Title: 1
Author: christine hunter
Last saved by: City of Salford
Keywords: Ethan

PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION	16th May 2002

APPLICATION No:	00/41647/FUL

APPLICANT:	Turris Investments Ltd

LOCATION:	Land Adjacent The Granary Barton Road Worsley 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of 14 flats in two four storey blocks, together with the formation of a new vehicular access, laying out of carparking and  associated open space

WARD:	Worsley Boothstown

At a meeting of the Panel held on 18^th April 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.

My previous observations are set out below:

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a piece of land, which includes an 18^th Century Lime Kiln in the western half and has the brook running along the southern boundary parallel to Barton Road.  It is bounded to the north by the Bridgewater Canal, to the east by Stablefold/Barton Arms, to the south by Barton Road, and to the west by the Granary office development.  The western half of the site ie the lime kiln area, lies within the Worsley Village conservation area, with the remainder outside.  The eastern half of the site is currently used as a rough car park for the adjacent Granary offices, with parts over grown.  The site holds a number of mature trees 10 predominantly on top of and around the lime kiln which are protected by TPO Worsley No.1 1968 and the trees along the embankment to the brook have also recently been protected.  

The original proposal was for the erection of 20 flats within five storey blocks which stood 14.5m high from within the site and 12.5m from the canal side but this has been amended several times.  The proposal now being considered is for the erection of 14 flats within two, four storey blocks, accessed off Stablefold.  The first block which would be slightly crescent shaped would be positioned adjacent to the canal approximately 5 - 7m from the boundary. The block would stand 11.2m high from within the site and 9m from the canalside. It would be subdivided into three blocks and comprise a total of 7 flats, linked with an entrance hall between each block.  There would be parking at the ground level for 10 vehicles including three visitor spaces.  To the rear of the flats to the canal towpath there would be a small garden area for four of the flats.  Four parking spaces would be provided adjacent to the gable wall of this block for use by the Granary offices.

The second block would be positioned towards the front of the site, adjacent to Worsley Brook and wrap around the corner of the substation which fronts onto Stablefold.  The lime kiln is directly to the west of these flats.  Again, this building would be four storey and would be divided into two blocks with a central entrance area and would comprise 7 flats.  There would be no parking at the ground level of the building but eight spaces would be provided within this part of the site for residents and visitors.

The flats would be constructed from brick and reconstituted stone with reconstituted stone around the window to add detail and there would be some black and white detailing on the gable ends and on the lift block sections.  The roof would be constructed from slate or similar material and there would be rooflights incorporated into the roof.

There are three mature trees in front of the lime kiln area, and an additional five on/around the kiln mound.   The three trees on the frontage would remain, one of the five, situated to the rear of the mound would be felled whilst the remaining four would remain.  These however would be subject to further investigations as it may be that the tree roots are holding the kiln together but this is not able to be established until the archaeological watching brief is undertaken on site.   As part of the application a tree survey has been undertaken.  This recommended that of the five trees on/around the mound, three were considered to be in a poor condition and should be felled whilst the remaining two were in a good and average condition.  No work was recommended to be undertaken to these two trees.

As part of the amendments to the scheme, the lime kiln area has been incorporated into the application site and this would provide an amenity area for the residents of the flats.  The lime kiln is shortly to become a scheduled ancient monument and therefore as part of this, some of the material on the site adjacent to the kiln and the brook would be removed to expose an archway and this area would also provide additional amenity area for the flats.   As part of this same application, with the historical significance of the kiln, an archaeological desk based assessment was undertaken to identify the area of the lime kiln, and assess any affects the proposal may have.

The site was previously used as parking for the Granary offices.  On this same agenda is a second application for a car park for the offices on the land between this application site and the Granary building itself, reference 00/41720/FUL.

SITE HISTORY

The site has been subject to a number of previous planning applications and enforcement matters:  

In 1984 planning permission was refused for the erection of a three storey building providing a restaurant on the ground floor with offices on the first and second floors, together with associated parking and new vehicular access, E/17694.  It was refused on grounds that it would not provide sufficient parking, would result in the loss of mature trees, vehicles parked on the raised Lime Kiln would be visually obtrusive in the Conservation area and would unduly affect the amenity of neighbouring residents.  

In 1988 outline planning permission was refused for the erection of a building to provide a restaurant, offices and car parking, E22118.  It was refused on grounds that the proposal would be an overdevelopment of the site, parked cars adjacent to the canal would be visually obtrusive, to the detriment of the Conservation Area.  An appeal against this refusal was heard at Public Inquiry and dismissed in October 1988. 

In 1990 it was resolved to approve a planning application for the erection of a three-storey office block with 25 parking spaces, landscaping and erection of a clock.  A proposed 106 Agreement concerning public access to the car park outside office hours was not completed and therefore the decision notice was not issued.

CONSULTATIONS 

Director of Environmental Services – No objections.
Environment Agency – No objections in principle.
Coal Authority – No objections.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – States that the Lime Kiln has been entered on the Sites and Monuments Record (11223.1.0) as an important feature of historic value individually and collectively with the group of monuments associated with the Worsley Delph/Bridgewater Canal area.  English Heritage consider it worthy of scheduling as an Ancient Monument.  It forms part of the ‘Steam, Coal and Canal’ World Heritage Site bid.  The site also holds an infilled canal arm in the north eastern part.  An archaeological desk based assessment has been undertaken as part of the application and the Unit now have no objections in principle to the proposal subject to an archaeological watching brief during construction.  It is also suggested that a viewing platform is created for viewing of the kiln.  
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – State that the site may be affected by contamination and landfill gas from colliery waste tipped 100m from the site.  
Worsley Civic Trust – object to the proposal as they consider the proposal to be an overdevelopment of the area and unsympathetic to the lime kiln.  It is considered that the archaeology of the lime kiln should be protected until such time as it can be sympathetically restored.
Worsley Village Community Association – note that the development has been reduced but consider that it makes very little difference to the overall development.  There is particular concern about the scale of the development as a whole and the inability to blend the development into the existing surroundings, and its impact upon the lime kiln.  They therefore object to the proposal on the following grounds:

•	Over-development of the site
•	Increase in traffic on Stablefold and Barton Road
•	Increased parking problems in the area
•	Impact upon mature trees
•	Devastating impact upon the lime kiln
•	Dominating effect upon the Canal and the Village scene
Manchester Ship Canal Company – consider that the scheme would not unduly affect the integrity of the canal walls.   
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections in principle but make recommendations in relation to security aspects of the site.
English Heritage – In such a sensitive location including the remains of a canalside lime kiln, a design of exceptional quality is required and there is concern that the current proposal does not offer this.  The reduction in overall height of the development is welcomed but there remains concern that the scheme is not of a sufficient quality to enhance the character of the conservation area.  However, in relation to the lime kiln they are satisfied that the proposal together with the car park proposal would not have a significant detrimental impact upon the lime kiln.
City Council’s Arborist – agrees with the findings of the submitted tree survey and the recommendations made therein, in relation to this proposal.

PUBLICITY

Site Notice posted on 18/12/00
Press Notice published on 21.12.00
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
	55 to 65, 69, 71 Barton Road
	Worsley Methodist Church, Barton Arms  Barton Road
	 4 and 6 Lower Brook Lane
	Worsley Dry Docks

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received a total of 36 representations in response to the original application publicity and an additional three in relation to the most recent amended plans. The main issues identified are as follows:

	Overdevelopment of the site
Design and size of proposal is out of keeping with the character of the Worsley Village Conservation Area and proximate listed buildings.  Would dominate area. 
Damage to the Lime Kiln
Historic site and surrounding should be preserved
Lack of car parking
Parking spaces would be dangerous onto access onto Stablefold, and would be abused by visitors to the Barton Arms
Site is already earmarked for car parking for the Granary.  Would lead to overspill onto already heavily parked Baron Road and residential side streets
	Traffic congestion already exists
Congestion would lead to road safety issues
Loss of trees which lie in Conservation area and are covered by TPO
	Loss of privacy
	Height of blocks would cause a loss of light to neighbouring properties
	Lime Kiln in the past has been the subject of anti social behaviour
Turris have never landscaped the site as they were supposed to under the previous Granary approval
Would obscure views of and from the canal, affecting the amenity of the canal
Excavation in close proximity to the Canal may damage its integrity

Comments in response to the amended plans considered that the amendments did not reduce the scheme or its impact enough.

I have also received an objection from Councillor Garrido who objects to this and the car park application for a number of reasons.  I have outlined below the concerns relevant to this application:

-	this site was supposed to be the car park for the Granary which was only granted permission because of this car parking provision.
-	Detrimental impact upon the lime kiln
-	There have been a number of applications for this site all of which were refused and went to public inquiry.
-	Overdevelopment of the site
-	Detrimental impact upon Worsley Village
-	High rise and high density development which is out of character with Worsley Village and the conservation area
-	Detrimental impact upon the canal in terms of amenity and its construction.
-	The height of the flats would be higher than any existing buildings and will dominate the skyline
-	Access to the site will cause traffic problems on Barton Road which is already very busy and Stablefold which is dangerous.
-	Modern design which is out of character
-	The canal side elevation will have a detrimental affect to the Boat Yard and the rear of The Green because of land levels and the height of the development.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: EN11 Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas

Other policies: EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
		EN14 Archaeology and Ancient Monuments
		H1 Meeting Housing Need
		T13 Car Parking
		TR5 Protection of Existing and Potential Assets
		DEV2 Good Design

PLANNING APPRAISAL

I consider that the main issues concern the nature, size and design of the proposal in relation to policy DEV2, its highway implications and the impact upon the Conservation area and the Lime Kiln in relation to policy EN11.

There were concerns from residents about the parking provision and the increased demand in the area. The site would provide 18 car parking spaces which is in accordance with UDP parking standards for communal parking for flats.  With regards to other traffic related objections received, I am satisfied that the access and increased number of vehicles generated by the proposal would not significantly affect highway safety.   The original application for the Granary was approved subject to the condition that 37 parking spaces were provided and maintained.  If the proposal for the revised parking arrangements at the Granary which secures the retention of 37 spaces, were to be approved, the parking provision would remain as existing and therefore there should not be any increased problems.  I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds.

As part of the application an archaeological desk based assessment has been undertaken and as a result the Archaeological Unit are satisfied that the proposal in its revised and negotiated, subject to a watching brief being undertaken, should not have a significant detrimental impact upon the lime kiln.   Furthermore, the area above the lime kiln would be retained as open space for use by the residents and therefore the kiln would be retained. English Heritage are also satisfied that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon the lime kiln.  The Archaeological Unit have recommended that a viewing platform may be able to be incorporated into embankment of the brook, and if the proposal was to be approved I would recommend that a condition be attached to any permission to ensure that this is provided.

Another concern of the objectors was about the loss of trees on the site that are covered by a tree preservation order.  This application proposal would not necessarily require the removal of any protected trees from the site on top of the lime kiln mound, but this is not able to be fully ascertained until the work is undertaken under the supervision of the archaeologist and the watching brief.  Two trees would however have to be felled for the car park application on the Barton Road frontage to provide a widened ingress/egress into the site.  In relation to the trees on the mound the arborist recommends that two of the four trees on the top of the mound should be felled and the City’s arborist agrees that these trees are in a poor condition.  However, there is also a question over whether the trees are in fact holding the lime kiln together.  Therefore pending the findings of the initial works, it may be that all four trees shall remain or alternatively the two that are recommended to be felled would be felled and replacements could be planted elsewhere within the site.  Any consideration of this proposal must therefore take into account the possibility and liklihood that two trees may have to be removed.  All of the trees along the frontage to Barton Road within the application site would remain.  

The applicant has amended the proposal several times and has reduced the number of flats from 20 of the original proposal to 14.  The height of the two blocks have also been reduced, bringing the flats to four storeys including the parking at the ground floor level and accommodation within the roofspace.  The design of the flats has also been revised.  Blocks 3 – 5 were originally 3 individual blocks in an almost crescent shape along the rear boundary to the canal.  These have now been linked and are positioned parallel to the canal.  A lift element has been removed from the scheme thereby allowing the roof to be simplified and the use of materials has been revised to incorporate brick, reconstituted stone together with some black and white detailing on the gable ends as found in Worsley Village.  Furthermore, owing to the change in levels between the application site and the canal towpath, the flats along the boundary to the canal would appear to be two storey with the third floor in the roof space.  The adjacent Granary offices are of a similar scale and height.  This reduction has significantly reduced the impact of the proposal in terms of its scale and massing, upon the conservation area and also the lime kiln.  Following these revisions, I am conscious of the views of English Heritage but consider that the proposal is now acceptable in terms of its design and overall impact and that the proposal would enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. 

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

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

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

4.	This permission shall relate to the following amended plans received on 2 April 2002:
	
	- drawing number 2072  01 Rev K - Site Layout
	- drawing number 2072 17 Rev A - Blocks 3,4, and 5 North and South Elevations
	- drawing number 2072 18 Rev A - Block 3 East and Block 5 West Elevations
	- drawing number 2072 07 Rev E - Floor plans for Blocks 3, 4 and 5
	
	and the following plan received on 28 February 2002:
	 
	- drawing number 2072 02 Rev G - Blocks 1,2  Plans and Elevations

5.	No development shall take place in the proposal area until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation agreed which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

6.	Prior to commencement of development the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the approval of the LPA.  The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of contamination and underground gases on site and its implications on the risk to human health and controlled water receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 Part IIA.  The investigation shall also address the health and safety of the site workers, nearby persons, building structures and services, landscaping schemes, final users of the site and the environmental pollution in ground water.
	
	The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to the start of the survey and recommendations and remedial works contained within the improved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.

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

8.	No trees which are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order (other than those clearly shown to be so affected on the submitted plan) and including those trees on the top of the lime kiln identified as T1232, T1233, T1234 and T1235 on the tree proposals plan, drawing number 2072 19,  shall be topped, lopped or cut down unless otherwise agreed in writing.

9.	Full details of the existing and proposed levels for the whole of the development site and including the removal of material from the area around the eastern walls of the lime kiln shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of development.

10.	The mound area of the lime kiln as shown on drawing number 2072 01 Rev K and received on 2 April 2002, shall be maintained and retained as amenity space for residents at all time, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.

11.	The 14 car parking spaces and 4 visitor spaces as shown on drawing number 2072 01 Rev K, received on 2 April 2002, shall be retained at all times and to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.

12.	The four car parking spaces G34, G35, G36 and G37 as shown on drawing number 2072 01 Rev K and received on 2 April 2002 shall be constructed and made available for use by the occupiers of the Granary offices prior to the commencement of the development and shall thereafter be retained at all times.

13.	A public viewing platform for the lime kiln which shall be accessible and available for public use at all times, shall be provided within the site. Full details of the platform, its siting and access to it shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of development.  The platform shall be implemented and available for use before the occupation of the first dwelling hereby approved. 

14.	The residential development shall NOT commence until the car park on the adjoining site to the west, application number 00/41720/FUL and spaces G34, G35, G36 and G37 as shown on drawing number 2072 01 Rev K have been implemented and are available for use.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R006A Character - conservation area

3.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

4.	Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt

5.	To make a record of archaeological remains disturbed by development.

6.	Standard Reason R028A Public safety

7.	Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees

8.	Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees

9.	Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt

10.	In the interests of the amenity of the future occupiers of the flats in accordance with policy DEV1 of the UDP.

12.	To ensure that satisfactory parking provision is made for the Granary office development at all times.

13.	To ensure public access is available at all times to the lime kiln in accordance with policy EN14 of the UDP.

14.	To ensure that adequate parking provision is made for the Granary offices at all times and to safeguard the safety of the surrounding highway network.

APPLICATION No:	00/41720/FUL

APPLICANT:	Turris Ltd

LOCATION:	Land Adjacent The Granary Barton Road Worsley 

PROPOSAL:	Alterations to existing car park

WARD:	Worsley Boothstown

At a meeting of the Panel held on 18^th April 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.

My previous observations are set out below:

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a piece of land adjacent to the Granary offices in Worsley, which is currently used as providing some of the parking provision for the Granary offices with the remainder provided on the adjoining site to the east.  The site lies within the Worsley Village Conservation Area and is separated from the site to the east by an 18^th Century Lime Kiln.  To the north lies the Bridgewater Canal, to the east a site currently used as a rough car park for the Granary offices, to the west the Granary itself and to the south Worsley Brook.  The site holds a number of mature trees, predominantly along the Worsley Brook and frontage to Barton Road and on the Lime Kiln itself.

The proposal has been submitted alongside a second application, also on this agenda, reference 00/41647/FUL, for the residential development of the adjacent site that currently provides the majority of the 37 parking spaces for the Granary offices.  This application is therefore seeking to make alternative provision for the office parking to enable the development of the site.  Four spaces would be provided on the western side of the Granary building, four within the proposed adjacent residential site and accessed off Stablefold, with the remaining 29 within this application site immediately adjacent to the Granary offices.  There would be two access points to the car park on the site frontage with the most westerly one restricted to ingress only.  Two trees on the frontage would be removed to provide a widened and improved access and achieve acceptable sight lines.   

SITE HISTORY

In 1981 planning permission was given to change the use of the Granary warehouse to offices with the formation of a car park, E/13241.  A condition was attached to this permission to ensure that 37 parking spaces were provided. 

CONSULTATIONS 

English Heritage – have no objection in principle to the proposal.  It is recognised that the proposal involves some intrusion into the mound containing the lime kiln but as this is limited to the removal of approximately 1m of the western side of the mound, and following a site inspection and the subsequent study of historic data they are satisfied that the proposal is unlikely to have an adverse effect upon the structure of the kiln.  It is recommended however that any work is carried out under archaeological supervision.

Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – States that the Lime Kiln has been entered on the Sites and Monuments Record (11223.1.0) as an important feature of historic value individually and collectively with the group of monuments associated with the Worsley Delph/Bridgewater Canal area.  English Heritage consider it worthy of scheduling as an Ancient Monument.  It forms part of the ‘Steam, Coal and Canal’ World Heritage Site bid.  The site also holds an infilled canal arm in the north eastern part.  It is therefore recommended that an archaeological condition for recording by excavation is imposed.  

Worsley Village Community Association – are concerned about the impact upon the lime kiln and how those interested in the kiln would gain access to it should this development go ahead.

City’s Arborist – agrees with the tree survey that has been submitted with the application that the three trees are in a poor condition and should be felled. 

PUBLICITY

Site Notice posted on 21/12/00.
Press Notice published on 11/01/01.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
	59 and 61 Barton Road
Worsley Methodist Church  Barton Road

I have received no specific objection in relation to this application – the letters that have been received relate to the proposal for the remainder of the site for residential purposes.

I have received a lengthy letter from Councillor Garrido objecting to this proposal and the adjoining residential proposal.  I have outlined the objections relevant to this application below:

•	cars are not using the existing car park and parking on Granary Lane and Barton Road
and permission was only granted for the Granary because of the on site parking.

•	detrimental impact on the lime kiln.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: EN11 Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
Other policies: EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
		EN14 Archaeology and Ancient Monuments
		T13 Car Parking
		TR5 Protection of Existing and Potential Assets
		
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider the main issue to be addressed for this proposal to be the possible impact upon the lime kiln which is shortly to become a scheduled monument and may also become part of a World Heritage Site.  In addition, the proposal must be considered against the existing situation and proposed car parking provision.  As there would be a requirement to fell some trees on the site this is also an important consideration in relation to policy EN7.

It was originally proposed to fell 3 trees on the frontage to provide the ingress/egress and maintain the required sight lines but one of these is now able to be retained so that two trees would be felled. As part of the application the applicant has submitted a tree survey and the affected trees are considered to be poor specimens and it is therefore recommended that they are felled.  The City’s arborist concurs with these recommendations.  I would not recommend that replacements are planted for these trees as the site is quite restricted in relation to its size and characteristics and therefore there is very little space for additional planting to take place and I also consider that the provision of car parking is of more importance in this location. 

The original application for the Granary office development provided 37 parking spaces on the adjacent site and was conditioned in this respect.  This application would ensure that the 37 spaces were retained albeit that four spaces would be provided within the adjacent site and accessed off Stablefold.  As these four spaces are in close proximity to the offices and the remainder of the car park I am satisfied that they would be used and I have no objection to the proposal on highway grounds.  

In relation to the impact upon the kiln, there would be no alteration to the existing kiln boundary walls and access would be retained to the eastern wall of the monument should the site be displayed to the public in the future.  I am therefore satisfied that the proposal should not have a significant detrimental impact upon this very important monument.  On the basis of this, together with the factors outlined above, I consider that the proposal is acceptable and would ensure that a satisfactory level of parking is maintained for the offices without having a significant detrimental impact.  I therefore recommend that this application be approved.`

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 2 April 2002 which shows 29 spaces.

3.	No development shall take place in the proposal area until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of development.

4.	Directional dropper plates shall be installed at the ingress only and two no entry signs shall be erected at this access prior to the commencement of use of the car park.

4.	No trees protected by a tree preservation order EXCEPT for T1231 and T1229 as shown on drawing number 2072 02 Rev G shall be topped, lopped or cut down without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.  T1237 shall be retained and shall NOT be felled as shown on this same drawing.

5.	Standard Condition C05C No topping etc to Trees protected by TPO

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

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt

3.	To make a record of archaeological remains disturbed by development.

4.	To provide for the safety and convenience of users of the highway and to ensure that this access is used for egress ONLY in accordance with policy T13 of the UDP.

4.	Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees

5.	Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees

6.	Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees

APPLICATION No:	01/43153/FUL

APPLICANT:	Abbotsound Ltd

LOCATION:	Barton Wesleyan Methodist Church Barton Road Eccles 

PROPOSAL:	Demolition of existing chapel and erection of four storey building comprising 32 flats together with associated landscaping, car parking on the burial ground and alteration to existing vehicular access

WARD:	Barton

BACKGROUND
Members will recall that consideration of this application was on 21st March 2002.  It was agreed at that meeting that further investigations into the issues raised by objectors would take place.  In addition no response had been received from English Heritage.  

I have now completed these investigations and have received a response from English Heritage.  My report has been amended and expanded accordingly.

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the former Barton Methodist Chapel and Sunday School and should be read in conjunction with application number 01/43265/CON later on this agenda.  The site lies within but on the edge of the Barton-Upon-Irwell Conservation Area.  The existing buildings are set back from Barton Road and land in front is a former graveyard that has been landscaped and grassed over.  To the rear are two further graveyards set one behind the other.  The graveyards are surrounded by a 1.5m high brick wall.  It is proposed to demolish the existing two storey buildings and erect a four-storey building comprising 32 flats on a similar footprint.  To the rear of the proposed building on part of the former graveyard 32 car parking spaces would be provided.  The elevations have been amended and incorporate the same shape of window as in the existing chapel.

The site is surrounded by residential development, the multi storey Mee’s Square tower block to the north and semi-detached housing to the west and south.  The Bridgewater Canal is directly opposite on the other side of Barton Road.

The buildings are in a poor state of repair and until recently the site was overgrown.  

The last burial was in 1970.  With respect to the works to the car park it is proposed to remove only those gravestones that are standing, those lying on the ground will be covered with a surfacing system known as ‘Ecoblock’.  This system allows the graves and the horizontal stones to remain undisturbed but covered so that car parking is possible.

SITE HISTORY

There is no previous planning history.

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objections in principle but recommends that a condition be attached regarding noise insulation.

Environment Agency – No objections in principle.

Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No objections and provides advice.

Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – The former Chapel is entered on the Greater Manchester Sites and Monuments Record.  The Church is a locally distinctive building and every effort should be made to preserve it within the proposed development through sympathetic conversion and refurbishment as opposed to demolition and new build.  With regard to the graveyard there should be a complete record of the graveyard before it is covered over.

English Heritage – These historic and architecturally interesting, albeit dilapidated buildings, make a positive contribution to the character of the conservation area, however, it is evident on site that there are significant structural problems relating not only to the Chapel itself but also to the other buildings.  An archaeological assessment should be carried out and submitted as part of the information in support of the application.  With respect to the design there is no objection in principle to the proposed scale and massing.  It is important to ensure that the replacement building is contextually appropriate to neighbouring domestic scale properties, thereby protecting the character of the conservation area.  Roofing material should be traditional slate and the visual impact of the accommodation contained within the roofspace should be minimised on both front and rear elevations by replacing the dormer windows with conservation rooflights.

PUBLICITY

This application has been advertised by means of both site and press notice

The following neighbours were notified:
	3 Alexandra Road
70 to 73 Barton Road
1 to 58 Mee’s Square
16 to 32 Nasmyth Road
13, 15 and 16 to 32 Roby Road 
	17 to 23 Shaftesbury Avenue
	11 and 14 Shirley Avenue

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received a total of 43 letters in response to the application publicity.  All two are objecting to the proposal. The following comments having been made:

	Loss of the buildings which are worthy of listing
	A graveyard should not be used as a car park
	Removal of gravestones
	Loss of trees
	There are covenants on the site 
	A proper record should be made of all gravestones
	The delapidated chapel and its environs are an eyesore
	The replacement building is too big
	Increase in traffic
	Loss of light

In addition a bound document was handed out at the first Panel meeting.  This made a number of specific points related to the above.  I have addressed the points made in this document in a separate section in the appraisal.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none 
Other policies:	EN9 Derelict and Vacant Land, EN11 Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas, EN13 Works to Listed Buildings and Buildings Within Conservation Areas, DEV1 Development Criteria

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy EN9 states that the City Council will promote and encourage the reclamation of derelict and vacant land for appropriate uses and that account will be taken of the existing value of the site.  Policy EN11 states that the City Council will seek to preserve or enhance the special character of areas of architectural and historic interest.  The policy sets out a number of criteria that will be encouraged and which include the retention and improvement of existing buildings, high standards of development and the retention of mature trees.  Policy EN13 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of criteria when considering applications to demolish buildings within Conservation Areas.  These criteria include the importance of the building both intrinsically and relatively, the condition of the building and the importance of any alternative use for the site.  Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering applications for planning permission. These factors include the amount, design and layout of car parking provision, the effect upon neighbouring properties, the impact on features of archaeological importance, the impact on existing trees and any other material consideration.

English Heritage have visited the site and do not object to the demolition of the buildings and accept the scale and massing of the replacement building.  I have discussed the proposed removal of the dormer windows with the applicant and his agent.  The applicant considers that given that English Heritage accept the scale of the proposed building the provision of rooflights only in the upper floor of the building would not provide a satisfactory level of accommodation for future residents.  My own view is that the dormers are not inappropriate and therefore given the reluctance of the applicant to amend his proposals I do not consider that I can object to the application on this detailed issue of design.

This application has generated objections from as far afield as New Zealand, Switzerland, the United States and Yorkshire.  Many of those who have written have relatives buried in this graveyard and they are understandably unhappy about the site being developed.  While I understand this concern I do not consider that the sensibilities raised by this proposal can be considered a material planning consideration.  I do think it right to point out that the graveyard has, for many years been neglected and overgrown. I would also point out that the site is not consecrated ground.

The applicant has been in contact with the Home Office and has been advised that from the drawings supplied it does not appear that the buildings them selves will encroach on the burial ground.  However, plans and what actually exist can be inaccurate and the Home Office has advised that if during any excavation on the site any remains are found then work must stop and an order under the Disused Burial Grounds (Amendment) Act 1981 must be made.  The Home Office has advised that the applicant applies for an order and if any remains are found then ‘directions’ for exhumation can then be given..  The applicant has published a notice in the Advertiser in accordance with the Act.  The Act does allow any person with a relative buried in the graveyard to have the gravestone removed from the site should they so wish.

The proposals do not affect the whole of the graveyard and the applicant has stated that the part not required for car parking would be retained.  In addition those standing gravestones would be removed to the perimeter of the site.

With regard to the remaining objections that have been received a structural survey submitted by the applicant concludes that the buildings are in such a poor state of repair that it is unviable to repair them.  I appreciate that the GMAU would prefer the Chapel to be retained but I consider that the evidence of the structural survey is compelling.  This issue is dealt with in greater detail in the report on the Conservation Area Consent application.  Two large trees to the front of the site are to be removed, these are growing very close to the existing building.  Other mature trees that are closer to the road are to be retained.  I have attached a condition regarding the submission of a landscape scheme.

While covenants that affect the use of land may be a material consideration in the planning process I have not been provided with any details of any such covenants and therefore have given them little weight in my consideration of the application.

I agree with those who have written saying that the existing appearance of the chapel and school building detracts from the Conservation Area and consider that the proposed building will improve the appearance of the site and surrounding area as well as enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area in general.  

The replacement building is four storeys but I do not consider that this is inappropriate.  The adjacent building is a multi storey block and although it is outside the Conservation Area is does have a significant impact upon it.  The design of the proposed building is such that it will not present a single flat elevation to Barton Road.  Instead the elevation will be detailed and intricate while retaining a uniformity and clarity of design achieved through window design and use of materials.  I consider therefore that the proposal is in accordance with UDP policies regarding the preservation or enhancement of the Conservation Area.

I do not consider that there would be a significant increase in traffic on Barton Road as a result of this proposal.  I have no objections on highway grounds to the proposal and I consider that the 32 car parking spaces proposed is an appropriate level of provision.

The building would be positioned and orientated such that I do not consider that there would be any significant loss of light or privacy experienced by any neighbours as a result of this proposal.

Points raised in the document handed out at the first Panel meeting

1.	Is this a disused graveyard?

The simple answer is yes.  ‘Disused’ can have a number of meanings.  According to the legal meaning of the word the definition of a ‘disused graveyard’ is to be found in the Open Spaces Act 1887 and is any burial ground which is no longer used for internments, whether or not it has been closed for burials under the provision of any statute or order in Council. 

Any common or everyday interpretation of the word ‘disused’ would also apply to this site.  The Church is no longer in use for worship and the last burial was over 30 years ago.  Until recently the site was overgrown.  The fact that relatives have always visited the site and can now put flowers on graves does not mean that the graveyard is not disused.

2.	Ownership of burial land

I have consulted the Head of Law and Administration on this matter.  There is no evidence that families who own burial plots have acquired a legal interest in the land.  The usual legal position is that the grant of an exclusive right of burial does not confer any proprietary rights upon the grantee in respect of the land itself.

3.	War Graves

The applicant has informed the War Graves Commission of his proposals as he is required to do.

4.	Building Construction

If graves were to be disturbed during construction of the foundations under the Disused Burial Grounds (Amendment) Act 1981 any human remains must be dealt with in accordance with procedures set down in law under that act and in accordance with the provisions of the Secretary of State.  This would involve City Council officers.  The applicant has placed the necessary notice in a local newspaper in accordance with advice that he has received from the Home Office.

Drainage would not be required to disturb any graves.  There are existing drains in Barton Road and advice from colleagues in the Main Drainage Section is that there is no reason why drains to the proposed development would not be from Barton Road.

5.	Public Health Hazard

Advice from the Director of Environmental Services indicated that when bodies are exhumed Environmental Health officers are in attendance to deal with the protection of the public.

6.	Conservation Area

The document presented at Panel refers to the fact this site is within the Barton Upon Irwell Conservation Area.  This conservation area was designated in 1976 and despite having a limited budget with regard to conservation areas money has been spent within this conservation area.  There are no four-storey buildings within the Conservation Area but there is a ten-storey block of flats on the boundary that has a significant effect upon the setting and character of the area.

7.	The Importance of the Buildings

English Heritage does not consider that the buildings are worthy of Listing.  The Assistant County Archaeologist has informed me that there are a large number of disused Methodist Chapels in the Greater Manchester area with graveyards attached that are now disused and which either have been or are proposed to be re-used for other purposes.  I found no evidence that the school rooms were amongst the first in the country or that the building was instrumental in the start of the inland waterways which led to the industrial revolution. 

In conclusion, my recommendation remains unchanged.  Many objections relate to the use of the graveyard as a car park.  This is more a question of sensibilities than it is a material planning consideration and while I have sympathy with those objectors whose family graves will be covered by the parking area I cannot support their views that the application should be refused.  The building and graveyard have been derelict for some considerable time and this has undoubtedly had a detrimental effect on the Conservation Area in general.   Members who attended the meeting on site will recall the strongly held views of the occupier of the house adjacent to the site who complained about the effect that this derelict site has had.  This proposal represents a significant investment in the Conservation Area and will regenerate a significant site within the Conservation Area and will enhance the character of the area.  

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

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

3.	No development shall take place until a programme of archaeological survey and analysis has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.  Such programme as is approved shall be carried out by a recognised specialist and shall be completed prior to any graves being covered in accordance with the approved details.

4.	No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.

5.	Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use not less than 32 car parking spaces shall be provided within the curtilage of the site to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services and such spaces shall be made available at all times the premises are in use.
	
6.	No development shall be started until full details of a scheme for acoustic double glazing  has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.  Such scheme shall thereafter be implemented concurrently with the building works to ensure that no apartment is occupied until such time as the associated acoustic double glazing has been installed to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.

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

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

3.	As the building and graveyard are of local historic interest the survey is required to provide a record for archive and research purposes.

4.	Standard Reason R006A Character - conservation area

5.	Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage

6.	Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

7.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

APPLICATION No:	01/43186/OUT

APPLICANT:	P Lees

LOCATION:	Hulmes Farm Ferry Road Irlam 

PROPOSAL:	Demolition of existing buildings and outline application for the erection of 13 dwellings

WARD:	Irlam

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the former Hulmes Farm site off Ferry Road, Irlam. The site consists of two detached dwellings and occupies a corner site on the west of Ferry Road at the Junction of Boat Lane and Ferry Road. The surrounding area is characterised by two and also some two/three storey residential dwellings along with a number of mature trees.

Outline planning permission is sought for thirteen dwellings, the applicant has amended the scheme so that all matters including site layout, plans/elevations, colour and type of facing material, means of access and landscaping are reserved for further approval.   

SITE HISTORY

In 1987, planning permission was refused for the change of use from wholesale storage to part retail part wholesale (E/29713).
In 1992, planning permission was granted for the erection of two detached bungalows (E/22694).

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections

PUBLICITY

A press notice was published 
A site notice was displayed on 6^th November 2001

The following neighbours were notified :
	4 & 1 – 7 odd Ferry Road
	46 – 54 even and 21 – 33 odd Ferry Road
	Calybank and Bellcraig, Ferry Road
	1 –12 inclusive Olympia Court
	14 – 18 inclusive Gerrards Close

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received  four letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following comments having been made:

	Concern over vehicle access
	Overlooking
	Diminished sunlight/daylight
	Eyesore
	Protection of Trees 
	Street Lighting Pollution

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none
Other policies:	EC3 Vacant Land, H1 Meeting Housing Needs
		
PLANNING APPRAISAL

As the application is in outline only with all matters reserved the main issue revolves around the re-use of the site and policy EC3 and also policy H1 meeting housing needs. The site had included, until February 2002, a barn building and two dwellings. The barn was not Listed and was demolished in February this year, whilst the two dwellings remain. The proposal for thirteen dwellings could include the retention of the two existing dwellings, however it is more likely that any future reserved matters application would be for thirteen dwellings on a cleared site. I consider that the existing dwellings are not of architectural or historic merit to be worthy of retention. 

I have received a number of points from members of the public in relation to matters of a detailed planning nature including overlooking, privacy, trees, eyesore, access and light pollution. It is not possible to determine whether the proposal will impact upon neighbouring residential amenity as the application is in outline only with all matters reserved I consider the points of objection received would be appropriate to be considered at the reserved matters or full planning application stage. 

Given the sites current vacant status and contribution toward the housing stock the re-use as housing land would confirm to policies within the Unitary Development Plan. I consider that the site at 0.38 hectares is large enough to accommodate thirteen dwellings and that a residential use would conform to surrounding buildings and uses. I have no highway objections and recommend approval.  

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A02 Outline

2.	Standard Condition B01X Reserved Matters

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R001 Section 92

2.	Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	This permission shall relate to the agents letter dated 22nd April 2002 amending the application.

2.	The applicant shall consult the Director of Development Services (Traffic and Transportation Section) on 0161 793 3795 in relation to the provision of directional signs for the one way system.

APPLICATION No:	01/43265/CON

APPLICANT:	Abbotsound Limited

LOCATION:	Barton Wesleyan Methodist Church Barton Road Eccles 

PROPOSAL:	Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of existing church

WARD:	Barton

At a meeting of the Panel held on 21^st March 2002 consideration of this application was 
deferred for further investigations into the issues raised by objectors.

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the former Wesleyan Methodist chapel and Sunday School buildings located on the west side of Barton Road, within the Barton-Upon-Irwell Conservation Area. The Chapel faces and is set back from Barton Road, the space being occupied by a graveyard that was landscaped and planted with trees some years ago. To the rear of the Chapel are two further graveyards set behind one another. The graveyards are bounded by a 1.5m high brick wall separating the site from the gardens of the adjacent dwelling houses. To the north of the chapel is Mees Square, a multi-storey block of flats. To the south is a two storey Victorian dwelling house.

The proposal is or the demolition of the Chapel, Sunday School and ancillary buildings and the erection of a four storey block of 32 flats with associated landscaping and car parking. The new build would occupy the site of the demolished buildings. (Application 01/43153/FUL for the replacement building appears elsewhere on this agenda)
   
CONSULTATIONS

English Heritage – These historic and architecturally interesting, albeit dilapidated buildings, make a positive contribution to the character of the conservation area, however, it is evident that there are significant structural problems relating not only to the Chapel itself but also to the other buildings.  An archaeological assessment should be carried out and submitted as part of the information in support of the application.  With respect to the design there is no objection in principle to the proposed scale and massing.  It is important to ensure that the replacement building is contextually appropriate to neighbouring domestic scale properties, thereby protecting the character of the conservation area.  Roofing materials should be traditional slate and the visual impact of the accommodation contained with the roofspace should be minimised on both front and rear elevations by replacing the dormer windows with conservation rooflights.

Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – The former Chapel is entered on the Greater Manchester Sites and Monuments Record. The Chapel is a locally distinctive building and every effort should be made to preserve it within the proposed development through sympathetic conversion and refurbishment as opposed to demolition and new build. With regard to the graveyard there should be a complete record made of it before it is covered over.

PUBLICITY

A press notice was published on 22^nd November 2001 
A site notices ware displayed on 11^th December 2001

The following neighbours were notified :
3 Alexandra Road,
70 to 73 (inclusive) Barton Road,
1 to 58 (inclusive) Mees Square,
16 to 32 (even) Roby Road,
13 and 15 Roby Road,
17 to 23 (odd) Shaftsbury Avenue,
11 and 14 Shirley Avenue.
	
REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 15 letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following comments having been made:

1.	Loss of Chapel and Sunday School.
2.	The provision of a car park on a graveyard. 
3.	The removal of gravestones.
4.	Drainage pipes in the car parking area over the graves.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None  
Other policies:	EN 11: Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
		EN 13: Works to Listed Buildings and Buildings in Conservation Areas		

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The majority of the objections relate to the disturbance of graves, gravestones, the use of the graveyard as a car park and loss of the former Wesleyan Methodist Chapel, Sunday School and ancillary building that are regarded by the objectors as worthy of retention. The use of the graveyard as a car park is addressed in the planning application, 01/43153/FUL.

The buildings are clearly important in the context of the social service they provided in the Barton-Upon-Irwell area. They were included within the Barton-Upon-Irwell Conservation Area when it was designated in 1976. The buildings were included in the survey carried out by the Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit in 1990 which formed part of the County Sites and Monuments Record and were referred to as:

‘a small chapel, built of brick with a datestone “opened in 1796”. A Sunday school is attached, The chapel is in a semi-derelict state, it has a graveyard behind it, which is very overgrown, crowded and surrounded by a wall.’ 

By virtue of its inclusion in the Sites and Monument Record it is also included in the City of Salford Local List of Buildings, Structures and Features of Architectural, Archaeological and Historic Interest as Grade C (of significance in the local historic/vernacular context, including archaeological features). Grade A Locally Listed buildings are those that are more important and if under threat of demolition may be worthy of being Spot Listed to be included in the statutory List. 

However, as stated in the Greater Manchester Archaeological record, in 1990 it was in a semi-derelict condition, this was prior to several fires that have occurred since that have virtually destroyed the single storey building linking the Chapel to the Sunday school. 

In considering the demolition of buildings within Conservation Areas it is the duty of the Local Planning Authority, in accordance with Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the Historic Environment, to consider the wider effects of the demolition on the building’s surroundings and on the Conservation Area as a whole. They must also consider, in the case of an unlisted building within a conservation area, whether reasonable efforts have been made to find viable new uses and that where these have failed the redevelopment of the site would produce substantial benefits for the community which would decisively outweigh the loss resulting from the demolition. In the situation where a building makes little or no contribution to the to the character or appearance of the conservation area then full information about what is proposed for the site after demolition must be submitted. The Local Authority is entitled to consider the merits of any proposed development in determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an un-listed building in a conservation area.

The structural survey of the buildings included with the application highlights the effects of the several fires, the loss of structural stability, some original poor workmanship that has resulted in loss of lateral restraint on important structural areas of brickwork supporting roof structures, general deterioration of the building materials forming the structure and the effects of the weather on the buildings. The report concludes these combined effects of some (now unacceptable) building methods, neglect and weather have seriously damaged the fabric of the building making it un-viable to reinstate to its former condition. This is a consideration to be addressed in EN 13 : Works to Listed Buildings and Buildings within Conservation Areas of the Unitary Development Plan. 

In considering proposals to demolish..buildings..within a conservation areas the City Council will have regard (amongst other things) to the following:

      ..the condition of the building; the cost of repairing and maintaining  it to ensure its continued survival in relation to its importance …

I feel that such justification has been provided and that, in accordance with the provisions in Planning Policy Guidance 15 and Policy EN13 of the Unitary Development Plan there is reason to conclude that the redevelopment of the site would produce substantial benefits to the community in lieu of the loss to it of the current buildings. I recommend the application for approval. 

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	No site works/development shall be undertaken until the implementation of an appropriate programme of archaeological survey and analysis has been agreed in writing with the local planning authority, to be carried out by a specialist acceptable to the local planning authority and in accordance with a written brief.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R038 Section 18

2.	As the building and graveyard are of local historic interest the survey is required to provide a record for archive and research purposes.

APPLICATION No:	01/43438/FUL

APPLICANT:	Beis Yaakov School

LOCATION:	10 Radford Street Salford 7 

PROPOSAL:	Replacement of two portable buildings with four portable classroom buildings

WARD:	Kersal

Members may recall that this application was deferred from the meeting of 4 April following concerns about the proposal, particularly in relation to the numbers of pupils and the progress of the school’s intention to move to a more suitable site. I have now received a letter from school’s agent stating that the existing pupil number is 166, and it is not the intention of the school to use the proposed portable buildings to increase the number of pupils. Instead it is to improve the facilities for the current pupils.

The school has been discussions with the Education Directorate for about 4-5 years to try and relocate the school and to get the school within the control of the Local Education Authority as a Voluntary Aided Status. It is because the school are actively intending to move that they previously approved brick extension (ref. 99/38883/FUL) has not been implemented. Progress has been made with the plans to relocate and it is hoped that, providing all the details can be finalised, this school could occupy a new building on the site on Broom Lane that is currently occupied by the Brentnall School. Indeed Cabinet has already resolved to support the Beis Yaakov School’s proposal to relocate to the Brentnall school. In turn the Brentnall School is hoping to move to their new building on Northumberland Street in September. 

The applicants are currently finalising details for a bid for DFES funding for the round of bidding in September this year. Therefore, providing funding can be agreed then the school would be seeking to progress their plans for moving as soon as possible. Consequently I am satisfied that the applicants are actively progressing a relocation from this site, and providing all the necessary agreements can be put into place, they should only wish to remain on the Radford Street site for just a few more years.

My previous report is as follows:

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to an existing girls school on the fringe of the Broughton Park area. The proposal is to replace two existing portable classrooms which are in a very poor condition with 4 new portable buildings. One cabin would be to the front of the site, in a similar position to one existing cabin. This would measure 6.78m by 4.81m (as opposed to the existing 3m x 12.2m).

The other 3 cabins would be to the rear of the site, along the western boundary of the site, and replace one smaller existing cabin. They would fit in between the main school building and the site boundary and would be 3 linked cabins measuring 7.35m x 5.52m, 6.57m x 4.8m and 4.86m x 6.69m.

The cabins would be for a temporary period to provide classrooms, but it would enable the school to provide better accommodation for existing pupils, rather than to increase the numbers at the school.

SITE HISTORY

In 1999, planning permission was granted for a 2 storey extension above an existing extension, on the eastern elevation (ref. 99/38883/FUL). This permission included a condition requiring the removal of the front portable building in order to include additional parking. This permission is yet to be implemented.

In 1990 planning permission was refused for a large three-storey extension along the whole western boundary of the school, because the proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of its size and siting. (Application E/25456). A subsequent appeal was dismissed.

In 1991 a further application for planning permission for extensions along the eastern and western boundaries was refused because it would seriously injure the amenity of the neighbouring residents by reason of the size and siting, because it conflicted with the provisions of the Broughton Park Development Control Policy and because it would be out of character with the appearance of the surrounding area. (Ref. E/28532).

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objection
Broughton Park Resident Association – no comment

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 15 January 2002

The following neighbour addresses have been notified

	2-8 (even), 10A, 10B, 10C, Radford Street
	8 & 10 Kersal Bank

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received one letter of objection on behalf of the occupiers of 8, 10 & 12 Kersal Bank. The main issues identified are as follows:

•	the school has inadequate parking, which can cause serious problems for the residents, 
•	the previous approval required the school to improve its grounds and increase the number of parking spaces. They regard this application as the school’s way of ignoring the residents concerns and the wishes of the Planning Committee from the last proposal.
•	the school is in a deplorable condition, which has not been improved within recent years
•	the school ought to be relocated or completely refurbished.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: DEV 10 – Broughton Park Development Control Policy
Other policies: 

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The applicants have been in discussion for some time with various parties, including the City Council, in order to identify a suitable site for re-location. They appreciate that this building is far from ideal for a school and they are seeking a larger, more appropriate property. However, this is still likely to take more than just a few months to achieve, because of the detail of negotiation required, particularly if they require a new building to be constructed on a new site. Therefore, in the interim, the school will be staying at the Radford Street site and they need to provide suitable facilities for their pupils, which is what this application seeks to address.

The applicants inform me that they do not intend to implement the approval for the brick extension, granted in 1999, because they do not intend to stay at this site in the long term. Therefore they are seeking a temporary permission for these cabins, as an alternative.

I am aware that the neighbouring residential properties do experience problems from the school, particularly in terms of traffic along this narrow road.  In considering this particular application for the cabins I would not consider that this proposal should significantly worsen the situation than at present. Certainly, whilst there is a problem with vehicles to the site, there should be no more visiting, as the school is not proposing to increase the number of pupils.

In terms of appearance,  I would firstly consider that the removal and replacement of the 2 existing cabins would be an improvement visually, as these cabins are in a very poor state of repair. Equally, the land to the rear of the existing cabin on the western elevation, which faces no. 8 Kersal Bank, is currently overgrown. 

Whilst the majority of the proposed cabins would be close to the boundary with no. 8 Kersal Bank, they would be single storey and there would be over 14m separation between the nearest two points. Therefore I would consider that this should provide suitable separation and would not have a detrimental effect on this house in terms of loss of light or overshadowing. It is also proposed to have no windows on the side facing the neighbouring house which would prevent any problems of overlooking or loss of privacy.

I would not wish to dismiss the problems that the neighbours continue to experience by the proximity of this school, particularly in terms of the appearance of the site and the congestion experienced from parents at certain times. However, in considering this application, it is necessary to focus specifically on the merits or otherwise of the proposed portable classrooms alone. As they are not to increase the number of pupils then there should be no further increase in the traffic to the site. The appearance of the site may be one of concern, but these cabins would not, in my opinion, cause any significant detriment to the visual appearance of the site. I would consider that as they are intended as a temporary period, prior to the school relocating, I would not consider that the objections would justify the refusal of the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	The building hereby permitted shall be removed on or before the expiration of a period ending on 16th May 2002 when the site shall be restored to its condition immediately prior to the commencement of development, unless a further permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority.

2.	Prior to the erection of the buildings hereby approved, full details of the exact height and their appearance shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Director of Development Services.

3.	No windows shall be installed on any of the western elevations to the approved buildings, which face onto residential properties.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours

2.	Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours

3.	Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours

APPLICATION No:	02/43552/FUL

APPLICANT:	Askon Estates (UK) Ltd

LOCATION:	CliftonTechnology Park Wynne Avenue Clifton 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of three-three storey office units, two light industrial units and re-cladding of existing units

WARD:	Swinton North

At a meeting of the Panel held on 18^th April 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.

My previous observations are set out below:

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to Clifton Technology park situated at the northern end of Wynne Avenue.  The site is bounded by the properties of Wynne Avenue, Chessington Rise and Wolfreton Crescent to the south, additional industrial units to the west, the M60 to the north and the greenbelt to the east.  The whole of the site lies within the Croal Irwell Valley.

The application comprises several parts but seeks to refurbish, modernise and improve the industrial estate generally.  Three units would be demolished along the western boundary and replaced with a three storey building comprising 25,500 square feet of office space.

A fourth unit has been demolished in the north west corner of the site and it is proposed to erect two new industrial units in this vicinity.  These would be erected around a square configuration with the existing unit to the east and a turning circle and car parking would be provided.  

Along the northern boundary in the north east corner and along the east boundary in the south east corner of the site, two more office buildings would be erected, both again comprising 25,500 square feet of floor space.

Finally a third storey is proposed to be erected on top of the existing two storey unit which is positioned parallel to the southern boundary of the site.

All of the proposed new three storey office buildings would be constructed predominantly from brick and facing tiles with a fully glazed third storey and with glazing extending down the gable wall to ground floor level. Similarly, the new industrial units would be cladded.

The existing units which would be recladded/refurbished would be rendered, and re-cladded whilst the existing offices along the southern boundary would be refurbished with new tiling and powder coated curtain walling.

The site currently provides approximately 8,875 square metres of floorspace.  It is proposed to demolish 1237 square metres thus retaining 7,638 square metres of floor space and to provide an additional 9,023 square metres including offices and warehousing/industrial.  The existing car parking (243 spaces) would be increased to 474 spaces.  It is anticipated that the proposal would generate 300 new jobs in the area.  A traffic impact assessment has been submitted as part of the application.

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objections in principle but recommends that a site investigation is undertaken and a condition is attached to any permission restricting noise emissions to prevent any noise from affecting the amenity of nearby residents.
Environment Agency – no objections in principle.
Highways Agency – no comments to date.

PUBLICITY

A press notice was published 21 January 2002.
A site notice was displayed on 31 January 2002.

The following neighbours were notified :
	1 and 2 Ellerby Avenue
	12 and 15 Fletcher Avenue
	12, 14 and 45 Rake Lane
	11, 15, 16 and 17 Chessington Rise
	19, 21 and 39 Wolfreton Crescent

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received no response to the application publicity. 

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:  EN23 Croal Irwell Valley, EN17 Croal Irwell Valley, 
Other policies:	T13 Car Parking, EC4 Improvement to employment areas, DEV2 Good Design, EC6 Existing Enterprise in Environmentally Sensitive Areas, EC3 RE-use of sites and premises, 
		
PLANNING APPRAISAL

As the industrial estate is situated within the Croal Irwell Valley and on the edge of the greenbelt I consider that these are two important issues in the consideration of this proposal.  Also of importance and related to these is the impact of the refurbishment and the erection of additional units in terms of traffic generation, visual impact and noise generation.

The proposal would see the re-use of existing premises on the industrial estate that have fallen vacant and would also improve environmental conditions.  The proposal therefore accords directly with both policies EC3 and EC4.

The site lies within the Croal Irwell Valley to which policies EN17 and EN23 relate.  These are all embracing policies with the overall aim of maintaining and improving the valley as an environmental and recreational resource.  As a means of achieving this, under policies EN23 there will be particular emphasis on “the improvement of the valley’s industrial areas”, the “control of unsympathetic industrial development” as well as the “promotion of high standards of design”.

The proposal is for the erection of new offices and two new replacement industrial units within an existing industrial estate which the applicant wishes to see improved with a higher occupation ratio.  The new units and offices would be of a modern design and the existing units would also be refurbished.  I therefore consider the proposal to be acceptable in terms of its impact upon the Croal Irwell Valley and policy EN23.

Two of the new office buildings would be positioned along the eastern boundary to the greenbelt, parallel to the boundary and one at right angles to it.  I acknowledge that they would be visible and would therefore have an impact upon the greenbelt.  However, the one building which would be positioned parallel to the boundary and therefore have potentially the greatest impact, has been re-sited and brought away from the boundary to allow landscaping.  If a high quality scheme could be achieved along here in particular, this would soften and therefore reduce any impact, and when viewed against the backdrop of the remainder of the estate, I do not consider that it would have an unacceptable or significant detrimental visual impact.  The other new buildings would be positioned on the western side of the estate, away from the boundary.  I therefore consider that the proposal is acceptable in terms of impact upon the greenbelt.

The proposal would provide somewhere in the region of 300 new jobs which would be beneficial for the city.  It would also however, therefore have traffic and highway implications.  As part of the application a traffic impact assessment has been submitted and I am currently awaiting a response from the Highways Agency.

This proposal would result in the improvement of this industrial estate, creating several hundred jobs.  It would not have an unacceptable impact on the Croal Irwell Valley or the Greenbelt and I can only consider that subject to no objections from the Highways Agency, this proposal should be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

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

3.	Prior to commencement of the development the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the approval of the LPA.  The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focussing primarily on risks to human health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and property.
	
	The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to the start of the site investigation survey.  Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.

4.	The rating level of the noise emitted from any fixed plant and equipment associated with the development shall not exceed the existing background noise level, expressed as any L90 by more than 5dB.  The noise level shall be measured at the boundary of the nearest noise sensitive premises.  The measurement and assessment shall be made according to BS4142:1997 "Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Area".

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

6.	This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 15 March 2002 by fax which shows unit D set in from eastern boundary and landscaping.

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

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

3.	Standard Reason R028A Public safety

4.	Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours

5.	To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with policy DEV11 of the UDP.

6.	Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt

7.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

7.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

APPLICATION No:	02/43591/COU

APPLICANT:	K A Snelson

LOCATION:	First Floor 25/29 Worsley Road Swinton 

PROPOSAL:	Continued use of first floor as a martial arts school

WARD:	Swinton South

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the first floor of 25-29 Worsley Road. It is situated above a block of shops, some of which are currently vacant. The majority of the area, including to the rear, is residential.

The proposal is to continue to use of the first floor as a martial arts school, which has been operating from this property for approximately 12months. Access to the building is from a separate door on the side of the building on Ogden Street. The hours of operation are 6pm to 9pm Monday to Friday, 10 am to 12.30pm Saturday, and 2pm-3pm & 5pm-7pm on Sunday.

SITE HISTORY

In January 1993, planning permission was granted for a change of use to a  karate and boxing gym (ref. E/30471). This permission does not appear to have been implemented.

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objections

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 21 February 2002.

The following neighbours were notified :
	23 – 33 (odd) Worsley Road
	Maryland House, Ogden Street
	1-9 (odd), 2-8 (even) Ogden Street

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 2 letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The objectors say that there is already a problem with on-street parking. In particular Ogden Street already experiences problems with cars parking and this would only make the situation worse. It is also difficult to turn in Ogden Street and parking on Worsley Road makes the route out from Ogden Street unsafe. 

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

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

In considering this application I do have to be mindful that planning permission was granted for this use in January 1993. Although this was not implemented and has now lapsed, I would still have to consider whether any circumstances have changed since the previous approval that would now justify refusing the use, which was previously acceptable.

There are no residential properties within this block, and therefore I would not consider that the use would cause particular problems of noise and disturbance to any residents. Therefore I would consider the main issue would be that of traffic, as raised by the objectors. This was raised and considered with the previous application and it was not sufficient to justify refusal. I am aware that there is concern about parking on Ogden Street, both with workers at Maryland House during the day, and with residents outside office hours. However, I would not consider that the parking situation has significantly changed in this area since the approval in 1993 and therefore I do not consider that we could justify refusal of this current application to continue the martial art school.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	The hours of operation shall only be:
	Monday to Friday -  6pm until 9pm.
	Saturday - 10 am until 12.30pm
	Sunday - 2pm until 3pm and 5pm until 7pm

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours

APPLICATION No:	02/43684/HH

APPLICANT:	Mr And Mrs R Graham

LOCATION:	32 Egerton Road Worsley 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of detached garage at side/rear of dwelling and retention and alterations to boundary fencing.

WARD:	Walkden North

At a meeting of the Panel held on 18^th April 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.

My previous observations are set out below:

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a semi-detached property that is on the corner of Wilbraham Road and Egerton Road, Walkden.

The proposal is for the retention and alterations to fencing and the erection of a detached garage.  The fencing would vary being 2m at its highest and 1m at its lowest.  The garage would be situated 0.7m from the side elevation of the existing property and a minimum of 4m from the side boundary. 

PUBLICITY

The following neighbours were notified:
	5, 7 and 30 Egerton Road
	1 and 3 Wilbraham Road
	1 Donnington Gardens

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received a petition, which represents eight households in response to the application publicity. The following objections having been made:

	The garage will enhance a car repair business
	The fence should be reduced to allow visibility.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

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

		
PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV8 states that the City Council will only grant planning permission where the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents, the character and appearance of the street scene, the character of the dwelling or the appearance of the site.

The garage meets with all our policies in that it is more than 2m from the side boundary and it is 13m from the front boundary.  

The first objection relates to a commercial car repair business that is being run from the premises, I have contacted the applicant who assures me all the cars in the garden are family owned and no commercial car repairs are taking place.  However if the situation changes and commercial repairs begin taking place then that would be dealt with as a separate enforcement issue.  As proposed the garage is consistent with normal domestic use. 

The fencing has been amended by setting the fencing back adjacent to the vehicular gates to comply with highway requirements for visibility splays.  The remaining fencing meets with our Engineering Division’s comments.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	Standard Condition L02G Amended Plans

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt

APPLICATION No:	02/43735/FUL

APPLICANT:	Moylan Homes

LOCATION:	Former Industrial Building Mountain Street Walkden Worsley 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of two three storey buildings comprising 15 flats together with associated car parking and construction of new vehicular access

WARD:	Walkden North

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the site of the former Norweb building on Mountain Street which stood on the corner with Vicarage Road.  The site is surrounded by residential properties to the north, east and west with the properties of St John Street backing onto the site to the north separated by an access road.  On the opposite corner of Vicarage Road is Abbeyfield House whilst opposite the site to the south is the electricity sub-station and a second Norweb building which is now vacant.

The proposal seeks an amendment to a permission granted in May last year for two, three storey blocks comprising a total of 15 flats with an amenity area between the two, reference 01/42059/FUL.  Previously there were nine flats in one block and six in the second with the larger block on the eastern half of the site.  It is now proposed to “swop” these two blocks over so that the smaller block is on the eastern half and the larger one is sited on the western half, adjacent to Vicarage Road.  An amenity space would again separate the two blocks and car parking would be provided at the rear.

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to the imposition of a contaminated land condition.
Architectural Liaison Officer – recommends that the fencing at the rear and sides should be a minimum of 2.1m high, dedicated parking bays to individual flats and appropriate access controls with boundary treatment to the front of the properties.

PUBLICITY

A press notice was published 21 March 2002. 
A site notice was displayed on 14 March 2002.

The following neighbours were notified :
	247 – 253 Bolton Road
	1 – 19 St John Street
	
REPRESENTATIONS

I have received no response to the application publicity. 

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:  none.
Other policies:	DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Crime and Design, H1 Meeting Housing Needs.
		
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The proposal is seeking an amendment to a previous approval and therefore the principle for the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes has already been established.  The important issue in the consideration of this application relates to the impact of “swapping” the two blocks around and the re-sting of the amenity area.  The parking provision would remain as previously as would the size of the amenity area.  This would not come any closer to the residential dwellings at the rear and similarly the rear elevation of the proposed blocks would remain as previously approved.  I have received no response to the proposal and therefore I am satisfied that there would not be a significant detrimental impact from the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

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

3.	Standard Condition C01X Landscaping

4.	Full details and height of all boundary treatment around the site including the railings along the frontage to Mountain Street and to the amenity area shall be submitted and approved in writing prior to the commencement of development and to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.  The boundary treatment along the Vicarage Road frontage shall not exceed 1m in height unless otherwise agreed in writing.

5.	Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the approval of the Local Planning Authority.  The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of contamination and underground gases on site and its implications on the risk to human health and controlled water receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 Part IIA.  The investigation shall also address the health and safety of the site workers, nearby persons, building structures and services, landscaping schemes, final users on the site and the environmental pollution in ground water.
	
	The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of the survey and recommendations and remedial works contained within the report shall be implemented by the developer prior to the occupation of the site.

5.	Standard Condition R028A Public safety

6.	Full details of the bin stores shall be submitted to and approved in writing prior to the commencement of development and to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

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

4.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

6.	Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	The applicant's attention is drawn to the comments from the Architectural Liaison Officer dated 13 March 2002.

APPLICATION No:	02/43768/HH

APPLICANT:	D Williams

LOCATION:	9 Riverside Avenue Irlam 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of two storey side extension

WARD:	Irlam

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a semi-detached dormer bungalow and is for the erection of a two-storey side extension.

The proposal would project up to the side boundary, the first floor element would be set back 2m from the front elevation to comply with the Council's terracing policy.  On the ground floor there would be 6m of hardstanding maintained for off road parking.  The proposal would be 2.5m to the eaves and 7m at the ridge with a pitched roof and would be in line with the existing rear elevation.  It has no windows on the side elevation. 

SITE HISTORY

99/40028/HH – Single storey side extension approved December 1999

PUBLICITY

The following neighbours were notified :
	50, 52 and 54 Broadway
	7 and 11 Riverside Avenue

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity from the owner of the neighbouring property. The following comments having been made:

	Loss of light and overbearing
	Loss of access to the rear of the property would be unacceptable
Extension would cause neighbouring residents disturbance and possible damaged to property.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:  
Other policies:	DEV8 – House Extensions
		
PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV8 states that planning permission will only be granted where there would be no unacceptably adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and where an extension would not have an unacceptably adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, by reason of its siting, height, massing, design and appearance.

The objector’s property at No.7 has only a landing window on the side elevation that would be affected by the proposal, although some light would be lost to this window it is not habitable room. The existing property is sited 1.8m forward of No.7’s front elevation but the 2 metre set back means that the extension would not project forward of the neighbouring property. The proposal would be approx. 2.2m from No.7 which has a door on the ground floor, front elevation, closest to the proposal. Due to the separation and the set back I would not consider the proposal to have an overbearing effect.

The second objection with regards to obstructing access to the rear of the property is not a material planning consideration and would be a private matter under the Party Wall Act..

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

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

3.	This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 24th April 2002 which shows the setting back of the first floor.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building

3.	Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt

APPLICATION No:	02/43772/FUL

APPLICANT:	Mr And Mrs S J Brown

LOCATION:	Moorfield House 132 Liverpool Road Irlam 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of extension to existing residential care home

WARD:	Irlam

At the meeting of the Panel held on 1^st May 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.

My previous observations are set out below:

At the previous Committee the applicant raised a number of issues in relation to the description of the proposal.  The City Council can now clarify that original extension to the care home provided an additional 12 bedrooms, to the original 4 bedroomed care home.  In addition, previous information received from the applicant regarding the depth of the sewer works undertaken to the front of the property has also been clarified by colleagues in Main Drainage.  Following a sewer collapse in the garden area of the site in September1996, works were undertaken to install a replacement sewer at a depth of approximately 3m.  The minimum easement width from these sewers is 3m either side, subject to foundation depths being agreed.  

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the erection of a large extension to an existing residential care home on Liverpool Road, Irlam.  The proposal involves a substantial extension of the existing care home facility, providing an additional 13 bedroom spaces and extending the building line some 15.0m towards the Liverpool Road frontage.  

The existing building is a pleasant bay fronted detached premises set in substantial grounds, and is located well back from Liverpool Road.  The property has already been substantially extended, with a large side extension providing an additional 12 bedroom spaces to the original 6 bedroomed care home.  To the front boundary with Liverpool Road there are a number of mature trees, which are subject to a Tree Preservation Order.   None of these trees are to be removed as part of the proposal.  

The proposed extension is three storey in height, which is comparable with adjacent three storey residential properties on Woodbine Terrace, and the three storey shops/flats on Moorfield parade.  There are two storey residential properties opposite the proposal site on Liverpool Road.  The proposed extension is of a plain brick construction, and bears little relation to the original building.  With the proposed extension there would be a total of 31 bedroom spaces at the care home.  There would be a total of 19 staff working at the premises, with a maximum of eight staff present at the busiest times.  The care home provides 24 hour residential care, seven days a week.
   
SITE HISTORY

In 1988, planning permission was granted for the erection of a two storey side extension to provide an additional 12 bedroom spaces.

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – Concerns regarding the nature of the use and the proximity of the site to Liverpool Road.  Traffic noise potentially a problem.

National Care Standards Commission – No Objections

Arboricultural Officer – No part of the proposed extension should be within 10 metres of any protected trees.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbours were notified :
	2-12 (e) Woodbine Terrace
	2 & 2 Moorfield Road
	9 & 11 Turner Avenue 
	16 & 30 Moorfield Parade
	75-87 (o) Liverpool Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received one letter of objections in response to the application publicity. The following comments having been made:

		Objects to the size of the proposed extension
		The loss of the original Victorian building
		Loss of valuable garden space 
		Destruction of residential part of Liverpool Road
		Negative affect on visual amenity

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:  N/A
Other policies:		DEV1 – Development Criteria
			DEV2 – Good Design
			DEV3 – Alterations / Extension
SC12 – Residential Care Homes and Nursing Homes
EN7  - Conservation of Trees and Woodlands

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan states that in the consideration of planning applications the City Council should have regard to a number of factors, including the size, density and visual appearance of the proposed development; its relationship to existing buildings and its surrounding; the amount of car parking provision; and the impact on existing trees on or adjacent to the development site.  Policy DEV2 relates to the quality of design in new developments, and states that such developments should pay due regard to existing buildings and the character of the surrounding area.  Policy DEV3 relates to applications for alterations and extensions and requires that such applications should respect the general scale, style. Proportion and materials of the original structure and complement the general character of surrounding buildings.  

Policy SC12 relates specifically to residential care homes and nursing homes, and states that proposes extensions should pay due regard to the amenity of local residents, and the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and that adequate provision should be made for private amenity space within the curtilage of the site.     This policy has been developed in the “Development Control Policy Note for Residential Care Homes and Nursing Homes”, which reasserts the consideration that any alterations or extensions should be designed to complement the character of the local area, with due consideration to the visual character of the area; and provides clarification that a garden area equal to 25% of the total area of the site should be available for the exclusive use of residents.

I received one letter of objection to the proposed development, with the main reason for objection relating to the loss of the original Victorian building, and the inappropriate size of the proposal.  The proposed development would completely conceal the original Victorian building, and extend significantly into the substantial garden area to the front of the property.  The original dwelling has already been substantially extended, with a 12 bedroom side extension, which was set back from the front elevation and sympathetic designed to fit in with the existing property. The proposed design is plain and rather utilitarian in nature.  I would not consider that this reflects the original building, or provides and attractive appearance to Liverpool Road.   The extension would also stand well forward of the current building line, with the proposed extension extending the building line some 15m towards Liverpool Road.  I consider that the size of the proposed 3 storey extension would dominate the streetscene, and significantly change the character of the site and surrounding area. 

Further objections raised relate to the loss of garden space to the front of the proposal site.  The garden area to the front of the existing use appears well maintained and provides a pleasant aspect to the Liverpool Road frontage.  The Development Control Policy Note on Residential Care Homes and Nursing Homes states that at least 25% of the total area of the site should be private garden space for the exclusive use of residents.  Although the proposal would lead to the loss of significant garden space, I am satisfied that there would be at least 25% of private garden area remaining at the site.  

I consider that the main issue with regard to this application to be the relationship between the proposal and the mature trees to the boundary with Liverpool Road, which are subject to a Tree Preservation Order.  I have been advised by the City Council’s Arboricultural Officer that in order to protect these trees from any negative impacts, a distance of at least 10m should be maintained between the tree line and the proposed building line, which is proposed at 6.0m.  This issue has been raised with the applicant, who is unwilling to amend the proposal on grounds that there have been sewer replacement works undertaken within the last ten years by the City Council within the garden area of the site, resulting in excavation works of approximately 4-4.5m in depth a distance of 5m from the trees.  Contrary to this view however, and given that the proposed building line is located 6.0m from the trees, it is my opinion that the proposed development would be detrimental to these trees which are subject to a Tree Preservation Order.

I conclusion, I consider that the proposed extension would dominate the streetscene in the area, by reason of its size, relationship to existing buildings, and proximity to Liverpool Road.  The design of the proposal bears no relationship to the original building, and I would consider it plain and utilitarian in nature.  I would also consider that the proposed extension would have a negative impact upon the mature trees at the boundary of the site and Liverpool Road, which are subject to a tree preservation order.  On this basis, I recommend refusal.

RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:

1.	The proposed development would be detrimental to the amenity of the area by affecting, to an undesirable degree, trees which are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order, and as such is contrary to Policy EN7 of the adopted Unitary  Development Plan.

2.	The proposed development would be out of character with the surrounding area because of its size, design and appearance, and as such is contrary to Policy SC12 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

APPLICATION No:	02/43779/FUL

APPLICANT:	Hutchison 3G UK

LOCATION:	Irlam Industrial Estate, Off Liverpool Road Irlam 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of a 15m high monopole, three antennas and three microwave dishes

WARD:	Cadishead

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the erection of a 15 metre high monopole and ancillary equipment on land at Irlam industrial estate. The proposed site is at the northern end of the Industrial estate set 20m away from the railway line and sited adjacent to an existing waste transfer station. The site is screened by a 3 metre high wall and a line of mature poplars to the south west, to the south and east are industrial areas whilst to the north east across the railway lines are residential properties on Cromwell Road.   

SITE HISTORY

In 2001, prior notification was refused for the installation of a 15 metre high lattice mast, equipment cabinet and associated apparatus (01/42946/TEL42).

PUBLICITY

A press notice was displayed on the 21^st March 2002.
A site notice was displayed on 13^th March 2002. 

The following neighbours were notified :
	2 –56 even Dean Road
	Irlam and Cadishead High School
	636 – 656 even Liverpool Road
	653 – 667 odd Liverpool Road
	8 – 20 even Magenta Avenue
	1 –11 Quill Court, Magenta Avenue
	1 - 25 odd Sienna Close 
Kaufman and Broad Ltd, 56 Chapel Street, Chorley, PR7 1BS 

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 12 letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following comments having been made:

	Concerns over health effects
	The proposal would be an eyesore
	The proposal would create noise nuisance

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none  
Other policies:	SC14 Telecommunications
		
PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy SC14 states that the City Council will normally approve telecommunications applications unless visual or residential amenity is unacceptably effected. Through this the City Council aims to balance the needs of the telecommunications industry with the need to preserve amenity. The policy also highlights the importance of site sharing and the erection of antennae on existing buildings or other existing structures. Furthermore Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 (PPG8) on Telecommunications sets out the main issues concerning the installation of such development, highlighting the importance of siting and design. 

One of the main issues to consider with regards to this application is the health implications of the proposed development on occupiers of residential property and the general public. Whilst it is clear from the objections received that there is concern over the health implications, in terms of radio frequency output the proposed apparatus would be below the ICNIRP guidelines as recommended by the Stewart Report. The ICNIRP guidelines are five times stricter than the NRPB (National Radiological Protection Board who are Central Governments statutory advisors on radiological protection matters). As such I am satisfied that the proposed development would be in accordance with the precautionary approach adopted by the City Council.  

Objection has also been raised to the possible noise nuisance of the development, there is no evidence to show that a significant level of additional noise would ensue as result of the proposal. Given the distance to residential dwellings and the cabinet equipment being sound insulated I consider that there would be no detrimental amenity effect. 

The applicant has submitted information to show the need for this telecommunications development and reasoning as to why this industrial site was chosen. As originally submitted the applicant proposed a 20 metre lattice mast in order to facilitate future mast sharing with another operator. In considering the 20 metre mast I agreed with the objectors opinion that such a tall unsightly structure would adversely effect visual amenity. The applicant has now amended the application to a 15 metre high monopole, which I consider will be screened well by trees to the south and west and to the north and east by existing trees. In addition the reduced height structure would be 80 metres from the nearest existing or proposed residential dwelling. Given the distance from dwellings and the revised slim structure of the proposal coupled with natural screening I am satisfied that the proposal will not adversely effect residential amenity. I am also satisfied that visual amenity will not be diminished given the design and location within this industrial location.    

I have no highway objections. Given that the need of the development has been justified, the height and bulk has been reduced to an acceptable design and scale and the proposal complies with ICNIRP guidelines I recommend approval.      

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R001 Section 92

APPLICATION No:	02/43798/FUL

APPLICANT:	R R G Group Co Ltd

LOCATION:	Back Roman Road Salford 7 

PROPOSAL:	Closure of road, construction of new footpath and car park and erection of 2.3m high fencing

WARD:	Broughton

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a section of adopted highway, Back Roman Road, between the rear of dwellings on Legion Grove and the rear of a car showroom on Bury New Road.

The proposal is to close the road to create a car parking area. The car park would be used for staff parking only and would only be used during opening hours. A new footpath would be created to the east of the site and 2.3 metre high fencing would be erected between the boundary of the car park and the proposed footpath. 6.0 metre wide gates would be erected at the vehicular access onto Appian Way. The Applicant has confirmed that there would be no floodlighting to the proposed new car park and that the new footpath would be installed to adoptable standards and as such would be lit.

Back Roman Road is at a higher level of approximately 1.5 metres above the car showroom site. There is 3 metre high palisade fencing on the rear boundary of the car showroom site.

The site is located in an area of mixed uses. There are residential properties adjacent to the site on Brutus Walk and Legion Grove.

SITE HISTORY

93/31874/FUL – Erection of 3 metre high palisade boundary fence and gates to form access road to existing commercial property with associated footpath and landscaping

CONSULTATIONS

Open Spaces Society – No comments to make on these proposals.
Peak and Northern Footpaths Society – No response to date.
Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections to the proposal

PUBLICITY

The following neighbours were notified:

1 – 14 Legion Grove
1 – 6 Brutus Walk
8, 9 Centurion Grove
11 – 21 (odds) Bradshaw Street
318 Great Cheetham Street East
The County Market, Great Cheetham Street East

REPRESENTATIONS

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

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none
Other policies:	DEV1 – Development Criteria
		T10 - Pedestrians
		
PLANNING APPRAISAL

Unitary Development Plan policy T10 states that the City Council will ensure that the needs of pedestrians throughout the City are given greater attention by taking account the needs of pedestrians and the presence of existing public rights of way in the planning of new development. Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors in determining applications for planning permission including the design and layout of car parking provision and the visual appearance of the development and its relationship to its surroundings.

The Applicant has stated that the reason for the proposal is principally to prevent damage to cars at the showroom site below from missiles that are thrown from Back Roman Road. The car park layout has been amended to allow vehicles to manoeuvre safely within the site. 

The proposal would require the closure of the vehicular access and the diversion of the footpath. The Applicant would be required to apply to Government Office North West for a closure under the Town and Country Planning Act (section 247). I have some reservations regarding the creation of a lengthy footpath between fencing and tall landscaping and the perceived fear and risk of crime. I have, however, consulted the Police Architectural Liaison Unit, who has no objections to the proposal.

I consider that the design and height of the proposed fencing is acceptable, providing that it is colour-treated. The proposed landscaping would reduce the visual impact of the development.

I have no objections on highway grounds.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	The fencing hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior to the commencement of the development by the Director of Development Services.

3.	The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started.  Such scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and shall be carried out within 6 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.  Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.

4.	No development shall commence until the necessary closure and footpath diversion have been formally secured under appropriate legislation.

5.	This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 3rd May 2002 which shows revised car park layout.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

3.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

4.	For the avoidance of doubt.

5.	To encourage drivers to make use of the parking area and to ensure that the use of the land shall not give rise to hazards at the entrance/exit point in the interests of public safety and in accordance with policy T13 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

APPLICATION No:	02/43806/HH

APPLICANT:	C Ferrier

LOCATION:	2 Blandford Avenue Roe Green Worsley 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of part single/part two storey side/rear extension

WARD:	Worsley Boothstown

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a semi-detached property in a residential area.  The side boundary is also the rear boundary of properties on Roe Green.  The proposal is for the erection of a part two-storey part single-storey side extension.

The two-storey element of the proposal would project 3.2m X 5.5m with a single storey element at the rear.  There would be one small window, to a bathroom, on the first floor side elevation, which is above eye level.  The height of the two storey element would be the same height as the existing to the eaves 6.8m and lightly less to the ridge (9m) with a hipped roof.  The single-storey element would provide a garage and project a further 2.5m from the side and be 6.3 metres in length. It would be set back 2.2m from the front elevation and would be in line with the rear elevation and would have two small high level windows on the side elevation.  It would be 4.5m to the ridge with a pitched roof. 

The objector’s property is approx. .8m lower than the application site. 

CONSULTATIONS

British Coal – No objection

PUBLICITY

The following neighbours were notified :
	1, 3 and 4 Blandford Avenue
	26, 28, 32 and 34 Roe Green

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity from the occupier of one of the properties on Roe Green.  The following comments having been made:
	Overbearing
	Loss of privacy 
	Loss of view
	Further loss of privacy if windows are added at a later date

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

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

Policy DEV8 states that planning permission will only be granted where there would be no unacceptably adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and where an extension would not have an unacceptably adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, by reason of its siting, height, massing, design and appearance.

Since the objection was received the application has been amended and is now smaller in width and height than previously. The single-storey element has been substantially reduced in height (6m to 4.5m) and length (8.4m to 6.3m)

The two-storey element of the proposal would be 13.2m from the rear elevation of the objector’s property and the single-storey element would be a minimum of 9.4m, which meets with our current policy. I do not consider the proposal to be overbearing.

There is one small bathroom window on the first floor above eye level and two small, high level windows on the side elevation of the garage,  I would not consider these windows to cause a loss of privacy.

The loss of a view is not a material planning consideration.  I have attached conditions requiring the use of obscure glazing to the side windows and prohibiting the insertion additional windows on the side elevation without prior consent.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

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

3.	The glazing for the windows to the side elevations of the extensions shall be obscured, and shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.

4.	There shall be no openings, at the time of building nor at any time in the future,  in the side elevations other than those indicated on the approved plans

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building

3.	Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours

4.	Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours

APPLICATION No:	02/43809/FUL

APPLICANT:	P Austin

LOCATION:	The Boatyard, Between Parrin Lane And Canal Side Eccles 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of a four storey storage building

WARD:	Eccles

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a parcel of land comprising 0.05ha within the Monton Green Conservation Area and adjacent to the Bridgewater Canal, between Monton Bridge and Monton Medical Centre. The eastern part of the site, nearest to Canal Side, contains an electricity sub station, the remainder of the site is currently vacant. The site comprises rough grass and a gravel track, with trees and shrubs along the Moton Bridge Boundary; trees near the canal edge, whilst the southern boudary is formed by the rear wall of the Medical Centre.

The proposal is for the erection of a four storey storage building, associated with the applicant’s interest in the two canal barges that he owns and that are moored alongside the application site. The building would resemble a typical lighthouse and would be 4m diameter at the base, tapering to 3m diameter at third floor level that would be extended a further metre beyond the stone faced wall by a complete balcony supported from cast iron gallows brackets beneath. The structure would be built of stone blocks with a door at ground level and windows illuminating the circular staircase running around the inside wall building, and the fourth floor would consist of glazed double doors giving access to the balcony and windows all around. The roof structure would also be fully glazed.   

SITE HISTORY

In 1998, planning permission was refused for outline approval for the erection of a single dwelling house because it was felt that the constrained size of the site would be inadequate and inappropriate to accommodate a dwelling. It was also felt that the roots of the protected trees might be affected by foundation works. The appeal by the applicant was allowed on 7^th April 1999 allowing the proposed development to proceed.  
 
CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objections but request a condition relating to contaminated land within 200m of the site.

Monton Green Residents Association- No objections

English Heritage- No objections

Manchester Ship Canal Company- No objections

PUBLICITY

A press notice has been published and has now expired.
A site notices were displayed on 22^nd March 2002.

The following neighbours were notified :
	Monton Medical Centre
	Westwood Lodge, Parrin Lane.

	
REPRESENTATIONS

There has been no response to date.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None. 
Other policies:	EN11: Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas.
EN13: Listed Buildings and Buildings within Conservation Areas.
		
PLANNING APPRAISAL

The proposal is in accordance with Policy EN11 of the UDP in that the development would protect and enhance the Monton Green Conservation Area by improving this vacant site adjacent to the canal. The design is such that it would bring interest to this particular part of the Monton Green Conservation Area, enhance the visual amenity and provide a focal point for barge owners as they navigate the Bridgewarter Canal from the south towards Parrin Lane Bridge to the north.  I recommend the application for approval.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

3.	Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials

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

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

3.	Standard Reason R006A Character - conservation area

4.	Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents

APPLICATION No:	02/43812/HH

APPLICANT:	Mrs S Burns

LOCATION:	15 Longton Road Salford 6 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of single storey rear extension

WARD:	Claremont

At a meeting of the Panel held on 18^th April 2002 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.

My previous observations are set out below:

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the part demolition of a single storey rear extension and erection of a single storey rear extension to a semi-detached property.

The proposal would be L shaped and project 1.8m at a distance of 3.5m from the common semi boundary and 6m on the boundary (1.7m more than the existing).  The proposal would be 4.3m in height with a sloping roof.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbours were notified :
	13 and 17 Longton Road
	3, 5 and 7 Kendal Road
16 and 18 Rudyard Street

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received one letter of objection from the occupier of the adjoining semi-detached property (No.13) in response to the application publicity. The following comments having been made:

	Loss of light
	Proposed lead flashing would be an eye-sore
	Removal of the flue may affect adjoining property in the future
	Object to applicant coming on their land

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None 
Other policies:	Dev8 – House Extensions
		
PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV8 states that the City Council will only grant planning permission where the extension would not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents, the character and appearance of the street scene, the character of the dwelling or the appearance of the site.

The first objection relates to loss of light, the proposal would project 1.8m more than the rear elevation of No.13, which also has a single storey element on the boundary.  The proposal would be approx. 0.8m higher than the adjoining single storey element I would therefore not consider their to be a detrimental impact on the loss of light.  

The original single-storey rear element to both the houses was built as one unit, therefore as the proposal is higher the join between the two needs to be lead flashed I would not consider the lead flashing to be an eye-sore as it would be situated 3.6m above ground level.

The latter two objections are not planning matters, the removal of the flue is a structural matter that would be dealt with as part of a building regulations application and the issue of entering land on the boundary would be dealt with under the Party Wall Act.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

APPLICATION No:	02/43850/HH

APPLICANT:	C S Barnes

LOCATION:	235 East Lancashire Road Swinton 

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

WARD:	Swinton South

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a semi-detached property and is for the erection of a two storey side extension and single storey rear extension.  

The two storey side extension would match the length of the existing gable and would be 3.85m wide, set in 0.2m from the common boundary with the first floor set back 2m.
The proposal would maintain a driveway length of 5.2m with a roller shutter style garage door.  There are no windows proposed within the side gable.

The single storey rear extension would match the 2.2m projection of the existing single storey kitchen extension.  It would have a pitched roof that would continue across both single storey elements.

CONSULTATIONS

The Coal Authority – Advice given

PUBLICITY

The following neighbours were notified :
	231, 233 and 237 East Lancashire Road
	1 and 3 South Meade
	1 and 3 Enfield Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments having been made:
	
	Loss of light
	
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:	None
Other policies:		DEV 8 – House Extensions
		
PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV8 states that planning permission will only be granted where there would be no unacceptably adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and where an extension would not have an unacceptably adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, by reason of its siting, height, massing, design and appearance.

The letter of objection refers to a loss of light to a dining room window located within the gable of the adjacent property.  Originally these properties consisted of a kitchen and wash room within the gable, the dining rooms were on the inside of each semi.

However, due to the internal alterations of the adjacent semi there is now a habitable room window that provides the only means of light to that room.  Therefore, a two storey extension 2.6m from this window would cause an unacceptable loss of light and would be contrary to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for house extensions.

Therefore I would recommend that this proposal be refused.

RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:

1.	Standard Reason RR34C Neighbouring Residents - Size/Siting

APPLICATION No:	02/43859/HH

APPLICANT:	N Madden

LOCATION:	3 Thornway Ellenbrook Worsley 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of two storey side extension

WARD:	Walkden South

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a detached property and is for the erection of a two storey side extension.  The proposal would remove the existing detached garage and provide an attached garage and utility at ground floor with bedrooms above. The design of this proposal would match the existing pike and gable and also the design of the property.

The habitable part of the neighbouring property (No.5) is set back from the road.  This proposal would project approximately 5.2m beyond the main elevation of the neighbouring property.

CONSULTATIONS

The Coal Authority – Advice given

PUBLICITY

The following neighbours were notified :
	1 and 5 Thornway
	10 – 14 (even) Thornway
	3 – 7 (odd) Edenvale 

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments having been made:

	Loss of light
	Overshadowing
	Tunnel effect

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies:		DEV 8 – House Extensions
		
PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV8 states that planning permission will only be granted where there would be no unacceptably adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and where an extension would not have an unacceptably adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, by reason of its siting, height, massing, design and appearance.

Although angled away from the neighbouring property the projection beyond the front elevation of No.5 Thornway at 2 storeys would create an unacceptable loss of light to the neighbouring property.

RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:

1.	Standard Reason RR34C Neighbouring Residents - Size/Siting

APPLICATION No:	02/43880/HH

APPLICANT:	Mr And Mrs G Hewitt

LOCATION:	32 Roe Green Worsley 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of two storey extension to front and side, conservatory to rear and a 2m high wall and railings

WARD:	Worsley Boothstown

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a detached property within the Roe Green Conservation Area and is for the erection of a two storey extension to the front and side and a conservatory to the rear of the dwelling and the erection of a 2m high wall/railings.

The two storey element would build upon the existing garage and would wrap around to the rear of the property matching the existing height of the side gable.  It would have a pitched roof that would tie into the existing roof.  The conservatory would be located to the rear and a 2m high wall and railings would be erected along the boundary with Roe Green.

CONSULTATIONS

The Coal Authority – Advice given
Worsley Civic Trust – No comments received

PUBLICITY

A press notice was published in the Advertiser 11/4/2002

The following neighbours were notified :
	26, 28 and 34 Roe Green

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the application publicity. The following comments having been made:
	
	Loss of light
	Loss of character
	Removal of trees and hedges
	Over development
	Dominant
Loss of privacy

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:	EN 11 Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
EN 13 Works to Listed Buildings and Building Within Conservation Areas
Other policies:		DEV 8 – House Extensions
		
PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV8 states that planning permission will only be granted where there would be no unacceptably adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and where an extension would not have an unacceptably adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, by reason of its siting, height, massing, design and appearance.

Policy EN11 seeks to preserve or enhance the special character of areas of architectural and historic interest… In seeking to preserve or enhance conservation areas the City Council will have regard to the need to:-
iv)	encourage high standards of development that are in keeping with the character of the area;
v)	encourage the retention of mature trees

The letter of objection received refers to the impact of a two storey extension on the living room windows, garden and an overall feeling of dominance.  Reference is also made to the removal of mature trees and hedge that fronts the highway and runs between the properties. 

I consider that the conservatory located at the rear of this proposal would result in a loss of privacy to the living room of the neighbouring property.  Also the erection of a two storey side extension would not allow for sufficient separation at first floor level and would be over dominant on the neighbouring property.

The applicant has shown the removal of an oak and 3 larch trees.  A separate application has been received (02/43879/TREECA) to consider the issue of removing the trees. However the proposed development would result in the direct loss of 2 larch trees to accommodate a revision to the driveway and the erection the new wall within 2/2.5m of the remaining larch and oak would likely result in their loss also. The loss of 4 mature trees located within the garden of a prominent corner in a conservation area would result in an unacceptable loss of character and would be contrary to Policies EN7 and EN11

The proposal also seeks to incorporate a 2m high wall with railings along the boundary with Roe Green.  To facilitate this part of the proposal the applicant would remove an established holly hedge.  I consider that this would be detrimental to the character of the conservation area and the setting of this and the neighbouring property.  Although neither of these properties are have listed status, they both appear on the Local List.

Therefore I would recommend that this proposal be refused.

RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:

1.	The proposed wall and railings would result in the introduction of a harsh and prominent boundary treatment and as a result seriously injure the character and appearance of the Roe Green Conservation Area contrary to Policy EN11 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

2.	The proposed two storey extension  would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of its size and siting and coupled with the proposed conservatory would also result in a loss of privacy to neighbouring residents contrary to Policy Dev8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

3.	The proposed development would result in the loss of  trees which are located in the Roe Green Conservation Area. Their loss would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area and as such would be contrary to Policies EN7 and EN11 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

APPLICATION No:	02/43889/HH

APPLICANT:	M S Wood

LOCATION:	1 Leaconfield Drive Worsley 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of single storey side extension and first floor extensions to form a two storey dwelling

WARD:	Worsley Boothstown

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a detached bungalow on Leaconfield Drive.  Leaconfield drive has various house types on it including bungalows and two –storey detached properties.  A similar extension has been carried out on No.2 which faces the application site (E/24197). The proposal is for the erection of a single-storey side extension and first floor extension to convert the bungalow into a two-storey property. 

The single storey side extension would project 3m X 6m with a height of 2.4m to the eaves and 4.3m to the ridge with a hipped roof, it would be 2m from the side boundary.  The extension would provide a garage and would have adequate off road parking space to the front.

The first floor extension would be constructed over the majority of the ground floor. There would be no windows at first floor level on either of the side elevations.  The height of the bungalow would be increased from 5m to 8.2m at its highest point with a hipped roof.  The two-storey element would be 10.4m from the rear boundary, which has several large trees on it, 2.6m from the boundary with the rear garden of 458 Walkden Road and 5.2m from the boundary with No.1 Aviary Road.

CONSULTATIONS

British Coal – No Objections

PUBLICITY

The following neighbours were notified :
	468, 470 and 472 Walkden Road
	1 and 3 Aviary Road
	2, 4 and 5 Leaconfield Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received one letter of objection in response to the application publicity from the occupiers of the property to the rear. The following comments having been made:

	Loss of light to house and garden
	Inconvenience of building work

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

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

Policy DEV8 states that planning permission will only be granted where there would be no unacceptably adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and where an extension would not have an unacceptably adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, by reason of its siting, height, massing, design and appearance.

The first objection relates to loss of light to both the house and the garden.  The property to the rear is more than 25m from the proposed extension and I would not consider it to have an unacceptable adverse effect on the property.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

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

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building

APPLICATION No:	02/43896/HH

APPLICANT:	Mr And Mrs A Cohen

LOCATION:	18 Welbeck Grove Salford 7 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of single storey rear extension and construction of dormer extension in roof space

WARD:	Broughton

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a mid terrace property and is for the erection of a single storey rear extension and the construction of a dormer within the roof space, also at the rear of the property.  An application that was submitted prior to this scheme for a part two / part single storey extension was withdrawn.

This proposal is for a single storey rear element that would project 6.35m X 3.1m with a flat roof along the boundary with No.20 Welbeck.  No.20 has a similar single storey rear extension along the common boundary.  A succah would also be provided and would project 2.8m along the boundary with No.22, it would then tie into the larger single storey element.

The dormer would be set in from both side boundaries by 0.15m and 0.2m from the ridge.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbours were notified :
	16 & 20 Welbeck Grove
	43 – 49 (odd) Wellington Street East 

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 1 letter of objection in response to the application. The following comments having been made:

Out of character with the surrounding
Reduction in commercial value
Overlooked and loss of privacy
	
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:	None - None
Other policies:		DEV 8 – House Extensions
		
PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV8 states that planning permission will only be granted where there would be no unacceptably adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and where an extension would not have an unacceptably adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, by reason of its siting, height, massing, design and appearance.

The letter of objection makes reference to 3 issues.  The first is that this proposal would be out of character with the surrounding area.  There are no dormer extensions within this block of terrace on Welbeck, however there are examples on Welbeck and Wellington Street East. The reduction in commercial value to neighbouring properties is not a material planning consideration.  The third point raised refers to being overlooked and a loss of privacy if this proposal were to be granted.  I do not consider that the addition of the dormer would generate any more loss of privacy to the adjoining property than that by the existing first floor bedroom windows on either of the adjoining sides.

However the construction of a dormer within the roof space at 2^nd floor level would generate a loss of privacy to the properties to the rear on Wellington Street East.  The Councils minimum standard for separation in circumstances such as these is 21m, more if there is a difference in levels.  This proposal would only maintain a distance of 13.4m.

The single storey element of the proposal would not cause any adverse effect on any neighbouring properties and is in accordance with Council policy. 

RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:

1.	The proposed dormer extension would result in loss of privacy for neighbouring residents to the rear of the application site.

APPLICATION No:	02/43902/TPO

APPLICANT:	Director Of Development Services

LOCATION:	Land At Rear Of 2 Barr Hill Avenue Salford 6 

PROPOSAL:	Re-Pollard 4 Black Poplar trees.

WARD:	Pendleton

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the re-pollarding of 4 Black Poplars. These trees are to the rear 2 and 4 Barr Hill Avenue. This application has gone to the Committee because the trees are situated on council owned land. The original proposal was to prune 4 trees. 

SITE HISTORY

The 4 Poplars have been pollarded in the past.

CONSULTATIONS

G M Collins (Senior Arboricultural Officer) has been consulted and he has no objection to the proposal as the trees in question have already been topped.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbours were notified :
	1,2 & 3 Barr Hill Avenue

REPRESENTATIONS

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

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

The application does not conflict with policy EN 7 Conservation of trees and woodlands, as the trees are not being removed.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition C08T Time Limit - tree work

2.	Standard Condition C09T British Standard - tree work

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R035A Situation to be reviewed

2.	Standard Reason R036A Good aboricultural practice

APPLICATION No:	02/43903/COU

APPLICANT:	S Knowles

LOCATION:	33 Hilton Lane Walkden Worsley 

PROPOSAL:	Change of use from ground floor shop to a self contained flat and alterations to elevations

WARD:	Walkden South

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a ground floor shop on Hilton Lane. The proposal is to change the use from a shop to a two-bedroom flat. 

Two new windows would be inserted in the side elevation to match the design of the existing first floor windows. It is proposed to replace the existing shopfront and roller shutter with a window and door. Furthermore, a window would be inserted into the rear elevation. There is a yard area to the rear of the property which forms part of the application site, this is currently very overgrown. The yard is accessed from an alley to the side of the property.

The Applicant has indicated that there are two parking spaces associated with the development.

The first floor of the premises is used as a flat. The surrounding area is predominantly residential.

SITE HISTORY

99/39409/COU – Change of use from shop to café, takeaway and hot and cold food delivery service. Approved 27.7.99

94/32469/OUT – (rear yard of application site) Outline planning application for erection of bungalow with alterations to existing highway. Refused 15.6.94 

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objections

PUBLICITY

The following neighbours were notified:
1 – 4 (all) Windale
31, 44 – 48 (evens) Hilton Lane

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received one letter of representation in response to the application publicity. The following comments having been made:

•	concerned that external alterations would be made to property which would result in loss of privacy to 2 Windale
•	people coming over yard wall and breaking in to properties on Windale

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:  None relevant
Other policies:	DEV1-	 Development Criteria
H5 – 	Dwellings Sub-Divided into Self Contained Flats or in Multiple Occupancy

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors in determining applications for planning permission, these include the effect on privacy for neighbouring properties and the location and nature of the propose development. UDP policy H5 states that the City Council will only permit proposals for the provision of self-contained flats where the proposal would not have an unacceptably adverse effect on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties by reason of loss of privacy, that there is adequate provision of private amenity space and the development makes satisfactory provision for parking. The recently revised PPG3 – Housing (2000) emphasises that priority should be given to re-using previously-developed land and converting existing buildings and that conversions should be promoted by "taking a more flexible approach to development plan standards with regard to densities, car parking, amenity space and overlooking.”

The new windows would be at a distance of 7 metres from the gable of 31 Hilton Lane and 14 metres from 46 and 48 Hilton Lane. There are no principle windows at ground floor level of 31 Hilton Lane, there are, however, principle windows to the front of 46 and 48 Hilton Lane. These distances fall short of what would normally be expected as acceptable in privacy terms, however, the first floor flat has windows to the front and side of the property, in addition, there is an existing shop front to the front of the property. With regards to the objection raised, no windows are proposed on the side of the property that faces the dwellings on Windale. I therefore do not consider that the proposal would result in any loss of privacy for these residents.

I consider that there would be adequate amenity space to the rear of the property.

I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds and I consider that residential use would be in keeping with the rest of the terrace and the surrounding area.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

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

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity

APPLICATION No:	02/43916/COU

APPLICANT:	Ian Shaw

LOCATION:	69 Folly Lane Swinton 

PROPOSAL:	Change of use from printing business to shop

WARD:	Swinton South

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to commercial premises at the junction of Folly Lane and Birch Road.

The proposal is to change the use of the premises from a printing business to a shop for the retail sale of karting equipment. No building or engineering operations are proposed at present. Hours of operation would be Monday to Friday 9.30am to 5.30pm, with late opening on Thursday until 7.30pm; Saturday 9.30am to 2.00pm and the premises would not open on Sundays. There are two existing parking spaces at the site.    

The surrounding area is predominantly residential, there are, however, business premises and a hot food take-away on the opposite side of Folly Lane. 

SITE HISTORY

E5289 – Change of use of retail premises to printing and duplicating business office service agency. Approved 16.11.77

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objections

PUBLICITY

The following neighbours were notified:

65, 67, 71, 73 Folly Lane
	180 – 184, 188 – 190  Folly Lane
2, 4 Sapling Road
1 Hardy Grove 

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received one representation in response to the application publicity. The following comments having been made:

in principle, there is no objection to the proposal, however, is concern that parking 
is restricted at the application site and that customers may use the car park to the 
front of premises at 180/182 Folly Lane, restricting their own use of this car park.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

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

Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors in determining applications for planning permission including the location and nature of the proposed development and the amount, design and layout of car parking provision. 

With regards to the objection raised in relation to car parking, I do not consider that the conversion of this property from a printing business to a shop would result in any significant increase in traffic generation or parking implications. There are two curtilage parking spaces associated with the premises. 
 
I consider that the proposal would be compatible with the mixed use nature of the surrounding area. I have no objections on highway grounds.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

APPLICATION No:	02/43929/FUL

APPLICANT:	Your Communications

LOCATION:	13 Wynne Street Salford 6 

PROPOSAL:	Construction of a secure fenced area

WARD:	Blackfriars

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the rear, facing Lissadel Street, of an industrial unit at 13 Wynne Street, Salford, which is owned by The City Of Salford. The unit is one in a row of three commercial units located in a mixed use commercial/residential area. Planning permission is sought for the erection of palisade fencing around mechanical air conditioning condenser units. The fencing would act as security fencing. 

The proposed fencing extends 1.5m away from the rear elevation of the unit and would extend 6.2m parallel to the rear elevation. A spike top section to the fencing would be installed at a height of 2.6m above ground level. The fencing would be 2.4m high single prong palisade and would be inside the existing site fencing. 

SITE HISTORY

In 2001, planning permission was granted for the change of use to premises for the operation of public telecommunication systems (01/42626/COU).
In 2002, planning permission was granted for the construction of a security cage and installation of air conditioning units (01/43427/FUL).  

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 12^th April 2002. 

The following neighbours were notified :
	9 and 15 Wynne Street

REPRESENTATIONS

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

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none 
Other policies:	DEV1 Development Criteria

		
PLANNING APPRAISAL

Unitary Development Plan policy DEV1 states that regard must be had to a number of factors in determining planning applications including the impact upon local and residential amenity. In terms of visual amenity I do not consider the proposed fencing to be out of context with the existing building or the surrounding commercial properties. The fencing would be behind existing site fencing and is partly concealed by virtue of a gentle slope away from the Lissadel Street. I do not consider residential properties, the nearest some 50m away, would be affected by the proposal. I have no highway objections and recommend approval. 

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	The fencing hereby approved shall be single pronged and shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior to the commencement of the development by the Director of Development Services.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R001 Section 92

2.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

APPLICATION No:	02/43930/HH

APPLICANT:	G Tonge

LOCATION:	21 Wrenswood Drive Ellenbrook Worsley 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of first floor side extension and detached garage at front of dwelling

WARD:	Walkden South

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a detached property and is for the erection of a first floor side extension and a detached garage at the front of the property.

The garage would be located on part of the garden that sweeps around the rear garden of No. 91 Ellerbeck Crescent, which is currently landscaped and adjoins the highway boundary to Wrenswood Drive.  The garage would be of brick constuction with a tiled, pitched roof, measuring 5.83m (l) X 2.95 (w) and a maximum height of 4.7m. 

The first floor side extension would provide additional bedroom space.  It would be designed to maintain the current hipped roof style of property. The new gable would measure 5.1m and would increase the overall height of the main roof to 8.4m. The relationship to 91 Ellerbeck Crescent is such that almost the whole length of the side evelation extends beyond the rear elevation to No. 91. This is currently a single storey construction.

PUBLICITY

The following neighbours were notified :
	12 & 14 and 15 – 19 (odd) Wrenswood Drive
	89 & 91 Ellerbeck Crescent 

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 1 letter of objection (not from the adjoining neighbour) response to the application. The following comments having been made:

Loss of view
Reduction in commercial value
Loss of pedestrian footpath
	Contrary to restrictive covenant	

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:	None 
Other policies:		DEV 8 – House Extensions
		
PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV8 states that planning permission will only be granted where there would be no unacceptably adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and where an extension would not have an unacceptably adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, by reason of its siting, height, massing, design and appearance.

The letter of objection makes reference to four issues with regard to the detached garage and not the addition of a first floor:

-	The proposed garage would be off set approximately 18m from No.14 and 11m from the rear of No. 91 Ellerbeck Crescent. 
-	The construction of a garage in this location would not result in a reduction of pedestrian safety as there would be a minimum of 2m to the highway.  
-	There are similarly located garages within the street.
-	The reduction in commercial value and issues raised regarding a restrictive covenant are not material planning considerations.

However there is a planning issue in terms of the impact of the first floor side extension upon the neighbouring property.  The construction of a first floor one metre from the boundary, extending 8.8 metres beyond the adjoining property would have a dominant effect upon the rear of No.91 Ellerbeck Crescent.

RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:

1.	Standard Reason RR34C Neighbouring Residents - Size/Siting

APPLICATION No:	02/43935/HH

APPLICANT:	Nicola And Terry Johnson

LOCATION:	5 Kinsley Drive Walkden 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of two storey side extension

WARD:	Walkden South

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to a detached property on a new residential estate.  The property is on a corner, close to the end of a cul-de-sac.  

The proposal is for the erection of a two-storey side extension the proposal would project 2.8m towards the highway and be the same length (7.9m) and height (7.5m) as the existing property. This would result in a a distance of .7m

PUBLICITY

The following neighbours were notified :
	7, 8, 10, 12 and 21 Kinsley Drive
	2 and 4 Worsbrough Avenue

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received two letters of objections in response to the application publicity from the occupiers of the properties that would face the proposal. The following comments having been made:
	Loss of light
	Obtrusive development resulting in loss of outlook
	Open plan estate would be enclosed
	Loss of foliage leaving a harsh treatment to the side boundary.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:  
Other policies: DEV8 – House extensions	
		
PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV8 states that planning permission will only be granted where there would be no unacceptably adverse impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and where an extension would not have an unacceptably adverse effect on the character of the dwelling, by reason of its siting, height, massing, design and appearance.

The draft SPG for house extensions provides that normally extensions on corner plots should retain a distance of 2 metres to the boundary. There may be exceptions if locational factors can justify them.

The proposal would be approx. 17.8m from the front elevation of the objectors properties, this more than complies with the current policy of gable ends to main elevations being a minimum of 13m apart.

The proposed extension would  result in some loss of amenity and openess, replacing as it does the current side garden. However the property is located toward the end of a cul de sac where there is no formal building line that needs to be protected. The property is not in a prominent location.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

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

3.	No windows shall be inserted on the side elevation of the extension hereby approved without prior written consent from the Director of Development Services.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building

3.	Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours

APPLICATION No:	02/43937/DEMCON

APPLICANT:	Seedley And Langworthy Regeneration Partnership

LOCATION:	46-80 Langshaw Street Salford 6 

PROPOSAL:	Prior notification for the demolition of dwellings

WARD:	Langworthy

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This prior notification relates to the demolition of 18 vacant terraced houses located on Langshaw Street, within the Seedley and Langworthy Regeneration Area.  The proposal involves the complete removal of the dwellings to ground level, with the consolidation of cellar space.  Subsequent site treatment will be the subject of a future separate planning application.  

The proposal has been submitted as part of the SRB5 Seedley and Langworthy Regeneration Initiative (SALI).  The properties are located in a residential area, which has particularly high vacancy levels.  Other significant problems within the area include high levels of crime and a poor quality environment.  The demolition of these properties is an important phase of the SRB5 initiative, which will involve remodelling works to be undertaken in the locality.  

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objections

PUBLICITY

Four site notices were displayed on 17^th of April 2002

The following neighbours were notified :
	3 + 5 Blodwell Street
	1 – 4 (inc) Derg Street
	1,3 + 6 Shawcross Street
	1 + 2 Athlone Street
	1 + 28 Primrose Street
	1 Ladyshore Close	

REPRESENTATIONS

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

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:  H7 – Housing Area Improvement and Renewal – Private Sector
Other policies:	H3 – Maintaining and Improving Private Sector Housing
		
PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy H3 states that the City Council will seek to maintain and improve older private sector housing and its environment, which will be achieved partly through the selective clearance of housing not capable of improvement and the provision of new dwellings and open space.  This Policy is applied specifically to the Seedley and Langworthy area in Policy H7, which states that the City Council will promote the improvement of the Seedley and Langworthy in accordance with the Seedley and Langworthy Proposals plan.  

The properties in question have been identified as part of the regeneration process, as being in an extremely poor state of repair and as such they constituted a health and safety risk, particularly to children.  Demolition was considered the most appropriate course of action in these circumstances.  The site will subsequently be redeveloped as part of the regeneration process, in accordance with the Seedley and Langworthy Proposals plan.

Due to the very poor condition of these properties, I am satisfied that the demolition of 46-80 Langshaw Street would be in accordance with Policy H3 and Policy H7 of the UDP.  I consider the proposal acceptable and have no objections.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve  

APPLICATION No:	02/43951/COU

APPLICANT:	Dr R H Davenport

LOCATION:	65 Chorley Road Swinton 

PROPOSAL:	Change of use from doctors surgery to offices

WARD:	Pendlebury

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to an existing semi-detached property which was formerly used as a doctors surgery but is now vacant. The adjoining semi is a dentist, the other side is the Red Cross in Critchley House. There are houses to the rear, but the main road is generally a mix of shops, offices and some houses.

The proposal is for a change of use to offices, either A2 financial and professional or B1 general offices.

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objections

PUBLICITY

The following neighbours were notified :
	63, 58-70(even) Chorley Road
	Critchley House Chorley Road
	10 – 18 (even) Bingham Street

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received one letter of objections from the funeral directors facing the property on the grounds of lack of parking and congestion. The property has no private parking and there is already a serious problem with on street parking for the existing offices and other uses along this stretch of Chorley Road so that the funeral directors already experience serious problems when they leave their premises with a funeral, so any increase in offices would make the situation far worse.

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

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

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Although this property is outside the boundary of the town centre, shops offices and other associated uses do occupy a number of the properties along this stretch of Chorley Road. Therefore I would not consider the use of offices would be inappropriate in this location.

I have considered the objection from the funeral directors who face the site and I appreciate their concern because part of this stretch of road has parking restrictions on it and the rest is always heavily parked. I can understand that the problems with on-street parking outside the funeral directors means that they would experience problems of access for their vehicles when a funeral is leaving.  However, I am also aware that the current use as doctors surgery could have lead to some traffic generation, both in terms of staff and patients. 

Therefore, whilst I understand the concerns of the objectors I do not consider that a proposed office would necessarily have a greater impact on any street parking than the current use. I would also consider that an office use in this area would not have a significant impact on the amenities of any of the other surrounding neighbours or on the street scene.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

APPLICATION No:	02/43985/FUL

APPLICANT:	National Skills Festival Co Ltd

LOCATION:	Land On South Side Of Broadway Salford 5 

PROPOSAL:	Erection of a temporary structure to house 'Skill City' event

WARD:	Ordsall

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The application site forms part of the “Dock 9” site which is currently vacant and awaiting development. It is proposed to construct a temporary structure to house the Skill City event.  The event is a showcase for a wide range of vocational skills and is a joint venture by UK Skills and the Prince’s Trust. It is intended to attract people between the ages of 14 and 26 who are looking for career choices.

The temporary structures (alluminium frames with PVC type cladding) will provided 60,000 sq metres of floor space and will be open to the public for 4 days (November 13^th – 16^th 2002) when it is expected to attract 80,000 visitors.

The temporary use of the site does not require planning permission but the building and engineering operations involved in this project amounts to development requiring planning permission.

SITE HISTORY

Outline planning permission exists for a major mixed development of over 100,000 square metres of office, leisure, retail and residential uses.

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – recommends that construction activities comply with BS 5228 (to be added as a note) and conditions in respect of :-
Lighting levels
Noise controls for on site generators.

PUBLICITY

A press notice has been published and a site notice was displayed on the 16^th April 2002. 

The occupiers of commercial premises on Broadway, The Lowry and Grain Wharf Residents Association have been notified.
 :
REPRESENTATIONS

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

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: Site allocation 12/6 and 13/7 for Economic Development.
		
PLANNING APPRAISAL

As a high profile, prestigious project this temporary use of this vacant land is to be welcomed. The main issue to be considered is the management of traffic and transportation during the event itself.

Whilst the construction of the temporary structure is expected to take several weeks the event itself is limited to a very short period, followed by three weeks of the structure being dismantled.

The vast majority of visitors, particularly on week days will be via organised trips by coach parties. Whilst there will on site parking for disabled persons and VIPs the majority of the traffic will be organised via a one way system using Broadway to a drop off point within the site and then onto remote parking.via the Quays Road and Broadway again. Arrangements have been made to use the Manchester United coach and bus parking facilities, together with a limited overspill which would use Broadway itself (upto 20 vehicles parked on the highway. On the Saturday there is likely to be less organised transport and it is intended to promote public transport options including the park and ride facilities at Eccles.

During construction delivery access will be limited to the use of Broadway and the M602 and there will be upto 8 deliveries per day by articulated HGVs.

As a temporary activity much of the success of the event will rely on traffic management systems and every effort is being made to coordinate traffic issues between the applicant, Greater Manchester Police and the Assistant Director of Engineering.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	The structure hereby approved shall be used by members of the public for a maximum of 4 days (between the 13th and 16th November 2002) and shall be dismantled and removed form the site by the 8th of December 2002.

2.	Any external lighting provided during either the event or the construction period shall be installed and directed so as to avoid nuisance to residential accommodation and shall be designed to provide a standard maintained illumination (LUX) of less than 20 LUX measured at the window s of residential accommodation.

3.	Prior to the commencement of the development a scheme shall be submitted for the approval of the Director of Development Services that shows the siting and noise emissions from generators. Any measures required by the Director of Development Services shall be implemented prior to the operation of the generators.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

2.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

3.	Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area

Note(s) for Applicant

1.	All construction activities shall comply to BS5228 Code of Practice for Noise Control on Construction and Open Sites

APPLICATION No:	02/43990/FUL

APPLICANT:	G Wimpey Manchester

LOCATION:	Former Oakwood Public House Lancaster Road Salford 6 

PROPOSAL:	Demolition of existing building and erection of two-four storey buildings (one with two storey wing) comprising 72 apartments and construction of new vehicular access to Lancaster Road

WARD:	Claremont

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the site of the Oakwood Public House at the junction of Lancaster Road and Welwyn Drive. The Oakwood covers the south east corner of the 1.29 acre site, with the remainder of the site being covered in hardstanding for parking. The site is bounded by varying levels of hard and soft landscaping including a line of mature poplars fronting Lancaster Road. 

Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing building and the erection of two blocks of flats containing 72 flats in total. One block would be in an L shape form and would be part 2 storey and part four storey and wraps around the corner of Welwyn Drive and Lancaster Road covering the position of the existing public house structure. The other block, rectangular in shape, would be four storeys high and is located in the centre of the former car parking area. Vehicle access would be from Lancaster Road and a right hand turn facility would be provided using the existing highway. 

The two storey part of the L-shape building is 19.4m long by 13m deep and is 9.2m high to the ridge. There are two four storey sections of the L-shape building left, the section fronting Welywn Drive is 13m deep by 21m long and is 16m high. The section fronting Lancaster Road is 12.9m deep by 22m long and is 14m in height. The other building, the four storey rectangular section is 13.6m deep and 41.6m long and is 15.8m in height. 

The proposed roof of the development varies between 6.9m to 10m in height from eaves to ridge level. The applicant proposes 72 parking spaces and six uncovered bicycle parking spaces. The proposal includes two bin stores but little on site amenity space. The application also includes a revised right hand turning lane into the site. The applicant has supplied a supporting statement that runs through the site area, discusses planning policy including Government guidance PPG3 (Housing), discusses the proposed layout and detailed design. This statement concludes that the proposal would make an attractive addition to the housing stock of the area.     

SITE HISTORY

In 1993, planning permission was granted for new vehicle gates, pedestrian gates and boundary fencing (93/31735/DEEM3).
In 1990, advertisement consent was granted for four external illuminated wall signs and two pole signs (E/27343/ADV).
In 1985, advertisement consent was granted for internal and external illuminated signage (E/18687).
In 1982, planning permission was granted for a single storey extension at the rear of the property (E/136766).
In 1981, advertisement consent was granted for five box signs and a post sign (E/12763/ADV).
In 1981, planning permission was granted for external fire escapes (E/12165).
In 1979, temporary planning permission was granted for 5 years for a garage to house a car (E/8288). 

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Objections to the layout submitted
British Coal – No objections

PUBLICITY

A press notice was published 
A site notice was displayed on 3^rd May 2002. 

The following neighbours were notified :
	2 – 26 Clintonville Drive
	1 – 24 Welwyn Drive
	1, 2 & 3 Branksome Drive
	174 & 177 Swinton Park Road
	234, 236 & 251 Lancaster Road
	Lancaster Lodge, Lancaster Road
	2 –10 even Cranford Close
	
REPRESENTATIONS

I have received two letters in response to the application publicity. The following comments having been made:

	Objection to the height of the development
	Welcome the redevelopment of the site as the site is an eyesore

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: none 
Other policies: EN9 Derelict and Vacant Land, H1 Meeting Housing Needs, H6 & H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments, DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime 

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy H1 relates to the adequate supply of housing. I consider that the intended use conforms to this policy and also to Governments guidance for higher density sites and the re-use of previously developed land. The site at present is occupied by a large public house, that has been vacated and vandalised considerably, and a large car park. The vandalised building detracts from the character of the area, thus appropriate residential  redevelopment in accordance with other policies in the plan should be encouraged. 

The proposal seeks to maximize the site and includes 72 flats over mostly four floors with high roof space atop. The northern block has been sited in a position some 38 metres  from the existing two storey residential houses on Cliftonville Drive location which is  higher than the existing dwellings. I consider that there would be a significant detrimental amenity impact upon these semi-detached two storey dwellings by way of loss of sunlight/daylight and privacy as a result of this 15.8 metre high development, with the addition of 48 habitable windows, the middle of the top floor windows being 9.9m above ground level. Coupled with this tall structure is the lower ground level of the properties on Cliftonville Drive, the habitable room windows at first floor level are level with ground level on this proposed site. The proposed L-shape block would also dominate the corner plot and would reduce amenity to properties on Lancaster Road and Welyn Drive.   

The proposal has been submitted with no private amenity space on site. There is provision within policies H6 and H11 for a contribution under a commuted sum to be made for appropriate facilities. The applicants have not approached the City Council in respect to such a commuted sum although this intention is mentioned within the applicants supporting statement. In addition to a commuted sum the applicants should provide facilities on site for residents to dry clothes and space to separate the buildings and car parking.   

I consider there are design related issues. The elevations have little interest. Attempt has been made to break up the very large and bland elevations with a mix of brick and render. This does not however compensate for the enormous residential blocks that would dominate the surrounding area without adding quality design or a building that respects the character of the surrounding area as intended within policy DEV2. The over dominant roof increases the poor quality design offered at this important site.    

The Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit object to the layout of the development. Amongst the comments received include appropriate site security, entrances to blocks from side elevations with controlled access, appropriate lighting scheme in the car park and a secure access to be created in the inner lobbies. These are issues important security issues which should be addressed prior to such a scheme being considered favourably. 

The proposal includes 100% parking (72 spaces one per flat) and revised access. I consider that this level of parking coupled with six bicycle stands and proximity to public transport links is acceptable and is in line with the City Councils and Governments parking standards. The applicant has submitted a tree report which states that the majority of the poplar trees on site are of poor quality and should be replaced with better quality species more appropriate to the location. I would agree with the observations of this tree report subject to a satisfactory landscaping scheme being agreed.  

Although the redevelopment as housing of this site would be desirable with respect of the vandalised site, this proposal is not in my opinion acceptable in amenity terms. I consider the detailed design of this planning application to be unsatisfactory. I also consider the height and massing of development proposed to be inappropriate to the location. In addition the occupiers of nearby property would be subject to a considerable loss of acceptable levels of amenity in terms of privacy or sunlight and daylight. Although I consider the site to be acceptable for housing development I consider this scheme to be over-development and of poor quality design and therefore I recommend refusal. I have advised the applicant that the demolition of the existing building on site would not require planing permission but an application under the Building Regulations should be made, the refusal of this application would not prejudice the safety of the site.

RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse For the following Reasons:

1.	The proposed development would be an unduly obtrusive feature in the street-scene and would seriously injure the visual amenity of the area by reason of its over dominance within the street scene. Furthermore the massing and lack of quality in the detailed design would be out of character with the surrounding area. The proposal would therefore, be contrary to Policies DEV1 and DEV2 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

2.	The proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of its size, siting and detrimental effects upon sunlight/daylight and privacy. As such the development would be contrary to Policy DEV1 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

3.	The layout of the proposed development does not adequately address crime prevention and does not conform to the secure by design scheme and as such is contrary to Policy DEV4 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

APPLICATION No:	02/43826/DEEM3

APPLICANT:	J Bourke

LOCATION:	St Teresa's R C Primary School Clarendon Road Irlam 

PROPOSAL:	Construction of staff car park and new vehicular access.

WARD:	Cadishead

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the construction of a staff car park at St Teresa’s R.C.Primary School, Irlam.  The school is located in a predominately residential area, and is accessed from Clarendon Road, which is a residential cul-de-sac.  The proposed 16 space staff car park will be accessed from MacDonald Road, to the rear of the school site, and will be positioned within the boundary of the school playing fields.  There is currently provision for one 11-a-side pitch facility at the school, a position which would not be affected by this proposal. Opposite the entrance to the car park are detached residential properties, which are set back from the highway.   There is no existing formal car parking provision at the school site, with staff presently using the infants play ground as a car park.  There are 30 staff (teaching and non-teaching) presently employed at the school.

SITE HISTORY

In 1994, planning permission was granted for the erection of a mobile classroom unit at the School.
In 2001, planning permission was granted for the erection of a single storey rear extension with alterations to the external elevations.

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Sport England – No objections

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on the 20^th of March 2001

The following neighbours were notified :
	Edale House, MacDonald Road, Irlam
Bowden House, MacDonald Road, Irlam

REPRESENTATIONS

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

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies: None
Other policies:		DEV1 – Development Criteria 
R1 – Protection of Recreation Land and Facilities
			SC3 – Education Land and Buildings
			SC4 – Improvement / Replacement of Schools
					
PLANNING APPRAISAL

Policy DEV1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan states that the City Council should have regard to a number of factors in the consideration of planning applications, which include the impact of a proposed development upon local and residential amenity, the relationship of the development to the road network, and the amount and provision of car parking.  Policy R1 recognises the significance of recreational land, including playing fields to the City, and the need to protect such land from inappropriate development.  Policy SC3 relates more specifically to the need to safeguard land and buildings in educational use, and emphasises the need to retain school playing fields where land is surplus to requirements.  And finally, Policy SC4 states that the City Council will endeavour to make good any deficiencies in school facilities.  

I would consider the main issue to relate to the impact of the proposed development upon the school playing fields. The proposal will be sited within an area which is presently designated as a school playing field, and which provides for one 11-a-side pitch serving the primary school. The area of the playing field designated in this proposal for development is presently not used as pitch space, and following consultations with the Estates Division and am satisfied that the proposal will not result in the loss of any pitch facilities.  I am satisfied that the proposal will provide additional facilities, which will be ancillary to the use of the school, and would therefore consider the location of the proposed development to be acceptable.  Sport England had some concerns that the  proposal would lead to the loss of part of the school playing field, however on balance they are satisfied that the merits of the scheme outweigh the potential losses.

I consider the other main issue in the consideration of this application to be the car parking situation at the school.  There is no formal parking provision at the school, with current arrangements having staff parking on the infant play ground, which in turn raises a potential health and safety risk.  In addition, there is presently no space available within the curtilage of St Teresa’s to provide formal car parking provision.  UDP Parking Standards recommend 1 space per full-time member of staff, with 1 space per 3 other daily staff.  I would therefore consider the lack of formal parking provision to be a material consideration in the determination of this planning application.

In terms of the impact of the proposal upon local and residential amenity, I would consider the residential properties opposite the entrance to the car park to be set back sufficiently from the highway to minimise the impact of vehicular movements into and from the site.  I have received no highway objections and consider that the scheme will benefit residents living upon Clarendon Road particularly, as it will reduce the number of vehicles using this residential cul-de-sac to access the school.  

I would consider the need to provide adequate car parking facilities at the school to out weigh the loss of the corner of the school playing field.  I am satisfied that no playing pitch space will be lost, and that the proposal will not be detrimental to the amenities of local residents.  For these reasons I recommend that this application is approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

Note(s) for Applicant

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

APPLICATION No:	02/43842/DEEM3

APPLICANT:	Marlborough Road Primary School (FAO J Elderkin)

LOCATION:	Marlborough Road County Primary School Marlborough Road (Willock Street) Salford 7 

PROPOSAL:	Construction of extension to existing car park and erection of 2.5m high security fencing and lighting (amendment to application 01/43192/DEEM3)

WARD:	Broughton

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

This application relates to the primary school situated off Marlborough Road.  The infants and junior school sections are currently located within separate buildings on opposite sides of Marlborough Road.

In January of this year permission was granted for a number of measures including closures of highways and footpaths within the site, the erection of boundary fencing, a number of security measures which would encompass both school buildings within the one site and the creation of a car park at the rear of the properties on Baydon Avenue, reference 01/43192/DEEM.  This application seeks to extend this area of car parking to provide an additional 18 spaces which would result in the car park extending across the rear of nos 2 – 16 Baydon Avenue (previously the car park was only at the rear of 10 – 16).  The 2.5m mesh fencing erected along the far side of the car park away from the residential dwellings would be extended and there would be a vehicle entrance gate at either end from Dudley Street and Marlborough Road to allow use of the car park by the SPACE building.  The access from Dudley Street would be open during school hours but locked during the evening when the SPACE building was in use. This would ensure that the school boundary remained secure.

CONSULTATIONS
 
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Peak and Northern Footpath Society – no response to date.

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 12 April 2002.

The following neighbours were notified :
	2 – 16 Baydon Avenue
	
REPRESENTATIONS

I have received no response to the application publicity. 

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

Site specific policies:  none.
Other policies:	DEV4 Crime and Design
		
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The proposal is seeking an amendment to a previous permission to provide an enlarged car park running across the rear of properties on Baydon Avenue.  The area was previously to be untreated but I do not consider that there would be a significant detrimental impact upon the residents at the rear.  I have no objections to the proposal on highway grounds subject to clear delineation of the limits of the highway closures and I have received no response to my neighbour notifications.  I therefore recommend that this application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

1.	Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2.	No development shall commence until the necessary road closures have been secured under the necessary legislation.

3.	The railings and mesh fencing hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior to the commencement of the development by the Director of Development Services.

4.	The lighting provided in the scheme shall be erected and directed so as to avoid nuisance to residential accommodation in close proximity and shall be designed to provide a standard maintained illumination (LUX) of between 5 and 20 LUX.

5.	Full details of the proposed lights including their siting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of development.

6.	Full details of the delineation of the highway closure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services and shall be implemented prior to the first use of the car park.

(Reasons)

1.	Standard Reason R000 Section 91

2.	Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt

4.	Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours

5.	Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt

6.	Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt