of vision from side windows of the residential accommodation over 189


                                                  53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


and 191 Eccles Old Road. The distance from the outrigger elevation of 189 is significantly less
than that required to achieve a satisfactory gable overlooking distance should at some future date
there be a proposal for a new window to be positioned in the rear elevation. The proposal appears
to prejudice the achievement of present/future overlooking distances.
There is no apparent evidence that the suggested planting of pyracantha around the perimeters of
the proposed building will compensate in greening or air quality terms for the loss of trees that the
proposal involves and no evidence, that there will be sufficient space and access for such planting
to be capable of being adequately maintained/trained.
The proposal will result in there being no provision for the off highway storage of waste generated
by the commercial activity of the premises at 189 Eccles Old Road and no apparent improvement
proposed of the present unsatisfactory environmental quality of the north and east site
boundaries.
There is no improvement proposed in the security or environmental condition of the derelict and
unkempt passageway (to Park Place) to the rear of 191-195 Eccles Old Road.

The overlooking distances referred to relate to householder extensions. The existing residential
property above No.189 Eccles Old Road has a number of windows situated in the east elevation.
Should planning permission be sought in the future for the insertion of a window in the rear
elevation it would be apparent that a secondary source of light is available within the east
elevation.

The trees that currently exist on the site are self-seeded and are not outstanding specimens, the
location of the trees to the rear of properties within Eccles Old Road ensures that they are not
visually significant. The purpose of the pyracantha is as a screening mechanism and not as a
substitute for air quality.

11. The proposal risks having an adverse impact on the future sustainability of the adjacent
neighbourhood centre (in contraction of Aim 5 of the replacement UDP) and realisation of the
stated objectives of revised UDP policy S2.
The proposal appears to require use of all the available land within the curtilage of 189 Eccles Old
Road leaving no/insufficient land available for eg the off road storage of refuse generated by
(continuing) future commercial use of 189, the future possibility of construction of a turning head
(as a continuation of the unsatisfactory conditions of the unmade road adjacent to the gable of
189) for service deliveries and parking (of staff and any occupiers of residential flat(s) over) and
no prospect for the provision of any amenity space for the existing or future commercial and
residential occupiers of no 189 or its future replacement. It should be noted that in the
regeneration proposals for commercial property fronting Langworthy Road considerable public
funding is being utilised to ensure the provision of adequate rear servicing facilities in the interests
of sustainability of the local facilities.

Policy S2 of the Draft Replacement UDP seeks to protect and enhance town and neighbourhood
centres, and their primary retail function, and therefore new retail and leisure development within
them will be supported. The policy relates to planning permission for retail and leisure
development within town and neighbourhood centres. The proposal does not fall within retail or
leisure development and this policy does not therefore apply.

12. The proposal itself appears on information provided to constitute unsustainable development,
contrary to the objectives of the replacement UDP.



                                                  54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


The operators /applicants have advised that they propose to lease the land on which the
extension is proposed for a period (undeclared) equivalent to the term to expiry of their present
lease of the incinerator plant (from the Hospital Trust). This situation of separate
ownerships/lease arrangements determines that on expiry of respective lease arrangements
there will not be a plant and storage facility arrangement under one ownership with the
guaranteed capability of viable operation.
Appraisal of the proposal appears to have been undertaken on the basis of definition of the land
involved as being „brownfield‟. Given however that any former built development appears to have
been subsumed into what is now a tree covered, if litter strewn, plot it would appear to be capable
of being designated as „greenfield‟ adopting the definition as outlined in PPG3. In turn such
designation would imply that the sequential test policy of the replacement UDP would accord
greater locational preference for the proposed extension to the adjacent developed/ brownfield
element of the existing hospital precinct.

As advised above, the extension of the incinerator to the east would create further issues such as
the loss of car parking.

13. Condition Request
In the event of Panel being minded to approve the proposal it is requested that any approval be
conditioned as follows:
    1. Conditions specifying respectively the maximum approved storage capacity (in tons) and
        safeguarding against future application for increase in the licensed incineration capacity.
        (as item of the background paper above)

It is not considered reasonable to attach a tonnage figure to any planning condition.

   2. Condition requiring either the preferable removal of existing and proposed natural
      ventilation arrangements (particularly on the north and west elevations) and substitution
      with a system of mechanical ventilation (with associated acoustic performance safeguard)
      or acoustic and emission control performance safeguard in respect of the
      existing/proposed ventilation grilles with the additional safeguard of a specified periodic
      cleansing requirement– all as the background paper above.

No ventilation is proposed on the north elevation facing residential properties.

   3. Condition requiring the renovation (to standards approved by the Director…), making
      secure (from public access) and future maintenance of the passageway to the rear of 191
      –195 Eccles Old Road which provides the means of access/egress to the doors/stairwell
      shown on the submitted plans.

The proposal would not impact upon the passageway to the rear of 191-195.

   4. Condition requiring the implementation of approved proposals for the treatment of the
      residual area of the plot of land on which the extension is proposed (ie to the north of the
      proposed extension and the south/at the head of the passage to the side of 189 Eccles Old
      road) – such proposal to incorporate satisfactory arrangements for the off highway storage
      of refuse generated by the occupation(s) of 189 Eccles Old Road

The space surrounding the proposed extension is limited and screening would be put in place.


                                                55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


.
    5. Condition requiring clear definition, specification and approval of boundary treatments,
       site works and landscaping areas to be provided as part of the proposals for agreement
       prior to the commencement of the development.

Given the use of Pyracantha as a screening mechanism it is not considered necessary to
additionally provide details of the boundary treatment.

    6. (possible) commuted sum, or direct provision, in respect of replacement tree planting –
       preferably to be sited in liaison with local residents

This would not be reasonable given that the existing trees on the site are self-seeded and the
proposal would be screened by planting.

    7. (possible) condition requiring the installation of an appropriate approved
       scheme of external security lighting the detail of which shall be agreed with the
       Architectural Liaison Officer (of GMP) and the residents/occupiers of the adjacent terrace
       (185-193 Eccles Old Road).

It has already been recommended that a condition ensuring that no floodlighting be installed until
details have been submitted and approved be attached to any planning consent, a further
condition relating to external lighting would not be reasonable

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The currently vacant site is situated to the rear (south) of No.189 Eccles Old Road, this part of
Eccles Old Road is characterised by commercial properties at ground floor level with a number of
independent residential units at first floor level. A hospital car park sits to the east of the site set at
a slightly higher level and a further car park to the rear of Nos.189-195 Eccles Old Road bounds
the site to the west by a 2.0 metre fence.

The proposed extension would be situated on the northern elevation of the existing incinerator
and would measure 13.94 metres wide and 14.85 metres deep with a maximum height of 6.0
metres.

The Hospital Trust has verbally confirmed that they are aware of the application and have no
objection to the proposed extension in principle.

SITE HISTORY

05/51701/FUL – Erection of a two-storey extension to existing incinerator to provide storage of
waste bins prior to incineration – this application was withdrawn.

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – Comments advise that the site is immediately adjacent to
residential/commercial properties although a Council tax record check indicates that only 189
Eccles Old Road is currently registered for residential use above the commercial property. The



                                                    56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


proximity of residential and commercial uses will mean that any floodlighting required will have to
be considerately installed and correctly aimed, a condition to this effect is recommended.

The site is in a location where previous buildings have existed although there is uncertainty as to
their use. An informative relating to ground contamination is recommended.

The site has been subject to recent complaints relating to smoke emissions and possibly dust
emissions, however, this is in relation to the incinerator/boiler plant as opposed to the storage
facility as applied for via this permission.

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on the 13th April 2006 and 27th April 2006.

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       3 and 13 Bindloss Avenue
       29 Preston Avenue
       Capital Planning, Hope Hospital, Worthington House, Scott Lane
       Bonruss Ltd, Development Company, Brgher House, Kirkcudbright
       Frank Rifkin Post Graduate Medical Centre, Hope Hospital
       Worthington House, Scott Lane
       Flats 1 – 6 Honiton House
       Block 7, Westminster House
       Westminster House
       Flats 1 and 2, 209 Eccles Old Road
       Flats 1 – 9, 256 Eccles Old Road
       Flat above 189, Flat 189, 189, 191A, 191, 193A, 193, 195, 195A, Ground floor 195, 197A,
       197, 199, 201, 203, 254, 256, 258 Eccles Old Road.

REPRESENTATIONS

31 letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of neighbouring properties, 2 are
from the same objector. The objection letters raise the following concerns:

   The existing plant creates noise and air pollution.
   The waste is sealed in plastic bags and when plastic burns it gives off carcinogenic emissions,
   these emissions are a health hazard.
   The proposal would put an increased burden on the infrastructure.
   The area has one of the highest rates of bronchial/lung disease in the country.
   The proposal would be enormous for the plot size and would overshadow neighbouring
   properties.
   The extension would lead to the continued use of the plant.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

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


                                                57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


                       DEV3 – Alterations/Extensions.
                       SC1 – Provision of Social and Community Facilities.
                       SC9 – Health Care Facilities.

DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None.
Other policies:         DES1 – Respecting Context.
                        DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours.
                        EHC1 – Provision and Improvement of Health and Community Facilities.
                        EHC4 – Hope Hospital.

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The key issues to be considered in the determination of this application are the following:

   Is the proposal acceptable in principle?
   Would the design of the proposal be acceptable?
   Would the proposal cause harm to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers?

Is the proposal acceptable in principle?

The need for the proposed storage building arises as a result of legislative changes in the
management of clinical waste, its handling and transportation for disposal. Previously 1 ton of
waste could be stored or transported in 10 of the 1500 litre containers, 25 of the 770 litre
containers will now be required to store the same volume of waste. Historically 1500 litre
containers were used for optimal bulk movement, at this time the hospital had their own 770 litre
containers that were filled on the ward and decanted by means of hydraulic tippers into the 1500
litre containers. The use of a new solution that involves using the same bin on the ward that is
then also used to transport the waste to the disposal site without the need for decanting
necessitates using the 770 litre containers and the current storage area at the site is not sufficient
to cope with the additional number of containers. The possibility of installing additional
mezzanine floors within the existing building has been investigated but the applicants have
concluded that this is not practical from either an engineering or space point of view.

The proposal represents the increase in storage space for the incinerator and not an increase in
operational capacity, there would be no increase in volumes of waste accepted at or disposed
from the site. In light of the above it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in principle and
a condition would be attached to any planning consent ensuring that no further waste be accepted
or disposed of from the site.

Would the design of the proposal be acceptable?

Policy SC9 of the adopted UDP considers that the City Council will encourage the safeguarding,
maintenance, and improvement of health care provision throughout the City. Policy EHC1 of the
Draft Replacement UDP states that planning permission will be granted for the provision of
improvements to existing health facilities provided that the development would not have an
unacceptable impact on residential amenity, character and environmental quality.



                                                 58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


The proposed extension matches the existing incinerator in terms of form, scale and design and
has been reduced in height by 1.1 metres from the previously withdrawn application to reduce the
visual impact. The proposed use of Pyracantha on the north, east and west elevations would
further reduce the visual impact of the structure by screening it, Pyracantha being a tough,
evergreen shrub that is ideal for training on walls. A condition would be attached to any planning
consent requiring further details to be submitted in relation to the screening and relating to the use
of matching materials to ensure that the proposal blends in well with the existing incinerator.

The design of the proposal is acceptable.

Would the proposal cause harm to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers?

Policy DES7 of the Draft Replacement UDP considers that all new development will be required to
provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity, development will not be permitted
where it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other
developments.

The extension to the rear of 189 is accurately represented on the proposed ground floor plan and
at its closest point this property would be situated 1.8 metres from the proposed extension. The
proposed extension sits to the north of the existing structure and therefore any shadow cast would
largely be subsumed by that caused by the existing incinerator building and furthermore, the
habitable room windows of No.189 are restricted to the side elevations.

The applicant seeks consent for an extension to the existing incinerator to provide additional
storage space, the operational capacity of the incinerator would not increase and the proposal
would not therefore be detrimental to residential amenity in terms of increased volumes of traffic
or noise and air pollution.

The proposal would be detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring properties.

VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT

The height of the extension has been reduced 1.1 metres from the previously withdrawn
application (reference: 05/51701/FUL). The agent has provided written confirmation that the
extension would be screened by way of Pyracantha to reduce the visual impact of the proposal.

CONCLUSION

The proposal would not compromise the aims and objectives of the relevant policies contained
within the development plan and there are no material planning considerations that would justify a
refusal of consent.


RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions




                                                 59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the
   date of this permission.

2. During the first available planting season following the expiry of a period of 3 months from the
   commencement of the development hereby approved a screen of shrubs shall be planted in
   accordance with a scheme which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
   Planning Authority before any development is commenced. The screen shall be planted
   along the north, east and west elevations of the development. The screen when planted shall
   be maintained in accordance with the approved scheme, any shrubs dying within 5 years of
   planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

3. 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 Local Planning Authority.

4. No floodlighting shall be installed until it is in acordance with a Scheme which has been
   submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Housing and Planning. Such scheme
   to include details of the siting, design and output of the lighting and details of supporting
   structures.

5. There must be no increase in volumes of waste accepted at or disposed at the site.


Reason(s)

1. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act
    1990.

2. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of
    Salford Unitary Development Plan.


3. In the interest of amenity in accordance with Policy DEV1 of the adopted City of Salford
   Unitary Development Plan and Policy DES7 of the Draft Replacement Unitary Development
   Plan.

4. In the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy DEV1 of the adopted City of Salford
   Unitary Development Plan and Policy DES7 of the Draft Replacement Unitary Development
   Plan.

5. In the interest of amenity in accordance with Policy DEV1 of the adopted City of Salford
   Unitary Development Plan and Policy DES7 of the Draft Replacement Unitary Development
   Plan.


Note(s) for Applicant


1. The responsibility to properly address contaminated land issues, including safe development,


                                                60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


   irrespective of any action taken by this authority, lies with the owner/developer of the site. The
   applicant/developer is requested to contact the Council's Environmental Protection Unit as
   soon as is practicable should contamination be encountered during development of the site.
   Historical map searches have identified a former potentially contaminative use (i.e. may be a
   former industrial use, an infilled feature such as a pond etc.) that may effect the development
   of the site. You need to ensure that your builder and the building control officer dealing with
   the developer are aware of this so that appropriate precautions can be taken to protect the
   developer, the public, the environment and the future occupants from contamination issues.

   For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Advisory, the
   applicant/developer is advised to contact the Environmental Protection Team in the
   Environment Directorate (Tel: 0161 737 0551).



APPLICATION No:             06/52188/FUL

APPLICANT:                  Mr And Mrs Palmer

LOCATION:                   Part Of Garden Area At Side Of 7 Cavendish Road Worsley M28
                            2TQ

PROPOSAL:                   Demolition of detached garage, erection of a detached dwelling
                            and 2.1m high garden wall between the site and 7 Cavendish
                            Road

WARD:                       Worsley



DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to land to the north-west of 7 Cavendish Road and to the south of Broad
Oak Road, Worsley. The land currently forms part of the garden area of 7 Cavendish Road. This
application seeks consent to erect a new detached dwelling and a 2.1m garden wall to separate
the proposed dwelling and 7 Cavendish Road.

The surrounding area is predominantly residential and characterised by large detached and semi
detached Victorian and Edwardian dwellings with spacious gardens. The site is bounded to the
north by Broad Oak Road. There are 2 cherries, mature bushes (2m) and a 1.8m high wooden
fences along this elevation. In addition there is a mature ash tree situated at the garden of 14
Longley Drive which is in close proximity along this elevation. The ash is protected under TPO
109 (T28).

To the west are the rear gardens of 14 Longley Drive, with 12 Longley Drive to the south-west.
There are 6m high mature hedges along the common boundary between the site and these
properties. To the south, the site is bounded by the rear gardens of 7 Cavendish Road, the
proposed 2.1m garden wall would be placed along the boundary of the application site and 7
Cavendish Road.


                                                61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006




There are also a six hollies and one cherry set back from the edge of Broad Oak Road by 13m
which are required to be removed in order to accommodate the proposed dwelling. These trees
are not protected by tree preservation order.

The proposed dwelling would measure 7.1m to the ridge and 4.8m to the eaves. The footprint
measures 9.5m (l) X 12.2m (w) at its largest points. It would be orientated north south with the
property set back 9.3m from Broad Oak Road. It would have an integral garage at the front and
the first floor element of the proposed dwelling would also include a rear dormer. The dwelling
would be constructed in brick with stone cills and a slate roof.

The vehicular access of the proposed dwelling would be provided by the existing driveway of the
rear garage at 7 Cavendish Road, which would be demolished to accommodate the proposed
dwelling.

The proposed screen wall would be set back 9.7m from the Broad Oak Road elevation. It would
measure 25m in length, 2.1m in height and it would be situated 1m from the application dwelling
and 2m from 7 Cavendish Road as it closest point. The wall would be constructed of brick with
stone coping.

SITE HISTORY

There are three relevant planning applications relating to the application site.

In November 2003, planning permission was refused for the erection of a detached dwelling
house (03/47035/FUL). The reason for refusal was because by its size and siting it would result in
a loss of privacy to the neighbouring residents and the proposed development would be out of
character with the surrounding area because of its siting beyond the established building line to
the detriment of the openness of Broad Oak Park.

In July 1997, planning permission was granted for the erection of detached garage and an
accessway (97/36573/HH).

In June 1996, planning permission was granted for the erection of single storey side extension at
7 Cavendish Road to provide garage area and two-storey rear extension to provide
kitchen/breakfast/utility room on ground floor and enlarged bedroom area on first floor and
erection of porch at rear (96/35213/HH).


CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – no objection, advice given.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       15,17,18,19,21,23,25,27,29,31 Broad Oak Road
       10,12,14 Longley Drive


                                                 62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


       5 Cavendish Road

REPRESENTATIONS

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

Size and Siting contrary to the character of the neighbouring properties
Overlooking
Overbearing
Loss of amenity
Over development
Damage to the historic ash tree
No shortage of properties already available in the area
Additional cars – impact on Broad Oak Road
The proposal is within Conservation Area
The proposal did not overcome the previous reason for refusal
Would set a Precedent
On-Street car parking

Councillor Macdonald requested that it is determined by the Planning and Transportation
Regulatory Panel due to the potential impact to the neighbouring residents.


REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies:                 DP1 – Economy in the use of Land and Buildings
                        DP3 – Quality in New Development
                        SD1 - The North West Metropolitan Area


UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:
Other policies:         DEV1 - Development Criteria,
                        DEV2 – Good Design,
                        H1 Meeting Housing Needs,
                        T13 Car Parking
                        EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands

DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies:         DES1 Respecting Context,
                        DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours,
                        H1 Provision of New Housing Development,
                        A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Development
                        EN10 Protected Trees


                                               63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006




PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of the residential
development, the impact of the development on the amenity of the area, neighbouring residents
and the amenity provisions for future occupiers, the impact of the car parking and the impact of
trees within the site and along the boundary of Broad Oak Road.


Principle of residential development

Policy DP1 seeks to ensure that development makes the most efficient use of land. Policies H1 of
the Adopted and Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plans also seek to ensure that the
City‟s housing stock is able to meet the requirements of all groups within Salford by providing a
wide range of accommodation.

Policy SD1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy states that development should be focused within the
North-West Metropolitan Area, which includes Salford. Paragraph 5.18 of PPG13 states: „the
Government is committed to maximising the re-use of previously-developed land and the
conversion of existing buildings to promote regeneration and minimise the amount of greenfield
land being taken for development‟. This approach is reiterated in PPG3 with regard to Housing.
The proposal is within the curtilage of an existing residential property. This falls under the
definition of previous-developed (brownfield) land, as set out in Annex C of PPG3. Given that the
character of the area is predominantly residential and the site is classed as previously developed
land, I am satisfied that the general principle of residential development in this location is
acceptable.

Impact of the development on the amenity of the area and neighbouring residents

Policy DEV1 seeks to ensure good quality environment and identifies a number of issues that
should be taken into account when determining applications. It requires development to respond
to its physical context, respect the positive character of its surrounding, and contribute towards
local identity and distinctiveness. DEV1 also seeks to ensure that appropriate access and parking
is provided within the curtilage of the site. Draft Policy DES1 re-iterates this.

Regional Spatial Strategy DP 3 and the Councils Adopted Policy DEV2 state that planning
permission will not normally be granted unless the Council is satisfied with the quality of the
design and the appearance of the development.

Policy DES7 of the Draft Replacement UDP states that development will not be permitted where it
would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers of other developments in
terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout.

Council guidance normally requires that minimum separation distances of 21m should be
maintained between facing habitable room windows and 13 metres should be maintained
between two-storey gable elevations and habitable room windows in order to prevent any
unacceptable detrimental impact in terms of overlooking and the proposal being overbearing.


                                               64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006




The front elevation of the proposed dwelling would be oriented to the north. There are properties
situated opposite at Broad Oak Road fronting the proposed building. This elevation would, at its
closest, maintain a minimum of 28 metres to the front of the properties on the opposite side at the
Broad Oak Road. Therefore, I consider there would be no unacceptable level of overlooking or
loss of privacy to the residents at Broad Oak Road.

There are no windows on the gable elevation of the proposed dwelling facing the rear of 14
Longley Drive and the proposed dwelling would maintain a minimum distance of 18m to the rear
habitable room windows of No 14 Longley Drive. The rear elevation of the proposal would
maintain a minimum of 25m to the rear of 12 Longley Drive. 12 Longley Drive is also set at a
sufficient angle so there would be no direct overlooking. Together with the 6m high mature
hedges along the common boundaries, I am satisfied that the proposal would not have any
unacceptable negative impact in terms of overlooking or loss of privacy to the properties at
Longley Drive.

There would be two small ground floor habitable room windows on the gable elevation of the
proposed dwelling facing to the side/rear of 7 Cavendish Road. Although the separation distance
is only approximately 8m as its closest point between the two properties, the orientation of No 7
Cavendish Road means that there would be no direct overlooking between the proposed property
and No 7 Cavendish Road. Furthermore, the proposed 2.1m garden wall would provide screening
to the ground floor of two properties as such I do not consider it would result in any overlooking or
overbearing impact for residents at No 7.

Although there would only be 5m between the proposed garden wall and the two small ground
floor habitable room windows on the gable elevation as mentioned above, given that those are
only secondary windows to the habitable room, I consider in this instance these windows are
acceptable and would not have any unacceptable detrimental impact in terms of natural lighting
and visual amenity to the future occupiers.

The 9.3m setback of the proposed property from Broad Oak Road means there would be a
generous amount of garden area situated in front of the new dwelling. Given that 7 Cavendish
Road would still retain a substantial amount of amenity space to the side and the rear of the
property, I am of the view that the proposal would retain sufficient useable amenity space to the
occupiers of 7 Cavendish Road and would provide adequate usable amenity space for the future
occupiers of the proposed dwelling.

I am satisfied that the separation distances and the relationship between the proposed dwelling
and the surrounding properties are content with the requirement by the Council. The development
would maintain sufficient distance to the neighbouring properties to provide adequate aspect to
the neighbours and future occupiers. Therefore it complies with Policies DEV1 of the Adopted
UDP and DES1 and DES 7 of the Draft Replacement Plan.

With regard to the design I consider this to be of high quality. As aforementioned, the area of
Cavendish Road, Longley Drive and Broad Oak Road is characterised by large detached and
semi detached Victorian and Edwardian dwellings, some of which are set back 8/9 metres from
the public highway which forms a strong building line along Broad Oak Road.         The use of
architectural details such as mock tudor and building materials such as stone cills for the
proposed dwelling would accord with the style of surrounding dwellings. The scale and siting of


                                                 65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


the proposed dwelling would also be commensurate with properties along Broad Oak Road. It
would also overcome the previous refusal reasons of detracting the establish building line along
Broad Oak Road as the proposed dwelling would be situated 9.3m back from the public highway
(Broad Oak Road). It would therefore retain the established building line and the openness of
Broad Oak Road, which I consider accords with draft policy DES1.

With regard to the proposed garden wall, the height and materials (brick with stone coping) would
harmonize with the surroundings and since it would not be visible from the street scene, I consider
this is acceptable. Therefore, I am of the view that the proposed scheme will satisfy the Councils
policy requirements and is in accordance with Policies DP3 of the Regional Spatial Strategy and
DEV2 of the Adopted Council UDP and DES 1 of the Draft Replacement UDP.


Car Parking and Access

Adopted Policy T13 seeks to ensure that adequate and appropriate car parking is provided where
necessary. This is reiterated in Draft Policy A10. The proposal would provide off-street parking for
future occupiers as the new dwelling would have an integral garage. Although the proposal would
result in the loss of an existing garage for No 7, I consider this is acceptable as No 7 contains
another private driveway and garage at the side of Cavendish Road which they use as the main
access and parking area. Therefore, I am satisfied the loss of a detached garage at the side/rear
garden at No 7 Cavendish Road is acceptable and would not affect the parking provision at 7
Cavendish Road or increase on-street parking along Broad Oak Road.

The access to the proposal would utilise the existing driveway for the garage and it is unlikely that
the erection of one detached dwelling would result in a significant increase in traffic and any
associated problems in the area. I do not consider the proposal would restrict access for
emergency and service vehicles and I have no highway objection in relation to this application.

As such, I am satisfied that the proposal would accord with the Adopted and Replacement Plan
policies in this instance.

Impact on trees
Adopted Policy EN7 seeks to protect the City‟s treescape and Policy EN10 of the Draft
Replacement Plan re-iterates this states that development that would result in the unacceptable
loss of trees will not be permitted.

As aforementioned, there are a number of trees within and along the boundary of the site. The
applicants have submitted a tree survey following a request from the planning officer and the
Councils‟ Arboricultural Consultant has also inspected the trees on site.

The removal of the 6 hollies and 1 cherry in the middle of the site to accommodate the dwelling is
acceptable as those trees offer minimal amenity to the area and are not worthy of protection. I
therefore would not be opposed to their removal.

One flowering cherry on the periphery of the site facing Broad Oak Road has a crown spread
radius of 5m and this could bring it within 3.6m of the lounge window on the front elevation. This
conflict with the Supplementary Planning Guidance on trees. However, the Councils‟
Arboricultural Consultant considers that this could be rectified with careful crown reduction in


                                                 66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


accordance with British Standard B.S.No.3998:1989. I have therefore attached a condition
accordingly and therefore consider that the development would not have unacceptable
detrimental impact to the flowering cherry along the boundary of the site.

Regarding the protected Ash tree (TPO 109, T28) in close periphery of the site, it would not
extend over the proposed house and there are no principle windows within 3.6m of the canopy
edge. The position of the existing garage and driveway is such that there should be no significant
effect upon the aforementioned Ash. However, the tree survey suggested that the Ash should be
carefully protected during the construction of new extension. I have therefore attached a condition
requiring that during the construction period, the tree should be surrounded by substantial fences
in accordance with British Standard BS 5839 and maintained until work is complete to prevent any
damage of the protected tree. The Council‟s Arboricultural Consultant has no objection to this
proposal.

I have also attached condition to request additional replacement planting in accordance with a
subsequently submitted landscaping scheme to be undertaken in order to comprise the loss of the
trees and ensure the amenity of the surrounding area.

In conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposal accords with the policies highlighted above
regarding trees.

Other Issues
One of the objectors is concerned that this application would set a precedent for future similar
schemes. All planning applications are however determined on their merits having due regard to
the development plan policies and other material considerations. Should this application be
approved it would not represent a precedent allowing surrounding properties to do likewise, but it
would constitute a material consideration when determining any other similar applications in the
future.

Regarding the objectors‟ concerns about the dwelling being located within Hazelhurst
Conservation Area. I have consulted the Council‟s Conservation Officer and he has confirmed
that there is no such designation at the moment.

The objectors also raised the issues about the need for this development. I consider that the
necessity for development in the local area is not material to this decision as it is down to market
forces to inform the need for new housing development. I do not consider that such concerns
warrant refusal of the application.


CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the design of the proposal is of a high standard and acceptable
within this residential context. I am also satisfied that the design and siting of the proposal would
be in keeping with the surrounding residential properties and future occupiers without
compromising the amenity enjoyed by neighbouring residents, future occupiers or the character
of the area. The proposal has overcome the previous reasons of refusal in terms of loss of privacy
and detriment of the openness of Broad Oak Road. As such I recommend that the proposal be
approved.




                                                 67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006




RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions


1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit

2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls,
   roof and garden wall of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by
   the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaking using the approved
   materials.

3. No development shall be started until all the trees within (or overhanging) the site which are
   the subject of a Tree Preservation Order, with the exception of those trees clearly shown to be
   felled on the submitted plan, have been surrounded by substantial fences. This fencing shall
   be in accordance with the recommendations of BS5839 and a specification shall be submitted
   to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall remain until all
   development is completed and no work, including any form of drainage or storage of
   materials, earth or topsoil shall take place within the perimeter of such fencing.

4. No development shall be started until the crown of the flowering cherry along Broad Oak Road
   have been carefully trimmed outside the 3.6m from the lounge window on the front elevation
   of the proposed dwelling. Such crown reduction shall be in accordance with British Standard
   B.S.No.3998:1989 (Recommendations for Tree Work).

5. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
   and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme
   shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface
   treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development
   and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any
   trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the
   Local Planning Authority.

6. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a preliminary risk
   assessment on the potential for on site contamination has been undertaken and agreed by the
   Local Planning Authority. If the preliminary risk assessment identifies potential contamination
   a detailed intrusive site investigation then prior to the commencement of development, the
   developer shall submit a site investigation report for the approval of the Local Planning
   Authority. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of contamination
   and ground gases on the site and its implications on the risk to human health and controlled
   water receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA. The
   investigation shall also address the health and safety of the site workers, also nearby persons,
   building structures and services, landscaping schemes, final users on the site and the
   environmental pollution in ground water. The sampling and analytical strategy shall be
   approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of the survey, and
   recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report shall be
   implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site. A site completion report
   including details of post remediation ground conditions for the site shall be completed and


                                                68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


   submitted to the Local Planning Authority prior to occupation of the site.

Reason(s)


1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

3. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees

4. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees

5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

6. Standard Reason R028A Public safety


Note(s) for Applicant


1. The applicant is requested to contract the Council's Environmental Protection Unit should
   unsuspected contamination be encountered during the development of the site.

2. the applicant is advised that there should be no construction work (including access and
   egress for delivery vehicles) outside of the hours 8am - 6pm Monday to Friday, 8am - 1pm
   Saturday or any Bank or Public Holiday hereby approved by the Local Planning Authority.

3. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be
   satisfied prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions
   precedent renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be
   taken by the Council.



APPLICATION No:            06/52416/OUT

APPLICANT:                 Dain Properties Ltd

LOCATION:                  Land To East Of Boat Yard Off Worsley Road Worsley

PROPOSAL:                  Demolition of existing buildings and outline planning
                           application for the development of land for residential purposes
                           to include siting, design and external appearance of 100
                           dwellings (maximum 3 storeys) and means of access

WARD:                      Worsley




                                               69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006




DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the site of the former boatyard in Worsley. The site covers an area of
1.93 hectares and is irregular in shape. It is bounded to the north by the rear of the listed terraced
cottages that front Worsley Road; to the east by the rear of houses on Drywood Avenue; to the
south by the Bridgwater Canal and to the west by the existing functioning boatyard/dry dock and
by land to the rear of the houses that front the Green some of which are also listed. The
application is submitted in outline but approval is sought for all matters except for landscaping.
The site is currently largely vacant but contains several small, old, low grade, two and single
storey, brick, wooden or prefabricated industrial buildings, stores and garages on the northern
third of the site. These existing buildings are in a poor state of repair. Until recently the lower
portion of the site closer to the canal contained a number of steel containers and was used for the
storage of scrap metal. This part of the site is now cleared though.

The Worsley Village Conservation Area borders the site on the western and northern boundaries.
The site includes Old Boat Yard Lane that is currently the only access to the site. This narrow
road also provides access to the existing working boatyard that lies to the west of the site. The
site is generally level but has a sharp drop of approximately 2m from Drywood Avenue and a more
gentle fall from the north of the site to the canal.

The scale of buildings around the site varies from the small two storey listed cottages fronting
Worsley Road to larger properties fronting the Green to the modern large detached houses on
Drywood Avenue. On the western boundary within the existing functioning dry dock there stands
a large modern two-storey building and to the south, beyond the canal are recently built three
storey apartment buildings.

There is no dominant style of building in the vicinity of the site with existing buildings ranging from
three storey apartments to small two storey terraced cottages.

The site contains a number of mature trees along the eastern boundary with Drywood Avenue
that are protected by preservation order. In addition there are many trees that lie just outside the
site but within the Conservation Area. The majority of the vegetation within the site has been
cleared recently but a number of trees remain that have been incorporated within the scheme.
These have been recently protected by a new provisional tree preservation order.

It is proposed to demolish all buildings on the site and erect a total of 100 dwellings on the site.
Vehicular access to eleven of these dwellings would be from Old Boat Yard Lane with the main
access to the site coming from The Moorings via Drywood Avenue.                 The site provides
predominantly family accommodation, either in the form of houses or three bedroomed
apartments.

The mix of dwellings is as follows:-
      54 apartments
      46 houses
A more detailed breakdown is as follows:-
      9 three-bed apartments
      45 two-bed apartments
      6 two-bed houses


                                                  70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


       6 three-bed houses
       28 four-bed houses
       6 five-bed houses

On entering the site from Old Boat Yard Lane there is a terrace of six smaller dwellings and then
as this access road penetrates deeper into the site a row of four larger properties leads on to the
cluster of four three-storey apartment buildings. As the vehicular route turns to the left to access
five further houses and beyond them the existing dry dock a pedestrian route runs directly south
to a canalside walkway. The main access from The Moorings is flanked by pairs of
semi-detached properties and the access road splits to the south, to provide access to three
dwellings that front the canal and then becomes the fully pedestrianised canalside walkway, and
to the north to a „home zone‟ cul-de-sac and to the underground parking for the apartments. All
buildings vary in height between two and three storeys. A pedestrianised extension to Old Boat
Yard Lane provides a clear pedestrian access between the apartment buildings to the canal side
walkway. Houses with front doors as well as apartment blocks would front onto the canalside
walkway. Some interface distances fall below the City Council‟s normal standards but do accord
with the design principals of „home zones‟ and the advice of the Commission for Architecture and
the Built Environment. I consider that the internal layout of the scheme is well designed and
appropriate.

The design of the buildings is contemporary. The houses though do have pitched roofs and
materials that match the local vernacular are used so that this development is compatible with its
surroundings. The use of a significant amount of render with some brickwork and timber on the
dwellings reflects materials found within the conservation area. The apartments are more
contemporary, have flat roofs and feature a greater proportion of glazing as well as some timber.
The consistent use of the same materials for the whole development links the houses to the
apartments.

Parking would be provided in a variety of ways; on drives, in integral garages within the curtilage,
in parking courts and in a large underground car park that serves the apartments.

The site lies within a five minute walk of the facilities within the centre of Worsley village. Regular
bus services stop in either direction on Worsley Road within 100m of the site entrance. There are
also frequent bus services on Barton Road that are within a few minutes walk of the site.

The application has been amended significantly since it was first submitted. These amendments
have been driven by officer concerns. These amendments have resulted in the number of
dwellings being reduced from 132 to 100, maximum storey heights reducing from four to three
storeys, fewer apartments and more houses, more family accommodation and greater separation
distances to dwellings surrounding the site.

In addition the applicant undertook community consultation on the application through a well
attended exhibition of the proposals at Worsley Courthouse that resulted in improvements to the
scheme before it was submitted to the City Council. In addition to this there have been
pre-application discussions that resulted in improvements to the scheme prior to the community
consultation.

The application is accompanied by a number of documents:-
           Supporting Planning Statement


                                                  71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


           Design Statement
           Transport Assessment
           Statement of Community Consultation
           Noise Assessment
           Arboricultural Assessment
           Environmental Impact Assessment Screening Request

SITE HISTORY

There is no planning application history that is relevant to this application but the site has been
allocated for residential development for more than 20 years in successive plan documents.

CONSULTATIONS

Worsley Village Community Association – The development is far too dense. If this site is
used for housing, the number of properties should be much reduced. Worsley village is in danger
of becoming overcrowded, its resources and amenities sorely stretched. We feel the area would
benefit from more family housing and smaller properties for residents who wish to downsize
without moving from the area and this should be paramount when deciding what is eventually built
on the site.

The design is far more suitable for a holiday resort or Salford Quays. We do not expect all new
developments to be black and white timbered houses – though these are extremely popular in the
area. Whatever is built on this land will impose itself on the Crescent and The Green that contains
listed buildings and any new development should bear this in mind. The style shown on the plans
appears to be a formula that could be used in any part of the country and it should not be beyond
the skill of an architect to design properties that would make their own statement but blend with
the already established properties. The building of any apartment will impinge on the privacy of
any house that backs onto this development.

Public transport in this area is totally inadequate to support a level of parking of just one space per
dwelling. Most families have at least two cars. Children shouldn‟t play on streets and a
playground should be provided.

The Old Boat Yard lane junction with Worsley Road has extremely poor sight lines making this a
very hazardous corner. The bulk of the traffic from this site will enter and exit via the Moorings
and Drywood Avenue. The burden of traffic would make the lives of residents of the Moorings
and Drywood Avenue untenable.

Any construction phase would cause severe problems throughout the whole area not just Worsley
village.

When the Unitary Development Plan went out to consultation it stated that the inspector did not
feel that this land was needed for housing. Bearing this in mind, the consultation document has
since been accepted by the City Council so why are we looking at building residential properties
on this land.




                                                  72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


Whilst we accept that something must be done with this unattractive piece of land it should be
taken out of commercial use and used for a much smaller development of mixed family homes
and hopefully a village hall could be built into the plan.

The planning application should be refused in its submitted form.

Director of Environmental Services – A search of historic maps reveals that the site has a
history of coal and coke working along with railway and canal side working. This indicates the
need for a full contaminated land and gas survey. The applicant has submitted a noise report that
identifies that the ambient noise level is high in this area. No further assessment of noise is
necessary.


United Utilities – No objections following discussions with the applicant.

Environment Agency – No objection in principle to the proposed development but requests that
conditions be attached regarding drainage. The issue of bats has also been raised and I have
therefore requested a bat survey from the applicant. The results of this will be reported to the
Panel.

Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Unit – Has concerns about the lack of defensible
space around the apartment blocks with all elevations of the buildings being publicly accessible.
Access to the development from the canal towpath should be prevented by preferably 2.4m high
railings.

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – No comments to make on this
application.



PUBLICITY

The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.

The following neighbour addresses were notified of both the submitted and the amended plans:

       11 to 41 The Crescent, Worsley Road
       Flats 1 and 2, 3 and 4 The Wharfside, Worsley Boatyard
       9 to 33 Northbank House, Waterside House and 2 to 24 Chandlers Row
       12 Greenside, Worsley Road
       1 to 5 The Gatehouse and 2 to 24 Stablefold
       The Queen Victoria Boat House, The Boathouse and 140 to 157 The Green
       20 to 26 Worsley Road
       1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 The Moorings
       1, 2 and 4 Sefton Drive
       33 to 43 Riding Fold Lane
       8 to 15 The Lime Kilns
       1 to 21 Drywood Avenue
       Flat 1 The Dock House, The Green


                                                73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


        Worsley Dry Docks, The Boatyard

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received a total of 44 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity on
both the submitted and amended schemes. Objections have principally been to the amount of
development, traffic problems and the height and design of the dwellings. Some residents have
pointed out that they do not object to the development in principle. Residents who have
responded to the amended plans are reiterating their previous concerns. One letter is on behalf of
all 27 occupiers of Chandlers Row. The following issues have been raised:-

   1.  The density is too high/overdevelopment.
   2.  Apartments are not in character with the area.
   3.  Too much traffic on the surrounding roads already.
   4.  Loss of light/sunlight.
   5.  As compensation for the noise and disturbance during the construction phase the ginnel to
       the rear of the cottages at The Crescent should be made up
   6. Overlooking and loss of privacy.
   7. Four-storey development is unacceptable.
   8. Damage caused during construction phase should be made good by the developers.
   9. There is no objection to residential development in principle.
   10. Local facilities such as schools and facilities for young people are inadequate to cope with
       such an increase in population.
   11. The development will overshadow listed buildings and the conservation area.
   12. Limitations should be put on traffic movements during the construction phase.

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY.

DP3 - Quality in New Development

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: H9/35 Sites for New Housing
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, H1
Meeting Housing Needs, H6 & H11 Open Space Provision, EN11 Protection and Enhancement of
Conservation Areas, EN12 Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings

DRAFT REPLACEMENT UDP POLICY

Site Specific: none
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, DES3 Design of Public Space, H1 Supply of Housing,
H8 Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development, DES2 Circulation and
Movement, DES6 – Waterside Development, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking
in New Developments, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES11 Design and Crime,
EN17A Resource Conservation, CH4 Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building, CH5
Works Within Conservation Areas

PLANNING APPRAISAL



                                                  74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the principle of the development
is acceptable, whether the amount of development is appropriate, whether the scale, massing
and design of the buildings is of sufficiently high quality in this sensitive location, whether there is
significant detrimental impact on neighbours, whether there is sufficient parking and open space
provision and whether the development has any impact on the adjacent conservation area and
listed buildings.


Principle of the Development
Policy H1 requires that an adequate supply of housing be brought forward with higher densities
being required at accessible locations such as this site. Policy H1 also requires development to
contribute toward a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area in terms of size, type, tenure
and affordability.

Policy ST11 seeks to ensure that new development is located on the most sustainable sites within
the City and that less sustainable sites are only brought forward when necessary. The policy is
based on the sequential approaches to development that are set out in national policy guidance
and policy DP1 of Regional Planning Guidance for the North-West.

The site is allocated for residential development in the adopted UDP. Policy H9/35 states that the
uses on the site are unsightly and detract from the surrounding area. It states that housing
development would considerably enhance the local environment but that the housing
development would need to be of exceptionally high quality reflecting the character of the
conservation area and exploiting the potential of a canalside setting.

It is important to note the written observations of the Inspector who undertook the public inquiry
into objections to the replacement UDP. The site had been allocated in the draft replacement
plan. The Inspector deleted the site from the housing allocation and made a number of important
observations.
          He considered that the site was too small to warrant its own community facilities
          He considered that the proposed density in the allocation of 45 dwellings per hectare
            was acceptable in the context of the national drive to make the best use of land.
          He noted that the site had been allocated for housing for more than 20 years but had
            never come forward for development. He did not consider that the site would come
            forward for development within the lifetime of the Plan and that it should therefore, for
            that reason alone, be deleted as a housing allocation.
          He did not consider it as a priority site so far as urban regeneration objectives were
            concerned.

The site is previously developed land in an accessible location close to a range of local facilities.
The site is surrounded by residential development and is currently in industrial use albeit at a level
that causes few problems to neighbours. The site has been allocated for residential development
for more than 20 years and the inspector on the UDP public inquiry only took the site out of its
residential allocation because he had no evidence that the site would be brought forward for
development within the plan period. The principle of the residential redevelopment of the site is
therefore acceptable and in accordance with national government guidance. The application
proposes a mix of dwelling types and sizes that is in accordance with policies H1 and ST11.

The Quantity/Density of Development


                                                  75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


Detached and semi-detached homes currently account for 63% of Worsley‟s housing stock. The
applicant has stated, in support of his application, that local estate agents consider that demand
for two bedroom apartments in the area is particularly high.

Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 on housing calls on local planning authorities to make the best
use of land. It states that the inefficient use of land should be avoided and that policies that place
unduly restrictive ceilings on the amount of housing that can be accommodated on a site,
irrespective of its location and the type of housing envisaged or the types of households likely to
occupy the housing should be avoided.

It goes on to state that local planning authorities should encourage development between 30 and
50 dwellings per hectare and should seek greater intensity of development at places with good
public transport accessibility such as city, town, district and local centres or around major nodes
along good quality public transport corridors.

This development is at a density of 52 dwellings per hectare. There is a good public transport
service along Worsley Road supplemented by good public transport on Barton Road that is within
easy walking distance of the site. The draft Planning Policy Statement 3 on housing calls for a
density on suburban sites such as this of between 35 and 55 dwellings per hectare. I do not
consider that the density proposed here is inappropriate.

Design, Scale and Massing
Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant planning permission unless it is
satisfied with the quality of design and the visual appearance of the development. Draft policy
DES1 states that developments will be required to respond to their physical context, respect the
positive character of the local area and contribute towards local identity and distinctiveness via a
number of factors that include the scale and size of the building, its contribution in the street scene
and the quality of the proposed materials.

Draft policy DES3 states that where development includes the provision of, or works to, public
space, that public space must be designed to:
i) Have a clear role and purpose, responding to established or proposed local economic, social,
cultural and environmental needs;
ii) Reflect and enhance the character and identity of the area;
iii) Form an integral part of, and provide an appropriate setting for, surrounding developments;
iv) Be attractive, safe, uncluttered and appropriately lit;
v) Be of an appropriate scale;
vi) Connect to established pedestrian routes and other public spaces; and
vii) Minimise, and make provision for, maintenance requirements.

Draft policy DES6 states that all new development adjacent to the Bridgewater Canal will be
required to facilitate pedestrian access to, along and where across the waterway by the provision
of; a safe and attractive waterside walkway, accessible to all and at all times of the day;
pedestrian links between the waterside walkway and other key pedestrian routes; and where
appropriate ground floor uses that generate pedestrian activity, and larger waterside spaces to
act as focal points for public activity. It also states that all built development along the waterway
will be required to; face onto the water and incorporate entrances onto the waterfront; be of the
highest standard of design, creating a positive addition to the waterside environment and
providing an attractive elevation to it; be of a scale sufficient to frame the edge of the waterside;


                                                  76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


and enhance views from, of, across and along the waterway and provide visual links to the
waterside from surrounding areas.

The scheme has been designed specifically for this site and the architects of the scheme have
sought to achieve a high quality of design that does not seek to mimic its surrounding but seeks to
respect the qualities of the adjacent conservation area through a simple palette of materials and a
contemporary treatment appropriate to its setting.

The provision of the new public spaces on the site between the apartment buildings and on the
canal frontage are features of the scheme. The spaces are designed well with the canal side
walkway being overlooked by habitable room windows and front doors and link the site and the
canal side walkway directly through to the Green and the heart of Worsley village. The new public
spaces form an integral part of the scheme and are of an appropriate scale. I consider that the
development fully accords with draft policies DES3 and DES6.

The scale and massing of the development has been reduced so that there are no four-storey
elements at all in the scheme. A mix of two, two and a half and three storey buildings are now
proposed with the closest buildings to the Conservation Area and those most visible from it being
two storey to match the row of cottages on the Crescent.

For the above reasons I do not share the view that the design, scale or massing of the buildings is
unacceptable or that apartments are inappropriate in design terms.

Impact on adjacent Conservation Area
Draft Policy CH4 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would
have an unacceptable impact on the setting of any listed building.

Adopted policy EN11 states that the City Council will seek to preserve or enhance the special
character of areas of architectural and historic interest.

The Worsley Village Conservation Area wraps around this development on its northern and
western boundaries and this development does not lie within the Conservation Area at all. The
proposed development would be set back from the Conservation Area boundary by at least 6m
and the closest building would be two-storey only although other buildings are three storeys in
part. Existing trees within the conservation area lie within the curtilage of neighbouring gardens
and are not affected by this development and are therefore retained and will soften the impact of
the new development. Now that the maximum number of storeys has been reduced to three I am
satisfied that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on views into or
from the Conservation Area. I consider that the removal of the old industrial buildings on the site
and their replacement with well designed residential properties will enhance the adjacent Worsley
Village Conservation Area.

For the above reasons I do not share the view that the development will overshadow listed
buildings and the Conservation Area.

Effects of the development on neighbours
Draft Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory
level of amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the
occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.


                                                77
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006




I have received a number of objections from neighbouring residents regarding the impact of the
proposed development on their amenity, and in particular that there would be overlooking, loss of
sunlight and loss of privacy. At the nearest point, the proposed dwellings are at least 8m from the
common boundary with neighbouring private rear gardens. Trees within the conservation area
provide some additional screening and habitable window to window distances are in excess of
21m.

I do not therefore consider that there will be any significant loss of privacy, loss of sunlight or an
unacceptable outlook suffered by residents surrounding the site. I do not consider that the height
of the buildings are such that they would prove overdominant when viewed from any neighbouring
property given the distances and circumstances described above. I therefore have no objections
to the application in respect of residential amenity.

Highways, Parking and Public Transport
Policy A10, in line with Government guidance, seeks maximum parking standards for all
developments. Within the emerging planning framework and in line with central government
advice there is no policy requirement for a minimum level of parking.

The traffic impact assessment submitted by the applicant shows that the proposed development
would not have a material impact on the local highway network. Capacity assessments at the
proposed site access junction with Drywood Avenue and Worsley Road show that this junction
would operate within capacity with minimal delays.

I have received objections to the level of parking proposed that there is insufficient parking
provided for the proposed development. The parking levels are in accordance with policy in this
accessible location and I consider the parking levels proposed to be acceptable and would
consider a greater level of provision over 150% to be contrary to both good practice, government
advice and planning policy. In terms of highway safety I have no objections to the submitted
scheme.

Sustainable Construction
Policy EN17a of the deposit draft UDP explains planning permission will not be granted if the
development will have an unacceptable impact on the conservation of non-renewable resources.

The applicant has stated the following with regard to sustainable construction:-
       the development is on a brownfield site
       all units are fully accessible to all
       durable materials are proposed
       low energy lighting will be used throughout
       occupants will be provided with information regarding reducing energy requirements
       all units will have acoustic party walls to minimise sound transmission
       natural surveillance is promoted throughout

Open Space Provision
The development provides some public amenity space to the south of the site adjacent to the
canal side walkway. In accordance with policies H6, H11 and H8 of the revised deposit draft UDP
and SPG7 open space and children‟s play space can be accommodated off site through a



                                                 78
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


financial contribution. This application proposes 389 bed spaces, which equates to a commuted
sum value of £172,046.

Crime
I consider that the concerns of the architectural liaison unit cannot be fully successfully addressed
while at the same time meeting the desire of the City Council for good pedestrian links through the
scheme from Worsley village to the canalside walkway. I consider that the concerns of the liaison
unit must be balanced against the benefits that such a development will bring and I am satisfied
that the majority of the justifiable concerns of the police architectural liaison unit can be met
through a condition requiring a scheme to be submitted that is capable of meeting their secure by
design standards.

Other Objections Raised by Neighbours

i) That there is an oversupply of flats in the area and that the scheme amounts to
overdevelopment.
       This is a location close to the heart of Worsley village where higher dwelling densities
       should be encouraged and where it is right to provide a broad mix of dwelling types and
       sizes.

ii) Loss of light/sunlight
        I am satisfied that the proposed buildings are sited and designed such that there will be no
        significant loss of light or direct sunlight to any neighbouring property.

iii) That the development is contrary to policy
         Planning policy should properly be examined as a whole and I am satisfied that on
         balance the development is supported by national, regional and local planning policy.

iv) Compensation as a result of the development phase
       I do not consider that I can impose on the applicants a requirement as requested by
       neighbours.

v) Local facilities cannot cope
       The site has been allocated for many years and I do not share the view that there would be
       a significant detrimental effect on the local community as a result of this development.

VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT

In accordance with the policies H6, H11, and H8, the applicant has agreed to make a financial
contribution towards equipped children‟s play space and public open space. A total of £172,046
would be contributed in this regard. The applicant has also confirmed the use of sustainable
building techniques.

CONCLUSION

I am satisfied that the amended design is of the necessary high quality required and that the
application would not have any significant detrimental effect upon the amenity of neighbouring
residents or on the surrounding area in general. I consider that the amount and type of
development proposed is now, as a result of the amended scheme, now appropriate and


                                                 79
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


acceptable on this site. Through the development of this existing industrial site I am satisfied that
the proposed development would not only enhance the character and appearance of the adjacent
conservation area but enhance the surrounding area in general. I am also satisfied that the level
of on site parking is acceptable. I am satisfied that the application complies with policies of the
development plan as a whole.



RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions


1. Standard Condition B01B New reserved matters

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:

   - the colour and type of facing materials to be used for all external elevations

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

3. Standard Condition M08 Site Investigation - new

4. No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of surface water drainage
   works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such
   scheme as is approved shall be implemented in full in accordance with the approved plans.

5. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all
   surface water drainage from impermeable parking areas, roadways and hardstandings for
   vehicles shall be passed through an oil interceptor designed and constructed to have a
   capacity and details compatible with the site being drained. Roof water shall not pass through
   the interceptor.

6. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be started by the
   undertaking of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4) (a-d) of the Town and Country
   Planning Act, 1990 until a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country
   Planning Act, 1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority, and the
   Local Planning Authority has given its approval in writing. The planning obligation will provide
   that a commuted sum as required by policies H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP,
   Policy H8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP, SPG7 Provision of Open Space
   and Recreation Space Associated with New Residential Development, will be paid to the
   Local Planning Authority for open space and recreation space purposes

7. Prior to the commencement of the development a scheme for the provision of recycling
   facilities within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
   Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any of the


                                                 80
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


   residential units hereby approved.

8. No development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme(s) demonstrating
   sustainable construction techniques , the use of renewable energy sources and energy
   efficiency in the design and operation of the buildings and associated external areas
   (including sustainable urban drainage systems) has been submitted to and approved in
   writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented and
   maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved scheme(s) prior to the first occupation
   of the development hereby approved.

9. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces

10. No development shall be commenced unless and until a lighting scheme has been submitted
    to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be
    implemented and thereafter retained prior to the first occupation of the development.

11. No development shall be commenced until full details of the proposed bin stores have been
    submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved bin stores
    shall be implemented and thereafter retained prior to the fist occupation of any apartment.

12. No development shall be commenced until a scheme detailing security measures capable of
    meeting the standards of the Greater Manchester Police 'Secured By Design' award scheme
    has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme
    as is approved shall be implemented in full in accordance with the approved plans prior to the
    occupation of any dwelling.


(Reasons)


1. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters

2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters

3. Standard Reason R028A Public safety

4. To reduce the increased risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of
   surface water disposal in accordance with policy EN16 of the replacement City of Salford
   Unitary Development Plan

5. To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with policy EN15 of the
   replacement City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

6. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space
   for future occupiers in accordance with policies H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Adopted
   UDP, Policy H8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP and SPG7 Provision of Open
   Space and Recreation Space Associated with New Residential Development.

7. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents


                                               81
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006




8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

9. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage

10. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

11. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours

12. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents


Note(s) for Applicant


1. The site falls within the 2005 declared Air Quality Management Area for Nitrogen Dioxide.

2. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
   should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
   Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
   operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
   adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works. Property specific summary
   information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect
   the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports
   Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk

3. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under
   Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, prior to the granting of planning
   permission.

4. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment
   Agency.

5. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be
   satisfied prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions
   precedent renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be
   taken by the Council.

6. Construction works shall not be permitted outside the following hours:
       Monday to Friday 08:00 to 18:00
       Saturdays           08:00 to 13:00
   Construction works shall not be permitted on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays

   Access and egress for delivery vehicles shall be restricted to the working hours indicated
   above.

7. All bat species are legally protected from any harm, damage or disturbance under the Wildlife
   and Countryside Act 1981, as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. It is
   a criminal offence to knowingly or recklessly harm, damage, or disturb bats or their roosts.


                                               82
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


   Bats are also protected under the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1994.
   Approval must be sought from English Nature for any works affecting bats or their roost sites.

8. The applicant should incorporate a landscaping scheme composed solely of native species. If
   there are distinct local varieties where the local gene pool should be maintained, then stocks
   of local provenance should be used. British forms tend to be more resistant to frost and damp
   than their European counterparts, and flower and fruit at times more appropriate to the British
   animals that depend on them.



APPLICATION No:              06/52502/FUL

APPLICANT:                   L Pope

LOCATION:                    Land Adjacent To 21 Briarfield Road Worsley M28 1GQ

PROPOSAL:                    Erection of one-pair semi detached dwellings together with
                             associated car parking and alteration to existing, and
                             construction of new vehicular access

WARD:                        Worsley


At the meeting of the Panel held on 18th May 2006 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

The site is located at the head of a cul-de-sac in a residential area of Worsley. Access into the site
would be achieved from Briarfield Road, adjacent to the existing access to No. 21.

The site is considerably larger than surrounding plots. The vacant piece of land, which was
formerly a garden, is surrounded by residential properties. The proposed properties would be
semi-detached dwellings and the other properties on the road are all 1930s semi-detached
properties. The properties would be approximately 10m in length, 8m wide and 9m in height.

SITE HISTORY

In January 2006, a planning application for two detached dwellings with alterations to existing and
the construction of a new vehicular access was refused permission (05/51688/FUL). The reason
for refusal was:

“The proposed development would, by virtue of its size and siting, constitute overdevelopment of
the site and result in overshadowing, overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring properties at


                                                 83
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


19 Briarfield Road and 422 and 424 Walkden Road. The proposal would therefore be contrary to
Policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and Policies DES1 and DES7 of the
Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan.”

In September 2004, an outline application for the means of access for one detached dwelling on
land adjacent to 21 Briarfield Road was approved (ref: 04/48924/OUT).

In December 2003, a planning application for the erection of a single storey dwelling and garage
on land adjacent to 21 Briarfield Road was approved (ref: 03/47180/FUL).

In October 2003, a planning application for the erection of a single storey dwelling and garage on
land adjacent to 21 Briarfield Road was withdrawn (ref: 03/46863/FUL).

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       1 to 23 (O) Briarfield Drive
       2 to 24 (E) Briarfield Drive
       145 Greenleach Lane
       422, 424 and 426 Walkden Road
       4 Brereton Drive

REPRESENTATIONS

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

       Car parking problems
       Increase in congestion on the cul-de-sac
       Not in keeping with surrounding properties
       Loss of privacy
       Loss of light
       Affect existing drainage system
       Disturbance during construction period
       Overdevelopment of the site

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

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

DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
               DES 1 – Respecting Context

PLANNING APPRAISAL


                                               84
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006




The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the proposal would seriously
injure the amenity of existing residential properties, whether there would be an unacceptable
impact on the street scene/character of the area and whether the proposal complies with the
relevant policies of both the Adopted and Draft Replacement UDPs.

Adopted Policy DEV1 sets out a number of criteria against which applications for planning
permission are assessed. Of most relevance to this application are the location and nature of the
proposed development including its relationship to existing and proposed land uses, the layout
and relationship of existing and proposed buildings, the effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for
neighbouring properties and the visual appearance of the development. Draft Policy DES7
requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity.
Developments that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of occupiers of other
developments will not be permitted.

The proposed dwellings are located at the head of a cul-de-sac. The other properties on the road
are semi-detached properties and so a new pair of semi-detached properties would be in keeping
with the character of the road and the area. In considering the previously refused application for
this site, it was concluded that two detached dwellings would have an unacceptable detrimental
impact on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties in terms of causing
overshadowing, overlooking and a loss of privacy to 19 Briarfield Road and 422 and 424 Walkden
Road. The previous application saw „dwelling one‟ being less than 1m away from the boundaries
of 19 Briarfield Road and 424 Walkden Road. It was considered this close proximity to the
boundaries would result in a loss of privacy and overlooking to the occupiers of 19 Briarfield Road
and 422 Walkden Road as habitable room windows of „dwelling one‟ would face, and therefore
overlook, their rear gardens which was contrary to policies DEV1 and DES7. I am of the opinion
the proposed semi-detached dwellings would not result in overshadowing or overlooking the
neighbouring properties, as the gable of „dwelling one‟ would now be 7m away from the boundary
with 424 Walkden Road and the front elevation would be 5m from the boundary with 19 Briarfield
Road. „Dwelling two‟ would now also be set further away from the boundary with 21 Briarfield
Road at a distance of approximately 5m and I therefore do not consider there would be a
significant overshadowing to the rear garden of 21 Briarfield. The garden areas would also be
larger than those of the detached dwellings previously proposed. I am therefore satisfied that this
application successfully overcomes the reason for refusal of the previous application.

Draft Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context. In assessing the
extent to which this has been achieved, regard will be paid to a number of factors, including the
relationship to existing buildings and the scale of the proposed development in relation to its
surroundings. The plot of land adjacent to 21 Briarfield Road is larger than those of neighbouring
properties and I am of the opinion the proposal for a pair of semi-detached dwellings with front
and side/rear gardens, driveways and a new vehicular access does not constitute the
overdevelopment of the site and so the proposal complies with policy DES1.

Each of the dwellings would have spaces for 2 cars each. In light of the Council‟s maximum car
parking standards the car parking provision is sufficient and any increase in traffic during the
construction period would only be temporary. I therefore do not consider there would be any
increase in car parking problems or congestion in the cul-de-sac.




                                                 85
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I consider that the proposed semi-detached dwellings are acceptable, as they
would not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of the nearby residential
properties in terms of overshadowing, overlooking or loss of privacy. I am of the opinion that the
proposal complies with the relevant policies of both the Adopted and Draft Replacement UDPs
and there are no material considerations which outweigh this finding. I therefore recommend that
the application be approved.



RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions



1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit

2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the materials
   for the external elevations and roof of the buildings shall be submitted to and approved in
   writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved
   materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

3. The minimum floor levels shall be 300mm above the adjacent road.


(Reasons)


1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

3. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents


Note(s) for Applicant


1. Construction works shall not be permitted outside the following hours:
   Monday to Friday 08:00 to 18:00
   Saturdays        08:00 to 13:00

   Construction works shall not be permitted on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays.

   Access and egress for delivery vehicles shall be restricted to the working hours indicated
   above.



                                               86
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


2. Due to the proximity of the surrounding road networks, noise from vehicles may be an issue at
   times of the day, it is advised that it would be worth installing higher acoustic specification
   glass to all habitable rooms within the buildings. The usual specification is 10/12/6.4 glazing,
   the 6.4 element being laminated glass.

3. The responsibility to properly address contaminated land issues, including safe development,
   irrespective of any action taken by this authority, lies with the owner/developer of the site. The
   applicant/developer is requested to contact the Council's Environmental Protection Unit as
   soon as is practicable should contamination be encountered during development of the site.
   Historical map searches have identified a former potentially contaminative use (i.e. may be a
   former industrial use, an infilled feature such as a pond etc.) that may effect the development
   of the site. You need to ensure that your builder and the building control officer dealing with
   the developer are aware of this so that appropriate precautions can be taken to protect the
   developer, the public, the environment and the future occupants from contamination issues.

   For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Advisory, the
   applicant/developer is advised to contact the Environmental Protection Team in the
   Environment Directorate (Tel: 0161 737 0551).



APPLICATION No:              06/52667/FUL

APPLICANT:                   Spirit Group

LOCATION:                    The Cock Hotel 301 Walkden Road Worsley M28 2RZ

PROPOSAL:                    Formation of paved terrace to front of public house to include
                             post and chain fence and permanently fixed seating and
                             umbrellas with heating and lighting within

WARD:                        Worsley


DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the Cock Hotel public house on Walkden Road in Worsley.
There are residential dwellings located to the front of the site, a petrol station to the north west,
open space to the south east facing side elevation and a cricket pavilion to the rear.

The proposal seeks to form a paved terrace that would project a maximum of 5.7m to the front of
the public house and would be 19.5m in width. The terrace would be fenced with a post and chain
fence, 0.75m high. The terrace would provide 5 benches, which would provide seating for
approximately 36 people. There would be one permanently fixed umbrella with heating and
lighting within.

Currently this area is a tarmac forecourt of the public house. The benches and umbrella have
already been put in place prior to approval of the application, but have not been permanently
fixed.


                                                 87
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006




SITE HISTORY

An application for a play area to the rear of the public house was approved on 28th January 1993
(Ref: 92/30638/FUL)

An application for various alterations to the property including the demolition of the play area and
replacement with a paved terrace with seating to the rear was submitted in March 2006 The
application also included the infill of a window void, construction of a pitched canopy to lounge
entrance and rendering to the ground floor elevation to the front and sides. This application was
approved under delegated powers on 14th March 2006 (Ref:06/52059/FUL)

An application for various internally and externally illuminated signs was approved under
delegated powers on 31st March 2006 (Ref:06/52052/ADV).




CONSULTATIONS

The Strategic Director of Environmental Services- states the distance between the proposed
terrace and the residential boundaries is sufficient to mitigate noise from patrons using the
terrace. Two conditions are recommended, firstly that, no amplified music equipment including
speakers shall be permitted outside at any time, secondly, that amplified noise from the front
lounge shall not be audible at any boundary of houses along Walkden Road.


PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 11th May 2006.

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

       315 Walkden Road,
       384-394 Walkden Road
       1, 2, 3, 4 Woodlea
       14, 15, 16 Woodlea
       Worsley Cricket Club

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received fourteen letters of objection and a petition with 48 signatures in response to the
planning application. The following issues have been raised:-

       Colour of building
       Out of character with area
       Proximity to residential properties
       Noise and nuisance


                                                88
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


       Increase in accidents

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria,
                DEV2 - Good Design,
                     S5 - Control of Food and Drink Premises.

DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES 1- Respecting Context,
                DES7 - Amenity of Users and Neighbours,
                     S4 - Amusement Centres and food and drink uses.

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the development would have a
negative impact on the streetscene; whether the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on
neighbouring residents; and whether the proposal complies with the provisions of the relevant
policies of both the Adopted and Draft Replacement UDP. These issues will be discussed in turn
below.

Residential amenity

Draft Replacement Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a
satisfactory level of amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the
amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.

Adopted Policy S5 states that the City Council will only permit proposals for the sale of food and
drink where it would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenities of surrounding
residential occupiers by reason of noise, disturbance, smells, fumes, litter, vehicular traffic
movements, parking or pedestrian traffic.

Draft Replacement Policy S4 states that proposals for amusement centres, and any uses falling
within Class A3 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, will not be
permitted where the use would have an unacceptable impact, either in itself or cumulatively on the
amenities of surrounding residential occupiers by reason of noise, disturbance, smells, fumes,
litter, vehicular traffic movements, parking or pedestrian traffic. For food and drink uses,
conditions will be imposed to restrict changes of use to other uses within Class A3, or prevent
particular ancillary uses where it is considered that these uses could result in an increased
detriment to residential amenity or highway safety.



                                               89
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006


There would be a distance of 30m between the proposed terrace and the boundaries of the facing
residential properties. This distance is deemed sufficient to mitigate noise from patrons on the
terrace. The site is located on a Walkden Road, which is a busy main Road therefore there is
already noise and disturbance. The Strategic Director of Environmental Services has no
objections to the proposal, subject to a condition requiring no amplified music equipment or
speakers outside. With regards to The Strategic Director of Environmental Services second
condition, I do not consider this to be appropriate given the existing pub use and lounge and there
are no proposals for any new access to the terrace area. I am therefore satisfied that the
proposal not have an unacceptable impact of noise and disturbance on neighbouring residents. I
am satisfied that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on increase in smells,
fumes, litter, vehicular traffic or parking.

I have had no objections in terms of highway safety.

The proposal is therefore in accordance with S5 of the Adopted UDP and DES7 and S4 of the
Draft Replacement Plan.

Character and appearance of area

Adopted Policy DEV2 states that the Council will not grant permission or listed building consent
for new development, alterations or extensions, unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and
the appearance of the development. The Council require all such development to pay due regard
to existing buildings and townscape and to the character of the surrounding area.

Draft Replacement Policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its
physical context, respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated, and
contribute towards local identity and distinctiveness. Regard will be had to;
i) The impact on, and relationship to, the existing landscape and any notable landscape features;
iii) The relationship to existing buildings and other features that contribute to townscape quality.

The application site is situated adjacent to a petrol station along a busy stretch of Walkden Road
in close proximity to the East Lancashire Road. The proposed development is associated to an
existing public house, it seeks to create a paved terrace providing seating for approximately 36
persons. The public house has not been afforded listed status. The external appearance of the
building comprises of render and timber panelling.

I believe the size, siting and position of the proposed development would not be out of character
for the existing use of the pub and would not be an unduly obtrusive feature within the
streetscene. It is therefore considered the development to be in accordance with DEV2 of the
Adopted UDP and DES1 of the Draft Replacement Plan.


CONCLUSION
Overall, the proposed development would not have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the
streetscene. Nor would I consider it to have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of residential
properties. The proposal would not compromise the aims and objectives of the relevant policies
contained within the development plan. I therefore recommend approval.




                                                 90
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006




RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions



1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit

2. No amplified music equipment including speakers shall be permitted in the outside area at any
   time.


Reason(s)

1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours




                                              91
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006




                                    92
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006




                                    93
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th June 2006




                                    94

				
DOCUMENT INFO