pdc agenda item 8 - applications for permission to … · web viewthe predominant materials are red...

WARD: Altrincham H/OUT/68304 DEPARTURE: No

OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR THE ERECTION OF A FIVE STOREY OFFICE BUILDING FOLLOWING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING.

Gillespie House, Back Grafton Street, Altrincham

APPLICANT: Hollins Murray Group Ltd

AGENT: King Sturge

RECOMMENDATION: MINDED TO GRANT

SITE

The site comprises a part three storey and part two storey office building and adjoining car park on the south eastern side of Back Grafton Street. Back Grafton Street is a cobbled road running parallel with Stamford New Road in Altrincham town centre. The area is predominantly commercial in land use terms and the immediate area includes offices and the rear service areas of retail and food and drink uses on Stamford New Road. The site lies outside of, but adjacent to, the Stamford New Road Conservation Area.

Adjoining the site is a surface car park on the south west side and an electricity sub-station to the north east. On the opposite side of Back Grafton Street are the rear outriggers of buildings fronting Stamford New Road, most of which are 3 storeys in height and some are 2 storeys. Directly to the rear of the site is a narrow bank of vegetation which drops down to a car park serving 4 storey apartments (Redgrave House and Ashcroft House).

PROPOSAL

Permission is sought for the erection of a five storey office building following demolition of the existing building. The application is made in outline with details of layout, scale and access submitted for approval. Details of appearance and landscaping have been reserved for subsequent approval.

The proposed building would be five storeys high, inclusive of a basement level, and erected on a footprint covering the entire site area (i.e. covering the area of the existing buildings and the car park). The ground floor would be set back from Back Grafton Street so a lightwell to the basement level can be provided whilst the top floor is also indicated as being set back from the remainder of the front wall. The building would have a gross floor area of approximately 1727m2.

Amended plans have been submitted which show a pitched roof to the building (previously a flat roof was indicated) and also amend the parking layout in response to the comments of the LHA.

REVISED TRAFFORD UDP

PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION Town and District Shopping CentreMain Office Development Area

PRINCIPAL RELEVANT REVISED UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALSS5 - Development in Town and District Shopping Centres

Planning Committee 5th June 2008 Page no 1

S6 – Development in Altrincham Town CentreS13 – Non Shop Service Uses Within Town and District Shopping CentresE10 – Main Office Development AreasENV15 – Community ForestD1 – All New DevelopmentD2 – Vehicle ParkingT6 – Land Use in Relation to Transport and MovementT10 – Transport and Land Use in Town Centres

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORYNone

APPLICANT’S SUBMISSION

A Design and Access Statement, Transport Statement, Flooding Statement and Bat Survey have been submitted with the application.

The Design and Access statement is summarised as follows: The building is now seen as redundant and not meeting today’s business

requirements both in accommodation and access needs. The development seeks to retain and reinforce vistas along all adjacent streets. The building massing seeks to maintain the existing scale of buildings within the area

and re-interprets the scale of the present building. The building maintains a similar massing to the existing whilst maximizing the

available area. This is achieved by setting back the upper storey and creating basement accommodation with light wells. These voids allow the building to be set back from the site boundary at street level to prevent overcrowding within an already tightly packed area of the town.

7 parking spaces and an additional disabled parking bay are provided adjacent to the building. This avoids the need for additional on-street parking.

Access is proposed via Back Grafton Street with a secondary entrance directly from the secure parking area adjacent and below the building.

The Transport Statement makes the following conclusions: The proposed development will promote sustainable modes of travel and reduce the

number of car trips to local facilities by virtue of its location. The location of the development makes it highly sustainable. There is excellent

accessibility to the site for those travelling by bus, train and tram; facilities for cyclists and pedestrians in the vicinity are good; and a large residential catchment lies within a reasonable walking and cycling distance.

The analysis of the potential person trip attraction and the proportion of this that will compromise vehicle trips, demonstrates that the proposed development will not significantly increase traffic flows on the local highway network.

Compared to the existing use of the site, the proposed development is predicted to increase traffic by 18 vehicles in the morning peak and 16 vehicles in the evening peak.

The Flooding Statement concludes that the site is in Flood Zone 1 and thus, in terms of flood risk, is suitable for all types of land use. A Flood Risk Assessment is not required. United Utilities and the Council have been consulted and neither reports any known flooding incidences or related complaints.

The results of the Bat Survey are considered in the Observations section of this report.

CONSULTATIONS


LHA – No objections. Comments are summarised within the car parking section of this report. Built Environment (Highways) – No comment

Built Environment (Drainage) – Informatives to be attached to any permission.

Built Environment (Street Lighting) – No comment

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – Comment that reasonable effort has been used to asses the structure for its potential to support roosting bats and conclude that the potential bat roost issue has been adequately dealt with and recommend a condition on any grant of permission. Further comments are summarised in the Observations section of this report.

Greater Manchester Archaeology Unit – Satisfied the proposed development poses no threat to the known archaeological interest and there is no need for any archaeological mitigation to be sought.

REPRESENTATIONSNone received.

OBSERVATIONS

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

1. National planning guidance contained in PPS6 and the policies of the UDP require new commercial development to be focussed within existing town or local centres. The site is located within Altrincham Town Centre which is classified as a priority regeneration area in the Revised UDP, where the Council intends to secure as a matter of priority the regeneration of this urban area, through the development and redevelopment of land, the conversion and refurbishment of available buildings, landscaping and other environmental improvements, the construction of improvements to the local transport infrastructure and other support measures. The site is also within an area designated as one of the Main Office Development Areas in the Revised UDP where Proposal E10 of the UDP is supportive of new office development in principle, subject to having acceptable impact on surrounding property and has adequate access, car parking and service arrangements.

2. Office development in this location would comply with advice in PPS6 and Proposal E10 and is therefore considered acceptable in principle. Altrincham is well established as a main, commercial office development centre and the Council has been committed to office development in this area for a considerable amount of time.

3. Proposal E10 of the Revised UDP which states that proposals for new office development within the Main Office Development Areas will need to: -- Be satisfactorily accommodated on the site without undue harm or inconvenience to the occupiers of surrounding property;- Ensure the provision of adequate access, car parking and service arrangements.Proposal D1 requires all new development to (amongst other criteria):- Be compatible with the character of the surrounding area and not prejudice the amenity of the occupiers of adjacent property;- Not adversely affect the street scene by reason of scale, height, layout, elevational treatment or materials used.

DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS


4. The existing buildings on the site comprise a large three storey building and a smaller two storey building on its south west side. Both buildings are of brick construction (painted white) and have gabled roofs with a slate covering. The main building appears to be a Victorian warehouse with the adjoining two storey building having a similar historic use (possibly associated with the railway). Historic maps show the main building was constructed after 1875 but before 1910. It was last in use as office accommodation although is currently vacant.

5. The buildings lie outside of the Stamford New Road Conservation Area although its boundary is directly opposite. There is concern over the loss of these historic buildings, however as the buildings are not listed and do not lie within a Conservation Area, it is not considered they are of such architectural or historic interest that their demolition could reasonably be resisted. It is also relevant to take into account that the buildings could be demolished without the need for permission or Conservation Area Consent.

LAYOUT AND SCALE

6. Ideally consideration ought to be given to how this development, together with the other properties abutting Back Grafton Street (either as they are or when improved/developed), would contribute to the area’s regeneration. Given that this application represents such a significant proposal it is suggested the developer initiates a masterplanning approach to the area. It is acknowledged this would be desirable and help ensure a more co-ordinated approach to future development along Back Grafton Street. However it is also recognised that this is a stand-alone application capable of determination on its own merits and it is therefore considered unreasonable to request a masterplan for the area from the developer prior to its determination, bearing in mind the cost and time implications associated with such a request.

7. The application is made in outline with details of layout and scale submitted for approval. Details of the buildings’ appearance are reserved for subsequent approval. The proposed building takes the form of a rectangular block covering all the available site area. It comprises five storeys, although the lower ground floor would be below street level and the top floor contained within the roofspace; therefore when viewed from street level on Back Grafton Street the building would have the appearance of a three storey building. When viewed from the rear the building would have the appearance of a four storey building. The total height of the building would be approximately 15.8m above street level, which compares to the existing height of approximately 10.2m.

8. In comparison to the existing buildings it is acknowledged that the proposed development is far more intensive in terms of its height, width and overall massing. A building of this scale would also be wider and taller than other buildings in the immediate vicinity as Back Grafton Street is characterised by smaller buildings of generally 2-3 storeys. However, there are other tall buildings in the immediate locality, including 3 storey buildings fronting Stamford New Road which back onto Back Grafton Street and 4 storey apartments to the rear of the site, albeit on lower land. There are also three storey buildings further along Back Grafton Street (Grosvenor House and no. 5 Grafton Street). In this context it is considered that a single large building of three storey appearance would be appropriate in the Back Grafton street scene. The submitted plans include a site section and model massing images of the proposal which show that it would be seen in the context of taller buildings on Stamford New Road when viewed from the rear and south west.

9. The detailed design, external appearance of the building and the proposed materials are to be dealt with at reserved matters stage. The drawings submitted are indicative only but serve to demonstrate the amount of development and scale parameters,


including the height, width and length of the building. Amended plans have been submitted since the original submission to provide a pitched roof to the building rather than a flat roof originally proposed. As the building would be seen in the context of buildings on Stamford New Road when viewed from the rear and the bridge to Goose Green, it is considered a pitched roof would be more appropriate against this backdrop. Care would need to be taken at reserved matters stage to ensure that the massing of the building is successfully broken up by the detailing, fenestration and materials. In particular it would be important that the ground floor to Back Grafton Street provides an active frontage.

IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

10. The Council’s guidelines for new residential development recommend that a minimum distance of 24 metres across public highways and 30m across private gardens should be retained between main facing windows. Neither of these guidelines strictly applies to the proposal given that is for office use and also because the intervening land is used as a car park, however they serve as a useful guide.

11. The proposed building would be visible from some of the windows in the north west elevations of Ashcroft House and Redgrave House to the rear which are approximately 13.5m and 28m from the site respectively. In the case of Ashcroft House this distance would fall short of the above guidelines and it is acknowledged that, compared to the existing buildings, the proposal would have greater impact, particularly in terms of potential overlooking between the facing windows. However, the proposed building would not be directly opposite Ashcroft House as only the end 6m of its total width of 38.5m would be opposite. It is also considered that the separation distance of 13.5m is sufficient given that this is a town centre location where separation distances are generally lower than other locations due to the higher density of development and generally closer proximity of buildings. It is also relevant to take into account that the proposal would be the same distance away from Ashcroft House as the existing building. As this is a relatively narrow site it would be impossible for any redevelopment of the application site to achieve a distance of 24m to Ashcroft House.

CAR PARKING

12. The drawings show that 7 parking spaces would be provided on the ground floor of the building, 2 of which are disabled spaces. This level of provision would fall well below the Council’s standard for offices, however it is acknowledged that this is a highly sustainable location with good access to other modes of transport; the site is within a few minutes walk of the Altrincham Interchange where comprehensive train, metrolink and bus services are available. Space for cycle parking is also included within the development. Having regard to national guidance in PPG13: Transport regarding the need to reduce dependence on car travel and help promote sustainable transport choices it is considered that the level of parking is acceptable. The parking layout has been amended since the original submission to ensure that the parking spaces and aisle width meet the Council’s standards and adequate cycle parking facilities are included. The LHA has confirmed the proposal is acceptable in highways terms.

IMPACT ON BATS

13. A bat survey has been carried out and a report submitted with the application which concludes there no bats were found at the site, although precautionary measures should be taken where works will affect bat sensitive features (e.g. hand removal of the roof tiles, lead flashing and window frames). In the unlikely event that a bat is identified, work should cease immediately and the advice of a licensed bat specialist


sought. The report also comments that it is possible with good design to increase the availability of bat roosting habitats at the site through the incorporation of bat friendly features into the development. Examples are included within the report.

14. GMEU has been consulted on the application and comment as follows: Reasonable effort has been used to asses the structure for its potential to support

roosting bats. Note the recommendation that roof tiles should be removed by hand during

demolition. This is because the nature of the roof covering - wooden sarking under the roof tiles - makes it extremely difficult to rule out the presence of pipistrelle bats. Recommend a condition is attached to any permission if granted to ensure that this approach is implemented. If during this process bats or evidence of bats is found then work should cease and appropriated advice sought and implemented from the bat consultant.

Note the suggestion that bat friendly features can be incorporated into the new design. Given the location of the building adjacent to a shrub line linking to the railway, the applicant/developer should consider the incorporation of such features a number of which are shown in the Annex to the TEP letter.

It is suggested any redevelopment of the area incorporates appropriate landscaping to the rear of the property to continue the buffer planting that already occurs. A condition to this effect is recommended.

Satisfied that the potential bat roost issue has been adequately dealt with and recommend a condition on any grant of permission. There are no other known ecological issues which would prevent the determination of this application.

DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

15. In accordance with the provisions of SPD1: Developer Contributions to Highway and Public Transport Schemes, a contribution toward the provision or improvement of highway and public transport schemes is required. The Council has previously accepted that the amount towards highways network provision should be derived from the increase in floorspace only, i.e. taking into account the existing office development, whilst the amount towards public transport provision is the full amount for an office development of the size proposed. The site is located within a ‘most accessible’ location set out in the SPD where the level of contribution, taking into account the existing office development, would be £12,348, of which £3,074 would be for highways network provision and £9,274 for public transport provision.

16. In accordance with the provisions of the SPG ‘Developer Contributions Towards Red Rose Forest’ an office development of 1727m2 would be expected to provide 58 trees on site, although taking into account the existing office development on the site the contribution would be reduced to 38 trees. The constraints of the site and footprint of the development are such that there is no opportunity for any tree planting on site; therefore it would be appropriate to secure a financial contribution toward tree planting off-site. This would be £235 per tree which generates a total contribution of £8,930.

RECOMMENDATION

MINDED TO GRANT, subject to:

A. The completion of an appropriate legal agreement and that such legal agreement be entered into to secure:

(i) A contribution to transport provision of £12,348, of which £3,074 would be for highways network provision and £9,274 for public transport provision in


accordance with the Council’s SPD ‘Developer Contributions to Highway and Public Transport Schemes’;

(ii) A contribution to tree planting of a maximum of £8,930 in accordance with the Council’s SPG ‘Developer Contributions towards the Red Rose Forest’.

B. The following conditions:

1. An application for approval of reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission and the development shall be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters

Reason. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. (a) No development shall take place without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority of the reserved matters, that is, details of:

(i) the appearance,

(ii) the landscaping of the site (including any proposed changes to existing ground levels, means of enclosure and boundary treatment, hard surfaced areas and materials planting plans, specifications and schedules, existing plants to be retained and showing how account has been taken of any underground services).

Reason.(a) No details have been submitted of the matters referred to in the condition.(b) To ensure that the development is carried out in a satisfactory manner.(c) Having regard to Proposals E10 and D1 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan

3. Prior to any demolition works being carried out, details of the method of demolition shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The method of demolition shall be designed so as to avoid potential harm to bats or bat habitat.

Reason. In order to ensure demolition would not be detrimental to a protected species and having regard to Proposal ENV12 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.

4. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until plans showing details of the means of access and the areas for the movement, loading, unloading and parking of vehicles, including cycles, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the development shall not be brought into use until such areas have been provided, constructed and surfaced in complete accordance with the approved plans.

Reason. To ensure that satisfactory provision is made within the site for the accommodation of vehicles attracted to or generated by the proposed development, having regard to Proposals E10, D1 and D2 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.

5. Amended plans 12/5/2008

RG



BM 36.26m

House

PH

FB

BM 40.25m

Ashcroft House

Superstore

FB

SL

ESS

Cinema

12

1 to 29

Tivoli House

Redgrave House

38.9m

GOOSE GREENGOOSE GREENGOOSE GREENGOOSE GREENGOOSE GREENGOOSE GREENGOOSE GREENGOOSE GREENGOOSE GREEN

Olivier House

El Sub Sta

Bank

Bank

39.8m

Sub StaEl

LB

Bank

PH

Sports Centre

The Dome

SPEl Sub Sta

El

Stamford

House

Sub Sta

Posts

PH

37.3m

Bank

El

Bank

GillespieHouse

Sub Sta

PO

#

)

)) )

#

#

)

This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, ©

Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

WARD: Clifford H/OUT/68743 DEPARTURE:

OUTLINE APPLICATION (INCLUDING DETAILS OF LAYOUT AND ACCESS FOR ERECTION OF 4 NO. TWO BEDROOM DWELLINGHOUSES AND 2 NO. 4 BEDROOM DWELLINGHOUSES. ERECTION OF NEW CLUB PAVILION, ASSOCIATED PARKING PROVISION, ASSOCIATED PARKING PROVISION FOR TENNIS CLUB USE AND PROVISION OF 2 NO. SHORT SIDED TENNIS COURTS (FOLLOWING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING CLUB PAVILION AND REMOVAL OF ONE FULL SIZE TENNIS COURT) Darley Lawn Tennis and Social Club, Wood Lane North, Old Trafford

APPLICANT: Mrs. Annie Burgess (Darley Lawn Tennis Club Ltd.)

AGENT: Rick Bowlby

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE

SITEThe application site comprises the front half of the Darley Lawn Tennis and Social Club site, which fronts onto Wood Lane North and consists of the club pavilion and one full size tennis court to the north-west of this. To the north-east, the rear half of the Tennis Club site is occupied by a further three full size tennis courts.The existing club house is a flat roof, two storey, red brick building with a flat roof, single storey section to the front, which extends to about 1m from the back of pavement. The front tennis court is positioned to the north-west of this and is currently in a derelict and overgrown condition. The remainder of the land around the club house is laid to hardstanding with some parking spaces marked out. The existing vehicular access to the whole Tennis club site is off Wood Road North, towards the eastern end of the site frontage. The access is currently ungated. The front boundary and much of the side and rear boundaries is formed by grey cement board fencing, although the south-eastern boundary of the application site is formed partly by a 1.8m high timber fence and partly a 2m high brick wall. There is approximately 5m high wire mesh fencing around the perimeters of the tennis courts. There are four mature street trees on the pavement in front of the site. The surrounding area is almost entirely residential in character with predominantly semi-detached houses, some detached houses and some larger blocks of flats or residential institution type uses in the immediate vicinity. To the immediate north-west, there are larger, late 19th century / early 20th century gabled semi-detached properties, whilst on the opposite side of Wood Road North and to the south-east, there are slightly smaller, hipped roof, inter-war semi-detached properties. The immediate area has a generally suburban character, which is partly due to the significant number of mature street trees in the vicinity. The predominant materials are red brick with some render together with grey slates or tiles. Many of the nearby properties have driveways and the front boundaries are typically formed by low red brick walls with some having railings above or hedges behind them.

PROPOSALThe application proposes the redevelopment of the front half of the Tennis Club site following the demolition of the existing club house and the removal of the front tennis court. The layout plan shows the proposed access road for the tennis club in the same position as the existing access. The plan shows six houses on the Wood Road North frontage, set back approximately 6m from the back of the pavement. These would consist of two pairs of semi-detached dwellings towards the north western end of the frontage and two detached dwellings towards the south-eastern end, one on either side of the access road.


The plan shows the provision of parking spaces to the front of the proposed houses. The detached properties would have two parking spaces per house, provided within the front gardens. The semi-detached properties would share a communal parking area of five spaces provided on the frontage. To the rear of the proposed houses, the layout plan shows the creation of a pair of short sided tennis courts, the siting of the proposed replacement pavilion building and the creation of 12 parking spaces for tennis club use.

REVISED TRAFFORD UDPThe Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (RPG13), now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.

PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION Priority Regeneration AreaProtected Open Space

PRINCIPAL RELEVANT REVISED UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALSD1 – All New DevelopmentD2 – Vehicle ParkingD3 – Residential DevelopmentOSR1 – Open SpaceOSR5 - Protection of Open SpaceOSR8 - Improvement and Provision of Outdoor Sports FacilitiesH1 – Land Release for DevelopmentH2 – Location and Phasing of New Housing DevelopmentH3 –Land Release for New Housing DevelopmentH8 – Affordable HousingH11 – Priority Regeneration Area: Old Trafford

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORYH/REN/56377 – Installation of 18 no. eight metre high floodlight columns, erection of five metre high chain link fencing (Renewal of planning permission H/45539) – Approved – 31/07/2003H/45539 – Installation of 18 no. eight metre high floodlight columns and erection of five metre high chain link fencing – Approved – 24/06/1998H/14472 – Demolition of existing timber building and erection of extension to beer store at ground level with games room, committee room and secretary’s office on first floor - Approved – 09/07/1981H/02142 – Demolition of existing club house and erection of new club house with ancillary facilities for existing Tennis Club – Approved – 14/08/1975H/01228 – New Club House for Tennis club with car park – Approved – 06/03/1975

APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONThe applicant has submitted a supporting statement, which makes the following comments: -

The site has been used as a private members’ tennis club since 1889. In 1975, the Darley Lawn Tennis and Social Club (DLTSC) was constituted and it has leased the land from the Carlton Lawn Tennis Club (CLTCL) since then. At that time, a new club house was constructed, which included a licensed bar, snooker room and other facilities.

Recently, the active social membership has declined to such a point that the continuation of the bar and licensed premises is no longer financially sustainable, and the clubhouse was forced to close in March 2006. In addition, the physical club facilities are in poor repair and do not satisfy current requirements for accessibility.


Therefore, in order to secure a sustainable future for tennis on the site, the DLTSC has had to consider how modern facilities can be provided and how long term financial security can be achieved for the club. The proposed residential development of the front part of the site would fund the construction of a new club pavilion (without bar), short tennis courts, floodlighting (in accordance with the previous planning permission H/REN/58377) and a general upgrading of the club facilities. The DLTSC has consulted with a local housing association and believe that, in order to create a residential development opportunity that would be attractive to potential developers, the current fourth tennis court would have to be given up.

However, the remaining three courts with their all weather surface will still allow the Club to compete in local tennis leagues and offer a full range of playing and coaching opportunities to members. The two new short sided tennis courts would be a welcome addition to the facilities in view of the Club’s increasing involvement with local schools and young people. The Tennis Club also has ambitions in the future to obtain Community Amateur Sports Club status and hopes to attract grants from various sporting bodies to further improve its basic amenities.

The existing fourth tennis court is currently derelict, due to lack of funds for maintenance. Therefore, at present neither the club nor the community derive any benefit from this court. The development would therefore meet the exception criteria of the open space policy OSR5 and would provide at least an equivalent level of facilities.

It is hoped that the money raised by the residential permission would provide a new, smaller, more manageable club house and floodlights. The three existing courts can then be used all year round for coaching of all age groups and it is expected that membership will then increase. Floodlights will allow all year round tennis and make the club attractive to a full time coach who can develop links within the local community and with local schools.

The applicant has also submitted: -1. A letter from the Council’s Sport and Leisure Section, supporting the continuation of

tennis at the site.

2. A letter from Beverley Hughes, MP, supporting the retention of tennis facilities at the club.

3. A letter from Sport England dated 28th October 2007, which makes the following comments: -

A development proposal that would retain and enhance the majority of the site for tennis use, whilst generating funds through the sale of the remaining portion of the site, would be considered favourably by Sport England. However, Sport England would strongly object to an application for redevelopment of the site, which did not include retention of sports facilities of equivalent value.

The applicant has also provided a draft newsletter, which was due to be circulated to members. This makes the following comments: -The proposed scheme was rejected by Carlton Ltd. In September 2007 and the Carlton directors have resolved to dispose of the site. To actually carry out the development, the backing of the Carlton Lawn Tennis Club would be required. However, the planning application does set down on record the planning criteria that would have to be met by any potential developer. Carlton Ltd. have set out a proposal for the provision of tennis facilities at Longford Park in conjunction with Trafford Council. The Darley Lawn Tennis Club has expressed concerns about that scheme in terms of safety and lack of proximity to the current site.

CONSULTATIONSSP&D – Comments incorporated into Observations section.


Sport England – No objections. Despite the loss of one of the tennis courts, partial development of the site is necessary for the financial security of the club, and would result in better quality of the remaining facilities at the site. Given previous discussions with the Club regarding the proposed disposal of the entire site for development purposes, Sport England favour the option to retain and enhance the majority of the site for tennis use.Sports & Leisure – The proposed development would involve a reduction in the sporting facilities at the site by removing one of the courts to facilitate the building of houses. From a sports development perspective, this is a retrograde step and Sports and Leisure would prefer to see a new extended facility at Longford Park, which would enable tennis to flourish in the north of the Borough via a coaching programme and links with local schools.LHA – No objections to residential development on this site in principle and the parking ratio of 1 space per two bedroom property and 2 spaces per four bedroom property are considered to be acceptable. However the scheme in its current form is unacceptable for the following reasons: -

Five of the parking spaces for the two bedroom dwellings are located together in one block, which would result in an access of 12.5m in width in total;The parking spaces towards the north-western end of the site would afford poor visibility to any vehicle reversing out;The vehicular access into the development is just 4m wide and would need to be increased to 4.5m in width to allow simultaneous access and aggress.The layout of the car park is unacceptable, in particular with regard to the spaces for disabled persons.

Built Environment – No objections.Renewal and Environmental Protection – The application refers to the implementation of floodlighting as permitted by H/REN/56377. Environmental Protection raised concerns regarding the potential for light pollution at that time and don’t recall seeing the detailed lighting scheme required by this existing permission. If this scheme is still to be submitted, it should include an assessment using up to date impact criteria, given that light pollution can now be considered to be a statutory nuisance.Any permission should be subject to a condition requiring a site investigation for contaminated land. GM Police – At present, the site is very insecure and the Tennis Club has had to make alterations to the premises to make the club house secure. The development offers an opportunity to address the security of the site and the club house whilst providing six dwellings. No objections, subject to: -The buildings being erected to Secured by Design standards;The access to the tennis club car park being secured with 2100mm lockable gates;Restriction placed on the hours of use of the Social Club so as to avoid noise and disturbance to nearby residents. GM Cycling Campaign – The Council should insist on “Sheffield” type cycle stands, which support and secure the frame of the bike as well as the wheels. How many cycle stands is the applicant proposing to install? How much space will there be in the dwellinghouses for cycle storage?

REPRESENTATIONSTwo letters of objection have been received, making the following comments: -

1. The land is designated for use as a tennis facility and the area occupied by the tennis courts should not be used for residential development.

2. The proposed dwellings will block light to and overlook the garden of an adjacent property.

3. The parking facilities proposed for the tennis club would be very limited and the development is likely to result in on-street parking on surrounding roads to the detriment of existing residents. The club currently has a large parking area and a wide access. Will the new access road be wide enough for two vehicles to pass each other comfortably?


4. If planning permission is granted, the existing fence structure on the boundary with 22 Wood Road North should be retained for reasons of security and privacy and because there are established plants growing against it.

5. The Tennis Club is situated next to a severe bend on Wood Road North, where it is often necessary to give way to oncoming traffic. The road is busy as it is a through route between the Kings Road / Ayres Road area and the Upper Chorlton Road / Whalley Range area. Any on-street parking associated with the proposed development would have severe impact on traffic movement and cause a bottle neck at this point. There would also be conflict with vehicles accessing the site, which could easily lead to accidents.

6. The proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the character of the area. The tennis courts will be hidden from view and passers-by will no longer be able to see games being played. The courts will be surrounded on all sides by properties and play will not be so enjoyable. The new residents may not be sympathetic to tennis and may complain. This would detract from the free spirit of tennis, which has been played at this site for over one hundred years.

7. The existing clubhouse is a fairly modern building, which appears to be in good condition. It is believed that there is a flat above and this could be rented out to a suitable tenant and the income from this could be used for improvements to the Club facilities. Furthermore, the ground floor is a large area and could be converted into two or three more flats so producing even more income. Alternatively, the club house might be suitable for some kind of commercial use. It is a shame that such a well constructed building should be demolished.

8. The Club might be able to gain funding from various sports bodies and government agencies. The Club and the Planning Committee should consider every possibility before deciding to sell off land, which would be an irreversible step.

One letter has been received raising no objections to the principle of the development, but raising concerns about the security of a neighbouring property that backs onto the tennis courts and asking what form of boundary treatment would be erected on this perimeter to prevent people climbing over from the tennis courts.

One letter has been received from the owners of the site, Carlton Lawn Tennis Company Ltd., making the following comments: -

The landowners, Carlton Lawn Tennis Company Ltd., are not in discussion with anybody about the redevelopment of the application site. The Darley Lawn Tennis and Social Club is a tenant and the lease is currently due to end in December 2010.

The question of the partial redevelopment of the site was discussed between the landlord and tenant last year but in September 2007, the Carlton Lawn Tennis Company Ltd. decided against this approach and the Darley Lawn Tennis and Social Club was informed of this decision.

The current intention of the Carlton Lawn Tennis Company is to dispose of the site when the lease expires or earlier should a request for premature termination be received.

OBSERVATIONS

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT1. The application proposes the erection of six new residential units and therefore has to

be considered against the Council’s housing land supply policies. Nevertheless, it is recognised that the Proposed Changes to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West, published in March 2008, must now carry significant weight in the determination of planning applications to the extent that they must take precedence over the policies of


the adopted Regional Spatial Strategy (RPG13) and the housing policies of the Revised Trafford UDP and the adopted SPG.

2. With regards to new housing provision, the Proposed Changes to RSS Policy L4 significantly raise the annual average requirement figure for the Borough from a gross figure of 310 dwellings a year to a gross figure of 618. Additionally, this requirement is expressly described as a minimum figure. In relation to this new target requirement therefore, the Council can no longer demonstrate that it has a ten year supply of land committed for new housing development across the Borough. The Council can therefore no longer apply the provisions of the SPG, “Controlling the Supply of Land Made Available for New Housing Development”.

3. The relevant policies that can now be applied to this proposal are the Proposed RSS Policy MCR2, alongside the provisions of the Revised UDP policies A1 and H10, which identify Old Trafford as a Priority Regeneration Area. Proposed RSS Policy MCR2 indicates that new housing development should be focussed in the inner areas adjacent to the Regional Centre to secure a significant increase in population, secure the improvement of community facilities and the creation of sustainable communities. The application site lies within the inner area adjacent to the Regional Centre. The proposed development would provide new family housing and improved recreation facilities in an area the Council has identified as a Priority Regeneration Area. Proposal H10 identifies regeneration priorities in Old Trafford including improving the quality and diversity of the area’s housing stock, improving the quality, appearance and safety of the local environment and improving the quality and diversity of recreational facilities available to the local community. The proposal would support these regeneration objectives.

4. The applicant has submitted a Statement of Compliance, which states that the site is in is in a Priority Regeneration Area and would have a positive regeneration benefit in terms of securing a sustainable future for the Club and an improvement in the quality and diversity of facilities, which would benefit the wider community. The Statement suggests that the regeneration benefits would include the provision of the new club house and short sided tennis courts proposed in the current application as well as the provision of floodlighting, previously approved under planning permission H/REN/56377 and “a general upgrading of the club facilities”. It is suggested that the short sided courts would be of particular benefit given the increasing involvement with schools and young people. It is also stated that the Club has ambitions to obtain Community Amateur Sports Club Status and hopes to attract grants from various sporting bodies to improve its facilities.

5. It is noted that the appearance of the Club premises from Wood Road North is somewhat dilapidated. In particular, the existing tennis court at the front of the site is derelict and overgrown and is unusable in its current state. It is also noted that Sport England have raised no objections to the proposed development on the basis that the partial re-development of the site is necessary for the financial security of the Club and would result in an improved quality of facilities. On the other hand, it is noted that the Council’s Sport and Leisure Section have objected to the proposed development on the basis that it would involve a reduction in the sporting facilities available at the site.

6. Notwithstanding the comments of the Sports and Leisure Section, the fourth court is in an overgrown and dilapidated state and has clearly been disused for a number of years. Given the above, it is considered that, if the upgrading of the club facilities were properly secured through a Section 106 Agreement, the proposed development would support the local regeneration strategy in the Old Trafford Priority Regeneration Area. The site is also within the inner area, as defined by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy consultation document and is well served by public transport, being close to a main bus route on Upper Chorlton Road. It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of housing land supply.

7. The existing tennis courts, including the one within the current application site, are also allocated in the Revised Trafford UDP as Protected Open Space. Proposal OSR5 of the Revised UDP states that “The Council will safeguard and protect all types of open spaces described in Policy OSR1. The development of all or part of an open space will not be permitted unless: -

It is for formal or informal recreational purposes.


Replacement facilities of an equivalent or greater community benefit within the locality are provided.The proposed development is ancillary or complements the principal use of the site.It can be clearly demonstrated that the development would not result in a local deficiency…of recreational open space and facilities, taking account also of the site’s wider environmental and community value.”

8. The surrounding area is very deficient in open space. Nevertheless, given the fact that the front tennis court is currently dilapidated, overgrown and unusable, and given Sport England’s comments, it is accepted that the proposed development would provide replacement facilities of an equivalent or greater community benefit. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would not be contrary to Proposal OSR5 and would comply with Proposal OSR8 in terms of improving existing sporting facilities.

9. In overall terms, it is considered that the proposed development would help to safeguard an important community facility and, that, given the state of the fourth court, it would not result in a loss of useable open space and would provide replacement sporting facilities of an equivalent or greater benefit. It is therefore considered that the proposed development is acceptable in principle.

DESIGN AND VISUAL AMENITY10. The Wood Road North frontage of the site currently has a rundown appearance with flat

roof buildings of no architectural merit, a derelict and overgrown tennis court, unsightly and damaged cement board fencing to the front boundary, a small amount of graffiti on the front of the single storey building and barbed wire on the roof of the single storey building. It is therefore accepted that, in principle, the redevelopment of the site for housing would offer the potential to secure a significant improvement in the visual appearance of the site.

11. It is, nevertheless, considered that the layout of the houses shown on the `submitted plan would result in dwellings that would be much more closely spaced and would have significantly smaller plot sizes than is generally characteristic of the houses in the immediate vicinity. Nearby semi-detached houses typically have separation distances of at least 3 - 4m between neighbouring properties (often allowing for the width of a drive at the side of the house), whereas the proposed semi-detached units would have only a 1.5m gap between them and a 2.5m gap to the adjacent proposed detached dwelling. In addition, all the parking spaces would be sited directly in front of the properties with a continuous row of five parking spaces in front of the proposed semi-detached houses. As these would all need direct access from the road, there would be no scope for boundary treatment or planting to break these up.

12. It is considered that this combination of the lack of spaciousness around the buildings and the amount of hard surfacing and lack of scope for landscaping and boundary treatment on the Wood Road North frontage would provide a very hard, urban appearance to the development, which would be out of character with the generally suburban appearance of the immediate area. It is therefore considered that, in this context, the proposed layout would represent poor design that would be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area and the visual appearance of the street scene. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would be contrary to Proposals D1 and D3 of the Revised Trafford UDP and advice in Planning Policy Statement 1, Delivering Sustainable Development.

13. It is recognised that GM Police have commented that, at present, the site is very insecure and that the development offers an opportunity to address the security of the site and the club house. It is also noted that a neighbour has also raised concerns about the security of their property, which backs onto the site. Nevertheless, whilst it is recognised that the redevelopment of the site would offer an opportunity to address such issues, it is not considered that this would outweigh the other concerns relating to design and visual amenity (see above) and residential amenity (see below).

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY14. The detached house to the south-east of the application site (6 Wood Road North) has

five windows on the side elevation facing the proposed development. Three of these are


clearly secondary windows. However, there is a main habitable kitchen window at ground floor level and a first floor window above this (it is not clear whether this is a bedroom or a bathroom). The nearest proposed dwelling would be positioned approximately 4.5m from the neighbour’s kitchen window. Whilst the proposed house would be to the north-west and therefore would not affect direct sunlight, it is considered that, at this distance, it would lead to a loss of daylight to what already appears to be a relatively dark room and would have an overbearing impact and lead to visual intrusion. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the occupiers of number 6.

15. The large semi-detached property to the north-west has no windows on its side elevation. However, this house is positioned at an angle to the application site and, on the rear elevation, it has bedroom and living room windows within a projecting double bay, which is positioned only about 1m from the side boundary of the application site. It is considered that, as a result of this relationship, this existing house would unacceptably overlook the rear garden area of the nearest proposed house. It is noted that a letter of objection has been received from the occupants of this adjacent property on the grounds that the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on their amenity. However, given the layout and orientation of the properties, it is not considered that there would be a significant adverse impact on this existing house.

16. In terms of amenity space, the proposed houses would have rear gardens of less than 7m in length compared with the Council’s standard of 10.5m. Furthermore, the two bedroom semi-detached properties would have an area of about 40 square metres of private rear garden space whilst the four bedroom detached dwellings would have about 63 square metres. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance, “New Residential Development”, suggests a minimum area of 80 square metres for a three bedroom property. It is recognised that the proposed rear gardens are similar in length and size to those of some nearby existing properties, including those immediately to the south-east. Nevertheless, the garden lengths and areas are significantly less than the Council’s standards and the impact is worsened by that fact that the gardens would back directly onto the tennis club, which is likely to result in some level of noise and disturbance through the use of the short sided tennis courts and pavilion (including in the evenings) and the vehicle movements in the proposed car park.

17. Furthermore, the new pavilion building would be positioned less than 8m from the main habitable room windows on the rear elevation of one of the semi-detached dwellings and only 1m from the rear boundary of that property. Whilst it is proposed that the new pavilion building would be single-storey, it is still considered that, given the small rear garden area, this would result in an unacceptable overbearing impact on the occupiers of this property.

18. In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed development would have an unacceptable impact on the residential amenity of the adjacent dwelling at 6 Wood Lane North and would provide an unacceptable level of amenity for the occupants of the proposed dwellings.

HIGHWAY SAFETY AND PARKING PROVISION19. The proposed development would provide a total of nine parking spaces for the

six houses, giving an overall parking ratio of 150%. Whilst this overall provision does not meet the Council’s adopted standard of two parking spaces per dwelling, it does comply with the guidance contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 13, Transport. It is considered that the provision of two spaces per dwelling for the four bedroom properties and one space per dwelling for the two bedroom properties is acceptable in principle, particularly given the relatively sustainable location of the site close to a major bus route on Upper Chorlton Road.

20. Nevertheless, the LHA has objected to the proposed layout on the grounds of highway and pedestrian safety. In particular, the LHA is concerned about the position of the five proposed parking spaces for the two bedroom dwellings. These would create a continuous width of driveway of 12.5m and those spaces towards the north-western end of the frontage would have poor visibility due to the proximity of the bend in Wood Road


North and the presence of the adjacent street trees. In addition, the width of the main vehicular access would be inadequate and would not allow adequate room for two vehicles to pass easily. These inadequacies could result in conflict with pedestrians and vehicles on the highway. Furthermore, the layout of the proposed parking spaces within the site would also be inadequate, particularly in respect of the layout of disabled persons’ spaces and this could lead to additional on-street parking and poor accessibility for disabled persons. It is therefore considered that the layout, as currently proposed, is unacceptable and would lead to a loss of highway and pedestrian safety.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS21. It should be noted that, if planning permission were to be granted, the proposed

development would normally generate requirements for financial contributions to public open space and Red Rose Forest off-site tree planting, although the improvement of the on-site sports facilities would mean that there would be no requirement for a contribution towards outdoor sports facilities.

CONCLUSION22. In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed development would help to

safeguard and improve an important community facility and would be within the inner area adjacent to the Regional Centre where the Proposed Changes to the RSS seek to focus residential development. The scheme would support the local regeneration strategy for the Old Trafford area, thus complying with Policies L4 and MCR2 in the Proposed Changes to the draft revised RSS and Policies A1 and H10 of the Revised Trafford UDP. It would also not result in a loss of currently useable public open space, given the existing condition of the fourth court, and, and although it would result in the loss of a limited area of allocated Open Space, it would provide improved sporting facilities, which it is considered would be of a greater community benefit. It is therefore considered that the development would comply with Proposal OSR5 of the Revised Trafford UDP.

23. Nevertheless, it is considered that the proposed development would result in an unacceptable level of residential amenity for the future occupiers of the proposed dwellings due to lack of privacy and lack of private amenity space and would also have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of a neighbouring dwelling due to overbearing impact, visual intrusion and loss of light. Furthermore, it is considered that the design and layout of the proposed dwellings would have a detrimental impact on the character of the surrounding area due to the lack of spaciousness around the proposed dwellings and the amount of car parking on the street frontage. In addition, it is considered that the proposed layout would have a detrimental impact on highway and pedestrian safety. For the above reasons, it is therefore recommended that planning permission should be refused.


1. The proposed development would result in an unacceptable level of residential amenity for the occupiers of the proposed dwellings, due to: -

a. the lack of private amenity space and inadequate rear garden lengths coupled with the potential for undue noise and disturbance and loss of privacy as a result of the proximity of the tennis club to the rear elevations of the dwellings:

b. the overbearing impact and visual intrusion of the proposed pavilion on the rear garden and rear elevation of one of the dwellings and

c. the overlooking of the rear garden of one of the dwellings from the main habitable windows of an existing adjacent property.


As such, the proposed development would be contrary to Proposals D1 and D3 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance, “New Residential Development”

2. The proposed development would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling at 6 Wood Road North due to overbearing impact, visual intrusion and loss of light as a result of the proximity of one of the proposed houses to a main habitable room window in the side elevation of that property. As such, the proposed development would be contrary to Proposals D1 and D3 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance, “New Residential Development”.

3. The proposed layout would result in a lack of spaciousness around the dwellings and a large amount of hard surfacing and a lack of landscaping on the site frontage and would be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area. The proposed development would therefore have a detrimental impact on the character and visual appearance of the street scene and the surrounding area. The development would therefore be contrary to Proposals D1 and D3 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.

4. The proposed development would have a harmful impact on highway and pedestrian safety, due to: -

a) the position and layout of the driveways / parking spaces on the site frontage, which would result in inadequate visibility for vehicles entering and leaving the site and potential conflict between vehicles entering and leaving the site and vehicles and pedestrians using the public highway;b) the inadequate width of the main vehicular access, which would not allow two vehicles to pass easily and would therefore result in potential conflict with pedestrians and vehicles using the public highway;c) the poor layout of the parking spaces within the site, which would provide inadequate parking facilities for disabled persons. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Proposals D1, D2 and D3 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s related Supplementary Planning Guidance, “New Residential Development”.

SD



Russell Court

29.4m

29.4m29.2m

LB

TCB

BM 29.65m

12

El Sub Sta

Tennis Courts

Club

El Sub Sta

)

)

#



WARD: Gorse Hill H/LPA/LB/68940 DEPARTURE: No

LISTED BUILDING CONSENT FOR CLOSING UP OF EXISTING SINGLE DOOR OPENING IN PARTITION WALL BETWEEN ROOMS 117/118 AND FORMATION OF LARGER DOOR OPENING IN SAME WALL MEASURING 2160MM WIDE BY 2100MM HIGH (RETROSPECTIVE).

Town Hall, Talbot Road, Stretford.

APPLICANT: Facilities Manager, Trafford Council.

AGENT: Asset Management, Trafford Council.


SITE

A partition wall dividing two rooms which form part of the original Trafford Town Hall building. The Town Hall which was built for Stretford Urban District Council in 1933 and listed Grade II in March 2007.

PROPOSAL

Consent is sought in retrospect for the closing up of an opening of 0.9m in width within the blockwork partition wall dividing room nos. 117 and 118 and its replacement with a larger opening measuring 2160mm wide and 2100mm high.


The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (RPG13), now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.

PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION

Main Office Development AreasPriority Regeneration Area: Gorse Hill

PRINCIPAL RELEVANT REVISED UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALS

ENV24 – Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic InterestENV25 – New Uses for Listed Buildings and Buildings in Conservation AreasH9 – Priority Regeneration Area: Gorse HillD1 – All New Development

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

H/LPA/66305 – Formation of temporary site access road through Town Hall gardens to facilitate the construction of the sports hall and all weather playing surface permitted by planning permission H/LPA/60455.



The applicant’s agent has submitted a design and access statement in accordance with the requirements in the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment) (England) Order 2006.

The applicant has also submitted a statement showing how the works comply with guidance in PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment.

CONSULTATIONS

None.

REPRESENTATIONS

None.

OBSERVATIONS

PRINCIPLE

1. Under Section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservations Areas) Act 1990, when considering applications for listed building consent the Local Planning Authority is obliged to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest. There is no requirement for decision makers to consider the development plan, although policies within it will generally be relevant, particularly those relating to listed buildings. Proposal ENV24 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan states that the Council will seek to preserve buildings of architectural or historic interest by, inter alia, ensuring that all proposals for the alteration or extension of listed buildings are in keeping with the character and special interest of the building. Government guidance in PPG15 ‘Planning and the Historic Environment’ is also a material consideration.

IMPACT ON LISTED BUILDING

2. The partition wall in question is not part of the original fabric of the building but was inserted in approximately 1990. It is constructed in blockwork with a plaster finish and has no decoration other than a skirting. The widening of the opening does not therefore adversely impact on historic fabric or the special architectural or historic interest of the building. The works are also wholly reversible, with the partition easily reinstated if required, although reversion to original, historic fabric would involve the removal of the partition in its entirety.

3. Consent is sought in retrospect and works have been carried out to a satisfactory standard. It is not considered that any conditions are necessary.

REFERRAL TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE

4. If Members are minded to approve this application they are only empowered to make a recommendation on the proposal. The development is an application by the Local Planning Authority in relation to its own land and under Section 82 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Regulation 13 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990 the application must in fact be made to the Secretary of State. It is deemed to have been referred to the Secretary of State under the call in provisions and is dealt with in the same way as, for example, a departure from the development plan.


CONCLUSION

5. The formation of a larger opening in a non-original partition wall has had no adverse impact on historic fabric and consequently on the special architectural or historic interest of the building. Approval of listed building consent is therefore recommended.

RECOMMENDATION:

MINDED TO GRANT:-

(A) That the Council is minded to grant listed building consent for the works and that the application now be passed to the Department for Communities and Local Government for determination as an application by the Local Planning Authority in relation to its own land in accordance with Section 82 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and Regulation 13 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990.

(B) That the Council recommends to the DCLG that no conditions are imposed on any grant of listed building consent.

RC



Wa reh o us e

Bo wde n Co urt

32 .1m

PH

TCBs

PH

PC

LB

PH

Ca r Pa rk

27.6m

El Sub Sta La nca shire County

and Ma nc hes ter

Ga rag e

Tra ffo rd Ho us e

El Sub Sta

No rth Trafford Co l leg e

Pol i c e Statio n

El Sub Sta

Play ing Field

29.8m

FB

27 .6m

To wn Hal l

Cric ket Ground

TCB

28 .7m

SL

17 to 32

Bowden Co urt

Pos ts

To wn HallBa n k

Po s ts

Pav il io n

Lanc ashire C ounty and Manches ter C ricket Ground

El Sub Sta

El Sub Sta

MKM

Hou s e

)))

)))))

))

)

)

)))

#

)



WARD: Village H/68963 DEPARTURE: No

CHANGE OF USE OF FIRST FLOOR FROM LIVING ACCOMMODATION TO DAY NURSERY; VARIATION OF CONDITION 9 OF PLANNING PERMISSION H/62421 TO ALOW A MAXIMUM OF 57 CHILDREN TO ATTEND THE DAY NURSERY; PROVISION OF STAFF CAR PARKING TO THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED WORKS.

174 Brooklands Road, Sale

APPLICANT: Mrs C. Cambridge

AGENT: Emery Planning Partnership

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT

THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN CALLED IN FOR CONSIDERATION BY PLANNING COMMITTEE BY COUNCILLORS RAY AND HAZEL BOWKER WHO OBJECT TO THE PROPOSAL ON THE GROUNDS OF INCREASED NOISE LEVELS AND IMPACT ON THE AMENITIES OF RESIDENTS.

SITE

The application relates to a detached property on the north side of Brooklands Road. The property was formerly a single house but is now in use as a day nursery with the benefit of planning permission. The planning permission originally granted for the day nursery included the retention of living accommodation at first floor level, this accommodation is not currently in use for residential purposes. Access is directly onto Brooklands Road with visitor car parking in the front garden area.

The adjacent properties on Brooklands Road are residential comprising detached houses on either side and opposite, with flats also opposite. The site backs onto the rear gardens of houses fronting Framingham Road.

There are two large trees on the site frontage protected by TPO 273, and a number of unprotected trees in the rear garden.

PROPOSAL

This application proposes the use of the whole of the property as a day nursery with no residential accommodation retained. It is proposed that the maximum number of children that the nursery accommodates be increased from 35 to 57. It was previously proposed to demolish the existing garage at the side of the building to facilitate access to a new staff parking area in the garden at the rear of the property. This element of the scheme has now been amended such that the garage is retained and all the parking is provided at the front (as existing) and side of the building. In total 11 parking spaces are provided – 7 spaces in the front as existing and 4 spaces along the boundary with 172 Brooklands Road in front of the retained garage. The existing layout includes provision of 2 spaces along the side of the house.

Planning Committee 5th June 2008-05-27 Page no 24

An external play area of approximately 567 sq metres (18 x 31.5m) would be provided in the rear garden with a further area at the rear of the garden, containing a number of trees and measuring some 311 sq metres ((18 x 17.3m) fenced off and not used by the nursery.

The site benefits from mature and dense hedgerows and trees to its perimeter.

Information is submitted to demonstrate a local need for additional childcare facilities.


The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West, now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.


None


D1 – All New DevelopmentD2 – Vehicle ParkingD8 – Day Nurseries and Playgroups


H/60293 – First floor side/rear extension including guardrail at first floor level to rear and addition of pitched roofs to front and rear of dwelling. Planning permission granted on 19 October 2004.

H/62421 – Change of use from dwellinghouse to day nursery for 35 children with retention of living accommodation at first floor level. Creation of car park and alterations to site access. Planning permission granted on 25 August 2005 subject to a condition (condition 9) as follows:- ‘The maximum number of children accommodated in the nursery shall not exceed 35 at any time. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and to ensure that adequate provision is made for the parking of vehicles within the curtilage of the site having regard to Proposals D1 and D2 of the Trafford Unitary Development Plan and Proposals D1 and D2 of the Proposed Adopted Unitary Development Plan.’

H/ADV/63988 - Display of 1 no. non-illuminated, freestanding advertisement to front of property. Consent granted on 11 April 2006.

H/68535 – Change of use of first floor from living accommodation to day nursery; variation of condition 9 of planning approval H/62421 to allow a maximum number of 57 children to attend the day nursery; provision of staff car parking to the rear and associated works. Planning permission refused on 31 January 2008 for the following reason:

The proposed development by reason of the introduction of the car parking area into the rear garden, would detract from the character of the area and the amenities of adjacent residents. As such the proposal would be contrary to Proposals D1 and D8 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.



A detailed Planning, Design and Access Statement has also been submitted. In summary this concludes:-- the proposed expansion on the existing day nursery would not cause detriment or harm to the general appearance of the existing property or the character of the surrounding area- with regard to parking, sufficient spaces are proposed to be provided on site and the number of spaces meets the Council’s guidelines for a day nursery of this size (11 spaces required and 11 provided comprising 6 for parents, 1 for disabled users and 4 for staff); - the nursery is well served by existing public transport services; - staff are encouraged to car share- the submitted Highways Statement confirms that the development would not result in a detrimental impact on the highway network nor cause danger to other road users, the anticipated traffic associated with the proposal can be accommodated in an acceptable manner onto the local highway network- the staff car parking has been repositioned to address the reason for refusal of the previous scheme- the business is established and Trafford Sure Start view the proprietor as an established, experienced and reputable provider of quality day care in Trafford- the proposal has been assessed in relation to the adopted development plan and in accordance with policies D1 and D8. In accordance with these policies the proposal would not harm the general character and appearance of the locality, nor harm or create highway safety concerns; local residents amenities would be safeguarded

In the more detailed appraisal of the proposal in relation to UDP policy D8, the statement states:-

- the maximum number of additional children that could attend in any one session is 22 though it is likely that fewer would attend all day every day

- the majority of children are dropped off between 0800 and 1100 with the maximum number of drops averaging 1 every 8 minutes; the frequency of movements in the morning period equates to 35 over a 180 minute period – 1 movement every 5 minutes; an increase as proposed of up to 22 children over a 180 minute period represents approximately 1 movement every 3 minutes

- the additional movements should be considered in the context of a day nursery that is already operational; there is already activity associated with the comings and goings of the nursery; the additional movements would occur during the existing drop off period and there would be no material increase in activity so as to cause disamenity to adjacent residents

- the nursery is only open Monday to Friday and is closed at times when people are more sensitive to noise such as late at night and early in the morning and at weekends, staff have their meals provided on site and as such have no need to leave the site during the day

- existing parking spaces at the side of the property adjacent to the house at 172 Brooklands Road already generate comings and goings

- an increase in the number of child spaces is unlikely to result in a material increase in traffic movements and consequent noise activity to a degree that would harm the amenity of local residents

- the children use the amenity area in family groups; it is more productive and the nursery staff have a greater degree of control over the children if the size of play area is limited and the number of children within each group is also limited; sufficient space exists for the children and the garden is of a suitable size whereby their play would not be unduly close to adjoining neighbours

- the proposal includes the removal of the previously approved flat element at first floor- the number of parking spaces has been reduced from the previous proposal which

would have resulted in over-provision; the number of spaces now proposed complies with the standards set out in the UDP; the site also provides an area for the parking of staff bicycles

- it is unlikely that the available spaces would be filled if the use is expanded, in particular, employees often live locally, don’t use a car or car share


- the site is well located for use of alternative forms of transport to the car for those associated with the nursery

- parents of children at the nursery enter a contract with the nursery to agree to use the parking space provided and not the highway which is a system operated successfully at other sites by the applicant

- the site benefits from mature planting and additional planting is proposed- the site is fully monitored by a CCTV system

The submitted Highways Statements concludes that on the basis of the investigations it has been demonstrated that the anticipated traffic associated with the application proposals can be accommodated in a satisfactory manner onto the local highway network.

CONSULTATIONS

On the originally submitted plans:-

LHA – It is noted that the amendments requested in the previous application have been made and therefore there are no objections on highways grounds to the proposals.

It is worth bearing in mind that although the highways statement does not indicate an excessive number of trips, I am slightly concerned that there is the potential for a large number of drop offs/pick ups to be made in a relatively short time period which may cause additional queuing on Brooklands Road due to the difficulty with the right turn into the site and the right turn out of the site. However, it is unlikely that a refusal on these grounds would stand up at any ensuing appeal.

Highways – No comment.

Drainage - The Developer should consider a Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDs) / disposal at source solution to dealing with surface water run off arising from this development.

Renewal and Environmental Protection – This application will give rise to the potential of nuisance from increased numbers of children using the external play area and increased vehicle movements from parents arriving and leaving the premises. Similar concerns were raised in my comments regarding the original application for the change of use in 2005 (H/62421), and the application will serve to increase the existing potential for nuisance and disamenity.

Vehicles accessing/leaving and manoeuvring around the rear car park will extend the potential for nuisance from noise and fumes to more sensitive areas at the side and rear of the adjacent properties.

The noise from this development is likely to be intrusive and cause nuisance in the external areas of and within the neighbouring properties, especially if windows are open for ventilation.

It is recommended that permission for this application be refused, in order not to increase the impacts of the existing use of the premises.

Any comments from the consultees on the amended parking layout will be included in the Additional Information Report.

REPRESENTATIONS


Councillors Ray and Hazel Bowker – Object to the proposal on the following grounds:-- a back door approach to the expansion of the nursery was predicted, these tactics

are not acceptable and should be rejected- there are serious doubts about the applicants claims that she has consulted with

neighbours- the proposed increase in the number of children will create an increase in noise

levels, the present level is unacceptable and the proposal will make the situation even worse

- this is a residential area and the development is totally inappropriate in this location- to apply restrictive conditions to a planning approval would not resolve residents

fears- support the concerns expressed by adjacent neighbours

Neighbours – 3 letters of objection received raising the following concerns:-- levels of traffic along Brooklands Road are increasing and there have been accidents

including one fatal one at the top of the road- the previous application was refused on the grounds of introducing car parking area

into the rear garden and the impact on the character of the area and residents amenities. The revised proposal makes this situation worse by parking cars nearer to the house with a greater impact on neighbours

- the activity would be at the end of the day when noise levels are lower thus making the impact higher

- the pollution is fumes and smell as well as noise- the area in the rear garden is a barbeque area for neighbours - agreeing to this proposal is against the wishes of people who wish to live here and

will change the residential character of the road- turning traffic will make things worse along Brooklands Road and will make it more

difficult for people to cross the road- each change to traffic is a small change but they all add up- there is another nursery within half a mile- there is nothing within the application justifying a change in the number of children at

the nursery beyond that approved by condition on the original permission- the existing noise from the play area is very noticeable and an increase in the

number of children would make this worse- a condition of any planning consent should be to restrict the use of the outdoor play

area to certain times - the proposed change would open up the property for further commercial use in the

future - there should be an obligation to return the site to its previous condition once the life

of the nursery has expired- retention of trees should be made a condition of any approval- neighbours have not been consulted on the proposals by the applicant- notwithstanding the applicants submitted information, noise will increase

exponentially with the number of children- concern about the back-door way in which planning consent for the nursery has been

achieved- the applicant should be made to state their long term plans for the property and if

there are no further expansion plans this should be a condition of any consent

2 further letters were submitted objecting to a revision that retained the staff parking at the rear for reasons already expressed.

Any further comments on the latest amendment to retain the garage at the side and remove any parking form the rear garden will be included in the Additional Information Report.


OBSERVATIONS


1. Notwithstanding that the permission for the change of use of the former dwelling included an element of retained living accommodation, the principle of a day nursery on this site has been established by that permission. The proposal to use the whole property as a day nursery is therefore considered to be acceptable in principle.

IMPACT ON THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA AND THE AMENITIES OF RESIDENTS

2. The property has an authorised established use as a day nursery with living accommodation above. The nursery is conditioned to a maximum of 35 children. A recent application for the use of the whole property as a nursery with an increase in the number of children to 57 maximum (as now proposed) and to provide car parking at the rear was refused solely on the grounds of the impact of the car park – it was considered that the introduction of the car park into the rear garden would detract from the character of the area and the amenities of adjacent residents. In relation to the possible impact on the amenities of residents arising from the increased number of children and possible increase in noise levels the proposal was considered to be acceptable. This was a recent Council decision and as such has to be given significant weight in the consideration of this current proposal.

3. The proposal does not now include any car parking in the rear garden area. Instead the existing garage is to be retained as a store/bike store and 4 staff spaces will be provided in front of it along the boundary with 172 Brooklands Road. This garage is as existing and the area in front of it is, on the existing plans, identified as 2 parking spaces. It is considered that the parking layout now proposed would not detract from the character of the area or the amenity of neighbours.

4. The garden space provided for use by children is approximately 567 sq. metres which is very close to the Council’s guideline figure of 570 sq metres (based on 10 sq. metres per child). The neighbours also have relatively large rear gardens and in this respect it is considered that the outdoor play associated with the nursery would not be unduly intrusive to neighbouring residents.

5. Given the nature of Brooklands Road, and in particular the level of traffic at morning and evening peak times, together with the level of use associated with the existing nursery, it is considered that the proposed increase in the number of children would not be unduly detrimental to the amenities of the area or neighbouring residents.

TRAFFIC AND CAR PARKING ISSUES

4. The LHA did not raise any undue concerns with the previous proposal for the same increase in numbers of children at the nursery subject to an acceptable number of parking spaces being provided on site. The number of spaces provided, 11, meets the Council’s approved standard for a nursery of the size proposed and is considered to be in an acceptable layout. As such it is considered that there would be no detrimental impact arising form the proposal on the highway network or on the safety and convenience of other users of Brooklands Road.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT, subject to the following conditions and standard reasons:-

1. Standard


2. Amended layout – 15 May 2008.

3. Provision of access facilities No.2

4. Retention of access facilities

5. The additional car parking hereby approved shall be constructed and made available for staff use prior to there being any increase in the number of children at the nursery above 35. The approved car parking area shall thereafter be retained and made available for use by staff only at all times that the nursery is open.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and convenience and to ensure that adequate provision is made for the parking of vehicles within the curtilage of the site having regard to proposals D1, D2 and D8 of the Revised Trafford Unitary development Plan.

6. The day nursery to which this permission relates shall not be open other than between the hours of 0800 to 1800 Mondays to Fridays and not on any other day.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity having regard to Proposals D1 and D8 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.

7. The maximum number of children accommodated in the nursery shall not exceed 57 at any one time.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and to ensure that adequate provision is made for the parking of vehicles within the cartilage of the site having regard to proposals D1, D2 and D8 of the Revised Trafford Unitary development Plan.

8. The maximum number of children playing outside at the nursery shall not exceed 35 at any one time.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and to ensure that adequate provision is made for the parking of vehicles within the cartilage of the site having regard to proposals D1, D2 and D8 of the Revised Trafford Unitary development Plan.

GE



War

FS

Meml

BM 25.67m

25.3m

Nursery

LB

FB

FB

Lodge

Ellenbrook

BM 26.50m

FB

25.3m

El Sub Sta

FB

Eversley Court

#

)

)

)

#

#



WARD: Bowdon H/69045 DEPARTURE: No

REMODELLING EXISTING DWELLINGHOUSE TO INCLUDE PART SINGLE STOREY, PART TWO STOREY FRONT, SIDE AND REAR EXTENSIONS. ERECTION OF TWO NO. REAR DORMERS.

SITE: 14 Eyebrook Road, Bowdon

APPLICANT: Mr Ben Shaw

AGENT: Mrs Rosemarie Andrews


SITE

The application site is at 14 Eyebrook Road, Bowdon. It is set on the west side of Eyebrook Road and within a row of four or five similar sized detached properties. The current property is extended to both sides at single storey level to form two attached garages, and there is a small distance to boundary on either side.

The site is 0.1ha and currently enjoys a large rear garden of approximately 33m in length. There is a distance to front boundary of 11m.

There is major redevelopment within the Eyebrook Road, Barry Rise, Blueberry Road, Stanhope Road general area and a large number of the previously understated smaller 1 and a half to two storey properties have been replaced by larger two and a half storey properties.

PROPOSAL

The application is for the substantial remodelling of the existing dwellinghouse, to include part single storey, part 2 storey side and rear extensions. It also seeks permission for the erection of 2 no. dormer windows to the rear of the property; the creation of a part single storey part two storey front extension and various other external alterations, including the raising of the roof ridge from a height of 7.4m to 8.6m. These significant alterations and extensions provide the perception of a new dwellinghouse, however, the majority of the existing dwellinghouse will remain in situ (save for the single storey garages which will be demolished) with the sizeable extensions wrapped around the original shell. The exterior will then be completely rendered and buff stone used for window surrounds with painted timber windows. A distance of 2.01m is preserved to the southern side boundary and along the northern side boundary there will be a distance of 2.57m from the single storey extension and 4.97m from the 2 storey side extensions. The rear of the property is predominantly glazed at ground floor level, opening out onto the rear garden area.


The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North-West, now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.



None


D1 – All New DevelopmentD2 - Vehicle ParkingD6 – House ExtensionsD13 – Energy Considerations in New Development


H68319: Remodelling existing dwellinghouse to include part single storey, part 2 storey side and rear extensions. Erection of first floor rear balcony; creation of single storey front extension; Erection of second floor extension to sit atop new flat roof to dwelling; installation of green roof atop flat roof and various other external alterations. REFUSED by Committee, 19 Feb 2008, for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development, by reason of its design, size, massing, and its relationship with the adjacent properties would constitute overdevelopment, and would represent a development which would be incongruous to and out of character with the surrounding area. As such the proposal is contrary to Proposals D1 and D6 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan, and the Council's approved Planning Guidelines 'House Extensions'.

2. The proposed development by reason of its design, size, massing and its relationship with the adjacent dwellings would give rise to undue overshadowing and loss of light, overlooking and loss of privacy, visual intrusion and an unduly overbearing effect, to the detriment of the amenity that the adjoining occupants could reasonably expect to enjoy. As such the proposal is contrary to Proposals D1 and D6 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.

CONSULTATIONS

Built Environment (Highways) – No comment.

Built Environment (Drainage) – Suggests informatives to be attached to the decision

Built Environment (Street Lighting) – No comment

LHA – No objections. Trafford Council’s Parking Standards state that the provision of four parking spaces are appropriate in a dwellinghouse of this size.

The dwelling proposes a double garage that meets Trafford Council’s size standards which accounts for two of the spaces. It is my belief that the remaining two car parking spaces can be accommodated within the site, although operational space may be limited.

REPRESENTATIONS

8 no. objections. The main points raised are summarised below:

Adverse impact on character and appearance of the area, particular reference to excessive height and scale for the size of plot.

“Over-dominance” of design will impact negatively on residential amenity of neighbours generally.


The plans do not relate to the properties at 10, 12, 16, 18, 7, 9 and 11 Eyebrook Road. Applicant refers to property at 1, 4, 6 Eyebrook Road and 43 Stanhope Road in terms of ridge height, but that property is not in the immediate vicinity.

Marked reduction in sunlight and increased overshadowing to the rear of the house and garden at number 12 Eyebrook Road contrary to the Building Research Establishment’s guidelines.

Oppressive and overbearing impact on the outlook from number 12 Eyebrook Road. Misleading information in the applicants Design and Access Statement, as follows:

a. Proposed two storey rear extension does not follow the rear building line to number 12 Eyebrook Road. It projects 8 – 9m beyond it.

b. The applicant has already removed trees and so where he states “no trees will be removed” as a result of the works, it doesn’t account for those trees already removed.

c. The plot for number 14 Eyebrook is much smaller than the ‘comparator’ sites.d. Disagree with the statement that there will be no loss of amenity due to

overshadowing. Concern over the massing and footprint of the extensions. Proposed rear extension will impact upon Oak tree in rear garden. Lack of dimensional figures on plans (however, scale is provided and both electronic

and hard copies are available for public viewing) Similar size development to previously refused scheme.

APPLICANTS SUBMISSION

The applicant submitted a Design and Access Statement to support the application. The relevant points are summarised below:

Property is a 1950’s to 1960’s property set in a substantial plot. Existing property is not in a good state of repair. There are a range of different styles of properties with differing materials in the

vicinity. A number of examples of replacement dwellings with accommodation in the roof

space in the vicinity (H/66277: 6 Eyebrook Road; H/62109: 1 Eyebrook Road; H/66738: 9 Barry Rise).

Bowdon is affluent which is driving the replacement of the original “tired” building stock.

Energy Considerations are as follows:o Extension of the existing dwelling rather than demolition, which is more

sustainableo Integrate energy saving devices within the design such as

Grey water catchment system Highly insulated building (including insulated white render) to improve

buildings thermal performance Massing of the development follows the recently approved schemes identified above

and others in the vicinity. A plot of 0.1069ha is capable of easily accommodating extensions of this size,

without adversely affecting the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties. The proposal retains the 2 no. vehicular accesses to Eyebrook Road, and retains

sufficient parking spaces to accommodate a number of cars in addition to the 2 no. garage spaces.

The symmetry of the existing property is retained, as is the position of the front door. The proposal is significantly lower in height than 6 Eyebrook Road, 4 Eyebrook Road

and 43 Stanhope Road and properties on the opposite side of the road. Thus in terms of massing the proposal is not discordant.

The proposal follows the existing fenestration pattern to Eyebrook Road.


There are no overlooking issues to neighbouring habitable rooms or external areas. Where windows do face neighbouring properties they will be obscure glazed.

No loss of amenity due to overshadowing. White Render is proposed and is not uncommon in the vicinity.

OBSERVATIONS

PRINCIPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT

1. Although this application would at first sight appear to represent an application for a replacement dwelling, it is in fact a significant remodelling of the existing dwellinghouse. The external and internal walls of the existing dwellinghouse are to be in most part kept and extended upon.

2. The existing detached house is not considered to be of any architectural or historical value and makes a neutral rather than positive or valuable contribution to the area as a whole. There is considerable new development in the area, with particular reference to replacement dwellings, which are altering the character of the area. Where once predominantly small properties sat on large plots, there now exists a real mixture of small and large detached dwellings. It is considered the extensive remodelling of this property would at least preserve the body of the existing house, whilst creating the perception of an entirely new dwelling. In principle, an ambitious remodelling scheme of such nature could be welcomed in this location, not least for the environmental benefits of avoiding demolition and rebuild. It is accepted that the immediate neighbouring properties are of a relatively small scale, however, in principle there is scope within this site for sizeable extensions.

3. Members will be aware of a large volume of applications for replacement dwellings and significant extensions in this particular area, which all serve to demonstrate how the character of the area and the style, size and general design of properties in the area, are rapidly changing. As such, in principle, a substantial re-modelling of a dwelling like that proposed for 14 Eyebrook Road is considered acceptable in this location.

DESIGN AND APPEARANCE

4. The existing property is a mid 20th century property of part one and a half storey, part two storey elements. There are two single storey garage extensions, one on either side of the property. The current arrangement does not provide substantial distance to side boundaries. The proposed scheme leaves a greater distance to side boundaries, although it is clear that the proposed scheme represents a property of much bigger massing. (refer to table 8.1 for further details).

5. Nonetheless, it is also clear from table 8.1, that this current proposal has been reduced from the previously refused scheme (H/68319) and distances to boundary have been increased.

COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUSLY REFUSED SCHEME (H/68319)

6. This current scheme represents a more traditional styled property than the contemporary scheme, previously refused planning permission (H/68319). It is considered that the design of this property is more in keeping with the surrounding area.

7. The previously refused scheme was considerably larger in the street scene (see table 8.1). This scheme has been pulled in from the common boundary with number 12


Eyebrook Road from 3.5m to boundary to 5m to boundary at 2 storey level and from 1.7m (H/68319) to 2m at single storey level.

8. Furthermore, the proposed scheme is reduced in total width from 16.7m (H/68319) to 15.2m. This represents a significant reduction in the perceived massing and scale of the proposed property in the street scene from that of the previously refused scheme.

9. The impact will be further reduced by the hipped design of the roof system and although the roof ridge is 0.2m higher than the previous scheme, it will appear less dominant and intrusive.

Table 8.1 (approx. figures) Existing Refused Scheme

(H/68319) Proposed

Distance to Southwestern side boundary (single storey)

0.9m 2m 2m

Distance to Northeastern side boundary (single storey)

1.7m 1.7m 2.5m

Distance to Southwestern side boundary (2 storey)

4.3m 2m 2m

Distance to Northeastern side boundary (2 storey) 4.8m 3.5m 5m

Width of full property 17.8m 16.7m 15.2mWidth of 2 storey elements 11.2m 15.3m 13m

Height to roof ridge 7.7m 8.4m 8.6mHeight to eaves/parapet 5.4m 5.6m 5.4m

COMPARISON WITH EXISTING DWELLING

10. Table 8.1 indicates that in terms of massing the new property represents a significant increase over and above the existing dwelling. However, the distance to side boundaries at two storey level (2m and 4.97m) is considered ample in this area.

11. The general building line remains consistent and although the distance to front and rear boundaries is reduced to distances of 27m and 8.8m respectively, the site is more than capable of accommodating such large extensions.

12. As previously mentioned, the remodelled property will appear bigger in the street scene than those within the immediate row of more compact properties. Although the height to eaves level is not increased, the width of the two storey elements to the property and the increased height to roof ridge will mean that the property will appear much larger than the existing. Furthermore, the property becomes a 2 and a half storey property with the accommodation at second storey level.

10. Nonetheless, the property has been reduced in scale since the previously refused scheme (H/68319), and the introduction of a pitched mansard-styled roof has remedied some of the previous concerns in terms of design and impact.

11. The design of the property has varying environmental features and benefits as described in the applicant’s submission and retains the original shell of the property which has obvious environmental credentials.


SUSTAINABILITY OF DESIGN

12. The materials proposed all serve to create a well insulated property, working efficiently in both warm and cold weather.

13. The proposal also seeks a grey-water system for collecting and recycling water, which, although not a specific planning consideration is an added benefit to the proposal.


14. The property most affected by the proposed development is number 12 Eyebrook Road. In particular there is some concern over the impact of the two storey rear extension in close proximity to number 12. The most pertinent issue is that of a loss of sunlight and overshadowing to the rear patio area of number 12.

The previously refused scheme was refused in part for the impact of loss of sunlight to and overshadowing of the rear garden area and windows at number 12 Eyebrook Road. That scheme provided a distance between the properties at two storey level of 6.3m and a projection of 6.3m beyond the rear of number 12 with a parapet (eaves) height of 5.6m. The new scheme has increased the distance between the two properties to 8m with an 8m projection beyond the rear of the properties. Furthermore, the eaves level has been reduced to the existing eaves level of 5.4m and the pitched roof has partially alleviated the previous concerns relating to the impact from the second floor accommodation.

15. The two storey rear extension complies with guideline figures for rear extensions in that, with a projection of 8m at a distance between the properties of 8m, the net figure when the distance between the buildings is subtracted from the projection beyond the rear of number 12, is significantly less than 1.5m (i.e. 8m – 8m < 1.5m).

16. Additionally, the existence of a very mature oak tree in the rear garden of number 14 Eyebrook Road serves to reduce sunlight to the rear patio area of number 12 Eyebrook Road, particularly during summer months when the tree will be in full bloom. Apparent recent pruning by the applicant has partially served to alleviate the loss of sunlight to number 12 Eyebrook Road resulting from this tree.

17. Given the ample distance to the rear boundary and the location of the neighbouring garage at number 16 Eyebrook, issues of overshadowing are not significant elsewhere.

18. There are no issues of overlooking between habitable room windows on the side elevations of the proposed dwelling and the neighbours. On the northeast side elevation, the glazing at first floor level serves en-suites and the ground floor windows serve a utility room and garage. These can be conditioned to be obscure glazed.

19. There are no windows at first floor level on the Southwest elevation and the windows at ground floor level serve a study and as a secondary window to a lounge. There are no primary habitable room windows on the side elevation of number 16 Eyebrook Road. Their windows are obscure glazed. The existing boundary treatment consists of a 1.5m fence, which partially obscures views across to number 16 but should be conditioned to be raised to 1.8m or the windows should be obscure glazed in that elevation.

20. There are no other concerns in terms of residential amenity.


IMPACT ON OAK TREE IN REAR GARDEN

21. There is a large, mature oak tree situated in the rear garden of number 14 Eyebrook Road. The building line of the proposed extension lies in close proximity if not beyond the ‘drip-line’ of the Oak tree. As the root systems of Oak can be relatively deep and extensive, it is recommended that a condition requiring a special foundation design is attached to any planning permission. Also, a condition requiring the submission of a Tree Protection Scheme as a condition precedent should also be attached to the planning permission.”

CONCLUSION

22. The development is in accordance with proposals of the Revised Trafford UDP and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘House Extensions’. It is therefore recommended that the application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT, subject to the following conditions

1. Standard condition;

2. Materials to be submitted condition;

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification)

(i) no external alterations shall be carried out to the dwelling(ii) no vehicle standing space shall be provided within the curtilage of the dwelling (iii) no windows, doors or dormer windows shall be added to the dwelling

other than those expressly authorised by this permission, unless planning permission for such development has been granted by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason. To protect the residential and visual amenities of the area, and privacy, having regard to Proposals D1 and D6 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.

4. No development shall commence unless and until a scheme for the creation / retention of boundary treatment and landscaping has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented before the extensions hereby approved are first brought into use and shall be retained at all times thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests visual and residential amenity and in accordance with Proposals D1 and D6 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.

5. Prior to the first occupation of the extensions/building hereby permitted the windows in the northeast elevation of the development hereby permitted shall be fixed shut in perpetuity and fitted with and thereafter retained at all times in obscure glazing in accordance with details to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority Furthermore, the windows at ground floor level in the southwest elevation of the extensions hereby approved shall be fitted with and thereafter retained at all times in obscure glazing and/or fixed shut in perpetuity in accordance


with details to be submitted for the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority, or alternatively, a fence no lower than1.8 metres or greater than 2.0 metres in height shall be provided along the southwest boundary of the site in accordance with details to be submitted for the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority and retained thereafter at all times

Reason. To protect the privacy and amenity of the occupants of the adjacent dwellinghouse, having regard to Proposals D1 and D6 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.

6. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme identifying a special foundation design to safeguard the root system of the adjacent Oak tree, and a method statement for the carrying out of that scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved details.

Reason. To secure the protection of the root system to the Oak tree located along the northeast boundary to the site, which is of amenity value to the area generally, having regard to Proposals ENV4, ENV14 and D1 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan

7. (a). No development or other operations shall commence on site until a scheme (hereinafter called the approved protection scheme) which provides for the retention and protection of the Oak tree growing on the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; no development or other operations shall take place except in complete accordance with the approved protection scheme.

(b) No operations shall commence on site in connection with the development hereby approved (including any tree felling, tree pruning, demolition works, soil moving, temporary access construction and or widening or any operations involving the use of motorised vehicles or construction machinery) until the protection works required by the approved scheme are in place.

(c) No excavations for services, storage of materials or machinery, parking of vehicles, deposit or excavation of soil or rubble, lighting of fires or disposal of liquids shall take place within any area designated as being fenced off or otherwise protected in the approved scheme are in place.

(d) The fencing or other works which are part of the approved protection scheme shall not be moved or removed, temporarily or otherwise, until all works including external works have been completed and all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site, unless the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority has first been sought and obtained.

Reason. To secure the protection, throughout the time that the development is being carried out, of trees, shrubs or hedges growing within or adjacent to the site which are of amenity to the area, having regard to Proposals ENV4, ENV14, D1 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.”

MW



14

38.1m

37.5m

19



WARD: Bucklow St Martins

H/69067 DEPARTURE: No

SUB-DIVISION OF EXISTING DWELLINGHOUSE INTO TWO NO. TWO BEDROOM SEMI-DETACHED PROPERTIES AND EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS INCLUDING REMOVAL OF LEAN-TO AND INSERTION OF FIRST FLOOR WINDOW ON REAR ELEVATION. CREATION OF NEW ACCESS FROM HALL LANE

14 Hall Lane, Partington

APPLICANT: Robin Evans

AGENT: N/A


SITE

The application relates to a two storey detached residential property situated on the east side of Hall Lane in Partington. The property dates from around 1900 and was built as two separate semi-detached residential properties. However, it was converted by the previous owner into a single dwelling in the 1960’s. The property is currently empty and is in a poor state of repair.

Accommodation currently extends across two floors and there are single storey porch extensions on the north and south elevations. On the rear elevation is a dilapidated lean-to and a small garden extends around the south, east and north sides of the property.

The application site is situated within a residential area of Partington and is adjoined to the south by bungalows fronting Hall Lane and the east by two storey properties fronting Hallcroft. On the opposite side of Hall Lane are 1940’s two storey semi-detached properties.

PROPOSAL

The application seeks consent to subdivide the existing property into two separate semi-detached residential properties. The applicant intends to refurbish the two properties and rent them on the open market. External alterations include the demolition of the existing lean-to, the insertion of a first floor bathroom window on the rear elevation; insertion of a door on the existing north porch and creation of a new vehicle access from Hall Lane and vehicle parking to the north of the property.



PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION Partington Priority Regeneration Area

PRINCIPAL RELEVANT REVISED UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALSD1 – All New DevelopmentD2 – Vehicle Parking


D3 – Residential DevelopmentH1 – Land Release for DevelopmentH2 – Location and Phasing of New Housing DevelopmentH3 –Land Release for New Housing DevelopmentH4 – Release of Other Land for DevelopmentH11 – Priority Regeneration Area: PartingtonA1 – Priority Regeneration Areas


None


The applicant has submitted a Supporting Statement with the application which can be summarised as follows:

The property is in a totally uninhabitable condition with severe rising damp, corroded plasterwork and requires total refurbishment;

Letting agents have advised that there is a shortage of well maintained two bedroom houses in this part of the Borough;

The application does not propose any additional living accommodation, it would result in the subdivision of 1 no. four bedroom house into 2 no. two bedroom houses;

The property was originally constructed as two semi-detached properties and the application proposes to simply restore it to its former condition;

New housing development within Partington should be provided on brownfield sites, such as this one, not undeveloped greenfield sites;

The proposal would significantly improve the quality of the housing stock and surrounding environment, converting a derelict house into 2 no. two bedroom houses.

CONSULTATIONS

LHA: No objection.

Partington Town Council: No objection

REPRESENTATIONS

1 letter received from occupant of no. 2 Hallcroft, confirming that they do not object to the planning application.

OBSERVATIONS


1. The application proposes the sub-division of the existing detached residential property into two semi-detached properties. As such the proposal would normally fall to be considered against the provisions of the adopted SPG, ‘Controlling the Supply of Land Made Available for New Housing Development’. The Proposed Changes to the RSS published by the Secretary of State in March 2008 must now, however, carry significant weight in the determination of planning applications to the extent that they must take precedence both over the policies of the adopted Regional Spatial Strategy (RPG13 - March 2003) and the interpretation and weight that can be given to the housing policies of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan (June 2006) and the adopted SPG (September 2004).


2. With regard to new housing provision, the Proposed Changes to RSS Policy L4 significantly raise the annual average requirement figure for the Borough from a gross (including clearance replacement) figure of 310 dwellings a year to a gross figure of 618. Additionally, this requirement is expressly described as a minimum figure. In relation to this new target requirement, therefore, the Council can no longer demonstrate that it has a ten year supply of land committed for new housing development across the Borough and therefore cannot apply the provisions of the SPG, ‘Controlling the Supply of Land Made Available for New Housing Development’, which explicitly states in Paragraph 4.1 that the implementation trigger for the SPG is, ‘when the number of new houses granted planning permission for development exceeds ten times the combined demographic need and clearance replacement requirements of RPG13’.

3. The relevant policies that can now be applied to this proposal are the Proposed RSS Policies MCR1 and MCR3, alongside the provisions of the Revised UDP Policy A1 which identifies Partington as a Priority Regeneration Area. Proposed RSS Policies MCR1 and MCR3 make clear that new housing development proposals in sustainable locations well served by public transport should be allowed where they support local regeneration strategies and/or meet identified local needs.

4. The application seeks consent to subdivide and refurbish a currently derelict detached property within the Partington Priority Regeneration Area into two semi-detached houses. The property is in close proximity to an established local shopping centre that is well served by public transport services. The proposal therefore complies with the revised development plan policy framework and is considered to be acceptable in principle.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

5. The application proposes a first floor bathroom window on the rear (east) elevation. As this window would be situated in close proximity (3.4m) to the common boundary with no. 2 Hallcroft, a condition is recommended which requires it to be fitted with obscure glazing. Subject to this condition the development would not have a greater impact on the occupants of the adjoining properties and is considered to be acceptable in this respect in accordance with Proposal D1 of the Revised Trafford UDP.

DESIGN AND LAYOUT

6. The proposed external alterations include the insertion of a first floor bathroom window on the rear (east) elevation; removal of the existing dilapidated lean-to; creation of a new access from Hall Lane and creation of a car parking space on the north side of the property. The proposed external alterations would improve the appearance of this currently vacant and dilapidated residential property and bring it back into beneficial use. The application is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of its design and appearance in accordance with Proposal D1 of the Revised Trafford UDP.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

7. The application proposes a new access from Hall Lane which leads to a car parking space on the north side of the property. Whilst visibility to this car parking space is substandard, it is similar to the existing car parking arrangements to the south of the property and the LHA do not consider this sufficient to raise an objection to the planning application. The level of car parking provision on-site (three spaces in total) is also considered to be sufficient for a development of this size and on this basis the proposal fully accords with Proposals D1 and D2 of the Revised Trafford UDP.

CONCLUSION


8. The proposed subdivision and external alterations are considered to be acceptable in principle and in terms of its appearance and impact on residential amenity. Visibility at the new access is also considered to be acceptable in highway and pedestrian safety terms. For these reasons the application is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT, with the following conditions:

1. Standard condition;2. Matching materials;3. Obscure glazing condition;4. Provision of access facilities condition 2;5. Retention of access facilities condition;6. Amended plans condition;7. Withdrawal of rights to alter condition.

VM



29

Neuholme

(PH)

The Greyhound

LB

16.5m

House

Cottage

Mersey

The

TCB

The Green

Homestead

3a

INGLEWOOD CLOSEINGLEWOOD CLOSEINGLEWOOD CLOSEINGLEWOOD CLOSEINGLEWOOD CLOSEINGLEWOOD CLOSEINGLEWOOD CLOSEINGLEWOOD CLOSEINGLEWOOD CLOSE

212

4

)

)



WARD: Hale Barns H/69150 DEPARTURE: No

ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY, TWO STOREY AND FIRST FLOOR FRONT, SIDE AND REAR EXTENSIONS.

5 Weygates Drive, Hale Barns

APPLICANT: Mr. A. Chaudry

AGENT: Randle White Ltd.


SITE

The application relates to a detached, two-storey house located on the south-eastern side of Weygates Drive in Hale Barns. The surrounding properties are all detached houses of a similar age and size.

PROPOSAL

It is proposed to carry out substantial remodelling, including extensions to the front, side and rear of the house, such that the external appearance of the house would change significantly.

In essence it is proposed to erect a first floor extension over the existing garage to the north-east side of the house, two two-storey gables with steep pitched roofs to the front of the house, two-storey rear extension and two dormer windows at the rear – one at first floor level and one within the existing roofspace at first floor level, and a single storey inglenook extension to the south-west side.

Since the original submission, the plans have been amended in an attempt to address various concerns about the development. These amendments have included providing more space to the side boundary, removing balconies and reducing the size of rear extension.


The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West, now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.


None

PRINCIPAL RELEVANT PROPOSED ADOPTED REVISED UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALS


D1 – All New DevelopmentD6 – House Extensions


None

REPRESENTATIONS

Neighbours – On the application as originally submitted, 7 letters of objection received from neighbouring properties objecting to the proposal, on the following grounds:-- design would be out of keeping with the rest of the road, in particular the inclusion of

render and glass and the two proposed new gables which give a church like appearance- increased scale and width of the property, increased roof mass are out of character with

the area and adjacent properties and would overdominate the area- loss of light to neighbours due to increased size and increased roofline- too close to boundary with No.3 would be detrimental to the street scene- loss of shrubbery to the front which affords a degree of privacy to occupiers of No 5 and

the house opposite- balconies would result in overlooking of neighbouring properties- balconies and rear extensions are out of proportion with the house- height and projection of the rear extension would result in loss of light and an

overdominating impact on No.3- the proposed front gable because of its height and projection keep light and morning sun

from the front garden of No.3- proposed windows at attic and first floor would result in overlooking of the garden room

window at No.3

Any comments on the amended plans will be reported in the Additional Information Report.

OBSERVATIONS


1. The house and its immediate neighbours are set approximately 9 – 10 metres from the front boundary with Weygates Drive. The proposed gable extensions to the front would project some 1.6 metres in front of the main front elevation of the adjacent properties, but no further forward than the parts of those houses that are closest to the road. The house at No.3 has a garage to the side closest to the application site which itself extends beyond the main front elevation of that house. The proposed front extensions would project less than 1 metre in front of that garage and would also be 1.1 metre from the shared boundary. To the other side, the front gable extension would be approximately 2.8 metres from the boundary with No.7 and would project no further forward than the forward most part of that house and only 1.3 metres in front of the main part of that house. It is considered that the proposed front extensions would not have an unduly detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents. Properties on the opposite side of the road would remain over 25 metres from the front part of the extensions which is adequate to ensure no undue loss of privacy and complies with the Council’s guidelines for house extensions which requires a minimum of 21 metres to facing windows across the street.

2. The houses on either side contain no main habitable room windows in the main original elevations that would be adversely affected by the proposed extensions. No.3 though,


has been extended with a garden room at the rear containing a side facing window some 2.8 metres off the boundary; that room, which benefits from planning permission granted in 2002, also has a main window facing out onto the rear garden.

3. In relation to No.3, the proposed extension includes a single storey element at 1.1 metre from the boundary that would project approximately 2.5 metres beyond the rear of the garage at No.3 but not so far as the garden room extension at that house; it would, however, project across the side window of that room. The two storey rear extension, which also includes room in the roof space would project approx. 4.5 metres beyond the rear of the garage but again not as far as the single storey garden room. This extension would extend across almost all of the side facing window in that garden room. As the neighbours’ garden room has a large rear facing window as well as the side facing one, it is considered that the amenities of the occupiers of that house would not be so adversely affected as to warrant a refusal of planning permission.

4. No 3 has a large rear garden and though the extension proposed would result in some loss of light and overshadowing to the side window of the garden room and the part of the garden closest to the house, it is considered that this would not be so harmful to the neighbours’ amenities to justify refusal.

5. The development would include a rear facing bedroom window close to the boundary with No.3, this would face down the rear garden and whilst it is close to the boundary and would afford some views over the neighbours’ garden it does not justify a refusal of permission. The balconies originally included in the proposals have now been omitted and it is considered that the proposals would not result in undue overlooking or loss of privacy for neighbouring properties.

6. The rear extension closest to the boundary with No.5 would project beyond the main rear elevation of No.5 by approximately 2.2 metres at 1.4 metres from the shared boundary. That part of the extension would not be a full two storey and it is considered that the impact on No.5 would not be unduly harmful to the residential amenity of occupiers of that house.

IMPACT ON STREET SCENE AND AMENITY OF AREA

7. The impact on the street scene and character of the area arises from two elements of the proposal – the first floor extension over the garage at the side and the front gable together with the elevational changes to the front which would totally alter the style of the house.

8. The houses on the street are generally of a similar style though some have been altered – the houses are unremarkable and it is considered that the different appearance that would result from the proposed extensions and alterations would be acceptable and would not detract from the street scene and character of the area.

9. The forward projections would retain a reasonable amount of space from the road frontage and the relationship with adjacent properties is such that these extensions would not be unduly intrusive in the street scene.

10. Whilst the plans indicate there would be the loss of two trees from the rear garden, including a large leylandii in the centre of the garden, these trees are not protected and do not make a significant contribution to the amenity of the area. As such the loss of these trees is not considered to be significant.



1. Standard

2. Materials to be submitted

3. Amended plans – plans received 20 May and 22 May 2008

4. Retention of garage

5. Withdrawal of permitted development rights for windows and balconies

GE



62.8m

BM 62.34m

#



WARD: Davyhulme West

H/69158 DEPARTURE: No

DEMOLITION OF EXISTING CLUBHOUSE BUILDINGS, ERECTION OF NEW CLUBHOUSE, ACCESS ROAD AND CAR PARKING AREA AND THREE DETACHED DWELLINGS. REVISION TO APPROVED SCHEME H/66156.

3-7 Cornhill Road, Davyhulme.

APPLICANT: Clonmar Developments

AGENT: Mclaren Whitworth Associates


SITE

The site is approximately 0.3ha in area and comprises three distinct areas. At the front of the site, facing Cornhill Road are three dilapidated timber/corrugated sheeting buildings, two utilised by members of Davyhulme Social Club for pavilion/store facilities and one previously used as a day nursery, but now vacant. The remainder of this section of the site is unsurfaced and although potholed is used informally for parking. To the rear of these buildings is the bowling green which forms the centre of the activity of Davyhulme Social Club. Beyond this is a grassed area, partially laid out to allotments used by occupiers of Warwick Drive. The site is surrounded by residential properties located on Cornhill Road, Davyhulme Road, Knowsley Avenue and Warwick Drive. On the opposite side of Cornhill Road to the site is St Mary’s CE Primary School.

PROPOSAL

It is proposed to demolish the three existing clubhouse buildings and replace them with one single storey brick and tile building sited centrally in the rearmost part of the site. An access road to serve the new clubhouse would be created along the northern boundary of the site and a total of seven car parking spaces would be provided, with four between the new clubhouse and the common boundary with properties on Davyhulme Road and three between the clubhouse and properties on Warwick Drive. The land at the front of the site would be used for the erection of three detached two-storey four bedroom houses. The bowling green would be retained and improved.




None.


H1 – Land Release for DevelopmentH2 – Location and Phasing of New Housing Development


H4 – Release of Other Land for DevelopmentOSR8 – Improvement and Provision of Outdoor Sports FacilitiesD1 – All New DevelopmentD2 – Vehicle ParkingD3 – Residential Development


H/61210 – Use of premises between the hours of 0800 and 1300 Monday – Friday inclusive, as a pre-school nursery for a maximum of 20 children. Approved with conditions February 2005.

H/62597 – Demolition of existing clubhouse, erection of new clubhouse and three dormer bungalows. Refused September 2005.

H/65154 – Demolition of existing clubhouse buildings, erection of new clubhouse and access road and three detached dwellings. Refused September 2006.

The latter two applications for similar proposals to those subject of this application were refused for reasons relating to housing land supply, residential amenity and highway safety.

H/66156 - Demolition of existing clubhouse buildings, erection of new clubhouse, access road and car parking area and three detached dwellings. Refused February 2007 on housing land supply grounds but an appeal was subsequently upheld in December 2007.

H/66700 – Demolition of existing clubroom, erection of new clubhouse, access road and parking area. Retention of bowling green. Approved with conditions May 2007. This application was identical to H/66156 except omitting the 3 dwellings to overcome the housing land supply issues.


The applicant has submitted a design and access statement in accordance with the requirements in the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment) (England) Order 2006. This explains and provides a justification for the amount, layout, scale, landscaping, appearance and access for the site. Relevant parts of this statement will be referred to in the Observations section of this report where necessary.

CONSULTATIONS

LHA – no objection in principle. Detailed comments are included within the Observations section of the report.

Built Environment (Highways) – no objection, vehicular crossings must be to LHA specification.Built Environment (Drainage) – have no objection to the proposed development but make comments on the drainage layout, connections to the public sewer, limiting peak flow rates and surface water runoff.Built Environment (Street Lighting) – no comment.

Strategic Planning and Developments – comments included within Observations section of report.

REPRESENTATIONS


Neighbours – Five letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of residential properties on Knowsley Avenue and Cornhill Road and from St. Mary’s CE Primary School. One of the letters is from the previous applicant for redevelopment proposals for the site. The main issues raised can be summarised as follows:-

The previous permission stipulated 2.4m x 2.4m visibility splays in order to safeguard pedestrian safety. The seriousness of this was highlighted at Planning Committee when this point was commented on and Condition 5 amended to reflect this. The current scheme does not comply with this requirement.

The pedestrian visibility should be assessed in terms of the requirement of the Highways Act 1980 as the Manual for Streets is not applicable for this type of road.

The new development proposal does not shown the hedgerow between no. 1 Cornhill Road and the proposed new access road and has little regard for the large mature tree and the telegraph pole which are clearly permanent obstacles to visibility and therefore require that consideration of the positioning and splay distances be given serious attention.

The Council should impose conditions to control the spread of Japanese Knotweed. Already the developers have a mini-digger on site and have carried out test hole

digs, one of which was within 2 metres of the Japanese Knotweed infestation with the possibility of contamination and spreading of the plants to other areas of the site. All works should cease immediately until a management plan is in place for the sake of all neighbours concerned.

The proposal does not show where any new staff would come from and the information seems to have been copied from the previous application where the additional new staff would have come from the nursery.

The proposed club house seems to have grown in height by 50% from 6.5m to 8m. The neighbouring properties face a further decrease in their outlook unnecessarily.

The plans do not show any buffer zone in absorbing noise, fumes and disruption to neighbouring gardens as was stipulated previously.

There would be a detrimental impact on residential amenity; the access road would be virtually directly opposite the school’s main entrance which is already a hotspot for traffic gridlock and pedestrian safety concerns. Extra buildings would add to the existing considerable traffic and result in an increase in noise and disturbance.

There would be an impact on highway and pedestrian safety as Cornhill Road is a major bus route and through route for traffic, including ambulances. Considerable congestion builds up quickly and parked vehicles are often the cause of this. These reduce visibility and safety for pedestrians. Cars park opposite the school’s entrance force vehicles onto the opposite side of the carriageway increasing the traffic verging on the pavement outside the school. A new side road would be detrimental to existing conditions.

Parking restrictions are already under consideration due to the existing traffic problems. If the development goes ahead more cars will be parked in side streets leading off Cornhill Road.

The delivery of materials and parking of vehicles during construction will cause obstruction particularly at the start and end of the school day. .

The development would lead to noise and disruption from the car parking area. The relocation of the clubhouse would bring noise and activity from the club away from Cornhill Road and towards the objector’s property.

The clubhouse would be open between 0800 and 2200 seven days a week. It will attract an increased flow of people and traffic, not necessarily for bowling, at varying times of the day and night. It also raises issues of anti social behaviour and causes concerns regarding property security.

The use of the clubhouse would not be seasonal and noise and disturbance would continue all year round and into the night.

The clubhouse could apply for a music licence and/or a liquor licence which would lead to further noise and disturbance particularly if the clubhouse was hired out for functions.


Seven car parking spaces are not adequate for the club and will lead to off site parking in the area particularly during open bowling events/club events where up to 100 people attend.

Presently the bowling club integrates in a non-intrusive manner within the surrounding community. An increase in traffic, noise and general disturbance will impinge on the local community and their general quality of life.

The outlook of surrounding residents is predominantly green and overlooked. The plans to build a new club house would vastly reduce the greenery and trees in this area, greatly impacting the aesthetics of the area in a negative manner.

No provision has been made for the right of way the objector has enjoyed to her property across the grounds of the club for the last 52 years.

Existing traffic problems on Cornhill Road would be exacerbated by these proposals. Floodlighting of the site would cause nuisance [N.B. No floodlighting is proposed]. The previous application was refused on the grounds of an oversupply of housing

land. The objector cannot see what has changed and the area does not need dwellings of this nature in the price band they would be sold for.

There would be an adverse impact on wildlife. Devaluation of property.

OBSERVATIONS

PRINCIPLE

1. The site carries no specific designation in the Adopted Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan. Proposal H1 of the Revised UDP states that the Council will seek to ensure that an adequate range of sites are made available across the Borough to allow a variety of types of housing, affordable by all sectors of the community, to be provided. Policy H2 of the Revised UDP states that the Council will permit the re-use of previously developed land, particularly in locations which are well situated in relation to local community facilities and services and accessible by public transport. Proposal OSR8 states that the Council will seek to provide and improve outdoor sports facilities.

2. This is the latest in a series of applications for the redevelopment of the Davyhulme Social Club site, albeit put forward by a different applicant. It proposes minor variations to the scheme approved on appeal under ref. H/66156. The proposals for the clubhouse and access road (without the three dwellings) were granted by Planning Committee in May 2007 under ref. H/66700. The main principles of the scheme remain entirely the same; the demolition of the existing clubhouse buildings and their replacement with three dwellings, with replacement clubhouse facilities being provided at the rear of the site served by a new access road along the northern boundary.

3. The variations to the scheme relate to the detailed layout and design of the three dwellings and a slight repositioning of the access road to take into account that no land is now available from the curtilage of no. 1 Cornhill Road, which is owned by the previous applicant. There is no increase in the number of dwellings proposed and therefore the scheme does not raise any issues of housing land supply policy. The principle of the development is therefore considered to be acceptable.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

4. The activity associated with a social club is longstanding at this site. The principle of relocating the clubhouse to the rear of the site has previously been considered acceptable through the granting of application H/66700. The footprint of the clubhouse would remain the same, although it would be slightly taller (6.4m as opposed to 5.9m; but not the 8.0m some objectors believe).


5. The clubhouse building would be located centrally at the rear of the site, between 1.0m and 1.9m from the boundary of properties on Knowsley Avenue (the boundary does not run parallel with the bowling green although the clubhouse would), 8.3m from the boundary with 22 Warwick Drive and 10.6m from the boundary with properties on Davyhulme Road. It would be 18.3m wide and 9.15m deep, with a front verandah measuring 1.5m. It would have a height to the roof ridge of 6.4m. It would accommodate indoor bowling lanes, a snooker table, store rooms, toilets and a small kitchen. No bar facilities are proposed.

6. The car parking spaces are split so that three are sited to one side of the clubhouse and four to the other. The greatest likelihood of noise and disturbance from the car parking area would be on the amenity of the occupier of 22 Warwick Drive, whose main kitchen window would be 1.5m from the three car parking spaces to the south of the clubhouse. Other properties would be between 10.6m and 29.4m from the car parking spaces.

7. Nevertheless, due to the very small number of car parking spaces proposed, the level of activity associated with each block of spaces would be extremely limited and would not be significantly greater than that associated with an average residential property, which often have space for two or three cars on the driveway and landscaping buffers between the rear boundary of the site and the car parking areas would further reduce the impact of these car parking areas on the amenity of the properties on Knowsley Avenue.

8. Objectors have raised concerns about the level of disturbance from the car park which may take place when large tournaments are held at the club. The situation in this case would be relatively unchanged from the present. There would not be space within the car park for a significant number of vehicle movements to take place. Attendees would have to park on street as they do now. It is not therefore considered that noise and disturbance from car parking and vehicular movements on the site would be so significant that a refusal of planning permission would be justified although it is proposed to limit the hours of use to those applied for, i.e. 0800 – 2200 each day.

9. The clubhouse would be similar in height and massing to a single storey dwelling. It would be no less than 9.8m from any main window in surrounding properties, the closest being the kitchen window of 22 Warwick Drive which overlooks the site. The building would be very close (between 1.0m and 1.9m) to the rear garden boundaries of properties on Knowsley Avenue, but these properties have substantial rear gardens of approximately 30m in length. It is not considered that the scale, massing or positioning of the clubhouse would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of nearby residential properties from overshadowing or an overbearing impact. An increase in height from 5.9m to 6.4m (500mm) would not significantly increase the impact of the clubhouse such that residential amenity would be adversely affected.

10. Facilities at the clubhouse are limited and clearly social activities within the building would also necessarily be so. The building would not be suitable for large functions and would not offer bar facilities. It is considered that any greater level of activity in and around the clubhouse and closer to residential properties would not be so significant that it would be detrimental to residential amenity.

11. The three dwellings proposed are proposed to be sited such that they would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of nearby residential properties. They would also not themselves suffer from an unacceptable level of amenity.

DESIGN AND STREET SCENE

12. The provision of three dwellings across the frontage would improve its appearance through the removal of the unsightly and run down buildings which occupy the site at present. The dwellings are of traditional design and would be in keeping with the


surrounding interwar properties nearby. The alterations to the design of the dwellings are relatively minor in nature and they remain acceptable. There is a mixture of detached and semi-detached properties in the vicinity and these houses will assimilate effectively into the street scene.

13. Views of the bowling green from the turning head of Warwick Drive would be relatively unaffected. The distance between the clubhouse and the boundaries of the site from which it would be visible are such that it would not appear prominent or obtrusive. It is therefore considered that this development would not have a detrimental impact on the street scene or the character of the area.

HIGHWAYS, ACCESS AND CAR PARKING

14. The LHA raise no objection to the scheme. The parking provision for the clubhouse is considered to be adequate and the layout and size of the spaces meets the Council’s standards. The access road is only capable of accommodating one way traffic past the bowling green but it is accepted that the open aspect of this part of the site would allow vehicles to see oncoming vehicles and wait in available space until it is possible to progress. With regard to the dwellings, two spaces are provided for each dwelling, one in the garage and one on the site frontage. The Council’s standards normally require three spaces for four bedroom dwellings, but the location is sustainable and well served by frequent bus services and therefore it is considered that insisting on three spaces per dwelling would be difficult to justify. The driveway width at 3.1m would be sufficient to allow a pedestrian to pass a parked car.

15. One of the objectors has raised the issue that the pedestrian visibility splays proposed at 1.5m x 1.5m would be insufficient as the previous application had a condition requiring visibility splays of 2.4m x 2.4m in line with the requirements in national government guidance (DB23 - the layout of residential roads and footpaths). Prior to the current application being submitted DB32 was superseded by 'Manual for Streets’ which provided more flexibility in the pedestrian visibility requirements at accesses on lightly trafficked roads. Furthermore, the presence of street furniture and trees in the vicinity of the proposed access restricts existing pedestrian visibility at this location and therefore any objection on pedestrian visibility grounds would be difficult to justify.

DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS

16. No financial contribution for children’s play space or informal open space is required as the site is in an area of sufficiency of open space due to its proximity to Davyhulme Park. The contribution to outdoor sports would be provided on site through the improvement of the facilities at the bowling club. This is in accordance with the Council’s SPG ‘Informal/Children’s Playing Space and Outdoor Sports Facilities and Commuted Sums’.

17. In accordance with the Council’s SPG ‘Developer Contributions towards the Red Rose Forest’ a total of nine trees are required for the development, three for each of the houses. Due to the relatively spacious garden areas provided for each property, it is possible to provide these on site through the imposition of a suitable condition and no financial contribution for tree planting is sought.

CONCLUSION

18. The principle of this development has previously been established by the granting of applications H/66156 and H/66700. The minor variations to the development would not lead to a greater or adverse impact on the amenity of surrounding residential properties, the street scene or highway safety. The proposal is considered to comply with all


relevant policy in the Revised Trafford UDP and the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance and is therefore recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION:

GRANT subject to:-

1) Standard time limit.2) Amended plans.3) Materials (including roller shutters to clubhouse).4) Provision of Access Facilities no. 2.5) Retention of Access Facilities.6) Sight Lines.7) Landscaping and boundary treatment (standard condition amended to reflect the

requirement for a Red Rose Forest Contribution).8) Prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted the replacement

clubhouse shall be substantially completed, fit for purpose and occupied to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.Reason: To ensure the community resource hereby proposed is provided and in compliance with Proposal D1 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.

9) No development shall commence until a schedule of works for the re-siting and re-instatement of the bowling green has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted the agreed works to the bowling green shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved details and to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.Reason: To improve outdoor sports facilities and in compliance with Proposals D1, D3 and OSR8 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.

10) The clubhouse and car parking area hereby permitted shall not be used otherwise than between the hours of 0800 and 2200 each day.Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby residential properties in compliance with Proposal D1 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.

11) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (or as may subsequently be amended or re-enacted) no windows or other openings shall be formed in the clubhouse building hereby permitted other than those shown on the approved plans unless a further planning permission in respect thereof has been granted on application to the Local Planning Authority.Reason: To protect the privacy of nearby residential properties in compliance with Proposal D1 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.

12) Japanese Knotweed management plan.RC



Pavilions

Bowling GreenClub

TCB

22.0m

21.6m

St Mary's

SchoolCofE

Brookfields

)



WARD: Priory H/69166 DEPARTURE: No

ERECTION OF A 3-STOREY BUILDING COMPRISING A FOOD RETAIL STORE (1,669sq.m) AND SEPARATE RETAIL UNIT(s) (390sq.m) AT GROUND FLOOR, 5 X RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS AT FIRST FLOOR AND 110 CAR PARKING SPACES ON FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS WITH VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM JOHN STREET.

Land at School Road/Hereford Street, Sale

APPLICANT: Aldi Stores Ltd

AGENT: Turley Associates

RECOMMENDATION: MINDED TO GRANT SUBJECT TO SECTION 106 AGREEMENT

SITE

Within Sale town centre and situated on the south side of School Road the pedestrianised principal retail area of the town and close to its junction with Hereford Street. Rectangular shaped site which has an extensive flank boundary with Hereford Street to the east and a limited one to John Street to the south. The site is 0.299ha in area and is now vacant and cleared, having been previously occupied by the former Co-op Sunwins store that ceased trading in June 2005. The previous building was a mix of single and two-storeys with its principal trading frontage to School Road and a secondary display window adjoining the rear main entrance at the junction of Hereford Street and John Street.

To the east, the site adjoins and extends to the rear of Superdrug, a two storey building comprising ground floor shop with storage above, and to the west it adjoins three, two-storey modest commercial properties beyond which is the former Kwik Save store which is currently vacant. On the opposite, north, side of School Road is a public house, The Bank, and to the west beyond the junction with Curzon Road is a block of six shops, some of which include residential accommodation at first floor level facing onto School Road. On the opposite side of Hereford Street is a service yard to shops on the Mall and School Road and part of the Six Acre development. There are also two small shop units and the former public toilets that are now in the process of being extended and converted to form commercial offices. To the south, on the opposite side of John Street, the application site faces the blank brick return façade of Tescos store and to the west, behind the frontage properties on School Road is an area of access, servicing and parking for Tescos and these frontage properties.

A loading/unloading area still exists on a small open area of land off John Street. This access is independent of the service road that leads to the rear of the commercial properties fronting School Road on the west side of the application site, and independent of the service area that serves the needs of the Tesco store on the opposite side of John Street.

John Street has been regularly used in the past for unauthorised on-street parking along its southern side despite the presence of parking restrictions and also provides access via Hereford Street to Benbow Street, which is a rear service area for a number of the shop units in the Six Acre centre and on the Mall and fronting School Road.

PROPOSAL


The application proposes the erection of a three-storey development comprising the supermarket and additional shop units on the ground floor, three x 1 bedroom apartments and 49 parking spaces on the first floor and two x 2 bedroom apartments and 61 parking spaces on the second floor. The proposed building would occupy a substantial part of the footprint of the previous building on the site; the main area of change being at the rear to provide a ramped access to the car park. The front section of the building would be approximately 11.2m in height to the highest point. The section of the building at the rear of the site and fronting onto Hereford Street would be approximately 8.2m in height.

The vehicular access to the car park would be via a ramp, which would be accessed from John Street. The car park would provide a total of 110 parking spaces, which would include one space dedicated to each residential unit as well as 4 spaces for disabled persons and 4 parent and child spaces. A staircase and lifts would be provided within the front (north-western) corner of the building in order to provide access between the car park and the store. Separate internal entrances would be provided from the car park to the residential units.

The main part of the ground floor would be occupied by the foodstore with a gross floor area of 1,669 sq.m., which would include a goods handling area, store and employee facilities. The main frontage and main entrance to the store would be on School Road. The ground floor would also include a separate area of 390 sq.m. of retail space fronting onto Hereford Street that would be made available for up to three other retailers. Externally at the rear would be the loading bay which would be situated parallel to John Street and accessed from the service road on the west side of the building.

The residential accommodation would be situated on the School Road frontage at first and second storey level. It would be accessed via a separate door at the eastern end of the front elevation of the building and via an internal staircase.

REVISED ADOPTED UDP

PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION Town and District Shopping Centres/Main Office Development Areas


The relevant Policies and Proposals of the Plan are as follows: -S1 – New Shopping DevelopmentS3 – Improving the Main Shopping CentresS5 – Development in Town and District Shopping CentresS7 – Development in Sale Town CentreS13 – Non Shop Service Uses Within Town and District Shopping CentresH1 – Land Release for New Housing DevelopmentH2 – Location and Phasing of New DevelopmentH3 – Large Sites Released for New Housing DevelopmentH4 – Release of Other Land for Development D1 – All New DevelopmentD2 – Vehicle ParkingD3 – Residential Development


Between 1975 and 1978 six applications were approved in relation to the redevelopment of the site to form an enlarged Co-Op store.


From 1981 until 2005 only minor applications were approved in relation to shop fronts and the display of advertisements.

H/62827 – Erection of three storey building comprising basement car parking, a food retail store (1615 sq.m.) and separate retail unit (334 sq.m.) at ground floor and 24 residential apartments at first and second floor, with vehicular access from John Street – Permitted – 17th November 2005


The proposal will reuse a vacant town centre site for a high density, accessible development in line with national and local planning guidance.

It will enhance the vitality and diversity of the town centre and introduce an active retail frontage on Hereford Street.

The scheme comprises a new format mixed use Aldi development with a contemporary design and use of high quality materials that will improve the streetscape and urban design quality compared to the previous building on the site.

The previously permitted development is unviable, largely due to the cost of the creation of a basement car park. As a result, the scheme has been revised to provide the requisite parking on the upper floor levels with a consequent reduction in the number of residential units.

CONSULTATIONS

Strategic Planning & Developments: Comments are incorporated in the report under the Principle of Development section.

LHA: The submitted TA has a number of important errors and omissions. However, it is considered that the assessment and conclusions are not materially affected by these factors. It is important to note that there is an extant permission for a development including only marginally less retail floorspace and significantly more residential units.

It is noted that there is no designated loading area for the smaller retail units and that the servicing of these units would need to take place on the street.

The proposed parking layout requires a number of amendments but an adequate number of spaces can be provided to meet the Council’s standards. Cycle and motorcycle parking will need to be incorporated.

There will be a requirement for a condition relating to the provision of warning and directional signage at the entrance to the car park and on site.

Due to the lack of visibility at the proposed access, some off-site highway improvements and traffic calming will be required to slow traffic down on the approach to the access.

Under Department of Transport guidance issued in March 2007, a Travel Plan is required for a development of this size and this will need to be secured by condition.

Built Environment: No objection in principle, subject to details of access arrangements being agreed with the LHA and subject to details of drainage

Environmental Protection: The applicant should prepare an air quality assessment to assess the existing and future air quality and indicate any proposed mitigation measures.

The developer should ensure that air handling units are designed so as not to cause noise or odour nuisance to residential occupiers both on and off the site.


A site investigation for contaminated land should be required by condition.

GMPTE: No observations.

United Utilities: No objection subject to details of drainage.

GM Police Architectural Liaison Unit: No comments received to date.

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of objection has been received, making the following comments:

The Transport Assessment contains many important factually incorrect statements and therefore does not provide an appropriate basis for considering the application. The report does not reflect the current highway arrangements that have existed since the M & S Simply Food store was opened some time ago. In addition, the report is incorrect in respect of the following points: -

Highway Network – the description of the one way operation is incorrect Vehicular Access Routes – School Road is not the only access route. Access is also

available via the Sibson Road / Hayfield Road route Pedestrian accessibility – there is a discrepancy between different parts of the report

in respect of the stated distances to the Metrolink Traffic Counts – The counts date from 2001 and, in addition to being seven years old,

there has been a material change in circumstances since that time with turning movements now permitted at the A56 / Sibson Road junction introduced at the time of the opening of the M & S store. This data therefore does not provide a reliable basis for representing the current traffic flow situation and the traffic impact analysis is fundamentally flawed.

Traffic Generation Estimates – In order to estimate traffic generation, the TA uses a version of the TRICS database dating back to 2005 rather than the most recent version from 2008. It is essential that the current version of TRICS is used.

Traffic Impact - The conclusions in relation to numbers of vehicle movements are factually incorrect.

Sibson Road Approach – The TA states that there is queuing traffic at this junction but includes no assessment of the impact of development traffic approaching from this route.

The factually incorrect content of the report appears to be greater than those aspects that are correct. The submitted TA is not acceptable and cannot form the basis for an informed conclusion about the traffic impacts of the proposed development.

OBSERVATIONS


1. The site lies within Sale town centre as defined in Proposals S5 and S7 of the Revised Trafford UDP, which state that planning permission will normally be granted for retail development which provides, amongst other things, for the incremental growth, consolidation and improvement of the town centre (S5) and that will consolidate and enhance the vitality and viability of the centre (S7).

2. The proposal will result in the redevelopment of a prominent vacant site, which was formerly occupied by a large retail unit. The closure and demolition of the Sunwins Co-Op store on the application site, coupled with the closure of the nearby Kwiksave


store, has left the western end of School Road in a more vulnerable position and it is considered that the vitality and viability of this part of the town centre is currently under threat. This area is mixed in character with many service type uses but includes few A1 retail units, with the exception of charity shops, and also includes two currently vacant units directly opposite the application site. It is considered that the re-establishment of a large retail outlet at this point would help to re-establish the vitality and viability of this part of the town centre and has the potential to encourage occupancy of the vacant units. The principle of the development of retail units as part of this proposal is clearly consistent with the Proposals of the UDP as it will enhance the vitality and viability of the town centre.

3. The proposal also includes the provision of additional retail units on the Hereford Street frontage of the site. This floorspace could be used as a single unit or sub-divided into three. The unit(s) would have an active frontage to Hereford Street and it is considered that they would add interest in the street scene and be an encouragement to greater retail activity in this location thereby increasing the retail capacity of the town centre and having a positive impact overall. It is considered that Hereford Street would also be a safer route for pedestrians as a result of the increased natural surveillance that additional retail units would create.

4. The proposal also includes 5 residential apartments and therefore has to be considered against the Council’s housing land supply policies. It is recognised that the Proposed Changes to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West, published by the Secretary of State in March 2008, now carry significant weight in the determination of planning applications to the extent that they must take precedence both over the policies of the adopted Regional Spatial Strategy (RPG13 - March 2003) and the interpretation and weight that can be given to the housing policies of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan (June 2006) and the adopted Housing Land Supply SPG (September 2004).

5. With regards to new housing provision the Proposed Changes to RSS Policy L4 significantly raise the annual average requirement figure for the Borough from a gross (including clearance replacement) figure of 310 dwellings a year to a gross figure of 618. Additionally, this requirement is expressly described as a minimum figure. In relation to this new target requirement, therefore, the Council can no longer demonstrate that it has a ten year supply of land committed for new housing development across the Borough and therefore cannot apply the provisions of the SPG, ‘Controlling the Supply of Land Made Available for New Housing Development’.

6. The relevant policies that can now be applied to this proposal are the Proposed RSS Policies MCR1 and MCR3, alongside the provisions of the Revised UDP Policy A1 which identifies Sale Town Centre as a Priority Regeneration Area. Proposed RSS Policies MCR1 and MCR3 make clear that new housing development proposals in sustainable locations well served by public transport should be allowed where they support local regeneration strategies and/or meet identified local needs. On this basis, it is considered that this proposal complies with the revised development plan policy framework which is now applicable and is therefore acceptable in those terms. In any case, planning permission has previously been granted for 25 apartments on this site (which were accepted as providing a positive regeneration benefit in accordance with the Housing Land Supply SPG) and this permission remains extant

7. The proposals would also represent mixed use development, which is supported by national planning policies in order to help create vital, diverse and vibrant places for people to shop, work and live. The provision of residential units within the development would increase activity in the centre throughout all hours of the day and therefore enhance community safety and crime reduction within the area through providing greater passive surveillance. In addition, the residential development would be in a


sustainable town centre location, reducing the need to travel and therefore complying with guidance in PPG13.

8. In overall terms, the proposed development would bring a prominent vacant site back into use, thus contributing to the vitality and viability of the town centre and providing significant regeneration benefits. It is therefore considered that the proposed development is acceptable in principle.

DESIGN AND SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT

9. The predominantly 3-storey development would be significantly higher than the adjacent buildings on School Road. At its highest point, the front section of the building would be approximately 11.2m in height, whereas the adjacent Superdrug building is approximately 7.7m in height. However, the revised proposal is largely similar to the approved scheme in terms of height, scale, massing and design, particularly when viewed from School Road. It is also important to note that in terms of the wider context of the site, the town centre also incorporates Six Acre House, which is a very prominent building of significantly greater height. In addition, the Bank Public House opposite the application site, at the corner of Curzon Road, is nominally two-storey but has much higher ceiling heights than most modern buildings and has dormer windows that extend into the roof and give the appearance of three-storeys. There are also a number of other three storey buildings further along School Road. In general terms, it is considered that a variation in the scale and massing of development adds interest and variety to the townscape and it is considered that it would be appropriate in this location.

10. The proposed design and materials would be contemporary in character. The building would have a flat roof and would include balconies to the residential apartments on the front elevation. The central section of this elevation, containing the shopfront and the habitable room windows of the flats, would be set approximately 1.8m further back than the three storey elements at either end, which contain the stair wells and lift shafts. The materials to be used on the main frontage would include render, brickwork, timber cladding and large areas of glazing. The immediate vicinity includes a variety of styles of development and there is no one identifiable architectural trend. In this context, it is considered that the simple lines of the building would be assimilated into the street scene and that the development would provide strong and active frontages to School Road and Hereford Street.

11. The main changes from the previous scheme in design terms relate to the side and rear elevations of the building where the upper floors are now to be used for car parking. It is proposed that the parking will be screened by the use of mesh panels, which is an approach that has been used elsewhere in Sale e.g. on the recent Broad Road car park development. The elevation drawings show the provision of three discreet shopfronts on the Hereford Street frontage, which will help to improve the visual interest of that street.

12. At the rear of the site, the previously permitted scheme included apartments that had main habitable room windows facing John Street. In contrast to this, whilst the overall height and massing of these elevations would be reduced, the currently proposed development would include long blank elevations to the south and west boundaries. However, the longest of these, on the west elevation, would be at right angles to John Street and partially screened by the existing buildings to the west and would therefore only be seen at an oblique angle from this viewpoint. The south elevation would be shorter and its massing would be broken up to some extent by the access ramp, which would be sited in front of it. On both elevations, the inclusion of mesh screens at the higher levels rather than a blank wall would also help to break up the massing of the building. The proposed scheme also retains a glazed display window on the corner of


John Street and Hereford Street thus ensuring an active street frontage at this point. In addition, it is also recognised that four existing street trees would have to be removed near the south-west corner of the site in order to allow service vehicles room to manoeuvre in this area. It is, nevertheless, considered that any limited detrimental impact on visual amenity on John Street is more than outweighed by the benefits of the visual and design improvements on the main School Road and Hereford Street frontages and the overall desirability of ensuring the development of a vacant site, which is detracting from the appearance of the town centre as a whole.


13. There are at least three residential flats on the north side of School Road above the ground floor shops, which have their principal outlook towards the site. The first floor accommodation is set back about 3.0m from the ground floor shop fronts and would be about 21.0m from the proposed development which is the normal distance required across roads to provide privacy for the occupiers of two-storey facing properties. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance, New Residential Development”, suggests that this distance should be increased by 3.0m in the case of three-storey development and above. The provision of balconies for the proposed residential units facing School Road, would be likely to create a greater sense of interlooking and loss of privacy. However, it is considered that within a mixed use, town centre area such as this, where the street pattern was established at an earlier time when there were no or lower standards of space between buildings, there should be some flexibility in the application of standards. In this instance it is considered that the benefits of the redevelopment of this site outweigh the disbenefits that might arise from the relationship to existing properties and any impact on the privacy of those occupiers.

14. There are three relatively large windows at first floor level on the side elevation of the retail unit at number 61, to the west of the site. The blank side elevation of the proposed three storey building would be positioned approximately 2m from these windows. However, the first floor of number 61 is not in residential use and this relationship is therefore considered to be acceptable.

PARKING FACILITIES AND ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS

15. Previously, the built development on this site occupied almost the whole of the curtilage with only a limited area at the rear that was used as a servicing bay. As a result of this situation the building made no contribution to the parking needs of its customers who had to rely upon the public car parking facilities elsewhere within the town centre. In contrast, the proposal seeks to make a significant contribution to the existing parking provision within the town centre with 105 retail spaces shown on the originally submitted plan. Whilst these would be primarily for the use of customers of the store itself, it is likely that there would be many linked trips to other nearby shops thus helping to maintain the vitality and viability of the town centre as a whole.

16. Whilst the applicant has been requested to make some amendments to the car park layout to meet the Council’s guidelines e.g. in respect of aisle widths, the number of parking spaces will meet the standards in the adopted plan, which requires 85 for the retail units. The parking provision for the housing element of the scheme would be 100% i.e., one space for each of the 5 units. The Planning Policy Statement/ Guidance Notes that are relevant to this type of development emphasise the Government’s aim to reduce the need to travel and to make use of alternative means of transport other than the motor car. Furthermore, it is also advised that developers should not be required to provide more parking than is necessary and that flexibility in the provision of parking for residential uses should be encouraged. The proposal would comply with these aims and intentions. Given that the units are within the heart of the town centre,


which is well served by public car parks and public transport, it is considered that this level of provision is acceptable.

17. The access and servicing for the development would be from John Street and would be in a similar position to that proposed at the time of the previous permission. Due to the lack of visibility at the proposed access, some off-site highway works / traffic calming will be required as at the time of the previous permission. Subject to the receipt of an amended car park layout and subject to appropriate conditions, it is therefore considered that the proposed development is acceptable in highway terms.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

18. At the time of the previous planning application, H/68627, it was resolved that the development was liable for financial contributions towards public open space and Red Rose Forest off-site tree planting. In fact, prior to determination of that application by Committee, the applicant submitted a cheque to the Planning Authority for £48,237.80, comprising of £39,072.80 towards open space and £9,165 towards off-site tree planting.

19. In the current application, the required contribution towards open space is reduced to

£5,825.21 as a result of the number of residential units being reduced from twenty five to five. The Red Rose Forest contribution is calculated as being £9,870.00.

20. In addition, since the approval of planning permission H/62827, in November 2005, there has been a material change in circumstances in that the new Supplementary Planning Document, “Developer Contributions to Highway and Public Transport Schemes” was adopted in March 2007. The proposed development falls within a category that would normally be liable for contributions towards highway infrastructure and public transport under the terms of that document. It is recognised that there is an extant planning permission that can be implemented without the payment of any transport contributions and this factor must carry some weight in the assessment of what contributions are now required in respect of the current application. In terms of highway infrastructure improvements, the Council’s normal approach in this type of circumstances is to only require a contribution in respect of any floorspace over and above the level in the extant permission. On this basis, it is agreed that the highway infrastructure contribution would be £3,148.50. However, in terms of public transport, the Council’s agreed approach is that it is justifiable to require a full contribution on the basis that national, regional and local planning policies emphasise the importance of providing maximum accessibility by public transport in all new developments. The normally required public transport contribution for this development would be £194,946.12.

21. The total overall contributions payable in respect of this development would therefore be £213,789.83. The £48,237.80 that has already been paid would need to be offset against this sum. However, the applicant has submitted a confidential financial viability report, which seeks to demonstrate that the development would not be viable with a financial contribution of this scale and that, given the potential regeneration benefits of the scheme, it would not be appropriate to require the full contribution in this case. This information is currently being assessed and it is intended that further observations on this matter will be provided in the Additional Information Report.

CONCLUSION

22. The application site occupies a prominent position towards the western end of School Road. It is considered that this area of the town centre is currently under threat in terms of its vitality and viability following the closure of the Sunwins unit on the application site and the nearby Kwik Save. It is also recognised that the application site


has been vacant for approximately two years and that, if the proposed development did not proceed, it could remain vacant for some time with serious implications for the vitality of the town centre. The proposal offers the opportunity to re-establish the vitality of this part of the town centre by proposing a development of retail units which is clearly consistent with Proposals S5 and S7 of the Revised UDP and introducing residential units, which would offer a positive benefit by increasing the activity in the evenings and allowing for natural surveillance. Furthermore the provision of additional retail units on Hereford Street would create an active frontage on a route between the main town centre shopping areas, which is heavily used but currently visually unattractive. It is considered that the proposal offers significant benefits to the long term health of the town centre and would be acceptable in terms of design and visual amenity, highway safety and residential amenity. It is therefore recommended that permission should be granted, subject to an amended car park layout and subject to a Section 106 Agreement.


A: That the application will propose a satisfactory development of the site upon completion of an appropriate legal agreement and that such legal agreement be entered into to secure:-

A financial contribution towards the provision/upgrading/refurbishment, as the case may be, of open space facilities within the Borough, and

A financial contribution towards the provision of Red Rose Forest / off-site tree planting A financial contribution towards public transport improvements.(The amount of the financial contributions is to be agreed following assessment of the submitted financial viability information and further observations on this matter will be provided in the Additional Information Report).

B: That upon the satisfactory completion of the legal agreement referred to at A above, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and standard reasons:

1. Standard

2. Materials

3. Provision of Access Facilities No2

4. Retention of Access Facilities

5. Amended Plans

6. Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, details of a system of signage to be installed at the entrance to the car park and within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the signage, as agreed, shall be installed and displayed at all times while the development is in use unless otherwise agreed in writing.

7. Before the development hereby permitted is commenced details of off-site highway improvements on Hereford Street and John Street shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme as agreed shall be implemented before the development is first occupied.

8. Site investigation for contaminated land.


9. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, details of design and position of air conditioning units to be submitted and approved. Development to be implemented in accordance with approved details.

10. Cycle Parking

11. Air quality assessment

12. Travel Plan

SD



Bank

Car Park

LB

The

Superstore

Cuckoo's

Ps

Nest(PH)

Wks

The Willows

Bank

PH

PC

TCBs

Town Square

Six Acre House

Roof Car Park

Roof Car Park

House

Dominion

Sub

Roof Car Park

Sta

El

(PH)Bulls Head

Roof Car Park

Car ParkRoof

Works

RoofCar Park

El Sub Sta

Magistrates' Courts

) )

) )

)

#

)))))

)

#

)



WARD: Gorse Hill H/69207 DEPARTURE: No

DEMOLITION OF EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS AND ASSOCIATED ELEMENTS, ERECTION OF A TWO STOREY BUILDING FOR HGV AND BUS SERVICING AND REPAIRS, WITH ASSOCIATED OFFICES, STORAGE AND STAFF FACILITIES. ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY BUILDING FOR HGV AND BUS VALETING. REORGANISATION OF EXISTING CAR PARK AND CREATION OF NEW AREAS OF HARDSTANDING FOR VEHICLE STORAGE AND SALES DISPLAY AREA. INSTALLATION OF SCRAP CONTAINER AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING WORKS Trafford Park Bakery, Ashburton Road, West, Trafford Park

APPLICANT: Property Alliance

AGENT: Scaramanga Design Ltd


SITE

The former Trafford Park Bakery site is situated on the north east side of Ashburton Road West, within Trafford Park. The site was previously occupied by Northern Foods employing several hundred people, but was sold in 2007 and the premises have lain vacant since.

This planning application specifically relates to the large former factory building in the centre of the site, a small warehouse building to the north east and the surrounding hardstanding. It does not include the three storey 1970’s office building fronting Ashburton Road West, to which the factory building physically attaches to. The site measures 2.8 hectares and is enclosed by a 2m high galvanised palisade fence. Vehicle and pedestrian access to the site is from Bailey Road and Richmond Road.

The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of industrial and commercial buildings, including several three storey office buildings (occupied by PAG and Russell Construction) on the opposite side of Ashburton Road West, a range of small to medium sized industrial units on Bailey Road and Richmond Road and a vehicle auction site, Action Mart to the north.

PROPOSAL

The application proposes the demolition of the existing factory buildings and erection of two replacement industrial buildings. The proposed use of the site would include truck sales and drive through servicing and vehicle repairs. The larger of the two buildings, situated in the centre of the site would measure 30m in width and 97m in length. This building would comprise a HGV and bus servicing depot with ancillary training facilities and vehicle parts storage. Two storey offices would project from the south east elevation of this building, adjacent to the site access on Bailey Road. Roller shutter doors extend across the south and north elevations, providing access/egress for vehicles. To the north east corner of the site, a second smaller building would provide pre-delivery inspections of new trucks. This building would measures 30m in width and 66m in length. This building would have a single roller shutter door on the west elevation, providing access to the building.


Around the two buildings, the existing hardstanding would be re-organised to provide HGV and staff car parking. The south east and south west corners of the site, fronting Ashburton Road West, would be used as vehicle display areas.

The Proposed Layout Plan indicates that the existing pedestrian and vehicle access points on Richmond Road would be closed, and the site served by two separate accesses on Bailey Road. New landscaping is proposed within the car park and around the site boundaries.

The site would be occupied by MAN Truck and Bus Limited, an HGV and bus dealership. The company intend to relocate from their existing premises in West Manchester.



PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION Trafford Park Core Industrial AreaMain Industrial Area

PRINCIPAL RELEVANT REVISED UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALSTP1 – Trafford Park Core Industrial AreaE7 – Main Employment AreasD1 – All New DevelopmentD2 – Vehicle ParkingD5 – Special Health and Safety Development Control Sub AreasENV15 – Community ForestT6 – Land Use in relation to Transport and MovementT9 – Private Funding of Development related Highway and Public Transport SchemesT17 – Providing for Pedestrians, Cyclists and the Disabled


H/68207 - Change of use of existing office building associated with industrial site (Class B8) to offices (Class B1) with associated external alterations including alterations to all elevations, addition of a fourth storey to provide additional office accommodation and creation of a car parking area to north. Approved with conditions 22 January 2008.


The applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment and Transport Assessment in support of the planning application. These can be summarised as follows:

Flood Risk Assessment

The site falls wholly within Flood Zone 1, and is therefore suitable for the proposed use. The development would not increase run off due to a balance in the impermeable area. However, the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage systems has been reviewed and will be agreed with the Council prior to the commencement of development.

Transport Assessment

An assessment of the operation of the Ashburton Road West/.Bailey Road junction has been undertaken and with the addition of the development traffic, is shown to operate well below


its practical and theoretical capacity. The site is also located close to several bus stops with good service links.

CONSULTATIONS

Built Environment (Drainage): No objection subject to details of drainage.

Renewal and Environmental Protection: As the site is previously developed and falls within an area with a history of industrial use, it may be contaminated. A standard remediation condition is therefore recommended. A standard air quality informative is also recommended.

LHA: Parking provision within the site is in excess of the Council’s standards, therefore there are no objections to the development in principle. However, the access radius to the main entrance is very sharp and amended plans have been requested from the developer which improves the site access. A standard travel plan condition is also recommended.

REPRESENTATIONS

None

OBSERVATIONS


1. The site falls within the Main Employment Area and Trafford Park Core Industrial Area of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan. Policies TP1 and E7 of the Revised UDP states that, within this area, the Council will permit development for B1c (light industry), B2 (general industry) and B8 (storage and distribution) uses, subject to the development being satisfactorily integrated with other uses, satisfactorily accessed from the local highway network and adequately served by other modes of transport. It is therefore considered that there are no objections in policy terms to the proposed development in this location.

LAYOUT AND DESIGN

2. The application proposes a purpose built facility for MAN Truck and Bus Limited and would comprise two industrial buildings with access from Richmond Road. The larger of the two buildings would be situated in the centre of the site surrounded to the south and west by extensive hardstanding providing HGV, bus and car parking. This building would be situated approximately 7m from the eastern boundary and would measure 8.5m in height to the roof eaves. To the north east, the second smaller building would be situated approximately 2.5m from the adjoining site boundaries. This building would measure 7.5m in height to its roof eaves.

3. The proposed development would be smaller than the existing buildings in terms of its size and height. Whilst some landscaping would be lost, including several trees, the proposed layout indicates new landscaped areas around the site boundaries. The Landscape Layout also includes 81 no. new native trees and beech hedging.

4. The application proposes two industrial buildings constructed in metal cladding with glazing to the office elevations. The buildings would be situated behind an existing three storey office building fronting Ashburton Road West, which the applicant intends to refurbish and let as independent offices (Planning permission ref. H/68207 approved 22 January 2008). As a result, the buildings would not be overly prominent from Ashburton Road West and soft landscaping at its junctions with Bailey Road and


Richmond Road help to soften its appearance along these frontages. The applicant intends to remove several trees within the site to facilitate the development. However, 81 new trees (net addition on site) are proposed alongside hedge and shrub planting and the applicant also intends to replace the existing galvanised steel palisade fence around the boundaries of the site with a new colour coated paladin fence. This landscaping scheme and boundary treatment proposed would create an appropriate appearance to the development and the application is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of its layout and architectural design, subject to appropriate conditions.

TRAFFIC AND CAR PARKING

5. Due to the nature of the operation and number of staff based at the development (130 compared with 400 associated with the former bakery), the traffic generation for the proposed development is expected to be significantly lower than the previous use. Vehicle access to the site would be from Bailey Road, off Ashburton Road West.

6. The applicant has submitted a Transport Assessment, including a detailed assessment of traffic levels and movements at the Bailey Road/Ashburton Road West junction, and the LHA are satisfied that the proposed development could be satisfactorily accommodated in the surrounding highway network. Highway improvements are however recommended to improve the radius of the main site access. Information submitted by the applicant to address these concerns will be covered in the Additional Information Report.

7. In terms of parking provision, 108 car parking spaces; 2 bus parking spaces; and 64

truck parking spaces are proposed on site. This exceeds the Council’s maximum car parking standards for a development of this size. However, some of these spaces would be used as vehicle display areas. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in this respect.

8. A condition requiring the applicant to submit and implement a Travel Plan for the site is recommended to ensure that appropriate measures are introduced to encourage sustainable means of travel.

FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO RED ROSE FOREST AND HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS

9. The Council’s SPG29 – ‘Developer Contributions towards Red Rose Forest’ was adopted in September 2004 and seeks to further the establishment of the Red Rose Community Forest. Under the terms of this guidance, the development falls within a category for which a financial contribution towards off-site tree planting is normally appropriate. However, it is accepted that on-site tree planting can be offset against any required Red Rose Forest contribution. In this case, the size of the development would create a requirement for the provision of 81 trees. A Landscaping Plan indicates 81 new trees (net addition) on site with additional hedge/shrub and grass landscaping around the site boundaries and car park. This landscaping scheme is considered to be acceptable in principle, providing native species and tree cover across the site. If this level of tree planting is provided on site, no financial contribution would be required in this instance.

10. The Council’s SPD1 - ‘Developer Contributions to Highway and Public Transport Schemes’ was adopted on 6 March 2007 and applies to all major developments. Contributions will be used by the Council and GMPTE to implement public transport and highways improvement schemes within the locality of the new development. The site falls within a ‘Least Accessible’ area as defined by SPD1. The relevant


contribution based on the floorspace of the development is £30,378.00. This would be split between a highway network contribution (£10,213.00) and a public transport contribution (£20,166.00). However, as the existing building on site is capable of being reoccupied, and is substantially larger than the development proposed, the relevant highway network contribution has been deducted in this instance. The required contribution is therefore £20,166.00 to provide improvements to the public transport network.

CONCLUSION

11. The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in policy terms in this location. The proposed scheme is also considered to be acceptable in terms of design and visual amenity and in terms of parking and highway safety. It is therefore recommended that planning permission should be granted, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement


(A) That the application will propose a satisfactory development for the site upon completion of an appropriate legal agreement to secure financial contributions of £20,166.00 towards public transport improvements;

(B) That upon satisfactory completion of the above legal agreement, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: -

1. Standard Condition;2. Landscaping Condition;3. Landscaping Maintenance Condition;4. Provision of Access Facilities Condition No.2;5. Retention of Access Facilities Condition;6. Outside Storage;7. Materials Condition;8. Travel Plan;9. Amended Plans Condition;10. Contamination Condition;11. Prior to the occupation of the industrial unit hereby approved, a scheme providing

details of any proposed external lighting shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the external areas will be lit in accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

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

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

14. Prior to the commencement of development, details of secure cycle parking facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with these approved details and the cycle parking facilities shall be retained unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

15. The vehicle parking areas outlined on the Proposed Site Plan drawing ref. MAN139/04 Rev. B shall be used for those purposes indicated only unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.


16. The use of part of the site for vehicles sales shall be ancillary to the main use of the premises as a vehicle servicing and repair depot.

VM



Tan k

El Sub Sta

27 .1m

De pot

D ep ot

Ta nk s

Dep ot

FB

Ta n ks

Tan k s

De p ot

Ta n k

Ta n k

Ta n ks

Ta n k

Ta n ks

Ta n k

El Sub Sta

27 .1m

El Sub Sta

Works

Tan k s

Depot

LB

W arehou se

Works

Wareh ouse

Wareh ouse

W orks

El Sub Sta

Au c tio n Mart

De pot

Au c tion Mart

De pot

10 to 1 4

Pa rk

Enterpris eW estpoint

27 .1m

D epot

De p ot

TCB

Ta nk

Works

Su b Sta

El

Ke s tre lHou s e

De p ot

El Sub Sta

Ke s tre l Ho us e

De p ot

26 .2m

Su b StaEl

)

)



WARD: Gorse Hill H/69208 DEPARTURE: No

ERECTION OF TWO BUILDINGS CONTAINING A TOTAL OF 9 INDUSTRIAL UNITS FOR B1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL), B2 (GENERAL INDUSTRIAL) AND/OR B8 (STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION) USES

Astra Business Park, Guinness Road, Trafford Park

APPLICANT: Bizspace Ltd.

AGENT: Ramsden and Partners

RECOMMENDATION: MINDED TO GRANT SUBJECT TO SECTION 106 AGREEMENT

SITE

The application site measures approximately 0.64 hectares in area and is located within Trafford Park. The site is currently occupied by a van and truck sales business.

The site fronts Guinness Road to the south-east and Ashburton Road to the south-west. There are existing industrial units to the rear (north-west) and on the opposite side of Guinness Road (south-east) and offices to the side (north-east). There is a large existing telecom mast, an electricity substation and two large advertisement hoardings close to the western corner of the site and a large strip of highway verge to the south.

The access road from Guinness Road into the industrial estate runs along the north-eastern boundary of the application site and also serves the units at the rear. There are lockable security gates at the access from Guinness Road.

The site is currently largely occupied by van and truck parking with some open storage of building materials. Towards the rear of the site, there are a number of portacabins (in use as offices) and storage containers. The site is surrounded by 2.5m high mesh fencing with galvanised steel palisade fencing to the access road. Outside the mesh fencing, there are trees on the frontage of the site with Guinness Road with 2m high, dark green, palisade fencing to the front of these.

PROPOSAL

The application proposes the erection of two buildings containing a total of nine industrial units with a total floorspace of 2282 square metres. The block at the rear of the site, parallel with the rear boundary, would measure approximately 15.8m x 73.5m and 8.1m in height. The block at the front of the site, parallel with Guinness Road, would measure approximately 10.5m x 60m and 8.1m in height. The parking and turning area would be formed in the centre of the site between the buildings.

The buildings would be constructed in brickwork and steel cladding and would have windows, doors and loading bays facing into the parking areas. The buildings would have monopitched roofs.

Vehicular access would continue to be from the existing estate access road off Guinness Road but would now be provided directly from this access road on the north east boundary of the site rather than from the parking area at the rear (north-west boundary).


During the course of the application, additional information has been received showing details of lighting to be mounted on the front elevations of the buildings facing into the parking and servicing areas.

REVISED UDP

The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19th June 2006. This, together with the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (RPG13), now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.


Main Industrial AreaTrafford Park Core Industrial AreaSpecial Health and Safety Development Control Sub Area


The relevant Policies and Proposals of the Plan are as follows: -

D1 – All New DevelopmentD2 – Vehicle ParkingD4 – Industrial DevelopmentD5 – Special Health and Safety Development Control Sub AreasE7 – Main Industrial AreasTP1 – Trafford Park Core industrial AreaENV15 – Community Forest


H/63698 – Erection of two buildings containing a total of 13 industrial units for B1 (light industrial), B2 (general industrial) and B8 (storage and distribution) uses – Permitted – 10th October 2006

CONSULTATIONS

Traffic and Transportation: No objections, subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended plans. The car parking provision and layout generally meets the Council’s standards. However, it is noted that the spaces alongside the access road into the rest of the business park have a substandard aisle width of less than 6 metres. The applicant should amend the plans to provide a 6m aisle width. The applicant should also be encouraged to provide shower and changing facilities within the site to encourage staff to cycle and walk to work.

Built Environment: No observations.

Renewal and Environmental Protection: No objections subject to a condition requiring an investigation for contaminated land.

Environment Agency: No objections.

Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit: No comments received to date

GMPTE: The development should be liable for a financial contribution towards public transport under the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document “Developer Contributions towards Highway and Public Transport Schemes”. A recent study has shown that public


transport provision in this area is poor and this money could be put towards improving this provision. The developer should also be requested to provide a Travel Plan.

REPRESENTATIONS

None.

OBSERVATIONS


1. The site falls within a Main Industrial Area and the Trafford Park Core Industrial Area, where industrial development is appropriate in principle.

DESIGN AND VISUAL AMENITY

2. The site is in a prominent position on the corner of Ashburton Road and Guinness Road. The visual appearance of the surrounding area is generally poor with a large telecom mast, electricity substation and two large advertisement hoardings immediately to the south-west and a number of metal clad, functional, industrial and office buildings to the north-west, north-east and south-east, including directly opposite on the other side of Guinness Road. The site itself has dark green palisade fencing and semi-mature / mature trees to the main road frontages with galvanised steel palisade fencing to the access road. The site is currently mainly occupied by van and truck parking with some outdoor storage of building materials. There are also portacabins (in use as offices) and containers at the rear of the site.

3. The proposed development would provide a building close to the Guinness Road frontage of the site with parking to the rear of it and this layout is considered to be appropriate in principle, screening the parking areas from the main road. Landscaping is proposed on the Ashburton Road and Guinness Road boundaries, including new trees on the corner of the site. There are also existing trees on the Guinness Road frontage, which would be retained.

4. In terms of more detailed design, the front of the proposed buildings would face into the parking areas with windows, doors and loading bays in these elevations. The elevations facing Ashburton Road would not include any windows but would be broken up to some extent by the use of different materials (brick and cladding). It is considered that the Ashburton Road elevations of the proposed buildings are of less interest visually than those in the previously approved scheme, H/63698, which included windows in this position. Nevertheless, it is recognised that the nature of the accommodation has changed as the buildings are now proposed simply as industrial units with no ancillary office space whereas the previous scheme had office accommodation at first floor level. It is therefore considered that it would be unreasonable to require further window openings in this type of accommodation. It is also considered that, given the proposed tree planting to the front of these elevations and, given the modest height of the buildings, the visual impact from Ashburton Road would be acceptable.

5. The galvanised steel fencing to the access road would be removed to allow access into the parking and servicing areas in the centre of the site. The dark green palisade fencing to the site frontage would be retained and this is considered to be acceptable, given the retention of the trees immediately to the rear of this.


6. It is therefore considered that the proposed development is acceptable in terms of design and will improve the visual appearance of the area, compared with the open storage that is currently taking place on the site.

TRAFFIC AND CAR PARKING

7. The Local Highway Authority has raised no objections in principle to the proposed development, stating that there appears to be sufficient parking to meet the Council’s standards. The proposed industrial units would replace an existing commercial use and would be served off the existing estate road from Guinness Road. It is therefore considered that the proposed development is acceptable in highway terms.

8. The LHA has raised concerns about the aisle width adjacent to the parking spaces alongside the access road that leads to the industrial units at the rear. It should be noted that this element of the layout is existing and there is only a minor shortfall with the aisle width being approximately 5.8m. Nevertheless, it is considered that a condition should be attached to ensure that minor alterations are made to achieve a 6m aisle width.

9. The GMPTE has raised concerns about the relatively poor level of public transport provision in this location and has suggested that the developer should be required to provide a Travel Plan. It is therefore recommended that a Travel Plan condition should be attached.

CRIME AND SECURITY

10. The Police Architectural Liaison Unit objected to the previous application, H/63698, on the grounds that the proposed parking areas would be less secure than at present and stated that it wished to see a secure fence on the boundary adjacent to the access road. To date, no comments have been received from GM Police on the current scheme. However, it is considered that this issue can be addressed by a condition requiring the retention of lockable gates on the estate road off Guinness Road.

OTHER ISSUES

11. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance, “Developer Contributions towards Red Rose Forest” was adopted in September 2004 and seeks to further the establishment of the Red Rose Community Forest. Under the terms of this guidance, the development falls within a category for which a financial contribution towards off-site tree planting is appropriate. The exact contribution is calculated to be £4,700.00 on the basis that nine new trees are being provided on site.

12. Since the granting of the previous permission, H/63698, the Council has adopted the Supplementary Planning Document, “Developer Contributions to Highway and Public Transport Schemes”. Under the terms of this guidance, the development falls within a category for which transport contributions are required. Given that there is an extant permission for a greater amount of floorspace than that which is now proposed, it is considered that it would not be appropriate to require a contribution towards highway infrastructure. However, it is considered appropriate to seek a public transport contribution, given that national, regional and local policies all seek to ensure that new developments have an optimum level of accessibility by public transport. The required contribution towards public transport in this case is £7,074.20.

13. It is considered that these contributions need to be secured through a Section 106 Agreement.


CONCLUSION

14. The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in principle in this location. The proposed units are also considered to be acceptable in terms of design and visual amenity and in terms of parking and highway safety. It is therefore recommended that planning permission should be granted, subject to a Section 106 Agreement to secure financial contributions towards off-site tree planting and public transport and subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION:

(A) That the application will propose a satisfactory development for the site upon completion of an appropriate legal agreement and such legal agreement will be entered into to secure: -

a financial contribution of £4,700.00 towards off-site tree planting (Red Rose Forest);a financial contribution of £7,074.20 towards public transport improvements.

(B) That upon satisfactory completion of the above legal agreement, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions: -

17. Standard Condition18. Materials Condition including details of roller shutter doors19. Landscaping Condition including the provision of at least none trees on site as shown

on the submitted site plan20. Boundary Treatment (including retention of lockable gates to access road)21. No outside storage22. Provision and Retention of parking areas23. Investigation for Contaminated Land24. Amended Plans25. Cycle Parking26. Provision of 6m aisle width adjacent to parking spaces on access road in accordance

with details to be submitted27. Submission and implementation of Interim and Final Travel Plans

SD



Depot

Tank

KestrelHouse

Depot

El Sub Sta

Kestrel House

Tank

Depot

Mast

26.2m

Astra Business Park

Sub StaEl

Tank

Ps

The Court

))This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, ©


WARD: Village H/LPA/ADV/69188 DEPARTURE: No

DISPLAY OF FLAG ON 8 METRE HIGH FLAGPOLE.

Timperley Green, off Aimson Road West/Hulme Drive, Timperley

APPLICANT: Trafford Council

AGENT: Trafford Council


SITE

Timperley Green is an area of public open space located to the west side of Shaftesbury Avenue to the south of the Brooklands Roundabout. It is bounded to the south by Aimson Road West. The Green is bounded by a recent development of detached houses to the west and north with other houses to the south.

PROPOSAL

This application for advertisement consent proposes to display a single flagpole of 8 metres in height within a small planted area in a fairly central position within the Green. The flagpole would display a single flag measuring some 2250 mm x 1125 mm with the text relating to the Trafford Greenspace Award and the background being gold, silver or bronze depending on what the park has achieved.


The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with Regional Spatial Strategy for the North-West now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.


Protected Open Space


OSR5 – Protection of Open SpaceD10 - Advertisements



None


None

CONSULTATIONS

None

REPRESENTATIONS

Neighbours – No comments received.

Timperley Civic Society – Makes the following comments:-- the flagpole is to be placed in the only flower bed which Timperley Horticultural

Society cares for and is an ill thought siting- the large amount of money to be spent on this venture could have been used in

these designated areas in far more enterprising ways

OBSERVATIONS

PRINCIPLE

1. There is no objection in principle to the display of this form of advertisement in this location. Applications for advertisement consent can only be considered in relation to their impact on amenity and highway safety.

AMENITY

2. The proposed flagpole would be located over 30 metres from the boundary with Shaftesbury Avenue to the east and 60 metres form the boundary with Aimson Road West top the south. The nearest houses would be over 60 metres from the proposed flagpole. There are trees and hedges within and around the boundary of the open space. It is considered that, whilst the flagpole would be clearly visible to users of the open space, in the location proposed it would be neither unduly intrusive in the area nor detrimental to the amenity of nearby residents.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

3. The proposed flagpole would be over 30 metres from the nearest highway and in such a location would not be detrimental to highway safety.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to the following conditions and standard reasons:- 1 – 5 Standard advertisement conditions and reasons

GE



30 .0m

31.9m

Ba rbro o k

BM 31.0 8m

BM 31 .03m

348350

30.5m

33 .9m

31 .1m

She lter

TCB

30 .8m

30 .2m

31.5m

32 .2m

Su b

El

Sta

1715

Ga rag e

2222

16

29

18

BED F

ORD

D RIV

EBE

D FOR

D D R

IVE

BED F

ORD

D RIV

EBE

D FOR

D D R

IVE

BED F

ORD

D RIV

EBE

D FOR

D D R

IVE

BED F

ORD

D RIV

EBE

D FOR

D D R

IVE

BED F

ORD

D RIV

E

1

1

7

13

336

5

20

24

SL

2

10

338

Foo t Bridge

THORPE CLOSETHORPE CLOSETHORPE CLOSETHORPE CLOSETHORPE CLOSETHORPE CLOSETHORPE CLOSETHORPE CLOSETHORPE CLOSE

1

30 .3m

Pla yg ro un d

11

Play g ro und

13

2

KELVINDALE DRIVEKELVINDALE DRIVEKELVINDALE DRIVEKELVINDALE DRIVEKELVINDALE DRIVEKELVINDALE DRIVEKELVINDALE DRIVEKELVINDALE DRIVEKELVINDALE DRIVE

SP

67

23

57

DRIVEDRIVEDRIVEDRIVEDRIVEDRIVEDRIVEDRIVEDRIVETHRESHFIELDTHRESHFIELDTHRESHFIELDTHRESHFIELDTHRESHFIELDTHRESHFIELDTHRESHFIELDTHRESHFIELDTHRESHFIELD

#

)

#

)

)

#

#

#

#

#



WARD: Brooklands H/LPA/ADV/69209 DEPARTURE: No

DISPLAY OF FLAG ON 8 METRE HIGH FLAGPOLE

Walton Park, Walton Road, Sale




SITE

Walton Park is a public park situated within a predominately residential area. The park is located on the south-eastern side of Walton Road. Residential dwellings bound the site to the south and west and the Bridgewater Canal and towpath bound the site to the east; Sale Cemetery bounds the site to the north. The park is characterised by grassed area, flower beds, bowling greens, tennis courts and a miniature railway.

PROPOSAL

The application for advertisement consent proposes to display a single flagpole of 8 metres in height within a small circular flowerbed in the south-western corner of the park. The flagpole would display a single flag measuring some 2250mm x 1125mm with the text relating to the Trafford Greenspace Award and the background being gold, silver or bronze depending on what the park has achieved.




Protected Open Space


OSR5 – Protected Open SpaceD10 - Advertisements


None


None


CONSULTATIONS

None

REPRESENTATIONS

Neighbours – One objection has been received from a neighbouring resident, making the following comments: -

- Suggests that a plaque or certificate on the notice board would be a more appropriate option to demonstrate the award scheme.

- Concerned that once the current award scheme ends, the flagpole will become redundant and an eyesore.

- It will be a focus for vandals.

Friends of Walton Park – Make the following comments: -

- The flagpole would be of no benefit to the users of the park.- The area identified is in the middle of a fenced flowerbed which is not acceptable as

this would have to be entered to access the flagpole.- The money could be better used to maintain and improve facilities in the park.

OBSERVATIONS

PRINCIPLE

There is no objection in principle to the display of this form of advertisement in this location. Applications for advertisement consent can only be considered in relation to their impact on amenity and highway safety.

AMENITY

The proposed flagpole would be located over 35 metres from the boundary with Walton Road to the north-west and over 45 metres from the boundary with Marford Crescent to the south. The nearest residential properties would be over 50 metres from the proposed flagpole. Mature trees and hedges lie along the boundaries of the park. It is considered that although the flagpole would be clearly visible to users of the southern area of the park, in the location proposed it would not be unduly intrusive to the surrounding area nor detrimental to the amenity of nearby residents.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

The proposed flagpole would be over 65 metres from the nearest highway and in such a location would not be detrimental to highway safety.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to the following conditions and standard reason: -

1 – 5 Standard advertisement conditions and reasons

VL



Ha l l

25 .5m

25 .5m

SP

She lter

Pla yg ro un d26.2m

C emeterySa le Broo k lands

SP

MP

26 .2m

19

BM 25.9 1m

Al lo tme nt Gard ens

Sa le C emetery

Ha l l

Sp o rts Ce n tre

Wa l ton Road Pa rkHa l l

PCs

Te n nis Co urts

Miniatu re

Play g ro und

Bo wlin g Gree n

Walton Road Park

Bo wlin g Gree n

R ailwa y

El Sub Sta

TCB

Hou s eGa ins boro ug h

1 to 12

LB

Sa le Ba pti s t

)

)

)

)

)

#



WARD: Davyhulme East

H/LPA/ADV/69220 DEPARTURE: NO

DISPLAY OF FLAG ON 8M HIGH FLAGPOLE.

Davyhulme Park, Crofts Bank Road, Urmston.

APPLICANT: Trafford Council.

AGENT: None


SITE

The application site is located within Davyhulme Park which is bounded by Canterbury Road to the north, Crofts Bank Road to the west, Winchester Road to the South and Davyhulme Infant School along the east boundary.

The Park has a variety of functions including a children’s playground that is close to the junction of Canterbury Road and Crofts Bank Road; a bowling green and tennis courts that are adjacent to the boundary with Crofts Bank Road; an ornamental garden with recessed feature ponds and a band stand with a pedestrian entrance adjoining it that is accessed from Winchester Road to the south.

At the junction of Canterbury Road and Crofts Bank Road, there is a formal entrance to the park that is set back from the highway and is screened in part by mature trees and bushes that help to create a verdant and pleasant streetscene along this part of Crofts Bank Road. PROPOSAL

The application proposes to erect a flagpole that is located close to the main entrance to the park and set centrally within a flower bed some 60m from the junction of Crofts Bank Road and Canterbury Road and approximately 56m from properties fronting the Park on the northern side of Canterbury Road.

The flagpole would be white in colour and 8m in height. It would sit upon a hinged steel base plate with an internal halyard pulley system to allow the display of Greenspace award flags that would be 2250mm x 1125mm in size. The application is part of a borough wide scheme to advertise the quality of the Council’s Parks.


The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This together with the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (RPG 13) now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.


Protected Open Space.



D10 - AdvertisementsOSR5 – Protection of open space


H/26597 – Erection of single storey extension to form toilets – Deemed consent April 1988.

H/34427 – Erection of Steel Archway – Deemed consent, November 1991.

H/45024 – Refurbishment of former paddling pool into roller hockey court with 1.2m high rebound boards and 1.8m ball court fencing around the boundary, approved December 1997.

H/LPA/57242 – Refurbishment of existing tennis courts and basket ball court including the erection of a 2.88m high weld mesh perimeter fence.

CONSULTATIONS

None.

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of objection with eleven signatures has been received on the grounds that the monies spent on the erection and maintenance of the flagpole would be better deployed in the erection of a fence (similar to the tennis courts) along the boundary of the park along Canterbury road adjacent to the Children’s playground in order to reduce the “missiles” thrown at properties that front this section of the park. A further concern is the possibility of the flagpole being blown over in high winds and endangering neighbouring properties. The flagpole would also be considered to be vulnerable to vandalism and may encourage anti-social behaviour.

OBSERVATIONS


1. There is no objection in principle to the display of this form of advertisement in this location. Applications for advertisement consent can only be considered in their relation to their impact on amenity and highway safety.

AMENITY

2. The planning application is required to consider the impact of the flagpole in the street scene and on the amenity of the area. The proposed location of the flagpole is situated approximately 60m from the junction of Crofts Bank Road and Canterbury Road and some 55m from the properties facing the park on the northern side of Canterbury Road. Whilst the height of the flagpole is relatively large in relation to other development within the area, it is considered that the separation distance between the flag pole and the public highways would mitigate against this and would not form an overtly prominent development that would not harm the amenity of the area.

3. Concerns have been raised that there could be a possibility that the flagpole could be blown over in high winds and endanger nearby properties. However, given that the nearest residential properties are situated approximately 55m away on the opposite side of Canterbury Road, there would be no endangerment to occupiers of those properties.


HIGHWAY SAFETY

4. The proposed flagpole would be over 30m from the nearest highway and, in such a location, would not be detrimental to highway safety.

CONCLUSION

5. It is considered that the erection of the flagpole and its display of greenspace award flags would provide further identity to the park and given its positioning would not cause detrimental harm to the amenity of neighbouring residents and would not raise any highway safety issues. It is recommended that planning permission be granted


1. Standard Advert Conditions

GD



31

68

54

47

5

WES

TBOU

RNE

ROA D

WES

TBOU

RNE

ROA D

WES

TBOU

RNE

ROA D

WES

TBOU

RNE

ROA D

WES

TBOU

RNE

ROA D

WES

TBOU

RNE

ROA D

WES

TBOU

RNE

ROA D

WES

TBOU

RNE

ROA D

WES

TBOU

RNE

ROA D

39Po s t

25

Nurs ery

Dav y hu lme Infan t Sc ho ol

SYLVAN AVENUESYLVAN AVENUESYLVAN AVENUESYLVAN AVENUESYLVAN AVENUESYLVAN AVENUESYLVAN AVENUESYLVAN AVENUESYLVAN AVENUE

1

2

AVENUEAVENUEAVENUE

AVENUEAVENUE

AVENUEAVENUEAVENUE

AVENUE

1

BRADDONBRADDONBRADDON

BRADDONBRADDON

BRADDONBRADDONBRADDON

BRADDON

8

BRADDON A VENUEBRADDON A VENUEBRADDON A VENUE

BRADDON A VENUEBRADDON A VENUE

BRADDON A VENUEBRADDON A VENUEBRADDON A VENUE

BRADDON A VENUE

11

Po nd

C ommun ity C en tre

H artford

11 5 11 7

CANTERBURY ROADCANTERBURY ROADCANTERBURY ROADCANTERBURY ROADCANTERBURY ROADCANTERBURY ROADCANTERBURY ROADCANTERBURY ROADCANTERBURY ROAD

2

105

TCB

1039383 91

75

81

73

16

115

61

8

22.91m

4

2

BM59

55 57

21.6m

20

WINCHESTER ROADWINCHESTER ROADWINCHESTER ROADWINCHESTER ROADWINCHESTER ROADWINCHESTER ROADWINCHESTER ROADWINCHESTER ROADWINCHESTER ROAD

30

13

Col l in gwo od Man or

AVENU EAVENU EAVENU E

AVENU EAVENU E

AVENU EAVENU EAVENU E

AVENU E

GREEN FIELDGREEN FIELDGREEN FIELD

GREEN FIELDGREEN FIELD

GREEN FIELDGREEN FIELDGREEN FIELD

GREEN FIELD

Davyhulme Park

Pa v ili o n

Bo wlin g Gree n

22 .9m

Ro s e L eig h

El Sub Sta

Pos t

842

Court

1

Arrandale

Ba n ds tan d

Po n d

Po nd

TCB

Te n nis Co urts

El Sub StaPla yg ro un d

Bo wlin g Gree n

Wa r

Pa rk

ParkGo lden Hi l l

Pav

Pa v

MOORSIDEMOORSIDEMOORSIDEMOORSIDEMOORSIDEMOORSIDEMOORSIDEMOORSIDEMOORSIDE

Go lde n Hi l l

21.7m

LB

21.9m

15a

BENDEMEERBENDEMEERBENDEMEERBENDEMEERBENDEMEERBENDEMEERBENDEMEERBENDEMEERBENDEMEER

CANTERBURY ROADCANTERBURY ROADCANTERBURY ROADCANTERBURY ROADCANTERBURY ROADCANTERBURY ROADCANTERBURY ROADCANTERBURY ROADCANTERBURY ROAD

Da y Nu rse ry

Bowling Gree n

Golden H ill Park

Play g ro und

Pav

1

19

34

Pa v

Bo wlin g Gree n

Go lde n Hi l l Pa rk

Ca r Pa rk

#

#

)

)

)

)

)



WARD: STRETFORD H/LPA/ADV/69222 DEPARTURE: NO

DISPLAY OF FLAG ON 8 METRE HIGH FLAGPOLE

Victoria Park, Victoria Road, Stretford


AGENT: N/A


This application has been called in for determination by the Planning and Development Control Committee by former Councillor Garlick who believes that the flagpole will be intrusive and not an asset to the park.

SITE

Victoria Park is located on the western side of Victoria Road and is enclosed by Derbyshire Lane to the north, School Road to the south, and Park Road to the east. The park comprises tennis courts, a bowling green, putting green, and a childrens’ playground.

PROPOSAL

This application for Advertisement Consent proposes the erection of an 8m high flag pole to the west of the existing playground on a triangular shaped grass island surrounded by footpaths. The purpose of the flag pole is to display a flag identifying the Trafford Green Space Awards. The flag would measure 2.3m x 1.1m, whilst the flag pole would be white with a steel base and gold top.




Protected Open Space (OSR 5)


D10 – AdvertisementsOSR5 – Protection of Open Space


None

CONSULTATIONS


None

REPRESENTATIONS

A total of 9 No. individual letters of objection have been received from local residents who believe that the park does not require a second flag pole and that the money could be better spent on other improvements and maintenance of the park. Councillor Garlick supports this view and believes that the proposed flag pole would be intrusive and not an asset to the park.

OBSERVATIONS

PRINCIPLE

1. There is no objection in principle to the display of this form of advertisement in this location. Applications for advertisement consent can only be considered in relation to their impact on amenity and highway safety.

VISUAL AMENITY

2. The erection of an 8m flag pole in the proposed position on a grassed island is considered to be acceptable in principle. The pole would be visible from many locations around the park, but the proximity of mature trees and hedges around the site would ensure that an adequate degree of screening would remain.

3. The height and external appearance of the proposed flag pole is not considered to result in a harmful impact upon the appearance and character of the park which would detract from its attractiveness to local residents and visitors from the wider area.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

4. The proposed flag pole would be located over 25m from the nearest highway and in such a location would not be detrimental to highway safety.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant, subject to the following conditions:

1. Standard advertisement conditions.

ML



13

EL IZABETH CLOSEEL IZABETH CLOSEEL IZABETH CLOSEEL IZABETH CLOSEEL IZABETH CLOSEEL IZABETH CLOSEEL IZABETH CLOSEEL IZABETH CLOSEEL IZABETH CLOSE

26

4

1

2 8

64

9381

23

SCHOOL ROADSCHOOL ROADSCHOOL ROADSCHOOL ROADSCHOOL ROADSCHOOL ROADSCHOOL ROADSCHOOL ROADSCHOOL ROAD

30

18

11

2

49

86

6171

4484

HENS

H AW

ST R

EET

HENS

H AW

ST R

EET

HENS

H AW

ST R

EET

HENS

H AW

ST R

EET

HENS

H AW

ST R

EET

HENS

H AW

ST R

EET

HENS

H AW

ST R

EET

HENS

H AW

ST R

EET

HENS

H AW

ST R

EET

5246

5062

2513

20

72

37

1832

60

Park

Pla y gro und

120

9810

8

VICT

ORIA

ROA

DVI

CTOR

IA R

OAD

VICT

ORIA

ROA

DVI

CTOR

IA R

OAD

VICT

ORIA

ROA

DVI

CTOR

IA R

OAD

VICT

ORIA

ROA

DVI

CTOR

IA R

OAD

VICT

ORIA

ROA

D

Vic toria

Pa v il i o n

Pa v il i o n

220

68

Bo wlin g Gree n

15

Clu b

C lub

LB

1

5034

55

1

39

PINN

ING T

ON L

ANE

PINN

ING T

ON L

ANE

PINN

ING T

ON L

ANE

PINN

ING T

ON L

ANE

PINN

ING T

ON L

ANE

PINN

ING T

ON L

ANE

PINN

ING T

ON L

ANE

PINN

ING T

ON L

ANE

PINN

ING T

ON L

ANE

33

48

32

47 35

94

MOSS RO

ADMO

SS ROAD

MOSS RO

ADMO

SS ROAD

MOSS RO

ADMO

SS ROAD

MOSS RO

ADMO

SS ROAD

MOSS RO

AD

25 .2m

70

7

Clu b

Clu bBo wlin g Gree n

42

7

Vic to ria C our t

TCB

Pav il io n

37

4658 34

27

49 3561

294355

Post

Ca r Pa rk

Mu l tis to re y

BENNETT STREETBENNETT STREETBENNETT STREET

BENNETT STREETBENNETT STREET

BENNETT STREETBENNETT STREETBENNETT STREET

BENNETT STREET

SCHOOL ROADSCHOOL ROADSCHOOL ROADSCHOOL ROADSCHOOL ROADSCHOOL ROADSCHOOL ROADSCHOOL ROADSCHOOL ROAD

83 71 5985

92 82

JACKSON STREETJACKSON STREETJACKSON STREETJACKSON STREETJACKSON STREETJACKSON STREETJACKSON STREETJACKSON STREETJACKSON STREET

67

Bo wlin g Gree n

Ten nis Courts

Te nnis Co urts

Bo wlin g Green

Pa v il i o n

Victoria Park

Pla yg ro un d

Ten nis Courts

Surge ry

Libra ry

TCB

H ea lthC en tre

MITFORD STREETMITFORD STREETMITFORD STREETMITFORD STREETMITFORD STREETMITFORD STREETMITFORD STREETMITFORD STREETMITFORD STREET

73

92

81

87

83

93

El Sub Sta

BENN

ETT

STRE

ETBE

NNET

T ST

REET

BENN

ETT

STRE

ETBE

NNET

T ST

REET

BENN

ETT

STRE

ETBE

NNET

T ST

REET

BENN

ETT

STRE

ETBE

NNET

T ST

REET

BENN

ETT

STRE

ET

24 .9m

Gle nma y Cou rt

THOMA S GIBBO N

THOMA S GIBBO N

THOMA S GIBBO N

THOMA S GIBBO N

THOMA S GIBBO N

THOMA S GIBBO N

THOMA S GIBBO N

THOMA S GIBBO N

THOMA S GIBBO N

102

4 312

97 91

11 3 10 3

10

Pinfo ldC ou rt

65

LB

10 4

95103113

24 .8m

Play g ro und

25.1m

Pu ttin g Gre en

Ma rtin Luther

Ki rc he

El Sub Sta

3

10

ROS S

ALL

ROS S

ALL

ROS S

ALL

ROS S

ALL

ROS S

ALL

ROS S

ALL

ROS S

ALL

ROS S

ALL

ROS S

ALL

24 .9m

Su b StaEl

Ba n k

D erb y

Bank

H all

20

27 1

24

JACKSON STREETJACKSON STREETJACKSON STREETJACKSON STREETJACKSON STREETJACKSON STREETJACKSON STREETJACKSON STREETJACKSON STREET

13

PINN

ING T

ON L

ANE

PINN

ING T

ON L

ANE

PINN

ING T

ON L

ANE

PINN

ING T

ON L

ANE

PINN

ING T

ON L

ANE

PINN

ING T

ON L

ANE

PINN

ING T

ON L

ANE

PINN

ING T

ON L

ANE

PINN

ING T

ON L

ANE

32

1

70

)

#

)

)

)

)

#



WARD: FLIXTON H/69229 DEPARTURE: NO

RETENTION OF A 2.1 HIGH METRE WALL AND GATES TO REAR BOUNDARY; ENCLOSURE OF OPEN LAND TO REAR AND CHANGE OF USE TO EXTEND RESIDENTIAL CURTILAGE.

Land to rear of No.7 Reade Avenue, Flixton, Manchester

APPLICANT: Mr. P. Tyrrell

AGENT: N/A


SITE

The application site comprises a small plot of land to the rear of No.7 Reade Avenue, a semi-detached dwelling. The land is located between the rear garden boundary of this residential dwelling and an access road providing vehicular and pedestrian access to the rear of shops and flats along Flixton Road, as well as access to Reade House (flats). The application site had previously remained unused and vacant for a number of years before being brought into use as an extension to the garden of No.7 Reade Avenue.

PROPOSAL

The application is made on a retrospective basis. It proposes the retention of the use of the residential use of the land from open / vacant land, and the complete enclosure of that land by a 2.1m brick wall and gate providing access to the service road at the rear, approximately 2.2m in length and adjacent to a detached garage belonging to the shop unit located at No.434 Flixton Road. The land has been utilised as an extension to the garden of No.7 Reade Avenue. The applicant has made this application in the knowledge that he is not the owner of the land, and as such has served the appropriate Notice in the local press (Stretford and Urmston Messenger) as required by the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 when the owners are not known.




None


D1 – All New Development



None

CONSULTATIONS

None

REPRESENTATIONS

A total of 12 No. letters of objection have been received which oppose the application being approved.

One individual letter of objection has been received from the owner(s) of No.434 Flixton Road, a retail shop unit, who also own the detached garage to the rear of their property. The (planning related) concerns raised in this letter are as follows:

The applicant has failed to serve the requisite notices under the Party Wall Act; The construction of the wall now denies access to the side door of the garage; It is claimed that a business operates from No.7 Reade Avenue; Increased security risks are associated with the building of the wall; It is believed that the wall is incongruous to its surroundings.

Another individual letter of objection has been received from the occupiers of No.442 Flixton Road, raising concerns over the use of No.7 Reade Avenue in connection with a business use. There have been instances where building materials have been left in the service road.

Furthermore, 10 No. identical letters of objection have been received having been signed by the owner(s)/occupier(s) of 10 No. individual addresses. This letter raised the following planning related concerns:

It is believed that it is the applicants’ intention to increase the scale of an existing business use carried out from No.7 Reade Avenue. The inclusion of a gate within the newly erected wall would aid the ease of movement of building materials.

The storage of building materials at No.7 Reade Avenue would result in an increase in security risks in the area in respect of theft and vandalism given the type of materials stored.

No representations have been received in response to the applicant’s advertisement in the Stretford and Urmston Messenger newspaper.

OBSERVATIONS

PRINCIPLE

1. The site is unallocated in the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan. No relevant policy presumes against this type of development, and it is considered that the vacant area of land did not make any significant contribution to the amenity of the area. As such, the proposed change of use is considered to be acceptable in principle. Therefore, the main issues to consider are the impact of the change of use of the land to residential on neighbouring properties, and the external appearance of the wall and gate.

2. Concerns over the use of No.7 Reade Avenue in connection with a business use are considered to be a matter which can be investigated separately by the Local Planning


Authority, who could assess whether the scale of any business activity conducted from the premises would warrant a change of use planning application.


3. The adjoining residential properties to the North West, No’s. 5 and 9 Reade Avenue, have gardens of a similar length to No.7 Reade Avenue (as extended). It is not considered that the change of the use of the previously open/vacant land in order to extend the residential curtilage of No.7 Reade Avenue would be detrimental to the occupiers of adjoining or nearby properties. The height of the rear boundary wall at 2.1m is not considered to be out of keeping with other rear boundary fences and walls.

4. However, it is acknowledged that the newly erected wall (and gate) has prevented the use of the side elevation door to the rear of the detached garage belonging to the owner(s) / occupier(s) of the shop unit at No. 434 Flixton Road. This door is now located behind the wall and prevents access to its owners. It is understood that the parties are in dispute over this matter which is being pursued through civil proceedings. It should be noted that no weight can be given to disputes over land ownership and/or rights of passage over land in the determination of a planning application. In any case it should also be noted that the owner of this building can still gain access from the main door at the front.

5. The wall (as it has been built) physically adjoins the detached garage belonging to the owner(s) / occupier(s) of No.434 Flixton Road. However, amended plans were received from the applicant on 1 May 2008 which clarifies that a separation distance of 0.1m will be retained between the wall and the detached garage. If the application is granted, it is considered that a condition should be attached which requires this separation distance to be achieved on site within 28 days.

DESIGN AND IMPACT UPON THE STREET SCENE

6. Whilst the access road to the rear of properties on Flixton Road and Reade Avenue is used by both vehicles and pedestrians, its main function is to provide access to Reade House and as a service road to the shop units along Flixton Road. It does not provide a thoroughfare linking other roads, and as such is unlikely to be used by people who do not work in business premises on Flixton Road, and those residing at properties on Reade Avenue, Reade House, and in first floor flats on Flixton Road.

7. The design of the wall and the materials which have been used in its construction are considered to be acceptable given their relationship with existing detached garages and other rear boundaries of properties on Reade Avenue. It is not considered that the height of the wall is inappropriate in this area.

CONCLUSION

8. It is considered that the change of use of a previously vacant plot of land to be incorporated into the residential curtilage of No.7 Reade Avenue is acceptable. The height and design of the newly erected wall and gate is also considered to be acceptable. In assessing the planning merits of the application, it is considered that the change of use of the land and the erection of a new boundary wall have not detracted from the quality of the character of the area nor that of the wider street scene. As such, the application is hereby recommended for approval.


1. Standard


2. Amended plans – details to show the formation of a gap between the wall and the existing garage shall be implemented on site within 28 days.

ML



19.6m

HouseFlixton

PC

Post

Reade House

19.7m

Flixton Park

22.9m

PO

MP .75

Bank

Bank

FB

Car Park

456

458

Sub StaEl

Post

LB

16

21

Posts

32

Westway

)

)

)

)

))



WARD: Stretford H/OUT/69239 DEPARTURE: No

OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION OF EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS AND REDEVELOPMENT OF SITE TO PROVIDE 107 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND ONE RESTAURANT/CAFE (CLASS A3 UNIT) TOTALLING 443 SQ.M GROSS INTERNAL, WITH LANDSCAPING, CAR PARKING AND OTHER ASSOCIATED WORKS, INCLUDING CREATION OF BOAT MOORINGS ALONG THE CANAL. CONSENT SOUGHT FOR ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING ACCESS TO SITE FROM EDGE LANE WITH ALL OTHER MATTERS RESERVED FOR SUBSEQUENT APPROVAL

The Former Royal Canal Works, Edge Lane, Stretford

APPLICANT: Wayne Poulton and Michael Meadowcroft

AGENT: RPS


SITE

The application relates to a long thin site (1.13 hectares) situated on the south side of Edge Lane in Stretford. It is bounded by the Altrincham to Manchester Metrolink line to the east and Bridgewater Canal to the west. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site is from Edge Lane, which is elevated at this point as it bridges over the metrolink and canal. The site measures approximately 500m in length and narrows from 38m in width at its northern end (adjacent to Edge Lane) to 13m in width at its southern end.

The site has historically been in industrial use, however it has been vacant since 2004. Five former industrial units, which previously stood on the site, have recently been demolished and the site has been cleared. Extensive areas of hardstanding remain and areas of vegetation have started to appear naturally. The surrounding area is characterised by a mixture of residential and commercial uses. To the east the area is generally residential, characterised by inter-war semi-detached properties. Beyond these to the south is Stretford Cemetery. To the west, the surrounding development is more mixed with a collection of light commercial units including a Royal Mail sorting office, Atlas Plumbing Centre and Ashton’s Tool Centre. To the south of these commercial units the area is characterised by post-war semi-detached and terraced residential properties. Stretford Metrolink Station is on the opposite side of Edge Lane and Stretford Town Centre extends to the west.

PROPOSAL

The application seeks outline consent, with approval sought for access only, for 107 residential dwellings, a café/restaurant (Class A3 unit measuring approximately 433 sq.m. gross internal), car parking, landscaping and the creation of boat moorings. This is an appropriate form of submission with subsequent reserved matters applications to be submitted for the external appearance, layout, scale and landscaping. However, illustrative Site Plans, Floor Plans and Elevations have been submitted to demonstrate how the proposed development could be accommodated on site.


The illustrative drawings indicate 7 separate residential blocks. The tallest block, situated adjacent to Edge Lane, would measure a maximum of 8 storeys in height and comprise a café/restaurant fronting Edge Lane and residential apartments. The development would decrease in height along its length, and the southernmost block would comprise 2 storey terraced housing (8 units). With the exception of these houses, the residential accommodation would comprise apartments (99 units).

The application also proposes to widen the existing access from Edge Lane from 4.5m to 5.5m. The proposed access road would extend in a southerly direction, parallel to the metrolink, and serve individual car parking courts which surround each block. The three blocks situated to the north of the site would also have ground floor car parking.

The development would retain a separation distance of approximately 4m from the back of the canal to provide a towpath along the length of the site. 14 boat moorings to the south of the site are also proposed.

The illustrative drawings submitted show that most of the trees within the site (other than those situated to the east of the site entrance and at its far southern end) would be removed to facilitate the development. Soft landscaping is indicated around each apartment block and the existing undeveloped woodland area to the southern end of the site would be retained and supplemented with additional planting.



PROPOSALS MAP NOTATION Wildlife CorridorArea for Improvement – Stretford Town Centre Inset Map

PRINCIPAL RELEVANT REVISED UDP POLICIES/ PROPOSALSH1- Land Release for New Housing DevelopmentH2 – Location and Phasing of New DevelopmentH4 – Development within the Urban AreaH5 – Large Sites Released for New Housing DevelopmentH6 – Release of Other Land for DevelopmentH10 – Affordable HousingD1 – All New DevelopmentD2 – Vehicle ParkingD3 – Residential Development OSR9 – Open Space in New Housing DevelopmentENV10 – Wildlife CorridorENV16 – Tree PlantingS8 – Development in Stretford Town Centre


None



The applicant has submitted a Planning Statement, Design and Access Statement, Noise and Groundbourne Vibration Assessment, Habitat Survey and Transport Assessment in support of the planning application. These can be summarised as follows:

The application site is suitable for residential development as all reasonable efforts have been made to try and find commercial occupants for the site and the proposed development would provide significant regeneration benefits for Stretford Town Centre;

The principle of an A3 unit is acceptable as the site is in a highly accessible location adjacent to Stretford Town Centre;

The development would have an impact on the Wildlife Corridor however this can be mitigated such that it would not prevent planning permission being granted;

The proposed 107 no. residential unit development can be accommodated on site without adverse effect on the Green Belt;

The site is well located, close to Stretford Metrolink Station and bus services in Stretford Town Centre;

The forecast levels of traffic movement are low and are not expected to result in a material impact on the local highway network;

The habitats contained within the site are of low quality to nature conservation. Green roofs and bird/bat boxes would mitigate against the loss of wooded areas on site.

CONSULTATIONS

6 letters of objection have been received from local residents. These can be summarised as follows:

Multi storey apartments would directly overlook gardens and interlook windows of properties to the east and west, resulting in a loss of privacy for existing residents;

The development would overshadow the surrounding area blocking sunlight to residential properties;

The café/restaurant proposed would introduce noise pollution late at night and would bring additional nuisance problems;

The application proposes the loss of a significant number of trees on site and loss of habitat;

The proposed apartments would generate significant levels of noise and disruption; The proposal would result in unacceptable levels of traffic congestion on the brow of

the hill on Edge Lane, particularly at rush hour and on match days; The general height and scale of development proposed is unacceptable in this

location.

Manchester Ship Canal Company – Raises the following concerns:

Demolition of the existing buildings on site has already taken place. Because of the proximity of the site to the Bridgewater Canal, the company would need to be satisfied that any contamination will be prevented from entering the canal;

Details of the foundations of the development where it runs alongside the canal are required to ensure it does not rely on the canal wall for support;

A method statement is required to show how the integrity of the canal wall will be maintained during the works and this should be agreed with the company

The plans do not show how surface water will be dealt with; There is no agreement in place with the Company to permit moorings along the canal

frontage; A method statement is required to show how canal users will be protected during the

works.


REPRESENTATIONS

LHA: Objects to the proposed development on highway safety grounds for the following reasons:

Transportation Assessment

It is noted that the peak usage for the café/restaurant is between the hours of 6pm and 8pm, which would result in 23 arrivals and 20 departures for this element of the development alone. A junction capacity assessment was undertaken using traffic flow counts from 2004. The calculations demonstrate that the access would operate within capacity and that there should only be five vehicles turning right out of the site access onto Edge Lane (a vehicle every 20 minutes in the am peak). However, the LHA are concerned that the calculations have shown that there will be 19 vehicles intending to turn right into the site in the pm peak, a vehicle every 3 minutes which due to the lack of formal right turn facilities within the highway layout would cause queuing back on the outside lane of Edge Lane to the detriment of highway safety.

Car and Cycle Parking

To meet the Council’s standards the provision of 1.5 car parking spaces per flat and 3 spaces per house is required (totaling 172 spaces for 107 units). However, given the location of the site and its proximity to public transport services, the LHA would accept one car parking space per flat and two spaces per house (totaling 115 spaces for 107 units). For the A3 restaurant/café unit the provision of 110 car parking spaces is required, based on 1 space per 4 sq m of public floorspace. Therefore, to meet the Council’s standards a total of 225 car parking spaces should be provided for this development. The Illustrative Site Plan submitted indicates 135 car parking spaces, with an element of this parking situated under the blocks that contain the café/restaurant and residential apartments. From the level of information provided, the LHA is unable to ascertain if the car parking for the residential element of the site would be appropriately located and would meet the standards for each element. Therefore, if the scheme is deemed to be acceptable in all other respects, further information should be sought from the applicant to clarify these concerns.

Although it is noted that there are pockets of cycle parking provision shown on the drawing there are no details regarding the level of parking provision found in each area. The Greater Manchester Cycle Parking Standards state there is a requirement to provide 22 secure lockers for the residential element of the development. There is also a requirement to provide 3 cycle parking spaces for the A3 use, mainly short stay for customers but also some long stay lockers for staff.

Servicing

No servicing plans have been provided with the proposals. The LHA believes this is a serious omission due to the narrow nature of the access road. The A3 unit would require daily servicing and emergency services could require access at all times. It is not felt that the current layout affords acceptable maneuvering space for refuse vehicles and fire engines to turn within the site and exit onto Edge Lane in a forward gear. In addition, Trafford Council’s current guidelines state that a secondary access is necessary where cul-de-sac lengths exceed 250m. The access road is approximately 450m in length and therefore the proposals would not provide appropriate access to emergency services.

Travel Plan


The Department for Transports Guidance on Transport Assessment states that for residential developments of over 80 units a travel plan is required. A Travel Plan is therefore required for this development.

Built Environment (Drainage) – No objection subject to conditions relating to drainage.

Renewal and Environmental Protection: Any comments will be included in the Additional Information Report.

Housing Strategy: Any comments will be included in the Additional Information Report.

Greater Manchester Polices Architectural Liaison Officer: Any comments will be included in the Additional Information Report.

GMPTE: Any comments will be included in the Additional Information Report.

Environment Agency: Object. The site is shown to lie within Zone 1 of the Environment Agency’s Flood Zone map and is over 1 hectare in size. Therefore in accordance with the Planning Policy Statement 25 the applicant should prepare and submit a Flood Risk Assessment for the site and this should be agreed before the application is determined.

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit: Any comments will be included in the Additional Information Report.

OBSERVATIONS


Loss of Employment Use

1. The site previously comprised 5 no. industrial buildings with surrounding hardstanding. However, it has been vacant since 2004 and the buildings have now been demolished. The applicant has submitted a Supporting Planning Statement which outlines the owner’s attempts to market the site for industrial purposes. This statement indicates that since 2004, expressions of interest have only been received from companies requiring open storage for plant and building materials. However, these did not lead to successful lettings due to concerns about vandalism and security on site. It is clear that the applicant has made substantial efforts to market the site for employment purposes and as it is not designated as employment land in the Revised Trafford UDP, the loss of this employment use is considered to be acceptable.

Housing Land Supply

2. The application proposes 107 no. residential units and as such would normally fall to be considered against the provisions of the Adopted SPG, ‘Controlling the Supply of Land Made Available for New Housing Development’. However, the Proposed Changes to the Regional Spatial Strategy published by the Secretary of State in March 2008 must now carry significant weight in the determination of planning applications, to the extent that they must take precedence both over the policies of the Adopted Regional Spatial Strategy (RPG13 - March 2003) and the interpretation and weight that can be given to the housing policies of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan (June 2006) and the Adopted SPG (September 2004).

3. With regard to new housing provision, Policy L4 of the Proposed Changes to the Regional Spatial Strategy significantly raise the annual average requirement figure for the Borough from a gross (including clearance replacement) figure of 310 dwellings a year to a gross figure of 618. Additionally, this requirement is expressly described as a


minimum figure. In relation to this new target requirement, therefore, the Council can no longer demonstrate that it has a ten year supply of land committed for new housing development across the Borough and therefore cannot apply the provisions of the SPG, ‘Controlling the Supply of Land Made Available for New Housing Development’, which explicitly states in Paragraph 4.1 that the implementation trigger for the SPG is, ‘when the number of new houses granted planning permission for development exceeds ten times the combined demographic need and clearance replacement requirements of RPG13’.

4. The relevant policies that can now be applied to this proposal are the Proposed Regional Spatial Strategy Policies MCR1 and MCR3, which make clear that new housing development proposals in sustainable locations well served by public transport should be allowed where they support local regeneration strategies and/or meet identified local needs.

5. The site is situated in a highly sustainable location in close proximity to Stretford Metrolink Station and bus services in Stretford Town Centre. As the application does not propose wholly affordable accommodation and would not meet any of the identified local housing needs outlined in Trafford’s Housing Market Assessment (September 2006) the Council must therefore assess whether the scheme, as proposed, would deliver sufficient regeneration benefits to warrant approval of planning permission.

6. The application site falls outside the boundaries of Stretford Town Centre (a designated Priority Regeneration Area), however the northern part of the site is identified as an ‘Area for Improvement’ on the Stretford Town Centre Inset Map. Policy S8 of the Revised Trafford UDP states that proposals for development of land between the metrolink line and the Bridgewater Canal that promote the improvement of the appearance and utility of the land will be favoured.

7. The scheme involves a high density residential development (107 no. residential units) within seven separate blocks, the tallest extending to 8 storeys in height. Whilst the application is made in outline and details of siting and external appearance are reserved at this stage, there are concerns about the scale of development proposed; the mix and type of residential units (expected to be predominantly apartments); and the likely provision of ground floor car parking to part of the development which would present blank frontages to the access road and Bridgewater Canal (these issues are discussed in more detail in the ‘Scale of Development’ section below).

8. Therefore, whilst the proposed development would bring this vacant and dilapidated site back into use, there are serious concerns that the development proposed would not deliver an appropriate regeneration scheme for the application site or the surrounding area. As such, the development as proposed would fail to comply with Policies MCR1 and MCR3 of the Proposed Changes to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West of Policy S8 of the Revised Trafford UDP.

Linkages to the Surrounding Area

9. This long linear development would be relatively isolated from the surrounding area and would be served by a single vehicular and pedestrian access off Edge Lane to the north. The illustrative drawings also indicate a pedestrian towpath along the edge of the canal, which extends the full length of the site. However, access through to the River Mersey to the south is restricted by intervening land in private ownership. The proposed towpath would not therefore continue beyond the end of the application site. However, accessibility along the canal edge to the south could be delivered in future and in the


meantime the towpath would provide access to the waterfront for future residents of the development.

Impact on Wildlife Corridor

10. The southern half of the site (approximately 210m in length) is designated as a Wildlife Corridor in the Revised Trafford UDP. Proposal ENV10 does not prevent new development within Wildlife Corridors but seeks to ensure that it contributes to their effectiveness whenever possible through appropriate siting, design of buildings and landscaping measures. The illustrative plans submitted indicate 1 no. four storey apartment block and 8 no. two storey terraced houses with associated car parking and access, on this part of the site. The far southern end (45m in length) is shown retained as landscaping and this area would be supplemented with new planting, providing amenity space for future residents of the development. Excluding this landscaped area, all trees, shrubs and grass on this part of the site would be removed. Only limited replacement soft landscaping is indicated and the development would primarily comprise residential buildings and hardstanding for the access road, car parking and towpath. The applicant justifies the loss of extensive tree cover on this part of the site, stating that it is largely self-seeded and does not connect to any habitat areas to the north. They also state that bat/bird boxes and green roofs could be agreed as part of the detailed development proposals.

11. Whilst it is recognised that the siting, design of buildings and landscaping is reserved for subsequent consideration, due to the density of development proposed and narrowness of this part of the site, there are concerns that the proposals would detrimentally affect the integrity of this part of the Wildlife Corridor. Trees on this part of the site provide important nesting opportunities for birds and bats and contrary to the applicant’s view, this part of the site is considered to be an important part of the Wildlife Corridor designation, linking the Bridgewater Canal with the Mersey Valley to the south and east. However, without full details of proposed habitat creation measures it is considered that it would be unreasonable to refuse the application on this basis.

Impact on Green Belt

12. The site adjoins the Green Belt to the south. Paragraph 3.15 of Planning Policy Guidance – ‘Green Belts’ (PPG2) states that the visual amenities of the Green Belt should not be injured by proposals for development within or conspicuous from it. The southernmost part of the development is shown landscaped and the development (as indicated) would decrease in height to two storeys at its southern end. Higher development proposed to the north of the site would be seen within the context of Stretford Town Centre and would be a substantial distance from the Green Belt. On this basis it is considered that the scale and type of development proposed would not unduly affect the visual amenities of the Green Belt and is considered to be acceptable in this respect.

SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT

13. As the application is submitted in outline, with approval sought only for access, any comments on the design of the development are necessarily limited at this stage. However, elevation drawings and computer generated images (submitted for illustrative purposes only) indicate a substantial development of 107 residential units in seven separate blocks of between 2 and 8 storeys in height. A small café/restaurant also forms part of the development proposals adjacent to Edge Lane. These fundamental principles will determine the overall extent and mass of the development and the associated regeneration benefits.


14. Planning Policy Statement – ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ (PPS1) seeks to promote more efficient use of land through higher density, mixed use development and the use of suitably located previously developed land. Whilst it is recognised that this previously developed site is situated in a highly sustainable location, there are concerns that the scale of development proposed would dominate Edge Lane and the Bridgewater Canal, particularly to the north of the site, where the development would extend up to a maximum of 8 storeys in height.

15. This site occupies an extremely prominent position to the east of Stretford Town Centre, fronting Edge Lane and the Bridgewater Canal. Whilst the site is set lower than Edge Lane, at least six storeys of this eight storey development would still extend higher, in an area which is characterised by predominantly two/three storey developments. The development would also dominate and have an overbearing appearance on the adjoining Bridgewater Canal and metrolink line.

16. Furthermore, the scale of development proposed and site coverage of hardstanding (for car parking and access) would result in a scheme which has an unduly cramped appearance and this is emphasised by the poor level of amenity space and landscaping proposed around each of the blocks and the provision of several levels of undercroft car parking providing blank frontages to the access road and Bridgewater Canal.

17. It is therefore considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that a development of this scale and density could be appropriately accommodated on site without undue harm on the character of the surrounding area. On this basis, the application is recommended for refusal.

NOISE AND VIBRATION

18. Residential apartments and terraced housing within the development would be situated adjacent to the metrolink line, separated from it by only an internal access road. The applicant has submitted a Noise and Vibration Assessment which assumes that the closest building façade would be 15m from the tram line. The assessment demonstrates that the possibility of resulting human annoyance and or building damage to the proposed development is likely to be of ‘low probability’. Whilst the Council’s Renewal and Environmental Department had not provided any comments at the time the report to committee was prepared, it is not uncommon for developments to be located in close proximity to the metrolink line and it is envisaged that any adverse impacts could be appropriately addressed with attenuation measures. Any comments received will however be included in the Additional Information Report.


19. Residential amenity will be an important consideration of future reserved matters planning applications. However, as approval is sought for a high density scheme comprising 107 no. residential units, its potential impact on residential amenity within the development and the surrounding area must be considered at this stage.

20. The illustrative plans and elevations submitted indicate a double fronted development with main habitable room windows and balconies overlooking the Bridgewater Canal (to the west) and metrolink line (to the east). However, some apartment blocks within the development also have main habitable room windows and balconies on the north and south elevations, with interlooking distances of between 11m and 39m. The Council’s Planning Guidelines ‘New Residential Development’ states that the minimum distance between main habitable room windows across a public highway for developments over


3 storeys should be 24m. As the plans and elevations submitted are only illustrative, it is considered that the development could be appropriately redesigned to restrict interlooking between apartments within the development.

21. The surrounding residential development is characterised by tight-knit terraced and

semi-detached housing. To the east, properties on Rokeby Avenue, Maple Avenue and Larch Avenue would be separated from the development by a distance of approximately 38m. Whilst the development complies with the Council’s privacy guidelines in this respect, the development due to its height (up to 8 storeys) and mass would have a considerably overbearing impact on the occupants of these two storey properties. Furthermore a large proportion of trees along the eastern boundary of the site are likely to be removed, which would further increase the dominance of the development for the surrounding residential properties.

22. Further south, four storey residential apartment blocks would also be situated in close proximity (32m) to semi-detached residential properties on Cooper Street and Crossford Street, on the opposite side of the Bridgewater Canal. The towpath along the western side of the canal is extremely narrow at this point and there are no trees to screen the application proposals from these properties. The proposed development, whilst lower in height at this point, would also appear overbearing to the occupants of these properties.

23. As such, it is considered that the scale of development proposed would result in a development which would have a significantly overbearing impact on occupants of the surrounding residential properties. As such the development is contrary to Proposals D1 and D3 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan, and the Council's approved Planning Guidelines 'New Residential Development'.

AMENITY SPACE

24. The illustrative plans and elevations show amenity space within the development would be provided on the apartment balconies and in a wooded area to the south of the site, situated adjacent to the Bridgewater Canal. There are concerns that the amenity space to the south of the site, due to its location would fail to meet the needs of occupants at the northern end of the development. However, without full details of siting and layout it is considered that it would be unreasonable to refuse the development on this basis at this stage.

PARKING FACILITIES AND ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS

25. Government guidance in PPS3 and PPG13 emphasises the Government’s aim to reduce the need to travel and to make use of alternative means of transport other than the motor car. PPS3 requires parking policies to be framed with good design in mind, recognising that car ownership varies with income, age, household type and its location. Parking requirements are not to be expressed as minimum standards and Local Authorities are urged to allow for significantly lower levels of off-street parking provision, particularly for developments in locations where services are readily accessible by walking, cycling or public transport.

26. The application site is well served by public transport facilities. Stretford Metrolink Station to the north provides regular tram services to Manchester, Bury and Altrincham; bus stops on Edge Lane and Chester Road provide frequent bus services to Manchester, Altrincham, Urmston, Flixton, Stockport and the surrounding area and the site is readily accessible to anyone walking or cycling. The proposal is therefore situated within a highly sustainable location in accordance with the aims of PPG13.


27. 135 car parking spaces are proposed in undercroft car parking and around each of the apartment blocks/houses. The LHA has raised concerns about the distribution and level of car parking proposed on site, and further information should be provided by the applicant to demonstrate that the development would not result in on-street parking in the surrounding area.

28. Notwithstanding this, the LHA has serious concerns regarding traffic movements associated by the development and its potential impact on the surrounding highway network. In particular, the applicant’s Transport Assessment identifies a high number of right turning vehicles into the site in the pm peak (a vehicle every 3 minutes). With a lack of formal right turn facilities on Edge Lane there are concerns that the proposed development would result in queuing in the outside lane of Edge Lane to the detriment of highway safety. The LHA also expressed serious concerns regarding the access road layout and servicing arrangements for the site. On this basis the application is recommended for refusal.

FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS

29. Financial contributions associated with the development should be sought towards the Red Rose Forest; Outdoor Sports and Play Space Facilities; and Highway Network and Public Transport Facilities in accordance with the Council’s Adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance and Supplementary Planning Document. On-site Affordable Housing should also be provided in accordance with the Council’s Policies in the Revised Trafford UDP and Adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance. If committee members resolve to grant planning permission, these matters should be secured through a S106 legal agreement.

CONCLUSION

30. It is considered that the proposed development, due to its scale and density would result in overdevelopment of the site, a scheme which is out of character with the surrounding area and which dominates the surrounding residential properties. Furthermore, the access arrangements are considered to be inadequate and would lead to highway safety concerns. The applicant has also failed to demonstrate that the development would deliver sufficient regeneration benefits over and above the development of this vacant former industrial site to warrant approval of planning permission. It is therefore considered that the scheme would not comply with the relevant policies of the Revised Trafford UDP, the Proposed Changes to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West or the Council’s approved Planning Guidelines relating to New Residential Development. As such the application is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE, for the following reasons:

1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not constitute overdevelopment of the site, which is out of character with the scale and density of the surrounding development and would result in too great a coverage of hardstanding to the detriment of the character and visual appearance of the streetscene and the surrounding area. The scale and density of development is also likely to have an overbearing impact on and result in overlooking and a loss of amenity to neighbouring residents. As such the proposal is contrary to Proposals D1 and D3 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan, and the Council's approved Planning Guidelines 'New Residential Development'.

2. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would deliver appropriate regeneration benefits for the site or the surrounding area and as such the development would be contrary to Policies MCR1 and MCR3 of the Proposed


Changes to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West and Policies of the Revised Trafford UDP.

3. The proposed development, due to the scale and mix of development proposed would generate unacceptable levels of traffic at the site access on Edge Lane to the detriment of highway safety. The internal access arrangements would also fail to provide appropriate servicing and emergency access for future occupants of the development. As such the proposed development would be contrary to Proposals D1 and D2 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.

VM


WARD: Ashton on Mersey

H/69282 DEPARTURE: NO

ERECTION OF 5 NO. 2.4M HIGH ALLEY GATES

Land to the rear/side of 1 Derby Road – 48 Green Lane, 23 Derby Road – 73 Church Lane, 2 Derby Road – 46 Green Lane, 20 Field Road, 1 Field Road – 34 Green Lane, Sale.

APPLICANT: Trafford Partnership Support Unit (GMP)

AGENT: N/A


SITE

The area is characterised by traditional, mainly two-storey late nineteenth and early twentieth century terraced housing. The alleyways are mainly surfaced in tarmac and hard-standing and provide pedestrian access to the rear yards of the residential properties.

The application site consists of a number of alleyways to the rear of terraced properties within the areas defined by Green Lane, Derby Road, and Field Road. These passageways have been identified by the applicant to offer opportunities for criminal activity and associated anti-social behaviour. Five individual locations have been selected for closure by gates:

Between the rear elevation of No.48 Green Lane and adjacent to the side elevation of No.1 Derby Road (Reference 1A);

Adjacent to the side elevation of No.23 Derby Road (Reference 1B); Between the rear elevation of No.44 Green Lane and No.2 Derby Road

(Reference 2A); Between the rear elevation of No.34 Green Lane and the side elevation of No.1

Field Road (Reference 2B); Between the rear elevations of No. 21/23 Field Road and No.20 Derby Road.

PROPOSAL

The application proposes 5 No. 2.4m high metal gates to be erected within the alleyways in the above area. The gates would be erected in association with the Trafford Borough Council Gating Order No. 4.

The gateposts would be 2.1m high, with the gates being of a curved design and rising to a height of 2.4m at the centre. Each gate width would vary depending on the width of the alleyway. The gates are intended to be key locked, keeping the pathways as secure as possible. Each household backing onto the alleyways would be issued with a key to the gates.





None


D1 – All New Development


None

CONSULTATIONS

Greater Manchester Police (Architectural Liaison Unit) raised the following comments:

- The gates should be self closing which automatically locks when the gate is closed;- The gates should be located at the ends of alleys so if somebody tries to climb over

they can be seen from the street;- There should be no centrally located horizontal bars to aid climbing, nor any low

walls, to aid somebody trying to climb the gates. - The gate should be robust and easy to maintain.

Local Highways Authority – No objections raised on highway grounds.

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter of objection has been received from the owner/occupier of No.73 Church Lane, Sale, raising the following (summarised) concerns:

- Wheelie bins accumulate at the end of Derby Road some of which are left in the alley ways restricting access to the rear of properties. Fly tipping is also reported as being a particular problem. It is feared that the gates would be left unlocked by residents.

OBSERVATIONS


1. The proposed development will provide much greater security to the rear of the houses on Derby Road and Field Road and is part of a wider alley gating initiative across Greater Manchester that is supported by Greater Manchester Police.

2. The routes between these streets are not considered to be of strategic importance in terms of permeability through the residential area and there are alternative routes available, which would not require a major detour. The issue of closure of the public rights of way over the alley ways has already been dealt with by legal process through the Highways Act and whilst some objections were made at that stage, they were not considered of sufficient weight to resist the closure.

3. It is considered that, having regard to the foregoing issues, the gating of the alley ways is acceptable in principle.

VISUAL AMENITY


4. The planning application is required to consider the impact of the gates in the street scene and on the amenity of the area. The proposed gates would be in the form of metal railings that are designed with a curved top and would vary in height between 2.0m at the gate posts and 2.4m at the centre. Whilst this is higher than would normally be acceptable in the context of householder applications, it is considered that this design is acceptable within the context of the alley gating scheme (where security is a key concern) and given the simple but attractive design which allows views through into the alleys. A reduced height gate would reduce its ability to counter the effects of crime and anti social behaviour given that they would be easier to climb over.

5. It is considered that, subject to a condition to control the details of the materials and the colour of the railings, the proposed development would be acceptable in visual terms and in keeping with the traditional character of the area.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

6. It is considered that the scheme will be beneficial in terms of residential amenity, providing greater security to the rear of the dwellings.

CRIME REDUCTION AND COMMUNITY SAFETY

7. GM Police has been involved previously in commenting on the design and size of gates that are necessary to make it as difficult as possible for anyone to gain access to the gated area or to ensure that persons attempting to gain access can be seen by the general public. The gates that are proposed are of this standard design which has been used in other similar proposals within the Greater Manchester Area.

8. The Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit has raised no objections to the proposed development, however, they have suggested that the gates should be self-closing which cannot be left unlocked when shut, located at the end of alleyways, have no horizontal bars in a central position within the gate, and should be easy to maintain. The applicant has confirmed that the gates will not be self locking when closed, as this locking mechanism on double gates is weaker. However, as it is expected that residents would keep the gates locked in the interests of their own security, it is considered that the development is appropriate in terms of designing out crime.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

8. The LHA has raised no objections. The roads are not particularly busy and, in most cases, there are parked cars within the vicinity of the gates and therefore a vehicle standing in front of the gates is unlikely to block the flow of traffic. It is therefore considered that it would not be appropriate to require a 5 metre set back to the gates. A condition is attached to ensure that they do not open out over the highway.

CONCLUSION

9. It is considered that the erection of the gates would have a beneficial impact in terms of crime reduction and community safety and would be in keeping with the visual appearance and character of the area. It is recommended that planning permission be granted.



2. Standard Time Limit3. Prior to installation, gates to be powder coated black (RAL 9005) unless

agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.4. The gates shall not open out over the public highway.5. Amended plans (received 14th May 2008)

ML



Car Park

PC's

12

Warehouse

Stone

Court

Posts

LB

Chapel

22.3m

PC's

Garage

23.5m

TCB

PH

23.2m

PH

Car Park

Dinglehurst

#

#

)

))

)

)



WARD: Brooklands H/69294 DEPARTURE: No

ERECTION OF PART SINGLE-STOREY AND PART TWO-STOREY SIDE EXTENSION AND TWO-STOREY REAR EXTENSION TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL LIVING ACCOMMODATION

40 Langdale Road, Sale

APPLICANT: Mr. Colin Cunningham

AGENT: Mr. D. Curran

RECOMMENDATION: Grant

This application has been brought before the Planning Committee for determination as the applicant is an employee of the Council.

SITE

The application site comprises a two-storey, semi-detached house fronting Langdale Road which is within a residential area of Sale. The property has an existing side single garage and a rear single-storey extension (built under permitted development rights). There is a driveway to the front of the house that can accommodate one car.

PROPOSAL

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a part single-storey and part two-storey side extension, following the demolition of the existing side garage, and a two-storey rear extension. The proposed single-storey extension would be set back 0.4m from the front main wall of the house in order to accommodate two vehicle spaces to the front of the house. The proposed two-storey side extension would be set back 2m from the front main wall of the house and would have a hipped roof with the ridge set lower than the main roof of the house. The single-storey side extension would have a length of 10.6m and the two-storey 9m, both would measure 3.1m in width. The proposed two-storey rear extension would extend 3m from the main rear wall of the house and would be 3.25m from the shared boundary with the adjoining semi at no.38 Langdale Road. This part of the proposed extension would extend to meet the existing single-storey extension at the property.

There would be windows/doors in the front and rear elevations of the proposed extensions, also a ground floor window leading to a W.C. in the side elevation facing the adjacent no.42 Langdale Road.

The proposal includes parking for two cars within the front boundary of the site along with the retention of existing boundary landscaping.





No notation.


D1 – All New DevelopmentD2 – Vehicle ParkingD6 - House Extensions


None.

CONSULTATIONS

Built Environment – No objections subject to drainage details.

REPRESENTATIONS

Two letters have been received from neighbouring properties:-

1) One letter is from the adjacent neighbour at no.42 Langdale Road stating they have no general objections to the proposed development, but would like confirmation that the existing boundary wooden fence (on no.42’s land) would be retained and the gable wall of the proposed extension would not encroach onto no.42’s land.

(N.B. In response to these comments, the plan submitted with the planning application shows that the existing boundary fence between nos.40 & 42 is to be retained; also Certificate A has been submitted which indicates that all development will be carried out on the applicant’s land (at no.40) and there will be no encroachment onto no.42’s land).

2) The second letter is from the adjoining neighbour at no.38 Langdale Road objecting to the rear extension (and not the side extension) on the grounds that it is a little excessive in size and may need reducing; would be over-domineering; the visibility and daylight to the lounge and bedroom windows would be dramatically reduced; not in keeping with the neighbourhood; may result in parking problems.

OBSERVATIONS

PRINCIPLE

1. In principle this proposal, for an extension to an existing dwelling within a residential area of Sale, is acceptable.

STREET SCENE

2. The first floor of the proposed two-storey side extension would be set back 2m from the front main wall of the house and therefore would not result in a terracing effect within this residential road of semi-detached properties. The hipped roof design matches that of the existing house and the fenestration is also acceptable. As such this part of the proposal complies with Proposals D1 and D6 of the UDP and the Council’s ‘House Extension’ guidelines.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY


3. The adjoining semi-detached house at no.38 Langdale Road has an existing single-storey rear kitchen extension set approximately 3m away from the shared boundary with no.40. The proposed two-storey rear extension at no.40 would extend 3m from the main rear wall of the house and would be 3.25m from the shared boundary with no.38. In this respect, the proposal complies with the Council’s ‘House Extension’ guidelines with regard to rear extensions and, although there may be some limited additional impact in terms of overshadowing, it is considered that, given the distance between the extension and the boundary, this would not have an unduly detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the occupiers of no.42.

4. The adjacent property at no.42 Langdale Road has a (sole) first floor bedroom window in its side elevation, towards the front of the property, facing the side of the application property. However, the first floor of the proposed extension would be set back 2m from the front main wall of the house and therefore the side bedroom window at no.42 would still look out onto the existing wall at no.40 and not the wall of the proposed two-storey extension. No.42 also has a side kitchen window facing the application property however, the main window leading to that kitchen is on the rear elevation of the house and therefore the proposed two-storey side extension would not unduly overshadow that habitable room. As such it is considered that the two-storey side extension would not be visually intrusive to the occupiers of no.42. The length of projection of the proposed two-storey rear extension meets the required standards of the ‘House Extension’ guidelines with regard to the proximity to no.42 Langdale Road. Also the proposal meets the standards with regard to window to private garden distances (10.5m recommended and 13m provided as part of this proposal). However, should planning permission be granted it is recommended that a condition be attached requiring the side ground floor window be obscure glazed, also a condition stating there should be no further windows in the south-west elevation and no windows in the north-east elevation.

PARKING

5. The proposed extensions would result in a semi-detached house with 4 bedrooms (formerly 3) and therefore the suggested parking guideline in the Revised UDP in these circumstances is for three cars. Nevertheless, national planning policy guidance suggests that such guidelines should not be expressed as minimum standards and that lower levels of parking provision should be accepted in sustainable locations that are accessible by public transport. The proposal includes provision for two cars within the frontage of the site along with the retention of existing planting. Given the location of this property within close proximity of a major bus route on Washway Road the provision of two parking spaces is considered to be appropriate.

CONCLUSION

6. In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed single and two-storey side extension and the two-storey rear extension would be acceptable in the street scene and would not be unduly detrimental to the residential amenity of the occupiers of the adjoining property at no.38 Langdale Road or the adjacent property at no.42 or to the properties at the rear. As such it is considered that the proposal complies with Proposals D1, D2 and D6 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s ‘House Extension’ guidelines and therefore it is recommended that planning permission be granted.



1) Standard time limit2) Matching materials3) Two parking spaces to be provided within the site with associated landscaping4) Obscured glazing to window in south-west elevation5) No further windows/doors in the south-west or north-east elevations

AC



23.8m

Surgery

#



WARD: Bowdon H/LPA/69329 DEPARTURE: No

ERECTION OF NEW DOUBLE MODULAR CLASSROOM

Bollin Primary School, Apsley Grove, Bowdon




SITE

The school is located in a residential area at the end of Aspley Grove.

PROPOSAL

The proposal is to erect a modular pre-fabricated building of approximately 173 square metres. It would consist of two classrooms with associated toilet facilities and cloakroom. As submitted the application indicated that the building would be erected on the playground area. It is now proposed to erect it on the sloping grassed area adjacent to the playground. The rear of the building will be supported on concrete slabs to create a level site.


The Revised Trafford UDP was formally adopted on 19 June 2006. This, together with Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West (RSS13), now forms the Development Plan for the Borough of Trafford.


None


D1 – All new developmentD2 – Vehicle ParkingENV4 – Trees, Hedgerows and Woodlands


H/58243 Single storey infill extension to front elevation of primary school Granted January 2004H/LPA/64225 Erection of new steel railings and gate Granted 16/06/06



The Local Authority has a general duty under s.14 of the Education Act 1996 to secure available places in its area sufficient in number and character and equipment to provide for all pupils in the borough. It is for the Local Authority to take every statutory step to overcome any obstacles to ensure the fulfilment of this duty. Alongside this duty is the duty to enable parents of a child in an area to express a preference as to the school they would like their child to be educated.

This year, September 2008, some 27 children were not allocated a place in a primary school. In September 2007, a similar situation occurred and additional capacity was provided by an extra class of 30 pupils at Bollin Primary School. Similarly, this year, following consideration of the where the families live without a school place, the capacity, and opportunity to realistically increase the capacity in other schools to fulfill the Councils duties it was decided that an additional class of 30 would be provided at Bollin Primary School. This allows all but 4 of these 27 children to be allocated a place at a school of their choice.

To accommodate the additional class the proposal is to erect a modular pre-fabricated building of approximately 173 square metres. Due to the increased numbers of Reception age Children expected at the school in September ’08, it is proposed that a new 2 Classroom demountable unit, delivered and installed ready for Sept. ’08, is the most sensible and practical solution to alleviate the problem in the short term.

The intention is to make the facility as user friendly and equally accessible for both able-bodied and disabled users.

In the future it is proposed that a new build extension and internal modifications to the existing school be planned to ensure that there are adequate primary places in the Altrincham area for the long term.

Following the future expansion it is possible that the mobile would be then used as the new location for the pre and after school clubs, but this would again, be subject to further consultations.

CONSULTATIONS

LHA - I have been informed that the school currently has 13 teachers, 5 teaching assistants and 3 non teaching staff (a total of 21). The new mobile classroom would mean that 2 additional staff could be employed from September 2008.

A site visit has confirmed that the parking area currently provided for the school is not sufficient for the existing number of staff on site as double parking was evident in the car park and additional parking on-street in close proximity to the school. In addition a further class of children will bring additional loading and unloading pressures on Apsley Grove which is already very congested at school times.

Therefore, whilst the proposals are acceptable, I would like to see the existing school travel plan updated with further measures to encourage sustainable transport to school such as a regular walking bus facility and cycle facilities for both staff and students. If additional car parking cannot be provided then staff should be encouraged to travel by sustainable modes as part of the travel plan using facilities such as car sharing and improved cycling facilities.Renewal and Environmental Protection – The application site is situated on brownfield land as such, they recommend that conditions, reasons and notes be attached regarding the carrying out of a contaminated land Phase I report to assess the actual/potential contamination risks at the site and a Phase II investigation including remediation measures if necessary.

Built Environment (Highways) – no comment


Built Environment (Drainage) – make comments regarding considering a Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDs) / disposal at source solution to dealing with surface water run off arising from the developmentSport England – It is understood that the site forms part of, or constitutes, a playing field as defined in the 1996 Statutory Instrument No.1817, in that it is on land that has been used as a playing field within the last five years, and the field encompasses at least one playing pitch of 0.4 ha or more.

Sport England has therefore considered the application in the light of its playing fields policy. The aim of this policy is to ensure that there is an adequate supply of quality pitches to satisfy the current and estimated future demand for pitch sports within the area. The policy seeks to protect all parts of the playing field from development and not just those which, for the time being, are laid out as pitches. The Policy states that;

“ Sport England will oppose the granting of planning permission for any development which would lead to the loss of, or would prejudice the use of, all or any part of a playing field, or land last used as a playing field or allocated for use as a playing field in an adopted or draft deposit local plan, unless, in the judgement of Sport England, one of the Specific circumstances applies.”

Reason; Development which would lead to the loss of all or part of a playing field, or which would prejudice its use, should not normally be permitted because it would permanently reduce the opportunities for participation in sporting activities. Government planning policy and the policies of Sport England have recognised the importance of such activities to the social an economic well-being of the country.

The proposed development is for a double modular classroom located on the edge of the playing field adjacent to the existing hard standing area. Given that the land is sloping and the development would not impact on the playing pitch, Sport England are satisfied that the development meets exception E3 of the above playing fields policy, in that:

The proposed development affects only land incapable of forming, or forming part of, a playing pitch, and does not result in the loss of or inability to make use of any playing pitch (including the maintenance and adequate safety margins), a reduction in the size of the playing area of any playing pitch or the loss of any other sporting/ancillary facilities on site.

Given the above, Sport England does not wish to raise an objection to this application.

REPRESENTATIONS

Neighbours: letters of objection have been received from 11 properties. They raise the following concerns:

Additional traffic on access roads - Vale Road is narrow, windy, has no pavement in places and is already in poor condition.

Parking -Residents already experience problems getting in and out of driveways due to cars parking in front of or directly opposite driveways. Greater parking provision should be made.

Out of scale – The proposed expansion of the school is on too large a scale.

Visual amenity - The site is out of keeping with the open plan views to the side of the school.


Loss of playground - The proposal would result in the loss of an area of playground at a time when the public is becoming increasingly aware of the necessity for children to remain active.

Facilities inadequate – the school hall and staff room facilities would become inadequate for a larger number of pupils

Alternatives – other schools would be better placed to admit an additional class.

OBSERVATIONS

1. The proposed building is urgently required to provide accommodation for the additional children who will be starting in September 2008. The principle issues are the impact on the visual amenity and the increase in traffic and parking.

2. Although the building will be located on an open area and will inevitably have some impact on the openness of the area, the building will be located close to the existing school buildings. The building will now be located further than initially proposed from Apsley Grove and this will reduce the impact. The revised location will also overcome concerns regarding the loss of part of the existing playground.

3. Seven small trees will be removed as a result of the proposal and if the application is approved it is suggested that a condition require replacement planting in locations to be agreed by the Council.

4. The building will be located a minimum of 66m from adjoining residential properties. It will not therefore have an undue impact on light or be detrimental to the outlook of nearby properties.

5. It would appear that Apsley Grove is already very congested at school times. The LHA has, however, not objected to the application and any additional problems caused by an increase in the numbers of staff and children could in part be addressed by the formulation and operation of an effective Travel Plan. The existing Travel Plan could be updated with further measures to encourage sustainable transport to school such as a regular walking bus facility and cycle facilities for both staff and students. If additional car parking cannot be provided then staff should be encouraged to travel by sustainable modes as part of the Travel Plan using facilities such as car sharing and improved cycling facilities. It is therefore suggested that a recommendation to approve the application should be accompanied by a condition requiring the submission of a revised Travel Plan taking into account the increase in the number of children.


1. Amended plans

2. Before the building is brought into use a revised Travel Plan taking into account any increase in school admissions shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The revised Travel Plan shall be implemented to an agreed timetable and thereafter shall continue to be implemented throughout a period of 10 (ten) years commencing on the date of first occupation.


Reason: To reduce car travel to and from the site in the interests of residential amenity and highway safety, having regard to Proposal D1 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.

3. Seven replacement trees of a species, nursery stock size and siting to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority shall be planted on the site during the first available planting season following the erection of the classroom building.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and having regard to proposals D1 and ENV4 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.

4. Temporary permission for a period of five years

CMR



10

4

14

2

19

BOLLIN SQUAREBOLLIN SQUAREBOLLIN SQUAREBOLLIN SQUAREBOLLIN SQUAREBOLLIN SQUAREBOLLIN SQUAREBOLLIN SQUAREBOLLIN SQUARE

3

BOLLIN COURTBOLLIN COURTBOLLIN COURTBOLLIN COURTBOLLIN COURTBOLLIN COURTBOLLIN COURTBOLLIN COURTBOLLIN COURT

The Vale

Glendarcel

Recreation Ground

28

6

5

30

6

8

11

12

6

2

County Primary SchoolThe Bollin

15

Vale

Meadowside

Heathwood

20

Pendle

CottageEl Sub Sta



pdc agenda item 8 - applications for permission to … · web viewthe predominant materials are red...

Documents