APPLICATION No:	02/43633/HH

APPLICANT:	I Foulkes

LOCATION:	19 Mill Brow Worsley 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of single storey side extension and two storey rear extension

WARD:	Worsley Boothstown

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application is for the demolition of a small conservatory and the erection of a two storey extension to the rear of 19 Mill Brow, a detached two storey property located within the Worsley Village Conservation Area. The site is located at the top of Mill Brow and is flanked by 21 Mill Brow at a slightly higher level to the north east; and 3 and 4 Waterbridge at a lower level (approximately 1.3 M) to the south.  

The proposed extension would project, at ground floor level, 1.3M beyond the existing side wall of the existing converted garage (facing south, the rear garden of 4 Waterbridge). This wall at ground level would be fully glazed up to a height of 2.75M above the adjacent ground level. The gable wall above would be set back (to be in line with the south side wall of the converted garage) by 1.3m, but would rise to an overall height of 7.5M to the apex. The existing bathroom window to the north would be re-positioned towards the front main wall and a new window would be positioned on the north (facing) east corner of the proposed extension. This would point towards the north west corner of the rear garden to 4 Waterbridge. The south west facing side wall of the first floor portion would have the benefit of a window 1M wide, but reducing in height to 200mm beneath the eaves. 

SITE HISTORY

In 1995, planning permission was granted for a single storey conservatory although when work commenced the extension that was constructed fell within permitted development rights. The existing attached garage was converted into living accommodation at about the same time, this again was permitted development. 

PUBLICITY
The application was advertised in the local press and by site notice.

The following neighbour addresses have been notified

	3 and 4 Waterbridge
	112, 113 21 Mill Brow

REPRESENTATIONS

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

•	overlooking
•	almost on the boundary
•	loss of privacy
•	aesthetically out of place
•	out of character with the dwelling by reason of its siting, height, massing, design and appearance
•	reduction of light into neighbouring property
•	overbearing, intrusive, overcrowding and dominant effect on neighbouring property
•	additional window on side elevation would be overlooking garden/patio area
•	ground floor glazed are would look directly into opposite habitable rooms
•	does not comply with Guidance note HH1: House extensions (distances between habitable rooms)
•	does not comply with Guidance note HH2
•	does not comply with Guidance note HH3
•	does not comply with Guidance note HH6
•	does not comply with Guidance note  HH7

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: EN 11: Protection and enhancement of conservation areas
		EN 13: Works to Listed Buildings and Buildings in Conservation Areas
		Supplementary Planning Guidance: House Extensions

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: 	CH1: Proposed World Heritage Site
CH 5:Works Within Conservation Areas
Other policies:	None

PLANNING APPRAISAL

RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIVES
The inclusion of a window on the north elevation from which the garden/patio of the rear garden to 4 Waterbridge is approximately 10M away and can be considered far enough away to be a material consideration.

The objections relating to design of the extensions and being out of character with the conservation area are addressed by the fact that the building was altered some years ago. The materials proposed for the walls, a mixture of white render to match the existing, and timber boarding, to the boarding on the adjacent 21 Mill Brow, are I feel acceptable. There should not necessarily be a presumption in a conservation area to ensure that all new properties match the originals in style and material. The different styles and designs add to the character. I fact the properties in Waterbridge are not of the same style as those in Mill Brow, nor do they match those on Worsley Road fronting The Green which are also of a more modern design.   

Loss of light to the rear of 4 Waterbridge would be probable but not from shadow as the sun would still reach the same part of the back garden whether the proposed extension was allowed or not. It is more likely to be reduced because of the rear wall of 19 Mill Brow being brought closer to the rear of 4 Waterbridge.

There would be an overbearing, overcrowding and dominant effect on neighbouring property because of the height difference between the two properties and because of the actual (not apparent from the plans) distance between the rear of 4 Waterbridge and the proposed extension. 

4 Waterbridge was built closer than 21 Metres to the rear of 19 Mill Brow. The existing conservatory on 19 Mill Brow (built under permitted development rights) also compromises this distance. However the proposal to take the rear wall of the conservatory closer to 4 Waterbridge would make this situation even worse. The proposal does not comply with HH1.

The distance between the corner of the rear garden to 4 Waterbridge that would be overlooked by the window on the north elevation of the proposed extension would be far enough away not to contravene the spirit of HH2.

For the reasons earlier discussed earlier in explaining character and diversity of character of buildings within conservation areas, The proposed design would not detract from the character of the Worsley Village Conservation Area.The proposed external facing materials are acceptable in this particular circumstance. 
       
In conclusion I feel that whilst I disagree with some of the objections, with specific reference to Policies EN11:Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas, EN13: Works to Listed Buildings and Buildings within Conservation Areas of the Unitary Development Plan; I agree that it would not accord with Policy HH1 and HH3 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: House Extensions and recommend the application for refusal.   

In the event of the recommendation not being accepted a request has been made one of the Ward Councillors, Councillor Mrs B Howard for a site visit prior to the Panel making a decision.

RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:

1.	The proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overbearing size and proximity to neighbouring properties, contrary to the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan Policy DEV8 and the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions.

APPLICATION No:	03/45570/FUL

APPLICANT:	Gachet Developments Ltd

LOCATION:	Ellesmere House 1 Sandwich Road Eccles 

PROPOSAL:	Demolition of existing nursing home and erection of one 4 storey building comprising twenty five apartments together with associated car parking

WARD:	Eccles

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to Ellesmere House which is situated at the junction of Sandwich Road and Victoria Road, within the Ellesmere Park Conservation Area. The existing building, a large three storey Victorian Villa, has previously had two modern extensions attached, one with the benefit of planning permission. The building has previously been used as a nursing home but has been vacant for well over a year. The parent building has a height of 10.6m from ground level, whilst it has a footprint of 370sq.m. The building is surrounded by hardstanding and lawned areas and is set within a site area of 0.28 hectares or 2,800sq.m. 

The site is surrounded by mature trees to both the Sandwich Road and Victoria Road frontages whilst there are smaller trees within the site. Surrounding uses are all residential and buildings consist of a mixture of mature residential houses, modern houses and modern apartment buildings. Existing vehicular access to the site is from Sandwich Road. 

Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing building and for the erection of a part four storey/part three storey L shape building to consist of 25 two bed apartments. The application would utilise the existing vehicular access and consists of 30 car parking spaces. The 25 units would be at a density of 89 units per hectare. An associated Conservation Area Consent Application (03/45759/CON) has also been submitted and also appears on this agenda for a decision. The proposed building varies in eaves and ridge height. All windows are proposed to be recessed and have cills and window heads. 

The proposed four storey element is predominantly at the Victoria Road frontage, here the applicant proposes to lower ground level by a metre, whilst the top floor windows would appear as dormers within the roofspace, as a gable end within the roof or within one of two turrets. The maximum height above ground level would be 15m (16m including the lowered floor level). The eaves level varies between 8.5m and 9.5m above the lowered ground floor level. 

The Sandwich Road elevation also has a turret at either end with a similar relationship of the part four storey element within the roof and the three storey element within the roof as dormers. The ridge height varies and decreases from 16m to 15m then 13m towards the north of the site. The eaves height also varies between 9.5m and 7m on this elevation. The original main entrance doorway is shown as being retained on this elevation. 

The north elevation also has variations in roof height, eaves level between 6.8m and 8.2m high and ridge height at 13.2m. This element of the north elevation, nearest to neighbouring property at 1 Sunnybank Avenue features the second floor windows as dormers within the roofspace. The recessed north elevation has eaves level of 7.5m and has a ridge height of 15m. The west elevation, facing Queenscroft, is part three and part four storey with top floor windows within the roofspace. 

The proposed building has a footprint of 573sq.m. and would be sited centrally within the site. Aspects provide distances of 40m to the east over Sandwich Road, 55m to properties to the south, 13m and 16m to the west and a minimum of 21m to the north. The applicant has submitted an economic evaluation, design statement and aboricultural report in support of his application. In addition to parking the development would provide a communal garden area.     

SITE HISTORY

In 1982, planning permission was granted for the change of use from house in multiple occupation to a private nursing home together with associated car parking (E/13628) (Implemented). 
In 1984, planning permission was granted for the erection of a single storey rear extension (E/16780). (Not implemented). 
In 1985, planning permission was granted for the erection of a two storey rear extension to care home (E/18956). (Not Implemented)
In 1991, planning permission was granted for the erection of a two storey side extension, renewal of E/18956 (E/277281). (Not Implemented)
In 1992, planning permission was granted for the erection of single storey extension to care home (E/29931) (Not Implemented). 
In 1993, planning permission was granted for the erection of a part single/part two storey extension to provide an enlarge kitchen and lounge on ground floor with new bedroom on first floor at rear of existing residential care home, alteration of E/29931, (93/31251/FUL). (Implemented). 
In 1995, planning permission was granted for the erection of a two storey extension to existing residential home (Renewal of planning permission E27281) (95/34775/FUL). (Not implemented). 
In 1998, planning permission was granted for the conversion of loft space to form 3 additional bedrooms and facilities and revised proposals for 2 storey extension already
approved for residential care home (98/37575/FUL). (Not implemented). 

The applicant also submitted and then withdrew an application for the demolition and erection of a new build apartment block (02/45050/FUL) in 2003. 

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objections

Environment Agency – No objections

Ellesmere Park Residents Association – Object to the loss of the existing building, the footprint being larger than the existing and to the over-development of the site. 

The Coal Authority – No objections 

Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections subject to a 1.8m high fence surrounding the site. 

English Heritage – Consider the application can be determined by the City of Salford and do not wish to comment.  

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 18th February 2003
A press notice was published on 21st February 2003

The following neighbour addresses have been notified

	1 – 5 odd, 5A, 5B, 7 – 9 odd Half Edge Lane
	2 – 12 even, 7& 9 and Denefield Place, Sandwich Road
	1 –4 Sunnybank Avenue
	16 & 22 Clarendon Crescent
	1 –19 Queenscroft, Victoria Road
	2 & 6A Victoria Road
	1 & 18 Westminster Road
	17 Rutland Road
	3, 9, 10, 34 & 36 Ellesmere Road
	
REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 34 letters of objection in response to the application publicity.  The main issues identified are as follows:

•	Most residents consider that the existing building should be retained but some considered that the existing building could be demolished although the replacement proposal is unsatisfactory
•	Over-development of the site
•	Harm of a four storey building
•	Harm to the building line
•	Effect upon trees
•	Impact upon road safety
•	Too much car parking
•	Problems during construction

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:DEV9 Ellesmere Park Development Control Policy
Other policies:DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, EN11 Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none
Other policies:DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES13 Design Statement, H1 New Housing Development, H2 Location of New Housing Development, CH5 Works within Conservation Areas, CH6 Demolition of buildings within Conservation Areas.  

PLANNING APPRAISAL

With regard to the objectors’ concerns over the demolition of the existing building Members will be aware of the existing Ellesmere Park Development Control Policy which states the Council will only grant planning permission where a number of criteria are met. Criteria point ‘iii’ states that planning permission will only be granted if 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. To address this the applicant has submitted an economic evaluation of four options; upgrading the nursing home to comply with health care regulations, converting the existing premises into a single dwelling, converting the existing dwelling into flats and demolishing the existing building and rebuilding with flats. An assumption, by the applicant, has been made that only a residential type use is acceptable to the residential character of the area. I agree that only a residential use would be acceptable at this site. 

The report details the cost and explains profit/loss levels of alternatives for the site. The property was marketed for 22 months with no interest in retaining the existing use or conversion to flats or use as a single house. The report also states that the previous owner had to close the business down as it had become unviable. Costs have been provided which show a loss for the conversion of the existing building into flats. Costs also show that the conversion into one dwelling would be high and demand is low for this size of property as a single dwelling. In summary the economic report provided by the applicant explains that the only residential use that is economically viable at the site is for the demolition and construction of a new build apartment development given that the costs are prohibitive to retaining the existing building. Having studied the report I am of the opinion that the findings are acceptable, and that there is little demand in the market for a single house of this size. Furthermore I am satisfied that the costs quoted in support of the redevelopment are acceptable and are not inflated. 

Although the building has merit in its original architectural form and is an older building within the area I do not consider that the existing building is worthy of being placed on the Statutory List, or indeed of being retained. English Heritage have been consulted but have no comments regarding the application and are happy for the application to be determined by the City of Salford. Given that the building is within the Ellesmere Park Conservation Area there are other policy controls over the demolition of the existing building. Policies within the Adopted UDP and First Deposit Draft UDP require that buildings should be encouraged to be retained and that any proposals for replacement buildings have due regard to siting, design and mature trees. I consider the demolition of the existing building would be in accordance with policies principally because the interior has been altered quite extensively and also because of the poorly designed extensions to two sides and inherent building design faults. The applicant has demonstrated that the an economically viable option is for demolition and rebuild I consider that the demolition accords with section ‘iii’ of Policy DEV9. 

Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) provides detailed guidance on the assessment of the demolition of a non-listed building within a Conservation Area. As detailed in the report on the associated Conservation Area Consent application (03/45579/CON) the proposal to demolish the existing building is deemed acceptable subject to a suitable replacement. Policy DEV9 and Conservation Policies EN11 & CH5 cover a number of issues and states that planning permission will only be granted where a number of criteria have been followed. These criteria include that the development would maintain the predominantly residential character of the area and that due regard has been had to matters of siting, design and height of buildings, facing materials, provision of car parking and the protection of trees. Policy states that within the Victorian core of Ellesmere Park, unless the nature of the site and its surroundings dictate otherwise, the City Council would normally expect new residential development to be in the form of apartments of at least three storeys. In this instance I consider this proposed redevelopment to be appropriate and that it would preserve and enhance the Conservation Area subject to a design which is consistent with the site and its surroundings.

Policies DEV1, DEV2, DES1, DES2 & DES7 all require good quality development, that respects the site and neighbouring property. The building line of the proposal is set at a minimum of 11m from Sandwich Road and some 14m from Victoria Road. The adjacent property at 1 Sunnybank Avenue is also 11m from Sandwich Road, whilst the forward building line on Victoria Road is almost to the back of footpath at 2 Victoria Road. 
Given the corner site location and the curved road I consider that the proposal will not impinge upon the building line of this site at the junction of Sandwich Road and Victoria Road. 

Objection from local residents and the Ellesmere Park Residents Association has also been raised to the over development of the site. The proposed development has roughly twice the footprint of the existing building and 25 apartments are proposed on the site. Policy H1 explains that developments should be a minimum of 30 units per hectare, or 50 units per hectare on sites adjoining mixed use and town centres and major public transport nodes. This proposal would provide 89 units per hectare which given that the site is at the southern end of Ellesmere Park, and is close to facilities within Eccles town centre and the various transport nodes available there, I consider the proposal to be in accordance with that policy. Residents have stated that the proposal should be no greater than 60 units per hectare, this would also be in accordance with Policy H1. As to the question of over development the proposal complies with the Council’s standards of privacy and sunlight/daylight standards in relation to neighbouring residential property. Indeed permission was approved in 1995 which allowed a two storey extension which if implemented would have been within 15m of the adjacent property on Sunnybank Avenue, closer by 6m than this application. The location within the centre of the site and the part four/part three storey building are in line with the Councils guidance on height and scale for flatted development within the Victorian Core of Ellesmere Park. As such I consider the scale and mass of the development to be acceptable and the provision of additional housing units to be in accordance with Policies H1 and H2. 

The design of the proposed building includes steep roof pitches, materials, elevational detailing and window patterns that area appropriate to the area. Dormer windows formed in the roofspace and gable ends in addition to turrets marking the three principal corners of the site aid the compatibility with the Victorian Core of the area. The varied roof line and stepped line of the elevation also add to the interest in the building as do the recessed windows and traditional glazing patterns and balcony details. I consider the proposed design would produce a good quality building encompassing the thrust of design related policies DEV1, DEV2, DES1, DES2 & DES7.

The siting of the building has ensured the mature trees, subject of TPO’s that bound the site on the Sandwich Road and Victoria Road elevations to be retained. In order to facilitate development eight younger trees will have to be removed but these are not worth of retention.

Objection has been raised to the level of parking and road safety issues. Turning to parking a ratio of 120%, given the 30 spaces per 25 units, is considered to be in accordance with parking standards of the Adopted and First Deposit Draft UDP. The existing access to the site is to be utilised and I am satisfied that satisfactory visibility splays for both vehicles and pedestrians would be maintained. Boundary treatments include a two metre high acoustic fence to the northern boundary of the site and decorative entrance gates with brick piers surrounding are proposed to the highway frontages.   Railings to match the entrance gates at 1.8m high would surround the remainder of the site, to provide security to the development. A bin store close to the entrance to the site would be introduced and would be behind a brick wall to Sandwich Road.

Concern has also been expressed by residents over construction traffic blocking the road and this causing a road safety problem. I propose to advise the developer to consult the Transportation manager over the lawful parking of construction vehicles. 

I consider that the existing building although with some external merit remaining in its form has been adapted both internally and externally to an extent not warranting retention. I consider the proposed building respects nearby residential amenity and is of a scale and mass appropriate to its location. The retention of the mature boundary trees will help to retain the character and amenity of this part of the Conservation Area. The design of the proposal will I consider preserve and enhance the character of the Ellesmere Park Conservation Area. I am satisfied with the level of parking proposed and the use of the existing access and have no highway objections. I recommend approval of this application subject to the following conditions. I also recommend the associated Conservation Area Consent Application is approved.     

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

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

3.	Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials

4.	Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use not less than 30 (thirty) car parking spaces shall be provided within the curtilage of the site to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services and such spaces shall be made available at all times the premises are in use.
	
5.	Standard Condition C03X Fencing of Trees/no work within spread

6.	Prior to commencement of development the developer shall submit for the approval of the Director of Development Services a scheme showing the underlaying of the car parking area with a geo-webbing system or similar system to ensure the existing trees are retained. Once approved such scheme shall be implemented in full.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

3.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

4.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

5.	Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees

6.	Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	The developer is advised to consult the Transportation Manager over the parking of construction vehicles during construction of this development.

APPLICATION No:	03/45579/CON

APPLICANT:	Gachet Developments Ltd

LOCATION:	Ellesmere House 1 Sandwich Road Eccles 

PROPOSAL:	Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of existing building

WARD:	Eccles

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to Ellesmere House which is situated at the junction of Sandwich Road and Victoria Road, within the Ellesmere Park Conservation Area. The existing building, a large three storey Victorian Villa, has previously had two modern extensions attached, one with the benefit of planning permission. The building has previously been used as a nursing home but has been vacant for well over a year. The parent building has a height of 10.6m from ground level, whilst it has a footprint of 370sq.m. The building is surrounded by hardstanding and lawned areas and is set within a site area of 0.28 hectares or 2,800sq.m. 

The site is surrounded by mature trees to both the Sandwich Road and Victoria Road frontages whilst there are smaller trees within the site. Surrounding uses are all residential and buildings consist of a mixture of mature residential houses, modern houses and modern apartment buildings. Existing vehicular access to the site is from Sandwich Road. 

Conservation Area Consent is sought for the demolition of the existing building. Planning permission is also sought under application 03/45570/FUL for the erection of a part four storey/part three storey L shape building to consist of 25 two bed apartments. The application would utilise the existing vehicular access and consists of 30 car parking spaces. The 25 units would be at a density of 89 units per hectare. The planning application also appears on this agenda for a decision. The proposed building varies in eaves and ridge height. All windows are proposed to be recessed and have cills and window heads. 

The proposed four storey element is predominantly at the Victoria Road frontage, here the applicant proposes to lower ground level by a metre, whilst the top floor windows would appear as dormers within the roofspace, as a gable end within the roof or within one of two turrets. The maximum height above ground level would be 15m (16m including the lowered floor level). The eaves level varies between 8.5m and 9.5m above the lowered ground floor level. 

The Sandwich Road elevation also has a turret at either end with a similar relationship of the part four storey element within the roof and the three storey element within the roof as dormers. The ridge height varies and decreases from 16m to 15m then 13m towards the north of the site. The eaves height also varies between 9.5m and 7m on this elevation. The original main entrance doorway is shown as being retained on this elevation. 

The north elevation also has variations in roof height, eaves level between 6.8m and 8.2m high and ridge height at 13.2m. This element of the north elevation, nearest to neighbouring property at 1 Sunnybank Avenue features the second floor windows as dormers within the roofspace. The recessed north elevation has eaves level of 7.5m and has a ridge height of 15m. The west elevation, facing Queenscroft, is part three and part four storey with top floor windows within the roofspace. 

The proposed building has a footprint of 573sq.m. and would be sited centrally within the site. Aspects provide distances of 40m to the east over Sandwich Road, 55m to properties to the south, 13m and 16m to the west and a minimum of 21m to the north. The applicant has submitted an economic evaluation, design statement and aboricultural report in support of his application. In addition to parking the development would provide a communal garden area.     

SITE HISTORY

In 1982, planning permission was granted for the change of use from house in multiple occupation to a private nursing home together with associated car parking (E/13628) (Implemented). 
In 1984, planning permission was granted for the erection of a single storey rear extension (E/16780). (Not implemented). 
In 1985, planning permission was granted for the erection of a two storey rear extension to care home (E/18956). (Not Implemented)
In 1991, planning permission was granted for the erection of a two storey side extension, renewal of E/18956 (E/277281). (Not Implemented)
In 1992, planning permission was granted for the erection of single storey extension to care home (E/29931) (Not Implemented). 
In 1993, planning permission was granted for the erection of a part single/part two storey extension to provide an enlarge kitchen and lounge on ground floor with new bedroom on first floor at rear of existing residential care home, alteration of E/29931, (93/31251/FUL). (Implemented). 
In 1995, planning permission was granted for the erection of a two storey extension to existing residential home (Renewal of planning permission E27281) (95/34775/FUL). (Not implemented). 
In 1998, planning permission was granted for the conversion of loft space to form 3 additional bedrooms and facilities and revised proposals for 2 storey extension already
approved for residential care home (98/37575/FUL). (Not implemented). 

The applicant also submitted and then withdrew an application for the demolition and erection of a new build apartment block (02/45050/FUL) in 2003. 

CONSULTATIONS

English Heritage – Consider the application can be determined by the City of Salford and do not wish to comment.  

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed and a press notice was published on 21st February 2003. 

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 34 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity.  The main issues identified are as follows:

•	Most residents considered that the existing building should be retained but some considered that the existing building could be demolished although the replacement proposal is unsatisfactory
•	Over-development of the site
•	Harm of a four storey building
•	Harm to the building line
•	Effect upon trees
•	Impact upon road safety
•	Too much car parking
•	Problems during construction

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:DEV9 Ellesmere Park Development Control Policy
Other policies:DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, EN11 Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none
Other policies:DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES13 Design Statement, H1 New Housing Development, H2 Location of New Housing Development, CH5 Works within Conservation Areas, CH6 Demolition of buildings within Conservation Areas.  

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The demolition of a non listed building within a Conservation Area should be assessed against guidance within Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) which provides detailed guidance on the assessment of the demolition of a non-listed building within a Conservation Area. I have assessed the application in the light of this guidance and have produced my analysis below. 

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

Whilst the property is Edwardian it contains no outstanding architectural features. It has also been extended to the west (fronting Victoria Road) and to the north (fronting Sandwich Road). The extension fronting Victoria Road is of a modern design and is constructed of reclaimed hand made bricks that are not identical to the Manchester Red bricks of the original building. Whilst the roof covering of grey slate matches the original building the pitch is steeper and has a gable wall to the west rather than a hip, as the main house. I can find no association with historically famous residents, or details of the architect.   

PPG15 also states that the general presumption should be in favour of retaining buildings that make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation area. The building can be treated as a listed building  if it does make a positive contribution to the character of the area. Where the building makes little or no such contribution the LPA will need to have full information about what is proposed for the site after demolition. 

The property is located at the edge of the Ellesmere Park Conservation Area. It is adjacent to the former site of a large pair of semi-detached properties (fronting onto Victoria Road) that were demolished some years ago and replaced by a large block of three storey apartments. Whilst the replacement block has some architectural embellishments the materials forming the walls and roof are modern. Ellesmere House is set back from Sandwich Road and has a large grassed area with mature trees positioned behind a similarly mature hedge. The shape of the garden follows the curved Sandwich Road and footpath that is unique to the plot. 

The grid-iron pattern of Ellesmere Park is one of the main features of the conservation area, with large properties set back from the front garden wall to create tree lined large spaces between the opposing front main walls. The Ellesmere House plot is different in that no 1 Sandwich Road does not line up or face the opposite property 2 & 4 Sandwich Road. They can not be said to respect one another in the same way that most of the other properties do in Ellesmere Park. 

There are certain other prominent properties in the conservation area but Ellesmere House is not one. The adjacent plot to the north (3 Sandwich Road and the three properties in Sunnybank Avenue are much younger than Ellesmere House. They date from the 1950’s. This has a tendency to isolate Ellesmere House even more from the grid-iron pattern. The trees on the plot of Ellesmere House contribute more to the 
character of the Ellesmere Park Conservation Area rather than the house. 

The final consideration in determining the significance of Ellesmere House is that the elevation fronting Victoria Road faces the rear detached annexes to properties fronting Half Edge Lane. That is, the grid-iron pattern is further isolated from this particular part of the conservation area. 

For the forgoing reasons I feel that this particular property could not be said to either be prominent or contribute to a great extent to the character of the Ellesmere Park Conservation Area. 

From the conclusions reached above I do not feel that the property needs to be considered as a listed building.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	No demolition shall commence until a development contract has been signed for the construction of the replacement building as approved under planning permission reference 03/45570/FUL

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R038 Section 18

2.	In order to protect dereliction and appearance of the Conservation Area.

APPLICATION No:	03/45704/FUL

APPLICANT:	Woodford Homes Ltd

LOCATION:	Former Shopping Centre  Liverpool Road Irlam 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of 42 dwellings together with associated car parking, construction of new vehicular access and closure of footpath to the northeast of the site.

WARD:	Irlam

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

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

Planning permission is sought for the erection of 42 residential units in a mixture of flats and houses at a density of 62 units per hectare. To the front of the site facing Liverpool Road a three storey block of 24 two bed flats is proposed, the third storey being half in the roofspace, which would be 10m high with a footprint of 12.5m by 49m. This block would be set behind the footpath of Liverpool Road by 4m and set 9m in from the back of footpath on Woodbine Terrace. 

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

A total of 61 parking spaces are proposed for the 42 residential properties proposed, with an additional ten spaces being proposed for existing residents of Woodbine Terrace. Fencing is proposed around the ten spaces for Woodbine Terrace. The existing vehicular access is to be utilised and extended into the site to facilitate the development. The development includes the closing of an unadopted narrow footpath which connects the northeast of the site and Sandiway.     

The application has been amended since submission on the 3rd March 2003. Amendments have included the reduction in height of the three storey elements, reduction in footprint of the apartments, annotation to show levels, closure of an unadopted footpath and deletion of passageways between existing and proposed gardens.   

SITE HISTORY

In 1992, outline planning permission was refused for the erection of a retail unit (non food) (E/29668).  
In 1991, outline planning permission was refused for an A1 retail unit (E/27817). 

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objections but recommends conditions
Environment Agency – No objections but recommends conditions
GMP Architectural Liaison Unit – No objection
British Coal – No objections
Open Space Society – No comment received 
Peak and Northern Footpath Society – No comment received 
Greater Manchester Pedestrians Association – No comment received
Ramblers Association – No comment received

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses have been notified

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

Press notices were published on the 20th March 2003 and on the 15th May 2003. 
Site notices were displayed on the 18th March 2003 and 9th May 2003. 

A meeting was held on the site between the Planning Officer and local residents on 23rd April 2003. 

REPRESENTATIONS

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

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

Some objectors have commented that the site needs some development/tidying up

Cllr Jones has requested a panel site visit and stated that he would prefer not to have flats on the site but if flats are accepted they should not be higher than the existing flats on Liverpool Road. 

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

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

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

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

PLANNING APPRAISAL

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

The proposal has been amended to reduce the height of all the three storey blocks by one metre, although the three storey elements remain. The three storey houses have the third floor within the roof space utilising dormer windows instead of windows at eaves level and along with the reduction in height I consider a reduction in the visual impact of the proposal has resulted. The siting of the three storey houses is at a minimum of 24m away from the rear of facing two storey houses on Sandiway, this is in line with normal City of Salford guidelines. Where three storey town houses back onto the rear of Turner Avenue a distance of 24m is maintained. I consider that the two storey houses also respect surrounding residential amenity. The apartment block, with third floor at eaves level also maintains City of Salford privacy distances to both Woodbine Terrace (25m from the gable end of the apartment to Woodbine Terrace) and properties across Liverpool Road. Amendments have reduced the footprint and hence impact of the apartment block. I consider that the siting and size of the houses and apartments will not have a detrimental impact upon neighbouring residential amenity by way of loss of sunlight/daylight or privacy. I also consider the scheme complies with on site constraints including sewer easements.       

Policy H1 requires there are a minimum of 30 units per hectare on a site of 0.2 hectares and a minimum of 50 per hectare where the site adjoins mixed use areas, town centres or public transport nodes. The proposed 42 units on this site which, is 0.676 hectares, equates to 62 units per hectare. I am satisfied that the site is large enough to accommodate the proposal without impinging on existing residential amenity and being close to services shops and public transport is able to support a development of such density. 

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

Concern has been expressed over the increase in traffic in the area and that there are not enough car parking spaces on the site. The proposed 42 units would have 61 parking spaces which works out at just less than 1.5 spaces per dwelling, which is in accordance with parking standards in the first deposit replacement UDP and Government guidance. Limiting the number of spaces on site to one space each unit plus general visitor spaces is considered by Government as a tool to achieving a reduction in the reliance on the private car. The site is located on Liverpool Road and is close to a local shopping area and to a major bus route and is near to Irlam train station. A further 10 spaces are to be dedicated to existing residents on Woodbine Terrace. I consider the proposed parking level to be acceptable for the site. The existing access onto the site is to be utilised and I have no highway objections.            

The existing footpath linkway to Sandiways is narrow and would allow for only single file passage through. Residents have expressed their concern over the opportunities for crime that this passageway allows. The developer has amended the application to close the footpath where it comes onto the site. I am satisfied given the level of support locally for the closure of footpath that this will not impinge unduly the amenity and access of local people. The applicant has also deleted alleyways to the back of existing residents houses and has included boundary walls and fences to comply with residents wishes over the potential for crime. 

The proposal involves each of the flats sharing some communal outside amenity space around the block and each house has its own private rear garden. In compliance with policies H6, H11 and H8 the applicant has agreed to make a financial contribution of £83,517 for children’s play space/local environmental improvements through a legal agreement. I am satisfied that the proposal complies with the above mentioned planning policies of both Adopted and First Deposit Draft UDP’s and also national guidance. I have no highway objections and recommend approval subject to the signing of a legal agreement and subject to the attached conditions.     

RECOMMENDATION

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

2.	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;

3.	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,

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

Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials

3.	No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans.

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

5.	Standard Condition M01 Removal of Permitted Development Rights

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

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

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

9.	Standard Condition F05D Provision of Parking

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

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

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

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

5.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

6.	Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

7.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

8.	Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

9.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

10.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	This grant of planning permission does not authorise the closure or diversion of the public right of way as indicated on the approved plan, until the appropriate order has been made. 

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

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

APPLICATION No:	03/45787/COU

APPLICANT:	Charlestown Lower Kersal NDC Partnership

LOCATION:	Land At Gloucester Place (Upper Gloucester St) Salford 6 

PROPOSAL:	Change of use of public open space to childrens play area and erection of 1.2m high fencing

WARD:	Pendleton

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to land on Upper Gloucester Street to the rear of Brunswick House, a Grade II Listed Building.  It is proposed to provide a children’s play area along side an existing footpath.  The site is bounded by residential properties on three sides.  The site also comprises of several semi-mature trees located around the perimeter.

Two distinct elements would be provided within the area of open space.  The area to the east of the existing footpath would be for under 5’s and would provide swings, climbing unit, roundabout and seating.  It is proposed to fence this element with a 1.2m would fence with curved detailing.  The second element would provide ‘trail equipment and climbing wall’ for under 15’s.  It is proposed to fence this element with a 1.2m mesh fencing.  Both elements would consist of safety surfaces and dog grids.

The proposed play areas would maintain approximately 20m to the surrounding residential properties. 

SITE HISTORY

Earlier this year, planning permission was granted on the adjoining site for the creation and installation of a multi sports pitch to include 3 and 4 metre high fencing (03/45580/FUL)

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objections

New Deal for Communities Team – Strongly supports the application.  One of their key objectives is to improve the provision of services and facilities for local children and young people.  The Gloucester Street area has been identified as a priority for the provision of a children’s play area.  The area is bordered by major roads and a railway and contains a large number of families.  This proposal and that already approved on the adjoining site will utilise a piece of derelict and underused land and is fully supported by the residents who will be involved in managing the upkeep and use of the facilities once installed.  

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed 29th April 2003

The following neighbour addresses have been notified
	2 to 20 and 15 Upper Gloucester Street
	20 to 34 Gardner Street
	1 to 11 Higham View
	2 to 12 Gloucester Place
	 
REPRESENTATIONS

I have one letter of support from the local community police sergeant in response to the application publicity.  

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:	None
Other policies:	DEV1 Development Criteria

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

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

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering applications.  These factors include the effect on neighbouring residents and the visual appearance of the development.  Policy DES7 states that development will not be permitted where it has an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbours.

The application provides for the resurfacing, equipment and seating on an existing unused piece of ground and the erection of new fencing only.  The development has the support of the local community and no objections have been received. None of the trees on site would be affected by this proposal. 

I consider that in this instance, in the absence of any objections to the application and the support of the local community for the scheme, a permission is justified. 

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

APPLICATION No:	03/45890/FUL

APPLICANT:	George Wimpey Manchester

LOCATION:	Agecroft Hall Residential Site Agecroft Road Pendlebury Swinton 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of 37 dwellings together with amendment to road layout

WARD:	Pendlebury

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

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

This application seeks to erect 37 dwellings within the north eastern corner of the site within a slightly revised layout and with different house types.  Pedestrian access would be provided through the site to the open space beyond.  The dwellings would comprise a mix of two and three storey semis, detached and terraced properties.

SITE HISTORY

In December 1998 permission was granted in outline and following a public inquiry for comprehensive regeneration including residential development and environmental improvements.
In April 2002 permission was granted for the construction of a new access road, creation of new surface water drainage system, alterations to existing site levels and importation of additional fill material and landscaping works, reference 00/41574/FUL.
In July 2002 planning permission was granted for the erection of 287 dwellings, reference 02/43597/REM.

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – no objections subject to the submission of a site completion report to validate that ground gas protection measures have been incorporated within the site. 
United Utilities – no objections subject to the site drained on a separate system with only foul drainage connected into the foul sewer.  Surface water should discharge to the watercourse/soakaway/surface water sewer.
Network Rail – no comments.
Environment Agency – no comments received.
Greater Manchester Archeaological Unit – no comments received.
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – no comments received.
GMPTE – the site is not well served by public transport but the layout of the site does take account of pedestrian safety through the provision of road humps and tables and also the network of footpaths throughout the development.
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Officer – is concerned that the open plan undefined frontages may lead to abuse and misuse between residents and also recommends that mid-divisional fencing at the rear is at least 1.5m high.
The Wildlife Trust – there should be a 10m buffer zone between the development site and the site of Biological Importance.

PUBLICITY

A press notice was advertised 10 April 2003.
A site notice was posted 8 April 2003.

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received no response to the application publicity. 

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none.
Other policies: DEV2 Good Design, DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV4 Design and Crime, H6 and H11 Open Space Provision with New Housing Development

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

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

PLANNING APPRAISAL
The principle of residential development has already been very well established when the original outline and reserved matters applications were approved.  This application is seeking to propose a revised layout within the north eastern corner of the larger site by a second developer.  The issues to be considered relate to the impact of this proposal upon the adjacent layout already approved and in relation to the requirements of the outline application for the whole site.  Policies DEV1 and DEV2 and DES1 and DES2 are all relevant in relation to achieving a development which is of a good design with no detrimental impact upon the amenity of the area whilst DEV4 and DES11 identify the requirement for security issues to be assessed.

One of the requirements of the outline permission was that access was to be maintained from the development site into the green swathe surrounding it.  On the previously approved reserved matters layout one such access was within what is now the site of this application.  This would be maintained and within almost the same location.  I am satisfied that the aims of the original permission have therefore been reflected within this proposal.

The Architectural Liaison officer is concerned about the open plan layout at the front and possible poor neighbourly relations that may result as well as requiring fencing at the rear of a minimum of 1.5m high.  I do not consider that this proposal should necessarily result in poor relations but the careful use of surface materials may also go some way to deter this.  The developer has indicated that fencing 1.8m and 2m high would be erected at the rear of properties.  

The layout is very similar to the layout for 02/43597/REM with two additional dwellings.  Similar separation distances have also been achieved.  Normally a minimum of 21m would be required but it was considered that in light of PPG3 and the requirement to achieve increased densities on development sites, and because it was a self contained site these distances could be relaxed slightly.  Separations are therefore again a minimum of 20m.

The proposal would generate a requirement for open space provision in accordance with policies H6 and H11.  The outline and reserved matters applications secured a formal play area within the central village green area of the site with the informal open space provided within the surrounding green swathe.  The applicant has submitted sufficient evidence that this play provision shall still be provided by the original applicant, Westbury Homes, and within the same location.  As this application layout only proposes two additional dwellings to that previously approved I am satisfied that the original play provision remains acceptable.

The proposed layout would not have any detrimental impact upon the approved layout for he remainder of the site or the amenity of the area generally.  It would also be a continuation of the previously approved scheme maintaining the pedestrian links to the wider open space.  I am satisfied that the proposed design is acceptable and have no objections on highway grounds and therefore recommend that this application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.

3.	Prior to occupation the developer shall submit a Site Completion Report to the Directorate of Environmental Services, to validate that ground gas protection measures have been incorporated within the site which shall be approved in writing by the Directorate of Development Services prior to the commencement of development.  Proposals for the cover material (subsoil and topsoil) to be provided in all garden areas including full details of the composition and source of the cover material provided together with details and justification of the sampling density used, which should be in accordance with BS 3882:1994 "Specification for Topsoil", shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Directorate of Development Services .

4.	The developer shall undertake an assessment to determine the external noise levels the residents will be subjected to (daytime and night-time).  The developer shall detail what steps are to be taken to mitigate the disturbance from the nearby railway.  The assessment shall have due regard to the Department of the Environment Guidance PPG24 - Planning and Noise and the "Calculation of Railway Noise (1985)".  The assessment and mitigation measures shall be submitted for the approval of Development Services prior to commencement of development.  Any approved mitigation measures are to be implemented prior to occupation.

5.	No dwelling shall be occupied until the children's equipped play area as part of the public open space for the whole site has been implemented and is available for use to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

3.	Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt

4.	Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

5.	Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	The applicant's attention is drawn to the letter from United Utilities

APPLICATION No:	03/45908/REM

APPLICANT:	Ainsworth Estates

LOCATION:	Vacant Site At Memorial Road/ Stanley Road Worsley 

PROPOSAL:	Details of the landscaping scheme in respect of the erection of 27 dwellings

WARD:	Walkden South

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the former site of Crossley’s sheds situated on land between Memorial Road, Stanley Road and Park Road.  The railway and its embankment forms the southern boundary to the site.   There are residential terraces to the north on both Memorial Road and Stanley Road separated by an access road which is actually within the application site whilst opposite on Memorial Road is the IMO garage and the vets, and opposite on Stanley Road is another car garage and offices.  

This application relates solely to the landscaping proposals.  The boundary treatment would be a 0.6m high blue brick wall topped by 1.2m high railings.  The soft landscaping proposes a total of 11 new trees.

SITE HISTORY

In August 2000 permission was granted in outline for the demolition of the buildings on the site and for the erection of a vets practice with car parking and new vehicular accesses (00/40953/OUT).

In May 2001 permission was granted to change the use of the premises to a timber merchants (01/42068/FUL).

In November 2002 permission was granted in outline for the erection of 27 dwellings on the site.  All matters were approved at that stage with the exception of landscaping (02/44540/OUT). 

PUBLICITY

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

The following neighbour addresses have been notified:-

	71 – 77 and Pet Medics Memorial Road
	23 – 31, 2 – 6 and ATS Depot Stanley Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received no representations in response to the application publicity. 

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES9 Landscaping

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when determining applications.  These factors include landscaping and open space provision.

Policy DES9 states that developments will be required to incorporate hard and soft landscaping provision.

The outline application approved in November last year approved all details except for landscaping.  The proposed landscaping scheme is of a high quality and improvements have been made based on the comments of the Landscape Design Group.

I am satisfied that the proposal is acceptable and would enhance the area.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	The landscape scheme hereby approved shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.  Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	This permission shall relate to the amended plans numbered 2517/12 A and 2517/13 A received on 15th May 2003.

APPLICATION No:	03/45950/FUL

APPLICANT:	Oakwood Homes Limited

LOCATION:	Land At Southern End Of Drywood Avenue Worsley 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of ten dwellings together with the creation of a new pedestrian and vehicular access

WARD:	Worsley Boothstown

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to land situated at the southern end of Drywood Avenue.  The site which is roughly triangular in shape and 0.5 hectares in size is bounded by the Bridgewater Canal to the south, the Worsley Greenway and Dukes Drive to the north and the properties 47 - 53 Drywood Avenue to the west.  The site is currently vacant and there is a line of trees along the northern boundary which are covered by Tree Preservation Order no.98.  A footpath runs across the site in a west – east direction to join the southern end of Dukes Drive and access into Monton.

The site is allocated for housing in the UDP and in 1991 and November 2000 permission was granted in outline for nine detached properties, planning references E/27816 and 00/40719/OUT.  In November 2000 a separate permission was granted for an extension to Drywood Avenue, reference 00/40718/FUL. This extended the road in front of the last four detached dwellings (nos 43 – 53) with two private drive accesses leading from the proposed turning head.

This application is for the erection of ten dwellings.  There would be six detached dwellings fronting onto the Canal with one to the rear at the wider part of the site, with three mews style dwellings in the north western corner of the site, to the rear of 43 – 53 Drywood Avenue.  The dwellings would be accessed off the road which was granted permission in November 2000 and which is currently being constructed.  Access to Dukes Drive would be provided via new steps which would be put in at the top of the turning head on the new road.

A tree report has been submitted with the application.  It is proposed that 13 trees along the boundary to the Greenway are felled, 17 are retained and 14 new trees planted.  These have been drawn indicatively to provide a continual screen along this boundary.  It is also proposed to utilise a geoweb based wall to address the change in levels within the rear gardens to the boundary to Dukes Drive as an additional measure to safeguard the trees.

SITE HISTORY

In November 2002 an application for 21 apartments and three dwellinghouses was dismissed at appeal planning reference 01/42713/FUL.  It was considered that the proposal would “introduce a visually dominating form of development in this attractive and open area”.

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services -
The Manchester Ship Canal Company – No objections subject to the road constructed not less than 5 metres away from the canal edge and the flow of surface water drainage not exceeding seven litres per second. 
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Officer – no comments received to date.
City Council’s Arboricultural Officer – is satisfied that the proposed geoweb wall will afford additional protection to the trees along Dukes Drive.  Any replacement trees for those to be removed should provide a similar treescape and must be an adequate distance from any dwelling to allow for the future living and health of the tree.  It is considered that tree T3 towards the north western end of the site is too close to the proposed dwelling.
The Environment Agency – no objections in principle but requests that a condition be attached to any permission protecting the Bridgewater Canal from building materials during construction.
Peak and Northern Footpath Society – no comments received.
The Ramblers Association – no comments received.
Commons, Open Spaces and Footpath Preservation Society – no comments received. 
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – no comments received.
Greater Manchester Fire Service – would object to the proposal unless all dwellings are fitted with residential sprinklers in accordance with BSI DD251-2000.
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – recommend that due to the proximity of the site to landfill sites, landfill gas monitoring should be carried out prior to development commencing.

PUBLICITY

The proposal has been advertised within the local press on 17 April 2003.
Site Notices have been posted 11 April 2003.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified

	1,3,7,12,15,21,23, 29 – 37 (O), 43 – 53 (O) Drywood Avenue
	5 The Sidings
	2 and 3 The Moorings
	69 – 79 (O) Cypress Road
	9 Catherine Road
	1 – 9 Walker Road
	2 Parr Drive

REPRESENTATIONS

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

	Three storeys is too high on an already elevated piece of land
	Detrimental to the setting and amenity of the area and adjacent fields
	Not in keeping with existing houses on Drywood Avenue which are two storey
Plots 1 and 2 are excessively high and taller than other plots – 11 feet 
higher than plot 10 and more like three and four storey dwellings rather than 2 and 3 storey properties
loss of light
loss of privacy
loss of trees

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: H9 Sites for new housing
Other policies: EN7 Conservation of trees and woodland, DEV2 Good Design, T13 Car parking, DEV1 Development Considerations, H1 Meeting housing needs

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none.
Other policies: EN10 Protected Trees, EN2 Worsley Greenway, A10 Provision of Car,Cycle and Motorcycle Parking within New Developments, CH1 Proposed World Heritage Site, DES1 Respecting context.

PLANNING APPRAISAL
The site is situated at the end of a residential road and has had previous permissions granted in outline.  I am satisfied therefore that the principle of residential has been established and is acceptable in this location.  The main issues to be addressed therefore relate to the impact of the proposed dwellings upon the amenity of the neighbouring residents and also upon the Worsley greenway to the immediate north of the site and the Canal to the south, together with the loss of the trees on the site which are covered by a preservation order.

I have received two objections to the proposal one from a resident who does not object to the development generally but is concerned about the loss of trees on the site.  The second objector is concerned about the impact of the proposal and in particular plots 1 – 3 in the north western corner of the site, upon his own property and his amenity.  I shall address his concerns first.

There is concern that plots 1 – 3 which are two and three storey dwellings are in fact the height of three and four storey dwellings and the objector is concerned that these are too close to his property with a resulting loss of privacy, light and general amenity.  The applicant has submitted level information which has confirmed that the floor levels of these three plots are actually 0.3m lower than the objectors property.  The tallest of the proposed dwellings would stand 12.5m to the ridge of the roof and 7.5m to the eaves.  All of the plots are some 25m from the objector’s property.  Normally a separation of 21m is required between two similar properties on similar levels.  Where two storey dwellings face three storey dwellings an increased separation is required proportionate to the increase in height of the taller building.  On this basis I am satisfied that the 25m separation is acceptable and thus consequently there should not be a significant detrimental impact upon the amenity of the objector in terms of loss of light or privacy or in fact that the dwellings would appear overbearing.

The second objector is concerned about the proposed loss of the trees on the site.  In response to this the City Council’s arborist has inspected the trees together with the applicant and his aborist and is satisfied that the trees indicated to be felled should be felled.  He is however concerned about the impact of plot 3 on tree T3 as he considers this to be too close which would restrict the future living space of the tree.  The tree would stand almost 7m from the front corner of the proposed dwelling and would also be at a lower level from the dwelling.  Significant pruning work is necessary to the tree and taking these two factors into consideration I am minded to consider that this separation is acceptable, especially as the tree is growing in such a manner as it would not reduce light to the dwelling.  I also consider it preferable to retain the tree at the moment with replacements sought at a later stage when the replacements have been established.

The applicant has indicated that there would be 13 trees that would be felled along the boundary to Dukes Drive but that 14 replacements would be planted.  These replacements could be of species to retain the existing treescape, albeit with time.  However, these would grow up alongside the development and I consider that with the retention of the 17 trees whilst these new trees are becoming established that a satisfactory treescape would be maintained.  For a development of a site such as this it is often necessary to achieve a balance between gaining an acceptable development whilst retaining a level of treescape.  The applicant has indicated that replacements would be planted and I consider that subject to the careful siting of these replacements, with time an improved treescape would be achieved along this boundary to Dukes Drive.

The proposal has been designed around the road layout which was approved in November 2000.  The dwellings would be constructed from brick and stone and would be of a high quality of design.  Those dwellings fronting onto the Canal itself would be three storey with the third storey provided within the roof and would be set back 17m from the Canal frontage, following the existing building line of Drywood Avenue.

I am aware that current government guidance is seeking to achieve an increased density on sites where possible.  However, this should not be at the expense of the character of the area.  This site is situated between the Bridgewater Canal which is part of a proposed world heritage site to which policy CH1 relates, and also the Worsley Greenway (policies EN18, 25, and EN2 of the draft UDP) and therefore any development of this site must not detract from either of these.  I am concerned that any higher density would detract from both of these in terms of the openness of the greenway and the setting of the canal.  Furthermore, DES1 requires a development to respect its context.  The character of Drywood Avenue is of large, detached residential dwellings and I consider that this proposal would continue this. 

I consider that the proposal would result in a development which would complement and enhance its canal-side location and also not have a significant detrimental impact upon the greenway to the north.  I have no objections to the proposal from my highways section or from the Fire Authority subject to the imposition of sprinkler systems within the dwellings.  The footpath access to Dukes Drive has been maintained and I am also very much aware that this site is an end piece of land at the end of a residential road which has only this single access point.  I therefore recommend that taking into account all factors including the tree loss, that on balance this application should be approved. 

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.

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

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

5.	Standard Condition C07C Replacement of Trees

6.	Standard Condition C11T Replacement - Planting season

7.	All dwellings shall be fitted with residential sprinklers in accordance with BSI DD251-2000 the full details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services and these shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of any dwelling.

8.	Standard Condition M03 Contaminated land

9.	That prior to first occupation 14 replacement trees shall be planted in accordance with a scheme showing full details of the proposed trees including their species and their siting, to be submitted to and approved in writing prior to the felling of any tree.

10.	No development shall be commenced until a scheme to protect Bridgewater Canal from building materials during construction has been approved by the Director of Development Services.  Such a scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved plans.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

3.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

4.	Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees

5.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

6.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

7.	Standard Reason R028A Public safety

8.	Standard Reason R028A Public safety

9.	To safeguard the existing treescape in accordance with policy EN7 of the UDP.

10.To safeguard the Bridgewater Canal.

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	This permission shall relate to the amended plans received on 8 May 2003 showing footpath access to Dukes Drive.

2.	Any top or sub soils brought onto site shall be of a clean and suitable nature and composition so as not to pose a risk to human health.  Any soils imported onto site shall be accompanied by a written assessment in line with the CLEA Soil Guideline Model and the Dutch Soil Guideline Values to determine their suitability on site.  The applicant shall contact the Director of Environmental Services to discuss this further.

APPLICATION No:	03/45951/REM

APPLICANT:	Texas Group PLC

LOCATION:	Land At Barton Hall Hardy Street Peel Green Eccles 

PROPOSAL:	Details of the siting, design and external appearance of 74 dwellings together with creation of new vehicular and pedestrian access and associated landscaping including public open space

WARD:	Winton

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to part of the Barton Hall industrial estate.  The whole estate comprises a number of large industrial buildings but this application relates to a 1.9 hectare part of the site at the northern end, furthest away from Liverpool Road.    The site is bounded by the residential properties of Finstock Close and Ampney Close to the north, Hardy Street to the east and Gorton Street to the west.  The remainder of the industrial estate lies to the immediate south.  The application site contains a number of vacant buildings.

Permission was granted in outline with all matters reserved (although it was indicated at the time that access would be taken off both Hardy Street and Gorton Street) for the development of the land for residential purposes, in February 2002, reference 01/42881/OUT. There are currently four industrial buildings on the site all of which are vacant and it is now proposed to demolish these and erect 74 dwellings.   Access to 34 dwellings would be achieved off Hardy Street with the remaining 40 accessed off Gorton Street.  The dwellings would comprise a mix of 2 and 3 bed semis and detached properties with one terrace of three, with a central area of public open space which would also incorporate a formal childrens play area.  Pedestrian access would be provided across this area to enable access from the Gorton Street and Hardy Street access points.  

The applicant has submitted a design statement as part of the submission.  The main aspects about the design are summarised below.

•	The development has evolved taking into account the vehicular access points and the desire to achieve frontage development to both Gorton Street and Hardy Street, thereby providing better integration with existing residential communities.
•	The residential units are sited overlooking the vehicular and pedestrian access routes thereby providing natural surveillance and minimising the incidence of crime.
•	The residential layout proposes independent vehicular access off both Gorton Street and Hardy Street serving 40 and 34 units respectively.  This takes into account the desire to balance the traffic generation and minimise any potential disturbance to residential occupiers close to the site access points.  The slight bias towards Gorton Street is reflective of the traffic generation associated with the Barton Hall Works whose principal access is off Hardy Street.
•	The application site occupies a convenient position relative to shops and services within Peel Green.  It is considered that a residential development would contribute towards maintaining the vitality and viability of the local centre.  The ease of pedestrian accessibility to public transport along Liverpool Road represents a significant benefit in terms of sustainable transport choices.

SITE HISTORY

In August 1988 planning permission for erection of 117 dwellings of part of the former Barton Hall works site was granted (E/23091).
In June 1998 planning permission was granted for the demolition of four of the existing properties on the estate and the erection of three new industrial buildings (97/36896/FUL).

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – no objections subject to a site investigation (conditioned in the outline permission) and the implementation of recommendations within the acoustic report submitted at the outline stage.
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Officer – recommends that the footpath across the public open space should have vehicle barriers designed so that cars and motorbikes cannot cross it.  
United Utilities – no objections subject provided the site is drained on a separate system with only foul drainage connected into the foul sewer.  Surface water will require attenuation.
The Environment Agency – no objections.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – the site is located within walking distance of bus stops on Liverpool Road and New Lane and therefore residents should have access to a choice of transport mode which should help reduce reliance on car travel.  The pedestrian environment should be designed to be as safe and convenient as possible so as not to discourage people from accessing the site on foot/by public transport.
City Council’s Arboricultural Officer – considers that the tree is worthy of retention and that a 10m separation distance between the tree and any dwelling must be achieved.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses have been notified

	49 – 79 Gorton Street
	54 – 92 Hardy Street
	1 – 8 Evans Road
	2 – 14(E) Ampney Close
	27 – 55(O) Finstock Close
	1 – 6 Hatherop Close
	
REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 5 letters of representation in response to the application publicity.  The main issues identified are as follows:

	Retention of tree at rear of property which is worthy of protection
Relationship to existing properties to the north – will there be any gap between the two developments? ie land left undeveloped
Security measures to properties whilst work is on-going
Concern about demolition work including the disposal of asbestos
  	Retention of the bollards at the top of Hardy Street
	Flooding from surface water drains outside 77 and 78 Gorton St
	Requirement for barrier to restrict motorcycle access on pedestrian areas.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: : none  
Other policies:	EC3 Re-Use of sites and Premises, H6 and H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments
		
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none.
Other policies: DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES11 Design and Crime, H8 Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development

PLANNING APPRAISAL
The principle of the residential use of the site has already been established with the granting of the outline permission last year.  It is the details of this application and in particular the relationship to the existing neighbouring properties and also the relationship to the adjacent industrial units that is important in accordance with policies DEV1, DEV2 and DES1.  DES2 seeks to ensure that design and layout of any new development will be accessible to all people and will maximise the movement of pedestrians and cyclists through and around a site, thereby encouraging sustainable forms of transport. 

I have received four letters of representation from residents.  They do not object to the principle of the development but have concerns regarding the actual works including demolition and the possibility of asbestos on the site and security of their properties during works.  In response to this the applicant would have to comply with specific practices and controls under the Building Regulations during the demolition works and if asbestos was found the Director of Environmental Services should be contacted.  

The concern about the relationship of the proposed dwellings to the existing are valid but I am able to confirm that the new development would back directly onto the backs of the existing properties of Ampney Close and Finstock Close.

The City’s arborist has inspected the tree that the residents wished to see retained and agrees that it is worthy of protection.  The applicant has amended the site layout to secure some 15m from the tree to the nearest dwelling and I am now satisfied that it should not be detrimentally effected by the development.  The tree has recently been covered by a preservation order.

In relation to the concerns about the drainage and flooding problems and the requirement for a barrier to prevent access, I have forwarded these to my drainage section.

In accordance with policies H6 and H11 the proposal does require an open space contribution.  This has been provided within the central part of the site along the southern boundary and within this area there would be a formal equipped play area.  I am satisfied that this provision is suitable.   

Across the area of open space the applicant has indicated that there would be a footpath allowing access to the remainder of the development from both Gorton Street and Hardy Street.  I consider that this complies with the aim of DES2 allowing circulation and movement both within and beyond the boundaries of the application site.  I am mindful of the comments of the architectural liaison officer and for this reason I would recommend that if granted a condition should be attached securing the erection of a vehicle restriction barrier at either end of the footpath.

The layout incorporates predominantly semi-detached dwellings.  The existing housing within the wider area are predominantly terraced and semi-detached and on this basis I am satisfied that there is an acceptable housing mix within the vicinity thus complying with the broad government aim of providing a mix of house types within all areas.  The applicant has also achieved a satisfactory density throughout the site, again reflecting current government requirements.  There would be an above average separation distance to the properties of Ampney Close and Finstock Close owing to the lengthy gardens of these properties and similarly to the existing industrial units to the south.  These properties would also be afforded the benefit of an acoustic barrier along the southern boundary and I am satisfied that this would provide some mitigation to possible noise from the estate.

The proposal would result in the redevelopment of brownfield land with a development which would complement the surrounding residential area and also reflect current government approach to new development.  I am satisfied that an acceptable residential environment would be provided and that there would not be a significant detrimental impact upon any of the neighbouring residents.  I have no objections on highway grounds.

RECCOMMENDATION

a.	That the director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into an appropriate legal agreement to secure the following:
 
i.	the provision of an area of public open space, together with any necessary works, infrastructure and related equipment theron, commensurate in scale and size with the total number of bed spaces to be provided on the site, together with a commuted sum  of £45,585.00 equivalent to 10 years maintenance of such a site.

b.	That the applicant be informed that the Council is minded to grant planning permission subject to the conditions stated below.

c.	That authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application to be issued (subject to the condition and reasons stated below) on completion of the above mentioned agreement.

d.	That authority be given to refuse the application if the applicant fails to complete the section 106 agreement within a reasonable period on the grounds that the proposals do not support the aim and objective of policies H6 and H11 of the Unitary Development Plan. 

Conditions

1.	No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.

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

3.	Vehicle restriction barriers shall be erected across the footpath across the public open space, full details of which, including details of their siting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of development.  These shall then be implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.

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

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

2.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

3.	To ensure the footpath can not be used by cars and motorbikes in accordance with policy DEV1 of the UDP.

4.	Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	This permission relates to the amended plans received on 9 May 2003 revised layout around plots 20 and 21.

2.	The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached comments from United Utilities dated 7 May 2003 and the Main Drainage section dated 9 April 2003.

3.	The applicant's attention is drawn to the memo from the Director of Environmental Services  dated 23 May 2003 which details specific noise measures to be incorporated into the development.  Please contact Steve Smith on 0161 - 793 -2083 to discuss the requirements in more detail.

APPLICATION No:	03/45956/HH

APPLICANT:	Mr And Mrs D P Birchenough

LOCATION:	'Edgely' 4 Enfield Road Eccles 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of single storey rear extension and extension to existing garage.

WARD:	Eccles

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to the erection of a single storey rear extension at the rear of a semi detached property with large rear garden, for a sunroom and a garage extension.

The garage extension would increase the length of the garage by approximately 3.5m and would be the same width as the existing. The resulting garage would be the same size as the adjacent garage at the rear of 6 Enfield Road.

The sunroom would project 6m from the rear wall of the outrigger of the dwelling, be 3m wide and would be built 0.7m from the boundary. The rear wall along the boundary would be brick and the roof would be tiled. The remainder of the sunroom would be glazed and face onto the patio area.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses have been notified

	2 and 6 Enfield Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the application publicity.  The main issues identified are as follows:

•	The extension is very close to the boundary and would severely reduce the sunlight to the lounge, kitchen and patio.
•	The plans are inaccurate.
•	A lilac tree would need to be felled.
•	Maintenance of the privet hedge would be difficult.
 
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 Unitary Development Plan – House Extensions.

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 – First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan- Amenity of Users and Neighbours.

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Dev8 states that permission would be granted if the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light.

DES7 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan Policy supports DEV8 of the Unitary Development Plan and states that all new development, alterations and extensions to existing buildings, will be required to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity, in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout.

There are no objections to the garage.

The objector states concerns that there would be a loss of light to the lounge, kitchen and patio. I do not consider there would be a significantly detrimental impact on the light to the lounge as the objector has an existing outrigger that projects along the side of the lounge window and already restricts the light to this room. The proposed extension would be set back 0.7m from the boundary and I do not consider that it would have a significant further impact on the light to this room. 

The kitchen window is not a main habitable window but a small secondary window. Therefore I do not consider that the reduction in light to this room would have a significantly detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbours. 

I do not consider that the reduction in light to the patio area would be significantly detrimental to the amenity of the neighbours as this area only enjoys late afternoon sun and is already partially shaded by the 2m hedge along the boundary. The sunroom would be 2.6m to the eaves (standing 0.6m above the hedge) and would a further 1.1m to the highest point, sloping from the eaves. For these reasons I do not consider there would be a significantly detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbours. 

Another objection is that the drawings are not accurate. After looking at the plans and visiting the site I am satisfied that the plans are a true representation of the site.

A further objection is that a lilac tree situated at the rear of the outrigger would need to be removed to allow for the development to go ahead. The tree is not protected under a Tree Preservation Order and is not within a Conservation Area. The City’s Arboriculture Officer has inspected the tree and is of the opinion that it is not worthy of protection. I have no objections to the tree being removed.

The objection relating to the maintenance of the hedge is not a planning consideration but the extension would be set in from the boundary and therefore would allow sufficient room for maintenance. 

I consider the proposal would not be contrary to the Councils guidance and therefore recommend it for approval.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

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

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

APPLICATION No:	03/45969/COU

APPLICANT:	Spurgeons Childcare

LOCATION:	Units 24 And 26 Hulton District Centre Manchester Road East Little Hulton Worsley 

PROPOSAL:	Change of use from shop to drop in community centre

WARD:	Little Hulton

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to two units with the Little Hulton District Centre.  Planning permission is sought to change the use of the units from retail to a drop in community centre.  The properties are three storey with residential dwellings occupying the first and second floors.

The proposal would provide a drop in centre to be used as a crčche and play group and parent and toddler group activities and training. Users of units will be staff and volunteers working for Sure Start Little Hulton and children under 4 and their parents and careers.

The centre is served by two public car parks.

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objections

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses have been notified

	8 –50 (even) Hulton District Centre
	1 –17 (odd) Hulton District Centre
	12A – 30A (con) Hulton District Centre

REPRESENTATIONS

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

	Noise from ground floor units 

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:	None
Other policies:		S3 Key Local Centres

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

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

PLANNING APPRAISAL

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

The objection received refers to the noise, disturbance currently experienced by the residential accommodation above the proposal.  Concerns have also been raised as to the future users of the premises and potential for additional noise.

The applicant has supplied additional information as to what and who is likely to use the facilities.  Unit 24's proposed use will be as an office base from 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday. The users of this Unit will be staff and volunteers working for Sure Start Little Hulton and other workers, volunteers and local people attending meetings. They will
undertake general office activities. There will be no additional activity within this unit.
Unit 26 is proposed to accommodate several community uses such as a crčche/play group/parent and toddler group/activities/training. Users of this unit will also be staff and volunteers working for Sure Start Little Hulton and children under 4 and their parents/careers. The Unit staffing hours will be 8am to 7pm Monday to Friday and Saturday 9am to 4pm, with activities taking place Monday to Friday from 9.30am to 6pm and Saturday 10am - 3pm. The space will be refurbished and used in line with OFSTED guidance.  It is not anticipated that the proposed weekend use will occur every weekend. 

With regard noise, I have not received any objections from the Director of Environmental Services subject to the submission and approval of a noise report containing appropriate noise attenuation measures.

The centre has a number of vacant units and suffers from competition from the nearby Walkden District Centre.  Unit 26 has been vacant since 1996 with unit 24 becoming vacant within the last twelve months.  Although this proposal would result in the loss of two A1 uses within the centre, I am of the opinion that the proposed use would help attract additional visitors and trips to the centre.  

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

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	An assessment shall be submitted for written approval to the Local Planning Authority which details the levels of noise likely to be generated from the proposed uses of the site. This assessment shall be used to determine if any noise mitigation measures are required to protect the amenity of surrounding noise sensitive properties. Any identified Noise Attenuation Measures identified by the assessment shall be implemented prior to the commencement of the proposed use and retained thereafter.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	I would advise the applicant to contact Lynne Ratcliffe - Environmental Health Officer (Commercial Services) on 0161 793 2017 prior to the commencement of activities on site for detailed discussions relating to the proposed use of the site and the likely legislative requirements that this will entail with regard to Food and Health and Safety matters.

APPLICATION No:	03/46004/HH

APPLICANT:	Mr P Sharples

LOCATION:	9 Enfield Road Swinton 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of two storey side extension and rear single storey extension.

WARD:	Swinton South

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to a semi-detached property on the corner of South Meade. The application originally included a garage to be erected in the rear corner of the garden adjacent to the boundary with 2 South Meade and 11 Enfield Road. The garage would measure 5.16m x 5.5m and be 4m to the ridge. However this has since been withdrawn from the application, as it is Permitted Development.

The two-storey extension element of the application would be flush with the front main wall, and would return across the rear of the dwelling by 2.8m in an “L” shape. The side element would be 2m from the back of the pavement. There would be a single storey extension, which would adjoin the two-storey element to the boundary with 7 Enfield Road that would project 2.7m from along the common boundary.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses have been notified

	7,12,14,11 Enfield Road
	1 and 2 South Meade

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the application publicity.  The main issues identified are as follows:

•	Loss of light to the living room of the adjoining property.
•	The garage would cause a tunnel effect along the boundary with the adjacent property.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8- House Extensions 
DEV3 – Alterations/Extensions.

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

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

PLANNING APPRAISAL

DEV8 of the Unitary Development Plan states that permission would be granted if the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light.

DES7 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan Policy supports DEV8 of the Unitary Development Plan and states that all new development, alterations and extensions to existing buildings, will be required to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity, in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout.

DEV3 of the Unitary Development Plan states that alterations or extension should respect the general scale, style, proportion and materials of the original structure and to complement the general character of the surrounding area. They should also respect the amenities of neighbouring residents with regard to privacy, daylight, sunlight and outlook. 

DES8 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan supports DEV3 of the Unitary Development Plan.

One objection is that there would be loss of light to the adjacent living room window of the extension caused by the single storey element of the extension. The extension would project less than 2.74m from the rear main wall of the adjoining property. Therefore would comply with the Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions and I do not consider there would be a significantly detrimental impact on the light to this property.

The remaining objection is that the garage would cause a tunnel effect to the adjacent property due to the amount of their boundary that is already lined with brickwork. However as the garage would be 5m from the property and less than 4m in height with a ridged roof, it can be built under the “Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995” as Permitted Development. The applicant has since withdrawn it from the application.

As the extension is within the guidelines of the Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions and the garage is allowed under Permitted Development I recommend the application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

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

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Condition R004A Amenity-area

APPLICATION No:	03/46016/FUL

APPLICANT:	A P Rowlett

LOCATION:	Geith Works Weymouth Road Winton Eccles 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of four general industrial units (Class B2) together with associated car parking

WARD:	Winton

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This proposal is for the erection of four single-storey general industrial units (Class B2) together with associated car parking on part of the former Geith Works industrial estate on Weymouth Road, Winton. 

This development will incorporate 4 general-industrial units (B2) of equal size and totalling 214.2sq.m, sited to the eastern boundary of the site. Car-parking provision will total 13spaces within the site. Proposed hours of use are 0800-1730 weekdays and 0800-1300 on Saturdays. 

Weymouth Road, is a typical suburban road, flanked for most of its length by semi-detached houses on both sides. The Geith Works industrial estate is around 11,000sq.m, within which the application site is approx. 1,035sq.m. There is an existing single-storey unit (to be retained) with a floorspace of 148.2sq.m. 

SITE HISTORY

In February 1998 an application was refused regarding the erection of four manufacturing units (Class B2) (96/35927/FUL); this scheme was very similar to that now being considered. The reason for rejection was on the basis that ‘the proposed development would lead to an increase in vehicular traffic along a residential road and would be detrimental to the amenity of residents by reason of noise and disturbance’. This decision was appealed and the appeal upheld. The subsequent permission remains valid at the present time (T/APP/U4230/A/98/294172/P2). 

In 1996, planning permission was granted for the erection of 2.4m high palisade security fencing along with 2.4m x 6m wide security gate to match palisade fencing (96/35132/FUL).

In 1994, outline planning permission was granted for the erection of no.4 Class B2 manufacturing units (94/32287/OUT).

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services	- No comments received 
British Coal				- No comments received
Environmental Agency		- No comments received 
Manchester Ship Canal		- No objections
Architectural Liaison			- No objections
The City Secretary 			- No objections

PUBLICITY

A press notice was published on 1st May 2003.
A site notice was displayed on 30th April 2003.

The following neighbour addresses have been notified:

	APR Windows
	Ace Scaffolding
	Creamline Diaries
	43-61(o) Weymouth Road
	30-52(e) Weymouth Road
	GUS Warehouse, Worsley Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received twelve (12) representations/letters of objection in response to the application publicity.  The main issues identified are as follows:

•	Volume & speed of traffic
•	‘Accident waiting to happen’ - Road needs traffic calming
•	Under-provision of parking – many employees park on the street & pavement – residents are also ‘forced’ to park on pavements
•	Increase in deliveries – inappropriate for access via a residential neighbourhood
•	Development inappropriate to a cul-de-sac – many vehicles have to reverse
•	Poor road surface & many pot-holes – unsuitable for large lorries
•	Heavy traffic restricts children from outdoor activity
•	Traffic management needs to be investigated
•	Continued expansion should not be allowed
•	Units should be built on Green Lane on opposite side of canal
•	Added pollution

I have also received a petition (containing 109 signatures) to the following effect:

‘We, the undersigned, do NOT agree with the proposed planning application by A P Rowlett, application number 03/46016/FUL, on the Geith Works site, Weymouth Road, Winton, Eccles for the erection of four general industrial units (class B2) together with associated parking’.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none

Other policies:
EC3 – Re-use of Sites & Premises
EC7 – Industry & Commerce in Residential Areas
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design & Crime
DEV5 – Equality of Access

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none

Other policies:
ST3 – Employment Supply
ST6 – Major Trip Generating Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES9 – Landscaping
DES11 – Design & Crime
E4 – Employment Development on Unallocated Sites
E5 – Development Within Established Employment Areas
A8 – Impact of Development on the Highway Network

PLANNING APPRAISAL

A fundemental consideration, in assessing this proposal, is the Appeal decision in respect of application 96/35927/FUL.  The appeal was upheld on 6th July 1998. The inspector allowed this appeal on the basis that the development lay within an established industrial area albeit along a residential road.  Weight was attached to the benefit of a (then) un-expired outline planning permission for this site that had been granted by the City Council in 1994, concluding that since this application have been granted there had been no significant changes to the background of this case. Therefore this application should be assessed in light of the previous application and subsequent appeal, which is still extant.

The application site is within a well-established industrial area and is surrounded by other industrial premises. The nearest house is over 125metres away and is separated by several existing firms. Given that the proposal is of a small scale and within an established industrial employment area, I do not consider this to be a major impact on the surrounding environment. I have also considered the impact of noise on the nearby (not adjacent) residential area; while there may be some increase in noise from the site, I agree with the inspectors assessment that this would be unlikely to be heard above the noise of traffic using the nearby M602. 

Many objectors have commented on the impact on the residents of Weymouth Road, a residential cul-de-sac. However, policy EC7 refers to industry & commerce in residential areas; while the access to the site is through a residential district, the site is nevertheless within an industrial locality.  The planning inspector considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the character of the residential area. 

Weymouth Road, is a typical suburban road, flanked for most of its length by semi-detached houses on both sides. By present-day standards this road is far from ideal for serving industrial premises with regard to the use by industrial traffic. This is clearly a long-standing situation and it is necessary to consider whether the proposed development would have a significant impact on existing traffic levels. While many objections have been received with regard to combined traffic volume to the industrial estate, I have no highway objections to this development.

Given the small size of the proposed units I consider that these would be unsuitable for process of activities likely to involve the use of large vehicles, and is therefore unlikely to result in any significant increase in heavy goods traffic on Weymouth Road, also supported by the inspector of the previous appeal. Within the site there is sufficient provision of parking spaces, thus reducing the need for on-street parking along Weymouth Road (the Council’s parking standards suggest 12 spaces, closely comparable to the 13 spaces proposed). 

Overall I feel that while the construction of additional units together with the rest of the estate may cause some cumulative impact on the area, the proposed units themselves would not be particularly significant in size compared to the existing estate. The previous appeal decision for a similar application on this site suggests that, the planning inspectorate would consider such a development to be favourable. Having considered the main issues above and the objections received, I consider this proposal to be acceptable. 

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials

3.	Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces

4.	Development hereby permitted shall NOT be operated on the premises on Sundays and Bank Holidays and shall ONLY be operated between the hours of 0800-1730 on weekdays and 0800-1300 on Saturdays.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity

3.	Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage

4.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

APPLICATION No:	03/46021/HH

APPLICANT:	New Prospect Housing

LOCATION:	61 Wildbrook Road Worsley 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of single storey side and rear extension

WARD:	Little Hulton

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to a semi-detached house located on a bend in the road.  The proposal is for a single storey side and rear extension.  It would project out 3.4m from the side of the house and back 6.1m (2m past the rear of the house).  It would be set back 3.7m from the front of the house.  

The Panel is considering this proposal because the City Council is the applicant.  

CONSULTATIONS

The Coal Authority – No objections but have made comments.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses have been notified

	59, 63, 106-110 (e) Wildbrook Road
	9 Rigby Grove

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received no letters of objection to this application.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

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

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

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

PLANNING APPRAISAL

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

The proposal is in accordance with Supplementary Planning Guidance.  I am of the opinion that it would not lead to a significant loss of amenity for neighbouring residents or would have a detrimental impact on the street-scene.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

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

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building

APPLICATION No:	03/46023/HH

APPLICANT:	Mr Surgenor

LOCATION:	33 Firfield Grove Walkden Worsley 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of two storey side and two storey rear extensions

WARD:	Walkden North

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to a semi-detached property within this recent housing development. The proposal is to erect a ground floor extension that would be the full width of the house, and project out 2.74m from the back wall. It is then proposed to erect a first floor extension above part of the ground floor extension. This first floor extension is set 1.5m away from the party boundary with the adjoining neighbour and would project out 1.57m from the original house. It is also proposed to erect a side extension which would be 988mm in width and would be a maximum of 4.5m in length.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses have been notified

	16, 18, 31 & 35 Firfield Close

REPRESENTATIONS

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

•	the first floor extension could block the neighbours light and view, which is already restricted by the factory to the rear
•	this might result in the damage or loss of the party fence
•	they are concerned about damage to the party wall during construction.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None 
Other policies: DEV 8 – House extensions

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 – Amenity of users and neighbours

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV 8 seeks to ensure that planning permission for extensions are only granted when it would not have an unacceptably adverse effect on the neighbours in terms of loss of light, overshadowing, dominance or loss of privacy. Policy DES7 also seeks to ensure that extensions do not have adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours in terms of space, sunlight, daylight and privacy. It is in order to prevent such a detrimental affect that the SPG for house extensions have been adopted.

I have considered the effect on the neighbouring property, and I am mindful that the objector is particularly concerned with the first floor extension. As the proposed first floor would be set 1.55m away from the boundary and would project out 1.57m then it would comply with the SPG. I do not consider it would have an overbearing effect or result in a particular loss of light for the objector’s property. I would also consider that the ground floor element to the extension which would project out 2.74m would not have an undue effect on the neighbours in terms of overbearing or loss of light.

The objector has also raised concerns about the boundary fence and the party wall. However, these are not planning considerations but are a matter to be resolved between the two parties.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

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

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building

APPLICATION No:	03/46030/HH

APPLICANT:	P T Rittaler

LOCATION:	32 Farnham Drive Irlam 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of single storey side extension

WARD:	Irlam

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application is for a single storey side extension to a semi-detached property. The extension would be flush with the front and rear main walls and would be 2.17m wide. There would be main habitable windows in both the front and rear elevation with a lean to roof. There would be approximately 6m to the back of the pavement for parking of one vehicle clear of the highway. There would be no windows along the gable of the extension. This house is separated from the adjacent neighbour (at no 30) by an access road to a shared garage court. The adjacent pair of houses (no 28 and 30) are set back behind the application property.
 
PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses have been notified

	30,34,21 and 23 Farnham Drive
	71-75 (o) Eldon Drive

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the application publicity.  The main issues identified are as follows:

•	The extension would reduce light and view from the adjacent property’s front room window
•	The extension would result in a feeling of being boxed in if the frontage is widened due to set back of houses.
•	No access to garage at rear of property if the extension is built.
•	Future maintenance difficulties.
•	Future problems maybe caused with neighbours over access.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8– House Extensions. 
		DEV3 Alterations and Extensions.

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

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

PLANNING APPRAISAL

DEV8 of the Unitary Development Plan states that permission would be granted if the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light.

DES7 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan Policy supports DEV8 of the Unitary Development Plan and states that all new development, alterations and extensions to existing buildings, will be required to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity, in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout.

DEV3 of the Unitary Development Plan states that alterations or extension should respect the general scale, style, proportion and materials of the original structure and to complement the general character of the surrounding area. They should also respect the amenities of neighbouring residents with regard to privacy, daylight, sunlight and outlook. 

DES8 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan supports DEV3 of the Unitary Development Plan.

One objection is that the extension would result in a loss of light and view from the front main habitable window of the adjacent property. It is stated in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions that single storey extensions to the rear would be permitted provided that they do not project beyond a 45-degree line drawn from the mid point of the closest main habitable window. As there is not a specific policy for extensions that come further forward than a property, I consider that this principle can be applied. There would not be a significantly detrimental impact on the amenity of these neighbours, as the extension would lie within a 45-degree line drawn from the adjacent said window. There is also an access road leading to a shared garage court, which separates the two houses reducing the impact of the extension on the neighbouring property further.

A further objection is that if the front of the property were widened there would be a feeling of being “boxed in”. I consider the access road to the shared garage court will reduce this feeling of being “boxed in”. 

The objector is also concerned that there would be no access to the garage at the rear of the property if the extension would be built. The existing garage would cease to be available for car parking and the applicant has confirmed that it would be demolished. There would be approximately 6m from the front wall of the extension to the back of the pavement, which is adequate space to park a vehicle clear of the highway. 

The final two objections to the extension; that there could be future maintenance difficulties caused due to the extension and that there could be future conflict caused between the neighbours as a direct result of the extension are not planning considerations.

Therefore I consider, as the extension would meet with the provisions of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan, First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan and the Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions the application be recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

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

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

APPLICATION No:	03/46031/FUL

APPLICANT:	Whispers Developments

LOCATION:	Beechfield House Fourth Avenue Swinton 

PROPOSAL:	Conversion of existing building to six apartments and erection of two storey side extension to provide five additional apartments

WARD:	Swinton South

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application refers to Beechfield House and its grounds.  The application seeks to convert the existing two storey, former Council office accommodation into six self-contained apartments, utilising the roof space, and to erect a new two storey extension, which would also comprise an additional six self-contained apartments, together with car parking provision for fifteen cars, two of which are disabled spaces.

The building is currently vacant, unused and in need of repair.  The western elevation of the existing Beechfield House is located 2.6m from the rear boundary of 108 Folly Lane.  
It is also proposed to add two small ground floor extensions to the existing building each measuring 2.6m X 2.2m.  These would be located on the western elevation.  The conversion of Beechfield would also provide a single balcony on the northern elevation at first floor level, with a 1.8m screening wall to protect privacy.  

It is proposed to fell four mature trees on the northern boundary of the site.  None of the trees are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order.  To the east of the building there is car parking.  Part of this area would be the site of the new two-storey extension and associated car-parking provision.

The extension would measure 21.4m by 7m.  This element has been designed to reflect the general design features of Beechfield House. The front and side elevations incorporate bay windows to match that of the original.  The rear elevation is plain in comparison.  The siting, number and type of rooms of the new build element would provide the sufficient separation distance between the neighbouring properties at the rear.  

The site is relatively compact and restricted due to the relationship of the surrounding residential properties.  The amenity spaces provided with this application are to the rear of the proposed new element and to the rear of Beechfield House.  The main rear aspect of the proposed new building has been designed so that there are no habitable rooms facing the existing properties on Beechfield Road.  The distance between this part of the proposal and those properties is approximately 18.4m.  

The site as a whole is surrounded by residential properties with boundaries comprising a mixture of traditional garden fencing and privet hedges.  Adjacent to Beechfield House is a Council owned garage complex although it does not form part of this application.

At present pedestrian access to the site can be obtained from Folly Lane with vehicular access via Leigh Avenue, Beechfield Road and Fourth Avenue.

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objections.
Coal Authority – Advice Provided
Greater Manchester Police – Raise concerns regarding car parking spaces which are vulnerable to attack.  Concerns regarding location of pedestrian access gates. The proposed bin stores should be enclosed and lockable.
Greater Manchester County Fire Service – Advice provided

PUBLICITY

A press notice was published 1st May 2003
A site notice was displayed 29th May 2003

The following neighbours were notified of the application:-

98-116 (even) Folly Lane
1-15 (odd) & 2-4 (even) Fourth Avenue
31-55 (odd) & 18-66 (even) Beechfield Road

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

	Loss of privacy
Loss of light
Overlooking 
Proximity/separation distances
Outlook
Over development of site 
Access
Volume of traffic
Parking provision
Ownership/tenure of the proposed development
Future of the Council garages

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:	None  
Other policies:		DEV1 – Development Criteria, DEV2 – Good Design, T13 Car Parking	 
		
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

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

PLANNING APPRAISAL

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

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

National planning policy guidance is also relevant.  PPG3: Housing highlights the need to develop previously developed brownfield sites and where appropriate higher densities should be considered.  PPG3 also states that, when considering conversions, a more flexible approach is required with regard to densities, car parking, amenity space and overlooking.  Therefore the principle of a residential flatted infill development in this location is acceptable and conforms to the general emphasis of PPG3.  However, the principle of PPG3 must be balanced against the merits of the application and relationship to existing neighbouring uses.

Beechfield House can be characterised by its large bay windows at ground and first floor levels.  I accept that its previous use as an office would have provided some loss of privacy, particularly to those properties on Folly Lane and the principles of PPG3.  

The applicant’s agent has amended the windows along western elevation to include some form of obscure glazing.  I would agree that this would reduce the privacy issue, but the detail and the degree of obscurity would have to be assessed to safeguard the enjoyment of any future occupiers.  The concerns of the Police Architectural Liaison Unit can be addressed through additional security measures which would not require planning permission.  I have forwarded a copy of their comments to the applicant’s agent.

A total of three letters of objection have been received in response to the application publicity.  The concerns received from the neighbouring residents refer to the extension and likely traffic generation.  No concerns have been raised with regard the conversion of Beechfield House itself.

One mature beech tree would have to be removed to facilitate this proposal.  The remaining trees on site would be retained.
 
It is unlikely that this scheme would result in more vehicles using the site than when it was an office.  It is more likely that the use of the site for residential purposes would even the flow of traffic over a longer period, rather than the activity around nine and five associated with the previous office use.  PPG13 seeks to encourage more sustainable development through lower levels of car parking provision where the site can be easily accessed by alternative means of transport.  I am of the opinion that a 136% car parking provision is supported by the guidance contained within PPG13.

With regard to the representations received issues such as the future ownership/tenure of the proposed development, property values and construction noise are not material planning considerations.  The proposal is in accordance with the advice contained within PPG3 for conversions and provides sufficient separation to the adjoining residential properties from the proposed extension.

I have no objections on highway grounds and therefore I do share the concerns of local residents with regard to access, volume of traffic, parking provision and emergency vehicles.  The adjoining garage complex does not form part of this proposal and I have been informed that the garages will be retained by the City Council as they are well used with no current vacancies.

In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the principle of a residential use on this site is appropriate and the siting of this proposal to the common boundaries and surrounding residential properties is acceptable, and would in my opinion, not have any detrimental impact that upon the privacy of neighbouring properties or the ability of residents to enjoy their private garden area.   I therefore consider that this application should be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.

3.	Standard Condition J04X Bin Stores

4.	Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the soundproofing of the flats shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.  The scheme shall address the issues of noise transmission between incompatible adjacent uses and will be required to demonstrate sufficient soundproofing to prevent the possibility of noise nuisance or loss of amenity occurign to future occupants.  Such scheme as is approved shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any unit.

5.	Standard Condition C01X Landscaping

6.	No development shall be started until full details of glazing of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.

7.	This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 27th May 2003 which shows revised car parking layout and bin store location.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building

3.	Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours

4.	Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

5.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

6.	Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours

7.	For the avoidance of doubt.

APPLICATION No:	03/46038/HH

APPLICANT:	D Wright

LOCATION:	15 Alfred Street Eccles 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of single storey rear extension

WARD:	Eccles

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to a single storey extension at the rear of a semi-detached property. There are dwellings on all sides of the property. The extension would project 2.74m along the adjoining boundary with 17 Alfred Street and would be flush with the gable wall of the property. The extension would have a kitchen/dining room window in the rear, which would be the only light-giving window to this room and would have a sloping roof 3.7m at its highest point.

CONSULTATIONS

British Coal - No objections.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses have been notified

	11 and 17 Alfred Street
	14 and 16 Granville Street

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the application publicity.  The main issues identified are as follows:
•	Loss of light and view.
•	Devaluation of property.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 - House Extensions
		DEV3 – Alterations/Extensions.

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

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

PLANNING APPRAISAL

DEV8 of the Unitary Development Plan states that permission would be granted if the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light.

DES7 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan Policy supports DEV8 of the Unitary Development Plan and states that all new development, alterations and extensions to existing buildings, will be required to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity, in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout.

DEV3 of the Unitary Development Plan states that alterations or extension should respect the general scale, style, proportion and materials of the original structure and to complement the general character of the surrounding area. They should also respect the amenities of neighbouring residents with regard to privacy, daylight, sunlight and outlook. 

DES8 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement Plan supports DEV3 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The first objection is that the extension would cause a loss of light and view to the kitchen-dining room window at the rear of the adjacent property (11 Alfred Street). The extension would not project beyond the rear elevation at 11 Alfred Street and I do not consider there would be a significantly detrimental impact on the light to this room or the view from it. There is also another main habitable window at the rear of 11 Alfred Street in line with the existing rear main wall of 15 Alfred Street. The Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions states that a single storey extension should not project beyond a 45-degree line drawn from the midpoint of the closest main habitable window of an adjacent window. The extension would not project beyond this 45-degree line and I do not consider there would be a significantly detrimental impact caused to this window. 

The second objection is that the extension could negatively affect the value of the adjacent property. However this is not a planning issue.

The proposal meets with the guidelines in the Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions, I recommend it be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

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

3.	This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 21.05.03 which shows reduced projection to 2.74m.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

3.	Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt

APPLICATION No:	03/46055/FUL

APPLICANT:	Hedley Homes

LOCATION:	Land To Rear Of 54 Ringlow Park Road Swinton 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of one pair of semi-detached dwellings together with associated landscaping (re-submission of planning application 03/45373/FUL)

WARD:	Worsley Boothstown

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

Members will recall that planning permission was recently refused in march of this year for a pair of two/three storey semi detached dwellings (03/45373/FUL).  The applicant has re-submitted the scheme removing the three storey element and first floor balcony from the left hand semi.

This application site is a vacant and overgrown former garage court, which lies to the rear of properties on Ringlow Park Road and Douglas Road. It is an irregularly shaped parcel of land which forms a reasonably secluded backland site.  To the north, east and south lie residential rear gardens, whilst to the west is Sindsley Brook.  On the site are a number of mature trees and smaller bushes and undergrowth, with the trees on the northern part of the site protected by a Tree Preservation Order.  There are a number of concrete garage bases, and the site is accessed by a 3.7m wide cobbled alleyway off Ringlow Park Road. 

This proposal is for a pair of semi-detached properties consisting of two storeys.  The dwellings would both have an integral garage.  The left hand semi would have a balcony at first floor level on the front elevation.  There would be no habitable windows located in the gable elevations.  The houses would be sited to the south of the site, accessed from the alley which runs along the back of properties on Ringlow Park Road, and accesses the road between numbers 46 and 48.

SITE HISTORY

The site was formerly used as a garage court with eight garages.  It was sold by the City Council in 1989 to form a garden area for 54 Ringlow Park Road.  A restrictive covenant was placed, which said that the land could not be used for any purpose other than a garden without prior written consent.

Planning permission was granted on appeal in 1997 for the erection of two dwelling houses, 96/35760/OUT.  Planning permission was renewed in 2000 (00/40941/OUT).

Planning permission was refused in march of this year for a pair of two/three storey semi detached dwellings (03/45373/FUL)

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Environment Agency – No comments to date

PUBLICITY

The following neighbours were notified of the application:-
	2 – 14 (even) Douglas Road
	2 – 6 (even) Lambton Road
	2 – 66 (even) Ringlow Park Road
	33 – 37 (odd) Ringlow Park Road
	2A Ringlow Park Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received three letters of objection in response to the application publicity.  The following issues have been raised:-
		
Access road to the site
Increase in vehicular traffic
Deterioration of Ringlow Park Road
Size of the building
Out of character
Proximity and light issues
Problems with brook
Wildlife and trees
Privacy (particularly with balcony)
Loss of value

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:  None
Other policies:		DEV1 – Development Criteria, DEV2 – Good Design, EN9 - Derelict and Vacant Land, EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodland, EN10 - Landscape

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:	None
Other policies:	DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, EN10 Protected Trees

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV 1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining applications, including the visual appearance of the development and its relationship to its surroundings.  DEV 2 seeks to ensure high standards of design. Policy EN9 states the Council’s intention to encourage the reclamation of vacant sites for appropriate uses.  This site is a former garage court, and has been vacant for some time, therefore, it’s re-use for housing is appropriate, as it would develop a site which lies within an established residential setting.  UDP policies EN7 and EN10, assert the Council’s intention to conserve trees and woodland, to protect and enhance the landscape quality of local areas.  

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

This proposal would involve the removal of two sycamores protected by TPO.  A further three trees which are not subject to a TPO would also be removed as well as two groups of self seeded scrub.  The City’s Arboricultural officer has inspected the trees and is of the opinion that this proposal would affect the remaining trees on site.  However, this proposal is no closer to the trees than the outline proposal approved by the Planning Inspectorate.

The proposal would maintain sufficient separation to the properties on Douglas and Lambton Road.  The site slopes towards the brook and as such the properties on Ringlow Park Road are on an elevated level.  The finish floor level of the proposed dwellings would be 1.28m lower than that of 54 Ringlow Park Road.  The elevation closest to that of the neighbouring property is of the same height.  Due to the design of the dwellings, the ridge height would increase by 0.8m towards the middle, approximately 6m from the common boundary and 12.1m from the corner of 54 Ringlow Park Road.  The overall height of this proposal is similar to that of 54 Ringlow Park Road, but due to the difference in levels this proposal would appear to be smaller than those on Ringlow Park Road.  I am also of the opinion that the combination of levels and the staggered increase in the height of the roof provides sufficient separation away from the rear of Ringlow Park Road.  The properties on Ringlow Park Road are not directly opposite this proposal.  Therefore I am of the opinion that this proposal would not be unduly high or have a detrimental impact upon the neighbouring properties.

Only the left hand semi would have a balcony at first floor level on the front elevation.  The western property would maintain more than 21m from the gable to the properties on Lambton Road.  The boundary also consists of mature trees which are subject to a Tree Preservation Order.

With regard to access to the site.  The access was approved as part of the outline application which was approved by the Planning Inspectorate and the subsequent outline application.  I have no highway objections, and it can reasonably be argued that two houses would create less vehicular traffic than the previous eight garages.  I do not consider two additional houses would  significantly increase traffic flows.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

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

3.	Standard Condition D02X Details of Materials

4.	No additional windows shall be inserted into the eastern elevation without the prior written approval of the Director of Development Services

5.	During the first available planting season following the felling of the two sycamore trees hereby granted consent, it shall be replaced by foure 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 Director of Development Services.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees

3.	Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity

4.	Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours

5.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	If surface water drainage is to be directed to the adjacent watercourse, details of the outfall structure should be submitted to the Flood Defence Development Control Section for approval

2.	The proposed development is in a location served by public sewers.  The Agency understands that the development could be connected to a public sewer and requests you discuss option with the Council's Building Control Officer and /or North West Water Ltd.

3.	No building material or rubbish must find its way into the watercourse

4.	No rainwater contaminated with silt/soil from disturbed ground during construction, must drain to the surface water sewer or watercourse without sufficient settlement

APPLICATION No:	03/46078/FUL

APPLICANT:	New Prospect Housing

LOCATION:	Former Car Park Adjacent To 118 To 124 Riverside Salford 7 

PROPOSAL:	Continued use of site for the storage of plant and materials (renewal of planning application 02/44712/DEEM3)

WARD:	Blackfriars

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a small car parking area and seeks to continue to use the site for storage of plant and materials to facilitate the ongoing environmental improvements (Spike Island).  The compound has a 2.2m high boundary fence and would be temporary until December 2003.

The site is within a residential area and is immediately bounded by small pockets of grassed areas and the River Irwell to the east.

SITE HISTORY

In October last year, planning permission was granted for the change of use of land to temporary site compound together with the erection of 2.2m high boundary fencing (02/44712/DEEM3)

PUBLICITY 

The following neighbours were notified :
	1 – 13 (odd) Meadow Road
	82 – 92 & 118 – 124 (even) Riverside

REPRESENTATIONS

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

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:	None
Other policies:		DEV1 – Development Criteria, H2 – Maintaining and Improving Public Sector Housing

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:	H9/4 Sites for New Development
Other policies:		H3 Housing Improvements
	
PLANNING APPRAISAL

Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that regard must be had to a number of factors when determining applications, including the layout and relationship of existing and proposed developments and the effect on local and residential amenity. In addition, Policy H2 states that the City Council will seek to maintain and improve public sector housing stock through improving security, improving the general housing environment and through the provision of adequate car parking facilities.

The replacement plan policies update and are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this development.  Policy H9 Sites for New Development, (Meadow Road, Blackfriars) includes this area as a potential site for housing.

The compound is located on a small car park area and is immediately bounded by small grassed areas.  The roads surrounding the site have no parking restrictions. 

I have received no highway objections to the application, and am satisfied that the use for a continued temporary period may provide a short-term inconvenience, but will not injure local residential amenity.  I therefore recommend approval.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	The compound hereby approved shall be removed by the 31st December 2004, and the land restored to its former condition and use within a further month, unless a subsequent application is approved by the Planning Authority.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

APPLICATION No:	03/46085/HH

APPLICANT:	Mrs N Moore

LOCATION:	5 Marlow Drive Swinton 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of a two storey side extension and a single storey rear extension with detached garage

WARD:	Swinton South

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application relates to a semi-detached property at the end of a cul-de-sac.  The proposal is for the erection of a two-storey side extension, a single storey rear extension and a detached garage.  

•	The two-storey side extension would measure 1.9m X 3.9m, would be set back 2m from the front of the house, and would extend back as far as the existing main rear wall of house.
•	The single storey rear extension would project out from the back of the two-storey extension 3m and would stretch across the full width of the rear of the house (8.1m) to meet the adjoining boundary.
•	The detached garage would be located along the adjacent boundary and would be set back from the front boundary (adjacent to Marlow Drive) by 9m. It would have a flat roof and would be brick build.  Its would measure 2.7m X 6.5m.

This is being reported to Panel because the applicant is an employee of the City Council.

CONSULTATIONS

The Coal Authority – No objections

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses have been notified

	3 and 6 Marlow Drive
	8,10 and 12 Wyville Drive
	44-50 (e) Sherringham Drive

REPRESENTATIONS

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

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

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

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

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

PLANNING APPRAISAL

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

The three elements of the proposal conform to Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions with regards to the relevant projection distances and so I am of the opinion that they would not lead to a significant loss of light for either the adjoining or adjacent neighbours.  

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

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

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building

APPLICATION No:	03/46086/FUL

APPLICANT:	S J Lee

LOCATION:	Land To The Rear Of 320 Ellenbrook Road Worsley 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of a terrace of five dwellings and garages and construction of new vehicular access (Amendment to planning application 03/45860/FUL)

WARD:	Worsley Boothstown

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to land at the rear of 320 Ellenbrook Road in Boothstown.  The site is currently enjoyed as private garden space for No.320 and is bounded by brick walls on three of its sides ranging from 2m in height to approximately 3m on the western boundary with Orchard Avenue.

The site is within the Mines Rescue Conservation Area and bounds the former Mines Rescue Station, a Grade II listed building.  The semi detached properties to the north of the former Mines Rescue building were original built to house the miners who worked at the station, no. 320 provided accommodation for the former superintendent.  More recently permission has been granted for the erection of additional dwellings to the west of the station and these are also within the conservation.  An Article 4 direction was approved by the Secretary of State in 1994 which provides for greater control over development within the Conservation Area.

This application seeks to erect five terraced properties within the area of garden to the rear of 320 Ellenbrook Road.  Access would be provided by demolishing the existing single storey detached garage to the south of the building and utilising the existing driveway area.  A new 2m high wall would be erected to match the existing wall and to redefine the curtilage of No.320 Ellenbrook Road. 

The proposal would be orientated so that the main frontages front Wyre Drive and the rear elevation would face the former Mines Rescue Station.  The dwellings would be two storey with a hipped roof.  The centre three units would utilise the roof space for an additional bedroom and ensuite.  These three units would have two velux style windows within each roof space on the rear elevation.  

The roof reflects the style and shape of the detached dwelling to the west of the site on Orchard Avenue.  Stone door casing, window detailing, windows, doors and parapet roof detail are consistent with those of the area.  There are no windows within either gable of the proposal.  The proposal as a whole would maintain a distance of 13m from the gable to the main elevation of properties on Orchard Avenue, 17m to the rear elevation of No.320 Ellenbrook Road, 12m to the common boundary with Wyre Drive and 9.5m to the northern boundary.

Six car parking spaces would be provided in front of the scheme with two detached garages, one for each end unit, within their rear garden areas.  The garages would measure 2.7m wide X 5.5m in length and would also have a hipped roofs and door and window detail to match the main proposal.

There are several mature trees located around the periphery site.  Several young and ornamental trees are also located within the site but are not visible from outside the site due the existing boundary treatment.  None of the trees on the site are subject to a Tree Preservation Order but are given protection as a result of their location with the Conservation Area.

SITE HISTORY

A similar application for five terrace properties on land to the rear of 320 Ellenbrook Road with access between 320 Ellenbrook and the Mines Rescue Station was recently withdrawn from consideration (03/45860/FUL)

The following history is relevant for the adjoining site which is also within the Mines Rescue Conservation Area: 

In 1995, planning permission was granted for the erection of 15 dwellinghouses together with associated landscaping, car parking and construction of new vehicular access (95/34527/FUL)

 In 1997, planning permission was granted for the erection of 16 detached dwellings with associated garages and landscaping, together with alteration to existing and construction
of new vehicular and pedestrian accesses (97/36983/FUL)

In 1998, planning permission was granted for the erection of seventeen two storey detached dwellings (98/37583/FUL)

In 1998, planning permission was granted for the erection of 3 two storey detached dwellings and 2 semi-detached dwellings (98/38564/FUL)

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No Objections
Coal Authority – No objections, but provide advice
Worsley Civic Trust – No response to date
Environment Agency – No objections, but provide advice

PUBLICITY

Two site notices were displayed on 12th May 2003
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser 8th May 2003

The following neighbour addresses have been notified

	25 – 45 (odd), 40 & 42 Ellenbrook Road
	318 Ellenbrook Road
	Flat A & B 318 Ellenbrook Road
	1 – 7 (odd), 2 & 4 Wyre Drive
	17 – 21 (odd), 42 – 50 (even) Orchard Avenue

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received six letters of objection in response to the application publicity.  Fourteen letters of objection were received on the previous submission prior to the application being withdrawn from consideration.  The main issues identified are as follows:

Impact on Conservation Area
Article 4 Direction
Impact on Listed Building
Building itself is listed
Increase in traffic
Area in general is over developed
Loss of trees
Destroy outlook
Loss of view
Reduce wildlife
Loss of grassed area
Insufficient schools and doctors in area to accommodate scheme
Increase pressure on drainage system

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:	None
Other policies:		DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, T13 Car Parking, EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands, EN11 Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas, EN12 Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:	CH5/16 Works within Conservation Areas/Mines Rescue Station
Other policies:	DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, EN10 Protected Trees, CH4 Development affecting the setting of a Listed Building, CH6 Demolition of Building with Conservation Areas

PLANNING APPRAISAL

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

Policy EN7 encourages the conservation and retention of trees.  Policy EN11, Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas, seeks to preserve or enhance the special character of areas of architectural and historic interest by encouraging high standards of development which are in keeping with the character of the area and the retention of mature trees.  Policy EN12 states that the City Council will not normally permit any development which would detract from the architectural and historic character of a Listed Building and policy EN13 seeks to protect listed and unlisted building from demolition within conservation areas.

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

The majority of the letters received are from the adjoining neighbouring residents, particularly with regard to the conservation area status, article 4 and listed buildings.  Few concerns have been raised with regard the design of the proposal itself.

For clarity, this application relates wholly to the existing private garden area to the rear of 320 Ellenbrook Road.  It does not affect the adjacent grassed area on Wyre Drive.  Further more, the former Mines Rescue building is the only listed building within the Mines Rescue Conservation Area.  320 Ellenbrook Road itself is not listed although does have important historical and architectural qualities which adds to the character of the conservation area.

I do not consider that the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the area.  Separation distances are such that I cannot agree that there would be any significant impact on neighbouring dwellings with regard to loss of privacy or loss of outlook.  Loss of view is not a material planning consideration that I can take into account.  I do not consider that the scheme would result in a significant loss of wildlife habitat and would point out that no public open space would be lost.  I do not consider that this development would overburden local schools or medical facilities or put significant pressure on the drainage system.

A full arboricultural report has been undertaken for all of the trees on site.  It is recommended that eleven trees be felled.  Five to facilitate the development and six for arboricultural reasons.  Of the five trees lost as a direct result of the development only one is in reasonable condition but due to its height does not contribute to the amenity of the area.  The young ornamental trees within the site are not worthy of retention.  Three trees surrounding the large mature Oak tree on the Wyre Drive elevation are proposed to be felled for arboriculatural reasons and because they are suppressed by the large dominant Oak.  One of the eight trees on the northern elevation would also be removed due to decay.

I do not consider that this scheme would result in a volume of traffic which could not be accommodated by the existing road infrastructure.  PPG13 seeks to encourage more sustainable development through lower levels of car parking provision where the site can be easily accessed by alternative means of transport.  I am of the opinion that approximately 125% car parking provision is supported by the guidance contained within PPG13.  Furthermore, I have no objections on highway grounds and therefore I do share the concerns of local residents with regard to access, volume of traffic and parking provision.

The relocated of the detached garage to the north of 320 Ellenbrook Road as shown on drawing ‘Sheet No.1’ does not form part of this application nor does imply that planning permission would be granted.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of all external materials of the development including walls, roof, velux windows, windows, doors and door casing and parapets have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.

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

4.	Standard Condition C03X Fencing of Trees/no work within spread

5.	No development shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Such a scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R006A Character - conservation area

3.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

4.	Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees

5.	To ensure a satisfactory means of drainage in accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development

APPLICATION No:	03/45994/DEEM3

APPLICANT:	Education And Leisure Directorate

LOCATION:	Light Oaks Junior School, Lancaster Road Salford 6 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of single storey extension and alterations to front elevation

WARD:	Claremont

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The proposal is for the erection of a small single-storey extension (flat roof) and associated alterations to front elevation of the existing entrance to the main building of the Junior School. The purpose is to provide a much improved reception facility and also provide greater security overlooking the main entrance. It should be noted that this application is closely related to a reception proposal at the adjacent Infant School (03/45995/DEEM3).

The extension will provide 16.5sq.m of foyer floorspace, while part of the adjacent existing toilets will be converted to an admin office and will include a new window overlooking the main entrance. The extension will effectively be built as infill between classrooms and the toilet block, while the applicant has stated that facing brick will be as existing. 

SITE HISTORY

In March 2003, planning permission was granted for the siting of a temporary single-storey toilet block attached to rear of existing dining hall, and siting of two secure steel storage units alongside the play area (03/45503/DEEM3). 

In 2002 planning permission was granted for replacement roofing at Light Oaks Primary School Lancaster Road, Salford 6 (02/44086/DEEM3).

In 1998 planning permission was granted for an extension and alteration to existing school to form a new 40-place nursery (98/37609/DEEM3).

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objection.
British Coal – No objection but notes existence of 7 seams of coal at 430m-960m in depth.

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 13th May 2003.

The following neighbour addresses have been notified

	3 & 4 Brandon Avenue
	142 Lancaster Road

REPRESENTATIONS

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

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:  None

Other policies:	 
SC4 – Improvement/Replacement of Schools
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV3 – Alterations & Extensions 
DEV4 – Design & Crime

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none. 

Other policies:
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES8 – Alterations & Extensions
DES11 – Design & Crime
EHC1 – Provision and Improvement of Education, Health and Community Facilities

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy SC4 (Improvement/Replacement of Schools) and also EHC1 of the replacement plan highlight the Council’s aim to improve on any deficiencies in school facilities such as replacement facilities and support infrastructure. The policy also provides that the condition of buildings and educational facilities is compatible with current requirements. I consider this policy to compliment the proposal. 

Issues of design and crime are identified in policy DEV4 & DEV11 of the replacement plan, which allows for appropriate means of crime prevention. Here I consider the improved reception and foyer area, including a new window overlooking the site entrance and car-park, will indeed assist towards enhanced security and safety of children. 

With regard to design I consider the proposed materials and colours as existing to be acceptable, and will fit in with the existing main building. Given that the proposed development will all be single storey with flat roofs I consider that there will be no visual impact on neighbouring properties (DEV1). I also consider the proposal with materials to match the existing building to be appropriate and in accordance with policies DEV2, DEV3, DES1, and DES8.

Further to my analysis above, I consider this proposal to be acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

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

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building

APPLICATION No:	03/45995/DEEM3

APPLICANT:	Education And Leisure Directorate

LOCATION:	Light Oaks Infant School Lancaster Road Salford 6 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of single storey extension and alterations to elevation

WARD:	Claremont

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The proposal is for the erection of a single-storey extension (flat roof) and associated alterations to front elevation at the existing entrance to the Infant School, which is generally inaccessible at present. The purpose is to provide a much improved reception facility, and provide greater security overlooking the main entrance, as well as providing improved access, replacing existing steps with a new ramp. It should be noted that this application is closely related to a reception proposal at the adjacent Junior School (03/45994/DEEM3), except this application includes improved access and a new ramp as well as the extension. 

The extension will provide 46.8sq.m of floorspace for an entrance lobby and head-teachers office, while part of the adjacent existing toilets will be converted to an admin office and will include a new window overlooking the main entrance. The existing head-teachers office (overlooking the main entrance) would become a new admin office (overlooking the entrance lobby), while the applicant has stated that facing brick will be as existing. The ramp is 1.2m wide and will include a hand-rail to the full length. 

SITE HISTORY

In March 2003, planning permission was granted for the siting of a temporary single-storey toilet block attached to rear of existing dining hall, and siting of two secure steel storage units alongside the play area (03/45503/DEEM3).

In 2002 planning permission was granted for replacement roofing at Light Oaks Primary School Lancaster Road, Salford 6 (02/44086/DEEM3).

In 1998 planning permission was granted for an extension and alteration to existing school to form a new 40-place nursery (98/37609/DEEM3).

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objection
British Coal – No objection but notes existence of 5 seams of coal at 430m-940m in depth

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 13th May 2003.

The following neighbour addresses have been notified

	3 & 4 Brandon Avenue

REPRESENTATIONS

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

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:  None

Other policies:	 
SC4 – Improvement/Replacement of Schools
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV3 – Extensions & Alterations
DEV4 – Design & Crime

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none.

Other policies:
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES2 – Circulation & Movement
DES8 – Alterations & Extensions
DES11 – Design & Crime
EHC1 – Provision and Improvement of Education, Health and Community Facilities

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy SC4 (Improvement/Replacement of Schools) and also EHC1 of the replacement plan, highlight the Council’s aim to improve on any deficiencies in school facilities such as replacement facilities and support infrastructure. The policy also provides that the condition of buildings and educational facilities is compatible with current requirements. I consider this policy to compliment the proposal.

Issues of design and crime are identified in policy DEV4 & DES11 of the replacement plan, which allows for appropriate means of crime prevention. Here I consider the improved reception and foyer area, including a new window overlooking the site entrance and car-park, will indeed assist towards enhanced security and safety of children. The proposed extension will also compliment policy DEV5 (Equality of Access), by incorporating an access ramp to the reception area. 

With regard to design of the extension I consider the proposed materials and colours as existing to be acceptable, and will fit in with the existing main building. Given that the proposed development will all be single storey with flat roofs I consider that there will be no visual impact on neighbouring properties (DEV1). I also consider the proposal with materials to match the existing building to be appropriate and in accordance with policies DEV2, DEV3, DES1, and DES8. 

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

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

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building

APPLICATION No:	03/46017/DEEM3

APPLICANT:	Belvedere Early Years Centre (FAO Mrs A More)

LOCATION:	Belvedere Early Years Centre Belvedere Road Salford 6 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of single storey infill extension to provide additional office accommodation

WARD:	Pendleton

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to an existing nursery within a predominantly residential area, although the site stands next to Broadwalk Primary School.  The site boundary consists of 2.4m palisade fencing along the rear and sides and traditional railings along the frontage of Whitebeam Close.

This proposal is for an extension which would be located to the rear of the building on a paved area adjacent to an area of play space.  It would provide a small extension to an existing office.  The footprint of the proposal would measure 4.05m X 2.9m and would match the height and shape of the existing sloping roof.

SITE HISTORY

In 1994, planning permission was granted for the siting of one steel container (94/33228/DEEM3)

In 2001, planning permission was granted for the erection of single storey extension to existing Centre (01/41822/DEEM3)

In 2002, Planning permission was granted for the siting of a second steel container (02/44694/DEEM3)

In March of this year planning permission was granted for the siting of a third steel container (03/45530/DEEM3)

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objections

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 29th April 2003

The following neighbour addresses have been notified

	Broadwalk Primary School, Belvadere Road

REPRESENTATIONS

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

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:	None relevant
Other policies:		DEV1 Development Criteria, SC4 Improvement/Replacement of Schools

FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:	None
Other policies:		DES8 Alterations and Extensions, EHC1 Provision & Improvement of Educational, Health and Community Facilities

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Unitary Development Plan Policy DEV1 states that in determining planning applications the City Council should pay due regard to a number of issues, including the visual appearance of a development; the amount, design and layout of car parking provision, landscaping and open space provision and the impact on trees within or adjacent to the development site.  Policy SC4 seeks the improvement of old and the development of new or replacement educational facilities.

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

Due to the size of the extension and the relationship to its surroundings, I am of the opinion that it would not have any detrimental impact upon the neighbouring uses.  With regard to design, I consider that the design is appropriate and in keeping with the main building.  I am also of the opinion that this proposal would result in improved facilities for the centre.  It would not result in any loss of car parking or available play space and as such conforms with of policy SC4 and the forthcoming policy EHC1.

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 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