APPLICATION No:	04/48052/OUT

APPLICANT:	Ship Canal Properties Ltd

LOCATION:	Former Weaste Quarry Eccles New Road Salford 5    

PROPOSAL:	Outline planning application for the development of land for residential purposes

WARD:	Weaste And Seedley

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The site is the former Weaste Quarry, subject to landfill in the 1960s, on the south side of Eccles New Road. The site is between the service yard of West One Shopping Centre and the Ladywell Metrolink park and ride car park. To the north across Eccles New Road there are existing blocks of three storey apartments. This site is elevated, by about two metres, above the flats across the road. To the south the site slopes downwards towards a significant break in levels behind which lies vacant land close to Centenary Way and the Manchester Ship Canal. 

Planning permission is sought in outline for residential development consisting of 262 units. The applicant wishes for means of access to be determined at this stage.  The applicant has submitted sketch plans and an indication of possible heights of three separate blocks. The access would come directly from the existing roundabout at the top of the park and ride spur, well away from Eccles New Road. 

The applicant has also submitted a planning and design statement, air quality statement referring to impact of existing industrial operations on future occupiers of the site, transport statement, a noise impact assessment, environmental survey and environmental site investigation and risk assessment. 

The applicant has been in detailed discussions with Officers and the Greater Manchester Geological Unit over site contamination and its future remediation. The applicant has also provided information on the costs of site remediation and viability for employment purposes.  

SITE HISTORY

E/12066 – Tipping of inert waste (1981)
E/18833 – Continuation of Landfill Operations (1985)
E/21062- Landfill site for deposit of waste materials (undetermined)
94/32657/TPDC – Objections raised by Salford to development for superstore
95/33791/TPDC – Food superstore application refused as contrary to EC13/1 and S2
96/35038/TPDC – Petrol Filling Station refused in 1996 as contrary to EC13/1 and conflicts Metrolink
97/36187/TPDC – Outline application for development of land for leisure purposes and drive thru (withdrawn)
97/37069/OUT outline approval granted for bingo/A3 and park and ride (1999) – approval subject to conditions including a contaminated land condition. 
99/40221/REM – Reserved matters approval for park and ride and access road 
01/43026/OUT - Outline planning application for the erection of a non-food retail warehouse. Refused due to impacts of vitality and viability on Eccles Town Centre. 
 
CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – Satisfied with contamination and process emissions

NHS Public Health Unit – No comments received.   

Greater Manchester Geological Unit – The site is known to be gassing and there are other on site wastes associated with tipping. Piling for foundations through this material could create potential pathways for migration of contaminants into the underlying sandstone. Robust gas monitoring would be required if the application was to be approved and this needs to be controlled through a Section 106. The specifications of the gas protection measures for the residential development have been confirmed and approved in principle. Subject to conditions and a Section 106 Obligation they do not object. 

Environment Agency – No objection in principle.

HSE – No objections.  

Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections in principle but recommendations made for any future detailed application. 

United Utilities – No objections, recommendations made. 

GMPTE – The site is well served by public transport and future residents will have a choice of modes of transport. Two issues are raised. Firstly, it is not clear from the information submitted whether there would be an impact on the level of parking provided at the adjacent park and ride facility. Secondly, they would wish to see the access road adopted prior to the commencement of the development.   

PUBLICITY

Site notices were displayed on the 20th April 2004. 
A departure from the Development Plan press notice has been published. 

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	1 – 48 Squires Court, Eccles New Road 
1 – 42 Reeves Court, Eccles New Road
1 – 16 Millers Court, Eccles New Road
1 – 42 Clerks Court, Eccles New Road
	Units 1 – 8 & 9A & 9B, West One, Gilda Brook Road 

REPRESENTATIONS

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

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings 
DP3 Quality in New Development
SD1 The North West Metropolitan Area - Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas
UR4 Setting Targets for the Recycling of Land and Buildings

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: EC13/1 – Sites for Industry and warehousing 
Other policies: EN9 Derelict and Vacant Land
		T13 Car Parking
		DEV1 Development Criteria
		DEV4 Design and Crime 
		DEV7 Development of Contaminated Land
		H1 Meeting Housing Needs 
H6 & H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments

REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None 
Other policies: E5 Development Within Established Employment Areas   
H1 Provision of New Housing Development  
H8 Open Space Provision Associated With New Housing Development 
		DES1 Respecting Context 
		DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours 
		DES11 Design and Crime 
		EN13 Contaminated Land 
A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the proposed use is acceptable given the employment allocation and also whether the site can satisfactorily accommodate a residential use given the previous land use. Also relevant planning issues are whether enough information has been submitted to assess the impact of the proposed development on the streetscene, whether there will be satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers and whether there is a sufficient level of parking proposed and whether the proposal impacts upon the existing park and ride facility and traffic generation.  

Adopted Policy EC13/1 requires that the site be used for employment uses or open space. The policy states: the following sites are allocated for industrial and warehousing use within the balanced portfolio in accordance with Policy EC1D: Weaste Quarry, Weaste and Seedley. The reasoned justification states: “The construction of the proposed Parkway Link, connecting Trafford Park with the M602 (Transport Policy T16/4) will open up this site for development. The site is in a predominantly industrial area and, therefore, is suitable for industrial and warehousing development. It has been extensively excavated and tipped and a large proportion may therefore be unsuitable for development. In this case, open space may be an appropriate alternative use. Any development would need to take account of the adjoining Ladywell Hospital”. Policy EC13/1 explains that the site is contaminated and that part of the site may not be suitable for development. In 1999 permission was granted for a bingo hall which was not in line with the allocation.  

This side of Eccles New Road has traditionally been non residential however the site is not allocated for employment in the deposit draft UDP. The site was not allocated in the deposit draft UDP because of the extant planning permission for a bingo hall. This vacant site has some employment uses nearby. Policy E5 strictly relates to employment areas. Policy E5 allows for the environmental improvement of land and for non employment uses as long as; operating conditions of the other employment uses are not impinged, there is no current or likely future demand for the site for employment purposes and there is a strong environmental case for rationalising land use. The applicant has supplied information in relation to the cost of cleaning the contamination and economic returns from developing the site for employment purposes. I am satisfied that the applicant has proved the site can not viably be developed for employment purposes. Given that the site is not allocated for employment in the replacement UDP, has had a previous non employment use approval within the life of the Adopted UDP and employment uses can not be viably developed I am satisfied that an alternative use on the site should be considered. 

The appropriateness of residential use needs to be considered having regard to any impact upon the operating conditions of surrounding commercial uses not being jeopardised and also being appropriate with regard to ground conditions. 

I turn now to the protection of operating conditions of surrounding employment uses. The applicant has submitted information on noise levels that future occupiers would be subjected to. The results are that the site would be a B category which Government guidance advises that noise should be taken into account when determining applications and that protection from noise can be ensured. The noise assessment does not however take into account the adjacent allocated employment land to the south on the lower Weaste site. The adjacent site could potentially be developed with an employment use with unrestricted operating hours. The applicant had originally applied for siting however given the noise impacts of the adjacent site have not been considered I have recommended to the applicant that siting should not be determined at this stage. I am satisfied that with appropriate siting and design of this development and noise mitigation measures that this site could be developed without prejudicing the operating conditions of the adjacent site.   

EN9 and EN13 require that information is submitted to prove that the land can be cleaned to accommodate the proposed use. The applicant has submitted information in relation to contamination. Extensive discussions have taken place with GMGU and recommendations for remediation have satisfied GMGU.  In brief summary the applicant intends to carry out remedial works to the ground, install a membrane, monitor gassing and develop the scheme so that all residential units would be above ground. The likely methods of construction and gassing on site would need to be controlled through conditions and legal undertaking via a S106 obligation. The S106 would need to include a bond to secure future maintenance of the remedial measures in place. As GMGU are satisfied with the investigations undertaken, proposed remedial measures and legal agreement I consider the scheme would satisfy policies EN9 and EN13. 
  
Given the conclusions reached thus far the suitability of the site for housing can be considered with regard to both H1 policies. The site is close to Eccles town centre and is adjacent to the Ladywell Metrolink stop. It is a highly accessible site which could help to improve the vitality and viability of Eccles town centre. The proposed number of units would constitute a high density development as required by policy H1. However the actual number of units that are appropriate for the site is dependant upon the size and visual impact of the development and amenity impacts for the future occupiers and existing occupiers of surrounding sites. Policies DEV1, DEV2, DES1 and DES7 require that developments are suitable to their site with regard to scale and mass and also that development affords existing and future occupiers with satisfactory levels of amenity. Within the submission the applicant has submitted information to show possible massing of buildings on site. I am satisfied that the proposed 262 units can be developed on this site. I consider the introduction of residential units, subject to appropriate remedial measures, that the use of this brownfield land as residential is appropriate.

Policy T13 requires minimum appropriate car parking within new developments whilst policy A10, requires maximum parking standards and cycle and motorcycle parking. The site is adjacent to a Metrolink stop and is on a bus route and with cycle facilities on-site I consider that less than 100% parking would be appropriate at this site. More on site amenity space should be considered within a reserved matters application. In addition to on site amenity space an off site contribution to public open space and children’s play space would be appropriate and this would be secured through a S106 obligation in accordance with policies H6, H11 and H8. 

Policies DEV4 and DES11 require proposals to have regard to crime and security issues. Comments from the GM Police are relevant to a more detailed and clear application and at this stage of application, relating to the principle and number of units only, I can not assess this information. I will however draw to the attention of the applicant the need for a more detailed scheme to have regard to designing out crime. 

CONCLUSION

Although this site is not within an established residential area and is surrounded by non residential uses the applicant has proved the redevelopment costs are prohibitive for employment use. Residential units at this location would be sustainable in transport terms and could help the vitality and viability of Eccles town centre. The detailed design of the development needs to carefully consider the amenity of future occupiers in terms of ground conditions and noise from surrounding commercial uses. On balance I consider that the re-use of this brownfield site for housing to be appropriate in land use terms with regards to adopted and emerging planning policy. I recommend planning permission is granted subject to the signing of a S106 Obligation and to the conditions set out below. 

RECOMMENDATION 

i)	that the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the payment of a bond and to ensure site remediation in accordance with policies EN9 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan;

ii)	that the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions stated below, on completion of such legal agreement;

iii)	that authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application be issued, (subject to the conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned legal agreement,

iv)	that authority be given to refuse the application if the applicant fails to complete the S106 agreement within a reasonable period on the grounds that the proposal would be contrary to policies H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A02 Outline

2.	Standard Condition B01X Reserved Matters

3.	Notwithstanding condition two this permission does not authorise residential development at ground floor.

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

5.	The development shall proceed in strict accordance with the recommendations of the WSP assessments.

6.	Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a maximum of 262 dwellings shall be accommodated within the site.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R001 Section 92

2.	Standard Reason R001 Section 92

3.	Reason: For the avoidance of doubt in accordance with policies DEV1 and EN9 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP and policies DES1 and EN13 of the Deposit Draft UDP.

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

5.	Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

6.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from GM Police dated 4th May 2004

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

3.	The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from GMPTE dated 5th May 2004

4.	The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from United Utilities dated 7th May 2004

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.

APPLICATION No:	04/49623/OUT

APPLICANT:	Peel Investments (North) Ltd

LOCATION:	Land North Of Simpson Grove And East Of Nos. 16-44 Border Brook Lane Worsley    

PROPOSAL:	 Outline planning application for the siting, design, external appearance and means of access to 21 two and three storey dwellings

WARD:	Boothstown And Ellenbrook

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to undeveloped land accessed from Simpson Grove.  The site covers approximately 0.7 hectares and lies to the west of existing open space.  It lies directly to the north of the industrial premises on Simpson Grove and is bounded to the north and west by residential development.  The site is owned partly by the applicant and partly by Aspull Enginnering.  The applicant also owns the open space to the east.

The site currently comprises gently undulating grassland, brambles and self seeded trees and is unmaintained and generally overgrown. To the north of the site is a pond and the site falls to the south and west.  There is an approximate change in levels across the site of some 9m.  The site is separated from the open space to the east by the remnants of a fence and the site is not mowed or maintained at all in contrast to the open space.

A footpath runs along the western boundary of the site. 

It is proposed to erect a total of 21 two and three storey dwellings on the site.  Simpson Grove would be extended to provide access.  The dwellings would be a mix of terraced, semi-detached and detached houses.

The applicant has submitted illustrative material on the existing public open space to the east of the application site that is in their ownership but which is leased by the City Council.  The illustrative material indicates that the public open space would be enhanced by the provision of additional planting, seating and general upgrading of the site.  The applicant envisages that the improvement of the public open space would be brought about by way of a section 106 agreement.  The 106 agreement would also address the issue of contamination and gas migration associated with the former use of the open space as a tip.

The existing footpath would be maintained and enhanced with a link being provided to the open space to the east.

SITE HISTORY

E/11681/OL – Development of part of the site for residential purposes. (Refused on the grounds that the proposed development would be contrary to the provisions of the Worsley and Boothstown Local Plan where the site was allocated for public open space purposes.)

E/26466/OL – Outline application on part of the site for the erection of 28 sheltered retirement flats and wardens flat together with extension to Simpson Grove.  (Approved 1991)

E/28262 – Construction of a passive gas venting system and capping of the landfill by granular fill and topsoil. (Approved 1991)

OWNERSHIP ISSUES

It is necessary, given the issues involved, to briefly outline the ownership of the open space to the east of the site.  In November 1969, the then Worsley Urban District Council took a lease of the land for 21 years, for use as public open space.  In May 1990, notice to quit was served by Peel Estates, saying that the company was not willing to grant another lease.  The Council then served a counter-notice stating that it wished to retain possession.

In July 1990, Peel set out terms for a 10 year lease, and in August of that year the Council set out its own terms.  These discussions continued for the next couple of years, with no agreement reached on the proposed terms.  In September 1994 the Council’s legal section was instructed to progress a referral to the County Court to settle the lease terms.

In November 1994, Peel wrote to say that they would strenuously challenge the application to Court, and a hearing was fixed for January 1995.  This hearing was adjourned and this was followed by inconclusive discussions.

Under normal circumstances, it may be that a statutory tenancy would have continued under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, but in this case the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 intervened.  In 1999 the new civil court rules changed the procedures so fundamentally that if existing court proceedings did not come before a judge by April 2000 they were stayed.  In theory a party could apply to resurrect a case but given the length of time since this application was before the Court that is not going to happen.

It would appear therefore that the land will have simply reverted to Peels ownership and that the Council no longer has any interest in the ownership of the open space site.

CONSULTATIONS

Environment Agency – Objects to the application on the grounds that no details have been submitted that show how and where surface water is to be discharged.  The nearby Stirrup Brook culvert is surcharged and therefore no additional surface water should be discharged into the culvert as this would increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.

Director of Environmental Services – Is concerned about the proximity of the loading yard area for Snack Solutions to the nearest proposed residential properties.  Activities at Snack Solutions are usually from about 6am until 10pm depending upon the demand for the product.  Permission on the site is not restricted by condition and so the use could continue 24 hours a day.  

Site activities include access and egress of large goods vehicles and movement of fork lift trucks.  These may have the potential to create a noise nuisance for residential properties in close proximity to the yard area, especially those proposed by the current planning application.  Complaints have been received from residents on Border Brook Lane over past years concerning noise from the yard area.

With regard to odour from Snack Solutions there was an investigation that lasted from 2002 to 2004 that involved a statutory nuisance and notice was served on Snack Solutions to abate the odour nuisance.  Whilst the works required to abate the odour removed a significant amount of odour from the process it is known that occasional smell is detected in the vicinity of the site.  The construction of more houses to the north of Snack Solutions will bring other residential properties in close proximity to the exhaust of this treatment plant and it is possible that this proximity will affect the dispersion of odours from the unit and as such cause a nuisance.

The Director of Environmental Services does however consider that there are advantages to the development of the site for the following reasons.

There is landfill gas from the former tip on the land that is now open space and Peel have indicated that they would carry out a full site investigation and remediation of the open space should planning permission be granted for the residential development.  Contaminated land guidance states that contaminated land should be addressed under the planning regime as opposed to Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act if possible.

The site investigation is likely to be costly and a conservative estimate is £140,000 at the least.  The associated remediation would also be extremely costly.

United Utilities – No objections

PUBLICITY

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

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	12 to 52 Borderbrook Lane
	79 to 91 Birchfield Grove
	2 to 8, 1 to 33 and Snack Solutions, Simpson Grove

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 22 letters of objection, a petition signed by 70 people objecting to the application and two letters of support in response to the planning application publicity.  The following issues have been raised:-

	Loss of open space
	Loss of greenfield land
	Loss of wildlife habitat
	Loss of trees
	Contamination and safety issues associated with the former use as a tip
	Loss of sunlight
	The development will be overbearing
	This will lead to youths congregating in the area
	The land is scruffy and overgrown and this will improve things
	Increase in traffic and loss of highway safety
	Inappropriate to have new housing so close to Snack Solutions
	The development would put further strain on existing facilities and services
	
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site Specific Policies:
Other Policies: DP1 Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: R12/13 Provision of Recreation Land and Facilities
Other policies: EN3 Protected Open Land, EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands, EN9 Derelict and Vacant Land, H1 Meeting Housing Needs, H6/H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments, H10 Affordable Housing, T13 Car Parking, R1 protection of Recreation Land and Facilities, R10 Private Recreation Facilities, DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV4 Design and Crime, DEV7 Development of Contaminated Land. 

REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: R6/20 New and Improved Recreation Land and Facilities
Other policies: ST11 Location of New Development, DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES11 Design and Crime, H1 Provision of New Housing Development, H4 Affordable Housing, H8 Open Space Provision Associated With New Housing Development, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments, EN11 Derelict, Underused and Neglected Land, EN13 Contaminated Land, R1 Protection of Recreation Land and Facilities, R6 New and Improved Recreation Land and Facilities 

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are firstly whether the development would comply with UDP policies and secondly, if it does not comply, do the advantages of upgrading the public open space to the east of the site outweigh the presumption against development of the site. 

Site Specific Policies
Policy R12/13 of the adopted UDP allocates the whole of the site for recreation as part of a larger recreation allocation that includes the land to the east of the site. 
The Review UDP Policy R6/20 allocates a smaller area of land for recreation and does not include the whole of the proposed development site. However, the proposed access road to the development and four of the dwellings are covered by this recreation allocation. The site of the proposed access road and the land to the east of the site is therefore allocated for recreational use in both the Adopted and Revised Deposit UDP and this area is grassed and maintained.

The Sequential Approach
Planning Policy Guidance Note 3, Regional Spatial Strategy (policy DP1) and Revised Deposit Draft Policy ST11 all require a sequential approach to development whereby preference is given to the use/development of previously developed land.

Paragraph 14 of PPG17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation, is clear that recreation grounds “must not be regarded as 'previously-developed land', as defined in annex C of PPG3. Even where land does fall within the definition of 'previously-developed', its existing and potential value for recreation and other purposes should be properly assessed before development is considered.” The proposed access road lies over the edge of the former landfill site but this has been reclaimed for recreational purposes and as part of the recreation ground should not be considered to constitute previously developed land. The application site does not appear to form part of the curtilage of the works immediately to the south. The historic maps and development control records of the city council do not include any previous development activity at the site west of the proposed access road except for the former substation (now demolished). 

Although I consider the remains of the former substation “have blended into the landscape in the process of time” (PPG3, Annex C, para.3), the former substation land does not have a significant nature conservation or amenity value that would provide a reason to outweigh the re-use of this part of the site. Therefore I consider that the site of the former substation is still brownfield land. 

Excluding the site of the former substation, land to the west of the proposed access road (extension of Simpson Grove) does not appear to constitute previously developed land. Thus it is concluded that the majority of the application site is Greenfield land and as such it is not a sequentially preferable site for development. 

Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP Policy ST11: Location of New Development, allows Greenfield land that is well served by a choice of transport modes and is well related to housing, employment, services and infrastructure to be brought forward for development only once previously developed sites have been considered. Policy ST11 also requires criteria A – D (listed below) to be satisfied regarding the location of this development. The applicant therefore needs to provide the following evidence to meet criteria A -D of Revised Deposit Draft Policy ST11, which has not been provided with the application to date: 
v)	Show there is a demonstrable need for the development; and
vi)	Demonstrate that the development would not result in a failure to achieve the targets for securing development on previously developed land (identified in chapter 18 of the Review UDP); and
vii)	Show that the land is not protected from built development by other policies within this UDP; and
viii)	Show that either of the following relevant circumstances applies: 
(ii) Suitable replacement Greenfield land would be created elsewhere in the local area, of at least equal quality and quantity; or
(iii) The Greenfield land forms an integral part of a larger previously developed site, and its development is considered to be essential to securing the successful redevelopment of the previously developed land.

Based on the above points and the attached plan, I consider that the development does not accord with the Sequential Approach set out in PPG3 and required by Policy DP1 of RSS and Policy ST11 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP and as such the application should be refused.

Loss of Open Space
As noted above, the site is allocated wholly for recreation in the Adopted UDP and partly for recreation in the Revised Deposit Draft UDP. Both plans contain policies designed to protect existing/allocated recreation sites (Policy R1: Protection of Recreation Land and Facilities in both cases) but would not necessarily preclude development where compensatory provision is made. Securing improvements through enabling development may be the only way in the short term of achieving the required improvements. Therefore, the proposed loss of part of the recreation allocation to housing development may be acceptable when considered alongside the community benefits gained from proposed improvements to the remaining area of public open space (in accordance with R1(ii)). However, this does not overcome the need to meet the sequential test. 

In addition, the development will be required to provide a contribution to open space provision in accordance with Adopted Policies H6 and H11: Open Space Provision within New Housing Developments (please refer to the Open Space Requirements Section below).

Residential Use, Sustainability, Density, Dwelling mix
Policy H1 of the Adopted UDP allows for the release of land to accommodate new dwellings as one of the measures by which Salford’s housing needs will be met. Key criteria of policy H1 of the Replacement Plan, which identifies the provision of new housing development, are that a balanced mix of dwellings are provided of an appropriate density with the provision of adequate open space and a high quality environment. 

PPG3: Housing Para.58 states that Local Planning Authorities should encourage the efficient use of land by avoiding developments with less than 30 dwellings per hectare, encouraging a density of 30 to 50 dwellings per hectare, which makes more efficient use of land, and to seek a greater intensity of development where there is good public transport accessibility such as urban centres or around major nodes along good quality public transport corridors. The proposed density of 21 dwellings at the 0.7hectare site calculates to 30 dwellings per hectare. This is a low density, which is appropriate for the site, given that it is not located within a town centre and the site is not highly accessible by public transport. However, the site is close to the services of Boothstown Key Local Centre, which is located at Simpson Road and Leigh Road, to the south of the site, thereby reducing the need to travel.

The proposal would provide a mix of 3 and 5 bedroom houses and townhouses, which I consider are appropriate dwelling types for the local area which should also help to encourage the retention of families within the city. However, the proposed  three storey development would have an overbearing effect on existing nearby housing owing to lack of separation.

Transport  
The proposal provides 42 car parking spaces (i.e two per dwelling), which is acceptable for the development. A private garage is proposed for each dwelling.

Leigh Road, to the south of the site, is a high frequency bus route. Therefore, the site is accessible by bus, consistent with Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing, which promotes development proposals that reduce car use and the need to travel. 

The development would however result in a cul-de-sac of over 250m in length.  This would be contrary to highway safety and I must therefore recommend that the application be refused on highway grounds. 

Amenity Space
Private amenity space is provided for each dwelling, consistent with Adopted UDP Policy DEV1: Development Criteria and Review UDP Policy H8: Open Space Provision Associated With New Housing Development. 

Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing Need
The Housing Market Demand Study by the Northern Housing Consortium indicates that it is unlikely that there is a need for affordable housing provision in this location at this time. Therefore the city council has limited evidence regarding affordable housing need so we cannot insist on the provision of an affordable housing element in this scheme. Therefore, I consider any financial contributions secured through any legal agreements as part of the development should be directed to the suggestions made in the ‘open space requirements’ section below or to the provision/improvement of local community facilities, consistent with Draft UDP Policy DEV5: Planning Conditions and Obligations. 

Open Space Requirements
Policy H6/H11
The Outline application provides details of dwelling types proposed. If this scheme is developed the proposal would generate 86 bed spaces. The open space contribution required would be equal to 0.0516ha (172m2 formal and 344m2 informal provision). 

The H6/H11 contribution should be directed towards improvements to the Simpson Grove Public Open Space area (Replacement allocation R6/20) and therefore would be included as part of the open space scheme. 

10-year maintenance would also be required in accordance with Policy H6/H11. Based on the above number of bedspaces, the financial contribution would be:
Formal Maintenance: £25,819
Informal Maintenance: £1,660

Public Open Space scheme:
Land at Simpson Grove is identified in the draft Urban Open Space Strategy as a potential Neighbourhood Park, with facilities to Local Equipped Area for Play and Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play standards.

It would be essential for there to be the opportunity to fully consult the local community with respect to the public open space scheme submitted with the application, prior to any approval. If permission was to be granted then this could be incorporated into the 106 agreement.

The location of the proposal is contrary to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (formerly RPG13), which supports the recycling of land and buildings.  As it stands, the proposal does not comply with the sequential approach required by PPG3 Annex C, RSS (DP1) and Revised Deposit Draft Policy ST11, and should therefore be refused. 

In these circumstances it is not considered that the benefits of ensuring the open space is upgraded and made available for public use rather than potentially being closed to the public, outweigh the policy reasons for refusal.

With regard to trees and wildlife I do not consider that the small amount of habitat lost, that would to a certain extent be replaced by the additional planting that would result on the adjacent open space to the east, is so significant as to warrant refusal of the application.

I do not consider that the proposal would necessarily lead to youths congregating in the area. 

With regard to the development being overbearing I agree with neighbours that the development would be sited so close to the common boundaries with neighbouring dwellings that the dwellings would, either as a result of their size or that they would be sited on land that is higher than neighbouring sites, appear overbearing and result in a significant loss of amenity.

I do not consider that loss of sunlight would be so great or that this development would put so much strain on existing facilities and services as to warrant refusal of the application.

CONCLUSION

The main planning issues relating to this application are firstly whether the development would comply with UDP policies and, if it does not comply, do the advantages of upgrading the public open space to the east of the site and dealing with the contamination outweigh the presumption against development of the site.

The location of the proposal is contrary to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (formerly RPG13), which supports the recycling of land and buildings.  As it stands, the proposal does not comply with the sequential approach required by PPG3 Annex C, RSS (DP1) and Revised Deposit Draft Policy ST11, and should therefore be refused. 

In these circumstances I do not consider that the benefits of ensuring the open space is upgraded and made available for public use rather than potentially being closed to the public, outweigh the strong policy reasons for refusal of the application.

RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:

1.	The proposed development would, by reason of its size and siting, be overbearing and give rise to a serious loss of amenity for neighbouring residents contrary to policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and policy DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan.

2.	The proposed development involves development of greenfield land.  The proposed development would be contrary to Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing, policy DP1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy, policy EN3 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and policy ST11 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan and would harm the objectives of achieving regeneration and protecting greenfield land.

3.	The proposed access to the development would result in a cul-de-sac over 250m in length.  In the absence of an alternative emergency access this would be significantly detrimental to community safety and contrary to policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and policy DES2 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan.

4.	The proposed development would lead to the location of residential dwellings in close proximity to an existing industrial use.  The development would lead to a significant loss of amenity to future residential occupiers by way of noise, odours and general disturbance  and is likely to have an adverse impact on the continued operation of the industrial use contrary to policies EN20 and DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and policies EN14 and DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan.

5.	Insufficient information has been submitted to assess how and where surface water would be discharged.  The nearby Stirrup Brook culvert is surcharged and therefore no additional surface water can be discharged into the culvert as this would increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.

APPLICATION No:	05/50521/FUL

APPLICANT:	Mr And Mrs I Gabel

LOCATION:	25 Park Lane Salford M7 4JE    

PROPOSAL:	Demolition of existing bungalow and and erection of a three storey building comprising five self contained flats and underground car parking together with alteration to existing vehicular access

WARD:	Kersal

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application site is located on Park Lane, the area is residential in nature with a large residential home for the ex-military facing the site.  On either side and to the rear of the site are two storey residential properties.  There is currently a bungalow on the site.

The proposal is for the erection of a three storey building comprising of five flats with car parking in the basement.  The proposal would be the same width as the existing building but would be 2.5m longer in depth.  The proposal would be 9.7m in height, the second floor would be contained within the roof space.  The proposal would have a mansard roof with a terrace to the rear and balconies to the front.

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No Objections but suggest a condition relating working hours

Broughton Park Residents Association – No Comments Received

The Environment Agency – No Objection

Director of Education and Leisure- No Comments to date

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	O Y Y Lubavitch Girls School, Park Lane
	17, 19, 21, 23, 27, 29, 29a, and Broughton House, Park Lane
	40 – 50 (evens) Singleton Road
	
REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 21 letters of objection from 11 properties in response to the planning application publicity.    The following issues have been raised:-

	Increase Traffic
	Increase Parking
	Out of Character
	Overbearing
	Loss of privacy
	Loss of light
	Out of character
Increase in noise
Decrease in property prices
	
In response to an objection letter sent to Hazel Blears MP, the MP had noted comments and concerns raised and passed the objection on to Councillor John Merry and Councillor Peter Connor.

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
DEV2 – Good Design
		T13 – Car Parking
		DEV10- Broughton Park Development Control Policy

REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
		 H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed development is acceptable; whether the design of the proposed building 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.

Principle of Development
		
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.  Draft Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area.  The area surrounding the application site consists mainly of single dwellings.  The development would include four two bedroom apartments and one three bedroom apartment.   I would therefore consider the proposal to be in accordance with Adopted Policies H1 and Draft Policies H1.

Adopted Policy DEV10 states that planning permission will be granted if the following criteria are met including; the development would maintain the predominately residential character of the area; in the case of re-development of existing properties , it can be demonstrated that the existing property cannot be retained and converted economically for an acceptable alternative use appropriate to the residential character of the area.

The existing property is a modern bungalow built in the past forty years with little architectural merit.  The proposal would replace residential for residential.  DEV10 also refers to the Broughton Park Development Control Policy, as this policy relates purely to design it will be discussed below.

I would consider the proposal to be in accordance with both the Adopted and Draft policies 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 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.

I have received several objections in relation to design, the proposal would be the same height at the eaves as the adjacent property No.23, with a mansard roof.  In particular the following points have been raised in relation to the Broughton Park Design Guide

•	New development must respect the predominant characteristics of the area.  In considering the appropriateness of proposed development the City Council will apply as its main criteria the concept of good neighbourliness in its widest sense and in this respect will not normally expect eaves and ridge height of new buildings to be essentially different from those of adjoining dwellings.

As mentioned the proposal would be the same ridge height as the neighbouring house No.23.  The ridge height of No.27 is 2.5m lower than that of the proposal and No.23.  The eaves height of the proposal would be 0.6m higher than that of No.23 which I would not consider to be essentially different.

•	Particularly in the vicinity of Victorian and other large imposing dwellings special attention must be paid to the overall modelling and proportions of the major building elements and on quality of design.

There are various different types of dwellings on Park Lane including large properties and small properties.  In response to concerns the application has been recently amended to ensure vertical rather than horizontal emphasis as reflected in existing properties.  In particular the introduction of slender windows on the front elevation.

•	Where a block of flats is proposed, extensive areas of uninterrupted roof or front elevations should be avoided.

The proposal has a mansard roof with four dormer windows, the front elevation has several windows and three balconies I would not consider the proposal to have extensive areas of uninterrupted roof of front elevations.

•	Building lines should be adhered to in most circumstances.  On side boundaries adequate space should be retained to ensure no loss of amenity (and privacy) to adjoining occupiers and to safeguard the character of the area, where it is predominately spacious.  Garage or other single storey structures may be acceptable on site boundaries where they do not have a detrimental affect on adjoining occupiers.

The main front elevation is flush with the front elevations of both neighbouring properties.  The existing property is 0.8m from the side boundary with No.27 and 3.3m from No.23.  The proposed building would be more central and a distance of 1.5m from No.23 and 2.5m from No.23.  I would consider the proposal to meet the criteria with the above point.

The application has been amended to ensure that that the overall modelling and proportion is not out of character with the existing street scene.  A condition regarding samples of materials has been attached to ensure the quality of the materials to be used.

In conclusion, I am satisfied with the design of the proposed building and consider that it accords with the above policies. 

Amenity

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 proposal would be situated 1.5m from the boundary with No.23 and 2.5m from the boundary with No.27.  No.23 has no habitable room windows on the side elevation facing the proposal, it does have a kitchen window and a landing room window.  The proposal has no habitable room windows facing No.23’s elevation.  No.27 has a large single storey extension along the side of the property.  No.27 has no habitable room windows on the side elevation and neither does the proposal.  The habitable room windows would be situated to the front and rear of the proposal.  The proposal would have a terrace on the second floor of the rear elevation.  The terrace would have obscure glazed bricks close to No.23 to ensure that there was no overlooking.  The terrace would be approximately 26m from the properties to the rear that are situated on Singleton Road. I would therefore not consider the proposal to have an unacceptable impact on the privacy of existing residents.

With regards to the issues of loss of sunlight and overbearing, as mentioned there are no habitable room windows on the side elevations of the existing properties.  No.27 has a single storey side extension situated along the boundary with the proposal.  The windows to this extension are situated looking inwards to the garden of No.27.  The proposal would project less than 0.5m from the rear elevation of the single storey rear extension at No.23.  I would not consider the proposal to have a detrimental impact on sunlight or overbearing on the existing occupiers.

In conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposed building would not have an unacceptable impact on the occupiers of existing properties. 

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.  The proposal would have eight car parking spaces for five flats, all the spaces are close to the lift situated in the underground car park.  I would consider the number of car parking spaces acceptable and consider the proposal to comply with the above policy.

The proposal is for the erection of five flats and there are eight car parking spaces available.  Park Lane is a busy road and is used not only by residents but other drivers.  I would not consider the introduction of five apartments to increase the amount of traffic or parking on the street to an unacceptable level that would have a detrimental impact on highway safety and have no objections on highway grounds.

Other Issues

The issue of existing property prices reducing is not a planning consideration.

The Strategic Director of Environmental Services has suggested a condition relating to the working hours of the construction of the proposed development.  I would not consider this necessary as the issue of noise and nuisance is covered in legislation elsewhere and planning should not duplicate existing legislation. 

VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT	

The original application was for a four storey block of seven apartments.  The proposal has been considerably reduced in height and therefore in apartments.  The design of the building has been amended to ensure that, although a modern design, the vertical lines that are reflected in existing properties are continued.  The positioning of the proposal has been located further away from No.23 by additional 1m at the request of the residents of No.23.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, 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 which outweigh this finding. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the materials for the external elevations and roof of the building 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.	Prior to the first occupation of Flat 5, the elevation of the rear terrace close to the boundary of No.23 shall be obscured and maintained thereafter.

4.	No development shall be started until all the trees within (or overhanging) the site which are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order,  have been surrounded by substantial fences which shall extend to the extreme circumference of the spread of the branches of the trees (or such positions as may be agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services).  Such fences shall be erected in accordance with a specification to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services and shall remain until all development is completed and no work, including any form of drainage or storage of materials, earth or topsoil shall take place within the perimeter of such fencing.

Reason(s)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

3.	Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours

4.	Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	Basement drainage should be pumped to avoid flooding.

2.	All sewer connections to United Utilities approval

3.	Please note the planning permission relates to the amended plans received 02nd August 2005 which show a change to the width of windows on the front elevation and the building 1.5m from No.23 Park Lane.

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.

APPLICATION No:	05/50752/FUL

APPLICANT:	Dain Properties Ltd

LOCATION:	Site 79 Wellington Road Eccles    

PROPOSAL:	Erection of one three storey and one four storey buildings comprising 24 apartments together with associated car parking and alteration to existing vehicular access

WARD:	Eccles

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a currently vacant site with a detached dis-used garage unit located within the main open area of the site. The site has a large number of trees and shrubs located on the perimeter.  The site is bounded by Wellington Road to the East and the M602 Motorway to the south. The site is enclosed by the rear gardens of residential properties from Ellesmere Avenue and Wellington Road. The site area measures 0.27ha. 

There is a mixture of residential properties in the area including large detached properties on either side of Wellington Road. There are also semi-detached and detached properties on Ellesmere Avenue; here there are a variety of house types including a bungalow. There are also two large detached apartment blocks located on the corner of Wellington Road and Half Edge Lane and Ellesmere Avenue and Wellington Road.

It is proposed to demolish the garage block on the site and erect two separate apartment blocks.  One would be located at the site entrance fronting Wellington Road,  the other, block located within the site fronting on to the M602 Motorway.  The apartment building fronting Wellington Road will house three two-bedroom apartments over three stories. The main block will house 21 two-bedroom apartments. The building will be four stories to the front (including apartments located within the front roof space) and three stories to the rear.  

The proposal includes provision for 18 car parking spaces with three available at the rear of block one and 15 available in three locations around block two. Of the car parking spaces provided two are allocated for disabled users. There is amenity space provided at the rear of block one and two areas provided at the rear of block two.

The overall appearance is of a contemporary building composed from a limited palette of modern materials making subtle reference to the building blocks of the past.

SITE HISTORY

A previous application 05/50211/FUL for the erection of 28 apartments was withdrawn in May 2005.

CONSULTATIONS

United Utilities – No objection in principle but provides advice.  

Director of Environmental Services – No objection subject to a number of conditions relating to a full site investigation and noise attenuation measures as well as alternative mechanical ventilation.

Police Architectural Liaison Officer –No objection subject to a number of detailed security measures.

Environment Agency – No objections

Highways Agency – No objection.

PUBLICITY

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

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	Ground to second floor flat 81 Wellington Road
	Flat 1 & 2 81 Wellington Road
	Flat 1-5 82 Wellington Road
	Flat 2-6 82 Wellington Road
	Flat 1 & 2 91 Wellington Road
	9191A Wellington Road
	Flat 1 & 3 92 Wellington Road
	Flat 2 92 Wellington Road
	Flat 1- 17 Westcliffe, 94 Wellington Road
	Flat 2 – 16 Westcliffe, 94 Wellington Road
	Flats 1,2,3 86- 88 Wellington Road
	1-17 Annesley Court, Monton Road
	2-18 Annesley Court, Monton Road
	80-94 Wellington Road
	81-91 Wellington Road
Flat 1-15, 94 Wellington Road
Flat 2-14, 94 Wellington Road
	3-15 Ellesmere Avenue (Including 7A Ellesmere Avenue)
	43 Derby Road
	99 Houghton Lane
	2 Half Edge Lane
		
REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 18 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity.   The following issues have been raised:

Over development
Insufficient car parking and access
Loss of light and sunlight
Over shadowing
Over bearing
Highway safety
Over use of the sewer
Discrepancies in the plans submitted
Development should be reduced to two storey buildings
Noise of gates
Loss of trees
Building line of block one not in keeping with Wellington Road

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

Site specific policies: none
Other policies: UR4 Setting Targets for the Recycling of Land and Buildings

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

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

REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

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

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of the development, whether the design, form and layout of the proposal accords with the relevant provisions of the development plan and whether the proposal is acceptable in relation to the neighbouring properties on Wellington Road and Ellesmere Avenue.

The Principle of Residential Development
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 planning policy guidance is also relevant.  PPG3: Housing highlights the need to develop previously developed brownfield sites and where appropriate higher densities should be considered.  

The site has previously been developed and is a brownfield site as detailed in PPG 3, as such, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of this site for residential accommodation is acceptable and accords with the thrust of the policies highlighted above.

Design, Layout and Interface Distances
Adopted policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when dealing with applications for planning permission.  These factors include the location of the proposed development and its relationship to existing land uses, the relationship to the road network, the potential for noise nuisance, the visual appearance of the development and the effect on neighbours.  

Adopted policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant planning permission unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance of the development and policy.

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 DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the Adopted UDP.

Policy DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP 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.

Block 1

The proposed location of block one is between the site entrance and 81 Wellington Road. 81 Wellington Road does not have any habitable room windows on its gable elevation facing the proposal. The apartment building will house three separate two-bedroom apartments. I consider the building to be in keeping with the other properties in Wellington Road. The proposal is located approximately 21.5m from the front elevation of 84 Wellington Road. I consider that due to the proposed building being comparable in height to the neighbouring properties in the street on Wellington Road that the separation distances of 21.5m which is the same as the other properties in Wellington Road is acceptable in this instance as does not result in an over bearing or dominant feature in the street scene. I am of the opinion that block one is in accordance with DEV1 and DEV2 of the adopted UDP and DES7 of the Revised UDP.

Block 2

The site lies across the M602 Motorway from Eccles Town Centre. The area is characterised as residential. The proposal maintains approximately 32.5m separation distance between the proposed habitable room windows on the gable elevation of block two to the rear elevations of the semi-detached properties’ of 81 and 83 Wellington Road. This distance combined with the different orientations of the proposal relative to the properties on Wellington Road is considered acceptable. 

The proposal maintains 25m separation distance between the proposed habitable room windows on the rear elevation of block two and the rear elevation of Annesley Court on Wellington Road due to both the proposal and Annesley Court being three storey buildings the Councils normal standards would require 27m-separation distance between ground floor and three storey facing habitable room windows. I consider due to the buildings not being entirely directly facing each other and the constrains imposed by the size of the site that on balance given the proposal is only 2m short of the Councils requirements that the benefits of the regeneration of the site outweigh the need to maintain 27m separation distance in this instance. I am of the opinion that the proposal will not result in a significant detrimental impact upon the amenity of the residents of Annesley Court and I consider that the proposal will not appear over bearing or dominant.

The proposal maintains 34.5m separation distance to the rear elevation of 3 Ellesmere Avenue this distance is acceptable and would not result in a detrimental impact upon the amenity of the residents of 3 Ellesmere Avenue. 

There is 23m-separation distance from the nearest part of block two to the rear elevation of 5 Ellesmere Avenue. As there are no habitable room windows within this proposed gable. As such I consider there would be no detrimental impact on the amenity of the residents of 5 Ellesmere Avenue. 

The proposal maintains 31m separation distance between the proposed habitable room windows on the gable elevation of block two to the rear elevation of 7 Ellesmere avenue. Although this property is a bungalow the proposal maintains sufficient separation distance in accordance with the Councils normal standards. As such I consider the proposal would not result in an over bearing or dominant structure. I also do not consider the proposal will result in any significant loss of amenity in relation to over shadowing.

Block two maintains approximately 27.5m separation distance from the habitable room windows on the gable elevation to the habitable room windows on the rear elevation of 7a Ellesmere Avenue. This distance accords with normal standards I also note that whilst 7a Ellesmere Avenue is set further back from the neighbouring properties and closer to the proposal, that due to the significant different orientation of the proposal I consider that there will be no detrimental impact on the privacy on the residents of 7a Ellesmere Avenue.

I consider that the existing  boundary treatments will ensure that the privacy of future occupiers of the proposal would be safeguarded.  I consider that this is comparable with other developments within the Eccles area and is considered acceptable.  I consider that sufficient amenity space is provided within the site for the future occupiers of the development. 

With regard to the design I consider this to be of high quality.  The scheme was assessed by the Council’s architectural consultant during the pre-application discussions, who is of the opinion that this is a well thought out and well executed scheme. I consider that the proposal is in accordance with the relevant policies of the UDP. I do not consider the proposal will result in an over bearing or dominant structure. I consider that Block one and Block two are both well designed and are sympathic to the constraints of the site. I consider the buildings to be in keeping with the layout of the site and do not consititute over development.

Car Parking
Policy T13 of the adopted plan 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.

Policy A10 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP 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 objections received refer to the amount of car parking and access proposed.  Whilst I acknowledge that the proposed level of car parking would not provide 1 space per apartment. There would be 18 spaces for the 24 apartments. I consider that the location of the proposal close to Eccles town centre with sufficient amenities and public transport is such that the proposed level is acceptable and would accord with the principles of Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 : Transport.

I have no highway objections and I am of the opinion that the level of parking proposed across the site is acceptable.

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 that 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 has agreed to make a contribution towards the provision and maintenance of open space in the vicinity. In accordance with the recently adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance, the contribution in this regard would be £68,756.  I am satisfied that the application therefore accords with Adopted policies H6 and H11 and Draft Policy H8.

Design and Crime
Adopted Policy DEV4 encourages greater consideration of crime prevention and personal and property security in the design of new development. Regard will be had to a number of factors including the provision of security features.

Draft Policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the Adopted UDP.

The Police Architectural Liaison Officer (ALO) has commented on the application and is of the opinion that the scheme is acceptable with appropriate security measures.

The applicant has received a copy of the advice offered by the ALO.

In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the scheme complies with the policy guidance highlighted above.

Other Issues

Additional information has been provided by the developer to show the correct ridge heights of the adjoining properties in Ellesmere Avenue and also the approximate height of 7a Ellesmere Avenue. I have conducted further site visits in order to ascertain the ground levels of the proposal in relation to its neighbouring properties. I have re-consulted the objectors and neighbours to inform them of new information. Whilst I note there is approximately 1m difference in the ground levels of properties on Ellesmere Avenue to the proposal site I am of the opinion that this difference does not result in a significant detrimental increase in the affect of the proposal on these properties. As such I consider that the proposal does not have a significant over bearing or dominant effect upon the amenity of the residents of Ellesmere Avenue.

 The Director of Environmental Services has not objected to scheme in principle and has not raised any concerns relating to the amenity of neighbouring residents in relation to the proposed entrance/exit gates.

There is only one TPO tree on the site which is the large Ash tree located behind the proposed car park for Block one. It is proposed to retain this tree and a condition has been attached requiring a substantial fence to be erected around the tree. I consider that the landscaping scheme conditioned for this development will allow for a significant amount of replacement tree planting of which the developer has also agreed to.

VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT	

•	Pre-application discussions were held that have resulted in improvements to the scheme. 
•	£68,756 will go towards environmental improvements in the local area.

CONCLUSION

This is a brownfield site close to the heart of the regional centre.  It is appropriate that it is developed to a high density commensurate with its location.  The scheme is well designed and is of very high quality.  The buildings are arranged so that the street frontage is complemented at the same time provides a high standard of living accommodation and environment to future residents.  The development will have long-range visibility across the M602 Motorway and will be a good addition to the character and appearance of the area. The development will not result in any significant adverse harm on the amenity of the neighbouring residents. I consider the proposal will result in a positive contribution to the regeneration.
 
I consider that the development accords fully with the provisions of the development plan and that there is no detrimental effect on any interest of acknowledged importance.  I recommend that permission is granted subject to the following conditions.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the approval of the LPA.  The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground 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 LPA prior to the start of the site investigation survey.  Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site. Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval.  The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the 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 twelve 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

4.	Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a noise assessment 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 the M602 Motorway. The assessment shall identify all noise attenuation measures and alternative means of ventilation which may be determined appropriate to reduce the impact of noise on the residential properties on site and achieve the requirements of BS8233 for internal noise levels. Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority, all approved noise control and ventilation measures shall be implemented prior to first occupation of any of the apartments hereby approved and thereafter retained.

5.	No development shall commence until an external lighting scheme for the apartments has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Such scheme as is approved shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of any dwelling.

6.	Not withstanding the details on the approved plans, the applicant shall submit a scheme showing full details of the boundary treatment within two months of the commencement of development for the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the apartments and retained thereafter.

7.	Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use that part of the site to be used by vehicles shall be laid out, surfaced and sealed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and shall thereafter be made available at all times the premises are in use.

8.	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.

9.	Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.

10.	No development shall commence until a scheme of recycling facilities for the apartments has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.  Such scheme as is approved shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of any dwelling.

11.	Proir to the first occupation of the apartments, the cycle store shall be erected and fully available for use and shall be retained thereafter unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

12.	Prior to commencement of development details of external materials for the walls and roof shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved particulars.

Reason(s)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R028A Public safety

3.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

4.	Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

5.	Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

6.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

7.	Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

8.	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.

9.	Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees

10.	Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

11.	Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

12.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	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

2.	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.

3.	The applicant is advised that a separate surface water storage system is required to limit the discharge of surface water to 15 litres per second. The applicant shall contact United Utilities prior to the commencement of development. The applicant should also discuss the requirement of access needed by UU in relation to a public sewer.

APPLICATION No:	05/50772/HH

APPLICANT:	Mr D Smus

LOCATION:	61 Ashbourne Grove Salford M7 4DB    

PROPOSAL:	Construction of rear dormer extension and alterations to roof to create a gable end roof. (Amendment to previously Approved  04/48163/HH)

WARD:	Broughton

At the meeting of the panel held on the 21st July consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.

My previous observations are set out below:

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a semi-detached property at the end of Ashbourne Grove near to the Junction with Leicester Road. The property has a small rear garden that is 4.9m in length and 7.7m in width. The property has an existing part single part two storey rear extension.

The application is for the erection of a box dormer in the rear roof space of the property. The dormer will project out approximately 6m from the roof plane. It would be sited approximately 0.1m below the ridge of the roof.  It is set in from the gable end of the property approximately 0.3m and from the adjoining semi-detached property approximately 0.6m. The property has an existing two storey rear extension. The proposed dormer extension would project out the same distance as this extension.

This application is an amendment to 04/48163/HH which was approved in July 2004. This application differs from the previous in that the dormer extension will now project at total of 6m from the roof line of the property.  The previous permission approved a dormer extension that would project 4m from the ridge and would not extend past the rear wall of the dwelling.

SITE HISTORY
 04/48163/HH- Construction of rear dormer extension and alterations to roof to create a gable end roof. Approved under delegated powers on 09.07.2004 but has not been built to date.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	57A – 59 Leicester Road
	100-104 Northumberland Street
	59 Ashbourne Grove

REPRESENTATIONS

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

Councillor B P Murphy has requested the application be determined at panel due to the large family requirements of the applicant.

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

None

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 House Extensions

REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES8 Alterations and Extensions

PLANNING APPRAISAL

 The main planning issue relating to this application is the impact that the proposed dormer would have upon the street scene and the over looking and subsequent loss of privacy to the residents of 102 Northumberland Street.

 Policy DEV8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan states that development must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene. Policies DES8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan reiterate the sentiments of DEV8. Policy HH15 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on House Extensions states that dormers are not normally acceptable where they face an adopted highway used by vehicular traffic and are not an original feature of the street scene unless they are designed in such a way that their impact can be significantly reduced. It goes on to provide specific guidance on how dormers can be designed in order to minimise their impact upon the street scene advocating dormers which have pitched or hipped roofs and are sited below the ridge line and set well back and in from the eaves.

61 Ashbourne Grove is located at the end of a row of semi-detached properties, just 17 metres from Leicester Road. The roofspace where the proposed dormer would be constructed is highly visible to those travelling up or down Leicester Road and Ashbourne Grove. According to policy the proposed dormer should be designed in such a way that its impact upon the street scene is significantly reduced. This is not the case. The proposed dormer has a boxy design, it is very large extending across most of the roof and projecting out from the roof  by approximately 6m. The size of the dormer together with its boxy design accentuates the bulkiness of the structure. The proposed dormer would therefore form a very obvious and incongruous feature within the roofspace. The long range, visibility and poor design means that the proposed dormer would have an adverse impact upon the street scene. The development is contrary to policy DEV8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan, policies DES7 and DES8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan and policy HH15 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on House Extensions.

The previously approved planning application 04/48163/HH showed that the rear dormer would be sited entirely on the existing rear roof plane of the house and as such did not significantly further contribute to over looking or a loss of privacy to 102 Northumberland Street.  There is 15m separation distance between the main original dwelling house of 102 Northumberland Street and 61 Ashbourne Grove, however, following rear extensions at both properties the separation distance between the rear extensions of 61 Ashbourne Grove and the rear elevation of 102 Northumberland Street is 12.5m. As the current scheme seeks to extend the dormer to project 6m from the roof plane this will bring the dormers’ habitable room window closer to 102 Northumberland Street than the previously approved dormer by 2m ie it will be 12.5m away.  The previously approved dormer would be 14.5m away. I consider that this increase in projection, which seeks to reduce an existing sub-standard separation distance between the previously approved dormer and the dwelling opposite, will result in a significant increase in the loss of amenity to the neighbouring residents in terms of over looking and loss of privacy having regard to its location in the roofspace. I consider that the proposed dormer extension would be detrimental to the amenity of the residents of 102 Northumberland Street and as such I consider the proposal unacceptable.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the siting of the house is such that the proposed development would be highly visible to those travelling along Leicester Road and Ashbourne Grove. The boxy design of the dormer in combination with the 6m rear projection and end of row location means that the proposed dormer forms an incongruous feature within the roofscape which would have a negative effect on the street scene. It is therefore contrary to policy DEV8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan, policies DES8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan and policy HH15 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on House Extensions. I consider that the further reduction in separation distance to 102 Northumberland Street at the rear would result in serious over looking and a loss of privacy to the residents. I am of the opinion that this application clearly increases the over looking element on the rear garden and rear aspect of 102 Northumberland Street due to the projection of the dormer over the existing rear extension instead of being sited entirely on the originals roof plane of the house. It is therefore contrary to policy DEV8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan, policies DES8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan and policy HH3 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on House Extensions. I therefore recommend that the application be refused.

RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:

1.	The proposed dormer extension would, by reason of its size and design, be an incongruous addition to the roofscape detrimental to the visual amenity of the area contrary to Policy HH15 of the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance for house extensions and policy DEV8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and Policy DES8 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement City of Salford Unitary Development Plan

2.	The proposed rear dormer would, by reason of its proximity to the property at the rear 102 Northumberland Street, result in overlooking and a subsequent loss of privacy contrary to Policy DEV8 of the Unitary Development Plan and HH1 of the Supplementary Planning Guidance - House Extensions.

APPLICATION No:	05/50851/FUL

APPLICANT:	Mr And Mrs R Howell

LOCATION:	Land Beween 11-13 Chapel Road Swinton M27 0HF    

PROPOSAL:	Erection of a detached dwelling

WARD:	Worsley

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application site is the side garden of 13 Chapel Road, Swinton, the area is residential in nature.  There are various different types of properties in the area including terraces, semi-detached and detached properties.  The rear boundary of the site is the head of a cul-de-sac.

The proposal is to erect one detached dwelling in the side garden of the property.  The proposal would measure 5.1m wide by 10m long with a height of 7.9m.  The proposal would have a gable and two dormer windows on the rear elevation.

PLANNING HISTORY

A previous planning application was submitted in October 2004, and the application was withdrawn 04/49143/FUL.  The current application has additional details relating to boundary treatments and a change in the location of the parking spaces.

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – no objections but recommends a condition requiring a gas investigation.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	4, 6, 9, 11, 15, 17 Chapel Road
	1 and 2 Shorland Street
	18 and 19 Aldersgate Court
	2 Catherine Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received one letter of objection and one petition signed by ten residents in response to the planning application publicity.  The following issues have been raised:-

Proximity to No.11
Impact of proposal on maintenance of No.11
Loss of sunlight
Loss of privacy
Noise
Increase in traffic
Future development potential of No.11
Design
Loss of value of existing properties
Increase in youths in the area
Providing a through passage between Shorland Street and Chapel Road

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
DEV2 – Good Design
		T13 – Car Parking
		
REVISED DEPOSIT 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 design of the proposed building 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.

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.

As mentioned the area is residential in nature and there are various different housing types in the area including terrace, detached, semi-detached and flats. The proposal is a modern design and the height of the proposal is similar to existing properties.  There are two dormer windows in the rear elevation of the proposal.  Despite an absence of dormer windows in the immediate vicinity I would not consider the addition of these windows to be unacceptable and I would not consider the proposal to be out of character with the area. 

Amenity

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 proposal would be situated close to the boundary with No.11 and would project 1m beyond the rear elevation of the property.  The proposed front elevation would be flush with the existing front elevation of No.11.  No.11 has a kitchen door adjacent to the proposal and a bedroom window on the first floor.  I would not consider the projection have an unacceptable impact on sunlight although it may be reduced in the early evening.  Kitchens are not considered to be habitable rooms, I would therefore not consider the proposal to have an unacceptable impact on the occupier of No.11.  I would not consider that the introduction of an additional dwelling would create an unacceptable level of noise.  The construction process may be inconvenient for a short time but disturbance from construction work is addressed by other legislation.

No.1 Shorland Street is situated to the rear of the proposal.  I would not consider the proposal to have an impact on the privacy of this property as it is already overlooked by the existing properties. 

No.13 has an existing bedroom window and door on the side elevation.  A condition would be attached to ensure the door was located to the front of the existing property and the bedroom window to be located at the rear.   The alterations would not require planning permission and then conditions to ensure that living conditions of existing neighbouring residents will be safeguarded.

I would not consider the proposal to have an unacceptable impact on the privacy or amenity of existing residents in accordance with Draft Policy DES 7

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. 

No.13 would have one car parking space located to the rear of the property.  There has been an opening at the rear in the past, the rear boundary would be 1m in height to ensure adequate visibility.  The proposed dwelling would have one car parking space located to the front.  I would consider the level of car parking to be acceptable.

I have received one objection relating to parking at the rear of the proposed development. The application has been amended and parking is now proposed to the front of the proposal.  I would not consider the proposal to create an unacceptable increase in the level of traffic.   I have no objections on highway grounds.

Other Issues

There have been several additional issues raised in objections.  The proposal would have an impact on the future maintenance and development if No.11.  The proposal would be situated on land wholly owned by No.13.   A homeowner cannot rely on land owned by another to access of repair their own property.

There would not be a through passage created by the proposal, No.13 would have a rear opening for the use of a car parking.  No.13 could create an opening to the rear of their property without planning permission.

Loss of value to existing properties is not a planning consideration. 

I would not consider the proposal to contribute in the increase in the number of youths in the area.

VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT	

The application has been amended.  The car parking space of the proposed dwelling is now situated to the front of the proposal.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion,  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 which outweigh this finding. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the materials for the external elevations and roof of the building 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.	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 gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health.  The investigation shall also address the implications on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and property.
	
	The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Director of Development Services prior to the start of the site investigation survey.  Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.
	
	Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to the Director of Development Services for approval.  The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the Director of Development Services.
	
	For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the applicant/developer is advised to contact the Pollution Control Section of the Directorate of Environmental Services (TEL:0161 793 2046).

4.	Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the finished floor levels of the properties hereby approved shall be a minimum of 300mm above the adjacent road level.

5.	Prior to the commencement of development the existing window and door in the side elevation of No.13 Chapel Road shall be  relocated as described in point 9 of the plan received 21/07/05.

Reason(s)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

3.	Standard Reason R028A Public safety

4.	In order to reduce the risk of flooding

5.	Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	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:	05/50857/FUL

APPLICANT:	Rowland Homes Ltd

LOCATION:	Valley Works Monton Road Eccles M30 9HL   

PROPOSAL:	Erection of 2/3/4 storey residential development comprising 80 units together with associated landscaping, car parking and alteration to existing vehicular access

WARD:	Eccles

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a 0.92 hectare industrial/commercial site. To the rear of the site is the Valley Works premises and on the Monton Road frontage is an office building and the site of a former petrol station. The majority of the remainder of the site is covered by areas of hardstanding. The buildings on the site are presently being demolished. To the south of the application site is the M602 motorway. There is a public footpath adjacent to the eastern and southern site boundaries. The western boundary of the site adjoins the rear gardens of dwellings on Monton Avenue. The area surrounding the site is largely residential.

The proposal is to erect 18 three-bed houses, 4 four-bed houses, 58 two-bed apartments. The density of the development would be 87 units per hectare. A total of 98 parking spaces would be provided which would include 100% parking for the apartments and houses, in addition some of the houses would include integral garages. Disabled persons and visitor parking spaces would also be provided. The site would be accessed from a new vehicular access from Monton Avenue. The applicant has submitted a statement of design principles. The proposed materials are a mixture of brick and render with cill and headstone details in artstone or brickwork, with grey rooftiles.  

Plots 1 to 6 comprise 6 two-bed apartments located on three floors at the junction of Monton Avenue and Monton Road. Plots 2, 4 and 6 would be set back a minimum distance of 19 metres from the side of 103 Monton Road and approximately 13 metres from the Monton Road frontage. The main window to the lounge/dining area would face Monton Road, there are, however, dining room windows which would face the side of 103 Monton Road at a distance of 20.3 metres, in addition to bedroom windows which incorporate angled bays so that the windows do not directly face the side of 103 Monton Road. Plots 1, 3 and 5 would be 18.4 metres from the side of 103 Monton Road. Amended plans have been submitted which indicate that there would be no habitable room windows in this elevation.

Plots 7 to 30 comprise three-storey 2-bed apartments, fronting Monton Road, with amenity space and pedestrian access to the front and parking to the rear, accessed via Monton Avenue.  The apartments have been designed to give the appearance of large semi-detached properties, with lower level links between them. The design to the Monton Road frontage incorporates bay windows and juliette balconies. 

Plots 31 to 42 comprise three-storey 3 and 4-bed dwellings including one pair of semi-detached dwellings, a terrace of four dwellings and a terrace of six dwellings. Gardens of between 7 and 11 metres in length would be provided to the rear of these dwellings. These dwellings would be separated from the rear gardens of dwellings on Ellesmere Avenue by the public footpath. The application site boundary is 24 metres from the existing dwellings on Ellesmere Avenue. Planning permission was granted in 2002 for a bungalow, which has not been erected, which would be a minimum of 11.5 metres from the site boundary.  

Plots 43 to 70 comprise two four-storey apartment blocks, the fourth being located within the roofspace. One building would be set back between 7 and 11 metres from the eastern boundary and the other building would be set back between 6 and 14 metres from the southern boundary, with the area between the buildings and boundary being identified as amenity space for future residents. There would be a minimum distance of 28 metres to the dwelling at 19 Ellesmere Avenue and minimum distance of 26 metres to the dwellings on Monton Avenue. A gated parking court would be provided to the side of the building, in addition to cycle parking. 

Plots 71 to 75 and 76 to 80 comprise two terraces of two-storey dwellings three-bed dwellings. There would be a minimum distance of 21.2 metres between the facing habitable room windows of 9 to 17 Monton Avenue and 19.4 metres to the single storey kitchens to the rear of these dwellings. Rear gardens of between 10.8 and 11.5 metres would be provided. Parking spaces would be provided to the front of plots 71 to 80 and a garage would be provide to the side of plot 80.

There are a number of trees within the site, adjacent to the site boundaries, in addition, there are trees overhanging the site from the gardens at the rear of the dwellings on Ellesmere Avenue, which are protected by TPO No. 13. To the front of the existing office building is a mature horse chestnut tree, which is also protected by TPO No. 13 and would be retained as part of the development. A number of trees within the site would be removed. An arboricultural report has been submitted. New tree planting would form part of the landscape proposals.

Off-site highway improvements are proposed at the junction of Monton Avenue and Monton Road, to improve visibility in addition to footway widening on Monton Avenue. A noise assessment has also been submitted.

SITE HISTORY

04/48064/FUL - Erection of a two/three/four storey residential development comprising 60 units together with associated landscaping and alteration to existing and creation of new vehicular access (Resubmission of planning application 03/47089/FUL). Approved 25.06.2004.
 
CONSULTATIONS

Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Have raised some areas of concern regarding open access and defensible spaces should be created; where possible there should be in-curtilage parking; parking adjacent to 57- 70 is not secure, but could be partially mitigated if it is gated; concern regarding close proximity of spaces to dwellings and potential of noise disturbance; a statement to demonstrate that crime prevention measures have been considered is requested.

Highways Agency – No objections

Environment Agency – No objections. 

Director of Environmental Services (Pollution Control) – Recommends site investigation condition. 

Councils Tree Consultant – No objections

United Utilities - No comments received.

PUBLICITY

A press notice was published on 23rd June 2005

A site notice was displayed on 16th June 2005

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

1 – 23 (o) Monton Avenue
19, 21, 23, 23a, 25 Ellesmere Avenue
Flats 1, 2, 2a, 3 Ellesmere Avenue
95, 98, 100A, 100B, 103, 105, 105A, 105C, 107 Monton Road 
Flats 1 –5, 103 Monton Road
Flats A & C, 105 Monton Road
Basement Flat 105C Monton Road
First Floor Flat 105A Monton Road
Ground Floor Flat 105 Monton Road
22 – 28 (e) Richmond Grove
1, 2, 3 Stafford Road

REPRESENTATIONS

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

•	Development does not reflect massing and character of the local properties as all the adjacent properties are two-storey semi detached houses with gardens, whereas the proposals for plots 1-30 on Monton Road are 3-storey linked buildings with a high roofline – this will be far too strident to maintain the character of Monton Road  
•	Proposal for all traffic to use an access on Monton Avenue will be hazardous. In view of the traffic calming proposals for Monton Road, consideration should be given to constructing a traffic island on Monton Road at the junction with Stafford Road and an access to the development being formed at this junction in lieu of Monton Avenue
•	Concerns regarding the loss of trees to the rear of properties on Monton Avenue which are well established and at least 20 years old. To remove the tree would not be in keeping with the history of the area.
•	The residents at 7 Monton Avenue have questioned the status of the rear wall which forms a boundary with the application site and that they will not give their consent to this until the plans are made clear.
•	Concern regarding poor visibility splay and impact on pedestrian and vehicular safety. Further increases in traffic without safety provisions is not acceptable.

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

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
		EC3 – Re Use of Sites and Premises
		EN7 – Conservation of Trees and Woodland
		H6 - Open Space Provision Within New Housing Development
		H11 - Open Space Provision Within New Housing Development

REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None.
Other policies:	H1 – Provision of New housing Development	
DES1 – Respecting Context
		DES11 – Design and Crime		
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
		EN10 – Protected Trees
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
H8 – Open Space Provision Associated With New Housing Development

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principal of residential and the proposed density is acceptable; the impact on existing trees at and overhanging the site; whether there would be any adverse affect on the amenity of surrounding residents; whether the design of the proposed dwellings is satisfactory; if adequate provision would be made for open space; and whether the application accords with the relevant provisions of the Adopted and Review UDP.  

Principle of Development and Density 

The site is unallocated in both the Adopted and Review UDPs.  Adopted policy EC3 states that where existing industrial and commercial sites/ premises become vacant, the City Council will seek to re-use or redevelop them for similar or related uses except where the sites/premises could be used for other purposes without a resulting material or unacceptable shortfall in the range of sites/premises available for economic development; alternative employment generating development would be more appropriate or there is a strong environmental case for rationalising land uses or creating open space. This industrial site is an isolated employment use within a residential area and I do not consider that the loss of this use would result in a material shortfall in available employment sites, in addition, planning permission was approved last year for residential development and as such, I consider that the principle of residential development has been firmly established. I consider that a density of 87 units per hectare is acceptable in this location, which is within easy reach of both Eccles town centre and Monton key local centre. 

Design and Layout and Impact on Amenity of Existing Residents
		
UDP policy DEV1 states that regard must be had to a number of factors when determining applications for planning permission including the layout and relationship of existing and proposed buildings and the effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for neighbouring properties. Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant planning permission, unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance of the development. Review UDP 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. Review UDP 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.

With regards to impact on existing residents on Monton Avenue distances of 21.2 metres will be maintained between facing habitable room windows and 19.4 metres to the single storey kitchens to the rear of these dwellings, this is in accordance with the City Council’s standards and as such, I do not consider that there would be any significant loss of privacy to these residents. Furthermore, the gardens to these plots would be in excess of 10 metres in length and as such, there would be no significant overlooking or loss of light to the gardens of existing residents. I have recommended a condition removing permitted development rights to protect the amenity of existing residents.

Plots 31 to 42 would be three-storey dwellings, as opposed to two-storey as approved under the previous planning permission. There is, however, in excess of 24 metres from the habitable room windows of the proposed dwellings and  the rear of dwellings on Ellesmere Avenue, with the exception of the site adjacent to 21 Ellesmere Avenue, where planning approval was recently given for erection of a detached bungalow (not yet erected). Here, there would be a minimum distance of approximately 21 metres between the proposed habitable room windows and those of the bungalow, however, given the orientation of the proposed bungalow and its siting at close proximity to the mature trees on this boundary, I do not therefore consider that there would be any loss of privacy or light, should this bungalow be constructed in the future. I have, however, recommended that permitted development rights are removed for these plots.

Within the development, amenity distances are generally in accordance with the City Council’s standards and would not result in any significant loss of privacy or loss of light for future residents, with the exception of the two-storey dwellings at plots 79 and 80, where there would be a separation distance of 20 metres from the side of the three-storey apartment building housing plots 1, 3 and 5 and 19 metres from the bay window. Whilst a distance of 24 metres would normally be required, I consider that to increase the separation distance would have negative impacts on the design and layout of the development at the site entrance, furthermore, future residents would be aware of this distance prior to purchasing these properties. Given the regeneration benefits of the site and in the interests of good design, I consider this shortfall to be acceptable. 

The proposed development consists of a mix of housetypes and differing heights. With regards to the objection raised regarding the height of the apartments fronting Monton Road, the properties immediately surrounding the site are predominantly two-storey, however, I do not consider that the increased height and resulting development would be out of character or context with the existing properties on Monton Road. I consider that the proposed site layout and housetypes would complement the surrounding residential area. The proposed frontage development on Monton Road would maintain the building line and enable the retention of the TPO tree. I consider that the design and resulting streetscene would represent a high quality of development. I have recommended a condition requiring samples of materials to be submitted to ensure that they are of a high standard and in keeping with the surrounding area.

Policies DEV4 and DES11 require development to be designed to minimise the risk of crime and Supplementary Planning Guidance – Designing Out Crime encourages natural surveillance for new developments. The Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit has raised some concerns, in particular with regards to open access. I have recommended that a condition is attached which would allow detailed consideration of the crime and security issues, with particular reference to the provision of fencing and lighting. 

Impact on Trees

Policy EN7 states that the City Council will encourage the conservation of trees and woodland.  In addition, the City Council has adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance with regard to trees.  Importantly this states that considerations for layout design should ensure that no building should be located within the maximum spread of any tree and that in the case of residential buildings, a development in which a principal window is overshadowed by a tree, or where any part of a tree is sited within 3.6m of a window, will be resisted. 

The plans submitted indicate that a number of trees would be removed, including trees to the eastern and western boundaries of the site. These were identified for removal under the previous planning permission and are all self-seeded, generally poor specimens. I have recommended a landscape condition which will require replacement tree planting. The plans indicate that a minimum distance of 3.6 metres will be maintained from the proposed habitable room windows and the canopies of the off-site TPO trees to the eastern boundary and the horse chestnut on the Monton Road boundary. The arboricultural report recommends a geo-web type material to be used for parking spaces 28 to 30 which are within the canopy spread. The site has been visited by the Council’s arboricultural advisor, who is of the opinion that the distance between the proposed buildings and the TPO trees along the eastern boundary of the site and the TPO horse chestnut tree on the Monton Road boundary is sufficient. He has recommended that a condition be attached requiring protective fencing to be erected around the horse chestnut tree to ensure that it is not harmed during construction. In addition to this condition, I have recommended a condition requiring the use of a geo-web type material to be used for parking spaces 28 to 30 and also for the area of footpath adjacent to the horse-chestnut tree. I am satisfied that the above conditions will ensure that the trees are satisfactorily protected. 

With regards to the objection raised regarding the loss of trees to the rear of the dwellings on Monton Avenue, the previous planning approval also indicated the removal of these trees. This is an area of self-seeded goat willow, which is not afforded protection by a TPO. I consider that it would be better to remove these specimens.

Open Space Provision

Policies H6 and H11 and H8 of the Review UDP relate to the provision of open space within new housing developments. In considering planning applications for developments incorporating dwellings designed for predominantly family accommodation, the City Council will seek to ensure the adequate provision and future maintenance of facilities for informal open space and children’s play. In accordance with Supplementary Planning Guidance – Provision of Open Space and Recreation Space Associated with New Residential Development, the applicant is required to make adequate provision for open space or contribute through a commuted sum payment to local environmental improvements.  For this development, a contribution of £137, 686 will be required. I have attached a condition requiring the developer to enter into a Section 106 legal agreement to secure this contribution. The contribution will be put towards improvements to existing open space provision and environmental improvements, which may include improvements to Monton Walkway and Shackleton Street playground

Other Planning Matters

With regards to the position of the vehicular access to the site on Monton Avenue, I have no objections on highway safety grounds. Junction improvements at the Monton Road junction are also proposed. These works will be subject to a s278 agreement. The developer has confirmed that the internal road network will not be put forward for adoption. The layout includes footways to ensure the safety of pedestrians. 

With regards to the objection raised regarding the boundary wall to the rear of dwellings on Monton Avenue, the applicant has confirmed that to the best of their knowledge, this wall is in joint ownership and as such, it is intended to be maintained and repaired. 

VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT	

•	Pre-application discussions and discussions during the course of the application have resulted in improvements to the design of the development and site layout.
•	The development will secure £137, 686 towards improvements to existing open space provision and environmental improvements, which may include improvements to Monton Walkway and Shackleton Street playground.

CONCLUSION

I consider that the layout, design and massing of the development will reflect and enhance the surrounding area and will not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. The proposal is in accordance with the provisions of the UDP and all material considerations have been taken into account. 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 Acts and Section 278 of the Highways Act.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the 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

3.	Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.

4.	Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the materials for the external elevations and roof of the building 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.

5.	No development shall be started until full details of the location, design and construction of bicycle parking facilities have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.  Such approved bicycle parking facilities shall thereafter be constructed and made available for use before the first occupation of the building.

6.	Standard Condition J04X Bin Stores

7.	This permission shall relate to the following amended plans:
		
	549-001 Rev A - received 27th June 2005 -  indicating site layout amendments
	549-103 Rev A - received 27th June 2005 -  indicating amended elevations
	549-102 Rev A - received 27th June 2005 -  indicating amended floor plans
	549-101 Rev A - received 27th June 2005 -  indicating amended floor plans

8.	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.

9.	Prior to commencement of the development; the developer shall undertake an assessment to determine the external noise levels from the public house that the proposed residential elements will be subjected to (day time and night time).  The developer shall detail what steps have to be taken to mitigate the disturbance from the above.  The assessment shall have due regard to the Department of the Environment Guidance PPG 24 - Planning and Noise, achieving BS8233: 1999 in all habitable rooms. This assessment and mitigation measures shall be submitted for the approval of Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development.  Once agreed, all identified noise control measures shall be implemented and thereafter retained.

10.	The development hereby approved shall not be first occupied unless and until the associated off site highway works detailed in the Highway and Traffic Report (Singleton Clamp - dated 20th November 2003) including the junction visibility improvements at Monton Road and footway widening on Monton Avenue, have been completed

11.	Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the approval of the LPA.  The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground 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 LPA prior to the start of the site investigation survey.  Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.
	
	Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval.  The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.

12.	Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 and Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (and any subsequent amending order), there shall be no development within the curtilage of Plots 31 to 42 and 71 to 75 hereby approved as defined in Part 1, Class A and Class B of Schedule 2 of the above Order without the prior grant of planning permission by the Local Planning Authority.
13.	Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 and Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (and any subsequent amending order), there shall be no development within the curtilage of Plots 31 to 42 and 71 to 75 hereby approved as defined in Part 1, Class A and Class B of Schedule 2 of the above Order without the prior grant of planning permission by the Local Planning Authority.

13.	No development shall be started until full details of the finished site levels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

14.	Prior to the commencement of development, a Secured By Design statement 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, with particular reference to lighting and boundary treatments. The findings of the statement shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Director of Development Services.

15.	The glazing for the dining room windows to the building containing plots 43 - 56  which face the side of the building containing plots 57 -70 shall be obscured, and shall be maintained thereafter.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

3.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

4.	Reason: To ensure the development fits in with the existing buildings in the vicinity in accordance with policy DEV 2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

5.	To ensure that adequate provision is made for the parking of bicycles within the curtilage of the site in accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

6.	Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

7.	Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

8.	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

9.	Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

10.	In the interests of highway safety and to provide an acceptable pedestrian environment

11.	Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

12.	Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

13.	Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

14.	Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

15.	Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	Works on existing adopted highway will be subject to a s278 agreement (please contact the City Council's Traffic Section)

2.	United Utilities should be consulted regarding details of drainage.

3.	For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the applicant/developer is advised to contact the Pollution Control Section of the Directorate of Environmental Services (Tel: (0161) 737 0551).

4.	A separate drainage system is required with storage on surface water to limit discharge via combined connection to 15 l/s, to United Utilities approval, to sewer running along south of site. A minimum sewer easement of 3m either side is required. Any sewer connections to Monton Road sewer require limited discharge 15 l/s. Floor levels to be 300mm above adjacent road. In all cases, all floor levels must be 300mm above adjacent ground. It is recommended that any unadopted hard areas are permeable and drain to soakaway.

5.	Footpath to Monton Road must be reinstated

APPLICATION No:	05/50908/FUL

APPLICANT:	Capital Venture Plc

LOCATION:	Land Fronting Ordsall Lane Trafford Road Salford 5    

PROPOSAL:	Erection of a four storey office building (8136 sq.m) together with associated landscaping, car parking and erection of single storey security lodge

WARD:	Ordsall

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates primarily to a vacant plot of land lying between the Metrolink and Trafford Road at Exchange Quay.  To the north lies the Exchange Quay Metrolink station, beyond which a new residential development is under construction (13 storey).  To the east are two landscaped areas, both of which are included in the application, one would be the site of a security lodge, and the second would be used to provide a sculptural entrance feature and landscaping.  To the west is the Quays Campus site and to the south, beyond Trafford Road is the Copthorne Hotel.

The office building would be six storeys in total and would incorporate two storeys of undercroft parking.  The undercroft parking would form the footprint of the building and would cover the majority of the site (approximately 78m X 48m), whereas the office floorspace would be contained within an L-shaped building which would have its main frontage onto Trafford Road and which would step up at either end of the elevation.  The building would have a flat roof and its elevations would be constructed from brickwork with large expanses of glazing.  At ground floor level grillage would be used except along the Trafford Road frontage where glass block is proposed.  Brick pillars, which would run the full height of the building, give the proposal vertical emphasis.  

The site is surrounded by trees on three sides.  This single row of trees consists of 31 plane trees, 6 ornamental maples and a cherry tree.  The trees are just 5-10 years old.

The application proposes 8136sq.m of office floorspace with 221 car parking spaces including 12 disabled spaces, 6 motorcycle spaces, and 20 bicycle spaces.  It also includes a small security lodge on an adjoining site that would provide security services to the whole of the Exchange Quay development, and a sculptural entrance feature and landscaping on a third adjacent piece of land.

The proposed security lodge would be located on its own island site close to the main access into Exchange Quay.  It would measure 4.5m by 4.5m

This application is a resubmission of a previous office proposal (02/43845/FUL) which is still extant and which was designed for a specific end user.  This new proposal is for speculative end users as the previous intended occupiers are no longer interested.  The notable differences are as follows:

•	Increase in the proposed floorspace from 6500sq.m to 8136sq.m.
•	Shall increase in the level of parking proposed from 218 spaces to 221.
•	Revised building design.
•	Inclusion of a third small site to provide sculptural entrance feature and landscaping.

SITE HISTORY

In June 2002 full planning permission was granted for the erection of an office building comprising 6534 sq.m floorspace, 218 car parking spaces, landscaping and new security lodge for Exchange Quay (02/43845/FUL)

In December 2001 outline planning permission was granted for office development with the formation of a new vehicular access (01/43228/OUT).

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – no comments received to the current application although advice from the previous applicatio0n has been taken into account.

Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – Concern has been raised that insufficient consideration has been given to minimising crime and anti-social behaviour.  Several points/suggestions have been made including:
1.	The neighbouring retail units have the subject of unacceptable events and the proposed office scheme should be mindful of this.  Protection of the glazed frontage from vehicular attack is essential. 
2.	A sterile zone should be provided between the building and Trafford Road to enable a boundary treatment similar to that further north on Trafford Road (i.e. secure boundary enclosure)
3.	There are several corners of the building which overhang the ground floor which may attract misuse and comfort areas for miscreants.
4.	Removal of recesses to doors on Ordsall Lane.
5.	Tree around the security lodge should be removed to improve surveillance.
6.	Security measures to the car park required.

Greater Manchester Geological Unit – no comments received.

Environment Agency – no objection, recommendations made

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – no comments received.

Central Salford URC – Concern is raised over the design quality of the development and how it fits in within the local context including the Trafford Road frontage and Exchange Quay.  Particular concern is directed at the ground floor parking and whether it makes the development sterile.  It is thought that the louvre treatment along the Ordsall Lane and Metrolink frontages is unattractive, although it is acknowledged that it is necessary to provide natural ventilation.  It is suggested, however, that alternative means of ventilation could be used to enable an alternative frontage.  

Trafford MBC – no objection

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 28th June 2005.

A press notice was published on 7th July 2005.

The following neighbour addresses were notified:
	
Amstone Homes (Salford Quays) Ltd, C/o Grapevine Developments, Digital World Centre, 1 Lowry Plaza, Salford Quays, M50 3UB	
Amstone Homes (Salford Quays) Ltd, P O Box 250, Hale Road, Altrincham, Cheshire, WA15 8GB	
400 Ordsall Lane, Salford, M5 3BU, 	
402 Ordsall Lane, Salford, M5 3BU, 	
Sixth Floor, 1 Exchange Quay, Salford, M5 3EA, 	
First Floor, 4 Exchange Quay, Salford, M5 3GL, 	
1 Exchange Quay, Salford, M5 3EA, 	
4 Exchange Quay, Salford, M5 3GL, 	
Cygnet House, 111 Taylorson Street South, Salford, M5 3BL, 	
Fourth Floor, 4 Exchange Quay, Salford, M5 3EE, 	
Fourth Floor, 1 Exchange Quay, Salford, M5 3EA, 	
2 Exchange Quay, Salford, M5 3EB, 	
Seventh Floor, 4 Exchange Quay, Salford, M5 3EE, 	
Sixth Floor, 4 Exchange Quay, Salford, M5 3BN, 	
Ground Floor, 4 Exchange Quay, Salford, M5 3EE, 	
The Copthorne Hotel, Clippers Quay, Salford, M50 3XP, 	
Renown House, Merchants Quay, Salford, M50 3XF, 	
Virgin Cinemas, Clippers Quay, Salford, M5 2XP, 	
Ground Floor, 1 Exchange Quay, Salford, M5 3EA, 	
First Floor To Fourth Floor, 1 Exchange Quay, Salford, M5 3EA, 	
Second Floor And Fourth Floor, 4 Exchange Quay, Salford, M5 3EE, 	
601 Building, 6 Exchange Quay, Salford, M5 3EE, 	

REPRESENTATIONS

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

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings 
DP3 Quality in New Development
SD1 The North West Metropolitan Area - Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas
EC8 Town Centres - Retail, Leisure and Office Development
UR4 Setting Targets for the Recycling of Land and Buildings

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: 	None
Other policies:		DEV1 - Development Criteria
			DEV2 - Good Design 
DEV4 – Design and Crime
			DEV5 – Equality of Access
			EC3 – Re-use of Sites and Premises
                                    T13 - Car Parking

REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:  MX1/3 – Development in Mixed-Use Areas
Other policies:		ST11 – Location of New Development
DES1 - Respecting Context
DES5 – Tall Buildings
                                    DES7 - Amenity of Users and Neighbours.
			DES10 – Public Art
			DES11 – Design and Crime
			A1 – Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
			A10 - Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New 
                                    Developments
			
PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of office development, the design and massing of the development, and the impact on surrounding uses.

Principle of Office Development  
Policy EC8 of RSS13 states that office development should be directed towards locations within or adjoining main city or district centres and near to major public transport interchanges within urban areas.  Policy MX1/3 identifies the application site and surrounding area as appropriate for a vibrant mix of uses including offices.  Given the policy context and extant permission which exists at this site (02/43845/FUL), I consider the principle of office development to be acceptable.  Although this present scheme represents an increase in the density of office space by approximately 25%, I am of the opinion that this highly accessible site is able to support such a density.  The re-use of this building is also supported by Policies ST11 and UR4 which seek to prioritise the re-use of existing land and buildings.
 
Design and Massing, and the Relationship to Neighbouring Uses
Policies DEV1, DEV2, DES1 and DP3 require that the proposed development respects the context of the site and surroundings.  They require developments to be of a good design that have their own identity.  Policy DES5 seeks to prevent the erection of tall buildings that would have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring occupiers, the microclimate and local character and looks to promote buildings that would have a positive impact on the skyline.  Policy DES7 seeks to protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

The site is immediately adjacent to two recently approved developments which are currently under construction.  These are a residential development to the east (13 storeys) and the north (7 storeys).  Both developments are in excess of 21m away from the 6-storey office frontages of this proposal.  I am of the opinion that the scale and massing of the proposed development respects the local context, especially in relation to the taller buildings on Exchange Quay, and that the amenity of the future occupiers of the neighbouring development would not be unduly affected.  

The building would be viewed primarily along Trafford road and Ordsall Lane.  I am of the opinion that, with the height variation, the use of a restricted number of materials and the uniform and extensive fenestration details, that the design is acceptable.  To improve the pedestrian level detail of the Trafford Road elevation, glass brick has replaced car park grills.  These glass bricks would be supplemented by a lighting scheme to increase the activity along this frontage.  This has been conditioned. 

The security lodge is as previously approved and is acceptable in my view.

Policies DEV4 and DES11 seek to ensure that new developments are designed to discourage crime and anti-social behaviour.  The Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit has made a number of recommendations with respect to this proposal and the scheme has been amended to incorporate some of their concerns including the inclusion of a splayed plinth arrangement along the main frontages to avoid the abuse of these features by miscreants.  Modifications to door openings together with CCTV and controlled barriers at the car park entrance have also been proposed.  

However, the applicant disagrees with some of the comments made by the GMP officer.  The applicant considers that setting the building back to provide a ‘sterile zone’ is not necessary as the building face acts as a secure boundary.  He also considers the removal of trees would have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the area, and that pruning is a more appropriate solution.  Furthermore, protection of the glazed frontages is not considered necessary by the applicant, as it is expected that nothing of value would be kept within the reception area.  Although I agree with the views of the applicant with regard to the first two points, I consider that items of value may be located in the reception area, and that simple bollards, which would not affect the amenity of the area or the pedestrian flows, would improve the security of the development in accordance with Policies DEV4 and DES11.  Therefore, a condition has been attached for a scheme to be provided.  

PPG13 encourages the use of greener modes of travel and advises the use of maximum parking standards.  Policies T13 and A10 seek to achieve an appropriate level of parking for new development.  Policy DEV5 seeks to ensure that all sections of the community, including people with impaired mobility, have acceptable access to developments.  Although the parking provision has not increased proportionally with the increase in floorspace when compared to the extant permission, I am satisfied that, given the accessible location, the proximity to the metrolink, and current government guidance, that the level of parking is acceptable.  More than 5% of the parking would be provided for disabled persons and motorcycle and bicycle parking is also proposed which would make this development accessible by a wide variety of modes and by people with impaired mobility.    

The development would result in the removal of the majority of the trees but I do not consider that in this instance it is appropriate to retain those perimeter trees.  An extensive  area of landscaping would be provided around the entrance feature and to the front of the building to compensate for the loss of these trees.

Policy A1 requires that this development should also be accompanied by a travel plan to further reduce dependency on the private car.  This has been conditioned.  

Policy DES10 requires that public art or a contribution towards it should be made in connection with any developments which would have a significant visual impact on the local area by virtue of its scale, location or number of visitors.  The developer has stated the intention to provide a sculptural entrance feature and this has been conditioned to secure this element of the development.    

VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT	
•	A series of pre-application discussions have taken place to hone the quality of this development and to improve its accessibility and security.  
•	Further improvements have been secured whilst the application was being considered, particularly with regard to the comments received by the Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer.    

CONCLUSION
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of office development, the design and massing of the development, and the impact on surrounding uses.  I am satisfied with the principle of this development and consider the design and massing to be appropriate.  I am also satisfied that the amenity of neighbouring occupiers will not be unduly affected.  

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the external elevations 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 in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development is started.  Such a scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and shall include full details of the sculptural entrance feature within site C on the approved plans.  The scheme 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

4.	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.

5.	Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water drainage from the site 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.	Prior to the commencement of development details of a pedestrian link between the offices and the Metrolink stop shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local PLanning Authority.  The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme and the offices shall not be brought into use until the pedestrian link has been provided unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

7.	Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the protection of the glazed frontage from vehicular attack shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development and shall be retained thereafter.

8.	Prior to the commencement of development a Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Travel Plan shall be implemented within 1 month of first occupation of the development and shall be continued thereafter.

9.	The glass brick ground floor treatment along the Trafford Road frontage shall be treated in accordance with a  lighting scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started.  Such a scheme 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.

10.	Notwithstanding the details of the plans, prior to the commencement of development a scheme to incorporate live and active frontages at ground floor along the Ordsall Lane and Metrolink frontages shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The approved scheme shall be completed prior to the first occupation of the development 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 R028A Public safety

5.	To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

6.	Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety

7.	In the interests of security in accordance with policy DEV 4 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

8.	In the interests of moving towards sustainability, reducing environmental pollution and promoting energy conservation in accordance with Policy A1 of the Revised Replacement Draft City of Salford Unitary Development Plan .

9.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

10.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

APPLICATION No:	05/50914/HH

APPLICANT:	Mr And Mrs Cusick

LOCATION:	16 Blantyre Road Swinton M27 5ER    

PROPOSAL:	Demolition of existing lean-to and retention of single side/rear extension (re-submission of planning application 04/49094/HH)

WARD:	Claremont

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a semi-detached property on Blantyre Road.  The property is a corner property where May Road and Blantyre Road meet. The area is residential in nature and the application is for the retention of a single storey side/rear extension.  The extension is set back 8m from the front of the property and projects 1.3m towards May Road. It projects 6.5m towards the rear of the property, 3.2m from the existing rear elevation and is 4.3m in width at the rear.  A Laburnum tree protected under TPO number 108 is located in the garden of the property; it is positioned in between the extension and May Road.

SITE HISTORY

In October 2003 an application to fell the protected laburnum tree was refused. (03/47161/TPO)

In October 2004 application 04/49094/FUL for the demolition of the existing lean to and the erection of a single storey side/rear extension was withdrawn as the applicant had been advised that it was to be refused as the Councils Arborist considered that the proximity of the proposed side extension to the protected tree was likely to result in a detrimental impact on the tree.  This proposal differed from the current application as it had a single storey part running the width of the property to the rear.

In May 2005 an enforcement enquiry was opened as the applicant had built a smaller side/rear extension that they considered was permitted development.  The Council received notification that the protected tree within the garden had died.  This has been confirmed by the Councils Arborist.  The enforcement enquiry concluded that the extension that had been built was not permitted development as the lean-to that had been demolished was not part of the original dwelling and therefore the extension had come closer to May Road.  The applicant is now applying to retain the extension that they built.

CONSULTATION

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

14 and 15 Blantyre Road
3,5,6 and 7 May Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity.  The following issues have been raised: -

	That the extension has resulted in the loss of a healthy protected tree.
That the applicants have been allowed to deliberately ignore legislation.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: EN7 - Conservation of Trees and Woodland
		 DEV1 - Development Criteria
		 DEV3 - Alterations/Extensions

REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: EN10 - Protected Trees
		DES8 - Alterations and Extensions 

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues to this application are the size, impact of the extension on neighbouring properties and its appearance as well as the impact of the extension on the protected tree.

Policies DEV1 and DEV3 call for due regard to be had to the location and nature of the development and the effect on daylight, sunlight and privacy for neighbouring residents.  The kitchen extension is situated on the side of the property nearest May Road and is not directly adjacent to any other property.  The habitable room windows of properties on the opposite side of May Road facing directly onto the extension maintain a distance of 23m and a 2.2m high hedge runs along the boundary of 16 Blantyre Road where it adjoins May Road. Policy HH3 of the Supplementary Planning Guidance for House extensions calls for a distance of 9m to be maintained and therefore the proposed extension does not have a significant impact on the level of amenity, sunlight, daylight or privacy that the residents could expect to enjoy.  The adjoining semi detached property at 14 Blantyre Road has a conservatory projecting 2.7m along the common boundary between the two properties.  The extension maintains a distance of 3.5m from this boundary and has a rear-facing window and windows facing towards May Road and I therefore do not consider that the extension will result in a loss of light or privacy to this property.

Policies DEV3 and DES8 call for extensions to existing properties to maintain the general scale, character and materials of the existing building.  The extension has been constructed of similar brick to the existing dwelling.  The original property has a hipped roof, however the extension has been constructed with a pitched roof.  However, given the level of screening around the property and the size and character of the extension, I do not consider the extension to be overly prominent or a detrimental to the street scene.  It therefore accords to the above policies.

Policies EN7 and EN10 call for the protection of trees and woodland and the refusal of development which would result in the unacceptable loss of, or damage to protected tree.  Despite the previous application being withdrawn due to the possible impact on the protected tree this application is for the retention of the extension as built.  The Council’s Arborist has confirmed that the protected Laburnum tree within the site has suffered irreparable damage most likely due to the extension and is 95% dead and is therefore unlikely to ever recover.  In view of this, I do not consider that this application could be refused due to impact on the tree, given its current condition.  Replacement trees will however be sought through a condition on this application attached to this application and a decision taken regarding whether sufficient evidence can be obtained to support a prosecution.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion I consider that the single storey side/rear extension does not have a significant impact on the sunlight, daylight or privacy of the neighbouring properties and is not out of scale or character with the surrounding area or detrimental to the street scene.  It therefore complies with the relevant policies in this regard.  At the time of considering the application the protected Laburnum tree in the curtilage of the property has been confirmed dead and therefore it is unreasonable to refuse the application on potential damage to this tree.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	During the first available planting season the Laburnum tree protected under TPO 108 shall be felled and shall be replaced by two standard trees in accordance with British Standard 3936:Part 1:1965 (Specification for Nursery Stock Part 1: Trees and Shrubs) and which shall have a clear stem height from the ground of 1.8m, a minimum overall height from the ground of 2.75m, a minimum circumference of stem at 1m from the ground of 8 cm.  The  species and location of the replacement trees shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Any replacement tree dying within dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason(s)

1.	Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	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

APPLICATION No:	05/50940/HH

APPLICANT:	Mr & Mrs R Bottomley

LOCATION:	28 Hopefold Drive Worsley M28 3PN    

PROPOSAL:	Erection of two storey side extension including construction of canopy in front elevation.

WARD:	Walkden South

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application site is a detached modern house. The property is one of six properties
located in a cul-de-sac, and has an existing garage and conservatory to the rear of the
property. The proposal is for the erection of a two storey side extension including
the construction of a front canopy. The existing rear garage would also be converted to a
study, and the proposed extension would be built in front of this room. The proposed
extension would be approximately 5.4m in length and 2.2m wide at ground floor
level and 3.7m in length and 2.2m wide at first floor level. The height of the proposal is
6.5m.The proposal is approximately 200mm from 30 Hopefold Drive’s blank gable wall.
The proposal is for a bedroom at first floor level and a bathroom at ground floor level.
The main windows would be located to the front of the property.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	20-26 Hopefold Drive
	30-38 Hopefold Drive
	17 Hopefold Drive
	
REPRESENTATIONS

Councillor I Lindley has requested that this application be determined by Panel as he feels that the proposed works would have a significant negative impact on the adjacent property and the loss of access to their wall. 

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

Contravenes policy DEV8 - The proposal adversely impacts on the character of the street.
Contravenes policy HH16 - the extension does not maintain a hard standing of critical dimensions.
Contravenes policy HH10 - Planning permission would not be granted for two-storey extensions along the common boundary and creating a terracing effect.
Dominates neighbouring property
Future maintenance of 30 Hopeford Drive’s gable wall.
Overbearing
Red line plan is incorrect and the room on ground floor plan has no label. (The red boundary line and the name of the room on the plans have now been corrected)

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8-House extensions
		DEV1-Development Criteria

REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7-Amenity of users and Neighbours
		DES8-Alterations/Extensions

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are: Whether the size, height and siting of the proposal would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents; whether the proposed vehicular access would be acceptable and whether the proposal would comply with the provisions of relevant policies of the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance on House Extensions.

Policy DEV1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when dealing with applications for planning permission. These factors include the location of the proposed development, the relationship to the road, and the visual appearance of the development and the size of the development.
 
Adopted Policy DEV8 states that extensions will only be granted when it can be demonstrated that it would not have an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of neighbouring residents by reasons of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light. It also states that the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene.

Policy DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.

Draft Policy DES8 states that planning permission will only be granted for alterations and extensions to existing buildings that respect the general scale, character, proportions, details and materials of the original structure.

The proposal would infill between No.30’s gable wall and the applicant’s property to the side and rear garage. The proposal is located approximately 200mm away from No.30’s blank gable wall and would be flush in front of the applicant’s property. The applicant’s property  is set 1.6m back from No.30’s front elevation. As such it is not considered that the proposal will result in an overbearing or dominant structure by reason of height or projection. I would therefore consider the proposal to be in accordance with policy DEV8.

With regard to the issue raised, contravening guidance note HH10 of the SPG, this relates to extensions to the rear and not to the side as this application proposes. The proposed first floor extension would be set back 2m from the front of the house and is in accordance with the SPG. Therefore I am satisfied the extension would not create a serious terracing effect.

The proposal would not introduce any habitable room windows to the rear elevation. Therefore I do not consider that the proposal will result in any loss of privacy to the neighbouring residents.

The proposed habitable room window to the front elevation would not directly face any neighbouring properties. Therefore I am satisfied there would be no impact on the amenity of overlooking or loss of privacy as a result of this proposal.

The proposal has a lower ridge height than the existing house and the applicant has confirmed that the materials for the roof and proposed canopy would match those of the existing dwelling. I consider the proposal is in accordance with DEV8 and DES8. The proposal is also in accordance with the SPG.

With regard to the issue raised, contravening guidance note HH16, a hard standing of at least 4.8m in length and 2.4m in width would be maintained to accommodate at least one car clear of the highway. This is in accordance with policy HH16. 
I am therefore satisfied that the proposal would not have a detrimental adverse impact upon highway safety.
 
CONCLUSION

The proposed two storey side extension is not considered overbearing, dominant or to be out of character with the area or street scene. The proposal accords with the SPG on House Extensions. I consider the design of the proposed extension to be acceptable and I am also satisfied that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by virtue of overlooking or loss of privacy. Therefore I recommend that the application be approved

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

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

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building

APPLICATION No:	05/51000/FUL

APPLICANT:	R Lane

LOCATION:	1 Woodlands Road Worsley M28 2QG    

PROPOSAL:	Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of a new detached dwelling

WARD:	Worsley

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application site is situated on Woodlands Road. The area is residential in nature. The proposal is to demolish the existing bungalow and replace it with a two storey dwelling.  The site is located between the rear gardens of properties on Walkden Road and Briarfield Road.

The footprint of the proposal would be larger than the existing bungalow.  The proposal would measure 16m X 17.2m with a height of approximately 9m at its highest.

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objections but does recommend a condition relating to a gas membrane.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	2 Woodlands Road
	440 -448 (evens) Walkden Road
	17 Leaconfield Road
	1 – 9 (odds) Briarfield Road
	
REPRESENTATIONS

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

	Increase in height
	Loss of privacy
	Loss of light
	Loss of view
	Loss of value to surrounding properties
	Out of character with existing properties
Boundary treatment

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None   

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV2 – Good Design
		T13 – Car Parking
		
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

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

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are:  whether the design of the proposed building 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.

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.

The proposal is a detached dwelling in a residential area.  The proposal is two-storey and would have a hipped roof and gable end on either side.  The main part of the proposal would be approximately 9m at its highest and 5m to the eaves.  Close to the boundary with properties on Walkden Road is a garage with a room in the roof space. The height of this element would be approximately 7.8m.  There is also a single storey element close to the boundary with the properties on Briarfield Road, the height of this element would be approximately 3.8m.  The proposed development is of a high quality design and although it is larger than those properties in the immediate vicinity,  there are individual larger properties in the wider vicinity.

In conclusion, I am satisfied with the design of the proposed building and consider that it accords with the above policies. 

Amenity

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 proposal has been reduced by 0.5m in height and the gable end closest to the boundary with properties on Briarfield Road has been hipped.  The result in the reduction in height is that the proposal would be slightly lower in height than those properties on Walkden Road and would be approximately 1m higher than the properties on Briarfield Road.

With regards to privacy, there are no habitable room windows on the side elevation of the proposal, except two small obscure glazed bedroom windows on the elevation facing properties on Briarfield Road.  There are habitable room windows on the front and rear elevation on both the ground and first floor of the proposal.  The application site is currently overlooked by the surrounding two-storey properties and the properties  themselves currently overlook each other with the exception of the rear garden of No.448 Walkden Road.  The proposal would introduce habitable room windows at first floor level to both the front and rear elevation.  The proposal would be in excess of 25m from the property facing the application site on Woodlands Road and would be 13m from the rear boundary.  Beyond the rear boundary is the garden area of No.7 Briarfield Road.  The proposal would be more than 28m from the rear garden of No.448 Walkden Road.  I would consider the distance of proposed habitable room windows from existing properties and gardens to be acceptable and in excess of current policy.

The Councils normal standards require minimum distances are 13m from ground floor habitable room windows to two storey gables and 9m from ground floor habitable room windows to single storey gable ends.  The proposal would be 20m from the main rear habitable room windows of the properties situated on Walkden Road.  The single storey element would be 11m from the rear elevation of 1 Briarfield Road and a further 1.5m from 3 Briarfield Road.  1 Briarfield Road has a detached garage along the boundary with the application site.  The two-storey element would be approximately 13.6m from the rear elevation of No.1 and a further 1.5m away from the rear elevation of No.3 Briarfield Road.  I would consider the proposal to be in excess of minimum standards and therefore would not consider the proposal to have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbours.

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, the proposal would include a garage with a driveway of approximately 12m in length.  I would consider the level of parking provision acceptable for one dwelling.

Other Issues

Additional issues have been raised by objections, the issue of loss of property value and loss of view are not a planning consideration.

An issue has been raised relating to proposed boundary treatment.  If the applicant wanted to remove any existing boundary treatment with joint ownership it would have to be discussed with owners. The applicant could put up 2m high boundary fencing in the rear garden without planning permission. 

VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT	

After discussing concerns from residents regarding the height of the proposal with the applicant, the applicant has reduced the height by 0.5m and amended a gable end to a hipped roof to reduce the impact on neighbours.  One bedroom window has been omitted from the rear elevation.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, 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 which outweigh this finding. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the materials for the external elevations and roof of the building 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.	Prior to the approved dwelling being brought into use the glazing for the first floor windows in the east elevation, shall be obscured, and shall be retained thereafter.

4.	Prior to the commencement of development plans for the gas membrance shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The agreed plans shall then be implemented in accordance with he approved particulars prior to occupation.
	
Reason(s)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

3.	Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours

4.	Standard Reason R028A Public safety

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	Drainage connections must be to Building Regulation Approval

2.	The house may be vulnerable to flooding

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.

4.	With regard to Condition 04, 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.
	
	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).

5.	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 Councils 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.
	
	Disclaimer:
	
	The responsibility to properly address contaminated land issues, including safe development and secure occupancy, and irrespective of any involvement by this Authority, lies with the owner/developer of the siteæ
	
	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).

6.	The windows of all habitable rooms to the southern and western  elevations facing Walkden Road and the  area to the south where the motorway junction is located  shall be acoustically dual glazed to the standards of the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (as amended).  An alternative would be to install sealed double glazed units comprising glass of 10mm and laminated 6.4mm with a 12mm air gap.  The unit shall be installed in accordance with the manufactureræs recommendations to avoid air gaps when fitting the frames.  Alternative means of ventilation, which must be sound attenuation should be provided.

7.	The planning permission relates to the amended plans recieved 5th August 2005 that show a reduction in the overall height and the omission of one rear window.

APPLICATION No:	05/51011/TEL56

APPLICANT:	T-Mobile UK Ltd

LOCATION:	Brooklands Farm Cutnook Lane Irlam    

PROPOSAL:	Prior Notification for the installation of a 14.9m high telegraph pole with three shrouded antennas, radio equipment housing and ancillary development

WARD:	Irlam

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to Brooklands Farm site on Cutnook Lane, Irlam.  The proposal is for the installation of a 14.9m high telegraph pole with three shrouded antennas together with the installation of one equipment cabinet at ground floor level measuring 0.5m (width) x 0.5m (depth) x 1.2m (height) and ancillary development including 1.2m high fencing around the compound.  The proposed development would be located to the rear of Brooklands Farm, adjacent to where Cutnook Road crosses the motorway over 40m away from the nearest residential properties.  The application site is situated within the Green Belt.

SITE HISTORY

There is no planning history on the site.
 
PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 20th July 2005.

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	68 – 94 (even numbers) and 83 – 89 (odd numbers)  Parkstone Road
23 – 55 (odd numbers), Sunningdale Drive
25A Sandy Lane

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 6 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity, including a letter of objection from Mossvale Residents Association.  This letter raised the following issues: 

1.	Out of keeping with the residential area as it is obtrusive
2.	More appropriate sites could be found to mast share with other providers
	
The other issues raised include:

1.	Interference with TV reception
2.	Health risks
3.	Too close to residential properties
4.	Devaluation of properties
5.	Out of character with the area

I have received a petition signed by 69 residents on Sunningdale Drive and 3 residents on School Lane objecting to the proposal.

I have also received a request from Councillor Keane on behalf of the residents of Sunningdale Drive that the application be determined at Planning Committee.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: SC14 – Telecommunications
		 EN2 – Development within the Green Belt

REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None 
Other policies: DEV1 – Telecommunications
		 EN1 – Development Affecting the Green Belt

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are the need for the installation, any health issues arising from the application, the impact of the installation on the amenity of the area and the impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

Policy SC14 of the Adopted UDP states that permission for telecommunications development will normally be granted where there would be an unacceptable impact on the visual or residential amenity.  In determining such applications, regard will be had to a number of factors including the significance of the proposal as part of a national telecommunications network, whether there are any suitable alternative sites and whether there would be an unacceptable visual impact in terms of siting and design.

Policy DEV1 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP states that proposals for telecommunications development will only be permitted where a number of criteria are met, the proposal should not have an unacceptable impact on visual or residential amenity, the operator should demonstrate compliance with all relevant ICNIRP standards, there is a need for development, the rationale for site selection has been outlined and where pre-application discussions have taken place.

The applicant has provided coverage plots that demonstrate what the existing coverage is and what the proposed coverage would be following the installation.  This information shows that there is a gap in the existing cell coverage for the area and that the installation would fill that gap.

In accordance with Policy DEV1, the applicants have submitted a declaration that shows the proposed equipment complies with ICNIRP public exposure guidelines.  I am therefore satisfied that sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that there should be no adverse health implications as a result of this proposal.

The applicants have demonstrated that a number of other sites have been investigated in the surrounding area, but were either not feasible as they would not provide adequate coverage or permission to locate there was refused. These include:

•	Mast sharing with Vodafone on Raspberry Lane
•	Mast sharing with O2 on Raspberry Lane
•	Moorfield Primary School, Cutnook Lane
•	Higher Irlam Social Club, Liverpool Road
•	Oxcheek Farm
•	Street furniture on Merlin Road
•	Street furniture on Parkstone
•	Moss Road
•	Oakfield Farm
•	Oxcheek Cottage
•	Street furniture on Marlow Drive
•	Gap site adjacent to Moorfield Primary School
•	Brooklands Cottage

I consider that in visual terms this proposal is acceptable, although the proposal is 14.9m the land surrounding the site is raised which will reduce the impact on visual amenity of the proposal on the surrounding residential properties.  The proposed mast will be located over 45m away from the nearest residential properties and any visual impact will be reduced as the proposal will be set back behind the existing farm.

Policies EN1 and EN2 call for development only where it will not significantly affect the openness of the Green Belt.  I consider that given the style of the mast, a 14.9m high telegraph pole coupled with its proximity to the farm buildings that the proposal will not result in a reduction of the openness of the Green Belt.

CONCLUSION
The main planning issues relating to this application are the need for the installation, any health issues resulting for the installation, the visual amenity of the area and openness of the Green Belt.  The application has submitted a declaration, which shows that the proposed equipment complies with ICNIRP public exposure guidelines and so I have no objection on health grounds.  I am satisfied that there is a need for an installation in this area and that the development proposals would not have an impact on the visual amenity of the area or the openness of the Green Belt.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

APPLICATION No:	05/51072/HH

APPLICANT:	Mr Y Reich & Mr Y Salomon

LOCATION:	1 And 3 New Hall Avenue Salford M7 4JY    

PROPOSAL:	Erection of single storey rear extension to house No 1 and retention of single storey rear extension to house No 3.

WARD:	Kersal

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This joint application relates to a pair of semi-detached properties and is for the erection of a single storey rear extension to No.1 New Hall Avenue and for the retention of a single storey rear extension at No.3 New Hall Avenue. The proposed single storey/succah rear extension forms two distinct elements, a brick structure and framework required to support the sliding domed roof.  The proposed flat roof structure would measure 5.55m in length and 3.9m wide and 3.1m high. The supporting framework attached to the main brick extension provides part of the operational element of the succah extension. The framework projects out an additional 6.4m on the common boundary. There is also an existing identical succah extension along the adjoining common boundary, which at present is unauthorised development and an enforcement notice was issued on 6th December 2004. This application seeks for the retention of this structure. Part of the application site, No.3 New Hall Avenue has a considerable amount of planning history.

SITE HISTORY

00/41601/HH-In 2001, No. 3 New Hall Avenue  planning permission was refused for the erection of a two-storey side and rear extension and a single storey rear extension. The following reasons for refusal were attached to the decision:

ix)	The proposed succah along the boundary with no. 1 New Hall Avenue would have a detrimental effect on this neighbouring property by reason of its size and siting and would therefore be contrary to Policy DEV8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
x)	The proposed two storey side extension would, in conjunction with a similar extension to the neighbouring house, seriously injure the amenity of the area because it would result in the creation of a 'terraced' effect which would be out of character with the general street scene.

Mr Reich the owner of No.3 subsequently contacted the Local Planning Authority upon receipt of the refusal notice to discuss an alternative scheme. The letter sent to Mr Reich clearly stated the permitted development restriction was applicable to a semi detached property. He was also informed that the construction of the rear/succah extension as proposed previously would only be considered permitted development if the existing garage within 5m of the dwelling was removed. 

01/43222/HH-In 2002, no. 3 New Hall Avenue a planning application was received for the erection of a two-storey and a single storey rear extension. During the determination of this application, a succah extension and a first floor rear extension had been constructed. Members on 17th January 2002 approved the scheme for the application 01/43222/HH and also authorised the Director of Corporate Services to take enforcement action to reduce the size of the succah and the bedroom extension. Between January 2002 and September 2002, letters and emails were sent to Mr Reich inviting a retrospective planning application.

An Enforcement Notice was issued on 6th December 2004 which required a reduction in the succah and first floor extension.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

	5 New Hall Avenue
	28-32 New Hall Avenue

REPRESENTATIONS

I have not received any letters of objections in response to the application publicity.

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

None

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: DEV10-Broughton Park Development Control Policy
Other policies: DEV8-House extensions
		DEV1-Development Criteria

REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7-Amenity of users and Neighbours
		DES8-Alterations/Extensions

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are: Whether the size, height and siting of the proposal would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents; whether the proposed vehicular access would be acceptable and whether the proposal would comply with the provisions of relevant policies of the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance on House Extensions.

Policy DEV1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when dealing with applications for planning permission. These factors include the location of the proposed development, the relationship to the road, and the visual appearance of the development and the size of the development.
 
Adopted Policy DEV8 states that extensions will only be granted when it can be demonstrated that it would not have an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light. It also states that extensions should not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene.

Adopted policy DEV10 (Broughton Park Development Policy) states that in the case of residential development, due regard has been had to matters of siting, design and height of buildings, facing materials, provision of car parking, the protection of trees, the provision of landscaping and access requirements.

Policy DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.

Draft Policy DES8 states that planning permission will only be granted for alterations and extensions to existing buildings that respect the general scale, character, proportions, details and materials of the original structure.

The adjoining house, No.1 currently has no rear extension on their side of the party boundary. Therefore as such the extensions previously proposed resulted in an overbearing and dominant structure on the rear aspect of No. 1 New Hall Avenue. The application for the proposal is identical to the existing succah extension to No.3 in length, width and in height. The proposed materials for the walls would be matching smooth red facing brickwork as the existing dwelling. I therefore consider that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents or impact on the character of the existing dwelling and is in keeping with policy Dev8 and DES8.

The existing single storey/succah rear extension at No.3 New Hall Avenue projects 5.5m from the existing property and is 3.9m in width along the common boundary. The proposal at No.1 New Hall Avenue would also project 5.5m from the existing property, in line with the existing succah extension at No.3 New Hall Avenue. As such, I do not consider that the proposal will result in an overbearing or dominant structure by reason of height or projection; therefore I would consider the proposal is in keeping with policy DEV1, DEV2 and DEV10. 

The proposal would not introduce any habitable room windows to the rear or side elevation, therefore I do not consider that the proposal will result in any loss of privacy to the neighbouring residents. 

CONCLUSION

I am satisfied that the proposed succah extension does not conflict with any policies in the U.D.P and in addition I do not consider that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the amenity of neighbouring residents. Therefore I recommend the application be approved and the enforcement notice withdrawn.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	Standard Condition D01B Materials to Match

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building