APPLICATION No:	        08/56892/FUL

APPLICANT:	Request Development

LOCATION:	2 & 4 Hurstfield Road Worsley MANCHESTER M28 7UJ   

PROPOSAL:	Demolition of existing dwellings and erection of two and half storey buildings to provide 6 town houses and one-two storey building comprising 3 apartments together with associated landscaping, car parking and construction of new vehicular and pedestrian accesses (Re-submission of planning application Reference 08/56169/FUL)

WARD:	Walkden South

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a pair of semi-detached properties on the corner of Hurstfield Road and Newearth Road in Ellenbrook.  The area is predominantly residential characterised by semi-detached and terraced properties.  

The proposal seeks to demolish the two houses and erect six town houses, two and a half storeys high in two blocks on the western portion of the site orientated north-west – south east, and a two storey building on the eastern portion of the site which would accommodate 3 apartments orientated north-east – south west, together with associated landscaping, car parking and the construction of a new vehicular access onto Newearth Road for the apartments and new vehicular and pedestrian accesses onto Hurstfield Road 

There are trees along the eastern portion of the site adjacent with Hurstfield Road which have been protected with an area TPO in light of the potential redevelopment of the site. It is proposed to remove 9 trees as part of the development, with the removal/ transplantation of a further 2 trees.  This is discussed later in the report.

SITE HISTORY

In January 2006 planning permission was granted for the installation of a below-ground pumping station and valve chamber, associated control kiosk, vent pipe, grasscrete hardstanding and dropped kerb access ( Reference 05/51892/FUL)

In March 2006 planning permission was granted for the installation of a below ground pumping station and valve chamber with associated control kiosk, vent pipe, hardstanding and construction of dropped kerb access ( Reference 06/52131/FUL)

It is noted that the above works were carried out in 2006 following localised flooding, which included flooding of the existing dwellings on the site. There have not been flooding problems since these works were carried out.

In July 2006 planning permission was refused for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of two and half storey buildings to provide five town houses and nine apartments together with associated landscaping, car parking and construction of new and alteration to existing vehicular access. (Reference 06/52632/FUL)

In November 2006, an appeal was lodged against the refusal of the above permission. The inspector subsequently dismissed the appeal on the 8th of August 2007, on the grounds of overlooking to No.1 Hurstfield Road, and because the development would be obtrusive and incongruous to a harmful degree in the enclosed and quite intimate atmosphere of Hurstfield Road. (Reference APP/U4230/A/203892)

This decision is discussed more thoroughly in the report.

In March 2008, a planning application (08/56169/FUL) was submitted for the demolition of existing dwellings and the erection of two and half storey buildings to provide seven town houses and one - two storey building comprising two apartments together with associated landscaping, car parking and construction of new vehicular and pedestrian accesses. Following discussion with the Council and concerns regarding residential amenity and provision of amenity space being raised, the application was subsequently withdrawn.

CONSULTATIONS

Architectural Liaison Unit – Initial objection made with regard to the locations of the pedestrian accesses to the apartment buildings and recommendations with regards to boundary treatments, lighting and vegetation. Objection removed following submission of revised plans.

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – Recommend that a precautionary survey be carried out on site prior to demolition work commencing. This will be recommended as a condition. No other ecological concerns raised over the development.

Environment Agency – no objections in principal, and have stated that because the site is located in Flood Risk zone 1 (indicating low risk of flooding from nearby watercourses and rivers) and is significantly less than 1 hectare in size, a flood risk assessment would not normally be required. The EA have further commented that the need for a flood risk assessment may have been required due to the previous objection raised by UU, and that  the submission should be viewed by United Utilities.

United Utilities – an objection has been received in correspondence dated 18th September 2008 due to a public sewer running under the proposed development, United Utilities will not permit the building over of it and require a diversion and further details.

An objection was received in response to the refusal of the previous application at this site (06/52632/FUL), but was removed following agreement between the developer and United Utilities and was not a reason for refusal. Discussion is ongoing at present.

UU have made further recommendations regarding the drainage of the site which will be recommended as conditions.

PUBLICITY

Two site notice were displayed on 11th September 2008.

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

135,137 Newearth Road, Worsley
1-49 Hurstfield Road (odds), Worsley
1,2,4,5,9,11,11A,14,16, 20, 26,28,32,34,38 Shawbrook Avenue, Worsley 
1,5,11A,16,17,18 Medway Road, Worsley
103,109,111,127,129,131, 139-159 Newearth Road (odds), Worsley
150,164, 244-270, 274-280 Newearth Road (evens), Worsley
1-8 , 11,15,17 Cherrywood Close, Worsley
15 Waverley Road, Worsley
29 Stafford Road, Eccles, 
1 Farm Lane, Worsley, 
11 Ross Drive, Clifton, Swinton, 
8 Lancaster Road, Salford90 Hopefold Drive, Worsley, ,	

REPRESENTATIONS

53 letters of representation have been received including 4 of which are from a single resident, 3 of which are also from a single resident.

In opposition to the application (52 responses)

Issues Raised

•	Site will be overdeveloped
•	Number of  bed spaces per dwelling  far exceeds that in the local area
•	Town houses proposed in the application are not located on cul-de-sacs but on main arterial routes and newly constructed sites, they are not suitable at this location
•	2 and a half storey dwellings would be out of character compared to other dwellings on Hurstfield Road
•	Flooding issues have still not been resolved, the flood report submitted with the application relates to a previous development, drainage and the amount of hard surfacing across the site will have altered. Taking away more grass on site will make the flooding worse and will cause problems elsewhere.
•	The applicant has failed to address the issues of previous refusals on the site 
•	The town houses are of the same size, height and width previously proposed
•	Smaller properties should be proposed which are more in keeping with those on the remainder of Hurstfield Road.
•	Flooding issues did not appear to be a significant part of the previous decision on site. The issue of flooding seems to play a large part in the current application, and may being used by the developer as supporting argument for the redevelopment of the site.
•	Increase in vehicular traffic and negative impact on child / pedestrian safety, up to a 50% extra risk factor
•	Parking problems caused by development, there are already parking and congestion problems on Hurstfield Road.
•	There are not sufficient school places in the area for children, families in the new development would have to travel further afield to send their children to school.
•	The drainage system within the area is in poor condition and does not have enough capacity to support the proposed development.
•	Less capacity will be available in the area because of new development which may result in localised flooding of the area, which may include over flow of sewerage
•	United Utilities should formulate a plan to upgrade the system for new development, in the meantime there should be a slow-down in development.
•	The existing dwellings are habitable and should not be demolished
•	The proposed dwellings, due to their size will dwarf other development, be a significant obtrusive feature and will be injurous to the outlook of other neighbouring properties
•	The current developer will not be final developer and therefore does not propose to benefit the residents of Hurstfield Road.

Issues raised regarding procedure followed in the application process

•	Application should not have been classed as a resubmission due to changes.  
•	Insufficient information has been submitted with the application in the first place, and the application should not have been validated, a breach of council policy has occurred
•	Documents submitted with the application are not up-to date and will not reflect conditions on the site, adequate reports have not been submitted.
•	Application should be put on hold until application is submitted as per council policy and public can comment on correct information
•	A legal abuse of process is taking place, and therefore the application has no legal basis or standing
•	If amendments are needed to documentation, this should be available for inspection and challenge to allow the process to be truly democratic
•	What authority do the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel have to overturn the judgement made by a higher authority.

In support of the application (1 response)

•	The proposal is sympathetic to the character of the area and may even enhance the area
•	By raising the floor level of the properties, it would address any problems of future flooding
•	The existing houses are unsalable and uninsurable
•	No one should have to go through the experiences of families that have lived at this location with respect to flooding and the upset that this has caused,

RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

Issues with respect to the number of dwellings on the site, design, flooding, impact on neighbours, highway safety are discussed in the main body of the report below.

Issues regarding the validation and acceptability of the application are acknowledged. However, it is considered that the current application is valid and that no abuse of the process has taken place.

THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

ADOPTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY FOR THE NORTH WEST (RSS) (as adopted on 30/09)

DP4 – Making the Best use of Existing Resources and Infrastructure
L4 – Regional Housing Provision
MCR5 - Northern Part of the Manchester City Region.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

Site specific policies: None
Other policies:	H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
		H2 – Managing of the Supply of Housing
		DES1 – Respecting Context
		DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
		DES10 – Design and Crime
EN10 – Protection of Species
EN13 – Protected Trees
EN19 – Flood Risk and Surface Water
A8 – Impact of Development on the Highway Network
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
ST11 – Location of New Development

OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

NATIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE

Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development  (PPS1)
Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3)
Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (PPS25)

SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS (SPD)

Nature Conservation and Biodiversity (adopted July 2006)
Design and Crime SPD (adopted July 2006)
Trees and Development SPD (adopted in July 2006)
Sustainable Design and Construction Guide SPD (adopted in March 2008)
Design SPD (adopted in March 2008)

PLANNING GUIDANCE

Housing Planning Guidance (adopted on 20  December 2006) 
Flood Risk Planning Guidance (adopted July 2008) 

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed development is acceptable; whether the design of the proposed dwellings / apartments is acceptable; whether there would be a detrimental impact on residential amenity, whether the development would be at a risk of flooding/would lead to increased flood risk and whether the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.

Principle of Development

Policy DP4 of the adopted Regional Spatial Strategy (Make the Best use of Existing Resources and Infrastructure) states that priority should be given to developments in locations consistent with the regional and sub-regional frameworks and sub regional policies which;

•	Build upon existing concentrations of activities and existing infrastructure

•	Do not require major investment in new infrastructure, including transport, water supply and sewerage. 

The policy also goes on to state that development should accord with the following sequential approach;

•	first, using existing buildings (including conversion) within settlements and previously developed land within settlements;

•	second, using other suitable infill opportunities within settlements, where compatible with other RSS policies 

Policy L4 of the adopted Regional Spatial Strategy (Regional Housing Provision) states that Local Authorities should monitor and manage the availability of land identified in plans and strategies and through development control decisions on proposals. This includes maximisation of and the re-use of  vacant and under-used brownfield land in line with Policy DP4 and indicative targets (set out in a table appending the policy)  

Policy ST11 of the Unitary Development Plan advocates a sequential approach to development with sites involving the reuse and conversion of existing buildings being the preferred location of development, followed by previously developed land with Greenfield sites last.  Sites should also be well served by a choice of means of access and are well related to housing, employment services and infrastructure. 

The development would see the re-use of brownfield land thus complying with the thrust of Policy ST11 (location of new development) and the guidance contained within PPS3 (Planning Policy Statement 3 – Housing) which seeks to prioritise the development of such land over land that has not been previously developed (greenfield land).  

There are bus routes along Newearth Road and access to a number of bus routes serving local and regional centres within 250m of the proposed development. There and shops and services approximately 200m away off Newearth Road at Ellenbrook, to the south.

Therefore it is considered the principle  to be in accordance with PPS3, the Regional Spatial Strategy and the above polices of the Adopted UDP.

Dwelling Mix

Policy H1 of the Unitary Development Plan states that new housing development should, inter alia, contribute to the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area, not lead to an oversupply of any particular type of residential accommodation and provide a high quality residential environment.

The Housing Planning Guidance document was adopted in December 2006 and supports and supplements policy H1 of the UDP.  Policies HOU1 (Type of New Dwellings) and HOU2 (Size of new Dwellings) are both important in the consideration of this proposal.

Policy HOU1 expands upon criteria listed in policy H1 of the UDP and requires the large majority of dwellings within new developments to be in the form of houses rather than apartments in this area of the city.  In paragraph 4.6 of the reasoned justification, this states that in this part of the city typically between 80 – 90% of dwellings on individual sites should be in the form of houses rather than apartments. In this case only 66% of the dwellings would be in the form of houses.

However, the penultimate paragraph of the policy does allow for alternative approaches on individual sites where “it can be clearly demonstrated by the applicant that there are specific circumstances to justify this, particularly having regard to criteria A – H of policy H1”. 

The criteria include inter alia, the size of the development, the physical characteristics of the site and the mix of dwellings in the surrounding area.   Paragraph 4.14 of the reasoned justification also outlines possible examples where it may be appropriate to deviate from the policy whilst paragraph 4.15 reinforces that it is the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate why the proposed mix of dwellings is appropriate. 

The site is located in the Walkden South ward where the predominant form of residential accommodation is that of semi-detached dwellings and bungalows with less than 7% apartment accommodation in total across the ward.  

In addition, the character of the site and the area is also important and should come into the consideration of this proposal.   The site is relatively small in size and is situated in an area of relatively low density housing.  There are also a number of reasonably mature trees growing along the boundary to Newearth Road which it would be beneficial to retain. 

Policy H1 of the UDP seeks to secure a balanced mix of residential accommodation across the city whilst retaining its character.  The proposal would see an increase (albeit small) in the number of apartments in the ward and taking this into consideration together with the individual characteristics of the site and the high number of residential houses within the area. It is considered that in this case that the provision of only 3 apartments which are 2 – storey in scale is acceptable and that the proposal would contribute to the mix of accommodation within Walkden South. The apartment element also offers the best solution with regard to the retention of trees on site.	

Policy HOU2 refers to the size of new dwellings and requires the majority of new houses to have at least 3 bedrooms and where apartments are proposed, these should provide a broad mix of dwelling size in terms of the number of bedrooms and the net floorspace.   

The proposed houses are all 3 bed (with a 4th study/bedroom within the upper floor) and therefore comply with this policy. The apartments are all two bed.  Two of the apartments are in the region of 50 and 52 sq m whilst the third is considerably larger at 90 sq m.  This third apartment therefore provides a mix of apartment size and certainly has the capacity to be flexible to changing needs.  On this basis, and given that there are only 3 apartments proposed, it is considered that this aspect of the proposal is acceptable in policy terms.

Taking into consideration the characteristics of both the site and the area including the existing provision of residential accommodation in the ward, it is considered that the proposal would in fact increase the mix of accommodation available and would not detract from the existing character of the area.

Amenity

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

There is proposed to be approximately 13.5m from the proposed gable end of the town houses to single storey extension to the existing gable end of no 1, Hurstfield Road. There is a side facing kitchen window to this elevation, but in view of the separation distance and the orientation, it is not considered that the town houses would have any significant overbearing impact or would lead to a significant loss of light to this property.

An approval for a first floor side/rear extension at 1 Hurstfield Road (06/52411/HH) is still extant, and would introduce a bathroom, and a side facing (none primary) bedroom window to the side of this property at first floor level. However, due to the separation distances of approximately 12m being maintained, it is not considered that any further development of no.1 Hurstfield Road would have a significant impact on the amenity of the rear garden areas of the proposed townhouses.

The apartment building will have habitable room windows at ground floor level facing south west toward the side garden boundary of 1 Hurstfield Road. Some low level screening will be provided by the boundary treatment to the south west boundaries of the application site which will be required to provide some screening to amenity areas / provide delineation / secure boundaries for the apartments. 

Whilst there may be the potential for some overlooking from the ground floor windows to the rear garden area of 1 Hurstfield Road, this will be across a public highway, and 1 Hurstfield Road has 1.8m high walling / hedging / fencing to this boundary. It is not considered that overlooking to this property would be above or beyond that presently experienced by the existing occupiers

There are first floor lounge and first floor kitchen windows proposed to first floor apartment to this elevation, but these will have a separation distance of 15.5m / 19m to the nearest side boundary of 1 Hurstfield Road (respectively). 

The windows will both be offset from any existing or future side facing window to 1 Hurstfield Road, and set well away from the boundary of the rear garden area of this property. As such, it is not considered that any significant detrimental overlooking impact would result to this property.

In the previous decision at this site, and appeal, which was subsequently dismissed by the inspector, the Council refused the application for the following reasons.

•	The proposed development would constitute overdevelopment due to the high density, its size and siting and loss of privacy to neighbouring residents.   This would therefore be contrary to Policies H1, DES1 and DES7 of the City Of Salford Unitary Development Plan

Further to this, the inspector remarked with the appeal decision, with regards to no.1 Hurstfield Road that;

‘The garden at No. 1 can already be overlooked from the rear bedrooms of adjacent houses, particularly No.3. My view is, however, that the actual and perceived overlooking from the first and second floor windows in the proposal, eight which would open from bedrooms and lounges, would be a significant increase on this and would have a materially detrimental impact on the privacy of  the garden area of No.1’  

That scheme proposed had a large number of dwellings fronting the rear garden area of no.1 Hurstfield Road, and as these were also front garden areas, with accesses and driveways, the view was therefore very much open. 

With this current scheme proposed, the ground floor windows will be screened at a low level to some extent by boundary treatments which will be required to form screening / security for the apartments with only two first floor level windows remaining, which will be only 0.2m closer to the boundary with 1 Hurstfield Road than in the previous application. 

It is considered that the prospect of overlooking has been greatly reduced, and as such it is not considered that the proposed layout would have a significant impact on the privacy of this dwelling. 
 
There are habitable windows in the gable end of 280 Newearth Road (adjoining the northern boundary of the development site) serving a lounge/dining room to the ground floor and a bedroom at first floor. There is also a further side facing window facing the development site in the off-shot extension to the rear of this dwelling.

The ground floor windows serving bedroom 1 and 2 to apartment 2, will be skewed away from direct overlooking by these windows, and a minimum separation distance of approximately 17m will remain, it is not considered that this would result in unacceptable living conditions for the occupier of apartment 2 or the occupants of 280 Newearth Road.

Similarly, there is a first floor bedroom window to apartment 3 but as above, this relationship is skewed, and in particular the ground floor window in the gable of no.280 is not a primary one.  

The plans show that there will be an intermediate planting strip between the apartment building, the car park immediately to the north, and end of this property, and it will be recommended that screen planting is added to minimise any overlooking between ground floor windows. 

It is considered that the ground floor windows to the north east elevation of the apartment building will be adequately protected from direct overlooking by 1.8m fencing/railings, as shown on the plans. This detail will be controlled by condition to ensure adequate amenity for the occupiers of the apartment building.

The townhouses maintain a reasonable distance between the front building line and Hurstfield Road, there is a distance of 6m from ground floor porches to the boundary to the pavement with Hurstfield Road, and 7.6m from the first floor elevations of these dwellings to this boundary.

There will be at a minimum distance of 21m, between facing main habitable windows across Hurstfield Road in accordance with council policy.

There will be minimum of 12.6m between the two-storey gable end of the apartment building, and the rear of townhouses proposed fronting Hurstfield Road. Whilst this is closer than the guideline of 13m, it is noted that these dwellings have small single storey rear extensions with a high level of glazing to both facing elevations and roofs, and it is not considered that the gable of the apartment building would have an overbearing impact on these dwellings.

Each town house would have its own private rear garden and the apartments will have a mixture of private and communal open space.

In view of the above, it is not considered that the proposal will have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the privacy or outlook of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings or the future occupants of the proposal in accordance, and is therefore in accordance with Policy DES7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

Design

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

With regard to the previous proposal for 5 townhouses and 9 apartments, the inspector remarked within the appeal decision that

‘The second floor windows in the two gable projections and end gable would make it apparent that the development was three stories high, whilst the bulk of this central apartment section of the block would be intrusive and  incongruous to a harmful degree in the enclosed and quite intimate atmosphere of Hurstfield Road’

It is considered that the previous proposal which incorporated a large, gabled central section would be both overdominant and out of character. This central section however has been removed in the subject application, leaving only town houses with dormers set back from the front eaves of the dwellings.

The design of the proposed townhouses and apartment building is of an acceptable quality, and whilst it is accepted that the form and design of the townhouses differs from the semi detached housing form along Hurstfield Road, it is considered that the traditional design of the dwellings, would not be unacceptable, nor would they detract from the character of the area.

The apartment block will be set away from the streetscene of Hurstfield Road, and suitable screening will be retained in the form of protected trees and new planting, along the Newearth Road boundary. It is not considered that the dwellings or apartment building would be obtrusive within the streetscene.

It is therefore considered that the revised application has resolved bulk / design / overdominance issues both raised in the Local Authority Refusal and raised in the subsequent appeal decision.   

It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable within the streetscene of Hurstfield Road, and acceptable in terms of policy DES 1 of  the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

A condition has been suggested requiring the submission of samples of materials to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development.

Design and Crime

Policy DES10 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and the Supplementary Planning Document ‘Design and Crime’ requires that development is not permitted unless it is designed to discourage crime, anti-social behaviour, and the fear of crime and support personal and property security.

The scheme has been amended following comments made by the GMP ALU regarding accesses to the apartment buildings and a number of other alterations including the provision of  a secure gate to the apartment car parking area. 

The entrances to the apartment buildings now front either Hurstfield Road to the front or the car parking area to the rear. Following further consultation, the GMP ALU have recommended that dusk to dawn lighting is used to secure the entrances, and have also made further comments with regard to fencing, in that the sides of dwellings, up to the front building lines, and rears of houses and apartments should be defined and enclosed as private space by 2.1 high walls/fences/railings with 1.8m fences between private plots, and 1.2-1.5m high railings to frontages.

As there is existing 1.8m fencing and high hedging along the south-west elevation of the site adjacent to Hurstfield Road, it is not considered that 1.2-1.5m high walling/railings  along this frontage would be inappropriate or would be obtrusive within the streetscene. 

Comments have also been made with regards to gating and lighting as part of a package of security measures. 

A condition has been suggested to control the above recommendations, pending submission of acceptable details, it is considered that the scheme will provide appropriate safety and security for users of the development. 

Flood Risk

Policy EN19 Flood Risk and Surface Water states that development, including the alteration of land levels, will not be permitted where it would:
•	be subject to an unacceptable risk of flooding; 
•	materially increase the risk of flooding elsewhere; or 
•	result in an unacceptable maintenance liability for the city council or any other agency in terms of dealing with flooding issues. 
The policy goes on to state that any application for development that is considered likely to be at risk of flooding, or to increase the risk of flooding elsewhere materially, will need to be accompanied by a formal flood risk assessment that should accurately assess the level of flood risk involved. 
Where appropriate, it should clearly identify the mitigation or other measures to be incorporated into the development or undertaken on other land which are designed to reduce that risk of flooding to an acceptable level. 
In determining the potential impact of the proposed development on the risk of flooding elsewhere, particular regard will be had to the extent to which the development: 
•	is located within or impacts upon a functional floodplain or floodzone; 
•	incorporates protection, attenuation or mitigation measures, and the use of source control techniques and sustainable drainage systems; and 
•	provides adequate access to watercourses for maintenance purposes. 
Development will not be permitted unless adequate provision is made for the discharge of foul and surface water associated with the proposal. 
The Flood Risk Planning Guidance states that its aim is to ensure that new development in areas at risk of flooding in the city, is adequately protected from flooding and that the risks of flooding are not increased elsewhere as a result of new development.
The subject properties, have in the past been prone to flooding due to the low lying nature of the site, and poor drainage capacity of the local network.. The drainage on the site has been upgraded following the installation of pumping equipment (06/52131/FUL).
The Environment Agency have commented that the property is in a Flood Risk Zone 1, indicating low risk of flooding from nearby watercourses and rivers and is significantly less than 1 hectare in size, a flood risk assessment would not normally be required.
However, a flood risk assessment has been submitted with the application, with an addendum. This flood risk assessment was originally submitted as part of an appeal made by the applicant against the refusal of planning permission on the site for 9 apartments and 5 town houses (Reference 06/52632/FUL).
The assessment was submitted in response to the Council’s previous refusal to the site, which stated
•	Insufficient details have been submitted to enable the full implications of the proposed development to be assessed in terms of the flooding consequences in accordance with Policy EN19 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Further to this, the inspector remarked with the appeal decision that

‘Notwithstanding the concerns of the residents, I am satisfied that the proposal would not be at significant risk of flooding, nor that the it would lead to flooding elsewhere. The proposal would therefore comply with UDP policy EN19 which will not permit development which would either be subject to unacceptable risk of flooding or materially increase the risk of flooding elsewhere’

The Flood Risk Assessment concludes that the site is not located within a flood zone and that the site is unlikely to suffer from flooding from the overtopping of Ellen Brook to the south. In particular it is commented that following the upgrade of the public foul water sewerage system in 2006 (discussed above) flooding has not been a problem with respect to high intensity storms exceeding local drainage capacity.

It is also concluded that as there is no development within the 1 in 100 year flood plain that there would be no displacement of floodwater from the site, and that any floodwater would tend to run into Newearth Road before impacting on neighbouring properties

The flood risk assessment therefore concludes that it is acceptable for foul water from the development to discharge to the public foul drainage network, but that it surface water from the development would need to discharge to the public surface water network at a restricted rate. This is in accordance with conditions recommended by United Utilities.

The issues with regard to flooding are then related simply to the adequate drainage of the site, which has partially been resolved through the upgrade of the drainage system in 2006. 

Because there is new development proposed in this application with new paved and hard-surfaced areas, there is however the potential for increased surface water run-off and discharge from the development, which in a storm event may be too great for the capacity of the surface water sewerage system to cope with.  

United Utilities, in accordance with the findings of the flood risk assessment have therefore recommended that the output from this surface runoff be regulated prior to it discharging into the public surface water sewerage system which will prevent any backflow from surcharging the sewerage network. This will be controlled through a condition which will require details of the proposed system to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with United Utilities prior to the commencement of development of the site.  

The councils drainage engineer has also recommended that the new dwellings be constructed with a minimum ground floor level which will be controlled by condition.

United Utilities have also made other recommendations in their consultation response with regard to development on the site, this will be forwarded to the applicant for their information.
 
In view of the above, and is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable and that concerns regarding flooding of the site have been adequately addressed. It is therefore considered that the proposal is in accordance with policy EN19 of the City of Salford Unitary development Plan.

Car Parking / Highway Safety

Policy A8 states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

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

A total of eleven car parking spaces are provided which is below the maximum car parking standard of 1.5 spaces per dwelling averaged across the city. Whilst no specific disabled spaces have been provided within the scheme as submitted, the spaces for townhouses fronting Hurstfield Road are large enough to accommodate such spaces, and there is sufficient space within the car parking area off Hurstfield Road, for spaces to be adapted and re-marked as necessary. A condition will be recommended to control the provision of disabled car parking spaces within this area.

It is noted that cycle storage is also provided to the apartments to provide for alternative access/mode of travel to and from the site. The site is close to bus stops on Newearth Road which is a busy road connecting the East Lancashire Road to Ellenbrook and Walkden.  It is therefore considered that the proposal is located within a relatively sustainable location.

It is not considered that the introduction of six town houses and 3 apartments would significantly increase the amount of traffic or parking on the street to an unacceptable level that would have a detrimental impact on highway or pedestrian safety. 

Coupled with relatively low speeds of traffic on the cul-de-sac, in particular boundary treatments adjacent to the new accesses to properties on Hurstfield Road will be controlled through a landscaping condition which will allow for vehicle / pedestrian intervisibility.

It is considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the highway network

It is not considered that the new access on to Newearth road would be of detriment to highways safety. A condition is recommended relating to radii at the entrance to the car park to assist vehicle manoeuvring in and out of the car parking area.

It is considered the level of parking provided is acceptable and would in accordance with Adopted Policies A8 and A10. 

Trees and Biodiversity

Trees

Adopted Policy EN13 states that development that would result in the unacceptable loss of, or damage to, protected trees will not be permitted.  Where the loss of trees is considered acceptable, adequate replacement provision will be required.

The site boundary with Newearth Road is screened by a group of predominantly deciduous trees, which primarily consist of semi-mature and mature birch, cherry and laurel trees.

This roadside tree scene is perpetuated to the south along Newearth Road, with a similar tree cover extending as far as the Bridgewater Road junction.

The trees on this site are protected by area A1 of TPO 381(2008).  This protects the trees of whatever species growing at the time the TPO was made, within the boundary of the dotted line on the TPO plan.

The TPO is to be modified on confirmation, to protect those trees which are to be retained as part of the development and that merit protection.

A tree report has been submitted with the application in which the following trees are recommended to be removed on the site (a total of 10 trees), additionally the report recommends the removal and transplantation of a further 2 trees.

Located towards the boundary with Newearth Road;

T2 Birch, T4 Cherry, T11 Apple,T12 Alder
T13 Birch, T15 Cedar, T16 Cedar, T17 Alder

Located toward the western boundary of the site

T8 Birch (located adjacent to Hurstfield Road)
T9 Cedar (located in the existing garden area of the dwellings)

Removal and Possible Transplantation (both located towards the north eastern boundary of the site)

T10 Conifer
T11a Brewers Spruce

It is not considered that any of the trees proposed for removal in this application would be worthy of retention. It is noted that there will still be a number of mature trees retained on the eastern boundary with Newearth Road which will assist in the screening of the proposed apartment building, as well as examples being retained on the Hurstfield Road.

It is considered that suitable replacement planting can be secured by condition and will assist in retaining and improving the landscaped character of the site and boundaries.

The Aboricultural Officer has recommended conditions regarding tree protection and replanting to be added to any decision made. It is recommended that these conditions be added to any decision made. 

In view of the above, it is considered that the proposed development is in accordance with Policy EN13 of the UDP and the Trees and Development Supplementary Planning Guidance.  

Biodiversity

Policy EN 10 Protection of Species states that development that would be likely to have an adverse impact on legally protected species will only be permitted where mitigation measures are put in place to maintain the population level of the species at a favourable conservation status within its natural range. 

A Biodiversity Report has been submitted with the application Whilst this report was prepared for a previous application, it relates to the existing site and therefore following a number of site visits at the property, and following consultation with the Greater Manchester Ecological Unit, it is considered that the report is sufficient for the purposes of this application. 

The report identifies that there are ponds on site but that these are of little ecological interest. It is concluded that the main ecological constraint on site is the potential within the dwelling themselves for bat roosts.

This finding is echoed in the consultation from the Greater Manchester Ecological Unit in which concludes that aside from the requirement for a precautionary bat survey to be undertaken, prior to the commencement of development on site, there are no other ecological concerns regarding the site.

A condition will be attached to any decision made to this effect.

In view of the above, it is considered that ecological issues have been adequately addressed at this site, and that the development, pending a bat survey, would be in accordance with policy EN 10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

Waste Management, Sustainable Design and Construction

The applicant has provided bin storage areas for all of the dwellings proposed, whilst only 2 bins per unit are shown on the submitted plans, there is sufficient space for the provision of 4 bins. A condition will be added to the decision to require details of bins stores to be submitted and implemented.

The original plans have been amended to allow suitable bin storage movements, for the town houses that have no direct access from the rear gardens to Hurstfield Road, this is to be provided through the provision of a gated, secured passage which will allow bins to be stored within the rear garden areas of these dwellings and pulled out to the kerbside on collection days.

Whilst refuse has been provided separately on the submitted plans for the apartments, it is proposed that the apartments in this scheme will have some segregated amenity space provided, which will encourage ownership of these amenity areas and therefore the recycling provision for each resident. 

It is considered overall that sufficient provision for refuse collection, recycling and storage is made in the application.

The applicant has submitted a sustainability checklist with the application, and has provided a written justification which amongst others sets the following measures to be taken on the site; 

Minimise Water Consumption

It is anticipated that the development will incorporate water saving devices such as dual flush w.c.s in accordance with current building regulations.  In addition, all properties will be fitted with water meters.  These measures will contribute to minimising water consumption by the occupiers.
Adequate space has been provided within the garden space of each property to accommodate water-butts which can be used for grey water recycling.

Minimise the Speed and Quantity of Surface Water Run Off
Whilst the use of SUDS is not considered appropriate on this site, due to its size, a significant amount of the hard landscaping proposed will be constructed from porous materials and a large proportion of the site will be soft landscaped which enable surface water to be absorbed by the ground.  Surface water attenuation measures are to be included as part of the development and will ensure that surface water run-off from the site does not increase in comparison to the existing site.  

Maximise the Use of Responsibly Sourced materials / Minimising Construction Waste

As the final developer is not yet known, it is not possible to confirm the source of construction material.  However, it is expected that locally sourced materials, which complement those used in the immediate vicinity of the site will be used.  Similarly, it is not possible to specify how construction waste will be minimised at this point, although a draft Site Waste Management Plan has been submitted and is to be completed by the final developer in accordance with DEFRA guidelines.  This will ensure that every effort to minimise construction waste is taken.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it is considered that the principle of the proposed development is acceptable. The scheme would contribute to the provision of a mix of dwelling types in the area, and the amenity of existing and future residents will not be unacceptably detrimentally affected as a result of this scheme. The proposal provides adequate flood remediation and mitigation measures, and incorporates appropriate sustainability measures. 

It is therefore considered that the application is consistent with the relevant policies of the City of Salford UDP. It is therefore recommended that the application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve subject to conditions

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

2.	Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of all materials to be used for facing and roofing materials proposed in the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

3.	Prior to the commencement of the development, a Preliminary Risk Assessment report, including a conceptual model and a site walk over, to assess the potential risk of land contamination, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Should a potential risk be identified then: 
	I.	A Site Investigation report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of land contamination on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors focusing primarily on risks to human health and the wider environment; and  
	
	II.	The details of any proposed Remedial Works shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Such Remedial Works shall be incorporated into the development during the course of construction and completed prior to occupation of the development; and
	
	III.	A Verification Report shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.  The Verification Report shall validate that all remedial works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.

4.	The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme, which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences.  Such scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, surface treatments, walls, fences, boundary and shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development, and in the case of planting within the first planting season following first occupation of the development. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced with the same species within twelve months.

5.	Notwithstanding the submitted plans, no development shall be started until full details of the location, design and construction of bin stores have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Such approved bin stores shall thereafter be constructed and made available for use before the development is brought into use.

6.	Prior to commencement of the development, a scheme to reduce the vulnerability of the development to crime shall be produced in consultation with secure by design principles and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall form part of the development and shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

7.	The minimum finished floor level of the development shall be 53.25m above ordnance datum unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

8.	The site must be drained on a separate system, with only foul drainage connected to the foul sewer. Prior to commencement of development on site, full details of the drainage system proposed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved. The discharge rate to the surface water sewerage system shall be attenuated so that the maximum discharge rate does not exceed 10 l/s designed to a 1 in 30 storm event.

9.	No development shall be started until all the trees within (or overhanging) the site which are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order, with the exception of those trees clearly shown to be felled on the approved plan (reference 444/PL/001 Revision K), have been surrounded by substantial fences which shall extend to the extreme circumference of the spread of the branches of the trees (or such positions as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority).  Such fences shall be erected in accordance with a specification to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall remain until all development is completed and no work, including any form of drainage or storage of materials, earth or topsoil shall take place within the perimeter of such fencing.

10.	No trees which are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order (other than those clearly shown to be so affected on the submitted plan) shall be topped, lopped or cut down without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority and any trees dying or being removed before or within 5 years of completion of the development hereby permitted shall be replaced within 12 months of removal or death in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing beforehand by the Local Planning Authority.

11.	During the first available planting season following the felling of the ten (10) tree(s) hereby granted consent, the trees shall be replaced by twenty (20) standard tree(s) in accordance with British Standard 3936:Part 1:1992 (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 replacement species shall be submitted for approval by the LPA as part of a development landscaping scheme. The replacement trees shall be planted in the period from November to March, following the felling of the protected tree(s), hereby granted consent, and this condition shall not be considered to have been complied with until the replacement tree(s) have been established to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

12.	The radii of the corners at the junction of the car park serving the apartment building and Newearth Road shall be a minimum of 4.5m, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority

13.	No demolition work shall commence until a bat survey has been carried out by a suitably qualified person of the building(s) to be demolished. If bats or signs of bats are found by survey then a method statement shall be prepared and submitted to the Local Planning  Authority for approval giving details of measures to be taken to avoid any possible harm to bats. Once approved, this method statement shall be implemented in full.

14.	Prior to the commencement of development on site, full details of the secure cycle storage to be provided shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried in accordance with the approved details with the cycle storage being retained therafter.

15.	Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use, a scheme to provide disabled car parking spaces(s) for the apartments on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme, and such space(s) shall be made available at all times.

16.	No development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing all the following matters including; sustainable construction techniques; natural ventilation techniques; techniques to reduce solar heat gain and use of renewable energy sources; and all energy efficiency and sustainability matters have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the occupation of the unit, the approved scheme shall be installed and shall thereafter be retained and maintained.

17.	The landscaping scheme referred to in condition 4, above, shall include  full details of screen planting / screening to be provided between ground floor windows of 280 Newearth Road  and the proposed apartments. The approved details shall be implemented prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved and shall be retained thereafter.

18.	All hard standing areas shall be constructed to form permeable surfaces, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason(s)

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

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

3.	In the interests of public safety in accordance with policy EN16 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan

4.	To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

5.	 To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

6.	To ensure that the development is appropriately secured from crime in accordance with policy DES 10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

7.	To ensure that any possible flood water to surcharge of the combined surface water sewers, overland flow do not enter any houses, pursuant to policy EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

8.	To ensure adequate drainage of the site pursuant to policy EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

9.	 To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

10.	 To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan

11.	 To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

12.	So as not to interfere with the free flow of traffic along Newearth Road in accordance with policy A8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

13.	In the interests of the protection of any protected species on the site, in accordance with policy EN10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan

14.	In the interests have encouraging sustainable modal choice for the occupiers of the site, pursuant to Policy A10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

15.	In the interests of providing adequate disabled parking provision in the development, pursuant to Policy A10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

16.	In the interests of sustainable development in accordance with the sustainable design and construction Supplementary Planning Document.

17.	To provide adequate levels of private amenity for the occupiers of the existing and proposed dwellings in accordance with policy DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

18.	To ensure adequate drainage of the site pursuant to policy EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	The development herby approved relates to the following plans;
	
	A1 plan reference 444/PL/001 Rev K date stamped 06.10.08
	A1 plan reference 444/PL/002 Rev K date stamped 06.10.08
	
	6 A3 plans referenced;
	
	444/PL/003 Rev K
	444/PL/004 Rev K
	444/PL/005 Rev F
	444/PL/008 Rev L
	444/PL/010Rev L
	444/PL/011 Rev K
	
	all date stamped 06.10.08

2.	If, during any works on site, contamination is suspected or found, or contamination is caused, the LPA shall be notified immediately.  Where required, a suitable risk assessment shall be carried out and/or any remedial action shall be carried out in accordance to an agreed process and within agreed timescales in agreement with the LPA.

3.	The applicants attention is drawn to the requirements of the drainage system to be provided on site as stated in the United Utilities letter of 18th September 2008

4.	The applicant is advised ( in conjunction with conditions  4 and 6) that a permeable boundary treatment will be required between the bin storage access way to the rear of the townhouses on Hurst field Road and side boundary of the proposed apartments to encourage natural surveillance of this accessway.

APPLICATION No:	08/56942/HH

APPLICANT:	Mr Noel Burrows

LOCATION:	27 Broad Oak Road Worsley M28 2TL    

PROPOSAL:	Demolition of existing garage, erection of part single/part two storey side/rear extension and construction of new vehicular access
	(Re-Sub of 08/56646/HH)

WARD:	Worsley

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

This application relates to a large semi detached property on Broad Oak Road, Worsley. The property occupies a corner plot adjacent to Egerton Park. The property has an existing detached garage to the rear, which would be demolished to make way for the proposed development. The rear garden of the application site and adjoining property is significantly lower than the ground level at the front of the properties. Boundary treatment to the side of the property, adjacent to Egerton Park consists of a 1.4m wall. Along the boundary with the adjoining property, 25 Broad Oak Road is 1.5m fencing.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

Permission is sought for the demolition of the existing garage and the erection of a part single part two-storey side/rear extension.

The single storey element of the proposal would be flush with the existing side elevation (adjacent the boundary with Egerton Park). It would project approximately 6.3m back and would be approximately 2.1m in width becoming flush with the main rear elevation the existing dwelling. It would be approximately 3.1m in height at its highest point and incorporate a sloping roof.

The two-storey element would be sited to the rear of the proposed single storey element and would run the full width of the existing dwelling. It would be set in approximately 0.3m from the side boundary with 25 Broad Oak Road. This element would be 3m in depth and approximately 6m in height at its highest point with a pitched roof. 

The proposal would also incorporate two roof lights in the side element and two in the rear element.

Internally the proposal would accommodate a garage at basement level and an enlarged kitchen and morning room at ground floor/first floor level.

It is also proposed to construct a new drop crossing to the front of the garage approximately 3m in width and construct a new hard standing area to the side of the proposed garage. The proposed drop crossing does not require planning permission as Broad Oak Road is not a classified Road. The applicants have confirmed that the proposed hard standing would be constructed of permeable materials in the form of sandstone chipping and excess surface water would soak away into the adjacent garden area. An informative will be added to inform the applicant that if the parking space is to be constructed of non-permeable materials then planning permission will be required.

SITE HISTORY

08/56646/HH – Demolition of existing garage, erection of part single/part two storey side/rear extension and construction of new vehicular access. Withdrawn 

The current application differs from the previous application as the garage door has been set back to allow a 4.8m hard standing to be retained to the front. All other elements remain the same.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

7 Cavendish Road, Worsley
1, 2 and 4 Egerton Park, Worlsey
Flat 1, 1 Egerton Park, Worsley
18, 28 and 29 Broad Oak Road, Worsley

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of objection has been received from the occupiers of 25 Broad Oak Road. The letter raises the following concerns:

•	Impact to the light coming into the ground and first floor rooms at the back of the house.
•	If approved the patio area to the rear of 25 Broad Oak Road will become claustrophobic and boxed in.
•	The proposal would have a detrimental impact on how the two houses look as a pair and would be out of keeping when compared to other houses in the street.

These issues will be considered as part of the appraisal of proposal below.

Councillor Macdonald has requested that the application be determined by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel due to the unusual nature of the floors of the building. 

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 

Site specific policies: None
DES1 	(Respecting Context)
DES7 	(Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 	(Alterations and Extensions)
A8	(Impact of Development on the Highway Network) 

OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS 

House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document. 

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are the impact of the proposed extension on the amenity of the surrounding and future residents; impact on highway safety and the impact of the proposed development on the character of the area and whether the proposal accords with all relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Documents on House Extensions.

DESIGN  

UDP Policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its physical context and respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated and contribute towards a local identity and distinctiveness. 

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

Policy HE9 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted for a single/two storey side extension to a dwelling on a corner plot unless a minimum distance of 2m is maintained between the boundary or back service strip and the nearest part of the extension.

The application site occupies a corner plot. As such the proposal would be visible from the street. The proposal would be set in approximately 4.4m from the from the side boundary with the road and would be flush with the existing side elevation of the dwelling. It would not project beyond the existing building line of the dwellings in Egerton Park.

The proposal would incorporate a pitched roof in keeping with the existing dwelling and would appear subordinate to the main dwelling. The window size/design is also considered to be in keeping with the existing dwelling. 

The proposal would not be visible from the front elevation and as such would not unbalance the appearance of the pair of semi-detached dwellings when viewed from Broad Oak Road. 

The applicant states that materials used (roof and walls) would match existing and a condition would be attached to ensure this.  

It is therefore considered that the design of the proposal would be in keeping with the existing property and would not look out of place or have a significant effect on the character of the area. As such the proposal would not be an incongruous feature in the residential context and would be in accordance with HE9, DES1 and DES8.

AMENITY

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

Policy HE7 of the House Extensions SPD states in the absence of an extension along the common boundary of the adjoining dwelling planning permission will normally be granted for a two storey/first floor extension provided its projection is equal too or less than its distance from the nearest common boundary.

The proposed extension would introduce no habitable room windows. The side gable of 1 Egerton Park would face the rear elevation of the proposal. There are no habitable room windows in the side gable and a distance of approximately 29m would be maintained from the proposal.

The side elevation of the proposal would introduce a kitchen window approximately 4.4m from the site boundary, adjacent to Egerton Park. The side gable of 29 Broad Oak Road would directly face this window. A distance of approximately 19.5m would be maintained. 

Given the gradient of the application site and adjoining property the rear element of the proposal would be a two-storey extension. As such the principles of policy HE7 can be applied. The proposal would be set in approximately 0.3m from the common boundary and would project 3m beyond the rear elevation of the application property and 25 Broad Oak Road. Number 25 Broad Oak Road has no rear extension and the occupier has confirmed that the window at ground floor level serves a habitable room. 

It is therefore considered that the proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of light and be overbearing to the occupiers of number 25 Broad Oak Road, contrary to policies DES7 and HE7.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

UDP Policy A8 states development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

Policy HE12 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted for the erection of a garage with an up and over door unless a hard standing of 5.5m in length and 2.4m in width is kept between the front of the garage and the highway, unless there would be no impact on highway safety and the free flow of traffic. The reasoned justification for this policy goes on to say that where a roller shutter door is proposed it may be possible to reduce the length of the hard standing to 4.8m.

The proposed detached garage would maintain a hard standing area of 4.8m in length by 3m in width. An additional hard standing area of 3m in width by 6m in length would also be provided to the side of the proposed garage. Highways have been consulted and have no objections as long as the proposed garage has a roller shutter door, a condition could be attached to ensure this. It is therefore considered that the proposal would result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety, contrary to Policies A8 and HE12.

CONCLUSION

It is considered that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety. In terms of design the proposal is also considered to be acceptable. However it is considered that the proposal would have an unacceptable loss of light and would be overbearing on the occupiers of number 25 Broad Oak Road contrary to DES7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and the principles of HE7 of the Council's Supplementary Planning Document on house extensions. It is considered the proposal would not result in an unacceptable detrimental impact on the occupiers of other surrounding properties.

RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:

1.	The proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of light and would be overbearing to the residents of No. 25 Broad Oak Road, contrary to Policy DES7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	Please note this refusal relates to drawing number 4069/02 rev A received 7th October 2008.

2.	The applicants are advised that if the proposed hard standing is to be constructed of a non-permeable surface then planning permission will be required. Please refer to www.planningportal.gov.uk for more information on permeable and non-permeable surfaces.

APPLICATION No:	08/56846/HH

APPLICANT:	P Hession

LOCATION:	1 Vicarage Road Worsley M28 3RU    

PROPOSAL:	Erection of a single storey side/rear extension, part single/part two storey rear extension, erection of canopy supported by pillars over front door and erection of 1.5m -2m high wall and 2.08m high gates with brick pillars

WARD:	Walkden North

Description of Site and Surroundings 

This application relates to a semi-detached dwelling on Vicarage Road, Worsley. To the east of the application site is the gable elevation of no.19 St John Street, to the south of the application site is an elderly persons care home (Abbeyfield House) and to the west of the application site is a grassed area that provides access to the rear of no’s. 1-4 Vicarage Road. The adjoining dwelling no.2 Vicarage Road currently has a conservatory to the rear close to the side common boundary with the application site and a two storey side extension closest to the side common boundary with no.3. A conservatory to the rear of the application site has been recently demolished.

The front boundary consists of a 1m high wall, which is similar to the height of the other boundary treatments along this stretch of Vicarage Road and within the locality. The side common boundary with no.2 consists of a 1.5m high fence and the side common boundary with Abbeyfield House consists of a 1.8m high fence. The rear boundary consists of a 1.5m high close boarded fencing.

Description of Proposal

The application is for the erection of a single storey side/rear extension, the erection of a part single/part two storey rear extension, the erection of a canopy porch supported by brick pillars over the front door, the erection of a 1.5m-2m high front boundary wall and the erection of 2.08m high gates with brick pillars.

The proposed single storey side/rear extension would be set back 2.5m from the main front elevation and would project approximately 2.3m from the existing side elevation. It would project 3m beyond the existing rear elevation giving an overall depth of 8.5m. It would be 4.2m in height and it would provide a utility room and a kitchen.

The proposed part single/part two storey rear extension would be situated next to the proposed single storey side/rear extension. The proposed two storey element would project 2m from the main rear elevation, the single storey element would project a further 1m. It would extend the full with of the dwelling (5.7m) and it would have an overall height of 7m. The extension would provide a dining room to the ground floor and to the first floor it would accommodate two bedrooms. (creating one additional bedroom, from a two bedroom to 3 bedrooms overall).

The proposed brick pillars would be located to both sides of the front door and they would be 2.3m in height. The proposed canopy roof would give an overall height of 3.5m and it would be 2.2m in width.

The proposed wall would be located to the front boundary. There is an existing 1m high boundary wall that will be demolished to accommodate the proposal. The proposed boundary wall would be 1.5m in height and would raise to 2m next to the brick pillars either side of the driveway entrance. The proposed brick pillars would be 2.08m in height. The proposed gate would be situated in between the brick pillars and would be 2.4m in width and 2.1m in height.

The application also includes a 1m high boundary wall with 1m high pillars to the front. This would be permitted under Class A section A.1 of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 and will therefore not be assessed as part of this application.

Site History

N/A

Publicity

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

2 Vicarage Road
19 St. John Street
Wardens Bungalow, Abbeyfield House, Mountain Street
Abbeyfield House, Mountain Street

Representations

Two letters and an email of objection have been received in regards to the above application from no.2 Vicarage Road the following issues have been raised:

•	Loss of light to dining room and bedroom at no.2
•	Loss of view to no.2
•	Loss of property value to no.2
•	Eyesore
•	Out of character
•	Plans indicate a cavity wall between no.1 and no.2 
•	Plans indicate chimney breast to be demolished which may damage no.2
•	Noise and smells will be created from new bathroom

Councillor Devine has requested this application be determined by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel due to loss of light to the occupiers of no.2 Vicarage Road.

Consultations

Highways and Engineering- No objections

The Development Plan

Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan

Site specific policies: None
DES1 (Respecting Context)
DES7 (Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 (Alterations and Extensions)
A8	(Impact of Development on the Highway Network) 

OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS 

House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document 
Design and Crime Supplementary Planning Document

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main issues for consideration with this application are the impact of the proposed extension on the amenity of the surrounding and future residents, the impact of the proposed development on highway safety and the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. The main policies of relevance are A8, DES1, DES7, and DES8 of the City of Salford adopted UDP and the House Extensions SPD.

DESIGN

UDP Policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its physical context and respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated and contribute towards a local identity and distinctiveness. 

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

The proposed side extension would be visible from Vicarage Road and the proposed rear extensions would be visible from the grassed area to the rear. The proposed part two storey rear extension would have a hipped roof to match the existing main roof and the side extension would have a sloping roof that would extend over the part single storey rear extension. The proposed windows would be of a similar proportion to the existing. The application accounts for materials to match and a condition is recommended to ensure that this would be the case should members be minded to approve the application. The proposed canopy supported by brick pillars and the proposed boundary wall/gates would also be visible within the Vicarage Road street scene. The brick pillars and the boundary wall would be constructed from brickwork to match the existing front wall of the house, the canopy roof would be constructed from slate and the gates would be constructed from timber. The surrounding neighbouring dwellings have a mix of boundary treatments to the front that include 1m high walls, 1.5m high fences, hedges, 1m high walls with 1.5m high brick pillars and 2m high fences. It is therefore considered the proposed development would not be an incongruous feature within this setting nor would it harm the character of the area or the character of the dwelling in accordance with DES1 and DES8.

AMENITY

UDP Policy DES7 states that 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.  It states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of occupiers or user of other development.

The proposed boundary wall and gates would have a maximum height of 2m and would be approximately 12m from the side elevation of the facing neighbouring dwelling. It is therefore considered the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring occupiers in terms of loss of light and overbearing in accordance with DES7.

There would be a utility room window introduced to the front elevation of the side extension that would be 18m from the side elevation of no.19 St. John Street. This distance, it is considered will ensure that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring occupiers in terms of privacy in accordance with DES7.

There would be several first floor and ground floor habitable/non habitable room windows introduced to the rear elevations of the proposed development that would be 9.8m at its closest and it would be 10.4m at its furthest from the rear boundary which beyond this is a grassed area. It is therefore considered the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring occupiers in terms of privacy in accordance with DES7.

Policy HE2 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted for extensions that introduce windows or open aspects close to and directly overlooking the gardens of neighbouring dwellings. The term ‘close to’ refers to 5m, however this can be overcome with obscure glazing, except to principal habitable room windows.

There would be a first floor landing window introduced to the existing side elevation of the dwelling that would be 6.9m from the side common boundary with Abbeyfield House in accordance with HE2.

There would be a ground floor kitchen window and door in the side elevation of the proposed side extension that would be 4.6m from the side common boundary with Abbeyfield House. Given that there is a 1.8m high boundary fence in place and the proposed window would serve a non-habitable room it is therefore considered the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring occupiers in terms of privacy in accordance with DES7.

Policy HE6 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will normally be granted for a two storey rear extension or first floor rear extension along the common boundary where the adjoining dwelling has an existing single storey extension provided that: the first floor does not project beyond the neighbour’s ground floor extension and the first floor does not project beyond a 45 degree line from the mid point of any first floor principal window of a habitable room in the neighbouring dwelling or a point 3m along the common boundary from the rear elevation of the adjoining or adjacent dwelling.

No.2 Vicarage Road currently has a conservatory to the rear that is set in approximately 0.6m from the side common boundary with the application site. Dining room patio doors in the main rear elevation lead into the conservatory. The proposed part single storey rear extension would not project beyond a 45 degree line taken from a point 3m along the common boundary from the main rear elevation of no.2. 

The proposed two storey rear extension would not project beyond the existing conservatory to the rear of no.2 nor would it project beyond a 45 degree line taken from the mid point of the closest first floor habitable room window in the rear elevation of no.2. It is therefore considered the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact to the bedroom and the dining area of no.2 Vicarage Road in terms of loss of light and overbearing in accordance with HE6 and DES7.

Policy HE4 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted for a single storey extension that does not maintain a minimum distance of 9m between its blank gable end wall and facing ground floor principal windows of habitable rooms of neighbouring dwellings. This same distance applies for proposed single storey extensions facing existing blank gable end wall and extensions at the same floor level as neighbouring windows.

The side elevation of the proposed two storey rear extension would be 15.5m from the facing first floor principal windows of habitable rooms in the rear elevation of Abbeyfield House. There would be no windows introduced to the side elevation of the two storey rear extension in accordance with HE4.

There would be no windows introduced to the side elevation of the single storey side extension and there are no ground floor principal windows of habitable rooms in the rear elevations of Abbeyfield House that face the application site. It is therefore considered the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring occupiers in terms of loss of light and overbearing in accordance with DES7.

DESIGN AND CRIME

Policy DC16 of the design and crime SPD states boundary treatments should maximise natural surveillance where appropriate and should be designed to a high standard. The proposed boundary wall and gates would define the public and private space. Consequently, it would deter criminal activity, and given that the main element of the wall and gates would only be a maximum of 2m in height it is considered the proposed boundary treatment would not appear fortress like in accordance with DC16.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

UDP Policy A8 states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

Policy HE11 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted for extensions that do not maintain a hard standing of 4.8m in length and 2.4m in width to accommodate at least one car clear of the highway unless there would be no unacceptable impact on highway safety and the free flow of traffic. Where possible the width should be 3.6m.

There would be a hard standing of 5.9m in length and 6.9m in width maintained between the front of the proposed side extension and the highway in accordance with HE11 and A8.

OTHER ISSUES

A number of other matters have been raised by the objectors, which include:

•	Loss of view to no.2 Vicarage Road
•	Loss of property value to no.2 Vicarage Road
•	Plans indicate a cavity wall between no.1 Vicarage Road and no.2 Vicarage Road 
•	Plans indicate chimney breast to be demolished which may damage no.2 Vicarage Road
•	Noise, smells and possible leakage will be created from new bathroom

The above issues are not material planning considerations. 

CONCLUSION

It is considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the street scene, highway safety or the occupiers of neighbouring properties. The proposal is in accordance with the Council's Supplementary Planning Document on House Extensions, the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on Design and Crime and policies A8, DES1, DES7 and DES8 of the adopted City of Salford UDP.

Accordingly, approval is recommended.

	

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

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

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

Reason(s)

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

2.	To ensure the development fits in with the existing building in accordance with policy DES1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

Note(s) for Applicant

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

2.	The applicant is advised that their site lies within 250m of a former landfill site.  In the event that landfill gas is migrating, suitable precautions need to be undertaken to avoid the ingress of landfill gas into the new extension or existing house.  It is strongly advised that the detailed design specification incorporates suitable measures to mitigate against the ingress of landfill gas.  Any measures would be expected to conform to the standards contained in the 1990 Building research Establishment Report "Construction of new buildings on gas-contaminated land"

3.	Please note this permission relates to the following plans: drawing no.001 REV, 002 REV, 003 REV, 004 REV and 005 REV received on the 18th August 2008.

APPLICATION No:	08/56874/HH

APPLICANT:	D Hancock

LOCATION:	2 Lyndale Avenue Swinton M27 0BF    

PROPOSAL:	Demolition of existing garage and single storey rear extension and erection of a part single/part two storey side/rear extension

WARD:	Worsley

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDINGSThe application relates to a semi-detached property on Lyndale Avenue, Swinton. Lyndale Avenue is a short straight cul de sac made up of two pairs of semi detached dwellings. The area is residential in nature and is dominated by semi detached dwellings. The property, along with the other in the street has a single storey out rigger to the rear. The property also has an existing attached garage to the side. These elements would be demolished to make way for the proposal. The adjacent property, 9 Wentworth Road has a single storey detached garage to the rear of the property which runs along the side boundary of the application site. This is accessed via Lyndale Avenue. The adjoining property, 4 Lyndale Avenue currently projects approximately 0.5m beyond the main rear elevation of the application property. 

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

Permission is sought for the demolition of the existing garage and single storey rear extension and the erection of a part single/part two storey side/rear extension.

The proposed side extension at ground floor would be flush with the front elevation of the existing dwelling. It would project approximately 2.95m from the side of the original dwelling before extending approximately 5.3m back. It would then step in approximately 0.8m before extending a further 6.4m back. (It would project approximately 3.6m beyond the main rear elevation of the existing dwelling.)The proposal would then wrap round the rear of the existing dwelling and extend the full width of the dwelling. It would be set in approximately 0.15m from the common boundary with the adjoining dwelling. 

The first floor would be set back 0.6m from the main front elevation.

The rear element of the proposal would be part single storey, part two storey. The single storey element would be sited along the common boundary with the adjoining property and would be approximately 3.4m in width. The two storey element would be set in approximately 3.6m from the same common boundary and would be approximately 4.75m in width.

The single storey element of the proposed side extension would be approximately 3.5m in height with a hipped roof. The single storey rear element would be approximately 3.5m in height with a pitched roof. The two storey element of the proposal would be approximately 7.1m in height at its highest point (approximately 1.1m lower than the main dwelling)and would incorporate a hipped roof.

Internally the proposal would accommodate a garage, W.C, utility room, kitchen and a dining room at ground floor level and two bedrooms and two en suites at first floor level.

SITE HISTORY

The site has no previous planning history.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

7, 9, 11, 13 and 15 Wentworth Road, Swinton.
1, 3 and 4 Lyndale Avenue, Swinton.
22 and 24 Ashley Avenue, Swinton.

Amended description letters sent: 02/09/08

Amended plan letters sent: 13/10/08

REPRESENTATIONS

Councillor Macdonald has requested that the application be determined by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel for the following reason:
1.	the proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of light to the rear room of 4 Lyndale Avenue.

Nine letters of objection have been received. (Six from 4 Lyndale Avenue, one from 9 Wentworth Avenue and two from 11 Wentworth Avenue.)

The letters raise the following concerns:
2.	The possibility of additional windows being added at a later date which would overlook the properties along Wentworth Road
3.	The boundary line indicated on the plans in incorrect
4.	Possible impact of the proposal on the kitchen extensions of the properties along Wentworth Road 
5.	Loss of light and tunnel effect
6.	Height of the proposal and loss of view

Loss of view is not a material planning consideration and cannot be considered as part of this application. The possibility that future windows may be added over looking the rear gardens of properties along Wentworth Road cannot be considered as part of this application. The amendments to the General Permitted Development Order which came into force on 1st October 2008 allow for the insertion of a window without the need for planning permission subject to the condition that any upper floor window located in a wall forming the side elevation of the dwelling house shall be obscure glazed. If any new first floor windows are not obscure glazed then planning permission will be required and the impact on the occupiers of surrounding properties will be assessed as part of the application.

Any disputes over the location of the boundary are a civil matter. The red line boundary submitted with the application has remained the same throughout the application process. The applicants have confirmed that they do not propose to remove the existing boundary treatment which is currently in place and the boundary line has been shown on the floor plans as an indication only. 

Concerns have been raised in relation to the boundary line shown on the initial floor plans submitted and amended plans have since been received. A further letter of objection was received stating that the boundary shown on the amended floor plans was also incorrect. As a result the applicant has spoken to the occupiers of 9 and 11 Wentworth Road and they have agreed to go back to the boundary line indicated on the initial floor plans submitted. 
 
The other concerns raised will be considered as part of the appraisal of proposal below.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 

Site specific policies: None
DES1 (Respecting Context)
DES7 (Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 (Alterations and Extensions)
A8	(Impact of Development on the Highway Network) 

OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS 

House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document. 

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are the impact of the proposed extension on the amenity of the surrounding and future residents; impact on highway safety and the impact of the proposed development on the character of the area and whether the proposal accords with all relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Documents on House Extensions.

DESIGN  

UDP Policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its physical context and respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated and contribute towards a local identity and distinctiveness. 

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

The proposed side extension would be visible from the street. It would incorporate a hipped roof and is of a design, which is considered to be in keeping with the existing dwelling and surrounding area. The two storey element would be approximately 1.1m lower than the main dwelling therefore appearing subordinate. It is considered the proposed side extension would not look out of place or have a significant effect on the character of the area or be an incongruous feature in this setting. The rear elements of the proposal would not be visible from the street however it is considered that they have been designed well and would be in keeping with the existing dwelling. The applicant accounts that materials (roof and walls) would match the main dwelling and a condition would be attached to ensure this. In respect of this, it is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with policies DES1 and DES8.      

Policy HE8 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted for a two storey side extension that lies within 1m of the side boundary of the dwelling unless the first floor element is set back a minimum of 2m from the front main wall of the property or the ground and first floor elements are set back a minimum of 1m from the front main wall of the property.

The proposed side extension would be set in approximately 0.2m from the side boundary and the first floor would be set back approximately 0.6m from the main front elevation of the existing dwelling. As the street only comprises of two pairs of semi detached dwellings (one pair on each side of the road) it is considered that terracing cannot occur and that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable effect on the street scene, in accordance with Policy HE8.  

AMENITY

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

Policy HE1 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted for extensions that do not maintain a minimum distance of 21m between facing principal windows of habitable rooms and a minimum distance of 10.5m between the principal window of any habitable room of the proposed extension and the common boundary with the facing property if applicable.

Policy HE2 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted for extensions that introduce windows or open aspects close to and directly overlooking the gardens of neighbouring dwellings. The term ‘close to’ refers to 5m, however this can be overcome with obscure glazing, except to principle habitable room windows.

Policy HE3 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted for a two-storey or first floor extension that does not maintain a minimum of 13m between its blank gable end wall and facing ground floor principal windows of habitable rooms of neighbouring dwellings. The same distance applies for proposed extensions that face a two storey blank gable end wall.

Policy HE5 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted for single storey rear extensions that project beyond a 45 degree line taken from either the mid point of a principal ground floor window of a habitable room or a point 3m along the common boundary from the rear elevation of adjoining or adjacent dwellings.

The front elevation of the proposed side extension would introduce a habitable room window (bedroom) at first floor level. This window would directly face the single storey garage at the facing property and would maintain a distance of approximately 19m. The bedroom window would be no closer than existing habitable room windows in the front elevation of the application site and surrounding properties.

The application site and other properties in the street already have less than the required 21m distance between facing habitable room windows. (The distances maintained are approximately 18.5m. 

As such it is considered that the proposed development would not be of such detriment to the living conditions of the occupiers of the facing property (1 Lyndale Avenue) to justify the refusal of this proposal. 

The rear elevation of the proposal would introduce habitable room windows at ground floor level. A distance of approximately 20m would be maintained to the rear boundary with the nearest facing properties to the rear being approximately 30m away.

The side elevation of the proposed side extension would introduce a first floor window adjacent the boundary with 9 Wentworth Road. In order to protect the privacy of the occupiers of 9 Wentworth Road the applicants have agreed to obscure glaze this windows. A condition would be attached to ensure this. The side elevation of the single storey rear extension would introduce no windows.

The side elevation of the proposed two-storey side/rear extension would directly face the rear elevations of 9 and 11 Wentworth Road. 9 Wentworth Road has a detached garage to the rear of the property, along the common boundary with the application site, which would partially screen the proposal. 9 and 11 Wentworth Road each have a single storey outrigger which accommodates the kitchen. A distance of approximately 10.5m would be maintained. Given that kitchens are not considered to be habitable rooms it is not considered necessary to protect light to these rooms. The proposed two-storey side/rear extension would maintain a distance of approximately 14.5m from the ground floor habitable room window in the main rear elevation of 9 Wentworth Road and approximately 14m from the ground floor habitable room window in the main rear elevation of 11 Wentworth Road.

The proposed single storey rear extension would not project beyond a 45 degree line taken from a point 3m along the common boundary from the main rear elevation of 4 Lyndale Avenue.

The proposed two-storey rear element of the proposal would project approximately 3.1m beyond the main rear elevation of 4 Lyndale Avenue and would be set in approximately 3.6m from the common boundary.

It is therefore considered that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable detrimental impact to the current or future occupiers of the application site or surrounding properties in accordance with policies HE1, HE2, HE3, HE5 and DES7.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

UDP Policy A8 states development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

Policy HE12 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted for the erection of a garage with an up and over door unless a hard standing of 5.5m in length and 2.4m in width is kept between the front of the garage and the highway, unless there would be no impact on highway safety and the free flow of traffic. The reasoned justification for this policy goes on to say that where a roller shutter door is proposed it may be possible to reduce the length of the hard standing to 4.8m.

The proposed garage would have a roller shutter door and would maintain a hard standing of approximately 4.7m in length and 2.8m in width. Highway Engineers have been consulted and have no objection provided a roller shutter door is provided. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable effect on traffic safety, in accordance with Policies A8 and HE12.

VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT	

Initial plans submitted indicated a step in the boundary line between the application property and 9 and 11 Wentworth Road. Amended plans have since been received which indicate a straight line boundary. 

CONCLUSION

The proposal would not result in an unacceptable detrimental impact on the street scene or the amenity of neighbours and future occupiers in accordance with all relevant policies within the Unitary Development Plan and House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document and there are no other material considerations that outweigh those policies. 

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

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

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

3.	Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, prior to the development hereby approved being brought into use, the window in the side elevation facing the boundary with 9 and 11 Wentworth Road shall be provided with and permanently glazed, in textured glass whose obscuration level is 5 on a scale of 1-5 (where 1 is clear and 5 is completely obscure).

4.	The garage hereby approved shall be fitted with a roller shutter door prior to the first use of the garage and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason(s)

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

2.	 To ensure the development fits in with the existing building in accordance with policy DES1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

3.	To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

4.	 In the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy A 8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

Note(s) for Applicant

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

2.	Please note this permission relates to the submitted plans received 20th August 2008.

APPLICATION No:	08/56881/FUL

APPLICANT:	Squirrel Storage

LOCATION:	Unit 7 Lamplight Way Swinton M27 8UJ   

PROPOSAL:	Erection of new industrial storage building for B2 and B8 uses with two storey offices, loading yard and associated car parking with access road (Re-submission of planning application 08/56657/FUL)

WARD:	Pendlebury

Description of Site and Surroundings 
The application site is located approximately 2.3km to the north of Salford City Centre. The site is accessed via Overman Way, which connects to Lamplight Way at a roundabout. The commerce park within which the site is located is accessed from the A6044 Agecroft Road, which links to the A666 to the west and the A56 to the east. The area of the development site is 1.48 hectares.

The site is bounded to the north by a building which is occupied by Squirrel Storage, an archive storage and retrieval company beyond which is Overman Way. A railway line runs to the east beyond which is a an industrial area on Holland Street. Further east is a disused section of the Bury, Bolton and Manchester Canal. Between the site and the railway line is the Brindle Heath Junction Site of Biological Importance. To the west is a large industrial building (Bunzl site) beyond which is a dismantled railway. To the south is an area of open scrubland with patches of vegetation. This area also falls within the same Site of Biological Importance.

The wider area is characterised by industrial buildings and forms the Agecroft Commerce Park. The nearest residential properties are to the west beyond the dismantled railway.

Description of Proposal
The proposal involves the erection of a new industrial unit for B8 (Warehousing, Storage and Distribution) and B2 use (General Industrial). The building is to comprise 590m2 of new office spaces and 6328m2 of general industrial space. It is intended that the building will be occupied by Squirrel Storage, as an extension to the existing unit which is the building immediately to the north of the site. 

The ridge of the building would stand at a height of 18.5 metres, which is equivalent to six storeys in height approximately 7 metres higher than the existing building. The eaves height would be 16.5 metres. The roof of the building is to have a shallow pitch roof running from north to south with a gulley in between. On the northern elevation it is proposed that a two-storey office is erected. This is to be used in connection with the storage facility. The proposed unit stands directly adjacent to the existing facility at Unit 7, which is also occupied by Squirrel Storage. The two buildings are connected by a link structure which would have a flat roof and stand at a height of 8.5 metres.

Within the eastern elevation of the proposed building there would be two loading doors with canopies above. The northernmost of these loading zones would serve a mezzanine level internally. The main entrance to the building would be via the offices adjacent to the car parking area.

The site is accessed via a road to be constructed on the applicants land which runs to the east of the existing unit. The car park is situated in the southern part of the site and is to be constructed of bitmac. It is proposed that 40 car parking spaces are created, 3 of which will be for disabled use. There is also provision for 6 bicycles on a stand. The proposed access road does not fall within the Brindle Heath Site of Biological Importance, nor does the wider site. The remainder of the external area is to be used as a service yard in connection with the unit. Grassed areas have been identified adjacent to the site entrance, between the two loading zones, within the car park and along the southern boundary.

It is proposed that the new unit is to be constructed of galvanised steel and is to be in grey coated metal fascias and trim with doors to match those on the adjacent unit with concrete grey flags to the service yard. It is proposed that palisade fencing is constructed to the rear boundary with paladin mesh fencing to the front. It is proposed that the vertical grey merlin cladding is continued along the proposed new building with metallic silver horizontal composite cladding.

In support of the application the following documents have been provided: A design and Access Statement, Ecological Walkover Survey, Site Waste Management Plan, A Phase 1 Environmental Review, A Transport Statement, Planning Statement, Plans and Draft Heads of Terms. 

Site History
00/41657/OUT - Outline planning application for the development of land to form Commerce Park (55740 sq m of gross floorspace) including light industrial, general industrial, warehousing uses and intermodal facility  - Permitted
08/56657/FUL - Erection of extension to existing industrial storage building for B2 and B8 uses with two storey offices, loading yard and associated car parking - Withdrawn

Publicity
Press Notice: 4th September 2008
Site Notice: 21st August 2008
Neighbours Notified: 29th August 2008

Representations
No letters of representation have been received in response to the application.

Consultations
Urban Vision Environment
Have requested that a condition is attached which relates to contaminated land.

British Waterways Board
No objections to the development however recommends that a condition is attached which ensure that the site is drained in such a way that contaminants from the site do not leach into the canal, and also that a contribution is made through a section 106 agreement  for the upgrading and maintenance of the towpath/footpath.

Bury, Bolton and Manchester Canal Society
Object to the proposal on the grounds that: 
•	The disturbance of the land would cause leaching into the canal 
•	The application does not identify the Bury, Bolton and Manchester Canal as having the potential to become contaminated
•	The application suggest the canal is disused but makes no reference to the restoration works taking place further along the canal
•	At present the canal is filled with surface water run-off but in future it is intended that the canal becomes navigable and therefore contamination should not be exacerbated unless satisfactory mitigation can be carried out
•	The visual impact of the development
•	The Council should request a section 106 agreement to assist in the restoration of the canal at this point 
•	There is potential to link directly to the tow path of the canal via the underfilled Park Lane Bridge to enhance greener routes which the canal can currently provide

Police Architectural Liaison Unit
No objections. It has been advised that the building be constructed according to secured by design standards.

Drainage
Installation of septic tank will require approval from United Utilities and the Environment Agency. Maximum discharge to surface water sewer should be agreed with United Utilities and oil interceptors may be required on storage areas and parking areas.

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit
The application site is adjacent to Brindle Heath Junction Site of Biological Importance (SBI). It is recommended that a suitably robust fence is erected and maintained between the application site and the SBI at the southern boundary of the site to prevent any possible damage to the SBI during construction and operation of the development. 

Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
Advice has been produced through the PADHI system as the site is close to a hazardous site (Hercules Ltd, Langley Road). The outcome is that the HSE does not advise on safety grounds against the granting of planning permission in this case.

Economic Development
Supports the application. 

United Utilities
No objections to the proposals so long as the site is drained on a separate system with only foul drainage connected into the foul sewer. Surface water should discharge into the watercourse/soakaway/surface water sewer and may require the consent of the Environment Agency. A number of separate informatives have also been requested.

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive
There is already a section 106 agreement in place for Agecroft Commerce Park which includes the sum of 90,000 for provision of a bus service. In view of this it is suggested that a developer contribution is sought from this application to add to the monies already collected for other parts of the park so that provision of a bus service can be made.

Environment Agency
No objections to the proposals however it has been requested that a condition is attached which relates to contaminated land. A number of informatives have also been requested which relate to Japanese knotweed, green/brown roof systems (incorporating planting on the roofs of buildings), enhancing wildlife corridors and further ecological surveys.

Highways
No objections

The Development Plan
Adopted Regional Spatial Strategy
Policy DP1: Spatial Principles
Policy DP 4 Make the Best Use of Existing Resources and Infrastructure
Policy DP 9 Reduce Emissions and Adapt to Climate Change

Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
ST3 (Employment Supply)
ST11 (Location of New Development)
DES1 (Respecting Context)
DES7 (Amenity of Users and Neighbours)
DES9 (Landscaping)
DES10 (Design and Crime)
E5 (Development within Established Employment Areas)
A2 (Cyclists Pedestrians and the Disabled)
A10 (Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle parking in New Development)
EN8 (Nature Conservation and Sites of Local Importance)
EN10 (Protection of Species)
EN16 (Contaminated Land)
EN18 (Protection of Water Resources)
DEV4 (Development Close to Hazardous Uses)
DEV5 (Planning Conditions and Obligations)
CH7 (Manchester Bolton and Bury Canal.)
 
Other Material Considerations
Supplementary Planning Documents
Planning Obligations
Sustainable Design and Construction
Design and Crime
PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development
PPG4 - Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms
PPS9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
PPG13 - Transport
PPS23 - Planning and Pollution Control

Appraisal

Principle of Development
Policy ST3 of the Adopted Unitary Development plan requires that a good range of local employment opportunities will be secured by maintaining and adequate supply and variety of buildings for employment purposes, protecting and increasing the attractiveness of existing employment areas, enabling the diversification of the local economy and using planning obligations to secure local labour contracts and training opportunities.

The site does not fall within a designated employment area however the area, and site has a history of planning consent for this type of use.

Although this unit is a new unit which could be operated separately from the existing unit, it is connected by a small link structure and is intended as an extension to the existing operations of Squirrel Storage. It is considered that the employment opportunities could be significantly increased by the creation of this new unit although the applicant has not stated the number of jobs which will be created. 

As the site falls within an existing employment area it is considered that the opportunity can be taken to improve and enhance this part of the commerce park through good design and landscaping of the surrounding area. The site forms part of the Agecroft Commerce Park which has been subject to ongoing development of this kind, and is now almost completely built out with infrastructure in place and many units occupied.

In addition to this the applicant has provided draft heads of terms which set out financial contributions to amongst other things construction training in accordance with the requirements of Policy ST3.

Policy ST11 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that sites for development should be brought forward in a sequential order giving preference to the re-use and conversion of existing buildings followed by previously developed land in locations that are or could be made to be accessible and are well related to housing, employment, services and infrastructure and finally undeveloped land in accessible locations.

The site is part of the Agecroft Commerce Park and was previously part of the Agecroft Colliery site and as such constitutes previously developed brownfield land. The development would involve the erection of a new building as opposed to the reuse of an existing building and so is not the most sequentially preferable option. However given the size and type of operation taking place on site and the amount of floorspace required it would be difficult to accommodate within an existing building. In addition to this the site is within walking distance of a main bus route along Agecroft Road which links to the nearby centres of Swinton and Eccles. The site is also considered to be reasonably accessible by bicycle and there are dedicated cycle lanes along Agecroft Road itself. For these reasons it is considered that the development would be accessible would be in accordance with the objectives of policy ST11 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.

The amount of landscaping which could be expected around the site is limited as there is little remaining space. However the main roads into the park have been heavily landscaped in the past. It is considered that some landscaping may be appropriate along the boundary of the site closest to the canal and as such a condition has been attached to require a scheme to be submitted.

Amenity
Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that developments respect the context of the area within which they are set and respond to the positive physical characteristics of that area.

Policy DES7 of the Adopted Unitary Development plan requires that developments provide an adequate level of amenity for the future occupiers of the development and also for the users of other nearby developments.

The area is predominantly industrial in its character with no residential units in the immediate locality. The closest residential units are approximately 400 metres away to the west. The proposed building is taller than the building which stands directly adjacent. However there are buildings of a similar scale such as the Bunzl building to the west of the site. Given that the area is industrial in nature and the park is established it is not considered that the building would look out of character. The building would not be highly visible from any public highway, although may be seen from the disused railway running to the east of the commerce park. 

Policy CH7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan states that the line of the canal should be protected and development which would prejudice the reinstatement of the canal and its tow path would not be permitted.

The Bolton, Bury and Manchester Canal Society have raised the issue of loss of visual amenity for people using the canal and the towpath, however it is considered that as the development is a significant distance from the canal and is seen against the backdrop of other similar buildings within the Commerce Park and as such would not appear overly intrusive.

It is not considered likely that the building would be highly visible from any residential properties as it would be seen in the context of the other buildings within the Commerce Park and also industrial buildings further east on Holland Street. The proposed building would not extend any closer to any residential units than the existing buildings within the park. The residential properties to the north-west and west are separated from the site by an embankment and a railway line. There are also a number of mature trees between the two. Therefore it is not anticipated that the occupiers of these dwellings would experience any significant loss of either visual or residential amenity as a result of the development. 

Urban Vision Environment do not raise any concerns in relation to noise and air quality and consider that the proposed unit is a sufficient distance from any residential units so as not to have any detrimental impact upon their amenities.

For these reasons it is considered that the appearance of the development is acceptable and would not have any significant impact upon the amenities of nearby occupiers of other developments and as such would be in accordance with Policies DES1 and DES7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.

A condition has been attached which requires that samples of all materials to be used for the elevations, roof, windows and doors be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development.

In addition to this a condition has been attached which requires a landscaping scheme to be submitted and approved.

Design and Crime
Policy DES10 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that developments provide security but also that any security measures put in place are of a high standard of design, and do not create areas of concealment or appear hostile.

The application includes the erection of paladin fencing around the car parking and surfacing areas. Given that the area is industrial it is considered that this type of fencing is appropriate in this location. A condition has been attached to require the colour treatment to be agreed prior to installation of the fence. The Police Architectural Liaison Unit have suggested that an informative is attached which requires the building to be constructed according to Secured by Design standards. This informative has been attached.

Access & Parking
Policy A2 of the Adopted Unitary Development plan requires that development proposals make adequate provision for safe and convenient access by cyclists pedestrians and the disabled and  other people with limited or impaired mobility.

Policy A10 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that adequate provision is made for disabled drivers, cyclists and motorcyclists in accordance with the minimum car parking standards, not exceed the maximum car parking standards and provide parking facilities in a manner consistent with the provision and maintenance of adequate standards of safety and security.

The development includes the creation of a car park to the south east of the proposed building. This provides 41 car parking spaces and three spaces for disabled people. Provision is also made for parking bicycles, and there is also space within the car park to park motorcycles. 

The entrance to the building is located adjacent to the car park and therefore would be easily accessible for the disabled or other people with limited or impaired mobility. It would also be safe and convenient for pedestrians to access the building as they would not have to cross the service area. For these reasons it is considered that the development would be in accordance with Policies A2 and A10 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan. 

A condition has been attached to require that the access road and car parking area is constructed, made available for use and maintained as such thereafter.

Environmental Issues
Ecology
Policy EN10 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that development which would be likely to have an adverse impact upon protected species will only be permitted where mitigation measures are put in place to maintain the  population level of the species.

The applicant has submitted, as part of the application an Ecological Walkover Survey. This found that the dominant habitat on the site was semi-improved grassland with woodland scrub with rush and bulrush in parts of the site where shallow waterbodies exist. The survey also found a dense stand of Japanese Knotweed just outside of the western boundary of the site. 

The survey confirmed that due to the nature of flora on the site that it would be unlikely that it could sustain or be a sustainable habitat for great crested newts. However did identify due to the earth on the site which has basking potential that some reptiles may be on site. In addition there are no mature trees on the site and no existing buildings therefore it was found to also be unlikely to find bats on the site. Similarly, given the lack of substantial waterbodies on the site it was found to be unlikely that watervole habitats exist here. 

It was found that there may be a possibility that nesting birds are on the site and were recorded on site. It is recommended that in order to reduce disturbance to nesting birds works on site should take place outside of the breeding season (March to August inclusive). Conditions have been attached to this effect.

In relation to the Japanese knotweed a condition has been attached to require a remediation strategy to be submitted and approved in writing.

The site is adjacent to a the Brindle Heath Junction Site of Biological Importance (SBI). Policy EN8 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan states:

Development that would adversely affect the nature conservation value of an SBI will only be permitted where the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the nature conservation interest for which the site is protected or identified as a priority habitat; the detrimental impact upon the nature conservation interest of the site has been minimised as far as practicable; appropriate mitigation is provided to ensure that the overall nature conservation interest of the area is not diminished.

Given that neither the site nor the access road is within the SBI it is not considered that there would be any significant impact upon the nature conservation interest of it nor would any species within it be directly affected. Greater Manchester Ecology Unit have commented that a robust fence should be erected along the southern boundary of the site between the SBI and the development. A condition to require that details of this fence are submitted to and approved in writing prior to the commencement of development.

Contaminated Land
Policy EN16 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that  development proposals on site known or thought to be contaminated will require the submission of a site assessment as part of any planning application, identifying the nature and extent of contamination, the risk it poses to future occupiers/users and the practical remedial measures proposed to deal with the contamination.

The applicant has submitted a Phase 1 Environmental Review however Urban Vision Environment have requested that a condition is attached which relates to a Preliminary Risk Assessment. 

Hazardous Installation
Policy DEV4 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that proposals for development within the vicinity of notifiable installations will not be permitted where they would result in an unacceptable increase in the risk or consequence of a major accident.

The site falls within the outer circle of the consultation zone for the Hercules Ltd site and therefore it has been necessary to consult the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) through the self assessment PADHI+ system. In this case the HSE did not advise on safety grounds against the granting of planning permission in this instance.

Sustainable Design and Construction
The Supplementary planning Document Sustainable Design and Construction requires that developers complete a sustainability checklist to ensure the development would meet a high standard of design whilst remaining sustainable both in their construction and when in operation. 

The applicant has completed the sustainability checklist and proposes a number of measures to ensure that the objectives of the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD are delivered. These measures include incorporating water saving devices within the building, using sustainable construction techniques, facilities to recycle waste and provision of secure cycle stands. The applicant has confirmed that the building will achieve a BREEAM rating of ‘very good’ and as such it is considered that it would be sufficiently sustainable in line with the SPD.

Pollution to the Bury Bolton and Manchester Canal
The Bury Bolton and Manchester Canal Society have raised objection to the proposed development on the grounds that the canal may be polluted if the land is disturbed. It is considered that the Canal is at a sufficient distance from the site so as not to be significantly affected during the construction process. It is not considered that the development is of a size and scale which would significantly increase the level of pollution entering the canal through leaching. However a condition has been attached which requires details of site drainage during construction to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to minimise the amount of potential contamination to the canal. 

In order to ensure that the canal is protected during construction, a condition has been attached which requires a Construction Environmental Management Plan to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The Society also suggests the Council should request a section 106 agreement to assist in the restoration of the canal at this point. The applicant has agreed to contribute through a section 106 agreement to Public Realm, Infrastructure and Heritage. Therefore if deemed necessary, some of this contribution could be used toward the restoration of the canal.

The issue of visual amenity was also raised. However again, it is considered that the building is of a sufficient distance to protect the visual amenity of the users of the canal or its towpath. However it is considered that the distance between the buildings and the canal is sufficient to protect the visual amenity of users of the towpath. In addition to this there are trees and shrubs separating the site from the canal which help to screen the development.

Developer Contributions
Policy DEV5 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that developments that would have an adverse impact upon any interests of acknowledged importance or would result in a material increase in the need or demand for infrastructure, services, facilities and or maintenance will only be granted planning permission subject to planning conditions or planning obligations that would ensure adequate mitigation measures are put in place.

As part of the outline permission for the majority of the commerce park a s106 agreement was put in place to allow for contributions toward the improvement in bus services to access the park. Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) have requested that a further financial contribution is made to the improvement of bus services in the area. The applicant has submitted draft heads of terms and has agreed that the contribution in relation to public realm, infrastructure and heritage is based on a fee of £20 per m2. The development would create a total of 6918m2 of non-residential floorspace. This equates to a contribution of £138,360 by the developer into public realm, infrastructure and heritage, some of which may be used to further improve the bus services to the park.

The applicant has confirmed that a contribution of £1.50/m2 will be made towards construction training. This equates to a contribution of £10,377. 

The applicant does not consider that any contribution should be made in relation to Climate Change as the development would achieve a BREEAM rating of ‘very good’ and as such already contributes to reducing the impacts of climate change. This is considered to be acceptable, subject to a condition which ensures that this is the case.

The total developer contribution plus a 2.5% administration fee totals £152,455.42.

Conclusion
In conclusion it is considered that the development would not lead to any detrimental impact upon the character of the area or visual or residential amenity, nor would it lead to any impact upon the environment subject to conditions. For these reasons it is considered that the development is acceptable and would be in accordance with all of the relevant policies within the Adopted Unitary Development Plan. The developer has also agreed to contributions through a section 106 agreement in line with requirements of the Planning Obligations SPD. Therefore it is recommended that the application is approved subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

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

2.	Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the materials for the roofs, walls, windows and doors of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

3.	The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme, which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development is started.  Such 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.  Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be with the same species within twelve months.

4.	Prior to the commencement of development a fence shall be constructed along the southern boundary of the site. Details of the type of fence to be constructed shall first be agreed in writing by the Local planning Authority and the fence shall be constructed according to the approved scheme. The fence shall remain in situ until such a time as the development is fully complete.

5.	Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no development shall take place on the unit hereby approved until details of measures to achieve BREEAM 'very good' ratings for that phase or unit of development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development of that phase or unit of development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

6.	No development shall commence until survey work (additional to the "walk-over" survey undertaken in June 2008) has been undertaken to discover the location of nesting birds within the development site. If nesting birds are identified, a method statement detailing the measures to be taken to mitigate against any disturbance to nesting birds and the timescales involved in such mitigation should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved method statement shall be implemented in full in accordance with the approved timescales.

7.	The service yard shall be used only for servicing and unloading and shall remain available for so long as the development is in operation.

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

9.	 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

10.	No development shall begin until a scheme detailing how the development will contribute to the improvement of construction skills amongst the local labour force is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to commencement of development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

11.	No development shall begin until details of a scheme for the provision of public realm, heritage enhancements and/or community infrastructure to meet the needs of the development in accordance with Policies ST1 and DEV5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016 and the standards set out in Policy OB2 of the Council's Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to first occupation unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

12.	Prior to the commencement of development full details of the colour of the boundary fencing hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The boundary fencing shall be powder coated in the approved colour prior to installation and shall be maintained as such thereafter.

13.	Prior to first occupation of the building, the bike stands shown on plan 28205-PL07-A shall be in situ and shall remain as such thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

14.	 Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme detailing the method and timescales of the disposal of Japanese Knotweed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The disposal shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme.

15.	Prior to the commencement of development a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All operations shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with those details throughout the construction period within that area of the site, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

16.	The development shall be carried out in full accordance with Plans numbered 28205-PL01-B.

Reason(s)

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

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

3.	To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

4.	To protect the Brindle Heath Junction Site of Biologiclal Importance in accordance with Policy EN8 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.

5.	In order to ensure the conservation of resources, in accordance with Policy EN22 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

6.	In order to ensure than legally protected species are not unacceptably affected, in accordance with Policy EN10 of the Unitary Development Plan.

7.	 In the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy A 8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

8.	To protect the local watercourses in accordance with Policy EN16 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.

9.	To ensure that foul and surface waters are disposed of satisfactorily and to accord with Policy EN16 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan

10.	 To ensure that the development makes an appropriate contribution to the training of local residents and that an adequate supply of construction labour is available to help deliver the scale of development and regeneration being planned for the City of Salford in the interests of social inclusion, environmental sustainability and the promotion of sustainable urban neighbourhoods.  This is in accordance with Policies ST1, ST3 and DEV5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016 and Policy OB3 of the Council's Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.

11.	To ensure adequate provision is made for public realm, heritage enhancements and/or community infrastructure to meet the needs of the development pursuant to Policies ST1 and DEV5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016 and Policy OB2 of the Council's Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.

12.	To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan. 

13.	To encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport and to accord with Policy A10 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.

14.	To ensure that invasive species are not allowed to spread and to ensure satisfactory disposal of species removed.

15.	To ensure that the environment and the safety of local residents, businesses, and the general public in the vicinity of the construction works are satisfactorily protected and in accordance with policies EN17 and DES7 of the Unitary Development Plan.

16.	For the avoidance of Doubt

APPLICATION No:	08/56972/HH

APPLICANT:	Mr And Mrs P Ebsworth

LOCATION:	3 Roseacre Worsley M28 1YT    

PROPOSAL:	Demolition of existing conservatory and erection of first floor side extension and single storey rear extension

WARD:	Boothstown And Ellenbrook

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

This application relates to a large detached property on Roseacre, Worsley. The property and the plot on which it is sited are irregular in shape. The property has an existing single storey side extension, which is to be retained, and an existing rear conservatory, which would be demolished to make way for the proposal. The area is residential in nature and is dominated by large detached dwellings. The front garden of the property is open plan. Boundary treatment to the front/side boundary with 1 Roseacre consists of bushes approximately 2.5m in height. Along the rear/side boundary with 1 Roseacre is 1.8m high fencing. 1 Roseacre has an existing single storey rear extension, which extends the full width of the dwelling. 

The site is bounded to the rear by 6 Averhill. Boundary treatment along this common boundary consists of 1.9m fencing and bamboo type screening, adjacent to the location of the proposed first floor side extension and large mature conifers approximately 3.5m to 4m in height adjacent the location of the proposed single storey rear extension. 6 Averhill has an existing rear conservatory adjacent the boundary with 8 Averhill. 

Boundary treatment along the common boundary with 5 Roseacre consists of 1.8m fencing.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

Permission is sought for the demolition of the existing conservatory and the erection of a first floor side extension and single storey rear extension.

The proposed first floor side extension would be of an irregular shape and would be sited directly on top of the existing single storey side extension. It would be set back approximately 0.7m from the main front elevation of the existing dwelling. It would project approximately 1.6m to the side before extending a further 5.8m forward at an angle and tying into the roof of the existing games room. This element would be approximately 0.45m lower than the main dwelling and would incorporate a hipped roof. Internally it would accommodate a bedroom and en suite.

The proposed single storey rear extension would be sited in the same location as the existing conservatory, which is to be demolished. It would project 3.08m from the main rear elevation and would extend 6.3m in width. It would then step a further 1.6m to the rear before extending a further 4.490m in width. It would be set in approximately 0.1m from the side elevation of the existing dwelling, adjacent the boundary with 5 Roseacre. This element would be approximately 3.4m in height with a pitched roof. Internally it would accommodate a sunroom.

SITE HISTORY

99/40039/HH - Erection of single storey side extension to provide games room, utility room and toilet. Permitted 10/12/1999.

03/46593/HH - Erection of side extension at first floor level above existing games room. Refused 04/09/2003 for the following reasons:
- The first floor side extension would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents living at 1 Rose Acre by reason of its size and siting and is contrary to Policy DEV8 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and Policy DES7 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

04/48575/HH – Erection of first floor side extension. Permitted 19.08.2004. (Committee Decision)

The proposed first floor side extension of the current application is the same as the first floor side extension approved under application 04/48575/HH.

Application 04/48575/HH has not been implemented but is still within time should the applicants which to implement the permission.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

1, 2, 4, 5, 6 Roseacre, Worsley
2, 4, 6, 8 Averhill, Worsley
72 Edenvale, Worsley

REPRESENTATIONS

Six letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of 2 Averhill, 4 Averhill, 6 Averhill, 8 Averhill, 1 Roseacre and 72 Edenvale. The letters raise the following concerns:

•	Out of keeping with area, unsightly, offensive and would have an adverse visual impact on the area.
•	Visual impact of the fist floor extension particularly would be significant.
•	Loss of privacy, loss of amenity, loss of light and overlooking.
•	The size of the proposed extension.
•	The proposal would be intrusive, overbearing and would result in an adverse effect on the enjoyment of the surrounding properties. 

These issues will be considered as part of the appraisal of proposal below.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 

Site specific policies: None
DES1 (Respecting Context)
DES7 (Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 (Alterations and Extensions)

OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS 

House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document. 

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are the impact of the proposed extension on the amenity of the surrounding and future residents, the impact of the proposed development on the character of the area and whether the proposal accords with all relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Documents on House Extensions.

DESIGN  

UDP Policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its physical context and respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated and contribute towards a local identity and distinctiveness. 

UDP Policy DES8 states that planning permission will only be granted for alterations or extensions to existing buildings that respect the general scale, character, rhythm, proportions, details and materials of the original structure and complement the general character of the surrounding area. 
Policy HE8 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted for a two storey side extension that lies within 1m of the side boundary of the dwelling unless the first floor element is set back a minimum of 2m from the front main wall of the property or the ground and first floor elements are set back a minimum of 1m from the front main wall of the property. The reasoned justification also considers that exceptions to the distances set out in this policy will only be made where there is little chance of a serious terracing effect ever occurring, (e.g. dwellings are angle away from each other, dwellings on corner plots, or where the character of the area is such that the introduction of a terracing effect would not be at odds with its character). 

The proposed first floor side extension would be visible from the street. It would be set back approximately 0.7m from the main front elevation of the existing dwelling. The application property is detached and is of an irregular shape. The site is also set at an angle to the adjacent property, 1 Roseacre with the rear elevation of 1 Roseacre directly facing the application site. As such it is considered that the proposed first floor side extension would not have the potential to create a terracing effect.
The proposed side extension would be approximately 0.45m lower than the existing dwelling therefore appearing subordinate. The proposed first floor side extension would incorporate a hipped roof, which would slope upwards away from the road. The application property is set well back from the road and is located on a small cul de sac made up of 15 detached dwellings each one slightly different in size and design. The application property is sited on a large plot and the proposal would maintain a sizable garden area to the front and rear of the property, which would provide the occupiers with a substantial level of amenity space. As such the proposal is considered to be of appropriate scale in relation to the site. The proposed rear extension would not be visible from the street, however it has been designed well and is considered to be in keeping with the existing dwelling. The applicant accounts that materials (roof and walls) would match the existing and a condition would be attached to ensure this. 
It is therefore considered that the design of the proposal would be in keeping with the existing property and would not look out of place or have a significant effect on the character of the area. As such the proposal would not be an incongruous feature in the residential context and would be in accordance with policies HE8, DES1 and DES8.

AMENITY

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

Policy HE1 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted for extensions that do not maintain a minimum distance of 21m between facing principal windows of habitable rooms and a minimum distance of 10.5m between the principal window of any habitable room of the proposed extension and the common boundary with the facing property if applicable.

Policy HE2 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted for extensions that introduce windows or open aspects close to and directly overlooking the gardens of neighbouring dwellings. The term ‘close to’ refers to 5m, however this can be overcome with obscure glazing, except to principle habitable room windows.

Policy HE3 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted for a two-storey or first floor extension that does not maintain a minimum of 13m between its blank gable end wall and facing ground floor principal windows of habitable rooms of neighbouring dwellings. The same distance applies for proposed extensions that face a two storey blank gable end wall.

Policy HE4 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted for a single storey extension that does not maintain a minimum distance of 9m between its blank gable end wall and facing ground floor principal windows of habitable rooms of neighbouring dwellings. This same distance applies for extensions and windows at the same level.

Policy HE5 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted for single storey rear extensions that project beyond a 45 degree line taken from either the mid point of a principal ground floor window of a habitable room or a point 3m along the common boundary from the rear elevation of adjoining or adjacent dwellings.

The proposed first floor side extension would introduce two bedroom windows in its rear elevation. One of the bedroom windows would directly face the habitable room windows in the rear elevation of 4 Averhill. A distance of approximately 22m would be maintained. 

The habitable rooms introduced would not directly face the habitable room windows in the other surrounding properties. 

The proposed new windows would maintain a distance of between 5m and 9m from the common boundary with 6 Averhill.

The proposed single storey rear extension would also introduce windows in its side and rear elevations. The distance maintained from these windows to the common boundaries with 6 Averhill and 5 Roseacre would be in excess of 5m.

The rear elevation of 1 Roseacre would directly face the application site. 1 Roseacre has a single storey rear extension, which has been erected following the previous approval for the first floor side extension at the application property. The rear extension at 1 Roseacre accommodates a kitchen and dining room. Its rear elevation has a kitchen window which would directly face the proposed first floor side extension and patio doors, which serve the dining room, which would be slightly offset from the proposed first floor side extension. A distance of approximately 10.5m would be maintained. The existing single storey side extension at the application site maintains approximately 8m from the rear elevation of 1 Roseacre. The proposed first floor side extension would tie in with the roof of the single storey element and would slope upwards away from 1 Roseacre. Given the existing situation between the application site and 1 Roseacre and that there is an extant permission which permits the same first floor side extension as is proposed under this application it is considered that the proposal would not be of such detriment to the living conditions of the occupiers of 1 Roseacre to justify the refusal of this proposal.

The rear elevation of 6 Averhill has no habitable room windows at ground floor level and would not directly face the proposed first floor side extension.  

The rear elevations of 72 Edenvale and numbers 2 and 8 Averhill would not directly face the proposed first floor side extension and would maintain a distance of between 16m and 25m.

The side elevation of the proposed rear extension would directly face the side elevation of 5 Roseacre. 5 Roseacre has no windows in its side elevation.

The application property is set at an angle to the adjacent property, 5 Roseacre. As such the proposed single storey rear extension would not be visible form the rear elevation of 5 Roseacre.

CONCLUSION

In terms of design the proposal is considered to be acceptable. It is considered that the proposed first floor side extension would not result in a further detrimental impact on the occupiers of surrounding properties than the extant permission granted under application 04/48575/HH. It is also considered that the proposed single storey rear extension would not result in an unacceptable detrimental impact on the occupiers of surrounding properties. The application would therefore be in accordance with all relevant policies within the Unitary Development Plan and House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document and there are no other material considerations that outweigh those policies.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

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

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

Reason(s)

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

2.    To ensure the development fits in with the existing building in accordance with policy DES1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

Note(s) for Applicant

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

2.	The applicant is advised that their site lies within 250m of a former landfill site.  In the event that landfill gas is migrating, suitable precautions need to be undertaken to avoid the ingress of landfill gas into the new extension or existing house.  It is strongly advised that the detailed design specification incorporates suitable measures to mitigate against the ingress of landfill gas.  Any measures would be expected to conform to the standards contained in the 1990 Building research Establishment Report "Construction of new buildings on gas-contaminated land"

3.	Please note this permission relates to drawing numbers 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 received 15th September 2008.

APPLICATION No:	08/56850/DEEM3

APPLICANT:	New Deal For Communities/Salix Homes Ltd

LOCATION:	12-114 Gerald Road, 1-7 St Georges Place, 1-83, 10-28 Lichfield Street, 2-24 Rugeley Street, 2-24, 1-23 Manifold Street, 2-12, 1-27 Tabley Street And 1-43, 2-10 Walsall Street Salford 6      

PROPOSAL:	Environmental improvements to include 1.2m, 1.8m and 2.4m high fences and gates, associated tree planting and dropped vehicular crossings

WARD:	Winton

Description of Site and Surroundings 

The application relates to a series of properties located on Gerald Road, St Georges Place, Litchfield Street, Tabley Street, Walsall Street, Manifold Street and Rugeley Street. These streets make up part of a large residential housing estate in Charlestown and as such, with the exception of a commercial unit and an electricity substation to the east of the dwellings at the properties at 114 Gerald Street and 83 Lichfield Street and a communal garden to the east of the properties at 24 to 24 Rugeley Street, the application site is bounded on all sides by residential properties. 

Description of Proposal

Consent is sought for various environmental improvement works. 

It is proposed to erect 1.2m high fences with metal entrance gates along the front boundaries of all the properties and it is also proposed to erect a 1.8m high fence to the side/rear boundaries of the properties at 1 to 7 (odd) Georges Place, 1 to 43 (odd) and 10 Walsall Street, 27 Tabley Street, 23 and 24 Manifold Street and 24 Rugeley Street.  

In addition it is proposed to erect 2.4m high fencing along the side and part of the rear boundaries of the properties at 2 Rugeley Street, 1 and 2 Manifold street, 1 Tabley Street, 31 and 37 Lichfield Street, 12, 62, 64 and 114 Gerald Road together with a section of 2.4m high fencing running off the wall at 7 Reddaway Close in order to allow the alleyways running behind these properties to be gated via the installation of 2.4m high, galvanised steel vehicular alleygates which would be painted black. A 1.8m high fence would mark the southern end of the alleyways behind Tabley Street and manifold Street and Manifold Street and Rugeley Street. 

As part of the works the alleyway running from the southern end of Tabley Street to Manifold Street will be widened by taking some of the side garden of the properties at 27 Tabley Street and 24 Manifold Street, resurfaced and a series of four 0.75m high chicanes installed. 

Site History

None

Publicity

A press notice was published on the 11th of September
A site notice was published on the 8th of September

The following neighbour addresses were notified – 

1 to 22 Heraldic Court
1 to 9 and 1B, 2B, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B,8A 8B, 9A, 9B Petrie Court
2 to 24 (even) Rugely Street
1 to 10 Redddaway Close
1 to 13 and 15 to 27(odd) Tabley Street
1A Suffolk Street
1 to 17 and 19 to 43 Walsall Street
Cromwell Court
St Sebastians presbytery, Gerald Road
5 to 11 (odd), 12 to 54, 56 to 66 (even), 67 to 117 Gerald Road
1 to 24 Manifold Street
1 to 29, 31, 37 to 83 Lichfield Street
2A Norfolk Street
1 to 14 Oswald Close
Cromwell House, Cromwell Road
1 to 7 (odd) St Georges Place

Representations

Three letters have been received in response to this application, one of which is not objecting but requesting similar works on their area of the estate, stating that it is unfair that all improvement works are carried out on the outskirts of the estate in the areas that are visible from the adjoining areas. A telephone message was received from a fourth neighbour who claimed to have dropped off a 4-page objection letter. This letter was never received and the objector has failed to return officers calls to discuss their concerns. 

The main objections are summarised below – 

•	A series of pedestrian crossing points will be created and these points may restrict occupant’s ability to park outside their houses.
•	Tree planting outside the fronts of houses will reduce light 

Planning permission is not required for the planting of trees nor is it required for the installation of tactile paving to mark pedestrian crossing points and as such the objections raised cannot be addressed under this application. The urban designer responsible for the scheme is however aware of the concerns raised by neighbours and has provided comments on these elements of the scheme. They state that originally the consultation proposals showed trees being planted in front gardens in order to improve biodiversity in the area however as a result of residents concerns these have been removed.  The 6 trees that will be introduced, 4 on the landscaped area at the rear of 1 to 11 Walsall Street and 2 on the landscaped area to the south of 24 Rugeley Street, are small street trees that have been chosen as they only grow to 10m after 10 years and consequently, due to the fact that they would be set away from the rear elevations of the adjoining properties the introduction of these trees would not have an adverse impact upon amenity. With regards to the pedestrian crossings the designer has advised that this will not restrict the ability of residents to park on street as their introduction will not necessitate the introduction of any parking restrictions. 

Consultations

Drainage: No objections

Traffic: No objections

Architectural Liaison Officer – No objections but expressed some concerns over the siting of some of the alleygates back from the edge of the footpath as this would create gathering spaces that would not be overlooked by any neighbouring properties. Advised that consideration needs to be given to the transitional areas between high and low boundary treatments as well as to the siting of the chicanes to ensure that climbing opportunities are not created. In addition the ALO felt that details of maintenance should be provided in order to ensure upkeep. 

Ramblers Association Manchester Area - No objections

The Open Spaces Society: No comments received to date

The Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association: No comments received to date

Peak and Northern Footpaths Society – No comments received to date

The Development Plan

Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan

Site allocation:	None

Other policies	DES1 – Respecting Context
			     DES 7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
			     DES10 – Design and Crime
	                  A2 – Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled

Regional Spatial Strategy

DP1 – Regional Development Principles
MCR2 – Regional Centre and Inner Areas of the Manchester City
MCR4 Northern Part of the Manchester City Region

Other Material Considerations

Design and Crime Supplementary Planning Guidance

Appraisal

The main planning issues relating to this application are the visual impact of the proposed fencing and alley gates and the impact of the development on crime and the fear of crime, and the loss of existing rights of way.

Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that developments respond to their physical context and respects the positive character of the local area.  In assessing applications regard should be had to the existing landscape; the character scale and pattern of streets and building plots; the relationship to existing buildings; the impact, on and quality of views; the scale of the proposed development; the improvement of the existing townscape and public space; the quality of proposed materials and their appropriateness; and the functional compatibility with adjoining land uses.

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

The materials and scale of the proposed development are considered to be appropriate within this location. Although visible, it is not considered that the gates or fencing would significantly affect the amenities of adjacent residents, the visual amenities of the locality or that the fences/gates would be unduly obtrusive within the street scene, particularly with regard to the existing boundary treatments and the other similar boundary treatments throughout the surrounding area. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on visual or residential amenity and therefore complies satisfactorily with Policies DES1 and DES7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan. 

Policy DES10 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires new development to be designed to discourage crime, anti social behaviour and the fear of crime, and support personal and property security.  In assessing applications, proposed development should clearly delineate the different types of spaces, avoid ill-defined or left over spaces; allow natural surveillance; avoid places of concealment and inadequately lit areas; and encourage activity within public places. 

Policy DC18 of the Design and Crime SPD states alley gating should be designed as to make scaling them difficult and their locks should be protected so as to deter tampering and vandalism.  It goes on to say that they should allow views through them. 

There are no issues from a crime prevention point of view with the erection of the 1.2m, 1.8m and 2.4m fencing, as these would be erected to the boundaries of private properties and consideration has been given to reduce climbing opportunities as far as is reasonably possible. 

The Police Architectural Liaison Officer has advised that consideration needs to be given to the siting of the chicanes to ensure that climbing opportunities are not created. Although planning permission is not required for the introduction of the two sets of chicanes, two at the western end of the alleyway, adjacent to 27 Tabley Street and two and the eastern end of the alleyway adjacent to 23 Manifold Street, the designer of the scheme has taken reasonable steps to ensure the chicanes do not form climbing aids - the chicanes have been sited so there is at least 300mm between the fence line and each chicane and the chicanes are located in a position where if they are utilized as climbing aids they will only assist entry into the front gardens of the properties they adjoin. 

The main purpose of the alleygates and fencing is to control the access to the alleyways, in order to prevent anti-social behaviour and damage to private property. In response to the concerns expressed by the police ALO the siting of the alleygates has been amended in order that they run flush with the back of the footway. This, in combination with the fact that the alleygates would be visually permeable ensures that hiding places are not created. The alleygates will incorporate vertical single fencing with no central horizontal bars and as such there would not be any footholds for anyone wishing to climb the gates. 

With regards to maintenance the following steps will be taken in order to ensure that the fencing, gates etc are satisfactorily maintained – 

•	Fencing - The maintenance of fencing will be the responsibility of either the tenant or the homeowner. All properties will be contacted to outlining their responsibilities.
•	Gates and locking systems - All alleygating issues will be dealt with by the Housing & Crime Reduction Team at the Housing Connections Partnership. They will be responsible for distribution of keys for the gated areas, maintenance of locks and gates. The Community Development Team at New Deal will work with residents in the alleygated areas to educate residents about their responsibilities and alleygate etiquette. 
•	Refuse collection - Rugely Street and Manifold Street residents will be responsible for taking their bins outside the gated area to be emptied on collection day. The alleygating areas to the rear of Gerald Road and Lichfield Street will be accessed by bin wagons and negotiations with environmental services are currently underway as to how this will be implemented in terms of access to keys etc.
•	Landscape features - Those that are will be maintained by Environmental Services.
•	Graffiti removal - graffiti removal will be undertaken by Environmental Services with areas of graffiti being reported to the call centre.

It is therefore considered that the proposal in accordance with Policy DES10 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy DC18 of the Design and Crime Supplementary Planning Document which helps to discourage crime, the fear of crime and anti-social behaviour.

Policy A2 of the UDP states: “Development that would result in the diversion or extinguishment of an existing public right of way will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that adequate levels of access for the disabled, pedestrians and cyclists will be maintained to, around and where appropriate, through the site.

The proposed alleygates would restrict the use of the alleyways to the residents adjacent to the alleyway, each of whom will have a key to the alleygates. At present the alleyways provide access to the rear of the properties adjoining them but they are not well-used short cuts. It is therefore considered that pedestrian and cycle traffic can easily be diverted to the footpaths along Gerald Road, Lichfield Street, Tabley Road, Manifold Street and Rugeley Street, all of which are well lit, without any significant increase in travel distance and as such the proposed alleygates will not affect the safe and convenient access to and around the site. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy A2.

Conclusion

It is concluded that the proposed fencing and alleygates are acceptable in terms of design and as a result they will not appear as an incongruous features in the street scene. There are no amenity issues with the proposed fencing and alleaygates, which will help to protect personal and property security. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with all of the relevant policies within the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and therefore the application is recommended for approved subject to conditions. 

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

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

2.	 The alleygates and front gates hereby approved shall be colour treated Moss Green RAL 6005 prior to installation and shall be maintained as such thereafter.

(Reasons)

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

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

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	The alleyways shall not be gated until the appropriate order for the closure or diversion of the public rights of way affected by the development has been made.