Part 1 (Open to the public)	
ITEM NO.	

	REPORT OF THE LEAD MEMBER FOR URBAN VISION PARTNERSHIP LTD

	TO THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGUALTORY PANEL
	ON Thursday, 21 February, 2008

TITLE : PLANNING APPEALS

RECOMMENDATIONS :
THAT THE REPORT BE NOTED

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY :
To set out details of appeals lodge or decided

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS :
(Available for public inspection)
none

ASSESSMENT OF RISK:
N/A

SOURCE OF FUNDING:
N/A

COMMENTS OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR OF CUSTOMER AND SUPPORT SERVICES (or his representative):

1.	LEGAL IMPLICATIONS					Provided by :N/A

2.	FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS				Provided by :N/A

3.	ICT STEERING GROUP IMPLICATIONS			Provided by:N/A

PROPERTY (if applicable):
N/A

HUMAN RESOURCES (if applicable):
N/A

CONTACT OFFICER :
JANET LINDLEY EXT 779 4854

KEY DECISION :
N/A

WARD(S) TO WHICH REPORT RELATE(S):
ALL WARDS

KEY COUNCIL POLICIES:
Performance Management; 

DETAILS (Continued Overleaf)
SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULES

 PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

REPORT ON PLANNING APPEALS DECIDED

Best Value Performance Indicator 204

Planning Appeals: The number of planning appeal decisions allowed against the authority’s decision to refuse on planning applications, as a percentage of the number of planning appeals against refusals of planning applications.

National PI Target: 	Less than 40% of appeals upheld
Local PI Target:	Less than 35% of appeals upheld

Current Performance 	40 %

APPLICATION No:	07/54300/OUT

APPELLANT:	Mr G McMahon

APPEAL SITE:	718 Liverpool Road Eccles M30 7LW    

PROPOSAL:	Outline planning application (to include layout and access) for the erection of a terrace of five dwellings and one building comprising 13 apartments

WARD:	Barton

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Refuse

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal dismissed

DECIDED ON:	14 January 2008

On the 30th of March 2007 an outline application, that included layout and access, for the erection of a terrace of five dwellings and one building comprising 13 apartments on the land at 718 Liverpool Road in Eccles was refused on the basis that – 

The proposed development would not provide an appropriate mix of residential accommodation and would work against the provision of sustainable, mixed communities contrary to policy H1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan, The Council's Housing Planning Guidance, Planning Policy Statement 1: Sustainable Development and Planning Policy Statement 3 : Housing.

The applicant appealed the decision. The Inspector considered the main issues in the determination of the appeal was the effect of the proposed development on the achievement of sustainable mixed communities. 

The Inspector noted that the site adjoins a bus stop and is within a reasonable walk of other stops giving access to several regular and frequent bus services. They also noted that the site is located within 0.5km of the Peel Green Neighbourhood Centre. The Inspector therefore considered that the site has a good level of accessibility. The Inspector stated that the wider area comprises of a mix of high density terraced, semi-detached and detached family housing and as such they considered that in this context and given the good levels of accessibility the flat led development proposed would not materially alter the mix of dwellings in the area, given the mix of unit sizes proposed. 

The Inspector concluded that the proposal would not conflict with the objectives of Policy H1 and Planning Guidance Policies HOU1 and HOU2. Despite this the Inspector dismissed the appeal as the applicant needs to make a contribution to open space provision in accordance with policies R1, R2 and H8 of the adopted UDP and a section 106 has not been signed to secure this nor could payment be secured via a condition as such a negatively worded condition would not satisfy the 6 tests of conditions outlined in circular 11/95. 

APPLICATION No:	07/54073/COU

APPELLANT:	Planet USA Properties Ltd

APPEAL SITE:	97 Liverpool Road Cadishead M44 5BG    

PROPOSAL:	Change of use from shop to shop for the sale of hot food

WARD:	Cadishead

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Refuse

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal dismissed

DECIDED ON:	22 January 2008

Planning permission was refused under delegated powers on the 16th May 2007 for change of use from a shop to a shop for the sale of hot food, for the following reason;

•	The proposed change of use to a shop for the sale of hot food would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties by reason of noise, disturbance, odours and fumes and would therefore be contrary to Policy S4 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

The applicant appealed the decision. The inspector considered that the main issue was the effect of the proposal on the on the living conditions of nearby residents in terms of noise, disturbance, odours and fumes.

The inspector was of the opinion that there were residential properties located within close proximity to the subject premises, and that there would likely to be an adverse effect from noise connected with the use of these premises, and that the proposal would be unduly disturbing for occupiers of nearby flats. Particularly as this noise creation would be likely to be external to the premises and could not be controlled by the installation of double glazing.

The inspector also considered that because of the lack of on-street parking to the front of premises that, customers may park an adjacent residential streets which may lead to additional disturbance.

Whilst the inspector considered that fumes could be mitigated by the installation of suitable extraction equipment. The inspector held the view that the proposed use would nethertheless be unduly disturbing for occupiers of nearby flats and that the proposal would be in conflict with policy S4 of the City of Salford UDP and the aims of Council’s Supplementary Planning Document, Hot Food Takeaways 

The Inspector therefore dismissed the appeal.

APPLICATION No:	06/52746/OUT

APPELLANT:	Chester Developments

APPEAL SITE:	Land Formerly Mitchell Shackleton  Green Lane Eccles M30 0RP   

PROPOSAL:	Outline planning application for the development of land for residential purposes to include means of access

WARD:	Eccles

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Refuse

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal dismissed

DECIDED ON:	11 December 2007

Introduction

As you may already be aware, the Council were successful in defending the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel’s decision to refuse outline planning permission (with all matters reserved, except access) for residential development on the former Mitchell Shackleton Works Site (Ref: 06/52746/OUT).

To briefly re-cap, the Council refused permission for the following reasons: 

1. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the development would not compromise the operating conditions of adjacent employment uses and that there is no current or likely future demand for the site and buildings for employment purposes, contrary to Policy E5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

2. The proposed development would result in the unacceptable loss of an existing site to the detriment of employment supply within the City. The proposal is contrary to Policies E4/8, ST3 and E5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

The decision to dismiss the appeal was taken by the Secretary of State (SoS) on 11 December 2007 after the Inspector recommended that permission be refused. 

Key Issues

The appeal focused primarily on the loss of employment land, housing supply and need, noise and accessibility.  A summary of the main issues arising is provided below:

Loss off Employment Land

Although it was found that that there was a quantitative oversupply of employment land in Salford to meet UDP requirements (i.e. to 2016) due to lower than anticipated take-up rates, it was accepted that there was a clear need to plan ahead beyond the life of the UDP.  Given the economic assumptions in the UDP were found to be sound and that the Draft RSS employment land allocations remain uncertain, the appellant’s quantitative oversupply assertions were given limited weight.  Importantly, the SoS stated that a decision on the need to retain the site for employment purposes should be taken as part of the Council’s comprehensive review of commitments as part of the wider LDF process.

The SoS agreed with the Inspector that there is a qualitative need for the provision of employment at the site due to the displacement of firms from the Regional Centre, the site’s sustainable location, high unemployment rates and little evidence of choice of secondary employment sites in the area.  It was also found that the site had been inadequately marketed and despite these limitations the evidence suggests that demand exists if redevelopment was economically viable.  The appellant’s assertion that redevelopment for employment purposes was not viable was rejected after their figures were challenged and scrutinised during the inquiry.   

In short, the SoS found that it had not been conclusively demonstrated that the there is no current or likely future demand for the site for employment purposes and therefore the proposals would conflict with the UDP.

Housing Supply and Need

The SoS accepted that the evidence suggests that Salford has a deliverable, five-year supply of housing and that there was a need for additional, including affordable, family housing in this part of the City.  Significantly, the SoS questioned whether the proposal would address this need as the indicative plans suggested apartments would predominate, uncertainties over the site’s developable area due to noise constraints remain and an appropriate level of affordable housing had not been fully assessed and secured at the initial outline stage.  Therefore, little weight was given to the proposal when measured against the use of the site for employment purposes.  Similarly, the appellant’s proposal to build a zero carbon development, though welcomed, was not considered to outweigh the fundamental, ‘in principle’ conflicts with planning policy.

Noise

The SoS found that the site would be a noisy place to live due to its proximity to the M602 and surrounding industrial uses.  Ongoing uncertainties over the amount of the site that could be developed for housing remain, as reliable noise readings could not be taken until the existing industrial buildings had been demolished.  As such, it could not be conclusively demonstrated that the proposal would deliver acceptable densities that would make the most efficient use of the land.  This was seen as a serious omission that was given significant weight in reaching the decision.  
 
Accessibility

The SoS agreed with the Inspector that despite conditions requiring a travel plan and infrastructure improvements, the site, in the context of Salford, was not particularly accessible for residential development and the majority of trips would be made by car.  It was however deemed to be a sustainable location for employment development.

Overall Conclusion

The SoS’s overall conclusion was as follows:

“The Secretary of State concludes that, as it has not been demonstrated conclusively that there is no current or likely demand for the appeal site for employment purposes, the appeal proposal would be contrary to the development plan. At the same time, the Secretary of State finds that, although there may be a case for the release of more housing land in Salford, it is far from clear that the type of development envisaged by the appellant in this location would contribute to meeting identified needs. She also considers that, even if there were good policy reasons for endorsing a change of use to housing on this site, the lack of information on the impact of noise on the capacity of the site and the uncertainties relating to the provision of affordable housing mean that the appeal proposal as it currently stands is insufficiently well-developed to permit adequate consideration of whether it should proceed. The Secretary of State therefore concludes that there are no material considerations of sufficient weight to justify going against the development plan”. 

Right to challenge the decision

The appellant’s right to challenge the decision in the High Court expired on 22 January 2008.

APPLICATION No:	07/54017/FUL

APPELLANT:	The Manse Day Nursery

APPEAL SITE:	The Manse Nursery 1 Cambridge Grove Eccles M30 9AP   

PROPOSAL:	Erection of a porch and conservatory

WARD:	Eccles

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Approve

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal upheld

DECIDED ON:	1 October 2007

Planning permission was refused contrary to Officer recommendation, by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel, on the 15th March 2007. The Inspector considered that the main issue in this case was the effect of the development upon the living conditions of neighbours.

The Inspector described the proposed conservatory as being contained within the area defined by the existing wall forming the shared boundary with number 13 Belgrave Crescent and Cambridge Grove and would be located in an area, which is currently used for outdoor play. 

The Inspector concluded that so long as a condition is attached which restricts the windows within the elevation facing number 13 Belgrave Crescent to only being obscured, and of the fixed un-opening type, that the extension would reduce the level of disturbance, as the play which takes place in this area at present would be contained within the proposed extension. This would result in outdoor play taking place further away from the neighbour at number 13 Belgrave Crescent and therefore the amenity of this neighbour would be improved.

The Inspector allowed the appeal and permitted the development to take place contrary to the decision of the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel.

APPLICATION No:	07/54217/FUL

APPELLANT:	Mr Bellini

APPEAL SITE:	198 Monton Road Eccles M30 9LJ    

PROPOSAL:	Change of use from shop to restaurant

WARD:	Eccles

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Approve

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal upheld

DECIDED ON:	7 November 2007

Planning permission for the change of use of 198 Monton Road from an A1 retail unit to a restaurant was refused by Members of the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel on the 12th of February 2007 on the basis that – 

The proposal does not provide any on site parking for disabled persons. As such the proposed development fails to make adequate provision for safe and convenient access by the disabled and those with limited mobility, contrary to policy A2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

The proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of noise and disturbance created by the comings and goings of customers and waste disposal activities, the impact of which would be intensified by the late evening opening hours. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy S4 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

The refusal was contrary to officer recommendation. 

The applicant appealed the decision. The Inspector considered the main issues to be the implications of the appeal proposal with regards to disabled access and the effect of the appeal proposal on neighbours living conditions. 

The Inspector was of the opinion that although the proposal would not provide any parking for disabled persons there is adequate provision for safe and convenient parking by the disabled and those with limited mobility in the vicinity of the appeal premises. To substantiate this statement the Inspector highlighted the 7 disabled bays within the public car park on Partington Street and the parking bay adjacent to the appeal site. 

With regards to amenity of neighbouring residents the Inspector noted that given during the day there would be little impact in terms of noise and disturbance over and above the general noise and disturbance in the locality. In the evening the Inspector considered that the noise and disturbance from the proposed restaurant would be limited to the entrance and exit of the premises as those visiting the restaurant are most likely to park in the public car park or arrive by other means, given the level of resident parking that exists on Highfield Drive. The Inspector considered that the main entrance is located some distance from the residential properties on Highfield Drive and the side entrance is sufficiently distant from these dwellings to ensure that noise created by the entrance and exit of customers would have no significant effect on the living conditions of those on Highfield Drive. With regards to the amenity of those occupying the flats above the appeal site the Inspector considered that any noise and disturbance emanating from the appeal premises could be mitigated via soundproofing.  It was considered by the Inspector that a fume extraction system would overcome any significant odours, which may affect neighbour’s living conditions. 

For these reasons the inspector upheld the appeal, granting permission for the change of use subject to a number of conditions - 
  
•	Development to start within 3 years. 
•	Details of the soundproofing measures that will be implemented to protect the amenity of the two flats above the appeal premises to be submitted, approved and implemented prior to the first use of the premises as a restaurant
•	Details of the fume extraction system to be submitted, approved and implemented prior to the first use of the premises as a restaurant
•	Details of the alterations to the first floor kitchen window to be submitted, approved and implemented prior to the first use of the premises as a restaurant
•	Details of how the side door will be used solely as an emergency exit to be submitted, approved and implemented prior to the first use of the premises as a restaurant

APPLICATION No:	07/54611/COU

APPELLANT:	Mr Usman Fiyaz

APPEAL SITE:	50 Liverpool Road Eccles M30 0WA    

PROPOSAL:	Change of use from shop to shop for the sale of hot food

WARD:	Eccles

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Refuse

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal dismissed

DECIDED ON:	28 January 2008

Planning permission was refused under delegated powers on the 11th July 2007, on the grounds that the resulting use would have an unacceptable impact upon nearby residential occupiers by reason of noise and general disturbance from activity within and around the site contrary to Policy S4 of The Adopted Unitary Development Plan, that insufficient information has been submitted in relation to fume extraction to allow proper assessment of the proposal in relation to visual amenity, odour, noise and nuisance contrary to Policy S4 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan, and because the applicant had failed to provide sufficient justification for the loss of an A1 retail unit nor had evidence been submitted to demonstrate that there is no appropriate alternative use for this unit and therefore the development would be contrary to Policy S3 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.

The inspector considered the main issues in determining this appeal to be the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of people living nearby in terms of noise, disturbance and odours and secondly, whether the loss of a retail unit would be acceptable.

The inspector found that the nature of the proposed use was likely to unduly affect neighbours by reason of noise.

The Inspector also noted that cooking smells generated from the proposed takeaway would have a harmful effect upon the living conditions of the occupiers of the first floor flats due to odours emitted from the cooking of food, and noted that this was likely to be worse in summer months when residents windows would be open. The Inspector concluded this point by stating that the details submitted in respect to the fume extraction system were not sufficient to ensure that fumes and odours would be successfully eliminated.

The Inspector noted the positive points of the proposal being that the development would provide a local facility for the community and would provide employment opportunities, however this would not outweigh the negative impacts of the development.

Given that there were a number of vacant shops in the row and that the premises had been on the market for more than 12 months, the Inspector disagreed that the development would result in an over-concentration of non-A1 units.

The Inspector subsequently dismissed the appeal due to the impact upon nearby residential occupiers.

APPLICATION No:	06/53445/FUL

APPELLANT:	Steven Dorsey

APPEAL SITE:	Land Forming Side Garden Of 82 Liverpool Road Irlam M44 6FN    

PROPOSAL:	Erection of one detached dwelling

WARD:	Irlam

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Approve

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal upheld

DECIDED ON:	30 January 2008

Planning permission was refused on the 20th April 2007, by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel, contrary to Officer recommendation on the grounds that the proposed development by virtue of its siting scale and massing would have an unacceptable and detrimental impact upon the residential amenities of occupiers of St Clements Court contrary to Policy DES7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan, and that insufficient information had been submitted in relation to parking and manoeuvring within the site to properly assess the implications of the development on highway safety.

The Inspector considered the main issues associated with the appeal to be the principle of the development of a dwelling on the site, the impacts upon the amenity of nearby occupiers and the effect upon highway safety.

The Inspector notes that the application is for a 2-storey detached dwelling, set back from the front boundary by 6 metres. At its closest the development would be sited 1 metre from the common boundary with the grounds of Clements Court, and a number of the flats have a direct outlook onto the development site. The Inspector states that there would be a distance of 15 metres from these windows to the application site, and given this, the Inspector considered that the amenities of these neighbours in terms of daylight and sunlight would not be unduly diminished, nor would the development have an overbearing presence to the outlook of these flats. In addition the angle of the proposed building would ensure that no direct overlooking would take place.

In relation to highway safety, the Inspector concludes that the extent of the area available for parking and manoeuvring is clearly apparent in the plan, and that there is sufficient space for the parking and turning of two vehicles to enable suitable access to and egress from the necessary off-street car parking spaces. 

The Inspector subsequently allowed the development contrary to the decision of the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel.

APPLICATION No:	07/54183/FUL

APPELLANT:	Watkin Jones Construction

APPEAL SITE:	Land Between The River Irwell,  Gerald Road And Seaford Road Salford 6    

PROPOSAL:	Erection of five three part/part four storey student halls comprising 535 units, to retail unit, two hot food takeaways with associated landscaping, car parking and vehicular and pedestrian accesses with variation to condition 2 (opening hours for hot food takeaways) on planning permission 03/46380/FUL

WARD:	Irwell Riverside

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Refuse

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal dismissed

DECIDED ON:	27 November 2007

Planning permission was granted on 18.09.2003 for the erection of five part three/part four storey student halls comprising 535 units, two retail units, two hot food takeaways (A3) together with associated landscaping, carparking and construction of new and alterations to existing vehicular and pedestrian access.

The appeal related to a dispute regarding one of the conditions attached to this planning permission: That A3 use shall not be operated on Sundays and Bank Holidays and shall only be operated between the hours of 0800 and Midnight on any other day. The reasoning for this was to safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV1 of the UDP.

The Inspector considered the main issues regarding the development as being the significant likelihood of noise and disturbance arising at unsocial times from premises such as the takeaway, as well as from the student accommodation. The appellant based the case for their appeal largely on likely noise levels on the disputed evenings not differing from the rest of the week. However, the Inspector did not consider this to be the main issue.

The Inspector was of the opinion that local residents should reasonably expect some respite from the activities of hot food takeaways in their neighbourhood, and whilst the condition above would not achieve this, it would at least avoid the exacerbation of a potentially unsatisfactory situation.

The Inspector subsequently dismissed the appeal.

APPLICATION No:	07/54049/HH

APPELLANT:	B Dzieciolkiewicz

APPEAL SITE:	34 Ukraine Road Salford M7 3TE    

PROPOSAL:	Erection of part single, part first floor rear extension (re-submission of planning application 06/53606/HH)

WARD:	Kersal

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Approve

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal upheld

DECIDED ON:	18 December 2007

In March 2007 planning permission was refused for the erection of a part single/part first floor rear extension at 34 Ukraine Road in Salford 7. The application was reported to panel on the 15th march 2007 with a recommendation for approval, however the recommendation was overturned and the application was refused on the basis that-

•	The proposed extension would due to it's size and siting have a detrimental impact upon the residential amenity of numbers 32 and 36 Ukraine Road, contrary to Policy DES7 of the Adopted UDP.

The applicant appealed the decision. The Inspector considered the main issue to be 
the effect of the proposed rear extension on the living conditions of neighbouring 
residents.

The Inspector considered that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of 
the occupiers of the adjoining and nearby properties and the proposal complies with 
UDP policy DES7 and SPD policies HE5 and HE7. The Inspector has therefore
allowed the appeal subject to the following condition –

1.	The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than 3 years from the date of this decision

APPLICATION No:	07/55023/FUL

APPELLANT:	Joseph Holt Ltd

APPEAL SITE:	Broadway Inn 32 Broadway Salford M50 2UW   

PROPOSAL:	Retention of garden shelter to rear of public house

WARD:	Ordsall

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Refuse

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal dismissed

DECIDED ON:	30 January 2008

Planning permission was refused under delegated powers on the 7th September 2007 for the Retention of a garden shelter to the rear of a public house for the following reason;

•	The proposed development would be of detriment to the amenities of neighbouring residents by reason of noise and disturbance contrary to the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan Policy DES7.

The applicant appealed the decision. The inspector considered that the main issue was whether the authorisation of the structure would result in noise and disturbance seriously affecting the living conditions of nearby residents.

The inspector was of the opinion that noise from the shelter would be directed across the public house car park to adjacent residential properties and associated private garden areas. Whilst the inspector accepted that some screening used for the structure in the form of a timber fence would provide some mitigation, that this would be far less than if an enclosed building had been used.

The inspector held the view that socialising can produce considerable volumes of noise particularly when alcoholic drinks are being consumed, and the loss of amenity  to nearby residents at unsocial hours could be substantial.  

The inspector felt that a restriction of hours of the shelter would be unreasonable, because the shelter is so intimately part of the pub.

The inspector agreed with the Council that refusal of the shelter as not warranted on design grounds, but concluded that the project failed on the main issue, that the authorisation of the structure would be contrary to policy DES7 of the City of Salford UDP which seeks to protect the amenity of nearby occupiers.

The Inspector therefore dismissed the appeal.

APPLICATION No:	07/54119/FUL

APPELLANT:	Mr G Lupton

APPEAL SITE:	501 Manchester Road Worsley M27 9QN    

PROPOSAL:	New pavement crossing and driveway and conversion of existing garage into a memorial masons showroom

WARD:	Swinton North

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Approve

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal dismissed

DECIDED ON:	2 November 2007

Planning permission was refused on 8th March 2007 by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel on the grounds that the development would cause unacceptable harm and would be detrimental to the residential character of the area contrary to the requirements of Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan, that insufficient information had been submitted to allow proper assessment of the scheme in relation to the need for the development contrary to the requirements of Policy S2 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan, the development would result in excessive manoeuvring at and near to the junction of Manchester Road and Wardley Hall Road due to lack of visitor parking within the site curtilage to the detriment of highway safety, and that the development would result in obstructions to pedestrian/vehicle intervisibility from the driveway to the detriment of highway/pedestrian safety.

The Inspector considered that the main issues associated with the development are the impacts upon the vitality and viability of any town or neighbourhood centre, the living conditions of the occupiers of 1 Wardley Hall Road in respect of any noise and disturbance and reduction in privacy, highway safety and the character and appearance of the area.

The Inspector noted that the premises are located outside of a town or neighbourhood centre, but acknowledges that given the small amount of retail floorspace and the specialist product which would be sold, the nature of the use in this location would be acceptable, and would not have any significant impact upon the vitality or viability of any town or neighbourhood centre.

The Inspector stated that given the location of the appeal site, and the proximity to 1 Wardley Hall Road would be likely to give rise to undue disturbance from visitors and would lead to a significant amount of additional overlooking to the residents at number 1 Wardley Hall Road.

The Inspector stated that at the time of the site visit, Wardley Hall Road was relatively lightly trafficked, and that there is sufficient space for manoeuvring around parked vehicles, and would not cause any issues of highway or pedestrian safety and that the proposal would subsequently accord with Policy S2.

The Inspector acknowledged the issue of design and considered it to be unobtrusive. In addition to this the Inspector states that the issues of emotional stress caused by the development and the level of trespass would not be exacerbated by the development but concludes that by reason of the increase in number of visitors and disturbance, the development would have an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of the adjacent occupier. 

The Inspector subsequently dismissed the appeal.

APPLICATION No:	07/54228/COU

APPELLANT:	Mohammed Akbar

APPEAL SITE:	174 Moorside Road Swinton M27 0LE    

PROPOSAL:	 Change of use from shop to shop for the sale of hot food

WARD:	Swinton North

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Refuse

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal dismissed

DECIDED ON:	30 January 2008

The appeal decision relates to a proposed change of use of a retail unit to a hot food/ fast food takeaway. The Local Planning Authority refused the application on the grounds that;

•	The proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents, particularly 172A, 174A and 176A Moorside Road, by reason of noise, disturbance, fumes and odours. 

The inspector noted the advice provided within Policy S4 of the Salford UDP which seeks to avoid hot food takeaways where the use would have an unacceptable impact upon residential amenities. Further reference was given to the adopted Supplementary Planning Document: Hot Food Takeaways, which provides more explicit guidance regarding the siting of such uses in relation to residential accommodation.

In this instance the inspector noted that there were three self-contained flats at first floor level above both the planning unit and the two adjoining properties. The inspector also considered the use of modern systems of sound insulation and odour extraction, as mentioned within the appellants statement, but considered that where the residential units are in such close proximity, as is the case here, it would be doubtful that they would be able to suitably mitigate the impact of noise and smells arising from this proposal.

The inspector finally noted that the characteristic late night opening hours of such uses, even if limited to midnight, would also be likely to exacerbate the impact of the disturbance felt by the occupants of the neighbouring flats.

The inspector subsequently dismissed the appeal.

APPLICATION No:	07/54572/HH

APPELLANT:	P Cooke

APPEAL SITE:	33 Woodstock Drive Swinton M27 5WB    

PROPOSAL:	Erection of first floor rear extension

WARD:	Swinton South

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Refuse

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal upheld

DECIDED ON:	10 December 2007

In May 2007 planning permission was refused for the erection of a first floor rear extension at 33 Woodstock  Drive in Swinton. The application was refused on the basis that-

•	The proposed extension by reason of its height, design and nearness to the existing properties to the rear on White Swallow Road would adversely affect the amenity, outlook and privacy of neighbouring residential properties contrary to Policy DES7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

The applicant appealed the decision. The Inspector considered the main issue was the implication for neighbours’ living accommodation with particular reference to loss of privacy.

The Inspector considered the degree of separation between the application property and the properties on White Swallows Road was adequate enough as to not result in unacceptable overlooking or loss of privacy. The Inspector therefore allowed the appeal subject to the following conditions-

•	The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than 3 years from the date of this decision
•	No development shall take place until samples of materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

APPLICATION No:	07/54731/FUL

APPELLANT:	Britannia Leased Homes Ltd

APPEAL SITE:	The Fountains Swinton Hall Road Pendlebury Swinton M27 4DZ  

PROPOSAL:	Erection of a two storey extension to existing nursing home

WARD:	Swinton South

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Refuse

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal dismissed

DECIDED ON:	27 December 2007

Planning permission was refused on21.05.2007 for the erection of a two storey extension to an existing nursing home. The Council’s reasons for refusal referred to the unacceptable impact on the amenity of existing and future residents, which it considered rendered the proposal contrary to Policy DES7 of the UDP.

The Inspector considered the main issue of the appeal to be whether the proposal would be harmful for the living conditions of existing and future residents of the nursing home, by reason of the effect on space, sunlight, daylight, privacy and aspect.

The Inspector considered that the proposal complied with Policy A10, regarding parking provision in new development. Although the issue of compliance with DES7 was not mentioned in the initial refusal, the Inspector considered that this was relevant, and was of the opinion that the development did not conform to the issues in this policy.

Regarding the issue of access to daylight, the Inspector was of the opinion that bedrooms and the lounge/dining rooms at ground/first floor level would have poor levels of daylight, and would receive almost no sunlight. Furthermore, the distance between facing windows was two thirds less than recommended in Policy HE1, and this was regarding by the Inspector as being unacceptable.

The Inspector came to the conclusion that the proposal would be harmful to the living conditions of existing and future residents of the nursing home, and whilst acknowledging that the proposal conformed with Policy EHC3 in the respect that there would be no unacceptable impact upon residential amenity and character outside of the site, the conflict with Policy DES7 would render the proposal unacceptable.

In light of the above, the Inspector concluded that the appeal should be dismissed.

APPLICATION No:	07/54435/HH

APPELLANT:	Mr And Mrs Pickup

APPEAL SITE:	51 Ashton Field Drive Worsley M28 3RT    

PROPOSAL:	Erection of conservatory at rear of dwelling

WARD:	Walkden North

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Refuse

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal dismissed

DECIDED ON:	31 October 2007

Planning permission was refused under delegated powers on the 14th May 2007 for the erection of a conservatory to the rear of the dwelling on the basis that:

•	The proposed conservatory by virtue of its size and siting would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the residents at the adjoining dwelling house No. 49 Ashton Field Drive by reason of loss of light, overshadowing, and overbearing development and as such is contrary to Policy HE5 of the Council's Supplementary Planning Document for House Extensions and Policy DES7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

The applicant appealed the decision. The inspector considered that the main issue was the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property.

The Inspector was of the opinion that the proposed conservatory would, as a result of its proposed size in such proximity to no.49, would have an overbearing impact on the occupants of no.49 and would result in loss of light to the occupants of no.49. The Inspector concluded that the proposed conservatory would not comply with Policy HE5 of the Supplementary Planning Document on House Extensions and is also contrary to Policy DES7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

The Inspector therefore dismissed the appeal.

APPLICATION No:	07/54769/HH

APPELLANT:	L Riley

APPEAL SITE:	15 Charlton Fold Worsley M28 3SU    

PROPOSAL:	Erection of conservatory at rear of dwelling

WARD:	Walkden North

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Refuse

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal dismissed

DECIDED ON:	8 November 2007

Planning permission was refused under delegated powers on the 15th July 2007 for the erection of a conservatory to the rear of the dwelling on the basis that:

•	The proposed rear extension by virtue of its size and siting would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the residents at the adjoining dwelling house no. 14 Charlton Fold by reason of loss of light, overshadowing, and overbearing development, and as such is contrary to Policy HE5 of the Council's Supplementary Planning Document for House Extensions and Policy DES7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.

The applicant appealed the decision. The inspector considered that the main issue was the impact of the size and siting of the conservatory on the living conditions of the occupants of the adjoining dwelling, 14 Charlton Fold.

The Inspector was of the opinion that the proposed conservatory would, as a result of its proposed size and mass in such proximity to no.14, would be overbearing and would result in loss of outlook for its occupants. In addition, the rear elevations of the application site and no.14 face approximately east. The conservatory would therefore obstruct the line of the sun, casting a shadow over no.14 and reducing the amount of sunlight currently enjoyed by the occupants. The Inspector concluded that the proposed conservatory would not comply with Policy HE5 of the Supplementary Planning Document on House Extensions and is also contrary to Policy DES7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

The Inspector therefore dismissed the appeal.

APPLICATION No:            06/53712/FUL

APPELLANT:	Concept Developments (UK) Ltd

APPEAL SITE:	61 Farm Lane Worsley M28 2PG    

PROPOSAL:	Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of five dwellings together with associated car parking and alteration to existing vehicular access

WARD:	Worsley

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal dismissed

DECIDED ON:	1 October 2007

This appeal was against non determination of a planning application. Therefore no decision was made.

There was clear indication in the report submitted by the council that planning permission would have been refused for this development had they been in a position to determine the application. So the inspector considered the main issues to be the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of future occupiers with respect to noise and air quality. 

The inspector concluded that notwithstanding the potential to control internal noise levels by conditions. It was concluded that the overall noise climate at the site would not be conducive to creating an acceptable environment for the occupiers of family size dwelling. With regard to air quality the inspect concluded that introducing additional family dwellings here would increase the number of people at risk form harmful effects of poor air quality on their health with no certainty as to when there would be a prospect of any substantial improvement.

For this reason the appeal was dismissed

APPLICATION No:	07/54386/HH

APPELLANT:	P Riley

APPEAL SITE:	7 Brereton Drive Worsley M28 2GW    

PROPOSAL:	Erection of a detached garage at front of dwelling

WARD:	Worsley

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Refuse

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal upheld

DECIDED ON:	7 January 2008

Planning permission was refused under delegated powers on the 3rd May 2007 for the erection of a detached garage to the front of the dwelling on the basis that:

The proposed development, directly sited on part of Kempnough Brook, would be detrimental to the future maintenance of this water course and could result in localised flooding contrary to the provisions of Policy EN19 (Flood Risk and Surface Water) of the City of Salford UDP 2004-2016

The proposed development would reduce the ability of the Kempnough Brook to function as a corridor along which wildlife can move within beyond the urban area and as such is contrary to the aims of PPS9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation) and Policy EN9 (Wildlife Corridors) of the City of Salford UDP 2004-2016 which seek to protect, improve and promote an integrated network of wildlife habitats and corridors throughout the area and immediate locality.

Approval of the development would make it more difficult to resist similar applications both in the vicinity and elsewhere, the cumulative effect of which would be harmful to the capacity of the watercourse, access for maintenance and wildlife value contrary to policies EN19(Flood Risk and Surface Water) and EN9 (Wildlife Corridors) of the City of Salford UDP 2004-2016.

Insufficient evidence has been provided to prove that the existing base would be strong enough to take the weight of the proposed garage. As such it is considered that the proposed development by reason of its siting within a root protection area could adversely affect the long term health of trees which are subject to the City of Salford Tree Preservation Order No.309, to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area contrary to Policy TD2 of the Council's Supplementary Planning Document Trees and Development and Policy EN13 (Protected Trees) of the City of Salford UDP 2004-2016

The applicant appealed the decision. The inspector considered that the main issue was the effect of the proposed development on protected trees, on flooding and on wildlife.

The Inspector was of the opinion that the proposal would not cause any additional harm to the protected trees as there is a timber car port in situ and the decking would be used as the base of the proposed garage which was granted permission 06/53484/HH). 

The Inspector was of the opinion that there is sufficient space under the decking for some limited maintenance to be carried out to the watercourse with care should the need arise. The watercourse is a small stream of very limited width and considers there would not be any greater risk of flooding.

The Inspector was of the opinion that the watercourse has already been altered through the construction of the culvert it is not contained within a narrow concrete or brick culvert. The profile of the banks of the watercourse and the space available should not interfere with any wildlife corridor that may exist. The circumstances would not change between the development of the car port and that of a garage.

The Inspector concluded that the proposed garage would comply with policies EN13 and EN9 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and it would comply with the policies contained within the Trees and Development Supplementary Planning Document.

The Inspector therefore allowed the appeal subject to the following conditions:

•	The development herby permitted shall begin no later that three years from the date of this decision.
•	There shall be no excavations, trenches or ground disturbed for the construction of any foundation, service provision or other below ground work without the prior written approval of the local planning authority and any work subsequently carried out shall be done in accordance with the approved details.
•	No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a scheme for the protection of trees during the course of development, these being the trees referenced as T1, T2 and T3 in the Tree Preservation Order No. 309 (2005). The protection measures in the approved scheme shall follow the guidance in BS5837:2005. All work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.
•	No development shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the roof and walls of the garage hereby permitted have been submitted to approval in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details

APPLICATION No:	07/54152/FUL

APPELLANT:	Mr And Mrs A Smethurst

APPEAL SITE:	51 Park Road Worsley M28 7DU    

PROPOSAL:	Demoltion of existing single storey annex to existing dwelling and demolish existing detached timber framed building and erection of one pair of semi-detached dwellings together with construction of new and alteration to existing vehicular and pedestrian accesses

WARD:	Walkden South

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Refuse

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal dismissed

DECIDED ON:	30 November 2007

This application was refused on 28th March 2007 for two reasons.  Firstly, by virtue of its height, scale and massing, adjacent to a dormer bungalow which would result in an overly dominant development which would have an unacceptable obtrusive impact on the streetscene.  Secondly, the existing first floor bedroom window in No.51 Park Road would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking.

Through the appeal process, the appellant confirmed that the window could be reconfigured and moved to overcome any overlooking.  This could be controlled through the use of an appropriate condition.  

The Inspector considered the proposal would be noticeably out of keeping with the adjacent dwelling.  The design of the proposed properties fails to provide an acceptable link between the differing scale, height and design of the properties to either side.  

For these reasons, the appeal was dismissed.

APPLICATION No:	07/54433/HH

APPELLANT:	Mr And Mrs J A Kelly

APPEAL SITE:	52 Everard Close Worsley M28 7TY    

PROPOSAL:	Retention of garage

WARD:	Walkden South

OFFICER 
RECOMMENDATION:	Refuse

APPEAL DECISION:	Appeal dismissed

DECIDED ON:	23 November 2007

In May 2007 an application was refused for the retention of a garage at 52 Everard Close, Worsley on the basis that-

•	The garage by reason of its siting and materials, is a prominent and incongruous feature in the street scene, contrary to Policies DES1 and DES8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan, and the council's House Extensions SPD.

The applicant appealed the decision. The Inspector considered the main issue to be the effect the garage has on the character and appearance of the street scene.

The Inspector considered that the garage detracts from the open character and 
appearance of the estate and street scene and is contrary to Policy DES1 of the UDP. 
In particular the garage does not have regard for the character and pattern of the 
Streets and does not provide the appropriate quality of materials. The Inspector 
therefore dismissed the appeal.