Public Document Pack

Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel

Dear Member, You are invited to attend the meeting of the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel to be held as follows for the transaction of the business indicated. David Wilcock Monitoring Officer

DATE: Thursday, 27 May 2021

TIME: 9.30 am

VENUE: Two New Bailey Square, New Bailey Street, Salford, M3 5EN

In accordance with ‘The Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014,’ the press and public have the right to film, video, photograph or record this meeting. This meeting will be live-streamed. https://www.salford.gov.uk/your-council/watch-live-council-meetings/

Members attending this meeting with a personal interest in an item on the agenda must disclose the existence and nature of that interest and, if it is a prejudicial interest, withdraw from the meeting during the discussion and voting on the item.

There may be a break for Panel Members, the time of which will be determined during the meeting.

The items for consideration may not be heard in the order listed below.

AGENDA

GUIDANCE FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON THE RETURN (Pages 1 - 2) TO FACE TO FACE COUNCIL MEETINGS FROM 7 MAY 2021 Please see the attached guidance document on the arrangements for the return to face to face meetings. This guidance includes information about the venue, the control measures in place, COVID19 lateral flow tests and travel options.

1 Apologies for Absence.

2 The Panel is asked to consider whether it agrees to the inclusion of the items listed in Parts 1 and 2 of the agenda.

3 Declarations of Interest.

4 To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held (Pages 3 - 8) on 1 April 2021.

5 Planning Applications and related Development Control Issues. (Pages 9 - 14)

5a 21/76869/FUL - 69 Alexandra Road, Eccles M30 7HH (Pages 15 - 22)

5b 20/75685/FUL - Land East Of Irlam Wharf Road, Irlam M44 5BP (Pages 23 - 46)

5c 21/76720/FUL - 301 Walkden Road, Worsley M28 2RZ (Pages 47 - 58)

6 Planning Applications determined under Delegated Authority. (Pages 59 - 164)

7 Planning Appeals. (Pages 165 - 204)

8 Urgent Business.

9 Exclusion of the Public.

10 Part 2 - Closed to the Public.

11 Urgent Business.

Contact Officer: Tel 0161 793 2602 No: Claire Edwards, Democratic Services E-Mail: [email protected]

Agenda Annex The return to face to face council meetings from 7th May 2021

The temporary regulations enabling remote meetings expired on 7 May 2021 and the Government now requires that we hold meetings of the full council, Cabinet, committees, panels and boards (that are open to the public) have to be held in public so members of the public can attend in person.

A tremendous effort has gone into trying to ensure that any council meetings taking place in person will be held in a COVID-19 secure environment. Your safety is our upmost priority, whilst also supporting transparency, accountability and effective decision making.

The venue for face to face meetings All the formal council meetings to the end of June will take place at Two New Bailey, New Bailey Street, Salford, as this is the most appropriate, suitably sized venue available to the city council, where meetings can take place in a COVID-secure way.

COVID-secure face to face meetings Listed below are some of the control measures that we have had to put in place at the meetings to minimise the risk of the transmission of the virus. It is very important that all persons attending the meetings comply with the following.

1. Please arrive at least 20 minutes before the start of the meeting to allow for controlled access to the building and meeting space. 2. A marshal will be onsite to greet you and will escort you to the meeting. 3. The meeting will be run in line with Government guidance, and using the principle of ‘hands, face and space’. Therefore, you are asked to regularly wash and sanitise your hands, wear a face covering at all times unless you hold a medical exemption, and please maintain a two metre distance from others at all times whilst in the building. 4. Movement around the meeting spaces will be kept to an absolute minimum with pre-defined entrances and exits (the marshal onsite will cover this in more detail with you when you arrive). 5. A vital element of our COVID-secure plans is that everyone attending should complete a COVID-19 lateral flow home tests three days before the meeting and on the morning of the meeting:

• You can collect or order the home testing kits by: o Ordering a box of test kits to be delivered to your home o Collecting a box of test kits from a local collection point

• If you test positive before or on the day you were meant to attend the meeting under no circumstances should you attend, please email your apologies to Democratic Services of your [email protected]

• If your lateral flow test is positive you will then need to book a complementary PCR Test and follow national guidance on self-isolating.

6. Despite all the COVID-secure measures we have put in place there remains a residual risk and coronavirus can make anyone seriously ill. For some of you the risk is higher, particularly if… • you are clinically extremely vulnerable or if they are at significant risk

Committee Services, Governance and Legal. 13Page.05.21 1 • you have one or more health conditions as a number of risk factors may interact as well as health conditions.

You may wish to take medical advice about your particular circumstances, if either of the above applies to you before you make a decision about attending face to face meetings.

Travelling to Two New Bailey • By bike: A cycle store available on ground floor and security will provide access when required. • By train: Salford Central Station is a couple of minutes’ walk from the building. • By bus: There are many buses that stop on New Bailey Street and Bridge Street and this includes the following bus services – 34, 34a, 36, 37, 38, and 67. • By tram: The Metrolink from Eccles stops at St Peter’s Square and the building is a 10 to 15 minutes’ walk from the tram stop. • By car Car parking is available at: New Bailey MSCP Irwell Street, Salford M3 5EN (For your Sat Nav use M3 5AY Depending on when your Sat Nav was last updated it may not recognise the full postcode so you would be advised to use the directions facility on the Google Maps app) This car park is next to the building and has accessible parking.

Committee Services, Governance and Legal. Page13.05.21 2 Agenda Item 4 Planning & Transportation Regulatory Panel

Thursday 1st April 2021 – via MS Teams Live

Meeting commenced: 9:30 a.m. “ adjourned: 11:10 a.m. “ reconvened: 11:25 a.m. “ adjourned: 12:20 p.m. “ reconvened: 12:25 p.m. “ ended: 12:50 p.m.

Present: Councillor Mashiter - in the Chair

Councillors Antrobus, Burch, Clarke, Dawson, K. Garrido, McCusker, and N. Reynolds.

Councillor Dickman in respect of the following applications: o 20/76350/FUL (14 How Clough Drive, Worsley M28 3FS) o 2020/00553/TPO (Three Sisters, Chatsworth Road, Eccles)

Councillor Nelson in respect of the following applications: o 20/76070/FUL (Site at Mocha Parade, Lower Broughton Road, Salford M7 1QE) o 20/75774/FUL (Land Formerly 58 Liverpool Road, Cadishead M44 5AF) o 21/76896/FUL (17 Allenby Road, Cadishead, Irlam M44 5EA)

A list of registered speakers who made representations to the Panel in respect of the applications considered under Item 5 (Minute 8) is included at Appendix A.

1. Welcome and Apologies for Absence

The Chair welcomed those present and outlined the procedure for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Linden, Morris, Sharpe, Walker and Warmisham.

2. Former Councillor Alan Clague

The Chair made reference to former councillor Alan Clague who had recently sadly passed away and had been the previous Chair of the Panel between 2005 and 2012. The Chair paid personal tribute to Alan and extended his condolences, on behalf of the panel, to his family. Members paid their respects to Alan and expressed their sadness at his passing.

3. Councillors Richard Critchley, Laura Edwards and Charlie McIntyre – Forthcoming Retirement as Elected Members

The Chair referred to the forthcoming retirement of former panel members Councillors Critchley, Edwards and McIntyre. He expressed his thanks, on behalf of the panel, for their previous service and wished them well for the future.

4. Councillor Derek Antrobus – Forthcoming Retirement as an Elected Member

The Chair referred to Councillor Antrobus’ forthcoming retirement as an elected member. He thanked him, on behalf of the panel, for his service and wished him well for the future. 1 Page 3

5. The Panel is asked to consider whether it agrees to the inclusion of the items listed in Parts 1 and 2 of the agenda

RESOLVED: THAT it be noted that the Panel agreed to the inclusion of the items listed.

6. Declarations of Interest

Councillor Nelson declared an interest in respect of application 21/76896/FUL (17 Allenby Road, Cadishead, Irlam M44 5EA) due to the property having previously been his grandparents’ family home.

Councillor Dawson declared an interest in respect of application 21/76896/FUL (17 Allenby Road, Cadishead, Irlam M44 5EA) due to him being a member of For Housing Board.

Councillor K. Garrido declared an interest in respect of application 21/76896/FUL (17 Allenby Road, Cadishead, Irlam M44 5EA) due to her husband being a member of ForViva Board.

Councillors Dawson, K. Garrido and Nelson left the meeting prior to the panel’s consideration of the above-mentioned application and took no part in the panel’s deliberations or voting on the application.

7. Minutes of the Meeting held on 4th March 2021

RESOLVED: THAT the minutes of the above meeting be agreed as a correct record.

8. Planning applications and related development control issues

Applications for Planning Permission

Full details of the matters referred to in this Minute are contained in the report of the Strategic Director for Place (Main Report), as amended in the case of applications marked * in the Amendment Report.

RESOLVED: THAT, following consideration by the Panel, the under-mentioned applications for planning permission were determined, subject to the conditions listed in the above-mentioned report(s), as indicated below –

Application Number/ Site Development Decision Applicant

*5a – 20/76070/FUL Site at Mocha Demolition of existing single Granted Parade, storey food bank. New build Mr David Gratrix Lower Broughton community health centre, Road, with retail units to ground Salford floor and associated car park M7 1QE and landscaping.

5b - 20/75774/FUL Land Formerly 58 Erection of a three-storey Please refer to Minute 9 Liverpool Road, block consisting of 21 no. below. Mr Peter Flyn Cadishead apartments with associated M44 5AF parking and amenity space

5c - 21/76896/FUL 17 Allenby Road Bricking up of a door in the Granted Cadishead side elevation, enlargement Stacey D'Addona Irlam of window in rear elevation M44 5EA

2 Page 4 and conversion of the existing dwelling into 2 flats

*5d - 20/76521/FUL Site of Custom and Proposed residential Please refer to Minute 10 Furness House, development comprising of below. Furness Quay Phase Furness Quay, 336 apartments (class C3) 2 Limited Salford, and 452sqm of ground floor M50 3XZ commercial floorspace (classes E) within two blocks of 14/22 storeys and 16/24 storeys with associated landscaping and car parking

5e - 20/76695/FUL Land at Hazelhall Erection of two detached Refused, contrary to the Close dwellings officer recommendation, by Ms Sally Hargreaves Off Hazelhurst a unanimous vote, on the Road grounds that (a) the Worsley proposed houses, by M28 2SE reason of their height, scale and massing would appear cramped within their plots, constituting an overdevelopment of the site that compromises the character of the area, which includes dwellings that are set within spacious garden plots, and is therefore contrary to Policy DES1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan; the Council’s Design Supplementary Planning Document and Paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and (b) the proposed development would introduce a number of habitable room windows at first and second floor level, within close proximity to the site boundary, which would result in significant overlooking to the private rear garden of 104 Hazelhurst Road, to the detriment of the residential amenity that they could reasonably expect to enjoy, contrary to Policy DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and Paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3 Page 5 5f – 20/76350/FUL 14 How Clough Erection of a detached Granted Drive dwelling in rear garden of Mr & Mrs Kemp Worsley existing house M28 3FS 5g – 2020/ Three Sisters SALFORD CITY COUNCIL Confirmed. 00553/TPO Chatsworth Road TREE PRESERVATION Eccles ORDER (NO.553) 2020

9. 20/75774/FUL – Land Formerly 58 Liverpool Road, Cadishead M44 5AF – Erection of a three- storey block consisting of 21 no. apartments with associated parking and amenity space

RESOLVED: THAT planning permission be granted, subject to the planning conditions listed in the report, and that:

(i) The City Solicitor be authorised to enter into a legal obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the following heads of terms:

o £61,149 towards a skate park at Cadishead Park and/or outdoor gym at Lord Street Recreation Ground, o £28,050 towards improvements to Footpath 62 Irlam, o £1,337.99 Monitoring fee (1.5% of planning obligations up to a maximum cap of £5,000).

Details of the S106 mitigation be delegated to the Assistant Director for Technical Services, in consultation with the Chair of the Panel, to consider whether it is appropriate to fund a Residents’ Parking Permit Scheme along Albert Street.

(ii) The applicant be informed that the Council is minded to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions stated in the report, on completion of such legal obligation;

(iii) The authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application to be issued, (subject to the conditions and reasons stated in the report) on completion of the above-mentioned legal obligation.

10. 20/76521/FUL Site of Custom and Furness House, Furness Quay, Salford M50 3XZ – Proposed residential development comprising of 336 apartments (class C3) and 452sqm of ground floor commercial floorspace (classes E) within two blocks of 14/22 storeys and 16/24 storeys with associated landscaping and car parking

RESOLVED: THAT planning permission be granted, subject to (a) the planning conditions listed in the reports, and (b) details of the flood evacuation plan being delegated to the Assistant Director for Technical Services, in consultation with the Chair of the Panel, along with the approval of the associated condition, and that:

(i) The City Solicitor be authorised to enter into a legal obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the following heads of terms:

A financial contribution of £1,792,104 towards the following projects:

Open Space - Potential projects include: o Ordsall Park and/or o Grounds of Ordsall Hall and/or o Improvements to public realm at The Quays Road /Furness Quay for pedestrians and/or o Clippers Quay Bridge. 4 Page 6

Public Realm - Potential projects include: o Trafford Road scheme and/or o Improvements to public realm at The Quays Road /Furness Quay for pedestrians and/or o Clippers Quay Bridge.

Affordable Housing

Highways o £37,500 towards either an existing or proposed residents parking schemes within 500m of the application site, this would include legal and implementation costs and the provision of permits for qualifying residents for a period of 5 (five) years and any parking restrictions where needed. o Lease of a car club vehicle

Monitoring Fee (1.5% of planning obligations up to a maximum cap of £5,000 (maximum cap reached)).

Clawback should the viability position change.

Amend the maximum claw back in agreements under 17/69493/FUL and 17/70682/FUL to remove the requirement for Custom and Furness House should this permission be implemented.

(ii) The applicant be informed that the Council is minded to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions stated in the reports, on completion of such legal obligation;

(iii) The authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application to be issued, (subject to the conditions and reasons stated in the reports), on completion of the above-mentioned legal obligation.

11. Planning Applications determined under Delegated Authority

The Strategic Director for Place submitted a report containing details of planning applications that he had determined under delegated authority during February and March 2021 and were not, therefore, for consideration by the Panel.

RESOLVED: THAT the content of the report be noted.

12. Planning Appeals

The Strategic Director for Place submitted a report setting out details of appeals that had recently been determined and received.

Reference was made to the appeal that had been received in respect of 20/76108/ADV (Land at Summerseat Close, Salford M5 3JQ). It was reported that a decision had since been received and the appeal had been dismissed.

RESOLVED: THAT the content of the report and the above-mentioned update be noted.

5 Page 7

Appendix A

Planning & Transportation Regulatory Panel – 1st April 2021 Registered Speakers in respect of Applications for Planning Permission (Agenda Item 5/Minute 8)

Application Number & Objecting Applicant/Agent/ Neither MP/Ward Address Supporting objecting nor Councillor supporting 5a – 20/76070/FUL Site at Mocha Parade, Lower Broughton Road,

Salford

M7 1QE

5b - 20/75774/FUL Tom Kelly Adrian Pritchard Land Formerly 58 Liverpool Road, Cadishead M44 5AF

5c - 21/76896/FUL Jack Davison Stacey DAddona 17 Allenby Road Hannah Woolley Cadishead Irlam M44 5EA

5d - 20/76521/FUL Helen Marks Site of Custom and Stephen Hodder Furness House, Furness Quay, Salford, M50 3XZ

5e - 20/76695/FUL Paul Hughes Ralph Taylor Land at Hazelhall Close Andrew Rimmer Off Hazelhurst Road Worsley M28 2SE

5f – 20/76350/FUL Simon Clewarth 14 How Clough Drive Worsley M28 3FS

5g – 2020/ Bruce Thompson 00553/TPO Three Sisters Chatsworth Road Eccles

6 Page 8 Agenda Item 5

Part 1: Open to the Public

REPORT OF The Strategic Director for Place

TO The Planning & Transportation Regulatory Panel

ON 27th May 2021

TITLE: Planning Applications and related Development Control Issues

RECOMMENDATIONS: As indicated in respect of each application.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report sets out details of the planning applications for determination at this meeting.

Ward Members may make representations to the Panel on the items listed in this report.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS:

PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972-SECTIONS 100A-100K

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS

The “Background Papers” relating to all reports on planning applications appearing in this report are: -

1. The appropriate ‘case file’ for each planning application on the agenda which is available on the council’s website.

The contents of the file include the following documents:

(a) The submitted planning application (forms, plans and supporting documents and Information) (b) Correspondence with statutory and other consultees; (c) Letters and other documents from interested parties (available on request).

2. Any previous planning applications and subsequent decision notices (if issued referred to in each planning application report on this agenda).

3. Any tree preservation order referred to in each planning application report on the agenda.

4. Any conservation area plan referred to in each planning application report on the agenda.

Page 9 1

5. Papers specifically listed under a heading “Other Background Papers” in any planning report on the agenda.

Although background papers are normally available for inspection at the Civic Centre, Chorley Road, Swinton, due to restrictions and Government guidance relating to the Coronavirus, they are only available online at this time. If you wish to inspect letters submitted by interested parties please email [email protected].

Publications

In considering planning applications or legal action, the City Council has regard to a wide range of published documents, although not ‘Background Papers’ for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1972 – Sections 100A-100K, are nevertheless important to the consideration of these matters.

The Government in particular has published a large amount of guidance and Statutory Instruments in addition to the primary legislation and these are available online.

The following Local Authority publications are available on the Council’s web site –

– SPD – SPD – SPD gy – SPD – SPD – SPD – SPD - SPD - SPD - SPD

The following Planning Guidance documents have been adopted by the City Council:

- UDP Policy E5: Development in Established Employment Areas

Amendments/Additional Information received after the completion of this series of reports

Page 10 2

Any amendment/additional information, such as amendments to planning applications, additional information from applicants or consultees, representations from interested parties, etc., received AFTER the preparation of this series of reports will be reported at the Panel meeting together with any changes to my recommendation.

KEY DECISION: NO

DETAILS: See attached application reports.

KEY COUNCIL POLICIES: See background papers above.

EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND IMPLICATIONS: N/A

ASSESSMENT OF RISK: N/A

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Supplied by: N/A

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Supplied by: N/A

PROCUREMENT IMPLICATIONS Supplied by: N/A

HR IMPLICATIONS Supplied by: N/A

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS Supplied by: N/A

OTHER DIRECTORATES CONSULTED: N/A

CONTACT OFFICERS: TEL NO: Anthony Stephenson 0161 604 7778 Faye Tomlinson 0161 603 8354

WARDS TO WHICH REPORT RELATES: As detailed within each application report.

Page 11 3 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

Set out below are details of all of the items which will be considered by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel at their meeting. Some of these applications may be subject to a s.106 legal agreement (planning obligation). Where this is the case it will be stated next to the recommendation using the code ‘S106’ as detailed in the list of codes below.

Ward Members may make representations to the Panel on all items below including those with an associated s.106 legal agreement.

INDEX REPORT (Please refer to Agenda Front Sheet for Page Numbers)

DATE: 27.05.2021

RECOMMENDATION PER = Approve AUTH = Consent

REF = Refuse FUL = Full application ADV = Advert Application OUT = Outline Application HH = Householder Application REM = Reserved Matters COU = Change of use LBC = Listed Building Consent CON = Conservation Area Consent S106 = Subject to a S106 Obligation

Higher Irlam and Peel Green

21/76869/FUL RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

PROPOSAL: Change of use from single dwelling to two apartments, including insertion of velux roof lights, alterations to the elevations and erection of a single storey rear extension

LOCATION: 69 Alexandra Road Eccles M30 7HH

APPLICANT: Mr Will James

Page 12 4

Cadishead and Lower Irlam

20/75685/FUL RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

PROPOSAL: Erection of two B1(C)/B2/B8 use class industrial and warehousing units with ancillary B1(A) office use, electricity substation, associated parking and servicing areas

LOCATION: Land East Of Irlam Wharf Road Irlam M44 5BP

APPLICANT: Mrs Miranda Bell

Boothstown and Ellenbrook

21/76720/FUL RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing Public house and erection of a 3 storey building comprising of a 71 Bed Care Facility (Use Class C2) with alterations to existing access, provision of car parking, and associated landscaping (resubmission of 19/73709/FUL)

LOCATION: 301 Walkden Road Worsley M28 2RZ

APPLICANT: Mr J Parr

Page 13 5 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5a PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL PART I SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

APPLICATION No: 21/76869/FUL APPLICANT: Mr Will James LOCATION: 69 Alexandra Road, Eccles, M30 7HH PROPOSAL: Change of use from single dwelling to two apartments, including insertion of velux roof lights, alterations to the elevations and erection of a single storey rear extension WARD: Higher Irlam and Peel Green

Site and Surroundings

This application relates to a mid-terraced property located on the northern side of Alexandra Road in Eccles.

There is no vehicular access to the property or on-site parking provided, however on street parking is available to the front of the dwelling on Alexandra Road and on the surrounding streets.

The application property is located in a residential area, being bounded on all sides by other terraced properties.

Page 15

$gvkvh4mx.docx Proposal

Planning permission is sought to convert the property in order to provide two flats – a one bed unit at ground floor level and a two bed unit at first and second floor level.

In order to facilitate the conversion it is proposed to –  Demolish an existing single storey element housing a toilet and erect a single storey rear extension to the rear of the existing two storey outrigger  Install two Velux rooflights in the rear roofslope  Undertake minor alterations to the elevations namely (a) inserting a first floor window in the rear elevation of the two storey outrigger; (b) removing a door in the side elevation of the two storey outrigger and inserting a window in its place; (c) bricking up an existing first floor window in the side elevation of the two storey outrigger; and (d) reducing the size of an existing first floor window in the side elevation of the two storey outrigger

The images below show the existing and proposed elevations –

Existing

Proposed

New UVPC windows and doors would also be installed however the installation of replacement windows and doors does not require planning permission and as such these elements will not be considered further.

Publicity

Site Notice: N/A

Page 16

$gvkvh4mx.docx Press Advert: N/A

Neighbour Notification

Eight neighbouring occupiers have been notified of the application.

Representations

10 letters of objection have been received in response to this application. The following issues have been raised-

 Apartments are out of character with this area, which comprises predominantly family housing

 Numerous apartments are being built on Liverpool Road and therefore the property should be kept as a family home - no 2/3 bed homes are being built in the area

 Works have already started on the property without planning permission having been received and while taking out the chimney breast damage was caused to the neighbouring property. Despite the applicant saying they would pay for repairs, nothing has yet been done

 The gardens of the terraces face north-west, which results in minimal direct sunlight being received in the morning and early afternoon. The erection of the proposed extension will overshadow the rear garden area of the neighbouring property and result in it being mostly shaded in the early-to-mid morning

 The introduction of a first floor flat will result in neighbours experiencing a loss of privacy in their garden areas as the first floor flat will likely have a kitchen/living room at the rear

 The terraced properties on Alexandra Road were not built to be used as flats – the walls a very thin and noise travels between properties easily. Those living next door will therefore experience increased noise and disturbance if the property is converted into two units

 The proposal will increase existing parking issues in the area with the road already being crowded and parking in the area being over capacity with cars spilling onto adjacent roads – all properties have at least one car and two other terraces have recently been turned into flats. The lack of parking is causing tension between neighbours, with the inability to park near to their property causing particular issues for the elderly and those with young children.

 When other properties on Alexandra Road have undertaken construction works there have been issues with skips and rubbish being left in the rear alleyway, as well as materials being burnt and emitting acrid smells. The alley gates have also been left open giving rise to security concerns

 The proposal will devalue neighbouring properties and reduce their saleability

 The applicant is not interested in the community, they are just interested in making money

 Some neighbours have not received any notification of the application from the Council

 If successful, this application could result in further applications for conversion of family homes to dwellings

Objectors have also questioned whether the apartments will be sold or rented out

Devaluation and saleability of property is not a material planning consideration, nor is any damage that may occur to neighbouring properties during construction or the developer’s motivation for submitting an application.

Consultations

Air Quality, Noise, Contaminated Land –

Confirm that they have no objections or observations with respect to air quality, noise or land contamination.

Page 17

$gvkvh4mx.docx Highways – State that the site is located on Alexandra Road, within a residential neighbourhood with a lot of local amenities,. Bus stops are located close to the site on Liverpool Road and Barton Road providing regular connections to Eccles precinct, The Trafford Centre, Bolton, Swinton and Manchester City Centre.

Note that the proposal doesn’t provide off-street parking and therefore, parking associated with the development will take place on the surrounding streets.

Advise that although the development may attract additional on-street parking, due to the minor scale of the development, and in accordance to NPPF, it would not be considered as unacceptable or equate to a “severe” impact on the local highway network.

Conclude that they therefore have no objections to the proposal on highway safety grounds.

Senior Drainage Engineer –

Confirm that they have no objections to the proposal, stating that all drainage works should be undertaken in accordance with Building Regulations Approved Document H.

Planning Policy

Development Plan Policy

Unitary Development Plan - Policy H1 Provision of New Housing Development Unitary Development Plan - Policy H5 Provision of Residential Accommodation within Existing Buildings Unitary Development Plan - Policy DES1 Respecting Context Unitary Development Plan - Policy DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours Unitary Development Plan - Policy DES8 Alterations and Extensions Unitary Development Plan - Policy DES9 Landscaping Unitary Development Plan - Policy DES10 Design and Crime Unitary Development Plan - Policy A8 Impact of Development on Highway Network Unitary Development Plan - Policy A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments Unitary Development Plan - Policy EN17 Pollution Control Unitary Development Plan - Policy EN19 Flood Risk and Surface Water

Other Material Planning Considerations

National Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework

Local Planning Policy

Supplementary Planning Document Design (Shaping Salford) Planning Guidance - Housing

The Revised Draft Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (‘GMSF’) was subject to public consultation at the start of 2019. In accordance with paragraph 48 of the National Planning Policy Framework it is considered that very limited weight can be given to the policies in the GMSF.

The Publication Salford Local Plan: Development Management Policies and Designations (‘Local Plan’) was published on 27 January 2020 and comments were invited until 20 March 2020. This is the version of the document that the city council would like to adopt and has been subject to a significant amount of public consultation in previous stages of its production. However, in accordance with paragraph 48 of the National Planning Policy Framework the weight that can be given to the Local Plan overall is currently limited. The city council is in the process of considering the comments made to determine the extent to which there are unresolved objections to the policies in the Plan. Those policies with less significant (or no) objections will be capable of carrying more weight than those with significant unresolved objections.

Page 18

$gvkvh4mx.docx In addition, following the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) it is necessary to consider the weight which can be afforded to the policies of the Council's adopted Unitary Development Plan (paragraph 213 NPPF February 2019).

In terms of this application it is considered that the relevant policies of the UDP can be afforded due weight for the purposes of decision making as the relevant criteria within the UDP policies applicable to the proposed development are consistent with the policies contained in the NPPF.

Appraisal

Principle

The application property is located within the urban area, being located within 350m/a 5-minute walk of Peel Green neighbourhood centre. The site is well served by public transport being located within a short walk of bus stops on Liverpool Road and Barton Road, which provide regular connections to Eccles precinct, The Trafford Centre, Bolton, Swinton and Manchester City Centre. The proposal therefore provides an opportunity to provide additional living accommodation within an accessible and sustainable location.

It is acknowledged that the proposal will result in the loss of a family dwelling; however, it is considered that the loss of one unit would not have an adverse impact upon the overall mix of dwellings in the area, the supply of family housing in the vicinity of the site or the character of the surrounding area.

The conversion of the property to provide two apartments, one with one bed and another with two beds, is deemed to be appropriate and in accordance with saved UDP policy H1 and policy HOU1 of the Housing Planning Guidance. This is because of the accessible location and the provision of apartments at the site making a positive contribution towards diversifying the the type of accommodation provided in the area, which is predominantly characterised by two and three bed terraced houses. The provision of a one bed unit at the site would also make a positive contribution towards meeting the housing needs of those requiring lower cost accommodation.

In respect of the size of the proposed apartments, the units would measure 50sqm (1 bed unit) and 66sqm (2 bed unit).

Policy HOU2 of the housing planning guidance states that where apartments are proposed they should provide a broad mix of dwelling sizes, both in terms of the number of bedrooms and the net residential floorspace. It notes that small dwellings i.e. studios and 1 bed apartments should not predominate, and a significant proportion of 3- bedroom apartments should be provided wherever practicable. Paragraph 4.31 of the reasoned justification clarifies that the majority of apartments should have two or three bedrooms, with a floorspace typically 57 square metres or above.

According to the National Space Standards a 1 bed 1-person unit should have a minimum gross internal floorspace of 39sqm and a 1 bed 2-person unit should have a minimum gross internal floorspace of 50sqm. A 2 bed 3-person unit should have a minimum gross internal floorspace of 61sqm and a 2 bed 4-person unit should have minimum gross internal floorspace of 70sqm.

Consequently, the floor area of the two bed unit would be in accordance with policy HOU2 of the housing planning guidance, with the internal floor areas of both of the apartments being in general accordance with the space standards meaning that the future occupants of the units would be provided with a satisfactory level of amenity.

Visual Amenity

The application property is not listed or locally listed, and the site is not located within a conservation area. Having regard to this and given that the existing single storey element at the rear of the two storey outrigger does not have any features that would warrant its retention, there are no visual amenity issues with the proposal to demolish this element of the dwelling.

The proposed single storey rear extension is a simple, functional structure, the design of which is in keeping with the host building and that of single storey extensions commonly found on terraced properties. The extension would be constructed using materials to match the original dwelling. The proposed extension would not therefore form an incongruous addition to the property.

Page 19

$gvkvh4mx.docx In respect of the insertion of roof lights and the alterations to the elevations these elements of the proposal are minor in nature, being undertaken using materials that match those used in the construction of the original dwelling. As such it is not considered that they would materially alter the external appearance of the property or have a negative impact upon its character and appearance.

For these reasons, subject to the attachment of a condition to secure the use of matching materials, it is not considered that proposal would adversely affect the character and appearance of the application property or the visual amenities of the wider area.

The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with policies DES1 and DES8 of the City of Salford UDP and the design policies in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Residential Amenity

The insertion of the rooflights and the works to the elevations would not alter the scale and massing of the application property or result in the application property coming any closer to the neighbouring properties than it does currently. Furthermore, save for the new first floor window in the rear of the two storey outrigger which would serve a small kitchen, i.e. a non-habitable room, these elements of the proposal would not introduce windows into elevations where they don’t currently exist.

There would be approximately 14m between the new first floor window in the rear of the outrigger and the rear outriggers of the properties on Stanley Road. This level of separation is no different to that which already exists between facing rear windows within the neighbouring terraces to the north-west, also on Alexandra Road and Stanley Road. Given also that the size and use of the room within No.69 is such that it is unlikely that occupants will spend significant time within it, with the upper floor apartment having its main living space to the front, it is not considered that this elements of the proposal would result in neighbouring land users experiencing an unacceptable loss of amenity by virtue of them experiencing a loss of light, privacy and/or any overbearing impact. It should be noted that while the unit remains in use as a single family dwelling a first floor window could be installed in the rear of the outrigger using permitted development rights provided for under Class A of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, as amended.

In respect of the single storey rear extension this would project for 3m beyond the rear of the two storey outrigger at 71 Alexandra Road, beyond which there is a small single storey extension of approx. 1.5-2m. The common boundary between the site and 71 Alexandra Road is marked by a 1.5m high (approx.) boundary wall, with a section of 0.5m high (approx.) fencing having been installed on the side of 71 Alexandra Road just beyond the end of the single storey rear extension.

The single storey rear extension would be set approximately 1.7m from the common boundary with 67 Alexandra Road, which is marked by a 1.5m high wall (approx.), with the property at 67Alexandra Road having what appears to be a habitable room window in the main rear elevation close to the common boundary and a ground floor window in the side elevation of their two storey outrigger, which also has a set of patio doors on the rear elevation. The window in the main rear elevation of 67Alexandra Road is already in a tunnel by virtue of the existing outriggers at the application site and at 67 itself.

The extension would be set 3.25m from the rear boundary of the site. The properties at the rear, on Stanley Road, are separated from the application site by a gated alleyway, with these units having high rear boundary treatments.

The extension, and the rear portion of the existing outrigger, would house a kitchen dining area for the one bed flat located at ground floor level. The main outlook from the kitchen/diner would be from the rear via a set of patio doors, however there would also be a window in the side elevation. The window in the side elevation is an existing window which currently serves a kitchen.

Having regard to the relationship of the single storey extension to the neighbouring properties, it is not considered that the introduction of the single storey rear extension would result in neighbouring land users experiencing an unacceptable loss of amenity by virtue of them experiencing a loss of light, privacy and/or any overbearing impact either.

Given that occupants of the proposed flats will be active there will be a level of noise and disturbance created by occupants as they go about their daily business, moving to and from the site and as they use the building and the outdoor space. However, it is not considered that the use of the property as two flats would result in neighbouring

Page 20

$gvkvh4mx.docx residents experiencing an unacceptable increase in the levels of noise and disturbance when compared to the existing use a two-bed family home. The Council’s Environmental Consultant has not raised any objections to the proposal on the basis of the impact it would have on neighbouring residents.

In respect of the issue the objectors raise regarding internal noise transfer, the proposal constitutes a material change of use under the building regulations, with sound insulation between the proposed units and the existing neighbouring dwelling being considered and upgraded as required as part of the Building Regulations application.

In respect of the concerns objectors have raised regarding the construction phase, it is acknowledged that neighbouring residents could be exposed to some noise, disturbance and general disruption during the construction phase of the development; however this is deemed to be short lived and an acceptable consequence of the development. With regard to the issue regarding alley gates being left open, the proposal will not affect the gating of the alleyway or permit additional access to it, with any builders having to obtain a key from the owner to gain access to the site via the rear alleyway. It is not considered that the proposal should fail on the basis that the builders could leave the alleygates open, with the issue of access and closing of the gates being a civil matter for resolution between the applicant, their builders and the neighbours as necessary.

With regard of the level of amenity future occupants would be provided with, all habitable rooms in the proposed apartments, bar one of the bedrooms in the two bed unit, would be provided with full windows to provide light and outlook. The bedroom in the two-bed unit would be served by two Velux rooflights, with the lower edge of the rooflights being located approximately 1.25m above finished floor level, which allows for a reasonable outlook to be provided while also increasing the amount of light received. A small rear yard would provide some outdoor space, with the application property being located within 100m of Patricroft Recreation Ground, which provides easy access to space for recreation.

For these reasons, and given that the Council’s Environmental Consultants have reviewed the submission and advised that there are no issues in respect of air quality, noise or contamination, it is considered that future occupants of the proposed flats would be provided with satisfactory living conditions.

The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with policies DES7 and EN17 of the UDP and the thrust of the NPPF as it would not adversely affect the level of residential amenity neighbouring residents can reasonably expect to enjoy and the development would provide future occupants with a satisfactory standard of living.

Parking and highway safety

Neither the existing dwelling nor the proposed flats are/would be provided with any on site car parking, however there is on street parking available on Alexandra Road and the neighbouring streets which could be utilised.

Given the accessible location, it is not considered that the two flats would generate parking demand significantly different to that of the two bed home that currently occupies the site and therefore the impact of the development on the operation of the highway network would not be severe.

Having regard to this, the comments of the highway officer, and given that the area to the rear of the property provides a suitable area for the storage of the necessary refuse and recycling bins clear of the highway, it is not considered that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact upon highway safety. It would not result in a significant increase in traffic flow in the locality or demand for parking. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with policies A8 and A10 of the adopted UDP.

Other Issues

Neighbouring residents questioned whether there is a need for flats, with there being other new build developments taking place in the area which are providing flats. They have also noted that it appears that no new 2/3 bed homes are being built in the vicinity. The role of the Local Planning Authority is to consider the proposal before them and come to a decision on it having regard to the planning policy framework and all material planning considerations. In this case, for the reasons set out above, the proposal is deemed to be acceptable and in accordance with policy.

Concerns have also been expressed that if the application is successful subsequent applications for the conversion of other dwellings in the area to flats will come forward. Approval of this application would not create a precedent for other development, with each application the LPA receives having to be assessed on its merits

Page 21

$gvkvh4mx.docx and determined having regard to relevant local and national planning policy and all material planning considerations.

With regard to the objector’s query regarding whether the apartments will be sold or rented, the LPA cannot control the tenure of the proposed flats or who the residents of the proposed flats will be.

With regard to the point made by objectors that some neighbouring residents have not received a letter notifying them of the application, the application has been publicised in accordance with the requirements set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(England) Order 2015 as amended, and the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement, and consequently it is considered that adequate publicity has taken place.

Recommendation

That planning permission be granted subject to the following planning conditions -

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

Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site location plan and proposed site plan – drawing 1176:01 Rev A Proposed floorplans and elevations – drawing 1176:04 Rev D

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning

3. The external materials used shall match those of the existing building so far as practicable.

Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policies DES1 and DES8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Notes to Applicant

 The proposed development lies within a coal mining area which may contain unrecorded coal mining related hazards. If any coal mining feature is encountered during development, this should be reported immediately to the Coal Authority on 0345 762 6848.

Further information is also available on the Coal Authority website at: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/the-coal-authority

Standing Advice valid from 1st January 2021 until 31st December 2022

 The applicant is advised that they have a duty to adhere to the regulations of Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 and the current Building Control Regulations with regards to contaminated land. The responsibility to ensure the safe development of land affected by contamination rests primarily with the developer.

 All drainage works shall be undertaken in accordance with Building Regulations Approved Document H.

Page 22

$gvkvh4mx.docx Agenda Item 5b

APPLICATION No: 20/75685/FUL APPLICANT: Commercial Development Projects Limited (CDP Ltd) LOCATION: Land East Of, Irlam Wharf Road, Irlam, M44 5BP PROPOSAL: Erection of two B1(C)/B2/B8 use class industrial and warehousing units with ancillary B1(A) office use, electricity substation, associated parking and servicing areas WARD: Cadishead and Lower Irlam

Figure 1 – Site Location

Description of Site and Surrounding Area

The application relates to a circa 2.7ha site to the east of Irlam Wharf Road in Irlam. Surrounding land uses are commercial, comprising the eastern fringes of the Northbank Industrial Park and include the UPS Manchester Irlam depot, Universal Container Services Ltd., the former Irlam Container Terminal and the Northbank Wastewater Treatment Works. South of the site, off Darby Road, is a development site, ‘Omega Drive’, on which three B1(c)/B2/B8 units are currently being constructed pursuant to planning permission ref. 18/72017/FUL. The site is currently overgrown with predominantly self-seeded trees and scrub.

The site is designated as an Employment Development Site under the provisions of Policy E4/7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan (UDP). The Manchester Ship Canal (MSC), which carries the River Mersey at this point, forms the eastern boundary of the site and is designated as a Wildlife Corridor. The City boundary with Trafford runs down the centre of the MSC. A Proposed Strategic Recreation Route (UDP Policy R5) allocation runs along the western boundary of the site, from Cadishead Way along Darby Road to a proposed, but unimplemented, route running south-westwards along the MSC. A small section of the site immediately abutting the MSC, forming the canal/river bank, falls within Flood Zone 3, the remainder of the site being within Flood Zone 2.

Page 23

Description of Proposal

The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of two industrial and warehousing units, for either B1(c) (Light Industrial), B2 (General Industrial) or B8 (Storage and Distribution) use, together with provision of ancillary B1(a) office space within each unit.

Unit 1 would extend to 40,000 sq. ft. (incl. 2,500 sq. ft. at first floor mezzanine) and would reach a height of 10m to the underside of the haunch and 13.5m to the ridge. A car park would be provided with 55 spaces, including three disabled spaces and five with EV charging provision. There is also a proposed covered area for cycle (circa 10 spaces) and motorcycle (circa 4 spaces) parking. A service yard would be provided to the north-east of the unit, with two level-access doors and one loading dock. Unit 1 would be accessed from the terminus roundabout on the southern arm of Irlam Wharf Road, which connects into Darby Road.

Unit 2 would extend to 65,500 sq. ft. (incl. 3,000 sq. ft. at first floor) and would reach a height of 10.5m to the underside of the haunch and 13.5m to the ridge. A car park would be provided with 40 spaces, including four disabled spaces and five with EV charging provision, to the south-west of the building. A service yard would be provided to the north- east side with three loading docks and two level-access doors. The service yard would also contain an additional 50 parking spaces to the periphery, together with a proposed shelter for cycle (circa 14 spaces) and motorcycle (circa 6 spaces) parking. The smaller car park to Unit 2 would be accessed from the same point as Unit 1; the service yard of Unit 2 would be accessed from the terminus roundabout on the northern arm of Irlam Wharf Road, which connects directly to Cadishead Way (A57).

Figure 2 – Proposed Site Layout

Changes to Use Classes Order

The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020 No.757) were made on 20 July 2020 and took effect on 1 September 2020; the regulations made further changes to the amended 1987 Use Classes Order (UCO) and include various transitional provisions. Regulation 4 states that planning applications submitted to an LPA prior to 1 September 2020 must be determined by reference to those uses or use classes specified in the UCO on 31 August 2020.

This application was submitted prior to 1 September 2020 and therefore the determination is to be made by reference to the relevant use classes in force at the time. For awareness, from 1 September 2020, Class B1(a) and (c) uses now fall within the new Class E, whilst B2 and B8 uses remain unchanged.

Environmental Impact Assessment

The proposed development has been screened under Regulation 8 of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, as the proposal falls under the definition of ‘Schedule 2 Development’, specifically Category 10(a) ‘Industrial estate development projects’ or 10(b) ‘Urban development projects’.

Page 24

Having had regard to the selection criteria in Schedule 3 of the regulations, the likelihood of significant environmental effects from the proposed development was considered to be low. An Environmental Statement was therefore deemed not to be required.

Relevant Planning History

None.

Publicity

Site Notice: Non HH Article 15 Date Displayed: 1 October 2020 Reason: Wider Publicity

Press Advert: Manchester Weekly News Salford Edition Date Published: 15 October 2020 Reason: Article 15 Standard Press Notice

Neighbour Notification

Eight neighbouring properties have been notified of the application via letter.

Representations

One neutral letter of representation has been received in response to the application publicity, summarised as follows:

C – comment received R – officer response C Access to the neighbouring UPS facility needs to be retained 24 hours a day, with minimal disruption. Ask that consideration is given to the increase in traffic on the local highway network once the development is occupied and also request that businesses are notified as early as possible of any work on local roads to minimise disruption. R Consideration of the impact of the development on the local highway network is contained within the relevant analysis below. A condition is recommended requiring agreement of a Construction Management Plan prior to commencement, in order that impacts of the development phase may be mitigated.

Consultation Responses (Summaries)

Air Quality, Noise, Contaminated Land Air Quality No objection. The development itself is not considered as a ‘relevant receptor’ with respect to long term air pollution exposure as it is not residential. The application is supported by an Air Quality Impact Assessment which uses detailed dispersion modelling, verified against local monitoring, to assess whether there will be a significant impact of the development against IAQM and EPUK guidance. The assessment concludes the development will not have a significant impact on local air quality. In addition, a construction impact assessment has been undertaken and it is considered, with appropriate good practice and mitigation, the impact of short-term dust generation will be negligible. Concur with the conclusions of the report and have no objections subject to a standard Construction Environmental Management Plan condition.

Noise The site is located in an area of other industrial uses with the nearest residential dwelling located around 540m to the east of the development. A Noise Impact Assessment has been submitted, considering the possible impact of noise from the service yard, plant noise and operational breakout noise. The report predicts that the impact of service yard noise and operational breakout noise would be low – this conclusion is accepted. The report has used background noise data and noise data to set plant noise limits to ensure noise from fixed plant and equipment does not have an impact off site. The conclusions of the report are agreed with, and no objections are raised subject to a condition setting maximum noise rating levels for external plant.

Land Contamination The previous uses of the site (railway track, made ground associated with historical developments and a steel and iron works (to the west)) present a ‘high risk’ of contamination. The proposed end use is for an industrial development, which are considered a sensitive end use with respect to land contamination risk. The submitted desk study report

Page 25

considers there is a potential for contamination to present a risk to future end users and the wider environment including groundwater. The conclusions of the report are accepted, and no objections are raised subject to conditions requiring a Phase 2 Site Investigation report to be submitted to the LPA prior to commencement and, where unacceptable risks are identified, submission of a contaminated land remediation strategy.

Arboricultural Consultant No objection. A BS:5837 Arboriculture Report has been supplied to support the application, which identifies 139 individual trees and group features, recorded as Category B and C. Most of the trees proposed for removal are Category C; the majority of trees on site are self-seeded, occurring through neglect as opposed to formal planting. Category C trees should not be allowed to constrain a development and their removal is considered acceptable. Retention of Category B trees should be attempted, however, given the contribution to the overall amenity value of the area in the short, mid and long-term; the footprint of the proposal; the available space and the earthworks proposed, full retention is not possible.

Retained trees would be afforded protection during the construction phase. Replacement planting should be sought as mitigation for the trees. A Tree Constraints Plan and Tree Protection Plan have been supplied; as such an Arboricultural Method Statement is not required. The replacement planting scheme should give details of quantity; tree species; tree sizes (including the minimum height and circumference of stem at 1m from the ground level); plan indicating the location of the replacement trees, a timetable for tree planting and details of aftercare.

City Airport and Heliport - Operations Manager No comments received to date.

Design for Security No objection – recommend that a condition is attached to require the physical security specifications set out in the Crime Impact Statement.

Drainage and Flood Risk Engineer The site is in Flood Zone 2; a Flood Risk Assessment is required and has been provided. The development is classed as Less Vulnerable owing to its commercial use; this is deemed appropriate in this flood zone.

This is a major development for which SuDS are required. The SFRA user guide requires a reduction in surface water runoff to 50% of the existing (or to greenfield runoff, whichever is greater). The applicant has provided a drainage strategy with accompanying plans and calculations, which indicate that there is a desire to discharge surface water to the public sewer system.

Flood resilience measures are required up to the level if the 1 in 1000 year flood event. Recommend a condition to require the applicant to submit a schedule or drawing of the flood resilience measures that will be implemented in the development.

Although the principle of the drainage strategy is accepted, the design is very high level and therefore recommend conditions requiring flood resilient construction and approval and implementation of a surface water drainage strategy including a restricted discharge rate.

Environment Agency No objection, subject to conditions in order to mitigate potential risk to controlled waters. The previous uses of the proposed development site including: a railway track, made ground associated with the historical developments and a steel and iron works (to the west of the proposed development) presents a ‘high risk’ of contamination. Sources of contamination associated with the historic uses identified above could be mobilised during construction works and could, unless appropriately remediated and mitigated against, pollute controlled waters.

The development site is located upon a Principal Aquifer and adjacent to the Manchester Ship Canal, which should be considered as a vulnerable controlled waters receptor. The Phase 1 Desktop Study demonstrates that it will be possible to manage the risk posed to controlled waters by this development. However, further detailed information will be required before built development is undertaken. The proposed development will be acceptable if a planning condition is included requiring the submission of a remediation strategy.

Refer to Flood Risk Standing Advice for ‘lower risk’ development proposals in Flood Zone 2. Although we have no objections to the proposed development, the developer may wish to include measures to mitigate the impact of more extreme future flood events. Measures could include raising ground or finished floor levels and/or incorporating flood proofing measures.

Page 26

Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory Service No objection – satisfied that the proposed development does not threaten the known or suspected archaeological heritage and there is no reason to seek to impose any archaeological requirements.

Greater Manchester Ecological Unit Bats No buildings or trees with bat roosting potential were found on site. The site was however assessed as having potentially high bat foraging and commuting potential. The additional survey works submitted during the course of consideration of the application identified no issues. Sensitive lighting is recommended that minimises negative impacts on the Manchester Ship Canal as a dark corridor – this detail can be conditioned.

Otter Otter are recorded within the Manchester Ship Canal. Direct impacts on the canal are however unlikely; access for otter from the canal to the development site is difficult and otter have territories that can cover 10’s of km. These combine to make it very unlikely that there will be any significant impact on the favourable conservation status of this species. Recommend an associated informative.

Reptiles The site was assessed as having potential for species such as slow worm. Following receipt of the negative findings of additional survey work, no further information or protection/mitigation measures are required.

Badger No evidence of badgers was recorded but a significant proportion of the site was too densely vegetated to be surveyed properly. Reasonable avoidance measures are recommended, which should be conditioned.

Kingfisher, Willow Tit and Nesting Birds Kingfisher are recorded along the canal and there is a low risk that they may nest in the steep slope between the canal and the site – as no work is proposed on this embankment, no further measures are likely to be required. Habitat also has low to moderate potential for willow tit, though none were recorded. The site was however assessed as being of value to common and widespread nesting birds with 20 species recorded of which 12 were likely breeding on the site. Recommend a condition preventing works within the bird breeding season in the absence of negative surveys.

Hedgehog No hedgehog were recorded but the site is a favoured habitat for nests and it is assumed they are present. Although not statutorily protected, they are a UK biodiversity priority species and it is an offence under the Wild Mammal (Protection) Act 1996 to inflict unnecessary suffering. Recommend a condition requiring a reasonable avoidance method statement to be agreed with the LPA.

Invasive Plant Species Himalayan Balsam is widespread across the site, with Japanese Knotweed and Cotoneaster also present. The submitted invasive species surveys/method statement are sound and implementation should be conditioned.

Manchester Ship Canal Although no direct impacts are anticipated, there are risks during and post construction of indirect impacts from debris, dust, sediment and pollutants entering the canal. There are also opportunities to improve the habitat along the canal and its functionality as a wildlife corridor. Given the buffering between the development site and canal there should be no risks that cannot be mitigated through the following of standard best practice during construction and no reasons why post development drainage should increase the level of surface water, sediment and pollutants entering the canal. Recommend measures to be incorporated into wider construction management and drainage conditions.

Landscape Proposals No objection to the on-site landscaping proposals, subject to minor changes to planting mix [N.B. Revised planting proposals, reflecting requests, subsequently received].

Biodiversity Net Gain A loss of 5.6 Biodiversity Units (BU) is estimated (using the Defra Metric v2); as such, off-site compensation should be provided. Given the habitats lost are primarily woodland and scrub, the off-site habitats would be expected to consist of tree and shrub planting and/or enhancement of an existing woodland site in condition - mitigation with sown amenity or sports mixes would not be acceptable. If mitigation is by way of a financial contribution, current agreements

Page 27

have been at around £10k per BU and current guidance based on the Environment Bank figures is a range from around £9k to £14k depending on the complexity of the target habitats. Tree planting is generally one of the easier to create habitats assuming no land remediation, so the lower end of the range is expected.

In addition to the habitat losses there will also be a significant loss of bird nesting habitat. In addition to the mitigation for loss of habitats, it is recommended that a bird box scheme also be required by condition.

Health and Safety Executive The proposed development site does not currently lie within the consultation distance (CD) of a major hazard site or major accident hazard pipeline; therefore at present HSE does not need to be consulted on any developments on this site.

Highways The Local Highway Authority initially requested additional information in order to make a recommendation on the application. Further to receipt of further detail, the LHA provided comment summarised as follows:  Most of the additional information requested previously has been provided and satisfactorily addresses concerns raised; o Provision of detailed accident review data has been noted and accepted; o The revised and additional junction capacity assessments are accepted – it is noted that all three junctions (Cadishead Way/Darby Road, Cadishead Way/Irlam Wharf Road and Cadishead Way/Brinell Drive) are shown to operate well within their capacity in both the AM and PM peaks with the development in place; o Notwithstanding any detail provided, a condition should be attached requiring the details of both access points to be agreed with the LHA and works implemented prior to first occupation; o Additional disabled parking bay at Unit 2 to meet minimum standard is noted; o Additional cycle parking provision to exceed minimum standard is noted and welcomed.  However, the LHA recommends that the applicant is required to provide a crossing facility on Cadishead Way at the junction with Irlam Wharf Road, in light of the increased number of pedestrians and cyclists the development would attract. The crossing should comprise tactical paved dropped kerbs and a central island to allow the road to be crossed safely in two stages. The detail of the facility should be submitted to and agreed with the LHA and implemented prior to first occupation;  Clarity is required on pedestrian route provision in car parks – detail of delineated areas can be agreed by condition and implemented prior to first occupation;  Most requested changes have been made to the Travel Plan, however, further revisions are required – this can be addressed when the applicant discharges a Travel Plan condition;  Although disappointing that cycle parking provision is not directly outside the entrance to Unit 1, this is not a reason to refuse – a condition, as recommended previously, should be attached requesting details of provision to be submitted and agreed;  Vegetation along the footpath/cycle link between the two arms of Irlam Wharf Road should be cut back to improve the attractiveness of the connection.  Recommendations for planning conditions: o All car parking areas are marked out, including detail of pedestrian crossing provision, and made available for use prior to first occupation; o Details of secure cycle and motorcycle parking to be submitted; o Details of shower and changing facilities to be submitted; o Construction Environmental Management Plan to be agreed; and o Travel Information Pack and full Travel Plan to be submitted for approval.

Historic England Do not consider that consultation is necessary under the relevant statutory provisions.

Lancashire Wildlife Trust No comments received to date.

Manchester Ship Canal Company No comments received to date.

Natural England No objection – consider that the proposed development will not have significant adverse impacts on statutorily protected nature conservation sites or landscapes. Refer to ‘Generic Advice on Natural Environment Impacts and Opportunities’.

Page 28

Trafford MBC No comments received to date.

United Utilities Confirm that the proposals in the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy are acceptable to UU and recommend conditions requiring foul and surface water to be drained on separate systems and surface water drainage to be carried out in accordance with the principles set out in the FRA and in accordance with a detailed scheme to be submitted for approval. Recommend a condition requiring agreement of a sustainable drainage management and maintenance plan.

Note the presence of five UU assets within, and in the vicinity of, the application site – UU will not allow building over of the assets and require suitable access for maintenance and repair. Note that some of the information requested from the applicant in previous direct discussions has not been provided and therefore retain concerns regarding the potential impacts of excavation and levels changes on the assets. Express a preference that further information is provided prior to determination; in the alternative, request that a condition is attached to ensure that relevant infrastructure is protected during the course of the development.

Planning Policy

GMSF Following the decision of Stockport Council in December 2020, the Revised Draft Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (‘GMSF’) is no longer being progressed. The replacement joint development plan for the remaining nine boroughs, Places for Everyone, is in the earliest stages of preparation and no weight can be afforded to the emerging plan at this time

Local Plan The Publication Salford Local Plan: Development Management Policies and Designations (‘Local Plan’) was published on 27 January 2020 and the Addendum (Proposed Modifications) was published on 5 February 2021. This is the version of the document that the City Council would like to adopt and has been subject to a significant amount of public consultation in previous stages of its production. However, in accordance with paragraph 48 of the National Planning Policy Framework the weight that can be given to the Local Plan overall is currently limited. The City Council is in the process of considering the comments made to determine the extent to which there are unresolved objections to the policies in the Plan. Those policies with less significant (or no) objections will be capable of carrying more weight than those with significant unresolved objections.

City of Salford Unitary Development Plan In addition, following the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) it is necessary to consider the weight which can be afforded to the policies of the Council's adopted Unitary Development Plan (paragraph 213 NPPF February 2019).

In terms of this application it is considered that the relevant policies of the UDP can be afforded due weight for the purposes of decision making as the relevant criteria within the UDP policies applicable to the proposed development are consistent with the policies contained in the NPPF.

Development Plan Policy

Unitary Development Plan ST3 - Employment Supply Unitary Development Plan ST5 - Transport Networks Unitary Development Plan ST13 - Natural Environments Assets Unitary Development Plan ST14 - Global Environment Unitary Development Plan ST15 - Historic Environment Unitary Development Plan DES1 - Respecting Context Unitary Development Plan DES2 - Circulation and Movement Unitary Development Plan DES4 - Relationship Development to Public Space Unitary Development Plan DES6 - Waterside Development Unitary Development Plan DES7 - Amenity of Users and Neighbours Unitary Development Plan DES9 - Landscaping Unitary Development Plan DES10 - Design and Crime Unitary Development Plan E4 - Sites for Employment Development Unitary Development Plan E5 - Development in Established Employment Areas Unitary Development Plan A2 - Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled

Page 29

Unitary Development Plan A8 - Impact of Development on Highway Network Unitary Development Plan A10 - Provision of Car, Cycle, Motorcycle Parking Unitary Development Plan EN7 - Nature Conservation of National Importance Unitary Development Plan EN8 - Nature Conservation of Local Importance Unitary Development Plan EN9 - Wildlife Corridors Unitary Development Plan EN12 - Important Landscape Features Unitary Development Plan EN17 - Pollution Control Unitary Development Plan EN18 - Protection of Water Courses Unitary Development Plan EN19 - Flood Risk and Surface Water Unitary Development Plan EN22 - Resource Conservation Unitary Development Plan EN23 - Environmental Improvement Corridors Unitary Development Plan CH5 - Archaeology and Ancient Monuments Unitary Development Plan CH8 - Local List of Buildings of Architectural, Archaeological or Historic Interest Unitary Development Plan R5 - Countryside Access Network Unitary Development Plan DEV5 - Planning Conditions and Obligations

Other Material Planning Considerations

National

National Planning Policy Framework National Planning Practice Guidance

Local

It is not considered that there are any local finance considerations that are material to the application.

Supplementary Planning Document - Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Document - Design Supplementary Planning Document - Established Employment Areas Supplementary Planning Document - Nature Conservation and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document - Design and Crime Supplementary Planning Document - Trees and Development Supplementary Planning Document - Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Guidance - Flood Risk and Development

Appraisal

The main considerations for the determination of this application are:  Principle of Development  Design, Layout and Landscaping  Access and Highways Impacts  Flood Risk and Drainage  Arboricultural and Ecological Impacts  Impact on Surrounding Land Uses  Air Quality  Contamination  Heritage  Planning Obligations

Principle of Development

Policy ST3 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan relates to employment land supply and sets a strategic objective for the Council to ensure a good range of local employment opportunities are secured by, amongst others, maintaining an adequate supply and variety of land and buildings for employment purposes and protecting, and increasing the attractiveness of, existing employment areas.

The site is now an isolated undeveloped plot on the fringes of Northbank Industrial Park, an Established Employment Area, with development well underway on the adjacent Omega Drive scheme to the south-west. The site is part of a wider UDP Allocation (Policy E4/7) which also covers land to the immediate north and a site on the western side of

Page 30

Irlam Wharf Road, both of which are now occupied. The allocation was identified as a site for offices, light industry, general industry, storage and distribution uses. The proposed development therefore accords with the allocation under UDP Policy E4, together with Policy E5 and the thrust of the NPPF with respect to ‘Building a strong, competitive economy’; the principle of development is therefore considered to be acceptable.

Design, Layout and Landscaping

Northbank Industrial Park is relatively spacious in comparison to other similar industrial areas across the City and the region, with a network of greenspaces and corridors separating and linking employment sites. The proposed layout of the scheme intends to retain this character, with a layout incorporating deep buffer planting areas. In particular, a substantial buffer would be created to the south-western end of the site to the adjacent Omega Drive development, to ensure an appropriate degree of visual separation and retain views to the Ship Canal along Darby Road. Similarly, substantial buffers would be provided to the western edge to Irlam Wharf Road and at the north- eastern end of the site to the adjacent wharfage facilities.

The proposed development would not front onto the Manchester Ship Canal, given the constraints presented by way of the limited depth of the site, the need to accommodate vehicular access from Irlam Wharf Road and the commercial nature of the development. In this circumstance, it is not considered appropriate that a waterside walkway or similar is provided within the site, given the absence of such features at either end of the site to connect into and the commercial/industrial nature of the scheme. A deep landscape buffer would be provided to the edge to the MSC, which would serve two critical purposes; to provide a sense of visual separation to the development and also to retain the integrity of the canal corridor as a feature of importance to biodiversity and wildlife, including the retention of existing vegetation to the canal bank.

A detailed landscaping masterplan has been provided with the application, and this is considered to be broadly acceptable. United Utilities has, however, requested that the final landscaping scheme for the site is a matter reserved for approval by way of a suitable condition, in order to ensure that the detail of planting proposals adjacent to their assets complies with their requirements for works adjacent to pipelines; a relevant condition is therefore recommended.

The size and appearance of the units is considered to be commensurate with the site context, in particular the similar modern units currently under construction at the adjacent development at Omega Drive. The buildings are understandably utilitarian in appearance, with a design ultimately driven by the function and operational requirements. The materials to be used and their colour treatment, are intended to be consistent with those used on immediately adjacent buildings and the development would therefore assimilate well into the surrounding built context. Variations in finishing texture and colour are included in order to break up the visual massing of each building (see Figure 3 below). The ancillary office space within each unit would front onto Irlam Wharf Road, with accompanying pedestrian links, creating an element of an active frontage and natural surveillance from the first-floor windows.

Although it is noted that significant proportions of the site would be laid out as hardstanding, to provide parking, access, circulation and servicing areas, it is noted that the landscaping proposals would ensure that these areas are well screened from surrounding roads and indeed the Ship Canal.

A Proposed Strategic Recreation Route (UDP Policy R/5) allocation runs along the western boundary of the site from Darby Road; the proposed route was intended to connect with a similar strategic route running along the northern bank of the MSC to the west. There is, however, no defined Public Right of Way and no current footpath link along the MSC with which to connect. The proposals for development of the site, however, would not prejudice potential future creation of a link at this location, as the adjacent portion of the site is comprised of a landscape buffer, rather than built development.

Page 31

Figure 3 – Sample Elevations of Units

The application is accompanied by a Crime Impact Statement (CIS), which has been subject to consultation with Design for Security (DfS). Recommendations within the CIS have been adopted within the proposals, including the provision of additional landscape buffers to deter potential unauthorised entry. No objections have been raised by DfS; a recommendation is given for a condition requiring implementation of physical security recommendations (door, window, glazing specifications etc.), however, this would not comprise a reasonable planning condition. Boundary treatment details are to be required by condition, as is a scheme for provision of external lighting and secure cycle/motorcycle parking, including CCTV provision.

The proposed development is considered to respond positively to the physical context and constraints of the site and would have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, the proposals would comply with Policies DES1, DES6, DES9 and DES10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the relevant considerations of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Access and Highways Impacts

The application is accompanied by a detailed Transport Assessment which provides an assessment of the site location, existing highway network and impact of the development proposals.

Accessibility

The site is located to the edge of a long-established employment area, Northbank Industrial Park, between Irlam and Cadishead. The 1km and 2km walking isochrones from the site include the remainder of the industrial park, Irlam

Page 32

train station, and residential areas around Cadishead Park and Lower Irlam. The 2.5km and 5km (15-20 minute cycling time) isochrones cover a much large area including Cadishead, Irlam and Flixton.

The nearest bus stops to the site are on Liverpool Road, approximately 0.85km (straight-line) from the site and are served by regular services to Irlam, Cadishead, Eccles, Manchester, the Trafford Centre and Warrington. The nearest railway station is Irlam, approximately 0.8km (straight-line) from the site.

The Local Highway Authority has reviewed the accessibility of the site and, having particular regard to recent accident data on Cadishead Way (A57), which acts as a barrier between the site and onwards connections to Cadishead and Irlam (in particular to the cycleway/footway on the northern side of the A57), considers that an improved crossing facility is required over the A57 near to the junction with Irlam Wharf Road (Figure 4 below). The recommendation is that this takes the form of dropped kerbs with a central island/refuge, to allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross the carriageway in two stages. It is recommended that this provision is secured by way of a ‘Grampian’ condition, requiring the developer to submit a scheme of works for the crossing and securing its implementation, under a s.278 agreement, prior to first occupation of the development.

Figure 4 – Existing junction/crossings layout A57/Irlam Wharf Road

In accordance with the LHA representation, conditions are recommended requiring the submission and agreement of a full Travel Plan for the development, together with detail of shower/changing facilities within the units for cyclists. Comments have also been raised regarding the adequacy of pedestrian access provision within the internal site layout; a condition is recommended requiring agreement of a scheme for the marking out of the parking/servicing areas to include delineated pedestrian routes to ensure safety for users walking from parked vehicles to the unit entrances.

The LHA has requested a condition requiring vegetation along the footpath/cycle link between the two arms of Irlam Wharf Road to be cut back to improve the attractiveness of the connection; this, however, would require the applicant to undertake maintenance works on land outside their ownership and would not be a reasonable condition.

Page 33

Impact on Highway Network

Assessment of the potential trip generation of the development has been carried out using the industry standard TRICS database, which provides the following output for total vehicles (including HGVs) [N.B. The total floorspace of Unit 1 has subsequently been reduced to 3,716 sq. m.]:

Trip generation figures have been used to undertake a capacity assessment at three key junctions in the immediate vicinity of the site: Cadishead Way/Brinell Drive, Cadishead Way/Darby Road and Cadishead Way/Irlam Wharf Road. The assessment demonstrates that all assessed junctions will operate well within capacity in the ‘with development’ scenario, as at 2025. The Local Highway Authority has raised no objection to the revised calculations and assessment, and considers that the impact on the local highway network is acceptable, with no mitigation required.

Servicing and Parking Provision

The application is accompanied by suitable swept-path analysis to demonstrate that access and circulation for 16.5m articulated goods vehicles would be acceptable. Initial specification of the proposed access points from Irlam Wharf Road to each unit has been provided, however, a condition is recommended requiring provision and agreement of full access detail prior to commencement.

The level of parking provision, as detailed below, is considered to be suitable. Cycle and motorcycle provision would exceed the Council’s minimum standards and the level of car parking provision would fall below the Council’s maximum standard, in taking the range permitted across the potential B1(c)/B2/B8 land uses.  Unit 1: o 55 car parking spaces incl. 3 disabled spaces and 5 Electric Vehicle (EV) charging spaces; o 10 cycle parking spaces; and o 4 motorcycle parking spaces.  Unit 2: o 40 principal car parking spaces incl. 4 disabled spaces and 5 EV charging spaces; o 14 cycle parking spaces; o 6 motorcycle spaces; and o 50 ‘overflow’ parking spaces to the periphery of the service yard.

A condition is recommended requiring submission of detailed specification of the cycle and motorcycle parking provision and subsequent provision of the facilities prior to first occupation. A condition is also recommended requiring the agreement of a Construction Management Plan, to include a comprehensive traffic management strategy.

Conclusion

In light of the above analysis, and subject to application of recommended conditions, it is considered that safe and suitable access to the development would be provided, that the development would not have an adverse impact on the capacity or safety of the local highway network, including with respect to junction capacity at relevant junctions in the surroundings, and would include adequate provision for the parking of cars, cycles and motorcycles. The site is considered to be reasonably accessible by means other than private vehicles, and mitigation is to be secured to provide an additional crossing point on Cadishead Way to ensure safe crossing in two stages to the northern arm of Irlam Wharf Road. Accordingly, the proposals are considered to accord with Policies ST5, DES2, A2, A8 and A10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the relevant provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 34

Flood Risk and Drainage

Flood Risk

The vast majority of the application site lies within Flood Zone 2, with a narrow band adjoining the Manchester Ship Canal falling within Flood Zone 3a; no part of the built development is proposed within FZ3a, which covers the canal bank. The application is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment, including flood mapping and modelled flood level information for the MSC (the potential source of fluvial flooding in this instance) from the Environment Agency.

The NPPF requires that a sequential, risk-based approach is adopted in considering the location of development with respect to flood risk. However, in accordance with Paragraph 162 of the NPPF, the Sequential Test does not need to be applied in this particular instance, given that the site is allocated under the provisions of the UDP and has been assessed as part of the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (site ref. S0009).

The proposed development is considered to be ‘Less Vulnerable’ with respect to flood risk; the development is therefore considered to be appropriate within Flood Zone 2 and application of the Exception Test is not required, in accordance with the Flood Risk Vulnerability/Flood Zone Compatibility table in the National Planning Practice Guidance.

The Environment Agency has raised no objection to the proposed development, referring to their Flood Risk Standing Advice, and recommends that measures to incorporate flood mitigation be considered. Similarly, the Council’s Flood Risk and Drainage Officer has raised no objection, subject to conditions. Policy FRD7 of the Council’s Flood Risk and Development SPD requires the use of flood resilient construction in new development, in Flood Zone 2 up to the flood level predicted for the 1:1,000 year floor event. Subject to a condition requiring implementation of such measures, it is not considered that the development would be subject to an unacceptable risk from fluvial flooding.

The risk of flooding from adjoining land is assessed as being ‘low’, given that surrounding plots are occupied by recent commercial development with positive drainage systems. A potential risk of flooding from groundwater is noted, on the basis of British Geological Society data, however an intrusive site investigation is required to establish the actual level of risk. Risk of flooding from reservoirs, canals and other artificial sources, with the exception of the MSC noted previously, is considered to be low.

Surface Water Drainage

The submitted drainage strategy includes an assessment of the potential to drain surface water from the site in accordance with the drainage hierarchy. Infiltration is not considered to be feasible, given the nature of underlying ground conditions. The strategy therefore proposes that surface water is drained in the next most sustainable manner, to a watercourse, in this case the Manchester Ship Canal. Surface water is to be collected within the site and attenuated within two tanks (one within each unit), in order to restrict discharge to the greenfield rate of 4.4l/s – water is then to be discharged to an existing UU surface water sewer which crosses the site and outfalls to the MSC. Water from car parking and service areas is to be passed through an oil separator prior to discharge. Foul water is to be discharged to the existing sewer in Irlam Wharf Road.

The proposed drainage strategy has been reviewed by United Utilities and the Council’s Flood Risk and Drainage Engineer, neither of whom have raised any objection, although the drainage strategy is considered to be high-level and a detailed design is to be required by condition. Subject to conditions as recommended, the development would accord with Policies EN17, EN18 and EN19 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan, the Council’s Flood Risk and Development SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework, with respect to drainage and flood risk.

United Utilities Infrastructure

The applicant has, at United Utilities request, undertaken additional survey work on site during the course of consideration of the application to determine the potential impacts of the development on UU assets; this has resulted in amendments to the size/siting of Unit 1. A UU sludge main crosses the site at the north-west corner; the proposed site layout ensures that the requisite stand-off is provided to this infrastructure. A UU surface water drain also crosses the site to an outfall in MSC, again this is accounted for in the site layout, with the Unit 1 car park/service yard to be constructed above. Although acknowledging the benefits of the amendments to Unit 1, UU has advised that they consider there is currently insufficient information with respect to the potential impacts of levels changes, including the sunken loading bay to Unit 1, on relevant assets and have expressed a preference that additional information is submitted at this stage. It is, however, considered that the matter can be suitably addressed by way of application of conditions including agreement of proposed finished site and floor levels (the site is a relatively flat plateau up to the

Page 35

top of the MSC bank, and no significant changes in site levels are envisaged) and agreement of asset protection measures for the duration of works on site, in accordance with the draft condition provided by UU.

Arboricultural and Ecological Impacts

Tree Loss

The site is the subject of dense tree and scrub cover, which is predominantly self-seeded by virtue of the site lying fallow since clearance in the 1980s. A Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment have been submitted, which identifies 139 individual trees and group features, recorded as Category B (23 trees/groups) and C (116 trees/groups). The majority of trees on site are self-seeded, occurring through neglect as opposed to formal planting. Category C trees should not be allowed to constrain a development and their removal is considered acceptable.

Retention of Category B trees should be attempted, however, given the contribution to the overall amenity value of the area in the short, mid and long-term, the footprint of the proposal, the available space and the earthworks proposed, full retention is not possible - 113 individual trees, plus three groups, are to be removed to facilitate the development, however the vast majority of these are Category C and self-seeded.

Retained trees would be afforded protection during the construction phase and a scheme of on-site replacement tree planting is proposed within the submitted landscape masterplan. In light of the size of the buildings, it is not possible to achieve full mitigation for the tree/vegetation loss on site, and it is therefore necessary for the development to provide off-site mitigation.

The Council’s Arboricultural Consultant has reviewed the survey work, impact assessment and protection plans and has raised no objection to the development or detail, subject to a condition requiring work to be undertaken in accordance with the submitted proposals.

Ecological Impact

The site is considered to be of relatively high ecological and biodiversity value, with an Ecological Baseline score of 12.83 Biodiversity Units (calculated using the Defra Metric 2.0), given that it contains broadleaved woodland, mixed scrub, ruderal/ephemeral vegetation and other trees. The adjacent Manchester Ship Canal is also an important Wildlife Corridor, however, the site is well separated from wildlife from the canal itself by virtue of the steep bank.

The site lies within the relevant search radius, including risk zones, of three statutory designated sites:  Manchester Mosses Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Local Nature Reserve (LNR);  Rixton Claypits SAC, SSSI and LNR; and  Rostherne Mere Ramsar site, National Nature Reserve (NNR) and SSSI.

Consultation has been undertaken with Natural England, who have confirmed that they do not consider the proposed development will have significant adverse impacts on statutorily protected nature conservation sites or landscapes. The proposals would therefore comply with Policy EN7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

The site is well separated from nearby Sites of Biological Importance (SBIs), including the nearest at Carrington Power Station to the east, with any potential links between the two sites being partially severed by the presence of the Ship Canal – it is not considered that the development would result in any adverse impact on such features and no conflict is identified with UDP Policy EN8.

No direct impacts on the Manchester Ship Canal are anticipated, given the stand-off and retained landscape buffer within the proposals. Construction activities on site create the potential for pollution of the watercourse, and it is recommended that this is mitigated by way of requiring a Construction Management Plan. The final drainage surface water drainage scheme for the site is also to have regard to requisite mitigation to prevent adverse impacts on the canal. Subject to the appropriate mitigation, the scheme would comply with UDP Policies EN9 and EN23.

The proposed ecological impacts would be localised to the site itself; the submitted Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment, which provides an assessment of the post-development baseline (including on-site mitigation planting and habitat creation) versus the pre-development baseline, concludes that the development would result in a loss of 5.6 Biodiversity Units (or 44%). The proposed on-site planting is therefore insufficient to completely mitigate both the arboricultural and ecological losses on-site and off-site mitigation is therefore required.

Page 36

The potential impact of the development on priority and protected species, including bats, birds, otter, reptiles, badger and hedgehog, have been considered within the submitted survey and evaluation work. The Greater Manchester Ecology Unit has reviewed the submitted information and is satisfied that the development does not pose a risk of adverse impacts to such species, subject to conditions being applied. A condition recommends reasonable avoidance measures for badger and hedgehog and a further condition is required for additional habitat creation on site (e.g. bird/bat boxes). A scheme of appropriate and sensitive external lighting for the site is required, given the proximity to the MSC corridor – a condition is duly recommended.

The site is host to a number of invasive plant species (Himalayan Balsam, Japanese Knotweed and Cotoneaster). Requisite surveys have been undertaken and a method statement for eradication/management has been submitted – this has been reviewed by GMEU and is considered acceptable; implementation is to be required by condition.

Off-Site Mitigation

The applicant has advised that they have insufficient additional land holdings within the immediate area surrounding the site to accommodate any off-site mitigation on land within their ownership or control. Accordingly, the applicant proposes to make a financial contribution towards provision of off-site biodiversity and tree planting mitigation elsewhere. Consultation has been undertaken with GMEU and the Council’s Greenspace service, and officers are confident that mitigation can be suitably accommodated and delivered by the Council on land within its control.

Formulae have been provided by GMEU to translate the net Biodiversity Unit (BU) figure into a financial contribution; given the relative simplicity of the likely target habitats and proposed planting, it is recommended that a contribution of £10,000 per Biodiversity Unit is secured. This equates to a total contribution of £56,000, which is to be secured by way of completion of a s.106 agreement, with a receptor site(s) to be determined at a later date.

Conclusion

In light of the above, and subject to application of the recommended conditions and security of the proposed financial contribution towards off-site biodiversity/tree planting mitigation, it is considered that the development proposals comply with Policies ST13 and EN12 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan, together with the relevant provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Impact on Surrounding Land Uses

The proposed site is well separated from existing residential uses, with the nearest dwelling (The Vicarage, off Manchester Road in Trafford) being circa 540m to the east of the development; the singular concern with respect to impact of the development on the amenity of nearby sensitive land uses is therefore noise.

A Noise Impact Assessment has been submitted, considering the possible impact of noise from the service yard, plant noise and operational breakout noise. The report predicts that the impact of service yard noise and operational breakout noise would be low. The report has used background noise data and noise data to set plant noise limits to ensure noise from fixed plant and equipment does not have an impact off site. The report has been subject of consultation with the Council’s Environmental Consultant who has raised no objection to the methodologies or conclusions of the report; a condition is recommended setting maximum noise rating levels for external plant. Subject to such a condition being attached, it is considered that the development would comply with Policy EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the relevant considerations of the National Planning Policy Framework, with respect to the impact on surrounding land uses.

Air Quality

The site is not located within a Greater Manchester Air Quality Management Area, however given the scale of the development proposals the application is accompanied by an Air Quality Assessment (AQA) which contains consideration of both the potential for impacts to occur during the construction and operational phases of the development, and also the potential for exposure of future occupants to air pollution.

A construction dust impact assessment was undertaken in accordance with Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) guidance. It was concluded that without appropriate mitigation measures, ‘Low’ risks were posed by construction, earthworks and trackout activities. During construction, receptors within 50 m of the construction boundary could be susceptible to dust effects. However, with appropriate mitigation measures implemented, it was concluded that the construction effects of the proposed development would not be significant.

Page 37

The increase in development traffic falls well below the IAQM threshold of 500 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) recommended for developments outside AQMAs. Furthermore, additional calculations have been undertaken to demonstrate that the more stringent threshold of 100 AADT will not be exceeded on nearby road links that are located within the closest areas of the Greater Manchester AQMA. As operational phase traffic is not anticipated to present a significant impact, further evaluation of traffic-related air quality impacts was scoped out of the assessment.

The AQA concludes that with the provision of appropriate mitigation measures, construction activities and operational impacts will have no significant effects on local air quality. The AQA has been reviewed by the Council’s Environmental Consultant, who has raised no objections to the findings and considers that potential ‘Low’ risk to air quality from the construction period can be suitably mitigated by way of imposing a standard requirement for a Construction Management Plan, as recommended in the conditions below. Accordingly, no conflict is identified, with respect to impacts on air quality, with Policy EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan nor with the relevant provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Contamination

The application is accompanied by a Geo-environmental Desk Study Report, which contains a high-level assessment of ground conditions on the site. In light of the historic uses of the site (railway track, made ground associated with historical developments and a steel and iron works (to the west), together with EA landfill records) there is a ‘high risk’ of contamination, including to controlled waters. The proposed end use is for an industrial development, which is considered a sensitive end use with respect to land contamination risk and recommendations are provided for an intrusive ground investigation to further assess the potential environmental and geotechnical constraints and, where necessary, provide a contaminated land remediation strategy.

The findings of the submitted report have been reviewed by the Council’s Environmental Consultant and the Environment Agency, neither of which have raised an objection, subject to conditions being attached to any permission requiring further investigation work and subsequent agreement, implementation and verification of remediation works. Subject to attachment of conditions as recommended, it is considered that the proposed development would not conflict with Policies EN17 and EN18 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan nor with the relevant considerations of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Heritage

The site was agricultural in nature until the development of the Manchester Ship Canal in the 1880s, which resulted in the industrial development of the wider area and establishment of a mineral railway across the site. Between 1912 and 1938, a Steelworks had been established to the west, which developed during the mid-20th century until its eventual closure in 1979. Its development required associated infrastructure, some of which extended to within the site boundaries, including railway sidings, a travelling crane with conveyors and tanks. The site is, however, currently cleared and although there may be some surviving remains of features on site, these would be of local significance only and the submitted Heritage Impact Assessment concludes that any surviving remains would add little to any understanding of the historic evolution of this area of Irlam. The findings have been the subject of consultation with the Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory Unit, which has raised no objection to the findings and do not consider that any mitigation or archaeological investigation requirements are necessary.

The site is otherwise well separated from any nearby statutory or otherwise designated heritage assets. The Grade II* listed Church of St. George lies approximately 0.5km east of the site in Carrington. There is no apparent visual interrelationship between the two sites, and it is considered that the development would not affect the setting of this asset; Historic England were consulted and determined that it was not necessary to comment on the application.

The Manchester Ship Canal is considered to be a Non-Designated Heritage Asset, in light of the historic importance of the shipping route and the contribution of the canal to the character and identity of the local area and the City. In accordance with Paragraph 197 of the NPPF, the effect of the development on the MSC is to be taken into account, having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significant of the heritage asset. The proposed development retains a character to the banks of the canal of industrial development and working, and is not considered to be an incongruous feature having regard to both historic and current uses along the canal and in the immediate surrounding area. The visual impact of the development on the canal is to be mitigated by way of the retention and improvement of a landscape buffer along the edge of the site. No alterations are proposed to the banks of the canal itself, with the development being stood back from the waterway. Accordingly, it is considered that the development would not result in harm to the significance of the MSC.

Page 38

In accordance with the above, it is considered that the proposed development would not conflict with the provisions of Policies ST15 and CH5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan nor with the relevant provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Planning Obligations

The application proposes the redevelopment of the site to deliver two industrial and warehousing units (Use Classes B1(c), B2, B8 use). In light of the scale of the development an assessment of its impact on nearby transport infrastructure and public realm is required in accordance with UDP Policy DEV5 and the Planning Obligations SPD.

In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations, planning obligations may only be sought where they are necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

A s.106 agreement is required to be completed to secure payment and appropriate disbursement of the £56,000 financial contribution towards off-site biodiversity and tree planting mitigation, and this is contained within the recommendation below.

In this instance, in accordance with advice received from the Local Highway Authority and the Council’s s.106 team, it is considered that the development would not require any mitigation above and beyond that already required in respect of off-site biodiversity/tree planting mitigation and the provision of the enhanced crossing facility on Cadishead Way, which is to be secured by way of a planning condition.

Recommendation

That planning permission be granted, subject to the following schedule of planning conditions, and that:

I. The City Solicitor be authorised to enter into a legal obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the following heads of terms:

a) A commuted sum of £56,000 (+ £840 monitoring fee), to be paid prior to first occupation, to be directed towards provision of biodiversity mitigation tree planting within the City of Salford.

II. That the applicant be informed that the Council is minded to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions stated below, on completion of such legal obligation;

III. That authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application be issued, (subject to the conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned legal obligation.

Schedule of Planning Conditions

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

Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: - Location Plan ref. M3126-SK06-2 rev. A - Site Layout Plan ref. M3126-SK06-01 rev. C - Unit 1 Ground Floor Layout Plan ref. M3126-U1 – 200 rev. P1 - Unit 1 Office Layout Plans ref. M3126-U1 – 201 rev. P1 - Unit 1 Roof Plan ref. M3126-U1 – 202 rev. P1 - Unit 1 Elevations ref. M3126-U1 – 300 rev. P1 - Unit 2 Ground Floor Layout Plan ref. M3126-U2 – 200 rev. A - Unit 2 Office Layout Plans ref. M3126-U2 – 201 - Unit 2 Roof Plan ref. M3126-U2 – 202 - Unit 2 Elevations ref. M3126-U2 – 300 rev. A - Sub-Station Details ref. M3126-601 rev. B - Sub-Station Elevations ref. M3126-602 - Sub-Station Roof Details ref. M3126-603

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Page 39

3. No development shall take place until such time as a Phase 2 Site Investigation Report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of land contamination on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors focusing primarily on risks to human health, groundwater and the wider environment.

Should unacceptable risks be identified, no development shall take place until such time as a contaminated land remediation strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with the duly approved remediation strategy or such varied remediation strategy as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

No piling using penetrative methods during the construction period shall be carried out other than with the written consent of the Local Planning Authority pursuant to the provisions of this condition.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment and to ensure the safe development of the site in the interests of the amenity of future occupiers in accordance with Policies EN17 and EN18 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: Any works on site could affect any contamination which may be present and hinder the effective remediation of any contamination causing a risk to the health of future occupiers and harm to the environment, hence the initial investigation must be carried out before works commence.

4. No development shall take place (including any site clearance or preparation works) until a Construction Management Plan (CMP), which shall include for the following, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: a) The hours for construction activities on site; b) The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; c) Loading and unloading of plant and materials; d) Storage of plant and materials using in constructing the development; e) The erection and maintenance of security hoardings including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; f) Measures to prevent the deposition of dirt on the public highway, including wheel washing facilities; g) Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; h) Measures to minimise disturbance to any neighbouring occupiers from noise and vibration, including from any piling activity; i) Hours for and means of access of delivery and construction vehicles; and j) Measures for the protection of the Manchester Ship Canal from accidental spillages, dust and debris.

The duly approved Construction Management Plan shall be adhered to throughout the construction period.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the area, the amenities of surrounding residents, the safety and free flow of highway uses, and to protect the integrity of the adjacent Wildlife Corridor in accordance with Policies DES1, DES7, A2, A8, EN9 and EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: The proposals require site clearance, ground works and engineering works; an understanding of protection measures is required in advance of such works.

5. No development shall take place (including any site clearance or preparation works) until all the retained trees as shown at the Tree Protection Plan (ref. DR-4785-02) within (or overhanging) the site, have been protected using temporary protective fencing and temporary ground protection. Such protection shall be installed in accordance with the details contained within the Arboricultural Impact Assessment by Brooks Ecological (ref. AR-4785-02 dated June 2020) and shall remain until all development is completed and no work, including any form of drainage or storage of materials, earth or topsoil shall take place within the perimeter of such protection.

Reason: In the interests of protecting retained trees in accordance with Policy EN12 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 40

Reason for pre-commencement: It is necessary for all protection measures to be in place prior to works commencing on site to avoid risk of damage to retained trees.

6. Notwithstanding any detail provided with the application, no development shall take place until a detailed surface and foul water drainage scheme (including drainage of surface water from the access and parking areas), substantially in accordance with the drainage principles set out within the Drainage & Flood Risk Assessment by JPG Group (ref. 5840-JPG-XX-XX-RP-D-0620-S2-P02 dated October 2020), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage scheme shall: a) Provide for the separate drainage of foul and surface water within the site; b) Accord with the surface water hierarchy of drainage options in the National Planning Practice Guidance, with evidence of an assessment of site conditions; c) If relevant, accord with the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems, or any subsequent replacement national standards; d) Include evidence to demonstrate that the proposed scheme will mitigate potential negative impacts of the drainage of the development on the ecological properties of the Manchester Ship Canal; e) Include provision of oil and pollution separators where appropriate; and f) Include detail of how the drainage system shall be maintained and managed after completion.

No part of the development shall be occupied until such time as the drainage scheme has been fully implemented in accordance with the duly approved detail. The drainage system shall be retained as installed thereafter and maintained/managed in accordance with the duly approved detail in perpetuity.

Reason: To prevent an increased risk of flooding as a result of the development, to ensure satisfactory disposal of surface water from the site and to ensure no adverse ecological impacts in accordance with Policies EN17, EN18 and EN19 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the NPPF.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: Drainage infrastructure will need to be installed prior to commencement of above ground works and a scheme therefore needs to be agreed in advance of the same.

7. No development shall take place until details of existing and proposed finished site levels and proposed finished floor levels for the buildings hereby approved, relative to off-site datum point(s), have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, together with a detailed scheme for use of flood resilient construction (up to the flood level predicted for the 1:1,000 year flood event) in the development. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of reducing flood risk and amenity in accordance with Policies DES1, DES9 and EN19 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan, Policy FRD7 of the Salford City Council Flood Risk and Development Planning Guidance (July 2008) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: It is necessary to have a fixed understanding of levels changes before engineering works commence on site and alter existing levels.

8. No development shall take place (including any site clearance or preparation works) until such time as a Reasonable Avoidance Measures Method Statement for badger and hedgehog has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the duly approved method statement.

Reason: In the interests of protecting priority and protected species in accordance with Policies ST13 and EN12 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: It is necessary to ensure that reasonable avoidance measures are agreed and ready to be implemented prior to works starting on site.

9. No development shall take place until a scheme of measures to ensure that wastewater and water infrastructure within and adjacent to the site boundary is protected from damage, as a result of the development, has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing, in consultation with United Utilities. The details shall include a survey of the exact locations (line and depth) of the potentially affected water and wastewater infrastructure and outline the potential impacts on the infrastructure from construction activities (including changes in land levels), the impacts post completion of the development, and identification of mitigation measures to protect and prevent any damage to the infrastructure both during construction and post completion of the development. The scheme shall include for pre and post construction

Page 41

condition surveys. The scheme of protection and mitigation measures shall be implemented in full in accordance with the duly approved details.

Reason: In the interests of protecting critical water and wastewater assets within and adjacent to the site in the interests of public health and protection of water resources in accordance with Policies EN17 and EN18 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: It is necessary to ensure that any relevant protection measures are understood, agreed and ready to be implemented prior to works starting on site.

10. No above ground works shall take place until such time as a detailed scheme for the design and layout of the approved access points to the site from Irlam Wharf Road has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the duly approved scheme and the access points made fully available for use prior to first occupation of the development.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and ensuring safe and suitable access and egress in accordance with Policies ST5, DES2, A2 and A8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

11. Notwithstanding any detail shown on the approved plans, no part of the development shall be occupied until such time as detailed scheme for the laying out and lining of the car parking and servicing areas, including protected areas for pedestrians traversing the site, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the duly approved detail and the car parking, servicing and other vehicular access arrangements shown on the approved plans to serve the development shall be made fully available for use prior to the development being first brought into use and shall be retained thereafter for their intended purpose.

Reason: In the interest of the safety of highway users, pedestrians and cyclists and in accordance with Policies DES2 and A2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

12. No part of the development shall be occupied until such time as a detailed scheme for the provision of a new or enhanced non-signalised pedestrian and cyclist crossing point, including a mid-carriageway refuge, across Cadishead Way (A57), near to the junction with Irlam Wharf Road, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The duly approved scheme shall be implemented in full and the crossing made available for use prior to first occupation of the development or in accordance with a timetable first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and promoting active travel in accordance with Policies ST5 and A2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

13. No part of the development shall be occupied until such time as a verification report, pursuant to the provisions of condition 3 of this permission, which validates that all remedial works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed with the Local Planning Authority, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment and to ensure the safe development of the site in the interests of the amenity of future occupiers in accordance with Policies EN17 and EN18 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

14. No part of the development shall be occupied until details of the type, siting, design and materials to be used in the construction of boundaries, screens or retaining walls have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the approved structures have been erected in accordance with the approved details. The structures shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and in compliance with Policies DES1 and DES10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

15. No part of the development shall be occupied until such time as a detailed scheme for the provision of secure and sheltered cycle and motorcycle parking, including details of CCTV systems to cover the shelters, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall

Page 42

be occupied until such time as the facilities have be constructed in accordance with the approved detail. The facilities shall be retained and maintained for their intended use thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of encouraging sustainable travel and in the interests of security and crime prevention in accordance with policies ST14, DES10, A2 and A10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

16. No part of the development shall be occupied until such time as a scheme of on-site biodiversity enhancement measures including, but not limited to, bird boxes, bat boxes and hibernacula, in accordance with the recommendations of the submitted ecological appraisal and additional survey work, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The duly approved scheme shall be fully implemented prior to first occupation of the development or in accordance with a timetable first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of mitigating impacts of the development on biodiversity in accordance with Policies ST13, EN9 and EN12 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

17. No part of the development shall be occupied until such time as a detailed scheme for the provision of Electric Vehicle charging infrastructure on the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The duly approved scheme shall be fully implemented, and the charging infrastructure made available for use, prior to first occupation of the development and the infrastructure shall be retained and maintained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of encouraging and sustaining the use of Electric Vehicles in order to reduce emissions from road transport in accordance with Policies ST14 and EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

18. Notwithstanding any detail shown on the plans hereby approved, no part of the development shall be occupied until such time as details of shower and changing facilities within each unit hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of each unit shall be occupied until such time as the duly approved facilities within that unit have been constructed and made available for use; the facilities shall be retained and made available for their intended use thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of encouraging sustainable travel in accordance with policies ST14 and A2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

19. (a) No part of the development shall be occupied until such time as full details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with United Utilities. The details shall include the formation of any banks, terraces or other earthworks, hard surfaced areas and materials, planting plans, specifications and schedules (including planting size, species and numbers/densities), existing plants/trees to be retained and a scheme for the timing/phasing of implementation works.

(b) The landscaping scheme shall substantially accord with the detail shown on the submitted Landscape Masterplan (ref. 230-LYR-XX-ZZ-DWG-L-1001 rev. 3) and shall have regard for the necessary protection of United Utilities assets within and adjacent to the site.

(c) The landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme for timing / phasing of implementation or within the next planting season following final occupation of the development hereby permitted, whichever is the sooner.

(d) Any trees or shrubs planted or retained in accordance with this condition which are removed, uprooted, destroyed, die or become severely damaged or become seriously diseased within 5 years of planting shall be replaced within the next planting season by trees or shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted.

Reason: To ensure that the site is satisfactorily landscaped having regard to its location and the nature of the proposed development and to ensure the protection of essential water and wastewater assets in accordance with Policies ST13, DES1, DES6, DES9, EN9 and EN18 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 43

20. Each unit hereby approved shall be occupied and managed in accordance with a full Travel Plan to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing within 6 months of each unit being first occupied. The Travel Plan submitted to the LPA shall include, but not be limited to, a Travel Information Pack (TIP), Travel Plan coordinator details and information detailing incentives to encourage use of non-car modes of transport. The duly approved Travel Plan shall be implemented and reviewed in accordance with the timetable embodied therein.

Reason: In the interests of encouraging sustainable travel in accordance with policies ST14 and A2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

21. The development shall be undertaken and maintained in accordance with the submitted Invasive Species Management Plan by Ecological Estates Ltd. (ref. R-EE-4785-05.2, dated 25.11.2020).

Reason: In the interests of preventing the spread of invasive plant species in accordance with Policies ST13, DES9 and EN12 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

22. The development hereby approved shall be constructed in accordance with the external materials specification as detailed on approved plans ref. M3126-U1 – 300 rev. P1 and ref. M3126-U2 – 300 rev. A and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policies DES1 and DES6 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

23. No external lighting shall be installed on the buildings or elsewhere on the site unless and until a detailed scheme for such lighting has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit. External lighting shall only be installed in accordance with the duly approved detail and retained and maintained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of priority and protected species, with particular regard to the Manchester Ship Canal Wildlife Corridor, and in the interests of amenity, in accordance with Policies EN17, ST13, DES6 and EN9 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

24. No refuse or materials intended for recycling shall be stored externally on the site unless and until a detailed scheme for the provision of refuse and recycling stores has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the approved stores erected in accordance with the duly approved detail. Any stores erected under the provisions of this condition shall be maintained in accordance with the approved detail and used for their intended purposes thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policies DES1 and DES6 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

25. Any externally mounted plant and equipment (with the exception of plant required for emergency situations, such as standby generators, smoke extract equipment etc.) associated with the development shall be designed so as not to exceed the following free-field noise rating levels - 0700 to 2300 hours – 53 dB LAr,Tr; - 2300 to 0700 hours – 47 dB LAr,Tr determined 1 metre from the nearest noise sensitive premises, in accordance with BS 4142:2014+A1:2019 with corrections applied for any plant emitting noise of a total or irregular quality.

Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Notes to Applicant

Land Contamination Standard Informative The applicant is advised that they have a duty to adhere to the regulations of Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 and the current Building Control Regulations with regards to contaminated land. The responsibility to ensure the safe development of land affected by contamination rests primarily with the developer.

Page 44

Gas Protection Measures With respect to gas protection measures the applicant’s attention is drawn to BRE 414, Protection Measures for Housing on Gas-Contaminated Sites. In addition the requirements of BS8845:2015 Code of Practice for the design of protective measures for methane and carbon dioxide ground gases for new buildings should be followed for installation and the verification requirements of CIRIA C735 Good Practice on the Testing and Verification of Protection Systems for Buildings against Hazardous Ground Gasses will need to be submitted.

Verification of gas protection systems needs to be undertaken during the construction process, or the applicant may not be able to discharge the condition. This can lead to issues with property searches and / or mortgage at a later time.

Environment Agency – Controlled Waters The Manchester Ship Canal (MSC) is situated adjacent to the proposed development site and can be classified as a vulnerable receptor for any contamination arising from the proposed development site. As part of further ground investigations and conceptual modelling it should be ensured that the MSC is included as a controlled waters receptor.

Environment Agency – Flood Risk Activity Permit (FRAP) This development may require a permit under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 from the Environment Agency for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over or within eight metres of the top of the bank of the River Mersey, designated a ‘main river’. This was formerly called a Flood Defence Consent. Some activities are also now excluded or exempt. A permit is separate to and in addition to any planning permission granted. The granting of planning permission does not necessitate the grant of a permit or vice versa. Further details and guidance are available on the GOV.UK website: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-activitiesenvironmental- permits

The Environment Agency has discretionary powers to carry out maintenance works on the channels of "main river" watercourses to remove blockages and ensure the free flow of water. Information on riparian landowner’s rights and responsibilities can be found at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/owning-a-watercourse

Environment Agency – Waste on-site The CL:AIRE Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice (version 2) provides operators with a framework for determining whether or not excavated material arising from site during remediation and/ or land development works are waste or have ceased to be waste. Under the Code of Practice:  excavated materials that are recovered via a treatment operation can be re-used onsite providing they are treated to a standard such that they fit for purpose and unlikely to cause pollution;  treated materials can be transferred between sites as part of a hub and cluster project; and  some naturally occurring clean material can be transferred directly between sites.

Developers should ensure that all contaminated materials are adequately characterised both chemically and physically, and that the permitting status of any proposed on-site operations are clear. If in doubt, the Environment Agency should be contacted for advice at an early stage to avoid any delays.

We recommend that developers should refer to:  The position statement on the Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice  The waste management page on GOV.UK

Environment Agency – Waste to be taken off-site Contaminated soil that is (or must be) disposed of is waste. Therefore, its handling, transport, treatment and disposal are subject to waste management legislation, which includes:  Duty of Care Regulations 1991  Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005  Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016  The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011

Developers should ensure that all contaminated materials are adequately characterised both chemically and physically in line with British Standard BS EN 14899:2005 'Characterization of Waste - Sampling of Waste Materials - Framework for the Preparation and Application of a Sampling Plan' and that the permitting status of any proposed treatment or disposal activity is clear.

Page 45

If in doubt, the Environment Agency should be contacted for advice at an early stage to avoid any delays.

If the total quantity of hazardous waste material produced or taken off-site is 500kg or greater in any 12 month period, the developer will need to register with us as a hazardous waste producer. Refer to the hazardous waste pages on GOV.UK for more information.

Bird Breeding Season No vegetation clearance required by the scheme should take place in the optimum period for bird nesting (July to August inclusive) unless nesting birds have been shown to be absent by a suitably qualified person.

Otter Whilst there is only a low risk of otter being present, the applicant is reminded that under the Habitat Regulation it is an offence to disturb, harm or kill otters. If an otter is found during the development all work should cease immediately and a suitably licensed ecologist employed to assess how best to safeguard the otter(s). Natural England should also be informed.

Bats All species of bats found in the UK receive a high level of legal protection under the terms of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Bats roost in a variety of places and will use cracks, crevices and holes in trees. They are mobile in their habits and can turn up in the most unlikely places at any time of year. Precautions should be taken throughout works, at any time of year, with the possible presence of bats borne in mind. If bats are found at any time during works, then work should cease immediately and advice sought from Natural England or a suitably qualified bat worker.

United Utilities – Standard Conditions for Works Adjacent to Pipelines The developer is advised to review the United Utilities document ‘Standard Conditions for Works Adjacent to Pipelines’ (Document Ref. 90048 Issue 3.1 July 2015) provided with the UU consultation response dated 5 November 2020.

Highways – Useful Contacts Dilapidation Survey:  Developer shall contact John Horrocks/Pam Docksey to arrange a full dilapidation/Condition Survey of all adopted highways surrounding the site prior to works commencing on site. Tel: 0161 603 4046/4006 Highway Permits/Licensing:  Applications for all forms of highway permits/licenses shall be made in advanced of any works being undertaken on the adopted highway Note: NO boundary fencing shall be erected or positioned on any part of the adopted highway with first seeking the relevant permits/licenses from the Local Highway Authority Tel: 0161 603 4046/4006 General Highway Information:  Requests for general Information regarding the adopted highway network shall be directed to the Local Highway Authority – John Horrocks- 0161 603 4046/4006 S278 and S38 Works  The Developer shall contact Neil Ashmall to arrange for the S278 element of the development. Neil Ashmall 0161 779 4883.  The Developer shall contact John Proctor to arrange for the S38 element of the development. John Proctor: 0161 779 4894. Traffic Management:  The Developer shall contact Rob Owen for the Traffic Management element of the development. Rob Owen - Tel: 0161 779 4848.

Secure by Design The developer’s attention is drawn to the recommendations of the submitted Crime Impact Statement, including the physical security and design specifications contained therein.

Page 46 Agenda Item 5c PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL PART I SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

APPLICATION No: 21/76720/FUL APPLICANT: Mr J Parr LOCATION: 301 Walkden Road, Worsley, M28 2RZ PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing Public house and erection of a 3 storey building comprising of a 71 Bed Care Facility (Use Class C2) with alterations to existing access, provision of car parking, and associated landscaping (resubmission of 19/73709/FUL) WARD: Boothstown and Ellenbrook

Figure 1 – the subject site

Description of site and surrounding area

The subject site is located on the south-western side of Walkden Road, south of the A580. The Cock Hotel, a two-storey public house, stands towards the centre of the site. A small garden is located at the rear together with car parking and service space. Additional parking/service space is located forward of the building along the Walkden Road frontage.

Protected woodland surrounds the site and extends some distance to the south and north-west. A service station stands immediately to the north and to the east, across Walkden Road, stand a row of dwellings. Beyond this, land is generally used for residential purposes.

Page 47

$0z0hkdst.docx To the west of the site are Worsley Cricket Club and Ellesmere Sports Club. These clubs are located within a designated minerals safeguarding area and are also within the Green Belt.

Figure 2 – the subject building

Description of proposal

The only change from the approved development is that the applicant seeks to replace 1no. store cupboard at second floor level with an additional bedroom (incl. ensuite). The description below explains the wider development that already has consent.

This application seeks permission to demolish the existing public house on site and construct a care facility (Use Class C2) in its place.

The proposed building would stand to a height of three storeys and comprise 71 ensuite bedrooms and associated living, dining and laundry facilities. A range of services would also be provided on site, including general nursing and dementia care. Independent residents would occupy ground floor bedrooms whilst dependent residents would occupy the upper floors. The facility would employ 40 part time and 60 full time nursing and administration staff.

The building would be constructed generally towards the centre and rear of the site behind a 27-space car park and service area. Amenity spaces would be located at the sides and rear of the building and may be accessed via private rooms or communal areas. Figure 3 below shows the site layout in greater detail. In addition to bedrooms and the aforementioned living, dining and laundry facilities, the building would also comprise a resident’s café, salon and offices at ground floor level.

The building would be finished in brick and feature contrasting banding and a hipped roof.

Page 48

$0z0hkdst.docx

Figure 3 – site layout plan

Figure 4 – comparing the proposed internal alteration (left – proposed) (right – approved)

Page 49

$0z0hkdst.docx Publicity

Site Notice: Non HH Article 15 Date Displayed: 22 April 2021 Reason: Statutory Publicity

Press Advert: Manchester Weekly News Salford Edition Date Published: 28 January 2021 Reason: Article 15 Standard Press Notice

Neighbour notification

Notice of the application was sent to 25 surrounding properties.

Representations

No representations were received in response to the application.

Relevant Site History

19/73709/FUL - Demolition of existing Public house and erection of a 3 storey building comprising of a 70 Bed Care Facility (Use Class C2) with alterations to existing access, provision of car parking, and associated landscaping. - Approve - 23 January 2020

20/75826/NMA - Application for a non-material amendment following the grant of planning permission 19/73709/FUL for alteration of fenestration to include, Internal layout changes, roof layout changes, omission of single storey plantroom to rear, materials selection, cycle and bin store locations. – Approve (26.10.2020)

Discharge of Conditions

20/75422/DISCON - Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 16 (Noise mitigation scheme) attached to planning permission 19/73709/FUL – Request Determined (07.08.2020)

20/76226/DISCON - Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 14 (materials) attached to planning permission 19/73709/FUL - Request Determined (02.11.2020)

20/75529/DISCON - Application for approval of details reserved by condition 9 (intrusive site investigation) attached to planning permission 19/73709/FUL. - Request Determined (30.11.2020)

20/75330/DISCON - Request for confirmation of compliance of conditions 4 (Arboricultural Method Statement), Condition 6 (Phase 2 SI and report), Condition 7 (Phase 2 SI and report), Condition 11 (Drainage Strategy) and Condition 18 (Construction Method Statement) attached to planning permission 19/73709/FUL - Request Determined (11.12.2020)

21/76887/DISCON - Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 5 (landscape plan) attached to planning permission 19/73709/FUL - Request Determined (25.03.2021)

Consultations

Design For Security – A condition should be included upon any permission issued requiring the implementation of the physical security specification detailed in the submitted Crime Impact Statement.

Noise: The local noise environment is dominated by road traffic and intermittent emissions from the adjacent petrol station. The impact assessment submitted in support of the application accurately describes these sources. The findings of the assessment are accepted, including the recommended use of acoustic glazing and mechanical ventilation systems. A detailed noise mitigation scheme is required and it is recommended that a condition to this effect be included upon any permission issued.

Land contamination: On the basis this area was previously mined, the site may be contaminated. To this end, an intrusive Phase 2 investigation is required.

Page 50

$0z0hkdst.docx Air Quality, Noise, Contaminated Land - Air: The site is not located within the bounds of the Greater Manchester Air Quality Management Area (GMAQMA). Given the scale and nature of the proposed development, it will not likely impact upon local air quality.

Noise: The local noise environment is dominated by road traffic and intermittent emissions from the adjacent petrol station. The impact assessment submitted in support of the application accurately describes these sources. The findings of the assessment are accepted, including the recommended use of acoustic glazing and mechanical ventilation systems. However, information in respect of this condition has been previously submitted under 20/75422/DISCON and was considered acceptable.

Land contamination: On the basis this area was previously mined, the site may be contaminated. To this end, an intrusive Phase 2 investigation is required. However, information in respect of this condition has been previously submitted under 20/75330/DISCON and was considered acceptable.

Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory Service - No objection.

Highways - No objections

Senior Drainage Engineer - The site is located in Flood Zone 1 (FZ1) and measures less than one hectare. A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is therefore not required. Though the proposed use is considered to be acceptable in FZ1, the site remains subject to surface water flooding. As such, ground levels should not be altered within one metre of boundaries and finished floor levels should be a minimum of 300mm above surrounding ground levels. On the basis that the site is brownfield and located within the Core Conurbation Critical Drainage Area, surface water run-off should be reduced to 50% of the existing, or greenfield equivalent, whichever is the greater.

The Coal Authority - The site is located within an identified ‘Development High Risk Area’ and it is understood that a mine entry exists on site. It is noted that this planning application is for the resubmission of approved consent: 19/79709/FUL. The Coal Authority were consulted on the previous application together with the discharge of condition application: 20/75529/DISCON. The Coal Authority would have no objection to this current proposal, subject to the LPA imposing a planning condition to secure the submission of a verification report, prior to occupation or the site being taken into beneficial use,

Environment Agency - Contaminated materials could be mobilised during the construction phase and this could affect controlled waters. A precautionary approach should be taken and conditions reflecting this should be included upon any permission issued.

Greater Manchester Ecological Unit - There is no evidence to suggest that bats occupy the site and existing buildings/structures are of limited roosting potential. Nesting birds are however present and as such demolition works should not be carried out during nesting season (1 March to 31 August inclusive) (an informative has been recommended). Biodiversity enhancements should be provided on site and a condition to this effect should be included upon any permission issued.

Transport For Greater Manchester (TFGM) – No objections

SCC arborist - A total of 18 individual trees and 2 groups have been recorded. It is proposed that in order to facilitate the development all trees will be retained. Recommend condition subject to Tree Protection Plan condition and development to be carried out in accordance with method statement.

Landscaping - this application has been submitted as a result of the addition of 1 bedroom to the building. The previous landscape layout is largely unaffected by this amendment. The landscape architect is happy with the landscape scheme at this stage, provided further details can be conditioned.

United Utilities Water Ltd - Foul water should drain to the public sewer and surface water in the most sustainable way in accordance with the hierarchy of options set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 51

$0z0hkdst.docx Planning Policy

Development Plan Policy

Unitary Development Plan ST1 - Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods Unitary Development Plan ST13 - Natural Environmental Assets Unitary Development Plan DES1 - Respecting Context Unitary Development Plan DES2 - Circulation and Movement Unitary Development Plan DES7 - Amenity of Users and Neighbours Unitary Development Plan DES9 - Landscaping Unitary Development Plan DES10 - Design and Crime Unitary Development Plan EHC3 - Provision and Improvement of Health and Community Facilities Unitary Development Plan EHC4 - Reuse of Existing Health and Community Facilities Unitary Development Plan A2 - Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled Unitary Development Plan A8 - Impact of Development on Highway Network Unitary Development Plan A10 - Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments Unitary Development Plan EN1 - Development Affecting the Green Belt Unitary Development Plan EN13 - Protected Trees Unitary Development Plan EN17 - Pollution Control Unitary Development Plan EN19 - Flood Risk and Surface Water Unitary Development Plan DEV5 - Planning Conditions and Obligations

Other Material Planning Considerations

National Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

Local Planning Policy

Supplementary Planning Document - Design Supplementary Planning Document - Design and Crime Supplementary Planning Document - Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Document - Trees and Development Supplementary Planning Document - Planning Obligations Planning Guidance - Flood Risk and Development Planning Guidance - Contaminated Land

The Revised Draft Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (‘GMSF’) was subject to public consultation at the start of 2019. In accordance with paragraph 48 of the National Planning Policy Framework it is considered that very limited weight can be given to the policies in the GMSF.

The Publication Salford Local Plan: Development Management Policies and Designations (‘Local Plan’) was published on 27 January 2020 and comments were invited until 20 March 2020. This is the version of the document that the city council would like to adopt and has been subject to a significant amount of public consultation in previous stages of its production. However, in accordance with paragraph 48 of the National Planning Policy Framework the weight that can be given to the Local Plan overall is currently limited. The city council is in the process of considering the comments made to determine the extent to which there are unresolved objections to the policies in the Plan. Those policies with less significant (or no) objections will be capable of carrying more weight than those with significant unresolved objections.

In addition, following the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) it is necessary to consider the weight which can be afforded to the policies of the Council's adopted Unitary Development Plan (paragraph 213 NPPF February 2019).

In terms of this application it is considered that the relevant policies of the UDP can be afforded due weight for the purposes of decision making as the relevant criteria within the UDP policies applicable to the proposed development are consistent with the policies contained in the NPPF.

Page 52

$0z0hkdst.docx Appraisal

The extant permission considered the principle of development; design; amenity; landscaping; ecology; highway safety; contamination and drainage all of which were considered acceptable. There have been no significant changes on site or in planning policy that would warrant a different view being reached and so this report witll focus on the additional bedroom proposed.

Principle of development

Retained Policy EHC3 states that planning permission will be granted for new health care facilities (including by public, private and voluntary agencies) where these:

. Do not unacceptably impact residential amenity and character; . Do not unacceptably impact local environmental quality; . Are accessible to the community by a range of transport options; . Do not give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic congestion; . Do not have an adverse impact on highway safety; and . Have the potential to act as a community focus.

It is not considered the increase in one bedroom would result in any conflict with the above policy and therefore the principal is accepted.

Built form

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

The proposal would not alter the external appearance of the previously approved development and is therefore considered to be acceptable.

Amenity

Retained Policy DES7 of the Salford UDP states all new development …will be required to provide users with a satisfactory level of amenity in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout. Development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.

The additional bedroom would be served by a window providing adequate outlook, natural light and ventilation. It would be 21.75sqm in area, a similar size to the other bedrooms and exceeding some marginally. The resident would benefit from direct access to a number of ancillary facilities, including communal living and dining spaces, a salon and resident’s café.

The installation of acoustic glazing and mechanical ventilation systems will assist in preventing the transfer of noise through the building which will safeguard the general amenity of the resident.

In accordance with the preceding discussion and approval, it is considered that the proposed development will offer future residents a satisfactory level of both internal and external amenity and, by virtue of the separation distances which would exist to adjacent dwellings, not impact upon the general amenity of nearby residents. This, in turn, ensures general compliance with the provisions of Retained Policy DES7 of the Salford UDP.

Highways matters

Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that applications for planning permission should only be refused on highways grounds where the residual impacts of a development are considered to be severe.

In addition to this, Retained Policy A8 of the Salford UDP states that development will not be permitted where it would ….have an unacceptable impact on highway safety …by virtue of traffic generation, access, parking or servicing arrangements…

Page 53

$0z0hkdst.docx It is not considered that the additional bedspace will have any measurable effect on the overall impact of the development and this view is supported by the local highways authority and TfGM.

Obligations

The site is located in a high-value area in accordance with the Council’s Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (as refreshed 2019).

Given the nature of the end use, a public realm contribution only is considered necessary. On the basis that the development would likely increase demands for public infrastructure surrounding the site, it is considered that this contribution should fund improved access points and footways throughout the adjacent Worsley Woods.

A contribution of £500 per resident room was agreed as part of the original application (£35,000). Given the extra bedroom this has been increased to £35,500 and will be index linked to the date of the original legal agreement.

In accordance with the applicant’s preferences, this contribution would be provided within 12 months of occupation to ensure the facility is first able to move to a positive trading position.

Conditions

19 conditions were attached to the original application (19/73709/FUL). As the approval of this application would grant a new permission, all the conditions from the previous approval have been carried over and amended where necessary.

The applicant has formally discharged all the pre-commencement conditions; Condition 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16 and 18 and this is also reflected in the updated conditions below.

Recommendation

It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions and that:

1) The City Solicitor be authorised to enter into a legal agreement in accordance with Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure a £35,500 which will be index linked to the date of the original legal agreement signed on 27 March 2020public realm contribution to be put towards access and footpath improvements at Worsley Woods; 2) That the applicant be informed the Council is minded to grant permission, subject to the conditions listed below and overleaf; and 3) The authority be given to issue the permission upon completion of the agreement.

Conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun no later than three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans:

. Dwg. No. M0201-101 rev A – Site Location Plan (14.01.2021) . Dwg. No. M0201-102 rev A – Proposed Site Plan (14.01.2021) . Dwg. No. M0201-120 rev A – Proposed Ground Floor Plan (14.01.2021) . Dwg. No. M0201-121 rev A – Proposed First Floor Plan (14.01.2021) . Dwg. No. M0201-122 rev A – Proposed Second Floor Plan (14.01.2021) . Dwg. No. M0201-123 rev A – Proposed Roof Plan (14.01.2021) . Dwg. No. M0201-125 rev A – Proposed Elevations (14.01.2021)

Page 54

$0z0hkdst.docx Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3. No development shall be started until all the retained trees within (or overhanging) the site as shown at the Tree Protection Plan (TPP), Drawing No: 4688 03, dated 25th September 2019; within Report Ref: 4688, have been surrounded by substantial fences. Such fences shall be erected in accordance with the fence specification shown at the Tree Protective Fencing, contained at Section 6 within Report Ref: 4688 in the positions as shown at the TPP, Drawing No: 4688 03 and shall remain until all development is completed and no work, including any form of drainage or storage of materials, earth or topsoil shall take place within the perimeter of such fencing.

Reason: To ensure the preservation of valued landscape features in accordance with the provisions of Retained Policy EN13 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

4. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement, report Ref: 4688 03, Section 6.

Reason: To maintain the landscape character and general amenity of the immediate surrounding area in accordance with the provisions of Retained Policy DES9 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

5. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, the applicant shall submit to and have approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, an amended landscape plan generally in accordance with the submitted plan entitled ‘Landscape Proposals’ (Dwg. No. 04) dated Dec 20 and prepared by DEP Landscape Architecture but amended to reflect the approved site layout plan (Condition 2). This plan shall include details of all tree species, their sizes (including minimum heights and circumference of stem one metre above ground level), a plan showing the locations of all replacement trees, a planting timetable and details of after care. The plan shall also show the provision of four additional visitor bicycle parking spaces behind Car Parking Space No. 20 and forward of the cycle store.

Reason: To maintain the landscape character and general amenity of the immediate surrounding area in accordance with the provisions of Retained Policy DES9 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

6. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the agreed Site investigation documents below, submitted under 20/75330/DISCON.

 Phase 2 Geo-Environmental Report, May 2020, Ref: 10/1438/002 Rev: 00, Clancy Consulting

 Construction Environmental Management Plan, July 2020, Rev: 1, McGoff Construction

 Site Investigation Addendum, July 2020, Ref: 10/1438/004 Rev.01, Clancy Consulting  Remediation Strategy. October 2020, Ref: 10/1438/005 Rev.00, Clancy

Reason: In the interests of public safety in accordance with the provisions of Retained Policy EN17 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

7. Pursuant to Condition 6 and prior to the first use or occupation of the development hereby permitted, a Verification Report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This report shall validate that all required remedial works were completed in accordance with those agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of public safety in accordance with the provisions of Retained Policy EN17 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

8. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the agreed Mining Investigation Report, dated 4/05/2020 prepared by Clancy Consulting, the Coal Authority Permit Certificate / Letter (ref: 20145), Coal

Page 55

$0z0hkdst.docx Authority Reference (374401-004), and a Proposed Works statement for the proposed works to treat the mine entry, submitted under 20/75529/DISCON .

Reason: In the interests of public safety in accordance with the provisions of Retained Policy EN17 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

9. Foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems.

Reason: To manage the risk of flooding in accordance with the provisions of Retained Policy EN19 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

10. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed Drainage Strategy. Drawing Ref: 8/2130, Rev B – Dated 04.05.2021 submitted under application 20/75330/DISCON. The approved strategy shall be implemented prior to the first occupation or use of the development.

Reason: To manage the risk of flooding in accordance with the provisions of Retained Policy EN19 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

11. Surface water discharge rates shall not exceed 50% of the existing, or greenfield equivalent, whichever is the greater.

Reason: To manage the risk of flooding in accordance with the provisions of Retained Policy EN19 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

12. Site levels within one metre of boundaries shall not be altered and the finished ground floor level of the building shall be no less than 300mm above surrounding ground levels.

Reason: To manage the risk of flooding in accordance with the provisions of Retained Policy EN19 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

13. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the agreed materials palette below, which was submitted under 20/76226/DISCON.

 Silverside handmade brickwork – main brickwork

 Belgrave handmade brickwork – ground floor plinth and brick coursing

 Artstone cills and head

 Concrete roof tiles – grey

 UPVC framed doubled glazed windows and doors – grey (RAAL 7016)

 UPVC rainwater goods – grey

 Glass balconies with steel supporting frame  Ball top railings – black

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the building in accordance with the provisions of Retained Policy DES1 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

14. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved, the applicant shall submit to and have approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a scheme of biodiversity enhancement measures generally in accordance with those set out in the report entitled ‘Cock Hotel, Worsley Supplementary Bat Survey’ (Section 4) dated October 2019 and prepared by Dunelm Ecology. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to first occupation of the development (or in accordance with a phasing plan which shall first be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) and be retained in perpetuity thereafter.

Page 56

$0z0hkdst.docx

Reason: To secure appropriate biological enhancements on site in accordance with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

15. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the agreed Noise Mitigation Scheme (Report No. 200506-R001, Dated: 5th June 2020) and all required measures retained in perpetuity, which was submitted under 20/75422/DISCON.

Reason: To safeguard the general amenity of future residents in accordance with the provisions of Retained Policy EN17 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

16. All externally mounted plant (with the exception of that required for emergency purposes such as standby generators and smoke extract equipment) shall be designed and installed so as not to exceed the following noise levels;

. 07:00 - 23:00 - 53 dB LAEQ 1-hour . 23:00 - 07:00 - 38 dB LAEQ 15-Minute as assessed in accordance with British Standard (BS) 4142:2014 with corrections applied for any plant emitting noise of a tonal or irregular quality and measured one metre from the nearest noise sensitive window.

Reason: To safeguard the general amenity of future residents and existing surrounding residents in accordance with the provisions of Retained Policy DES7 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

17. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the agreed Construction Environmental Management Plan (July 2020, Rev: 1, McGoff Construction) submitted under 20/75330/DISCON and adhered to throughout the construction period.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of neighbours in accordance with policies DES7 and EN17 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the NPPF.

18. The development hereby approved shall not be brought into first use or occupation until such time as a Full Travel Plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. This Plan shall include personalised staff travel measures and initiatives to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport. Within six months of the first use or occupation of the development, a further updated Travel Plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. This Travel Plan shall include updated budgets/targets, action plans, plan coordinator details, and details of all on-going initiatives (such as any weekly/monthly public transport tickets and staff bicycle coupons). This updated plan shall be implemented as agreed and reviewed in accordance with a timetable embodied therein.

Reason: To ensure that the development makes best use of available sustainable transport options and does not impact upon the local highway network in accordance with the provisions of Retained Policy A8 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Notes to applicant

1. The applicant is reminded that, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended, it is an offence to remove, damage or destroy the nest of a wild bird while the nest is in use or being built. Planning consent does not provide a defence against prosecution under this Act. If a bird’s nest is encountered or suspected, work should cease immediately and a suitably experienced ecologist employed to advise how best to safeguard birds.

2. Whilst the building to be demolished has been assessed as very low risk for bats, the applicant is reminded that under the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 it is an offence to disturb, harm or kill bats. If a bat is found all work should cease immediately and a suitably licensed bat worker employed to assess how best to safeguard the bat(s). Natural England should also be informed.

Page 57

$0z0hkdst.docx 3. Please note that any buildings/structures which accommodate nesting birds shall not be demolished during nesting season (1 March to 31 August inclusive) unless a competent ecologist has carried out a detailed check of the buildings/structures immediately prior to the commencement of works and provided written confirmation that no birds will be harmed and/or that appropriate measures are in place to protect nesting birds.

4. The applicant is advised that it is his/her responsibility to adhere to the regulations of Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and current Building Control Regulations with regards to contaminated land. Responsibility to ensure the safe development of land affected by contamination rests primarily with the owner.

5. With respect to gas protection measures the applicant’s attention is drawn to BRE 414 (Protection Measures for Housing on Gas-Contaminated Sites). In addition, the requirements of BS8845:2015 (Code of Practice for the Design of Protective Measures for Methane and Carbon Dioxide Ground Gases for New Buildings) should be followed and the verification requirements of CIRIA C735 (Good Practice on the Testing and Verification of Protection Systems for Buildings Against Hazardous Ground Gasses) will need to be submitted.

6. Please note that the verification of gas protection systems must be undertaken during the construction process or it will not be possible to discharge the requirements of related conditions. This can lead to issues with property searches and/or mortgages at a later date.

Page 58

$0z0hkdst.docx Agenda Item 6

Part 1: Open to the Public

REPORT OF The Strategic Director for Place

TO The Planning & Transportation Regulatory Panel ON 27 May 2021

TITLE: Planning Applications determined under Delegated Authority

RECOMMENDATIONS: That the report be noted.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: To set out details of applications determined by the Strategic Director for Place in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS: (Available for public inspection) Details of the applications are available on the Council’s Public Access Website http://publicaccess.salford.gov.uk/publicaccess/default.aspx If you would like to access this information in an alternative format, please contact the planning office on 0161-779 6195 or e-mail [email protected]

KEY DECISION: NO

DETAILS: Please refer to the attached schedule.

KEY COUNCIL POLICIES: Performance Management

EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND IMPLICATIONS: N/A

ASSESSMENT OF RISK: N/A

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Supplied by: N/A

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Supplied by: N/A

PROCUREMENT IMPLICATIONS Supplied by: N/A

HR IMPLICATIONS Supplied by: N/A

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS Supplied by: N/A

OTHER DIRECTORATES CONSULTED: N/A

CONTACT OFFICER: Liz Taylor TEL NO: 0161 779 4803

WARDS TO WHICH REPORT RELATES: As specified in the attached schedule.

______

Page 59 1

Recommendation

PER = Approve AUTH = Consent REF = Refuse NO OBJECTION = Allow the scheme as no objections have been received. An example would be used in response to consultations from neighbouring authorities or in relation to prior approvals when no objections have been received DISCON = Discharge of condition – an example would be that the submitted information is approved PDIS = Part discharge of conditions requested – an example of this would be that negotiations are still on-going with regard to some of the requested conditions or the condition is a multi- staged condition and part is acceptable NDIS = Not Discharging condition requested – an example would be the submitted information is not acceptable and the decision is to refuse

Application Type

FUL = Full application ADV = Advert Application OUT = Outline Application HH = Householder Application REM = Reserved Matters COU = Change of use LBC = Listed Building Consent CON = Conservation Area Consent DISCON = Formal Discharge of Condition NMA = Non-Material Amendment MMA = Minor material Amendment DEMCON = Demolition Consultation TPO = Tree Application TEL56 = Telecommunication Notification ART16 = Art16 Notification PDE = General Permitted Development Extension

Page 60 2 DELEGATED DECISIONS BY DCM

APPLICATION No: 20/75191/FUL DATE VALID: 25.11.2020 WARD: Barton APPLICANT:Mr Shah

LOCATION: 184-186 Trafford Road Eccles M30 0JP

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension with new roof over existing single storey rear elements, alterations to the elevations and creation of a self- contained flat at first floor level

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 12 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76792/HH DATE VALID: 27.01.2021 WARD: Barton APPLICANT:Mr Bryan Jones

LOCATION: 7 Adamson Road Eccles M30 7EQ

PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey side, a single storey side/rear extension including a mono-pitched roof above the existing single storey rear element and alteration to existing canopy above the main front entrance

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 24 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76845/HH DATE VALID: 04.02.2021 WARD: Barton APPLICANT:Mr Gareth Prescott

LOCATION: 16 Greenfield Avenue Eccles M30 7LD

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 30 March 2021 ______

Page 61 3 APPLICATION No: 21/76973/DISCON DATE VALID: 11.02.2021 WARD: Barton APPLICANT:Mangrove Estates Ltd / ForViva

LOCATION: M J Motors Woodlands Garage Barton Lane Eccles M30 0HX

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of discharge of condition 15 attached to planning application 19/74266/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 8 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77020/HH DATE VALID: 08.03.2021 WARD: Barton APPLICANT:Mr Christopher Woodall

LOCATION: 15 Havenscroft Avenue Eccles M30 0TD

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing single storey conservatory and an erection of single storey rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 4 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77253/CLUDP DATE VALID: 26.03.2021 WARD: Barton APPLICANT:Mr Barry Lamb

LOCATION: 11 Adamson Road Eccles M30 7EQ

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

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 5 May 2021 ______

Page 62 4 APPLICATION No: 20/75860/TPO DATE VALID: 23.03.2021 WARD: Boothstown APPLICANT:Mrs Lissa Pendlebury And Ellenbrook LOCATION: 17 Thorns Villa Gardens Worsley M28 1UT

PROPOSAL: Prune branches highlighted in the submitted photograph one oak tree (T1).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 27 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 20/75944/FUL DATE VALID: 09.09.2020 WARD: Boothstown APPLICANT:Mulbury Homes Ltd And Ellenbrook LOCATION: Land North Of Simpson Grove Boothstown Worsley M28 1LY

PROPOSAL: Erection of 10no. dwellings together with associated works

DECISION: Refuse DATE DECISION ISSUED: 22 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 20/76670/ADV DATE VALID: 27.01.2021 WARD: Boothstown APPLICANT:Mrs Lisa Katongo And Ellenbrook LOCATION: 111 Chaddock Lane Worsley M28 1DH

PROPOSAL: Retrospective advert planning application for the display of one internally illuminated high level box sign, one externally illuminated fascia sign on front elevation, two non-illuminated poster fascia signs, one externally illuminated fascia sign and one proposed non-illuminated fascia poster sign on side gabled elevation

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 29 March 2021 ______

Page 63 5 APPLICATION No: 21/76800/HH DATE VALID: 28.01.2021 WARD: Boothstown APPLICANT:Mr & Mrs Hutchison And Ellenbrook LOCATION: 55 Ellenbrook Road Worsley M28 1EU

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing single storey rear extension and erection of a single storey rear extension together with alterations to elevations

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 29 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76833/HH DATE VALID: 26.01.2021 WARD: Boothstown APPLICANT:Mr Brad Valentine And Ellenbrook LOCATION: 1 Devonshire Drive Worsley M28 1JR

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension, two storey side/rear extension with a front porch/canopy including alterations to existing front canopy

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 15 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76837/HH DATE VALID: 26.01.2021 WARD: Boothstown APPLICANT:Mr T Crawford And Ellenbrook LOCATION: 35 Oriole Drive Worsley M28 7XF

PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey side, a single storey rear extension and a rear dormer with external alterations (Resubmission of 20/75593/HH)

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 22 March 2021 ______

Page 64 6 APPLICATION No: 21/76850/HH DATE VALID: 28.01.2021 WARD: Boothstown APPLICANT:Mr & Mrs McCance And Ellenbrook LOCATION: 28 Arkholme Worsley M28 1ZJ

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing single storey rear element and erection of a part two, part single storey rear, two storey side, two storey front extension and raising the existing roof height of the dwellinghouse including external alterations

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 20 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76921/CLUDP DATE VALID: 05.02.2021 WARD: Boothstown APPLICANT:P Knapman And Ellenbrook LOCATION: 1 Roseacre Worsley M28 1YT

PROPOSAL: Erection of a detached garage/outbuilding to the side/rear end of garden

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 25 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76971/CLUDP DATE VALID: 11.02.2021 WARD: Boothstown APPLICANT:Mr Thomas Wright And Ellenbrook LOCATION: 33 Malkins Wood Lane Worsley M28 1ZQ

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 30 March 2021 ______

Page 65 7 APPLICATION No: 21/77058/CLUDP DATE VALID: 24.02.2021 WARD: Boothstown APPLICANT:Mr. L. Mitty And Ellenbrook LOCATION: 39 Edenvale Worsley M28 1YR

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing conservatory and construction of a single storey rear extension including insertion of 2 x windows and 1 x door in the side elevation of the main dwellinghouse at ground floor

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 20 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77098/CLUDP DATE VALID: 27.02.2021 WARD: Boothstown APPLICANT:Mr Lee Walne And Ellenbrook LOCATION: 30 Landrace Drive Worsley M28 1UY

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing single storey rear conservatory and erection of a part two, part single storey rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 21 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77106/HH DATE VALID: 13.03.2021 WARD: Boothstown APPLICANT:Mr. Dan Schofield And Ellenbrook LOCATION: 19 Poynt Chase Worsley M28 1FQ

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey side and rear, front porch and canopy extension, raise main roof ridge line height including alteration to the front gable roof from hipped to pitched roof with 1 x dormer window in the front roof slope and 3 x dormers in the rear roof slope including external alterations

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 11 May 2021 ______

Page 66 8 APPLICATION No: 21/77139/PDE DATE VALID: 03.03.2021 WARD: Boothstown APPLICANT:Mr R Birchall C/O Mr P Cunliffe And Ellenbrook LOCATION: 20 Vicars Hall Lane Worsley M28 1HS

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension

DECISION: Refuse DATE DECISION ISSUED: 13 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77142/TPO DATE VALID: 10.03.2021 WARD: Boothstown APPLICANT:MARGARET BATES And Ellenbrook LOCATION: 6 Greylag Crescent Worsley M28 7AB

PROPOSAL: Crown thin by 30% and crown reduce (approx. 4m) to leave a height of 12m three oak trees (T1,T2,T4) Crown thin by 25% and crown reduce (approx 3 metres) to leave a height of of 12m one oak tree (T3)

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 21 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77152/HH DATE VALID: 18.03.2021 WARD: Boothstown APPLICANT:Mr Paul Behan And Ellenbrook LOCATION: 24 Malkins Wood Lane Worsley M28 1ZQ

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 10 May 2021 ______

Page 67 9 APPLICATION No: 21/77172/DISCON DATE VALID: 09.03.2021 WARD: Boothstown APPLICANT:MR JOHNATHON LOWE And Ellenbrook LOCATION: Land Off Highclove Lane Boothstown Salford M28 1ZQ

PROPOSAL: Application for approval of details reserved by condition 11 (speed) attached to planning permission 17/70025/REM

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 4 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77179/HH DATE VALID: 09.03.2021 WARD: Boothstown APPLICANT:Mr Troy McKean And Ellenbrook LOCATION: 11A Sandringham Road Worsley M28 1LX

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension to infill a step created at the rear of the dwellinghouse

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 29 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77205/CLUDP DATE VALID: 12.03.2021 WARD: Boothstown APPLICANT:Mrs Nicola Campbell And Ellenbrook LOCATION: 20 Stonechat Close Worsley M28 7XQ

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

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 7 May 2021 ______

Page 68 10 APPLICATION No: 21/77222/TPO DATE VALID: 15.03.2021 WARD: Boothstown APPLICANT:Mr Chris Heywood And Ellenbrook LOCATION: 16 Casterton Way Worsley M28 1UR

PROPOSAL: Prune back 2.5m on limbs overhanging adjacent properties (116 Boothshall Way and 16 Casterton Way) in accordance with the submitted photograph one Oak tree (T1).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 27 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77275/CLUDP DATE VALID: 21.03.2021 WARD: Boothstown APPLICANT:Liam Bell And Ellenbrook LOCATION: 42 Hindburn Drive Worsley M28 1XY

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 7 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77303/HH DATE VALID: 25.03.2021 WARD: Boothstown APPLICANT:Mr Kevin Jones And Ellenbrook LOCATION: 4 Hawfinch Grove Worsley M28 7AJ

PROPOSAL: Erection of two storey side extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 14 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 20/75650/COU DATE VALID: 22.07.2020 WARD: Broughton APPLICANT:Mr Eli kohn

LOCATION: 258 Lower Broughton Road Salford M7 2JX

PROPOSAL: Proposed amalgamation and conversion of 3 flats to a small HMO with 5 bedrooms (Use Class C4) together with installation of new window units to existing openings on front and rear elevations

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 14 April 2021 ______

Page 69 11 APPLICATION No: 20/76114/HH DATE VALID: 15.10.2020 WARD: Broughton APPLICANT:MR & MRS AKHTARY

LOCATION: 76 Riverside Salford M7 1PN

PROPOSAL: Two storey side extension with entrance and single storey rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 8 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 20/76444/FUL DATE VALID: 19.12.2020 WARD: Broughton APPLICANT:Fried

LOCATION: 1-3 Knoll Street Salford M7 2EQ

PROPOSAL: Removal of existing cabin and erection of a single storey unit (Use Class E) (clothes retailer) and on site Use Class B8 storage and distribution) together with associated parking.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 7 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76788/FUL DATE VALID: 19.01.2021 WARD: Broughton APPLICANT:Baama

LOCATION: Land Formerly Griffin Hotel Lower Broughton Road Salford

PROPOSAL: Erection of electricity sub-station and associated infrastructure

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 12 May 2021 ______

Page 70 12 APPLICATION No: 21/76798/FUL DATE VALID: 20.01.2021 WARD: Broughton APPLICANT:Mr M Simmonds

LOCATION: Beis Ruchel Girls School 11 Norton Street Broughton Salford M7 4AJ

PROPOSAL: Temporary permission for the retention of a two storey teaching block to be used as a primary school.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 22 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76835/COU DATE VALID: 08.02.2021 WARD: Broughton APPLICANT:MISS GEMMA SALUSBURY

LOCATION: 13 Cliff Avenue Salford M7 2HN

PROPOSAL: Retrospective planning application for change of use of dwelling into 5 bed C4 HMO

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 30 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77047/FUL DATE VALID: 23.02.2021 WARD: Broughton APPLICANT:Mr Gross

LOCATION: Kosher Savers Knoll Street Salford M7 4ED

PROPOSAL: Widening of entrance to accommodate vehicles entering and exiting simultaneously and construction of separate pedestrian access.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 12 May 2021 ______

Page 71 13 APPLICATION No: 21/77093/FUL DATE VALID: 27.02.2021 WARD: Broughton APPLICANT:Mr Dave Haguma

LOCATION: 7 Great Cheetham Street West Salford M7 2JB

PROPOSAL: Retrospective application for the construction of a timber shed at the rear and retain a glass canopy at the front of the shop.

DECISION: Refuse DATE DECISION ISSUED: 21 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77131/HH DATE VALID: 03.03.2021 WARD: Broughton APPLICANT:Grossberger

LOCATION: 1 Norman Road Salford M7 4DJ

PROPOSAL: Retrospective single storey rear extension and front canopy

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 28 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 20/75380/FUL DATE VALID: 10.08.2020 WARD: Cadishead APPLICANT:Mr Nick Horner

LOCATION: Land To Rear Of 23 Townsgate Way Irlam M44 6RL

PROPOSAL: Change of use of vacant land to garden area and erection of boundary fence

DECISION: Refuse DATE DECISION ISSUED: 28 April 2021 ______

Page 72 14 APPLICATION No: 20/76194/FUL DATE VALID: 18.12.2020 WARD: Cadishead APPLICANT:Mr Scott Camm

LOCATION: Railway Inn 600 Liverpool Road Irlam M44 5AA

PROPOSAL: Demolition of the Railway Inn and erection of a 3 storey block consisting of 12 no. apartments together with parking provision, cycle storage and re-cycling bin enclosure, and site landscaping.

DECISION: Refuse DATE DECISION ISSUED: 26 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 20/76687/FUL DATE VALID: 26.01.2021 WARD: Cadishead APPLICANT:MR OLIVER JAMEA PRESS

LOCATION: Land Adjacent To 85 Fir Street Cadishead M44 5AR

PROPOSAL: Erection of two storey 3 bedroom end terrace property on land adjacent to 85 Fir Street

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 23 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76867/FUL DATE VALID: 30.01.2021 WARD: Cadishead APPLICANT:Property Alliance Group

LOCATION: Unit A Midway Gilchrist Road Irlam M44 5BL

PROPOSAL: Partial demolition and refurbishment of the existing ancillary office accommodation, reconfiguration of the car park, installation of new 1.8m high palisade fencing and increasing the height of an existing warehouse door in the side elevation to 5m (retrospective)

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 30 March 2021 ______

Page 73 15 APPLICATION No: 21/76901/FUL DATE VALID: 18.02.2021 WARD: Cadishead APPLICANT:Stacey D'Addona

LOCATION: 61 Caroline Street Irlam M44 6AE

PROPOSAL: Erection of new and replacement canopies to the side and front elevation and conversion of single dwellinghouse to 2no. flats

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 26 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76937/DISCON DATE VALID: 03.03.2021 WARD: Cadishead APPLICANT:Mr Andrew Thornton

LOCATION: Former Salford City Council Offices Astley Road Irlam M44 5LL

PROPOSAL: Application to discharge of conditions 13 (secure bicycle parking) and 14 (electric charging point) following grant of planning permission 19/74462/FUL.

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 23 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76979/FUL DATE VALID: 12.02.2021 WARD: Cadishead APPLICANT:Mr David Gutfreund

LOCATION: Unit 1 Land Off Omega Drive Northbank Industrial Estate Irlam M44 5GR

PROPOSAL: Retrospective planning application erection of single fire sprinkler tank and pump house, with concrete bases (re-submission of 20/76405/FUL)

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 30 March 2021 ______

Page 74 16 APPLICATION No: 21/77027/HH DATE VALID: 19.02.2021 WARD: Cadishead APPLICANT:Gareth _ Liz Oliver

LOCATION: 101 Lords Street Cadishead Irlam M44 5HJ

PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey side extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 21 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77051/NMA DATE VALID: 23.02.2021 WARD: Cadishead APPLICANT:Craig Monaghan

LOCATION: Springwood Primary School, Craig Hall And Former Munchkins Nursery Preston Avenue Irlam M44 5XB

PROPOSAL: Application for a non-material amendment following the grant of planning permission 20/74771/FUL for changes to the design of the covered walkway.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 22 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77095/HH DATE VALID: 14.03.2021 WARD: Cadishead APPLICANT:Tammy Murray

LOCATION: 11 Dudley Road Cadishead Irlam M44 5DY

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing garage and outbuildings, alteration to existing conservatory with a new flat roof including external alterations and access ramp, erection of 2m high timber fencing to all boundaries behind the front principle elevation of dwellinghouse

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 11 May 2021 ______

Page 75 17 APPLICATION No: 21/77210/PRI DATE VALID: 16.03.2021 WARD: Cadishead APPLICANT:Bradley & Natalie Beazant

LOCATION: Moss House Farm Moss Lane Glazebrook Irlam WA3 5PL

PROPOSAL: Application for prior approval of a proposed for construction of an additional storey

DECISION: Refuse DATE DECISION ISSUED: 30 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77233/PDE DATE VALID: 16.03.2021 WARD: Cadishead APPLICANT:Bradley And Ntalie Beazant C/O Nick Smith

LOCATION: Moss House Farm Moss Lane Glazebrook Warrington WA3 5PL

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension

DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 21 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77403/PDE DATE VALID: 09.04.2021 WARD: Cadishead APPLICANT:Miss Lyndsaey Watson

LOCATION: 11 Sandywarps Irlam M44 6RF

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension

DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 10 May 2021 ______

Page 76 18 APPLICATION No: 21/77505/CLUD DATE VALID: WARD: Cadishead APPLICANT:Mrs Sally Bloor

LOCATION: 15 Stickens Lock Lane Irlam M44 6RG

PROPOSAL: We are about to start constructing a small Orangery at the rear of our residential property. It is attached to the existing building, within our land and does not meet or straddle the boundary line. It measures 3m from the back of the property and is 4.2m wide. The ridge height is 3.275m and the eaves height is 2.25m. The space will be used as lounge/reception room (drawing attached)

DECISION: Application never validated DATE DECISION ISSUED: 28 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76730/HH DATE VALID: 29.01.2021 WARD: Claremont APPLICANT:Yousef Munif Emma Bradshaw

LOCATION: 17 Radcliffe Park Road Salford M6 7WP

PROPOSAL: Removal of existing single storey extension. Proposed single storey rear extension with roof window and first floor balcony

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 21 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76778/HH DATE VALID: 17.01.2021 WARD: Claremont APPLICANT:MR WESLEY ALLEN

LOCATION: 23 Weylands Grove Salford M6 7WX

PROPOSAL: Erection of a first floor side extension.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 9 April 2021 ______

Page 77 19 APPLICATION No: 21/76804/HH DATE VALID: 29.01.2021 WARD: Claremont APPLICANT:Mr John Kerrigan

LOCATION: 8 Waverley Road Swinton M27 4JA

PROPOSAL: Proposed first floor rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 24 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76820/HH DATE VALID: 07.02.2021 WARD: Claremont APPLICANT:Matthew Paisey

LOCATION: 33 Waverley Road Swinton M27 4JB

PROPOSAL: Proposed single storey rear extension and first floor rear extension above existing extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 26 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76822/CLUDP DATE VALID: 04.02.2021 WARD: Claremont APPLICANT:Mr Charlie Camilleri

LOCATION: 62 Fairfield Street Salford M6 7FW

PROPOSAL: Application for a Lawful Development Certificate for a Proposed loft conversion with erection of new dormer to rear elevation.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 25 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76872/HH DATE VALID: 30.01.2021 WARD: Claremont APPLICANT:Mr & Mrs P Wilcox

LOCATION: 19 Orme Avenue Salford M6 8LT

PROPOSAL: Demolition of car port, existing side extension (kitchen) and single storey rear conservatory. Erection of a single storey side and single storey rear extension.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 22 March 2021 ______

Page 78 20 APPLICATION No: 21/76940/HH DATE VALID: 18.02.2021 WARD: Claremont APPLICANT:Jamie and Kim Meredith

LOCATION: 69 Lightoaks Road Salford M6 8WP

PROPOSAL: Remove existing front porch and construction of new front porch and front bay, erection of first floor side and rear extensions together with alterations to elevations.

DECISION: Refuse DATE DECISION ISSUED: 14 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76977/HH DATE VALID: 24.02.2021 WARD: Claremont APPLICANT:Mr G Hadfield

LOCATION: 47 May Road Swinton M27 5FS

PROPOSAL: Proposed single storey rear extension, single storey internal side extension and existing single storey detached garage extension to form home office.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 20 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76982/CLUDP DATE VALID: 12.02.2021 WARD: Claremont APPLICANT:Mr Nathan Stretch

LOCATION: 9 Parkstone Drive Swinton M27 5NB

PROPOSAL: Application for a lawful development certificate for a proposed single storey rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 8 April 2021 ______

Page 79 21 APPLICATION No: 21/76992/TPO DATE VALID: 15.02.2021 WARD: Claremont APPLICANT:Mr Michael Barton

LOCATION: 43 Park Lane Claremont Salford M6 7NP

PROPOSAL: Fell one sycamore tree (T12). Crown reduce to leave a height of 15m and a width spread of 6m and 20% crown thin 10 lime trees (T2 to T11). Crown reduce to leave a height of 15m and a width spread of 6m and 20% crown thin three sycamore trees (T1,T13 and T14).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 29 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76993/PDE DATE VALID: 17.02.2021 WARD: Claremont APPLICANT:Mr N Appleton C/O Mr F Cooney

LOCATION: 23 Lullington Road Salford M6 8GW

PROPOSAL: An application to determine if prior approval is required for a proposed single storey rear extension

DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 22 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77006/HH DATE VALID: 17.02.2021 WARD: Claremont APPLICANT:Mr Matthew Bird

LOCATION: 33 Kingsway Swinton M27 4JU

PROPOSAL: Proposed Two Storey Side Extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 13 April 2021 ______

Page 80 22 APPLICATION No: 21/77023/HH DATE VALID: 18.02.2021 WARD: Claremont APPLICANT:Mr Mike Heywood

LOCATION: 48 Sunningdale Drive Salford M6 7PL

PROPOSAL: Proposed first floor rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 16 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77050/HH DATE VALID: 04.03.2021 WARD: Claremont APPLICANT:Mrs Claire Hargreves

LOCATION: 25 Fairway Pendlebury Swinton M27 4JD

PROPOSAL: Proposed part single storey/ part two storey side extension and first floor rear extension.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 27 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77104/HH DATE VALID: 01.03.2021 WARD: Claremont APPLICANT:Jennifer and Michael Cartwright

LOCATION: 19 Delamere Avenue Salford M6 7NS

PROPOSAL: Loft conversion with rear dormer and front velux windows

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 26 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77126/HH DATE VALID: 11.03.2021 WARD: Claremont APPLICANT:Mr Simpson

LOCATION: 77 Kingsway Swinton M27 4JW

PROPOSAL: Single storey side/rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 5 May 2021 ______

Page 81 23 APPLICATION No: 21/77132/HH DATE VALID: 15.03.2021 WARD: Claremont APPLICANT:Mr David Barton

LOCATION: 7 Moorville Road Salford M6 8NP

PROPOSAL: Two storey side extension and part two storey part single storey rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 7 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77167/PDE DATE VALID: 08.03.2021 WARD: Claremont APPLICANT:Mrs Eckersley C/O Mr C Ronson

LOCATION: 2 Holden Drive Swinton M27 4FR

PROPOSAL: An application to determine if prior approval is required for a proposed single storey rear extension

DECISION: Refuse DATE DECISION ISSUED: 16 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77209/HH DATE VALID: 19.03.2021 WARD: Claremont APPLICANT:Mr Sebastian Sales

LOCATION: 20 Hallwood Avenue Salford M6 8WW

PROPOSAL: Proposed part single storey part two storey side extension and part two storey part single storey rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 13 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77232/HH DATE VALID: 16.03.2021 WARD: Claremont APPLICANT:Mr Zan Ahmed

LOCATION: 2 Highfield Drive Swinton M27 4JR

PROPOSAL: Proposed single storey side and single storey rear extensions

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 11 May 2021 ______

Page 82 24 APPLICATION No: 21/77342/TPO DATE VALID: 31.03.2021 WARD: Claremont APPLICANT:Mr Craig Atkinson

LOCATION: 46 Manor Road Salford M6 8QN

PROPOSAL: Fell one horse chestnut tree (T1).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 6 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 20/75091/FUL DATE VALID: 31.03.2020 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Mandale Homes

LOCATION: 32-36 Church Street Eccles M30 0DF

PROPOSAL: Change of use of a former furniture warehouse to 41no. self-contained apartments and creation of two (A1) retail units at ground floor level, together with second floor outdoor communal area and associated external alterations

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 26 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 20/76617/HH DATE VALID: 12.01.2021 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:L Griffin

LOCATION: 26 Stafford Road Eccles M30 9HW

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension with a raised patio/decked area

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 22 March 2021 ______

Page 83 25 APPLICATION No: 20/76694/HH DATE VALID: 17.02.2021 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Mr _ Mrs J Pemberton

LOCATION: 11 Burlington Road Eccles M30 9NB

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing rear conservatory and erection of a single storey rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 16 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76743/HH DATE VALID: 01.02.2021 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Lesley Fair

LOCATION: 13 Mirfield Drive Eccles M30 9LH

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear and side extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 16 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76762/HH DATE VALID: 21.01.2021 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Mr. Fiaz Butt

LOCATION: 38 Stafford Road Eccles M30 9ED

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing rear conservatory and erection of a single storey rear extension, external alterations to the front of the house including porch and insertion of no.2 roof lights, external alterations to the south west and south east elevation of dwellinghouse

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 26 March 2021 ______

Page 84 26 APPLICATION No: 21/76936/TEL56 DATE VALID: 09.02.2021 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Cornerstone and Telefonica Telefonica UK Ltd

LOCATION: Charles House Albert Street Eccles M30 0PW

PROPOSAL: Prior approval for the proposed upgrade of the existing roof top base station comprising the removal of 9 no Vodafone antennas and the installation of 9 no Vodafone antennas and 9 no Telefonica antennas on 5m long support poles at a top height of 23.40m AGL, 2no 300mm transmission dishes, internal works to the existing cabin and other ancillary development required thereto.

DECISION: Approve - unconditional DATE DECISION ISSUED: 29 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76938/NMA DATE VALID: 09.02.2021 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Mr Craig Stevens

LOCATION: Land Off Lansdowne Road Eccles M30 9PD

PROPOSAL: Application for a non-material amendment following the grant of planning permission 20/74892/FUL for removal of acoustic barrier.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 26 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76965/HH DATE VALID: 11.02.2021 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Mr and Mrs Hill

LOCATION: 6 Gilda Crescent Road Eccles M30 9AG

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey side extension including external alterations

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 13 April 2021 ______

Page 85 27 APPLICATION No: 21/77000/TEL56 DATE VALID: 16.02.2021 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Hutchison 3G UK Ltd

LOCATION: Lyntown Trading Estate Old Wellington Road Eccles M30 9QG

PROPOSAL: Prior approval for the installation of a 20 metre high monopole supporting 6 no. antennas and 2 no. transmission dishes, 4 no. equipment cabinets and development works ancillary thereto.

DECISION: Approve - unconditional DATE DECISION ISSUED: 9 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77002/PDE DATE VALID: 16.02.2021 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Miss Jo Flatley C/O PJH Architectural Services

LOCATION: 98 Portland Road Eccles M30 9DF

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension

DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 24 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77012/HH DATE VALID: 25.02.2021 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Mr Sarah Steward

LOCATION: 10 Wakes Drive Eccles M30 9NR

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey front/side and rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 22 April 2021 ______

Page 86 28 APPLICATION No: 21/77018/TPO DATE VALID: 18.02.2021 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Mr Michael Barton

LOCATION: 17 Westminster Road Eccles M30 9HF

PROPOSAL: Crown reduce to leave a height of 18m a width spread of 12m and 20% crown thin one ash tree (T1). Crown reduce to leave a height of 15m a width spread of 8m and 20% crown thin one sycamore tree (T2).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 21 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77077/HH DATE VALID: 26.02.2021 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Jill Baker

LOCATION: 36 Pine Grove Eccles M30 9JN

PROPOSAL: Demolition of single storey rear store and erection of a single storey rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 23 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77110/HH DATE VALID: 11.03.2021 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Mrs Dorethea Kirkham

LOCATION: 32 Clarendon Road Eccles M30 9BF

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension including raised patio/terraced area

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 11 May 2021 ______

Page 87 29 APPLICATION No: 21/77118/ADV DATE VALID: 02.03.2021 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Mrs Kirstie Rowland

LOCATION: 0206-0268 Albert Street Eccles

PROPOSAL: Replace existing double-sided internally illuminated 6-sheet FSU with single-sided digital FSU which features internally illuminated 6-sheet panel on reverse side.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 27 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77136/ADV DATE VALID: 03.03.2021 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Mrs Kirstie Rowland

LOCATION: 0206-5096 O/S No 35 Church Street Eccles

PROPOSAL: Replace existing double-sided internally illuminated 6-sheet FSU with double-sided digital FSU.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 27 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77137/ADV DATE VALID: 03.03.2021 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Mrs Kirstie Rowkand

LOCATION: 0206-5098 O/S No. 6-16 Church Street Eccles M30 0DF

PROPOSAL: Replace existing double-sided internally illuminated 6-sheet FSU with double-sided digital FSU.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 27 April 2021 ______

Page 88 30 APPLICATION No: 21/77148/HH DATE VALID: 04.03.2021 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Mr P Entwistle

LOCATION: Mellowstones Chorlton Fold Eccles M30 9NA

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

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 6 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77151/ADV DATE VALID: 04.03.2021 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Mrs Kirstie Rowland

LOCATION: 0206-5108 Opp 22-26 Wellington Road Eccles M30 0NP

PROPOSAL: Replace existing double-sided internally illuminated 6-sheet FSU with double-sided digital FSU.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 27 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77165/TPO DATE VALID: 08.03.2021 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Ms Deirdre Niamh Collins

LOCATION: 5 Thornbank Stafford Road Eccles M30 9HL

PROPOSAL: 20% crown thin, crown lift to provide a 7m clearance from the ground level, crown reduce to leave a spread of 8m and a height of 14m one horse chestnut (T1).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 21 April 2021 ______

Page 89 31 APPLICATION No: 21/77174/TPO DATE VALID: 09.03.2021 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Mr Michael Barton

LOCATION: 7 Stafford Road Eccles M30 9HN

PROPOSAL: Reduce to leave a height of 15m and a width spread of 6m, 20% crown thin one beech (T1). Reduce to leave a height of 15m and a width spread of 3.5m one lime tree (T2).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 21 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77176/TPO DATE VALID: 09.03.2021 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Mr Michael Barton

LOCATION: 14 Cavendish Road Eccles M30 9JF

PROPOSAL: Crown reduce to leave a height of and a width spread of 6m two poplar trees (T1 and T2).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 21 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77228/TPO DATE VALID: 06.04.2021 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Mrs Kate Gill

LOCATION: 19 Rutland Road Eccles M30 9FA

PROPOSAL: 20% Crown thin and crown reduce to leave a height of 12m and a width spread of 12m one oak tree (T1).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 6 May 2021 ______

Page 90 32 APPLICATION No: 21/77237/HH DATE VALID: 17.03.2021 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Beech

LOCATION: 12 Pine Grove Eccles M30 9JL

PROPOSAL: Application for variation of condition 2 (Approved Plans) attached to planning application 19/74478/HH - Alterations to single storey side and rear wrap round extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 12 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77287/NMA DATE VALID: 09.04.2021 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Mrs. Singh & Mr. Ssidhu

LOCATION: 4A Stafford Road Eccles M30 9HW

PROPOSAL: Application for a non-material amendment following the grant of planning permission 19/73898/FUL for alterations in balcony and property entrance

DECISION: Refuse DATE DECISION ISSUED: 7 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76900/HH DATE VALID: 08.02.2021 WARD: Irlam APPLICANT:Mr & Mrs J Lewis

LOCATION: 10 Weighbridge Court Irlam M44 6TJ

PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey side extension and a single storey rear extension together with boundary treatment

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 1 April 2021 ______

Page 91 33 APPLICATION No: 21/76932/PDE DATE VALID: 15.02.2021 WARD: Irlam APPLICANT:Bridgford C/O Mr S Casey

LOCATION: 29 Riverside Avenue Irlam M44 6DR

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing conservatory and erection of a single storey rear extension

DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 24 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76927/TPO DATE VALID: 23.02.2021 WARD: Irlam APPLICANT:Mrs June Worsley

LOCATION: St John The Baptists Church Liverpool Road Irlam M44 6WA

PROPOSAL: Fell one scots pine within group (G2).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 30 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76942/FUL DATE VALID: 09.02.2021 WARD: Irlam APPLICANT:Mr Oliver J Press

LOCATION: 61A / 61B 61A Liverpool Road Irlam M44 6EH

PROPOSAL: Reconfiguration of ground floor layout to two separate retail premises plus various alterations to external elevations including new shopfront and relocation of rear access door.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 9 April 2021 ______

Page 92 34 APPLICATION No: 21/76951/P3NPA DATE VALID: 18.02.2021 WARD: Irlam APPLICANT:Mr Oliver J Press

LOCATION: 61A, 61B And 61 Liverpool Road Irlam M44 6EH

PROPOSAL: Prior approval for a proposed change of use of the first floor from A1 (retail) to C3 (dwelling)

DECISION: Approve - unconditional DATE DECISION ISSUED: 14 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76998/CLUDP DATE VALID: 04.03.2021 WARD: Irlam APPLICANT:Miss Sarah Joyce

LOCATION: 104 Silver Street Irlam M44 6HR

PROPOSAL: Application for a lawful development certificate for a proposed use of an outbuilding as beauty salon

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 29 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77003/PDE DATE VALID: 16.02.2021 WARD: Irlam APPLICANT:Chris Ascott C/O Joseph Lockley

LOCATION: 27 Queensway Irlam M44 6ND

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension

DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 25 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77016/PDE DATE VALID: 17.02.2021 WARD: Irlam APPLICANT:MR K Broderick C/O Mr R Anwar

LOCATION: 49 Queensway Irlam M44 6ND

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension

DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 25 March 2021 ______

Page 93 35 APPLICATION No: 21/77041/HH DATE VALID: 09.03.2021 WARD: Irlam APPLICANT:Mr Paul Bowers

LOCATION: 60 Harewood Road Irlam M44 6DL

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey side extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 5 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77053/PDE DATE VALID: 23.02.2021 WARD: Irlam APPLICANT:Mr Daniel Heathcote

LOCATION: 105 Eldon Road Irlam M44 6DF

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension

DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 25 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77198/DISCON DATE VALID: 11.03.2021 WARD: Irlam APPLICANT:Miss Emma Billington

LOCATION: Nursery Farm Barton Moss Road Eccles M30 7RR

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 5 (screening) attached to planning permission 20/75337/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 6 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77199/HH DATE VALID: 24.03.2021 WARD: Irlam APPLICANT:Mr & Mrs L Faulkner

LOCATION: 23 Farnham Drive Irlam M44 6DG

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey side/rear extension including removal of front boundary wall and alteration to side boundary fence

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 14 May 2021 ______

Page 94 36 APPLICATION No: 21/77226/CLUDP DATE VALID: 16.03.2021 WARD: Irlam APPLICANT:Sarah Little

LOCATION: Land West Of A J Bell Stadium And North Of The Manchester Ship Canal

PROPOSAL: Application for a lawful development certificate to confirm lawful commencement of planning permission 17/70871/FUL

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 30 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 20/75141/FUL DATE VALID: 30.06.2020 WARD: Irwell APPLICANT:Andrew Banister Riverside

LOCATION: The Royal Wilton Place Salford M3 6FT

PROPOSAL: Proposals are to change the existing timber windows to PVC-U

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 10 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 20/75701/HH DATE VALID: 09.11.2020 WARD: Irwell APPLICANT:Mr Reuben Ramelize Riverside

LOCATION: 2 Winton Road Salford M6 7HR

PROPOSAL: Retrospective application for the retention of a single storey front and side extension, portacabin, outbuilding in the front garden and boundary treatment to the front / side.

DECISION: Refuse DATE DECISION ISSUED: 4 May 2021 ______

Page 95 37 APPLICATION No: 20/76301/DISCON DATE VALID: 31.10.2020 WARD: Irwell APPLICANT:Mr Paul Strutt Riverside

LOCATION: Former Castle Irwell Student Village Cromwell Road Salford M6 6DB

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of conditions 7 (red brick boundary wall) and 12 (design of bin stores) attached to planning permission 20/75047/REM

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 29 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 20/76497/FUL DATE VALID: 27.11.2020 WARD: Irwell APPLICANT:Keen Riverside

LOCATION: 32 Crescent Salford M5 4PF

PROPOSAL: Change of use from offices (use class E) to house of multi-occupation (HMO) for 8 residents (Sui Generis) together with partial demolition of the rear extension, installation of a lightwell to the rear and alterations to the elevations.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 23 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 20/76498/LBC DATE VALID: 27.11.2020 WARD: Irwell APPLICANT:Keen Riverside

LOCATION: 32 Crescent Salford M5 4PF

PROPOSAL: Listed Building Consent for the change of use from offices (use class E) to house of multi-occupation (HMO) for 8 residents (Sui Generis) together with partial demolition of the rear extension, installation of a lightwell to the rear and alterations to the elevations.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 23 April 2021 ______

Page 96 38 APPLICATION No: 20/76657/DISCON DATE VALID: 22.12.2020 WARD: Irwell APPLICANT:Mr Hawre Baban Riverside

LOCATION: Technology House Lissadel Street/Frederick Road Salford M6 6AJ

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 4 (Construction Method Statement) attached to planning permission 19/73833/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 30 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76824/HH DATE VALID: 05.02.2021 WARD: Irwell APPLICANT:Ben Eckstein Riverside

LOCATION: 1 Peel Mount Salford M6 6AF

PROPOSAL: Single storey side extension with raised decking area and steps down to storage area. Two balconies to first floor front elevation.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 31 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76868/DISCON DATE VALID: 30.01.2021 WARD: Irwell APPLICANT:Mr Andrew Thornton Riverside

LOCATION: Land Facing Playing Fields Duchy Road Salford M6 7JQ

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 8 (noise verification) attached to planning permission 17/71136/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 1 April 2021 ______

Page 97 39 APPLICATION No: 21/76914/FUL DATE VALID: 05.02.2021 WARD: Irwell APPLICANT:Cellnex UK Ltd Riverside

LOCATION: Apparatus At Land At Brindle Heath Trs Summerville Road Salford M6 7HQ

PROPOSAL: The proposed upgrading of an existing greenfield monopole and associated ancillary equipment housed within the existing compound to a 18m mast.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 1 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77052/FUL DATE VALID: 23.02.2021 WARD: Irwell APPLICANT:Mish Liyanage Riverside

LOCATION: 7 Romney Street Salford M6 6DG

PROPOSAL: Change of use from C3 dwelling to C4 3 bed HMO, and single storey extension build over existing conservatory footprint.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 5 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77202/DISCON DATE VALID: 12.03.2021 WARD: Irwell APPLICANT:Mrs Charlotte France Riverside

LOCATION: University Of Salford Crescent Salford M5 4WT

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of partial compliance of condition 3 (materials) attached to planning permission 19/74587/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 4 May 2021 ______

Page 98 40 APPLICATION No: 21/77204/FUL DATE VALID: 12.03.2021 WARD: Irwell APPLICANT:Mrs Charlotte Corner Riverside

LOCATION: Newton Annexe University Of Salford University Road Salford

PROPOSAL: Temporary permission for the retention of the existing housing and automotive educational facility.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 30 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77224/FUL DATE VALID: 16.03.2021 WARD: Irwell APPLICANT:Mr James Browne Riverside

LOCATION: Pavement Outside Salford Crescent Station, University Road, Salford M5 4BR

PROPOSAL: Proposed installation of 1no. new BT Street Hub, and the removal of associated BT kiosk

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 13 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77225/ADV DATE VALID: 16.03.2021 WARD: Irwell APPLICANT:Mr James Browne Riverside

LOCATION: Pavement Outside Salford Crescent Station, University Road, Salford M5 4BR

PROPOSAL: Display of 2no. digital 75" LCD display screens, one on each side of the Street Hub unit.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 13 May 2021 ______

Page 99 41 APPLICATION No: 21/77285/DISCON DATE VALID: 23.03.2021 WARD: Irwell APPLICANT:Mr Sean Kempley Riverside

LOCATION: Former Castle Irwell Student Village Cromwell Road Salford M6 6DB

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 27 (information board - history) attached to planning permission 18/71890/OUTEIA

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 12 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77319/NMA DATE VALID: 27.03.2021 WARD: Irwell APPLICANT:Maria Stanion Riverside

LOCATION: Technology House Lissadel Street/Frederick Road Salford M6 6AJ

PROPOSAL: Application for a non-material amendment following the grant of planning permission 19/73833/FUL for amendment to condition 8 (surface water drainage)

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 30 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77336/DISCON DATE VALID: 30.03.2021 WARD: Irwell APPLICANT:Emma Rodgers Riverside

LOCATION: Bexley Square Salford M3 6DB

PROPOSAL: Application for approval of details reserved by condition 3 (materials) attached to planning permission 18/71636/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 11 May 2021 ______

Page 100 42 APPLICATION No: 21/77467/NMA DATE VALID: 17.04.2021 WARD: Irwell APPLICANT:Mr Ben Thomas Riverside

LOCATION: Car Park Frederick Road Campus, M6 6PU

PROPOSAL: Application for a non-material amendment following grant of planning permission 20/74930/FUL Amendment to the sub-station area by removal of the louvre screening to allow for the required maintenance access zone to the sub- station perimeter.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 13 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 20/76575/TPO DATE VALID: 08.02.2021 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mr N Fagleman

LOCATION: 25 Moorside Road Salford M7 3PJ

PROPOSAL: Fell one beech tree (T4).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 29 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 20/76594/DISCON DATE VALID: 11.12.2020 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mr John Wallis

LOCATION: 463 - 465 Bury New Road Salford M7 3NE

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of conditions 3 (Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI)) and 6 (method statement) attached to planning permission 16/69169/LBC

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 10 May 2021 ______

Page 101 43 APPLICATION No: 21/76712/HH DATE VALID: 14.01.2021 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Silverstein

LOCATION: 17 Wensley Road Salford M7 3GJ

PROPOSAL: Removal of rear bay window. Erection of ground floor rear and first floor side and rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 22 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76810/HH DATE VALID: 10.02.2021 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mr James Davis

LOCATION: 2 Mayfield Road Salford M7 3WZ

PROPOSAL: Two storey rear extension at basement and ground floor level, single storey side extension with roof windows and new terrace area at ground floor level.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 30 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76855/TPO DATE VALID: 28.01.2021 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mr James Beswick

LOCATION: St Philips Roman Catholic Primary School Cavendish Road Salford M7 4WP

PROPOSAL: Crown lift to provide a 5m clearance from the surrounding ground level and crown clean a mix of sycamore & lime and one beech tree (T1-T9).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 25 March 2021 ______

Page 102 44 APPLICATION No: 21/76860/FUL DATE VALID: 29.01.2021 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mr Kamran Tanveer

LOCATION: 2 King Edwards Buildings Bury Old Road Salford M7 4QJ

PROPOSAL: Change of use of part of first floor above No.2 from C3 (Dwelling) to indoor dining area associated with the primary, ground floor A3 Cafe use, Re- submission of 20/76437/FUL

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 25 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76862/FUL DATE VALID: 29.01.2021 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Halpern

LOCATION: 7 Old Hall Road Salford M7 4JJ

PROPOSAL: Application for variation of condition 2 (Approved Plans) attached to planning application 20/75195/FUL

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 26 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76865/FUL DATE VALID: 05.02.2021 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mr Alan Bruner

LOCATION: 22 New Hall Road Salford M7 4HQ

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new two storey dwelling with basement.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 1 April 2021 ______

Page 103 45 APPLICATION No: 21/76926/HH DATE VALID: 06.02.2021 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mr Halpern

LOCATION: 10 Hanover Gardens Salford M7 4FQ

PROPOSAL: Single storey rear extension and roof over front door alteration

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 25 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76959/HH DATE VALID: 04.03.2021 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mr Halpern

LOCATION: 88 Upper Park Road Salford M7 4JA

PROPOSAL: Single storey rear extension and increasing size of single storey front porch extension.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 29 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76974/HH DATE VALID: 11.02.2021 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mr Factor

LOCATION: 131 George Street South Salford M7 4QP

PROPOSAL: Erection of part single/part two storey side and rear extension, loft conversion with dormers to front and rear, internal and external alterations, single storey front porch

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 8 April 2021 ______

Page 104 46 APPLICATION No: 21/77025/DISCON DATE VALID: 19.02.2021 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mr and Mrs Kaye

LOCATION: 87 Singleton Road Salford M7 4LX

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 11 (Phase 2 Site Investigation Report) attached to planning permission 20/74607/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 15 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77042/TPO DATE VALID: 21.02.2021 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mr Michael Powell

LOCATION: 4 Castlemoor Avenue Salford M7 3PR

PROPOSAL: Fell one lime tree (T1).

DECISION: Refuse DATE DECISION ISSUED: 9 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77113/HH DATE VALID: 02.03.2021 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mr Vig

LOCATION: 41 Upper Park Road Salford M7 4JB

PROPOSAL: Proposed front car port, two storey side extension, two storey rear extension and loft conversion with associated rooflights and front and rear dormer windows.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 27 April 2021 ______

Page 105 47 APPLICATION No: 21/77164/CLUD DATE VALID: 08.03.2021 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mr Ali Mohamed

LOCATION: The Coach House 4 George Street North Salford M7 4PL

PROPOSAL: Application for a lawful development certificate for existing use as offices (use class E)

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 29 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77183/HH DATE VALID: 18.03.2021 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mr Michal Angerman

LOCATION: 3 Oakmoor Drive Salford M7 3QA

PROPOSAL: Proposed two storey side extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 13 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77193/DISCON DATE VALID: 26.03.2021 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Klyne

LOCATION: 35 Upper Park Road Salford M7 4JB

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of conditions 3 (materials) and 10 (gates) attached to planning permission 20/76075/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 15 April 2021 ______

Page 106 48 APPLICATION No: 21/77200/DISCON DATE VALID: 11.03.2021 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Dr Farhad Davoodi Samirmi

LOCATION: 21 Shirley Avenue Salford M7 3QY

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 3 (materials) attached to planning permission 19/74566/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 30 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77221/DISCON DATE VALID: 14.03.2021 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mr and Mrs Kaye

LOCATION: 87 Singleton Road Salford M7 4LX

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of conditions 7 (1:20 Gradient) and 8 (Access Width and Crossing) attached to planning permission 20/74607/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 4 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77266/PDE DATE VALID: 23.03.2021 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Jacob Weiner

LOCATION: 63 Singleton Road Salford M7 4NA

PROPOSAL: An application to determine if prior approval is required for a proposed single storey rear extension

DECISION: Refuse DATE DECISION ISSUED: 30 April 2021 ______

Page 107 49 APPLICATION No: 21/77284/TPO DATE VALID: 01.04.2021 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Revd Michael Dyson

LOCATION: 15 Moorside Road Salford M7 3PJ

PROPOSAL: Crown reduce to leave a height of 7m and a width spread of 5m one whitebeam (T1). Crown reduce to leave a height of 5m and a width spread of 5m one cherry (T2).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 12 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77294/TPO DATE VALID: 24.03.2021 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mr Steven Akerman

LOCATION: 101 Cavendish Road Salford M7 4NB

PROPOSAL: Fell one beech (T1).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 29 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77295/TPO DATE VALID: 24.03.2021 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mrs R Klyne

LOCATION: 1 Brookside Drive Salford M7 4NP

PROPOSAL: Crown lift to obtain a 4m clearance above ground level, 20% crown thin and crown clean one lime (T1).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 29 April 2021 ______

Page 108 50 APPLICATION No: 21/77444/NMA DATE VALID: 13.04.2021 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mr & Mrs Goulden

LOCATION: 11 Stubbs Close Salford M7 3BD

PROPOSAL: Application for a non-material amendment following grant of planning permission 20/76375/HH Window colour change and brick pier extension to garage openning

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 10 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 20/74751/FUL DATE VALID: 31.01.2020 WARD: Langworthy APPLICANT:Salix Homes And Step Places

LOCATION: Land At Kara Street And Liverpool Street Salford M6 5GG

PROPOSAL: Proposed residential development comprising 157 dwellings (Use Class C3) (of 111 houses and 46 apartments) across two adjacent sites, including new and realigned public highway, landscaping, open space and all other associated works

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 23 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 20/76597/DISCON DATE VALID: 05.02.2021 WARD: Langworthy APPLICANT:Mrs Clare Roberts

LOCATION: 36-38 Eccles Old Road Salford M6 8RA

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 10 (scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters) attached to planning permission 13/63130/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 31 March 2021 ______

Page 109 51 APPLICATION No: 21/76791/CLUDP DATE VALID: 19.01.2021 WARD: Langworthy APPLICANT:Steven Paddock

LOCATION: 21 Milford Street Salford M6 5GQ

PROPOSAL: Application for a lawful development certificate for a single storey rear extension and basement conversion and the existing use as C4 HMO

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 20 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76799/DISCON DATE VALID: 20.01.2021 WARD: Langworthy APPLICANT:-SP+ And Lovell Partnerships

LOCATION: Land And Property Bounded By Broad Street, Cross Street, M602, Langworthy Road, Liverpool Street, Fitzwarren Street, Heywood Way, Hankinson Way, Nursery Street And Eccles Old Road, Pendleton, Salford

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of conditions 4 (phasing plan),7 (Crime Prevention Plan (CPP)),8 (Environmental Management Plan (EMP)),12 (noise and vibration management and monitoring plan),15 (Dust Management Plan),20 (Preliminary Risk Assessment report),21 (archaeological works),26 (bat survey),27 (method statement),29 (fenestration details),39 (Arboricultural Method Statement and monitored),40 (refuse storage areas),41 (compound site) and 42 (hoarding) attached to planning permission 16/68008/HYBRID

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 21 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76826/HH DATE VALID: 10.02.2021 WARD: Langworthy APPLICANT:Mr Michael Waterfield

LOCATION: 4 Lower Seedley Road Salford M6 5WL

PROPOSAL: Retention of the existing outbuilding/shed/summerhouse

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 31 March 2021 ______

Page 110 52 APPLICATION No: 21/76905/FUL DATE VALID: 04.02.2021 WARD: Langworthy APPLICANT:Harry Lewis

LOCATION: 17 Langton Street Salford M6 5PX

PROPOSAL: Change of use from C3 dwelling to 5 bed, 5 person (C4) HMO, with alterations to elevations and erection of a single storey rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 30 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76961/HH DATE VALID: 10.02.2021 WARD: Langworthy APPLICANT:Mr Brett Smith

LOCATION: 187 Highfield Road Salford M6 5RT

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 15 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76969/FUL DATE VALID: 01.03.2021 WARD: Langworthy APPLICANT:Mr Brett Smith

LOCATION: 187 Highfield Road Salford M6 5RT

PROPOSAL: Application for change of use from C3 (2 bed - Single Dwelling household) to C4 (5 Bed HMO) together with erection of a single storey rear extension and rear dormer loft conversion.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 20 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77213/CLUD DATE VALID: 13.03.2021 WARD: Langworthy APPLICANT:Mr Adam Dowsett

LOCATION: 9 Annie Street Salford M6 5LF

PROPOSAL: Application for a lawful development certificate for existing use as Use Class C4 3 bedroom HMO converted prior to Article 4 date in November 2018.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 7 May 2021 ______

Page 111 53 APPLICATION No: 21/77215/COU DATE VALID: 13.03.2021 WARD: Langworthy APPLICANT:MISS GEMMA SALUSBURY

LOCATION: 152 Derby Road Salford M5 5BB

PROPOSAL: Change of use from 3 bed C3 dwelling to a 5 bed C4 HMO

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 7 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 20/76592/HH DATE VALID: 19.02.2021 WARD: Little Hulton APPLICANT:Mrs Lilian Tomlinson

LOCATION: 5 Peel Drive Little Hulton Worsley M38 0EJ

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 23 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77101/DISCON DATE VALID: 27.02.2021 WARD: Little Hulton APPLICANT:.

LOCATION: The White Lion 162 Manchester Road West Little Hulton Worsley M38 9UU

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 18 (Acoustic Mitigation Scheme) attached to planning permission 20/76037/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 30 March 2021 ______

Page 112 54 APPLICATION No: 21/77361/LPACON DATE VALID: 30.03.2021 WARD: Not Within APPLICANT:Monika Dubcka Salford

LOCATION: PLOT F2/H, Bridgewater Avenue Logistics North Bolton BL5 1BT

PROPOSAL: Consultation form Bolton Council (reference number 10758/21) for the RESERVED MATTERS PURSUANT TO OUTLINE PERMISSION 90539/13 FOR ACCESS, APPEARANCE, LANDSCAPING, LAYOUT AND SCALE FOR THE USE OF THE SITE FOR THE STORAGE OF OPRATIONAL VEHICLES (USE CLASS B8) WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, VEHICLE BARRIERS, GUARD HUT AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE

DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 15 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77522/LPACON DATE VALID: 22.04.2021 WARD: Not Within APPLICANT:Angela Leckie Salford

LOCATION: Factory, 161 Water Street, Manchester, M3 4JQ,

PROPOSAL: Consultation form Manchester Council (reference number 130034/JO/2021)S73 (Minor Material Amendment application) to amend condition 2 (approved dwgs) (Changes to comprise: change to the material and appearance of the theatre cladding system; expansion of the picture window,changes to the back- of-house towers (substitution from channel glass to translucent film and use of curtain wall to part elevation), omission of the cladding to the external truck lift and alternative corner protection and amendments to align with submission of information in respect of the detailed design of the public realm (including changes to facilitate alignment with a prohibition of driving order to part of of Water Street) (application ref no CDN/20/0187). City Council Development of a new flexible arts and events space comprising a range of activities including theatre, music, dance, art, other performance and non- performance related events, exhibitions and conferences (Sui Generis) with ancillary facilities including retail exhibitions and conferences (Sui Generis) with ancillary facilities including retail and bar uses (Use Classes A1 and A3), offices, administrative and back of house functions (Use Class B1), training and educational facilities (Use Class D1), servicing and access arrangements, highways works, creation of new public realm, removal of 4 trees, cycle parking and provision of new plant and associated works. Demolition of the Starlight Theatre, existing workshop and other structures and perimeter wall and alterations to the Grade II listed Colonnaded Railway Viaduct approved under application ref no 119890/VO/2018 (Amendment of application ref no 114294/VO/2016).

DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 14 May 2021 ______

Page 113 55 APPLICATION No: 19/74411/HYBEIA DATE VALID: 13.11.2019 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:-

LOCATION: Land At Waterfront Quay The Quays Salford

PROPOSAL: Hybrid planning application for demolition of existing buildings and road bridge on the site and comprehensive redevelopment comprising of: (a) Full planning permission for 491 dwellings; 2,296 sq m of A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, D1 and D2 uses; a hotel (use class C1); multi-storey car park with play park, climbing wall and bouldering area, harbour lido, public realm and landscaping, floating gardens, realigned access road and internal cycle and pedestrian links, two new bridges; and other associated works, and, (b) Outline planning permission with all matters reserved except for access, for up to 1004 dwellings, 920 sqm of A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, D1 and D2 uses, a hotel (use class C1), public realm and landscaping, and other associated works. (EIA development, accompanied by Environmental Statement)

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 14 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 20/76481/FUL DATE VALID: 24.11.2020 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Mr P Danks

LOCATION: Land On Woden Street Salford

PROPOSAL: Use of approved ground floor office space as independent office unit

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 26 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 20/76507/DISCON DATE VALID: 28.11.2020 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Mr Sam Godfrey

LOCATION: Land Bounded By Cleminson St To North, New Bailey St To East, River Irwell To South-east, Trinity Way And North Star Drive To South And Adelphi St To West; Known As Salford Central, Extending To 17.7 Hectares. M3 5JT

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 12 - (Revised Landscaping Plan) attached to planning permission 18/71782/REM

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 7 April 2021 ______

Page 114 56 APPLICATION No: 20/76637/DISCON DATE VALID: 19.12.2020 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Mr Sam Godfrey

LOCATION: Land Bounded By Cleminson St To North, New Bailey St To East, River Irwell To South-east, Trinity Way And North Star Drive To South And Adelphi St To West; Known As Salford Central, Extending To 17.7 Hectares. M3 5JT

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of conditions 40 (verification report) and 62 (air extraction equipment) attached to planning permission 09/57950/EIAHYB (in relation to plot E7/E8)

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 10 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76732/DISCON DATE VALID: 09.01.2021 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:mr Abdel Koussa

LOCATION: 257 Ordsall Lane Salford M5 3WH

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance with conditions 7 (surface water drainage) 8 (car park drainage) and 24 (groundwater) attached to planning permission 16/69223/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 27 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76795/FUL DATE VALID: 02.02.2021 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:CABLE MANAGEMENT UK LIMITED

LOCATION: Spectrum Blackfriars Road Salford M3 7EF

PROPOSAL: Replacement of timber cladding to 8no. residential blocks. Timber to be replaced with non-combustible HardiePlank VL.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 29 March 2021 ______

Page 115 57 APPLICATION No: 21/76834/DISCON DATE VALID: 26.01.2021 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:- -

LOCATION: Land At The Junction Of Langworthy Road And Eccles New Road Salford M5 4UF

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 8 (verification plan) attached to planning permission 18/72424/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 8 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76836/DISCON DATE VALID: 26.01.2021 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Mr Richard Hyder

LOCATION: Land Bounded By Gore Street, Trinity Way And Chapel Street Salford

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 11 (landscaping) attached to planning permission 15/66415/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 8 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76941/LBC DATE VALID: 09.02.2021 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Ian Murray

LOCATION: Ordsall Hall 322 Ordsall Lane Salford M5 3AN

PROPOSAL: Listed Building Consent to stabilise remnants of original plasterwork which are considered to be at risk of loss.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 1 April 2021 ______

Page 116 58 APPLICATION No: 21/76957/DISCON DATE VALID: 10.02.2021 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Mr Richard Hyder

LOCATION: Land Bounded By Gore Street, Trinity Way And Chapel Street Salford

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 6 (verification report) attached to planning application 15/66415/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 22 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76966/DISCON DATE VALID: 11.02.2021 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:- -

LOCATION: Land At The Junction Of Langworthy Road And Eccles New Road Salford M5 4UF

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 9 (Verification Report) attached to planning permission 18/72424/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 8 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77001/P3JPA DATE VALID: 16.02.2021 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Mr M Warwick

LOCATION: 64 Broadway Salford M50 2TS

PROPOSAL: An application to determine if prior approval is required for a proposed Change of Use from Offices (Class E(g)) to form 25 apartments (C3).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 8 April 2021 ______

Page 117 59 APPLICATION No: 21/77045/FUL DATE VALID: 23.02.2021 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Mr Ali Nazokkar

LOCATION: Spectrum, Commercial Unit Block 10 Blackfriars Road Salford M3 7EA

PROPOSAL: Change of use from Office Unit B1 to residential dwellinghouse C3 including external alterations

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 30 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77057/COU DATE VALID: 09.03.2021 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Miss Gemma Salusbury

LOCATION: 58 Coronation Street Salford M5 3SA

PROPOSAL: Retrospective application for the change of use from 3 bed dwelling (C3) to 4 bed HMO (C4)

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 30 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77067/ADV DATE VALID: 25.02.2021 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Ben Porte

LOCATION: Land Adjacent Red Rose Retail Park Regent Road Salford M5 3GR

PROPOSAL: Application for variation of condition 3 (luminance levels) following grant of planning permission 20/76074/ADV.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 20 April 2021 ______

Page 118 60 APPLICATION No: 21/77097/DISCON DATE VALID: 27.02.2021 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Mr Alan McBride

LOCATION: Land Surrounding Stanley Street Bound By Trinity Way, Irwell Street And River Irwell M3 5DA

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of conditions 25 (Travel Plan), 28 (Verification Report) and 35 (Ventilation System) attached to planning application 16/68325/OUT. Request for confirmation of compliance of conditions 9 (Interim Travel Plan), 10 (Bollards) and 11 (Refuse Management Scheme) attached to planning application 19/73721/REM (Plot C1)

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 21 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77111/ADV DATE VALID: 02.03.2021 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Mrs Kirstie Rowland

LOCATION: 0206-0250 Trinity Way C/O Irwell Street Salford Central Reservation M3 4JQ

PROPOSAL: Replace existing double-sided internally illuminated 6-sheet freestanding unit with double-sided digital free standing unit

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 26 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77121/ADV DATE VALID: 02.03.2021 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Mrs Kirstie Rowland

LOCATION: 0206-5027 Regent Road Salford

PROPOSAL: Replace existing double-sided internally illuminated 6-sheet FSU with double-sided digital FSU.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 26 April 2021 ______

Page 119 61 APPLICATION No: 21/77122/ADV DATE VALID: 02.03.2021 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Mrs Kirstie Rowland

LOCATION: 0206-5032 And 5033 Regent Road Salford

PROPOSAL: Replace two existing double-sided internally illuminated 6-sheet FSU with two double-sided digital FSU.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 27 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77138/ADV DATE VALID: 03.03.2021 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Mrs Kirstie Rowland

LOCATION: 0206-5126 Regent Road West Crown Avenue Ordsall M5 4GR

PROPOSAL: Replace existing double-sided internally illuminated 6-sheet FSU with double-sided digital FSU.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 27 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77144/DISCON DATE VALID: 04.03.2021 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Mr. Levi Ditchburn

LOCATION: 221 - 223 Ordsall Lane Salford M5 4TD

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of conditions 3 (Investigation and Risk Assessment), 7 (Surface Water Drainage) and 10 (Construction Method Statement) attached to planning permission 17/70278/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 23 April 2021 ______

Page 120 62 APPLICATION No: 21/77166/PDE DATE VALID: 05.03.2021 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Mr G Houghton C/O Mr D Young

LOCATION: 19 Lord Napier Drive Salford M5 3DN

PROPOSAL: An application to determine if prior approval is required for a proposed single storey rear extension

DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 13 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77239/FUL DATE VALID: 17.03.2021 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Michael Warwick

LOCATION: 64 Broadway Salford M50 2UW

PROPOSAL: Creation of an apartment within the second floor of the building, housed within a dormer with sloping roof above.

DECISION: Refuse DATE DECISION ISSUED: 12 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77274/COU DATE VALID: 21.03.2021 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Mr Mohanned Naoom

LOCATION: 3 Freya Grove Salford M5 4TE

PROPOSAL: Change of use from C3 dwelling-house to C4 HMO (House of Multiple Occupation) for up to 4 people.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 14 May 2021 ______

Page 121 63 APPLICATION No: 21/77279/DISCON DATE VALID: 23.03.2021 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:c/o c/o Simpson

LOCATION: Land Between Regent Road And Goodiers Drive Salford M5 4QX

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 9 (Construction Method Statement) attached to planning permission 20/75552/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 14 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77299/DISCON DATE VALID: 25.03.2021 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Mr Ged Carter

LOCATION: Land At Worrall Street Salford M5 4TH

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 3 (Contamination) and condition 7 (materials) attached to planning permission 18/71363/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 11 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77390/NMA DATE VALID: 07.04.2021 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Mr Daniel Fan

LOCATION: Furness Quay Salford M50 3XZ

PROPOSAL: Application for a non-material amendment following the grant of planning permission 17/70682/FUL to vary condition 8 (verification report)

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 5 May 2021 ______

Page 122 64 APPLICATION No: 21/77430/NMA DATE VALID: 10.04.2021 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:c/o c/o Simpson

LOCATION: Land Between Regent Road And Goodiers Drive Salford M5 4QX

PROPOSAL: Application for a non-material amendment following the grant of planning permission 20/75552/FUL for changes to bin stores

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 7 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77439/NMA DATE VALID: 13.04.2021 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Mr Simon Ismail

LOCATION: 28 King Street Blackfriars Salford M3 7DG

PROPOSAL: Application for a non-material amendment following the grant of planning permission 18/72242/FUL amendments to window shape on the East Elevation of the approved development.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 28 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76726/HH DATE VALID: 08.01.2021 WARD: Pendlebury APPLICANT:Mr Ibrar Ul-Haq

LOCATION: 14 The Boundary Swinton M27 6WA

PROPOSAL: Proposed single storey rear extension together with conversion of one of the garages into a bedroom.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 24 March 2021 ______

Page 123 65 APPLICATION No: 21/76946/HH DATE VALID: 09.02.2021 WARD: Pendlebury APPLICANT:mr steve grech

LOCATION: 267 Rivington Crescent Swinton M27 8TQ

PROPOSAL: Erection of single storey rear extension, hip to gable roof conversion with new front facing gable and rear dormer extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 7 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76962/CLUDP DATE VALID: 24.02.2021 WARD: Pendlebury APPLICANT:Preslav Stoyanov

LOCATION: 32A Buckingham Road Swinton M27 8QF

PROPOSAL: Application for a Lawful Development Certificate for a Proposed Single Storey Rear Extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 20 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76978/FUL DATE VALID: 15.03.2021 WARD: Pendlebury APPLICANT:Mrs Helen Calvi

LOCATION: 4 Canary Way Swinton M27 8AW

PROPOSAL: Planning application for the change of Use from Use Class B8 (storage and warehousing) to Use Class B2 (general industrial) and B8 (storage and warehousing) with car wash.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 7 May 2021 ______

Page 124 66 APPLICATION No: 21/76991/FUL DATE VALID: 16.03.2021 WARD: Pendlebury APPLICANT:Mr Daniel Wrigley

LOCATION: Playing Field Bolton Road Pendlebury Swinton

PROPOSAL: Food vending service for public and for junior football club

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 13 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77029/HH DATE VALID: 19.02.2021 WARD: Pendlebury APPLICANT:Mr J Cassidy

LOCATION: 48 Lawefield Crescent Swinton M27 6NJ

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

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 15 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77033/HH DATE VALID: 20.02.2021 WARD: Pendlebury APPLICANT:Mr Wayne Taylor

LOCATION: 7 Weston Avenue Swinton M27 6PH

PROPOSAL: Proposed single storey rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 15 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77035/HH DATE VALID: 20.02.2021 WARD: Pendlebury APPLICANT:Mr S Law

LOCATION: 25 Birch Drive Swinton M27 4HD

PROPOSAL: Single storey rear extension, existing garage conversion into habitable room and first floor side extension, new drive to the side/rear of the application site.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 10 May 2021 ______

Page 125 67 APPLICATION No: 21/77040/HH DATE VALID: 04.03.2021 WARD: Pendlebury APPLICANT:Mr Steve Bell

LOCATION: 437 Manchester Road Clifton Swinton M27 6WH

PROPOSAL: Proposed first floor side extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 29 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77207/TPO DATE VALID: 12.03.2021 WARD: Pendlebury APPLICANT:Mr Lee White

LOCATION: Land To Rear Of 8 Oakwood Avenue Swinton M27 6NR

PROPOSAL: Prune branches back to the boundary fence two trees (one ash and one beech).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 22 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77473/NMA DATE VALID: 17.04.2021 WARD: Pendlebury APPLICANT:Mr K Hurley

LOCATION: 6 Oakwood Avenue Swinton M27 6NR

PROPOSAL: Application for a non-material amendment following the grant of planning permission 20/75520/HH Replace defective porch and provide new lean to roof over, extend new roof across front elevation and wrap around over side extension. ( Ridge level raised 300 mm approx from level on approved drawing. New dormer window to side roof in lieu of previously approved Velux. Enlarge 2nd floor dormer to rear of dwelling.

DECISION: Refuse DATE DECISION ISSUED: 13 May 2021 ______

Page 126 68 APPLICATION No: 19/73876/FUL DATE VALID: 18.07.2019 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Mr Fairfield North

LOCATION: Land To East Of Priestley Road Wardley Industrial Estate Worsley M28 2LX

PROPOSAL: Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) attached to planning permission 18/72489/FUL

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 20 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76739/COU DATE VALID: 12.01.2021 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Mr Ben Smith North

LOCATION: 6 Brook Street Swinton M27 9PA

PROPOSAL: Proposed change of use of existing dwelling from C3 to Sui Generis to form 8 Bed HMO and external alterations

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 25 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76888/DISCON DATE VALID: 10.02.2021 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Mr David Farrington North

LOCATION: Wardley Hall Wardley Hall Road Worsley M28 2ND

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of conditions 5 (materials and components) and 7 (external lighting) attached to planning permission 20/75932/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 8 April 2021 ______

Page 127 69 APPLICATION No: 21/76944/HH DATE VALID: 09.02.2021 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Kelly Harris North

LOCATION: 18 Chelford Drive Swinton M27 9HJ

PROPOSAL: Construction of first floor rear extension and two storey side extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 27 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76956/DISCON DATE VALID: 10.02.2021 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Mr A Watson North

LOCATION: Land To East Of Priestley Road Wardley Industrial Estate Worsley M28 2LX

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 14 (Service Management Scheme) attached to planning permission 18/72489/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 26 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76983/HH DATE VALID: 25.02.2021 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Miss Heather May North

LOCATION: 21 Charles Street Swinton M27 9UG

PROPOSAL: Erection of first floor side extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 20 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77011/HH DATE VALID: 17.02.2021 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Ms Bernadette Dangarembizi North

LOCATION: 23 Woodford Drive Swinton M27 9UA

PROPOSAL: Erection of single storey front extension comprising porch and cloakroom

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 12 April 2021 ______

Page 128 70 APPLICATION No: 21/77069/COU DATE VALID: 11.03.2021 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Mr Matthew O'Neill North

LOCATION: 345 Moorside Road Swinton M27 9HH

PROPOSAL: Part change of use at first floor level from GoKart track to use as class E(b) (restaurant /cafe)

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 6 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77150/ADV DATE VALID: 04.03.2021 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Mrs Kirstie Rowland North

LOCATION: 0206-5007 O/S No. 202 Partington Lane Swinton M27 0NA

PROPOSAL: Replace existing double-sided internally illuminated 6-sheet FSU with double-sided digital FSU.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 27 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77163/HH DATE VALID: 07.03.2021 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Mr Adam Connell North

LOCATION: 94 Ash Drive Worsley M27 9RR

PROPOSAL: Front dormer extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 14 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77187/PDE DATE VALID: 10.03.2021 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Mr James Place North

LOCATION: 109 Cemetery Road North Swinton M27 9TY

PROPOSAL: An application to determine if prior approval is required for a proposed single storey rear extension

DECISION: Refuse DATE DECISION ISSUED: 30 March 2021 ______

Page 129 71 APPLICATION No: 21/77192/HH DATE VALID: 11.03.2021 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Mr S Langham North

LOCATION: 143 Mossfield Road Swinton M27 9TU

PROPOSAL: Single storey front extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 14 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77217/HH DATE VALID: 13.03.2021 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Mrs Horton North

LOCATION: 52 Ellesmere Street Swinton M27 0JS

PROPOSAL: Single storey side and single storey rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 7 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77255/DISCON DATE VALID: 19.03.2021 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Mr Moshe Cohen North

LOCATION: Pin Mill House Priestley Road Swinton M28 2LX

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 10 (Construction Method Statement) attached to planning permission 20/76339/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 6 May 2021 ______

Page 130 72 APPLICATION No: 21/77323/DISCON DATE VALID: 28.03.2021 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Mr A Watson North

LOCATION: Land Between Claude Avenue And Priestley Road Swinton M28 2LX

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of Condition 4 (landscaping) and condition 17 (tree Replacement Scheme) attached to planning permission 18/72489/FUL.

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 13 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 20/76647/HH DATE VALID: 03.02.2021 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Mr Greg Todd South

LOCATION: 24 Linksway Swinton Manchester M27 5NY

PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey side/rear extension with a gable end roof structure including dormers

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 27 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 20/76676/TEL56 DATE VALID: 24.12.2020 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:N/A Cornerstone and Telefonica UK ltd South

LOCATION: Overdale Swinton M27 5LL

PROPOSAL: Prior approval for proposed telecommunications installation of a 20m slim-line column supporting 6 no. antennas, 2no. transmission dishes, 2 no. equipment cabinets and ancillary development thereto including a GPS module and 3 no. Remote Radio Units (RRUs).

DECISION: Approve - unconditional DATE DECISION ISSUED: 14 April 2021 ______

Page 131 73 APPLICATION No: 21/76793/TPO DATE VALID: 28.01.2021 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Simon Lomax South

LOCATION: St Marys Roman Catholic Primary School Milner Street Swinton M27 4AS

PROPOSAL: Fell three lime trees (T1, T3 and T4) and two sycamore (T5 and T6). Crown reduce to leave a height of 20m and a width spread of 15m one norway maple (T7).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 24 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76803/HH DATE VALID: 20.01.2021 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Mr Stuart Seddon South

LOCATION: 21 Sapling Road Swinton M27 0BY

PROPOSAL: Erection of part first floor/part single storey rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 13 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76817/FUL DATE VALID: 03.02.2021 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Abbelfattah South

LOCATION: 129-131 Partington Lane Swinton M27 0NS

PROPOSAL: Installation of extraction flue to side elevation

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 27 April 2021 ______

Page 132 74 APPLICATION No: 21/76884/HH DATE VALID: 08.02.2021 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Mr Matthew Leahy South

LOCATION: 38 Manor Road Swinton M27 5GA

PROPOSAL: Demolition of detached garage and erection of a single storey side and rear wrap around extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 1 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76920/TPO DATE VALID: 23.02.2021 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Martin Ruane South

LOCATION: Swinton Park Golf Club East Lancashire Road Swinton Manchester M27 5LX

PROPOSAL: Crown raise to provide a 3m clearance above the cycle/walkway twelve poplar (G321), six thorn and one poplar (G33), 11 poplars (G338) and 4 poplars (G357). Pollard three poplars to leave 3m high trunks (T409, T410 and T411). Remove lowest branch over hanging the walkway back to the trunk one poplar (number six) within group (G358)

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 30 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76949/HH DATE VALID: 09.02.2021 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Mr and Mrs L Barrie South

LOCATION: 30 Sapling Road Swinton M27 0BZ

PROPOSAL: Erection of a part two, part single storey side and part two, part single storey rear extension (re-submission of 20/76250/HH)

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 15 April 2021 ______

Page 133 75 APPLICATION No: 21/77116/ADV DATE VALID: 02.03.2021 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Mrs Kirstie Rowland South

LOCATION: 0206 0256 O/S No 35 Swinton Hall Road Pendlebury Swinton Manchester

PROPOSAL: Replace existing double-sided internally illuminated 6-sheet FSU with double-sided digital FSU.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 26 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77117/ADV DATE VALID: 02.03.2021 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Mrs Kirstie Rowland South

LOCATION: 0206 - 0257 O/S No 53 Station Road Pendlebury Swinton

PROPOSAL: Replace existing double-sided internally illuminated 6-sheet FSU with single-sided digital FSU which features internally illuminated 6-sheet panel on reverse side.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 27 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77119/ADV DATE VALID: 02.03.2021 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Mrs Kirstie Rowland South

LOCATION: 0206 5006 Partington Lane Swinton

PROPOSAL: Replace existing double-sided internally illuminated 6-sheet FSU with single-sided digital FSU which features internally illuminated 6-sheet panel on reverse side.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 27 April 2021 ______

Page 134 76 APPLICATION No: 21/77146/ADV DATE VALID: 04.03.2021 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Mrs Kirstie Rowland South

LOCATION: 0206-5001 & 5002 Outside And Opposite 139 Chorley Road Swinton M27 5AP

PROPOSAL: Replace existing double-sided internally illuminated 6-sheet FSU with single-sided digital FSU which features internally illuminated 6-sheet panel on reverse side.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 27 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77234/PDE DATE VALID: 16.03.2021 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Mr McNab C/O Matthew Condron South

LOCATION: 35 Maldon Crescent Swinton Manchester M27 5PZ

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension

DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 20 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77252/HH DATE VALID: 18.03.2021 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Rob Wrigley South

LOCATION: 36 East Drive Swinton M27 4EH

PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey side and part two, part single storey rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 13 May 2021 ______

Page 135 77 APPLICATION No: 20/76542/FUL DATE VALID: 12.03.2021 WARD: Weaste APPLICANT:Elias And Seedley LOCATION: 1A Astor Road Salford M50 1BB

PROPOSAL: Install 1.8m weldmesh fence in Moss green to site boundary

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 6 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 20/76693/HH DATE VALID: 19.01.2021 WARD: Weaste APPLICANT:Mrs Rachael McNally And Seedley LOCATION: 66 Victoria Road Salford M6 8EF

PROPOSAL: Two storey rear extension and first floor side extension above existing single storey extension. Addition of balcony area to an existing flat roof to the front of dwelling. Complete new trussed roof.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 9 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76774/COU DATE VALID: 04.02.2021 WARD: Weaste APPLICANT:Wajid Ikram And Seedley LOCATION: 46 Trafalgar Road Salford M6 8JD

PROPOSAL: Change of use from a 4 bed dwelling (C3) to a 5 bed HMO (C4).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 1 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76876/TPO DATE VALID: 01.02.2021 WARD: Weaste APPLICANT:Mr David Walsh And Seedley LOCATION: 35 St Georges Crescent Salford M6 8JN

PROPOSAL: 30% crown thin one lime (T2).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 24 March 2021 ______

Page 136 78 APPLICATION No: 21/76889/CLUDP DATE VALID: 11.02.2021 WARD: Weaste APPLICANT:Mr L Keenan And Seedley LOCATION: 20 Orlanda Avenue Salford M6 8FX

PROPOSAL: Application for a lawful development certificate for the erection of single storey rear extension.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 30 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76897/FUL DATE VALID: 03.02.2021 WARD: Weaste APPLICANT:Stacey D'Addona And Seedley LOCATION: 3 Cleveland Avenue Salford M6 8AH

PROPOSAL: Conversion of single dwellinghouse to 2no. flats

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 25 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76907/FUL DATE VALID: 04.02.2021 WARD: Weaste APPLICANT:Harry Lewis And Seedley LOCATION: 14 Baltic Street Salford M5 5JT

PROPOSAL: Change of use from C3 dwelling, to 4 bed, 4 person HMO, with demolition of rear single storey lean to outbuilding and erection of proposed single storey rear extension with flat roof over

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 30 March 2021 ______

Page 137 79 APPLICATION No: 21/76975/FUL DATE VALID: 11.02.2021 WARD: Weaste APPLICANT:Cornerstone & Telefonica UK LTD And Seedley LOCATION: Mast 17M From C T M Electrical Ltd New River House Missouri Avenue Salford

PROPOSAL: Removal of an existing 15m high monopole (17.00m top of antennas) and the installation of 17.50m high lattice mast (17.50m top of antennas) supporting 12 no antennas on an open headframe, 2 no 300mm dishes, internal upgrade of existing ground based equipment and ancillary development thereto.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 6 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76997/TPO DATE VALID: 22.02.2021 WARD: Weaste APPLICANT:Mrs Elizabeth Thompson And Seedley LOCATION: Land Rear Of Knights Court, Squires Court And Reeves Court Canterbury Gardens Salford M5 5AD

PROPOSAL: Pollard to leave a height of 10m eight willow (21654, 21656, 21658, 21659, 21660, 21661, 21670 and 21643). Pollard to leave a height of 8m fifteen willow (21666, 21669, 21671, 21689, 21694, 21700, 21702, 21703, 21707, 21709, 21717, 21713, 21740, 21741 and 21742). Remove overhang back to the boundary fence six willow (21688, 21697, 21705, 21716, 21717 and 21744).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 31 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77007/FUL DATE VALID: 17.02.2021 WARD: Weaste APPLICANT:MR UZAIR IQBAL And Seedley LOCATION: Unit 12 1 Missouri Avenue Salford M50 2NP

PROPOSAL: Change of use from storage (use class E) to two take away kitchens and delivery access (sui generis) at the front and rear of the unit and extraction flue to the rear elevation

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 27 April 2021 ______

Page 138 80 APPLICATION No: 21/77036/COU DATE VALID: 05.03.2021 WARD: Weaste APPLICANT:Mr Amar Dabhi And Seedley LOCATION: 170 Weaste Lane Salford M5 5JL

PROPOSAL: Change of use from small HMO (use class C4) to HMO with 8 occupants (use class sui generis) and alterations to existing lightwell

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 4 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77039/FUL DATE VALID: 20.02.2021 WARD: Weaste APPLICANT:Sunflower UK industrial Property IV And Seedley LOCATION: 19-20 Guide Street Salford M50 1BX

PROPOSAL: Application for enlargement of rear loading bay doors, Forming of new front elevation loading bay door, and reconfiguration of perimeter fencing for articulated vehicle access,

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 12 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77048/CLUDP DATE VALID: 05.03.2021 WARD: Weaste APPLICANT:Rachael Rowland And Seedley LOCATION: 1 De La Salle Way Salford M6 8ER

PROPOSAL: Application for lawful development certificate for proposed single storey rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 30 April 2021 ______

Page 139 81 APPLICATION No: 21/77062/HH DATE VALID: 06.03.2021 WARD: Weaste APPLICANT:Mr & Mrs Hoyle And Seedley LOCATION: 26 Princeton Close Salford M6 8QL

PROPOSAL: Single storey rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 30 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77094/HH DATE VALID: 27.02.2021 WARD: Weaste APPLICANT:Jacqueline Hewitt And Seedley LOCATION: 1 Wilton Road Salford M6 8FR

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing garage. Proposed single storey side and single storey rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 23 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77108/FUL DATE VALID: 02.03.2021 WARD: Weaste APPLICANT:Harry Lewis And Seedley LOCATION: 35 Barff Road Salford M5 5ES

PROPOSAL: Change of use from C3 dwelling, to 5 bed, 5 person HMO, with rear single storey extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 20 April 2021 ______

Page 140 82 APPLICATION No: 21/77123/ADV DATE VALID: 02.03.2021 WARD: Weaste APPLICANT:Mrs Kirstie Rowland And Seedley LOCATION: 0206-5054 Centenary Way Salford

PROPOSAL: Replace existing double-sided internally illuminated 6-sheet FSU with single-sided digital FSU which features internally illuminated 6-sheet panel on reverse side.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 26 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77125/ADV DATE VALID: 02.03.2021 WARD: Weaste APPLICANT:Mrs Kirstie Rowland And Seedley LOCATION: 0206-5058 Gilda Brook Road Eccles

PROPOSAL: Replace existing double-sided internally illuminated 6-sheet FSU with double-sided digital FSU.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 26 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77189/TEL56 DATE VALID: 11.03.2021 WARD: Weaste APPLICANT:Cornerstone and Telefonica UK Ltd And Seedley LOCATION: Land At Lancaster Road Eccles Salford M6 8AQ

PROPOSAL: Prior approval for the installation of a 20m slim-line column supporting 6 no. antennas, 1no. 300mm Transmission Dish, GPS Module and 3no. Remote Radio Units (RRUs), 2no. 300mm Transmission Dishes with 2no. equipment cabinets at the base and ancillary development.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 5 May 2021 ______

Page 141 83 APPLICATION No: 21/77244/HH DATE VALID: 22.03.2021 WARD: Weaste APPLICANT:Phillipa Roberts And Seedley LOCATION: 36 Cholmondeley Road Salford M6 8NH

PROPOSAL: Removal of existing single storey rear extension and existing shed to side of property. Erection of single storey side and rear wrap around extension.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 14 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77276/HH DATE VALID: 22.03.2021 WARD: Weaste APPLICANT:Mr Abed Nofal And Seedley LOCATION: 35 Gore Avenue Salford M5 5LR

PROPOSAL: Single storey rear extension and single storey side extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 14 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77292/FUL DATE VALID: 24.03.2021 WARD: Weaste APPLICANT:Lee Yun Sin And Seedley LOCATION: 31 Humber Street Salford M50 1EB

PROPOSAL: Change of use from single dwelling (class C3) to small HMO (class C4) for 4 occupants, and erection of single storey rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 14 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 20/76629/HH DATE VALID: 05.01.2021 WARD: Winton APPLICANT:Mr Inwood

LOCATION: 20 Hatherop Close Eccles M30 7NR

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey side extension, single storey front porch and a part two, part single storey rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 22 March 2021 ______

Page 142 84 APPLICATION No: 21/76829/HH DATE VALID: 12.02.2021 WARD: Winton APPLICANT:Mr & Mrs J Hobbs

LOCATION: 39 Weymouth Road Eccles M30 8NN

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing conservatory and erection of a part two, part single storey rear extension and single storey front porch

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 26 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76917/FUL DATE VALID: 05.02.2021 WARD: Winton APPLICANT:Mrs Alvandi

LOCATION: 512 Worsley Road Eccles M30 8JT

PROPOSAL: Retrospective planning application for the change of use of part of the hand car wash site to house one mobile catering unit to be used for the sale of hot food to take away and an associated storage unit (sui generis)

DECISION: Refuse DATE DECISION ISSUED: 14 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76930/TPO DATE VALID: 06.02.2021 WARD: Winton APPLICANT:Mrs Tracy Furey

LOCATION: 2 Ampney Close Eccles M30 7NL

PROPOSAL: Fell nine manchester poplar trees G1.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 25 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76939/HH DATE VALID: 09.02.2021 WARD: Winton APPLICANT:Daniel & Kathryn Quinn

LOCATION: 35 The Nook Eccles M30 8JP

PROPOSAL: Conversion of existing garage into a habitable room and erection of a first floor side/rear extension including external alterations

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 6 May 2021 ______

Page 143 85 APPLICATION No: 21/76947/HH DATE VALID: 02.03.2021 WARD: Winton APPLICANT:Mr D Gradwell

LOCATION: 12 Moat Hall Avenue Eccles M30 7LR

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing single storey porch extension and single storey detached garage and erection of single storey front porch, part two, part single storey side and part two, part single storey rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 4 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76981/DISCON DATE VALID: 12.02.2021 WARD: Winton APPLICANT:Mr Mike Castree

LOCATION: Moat Hall Sports Centre Eccles Arlfc Hallsworth Road Eccles M30 7LS

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of conditions 3 (Materials), 5 (Construction Method Statement), 7 (Surface Water Drainage), 8 (Flood Resilient Construction), 9 (Foul and Surface Water), 11 (Secure Cycle Parking) and 12 (Phase 2 Site Investigation Report) attached to planning permission 19/74466/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 28 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76989/HH DATE VALID: 01.03.2021 WARD: Winton APPLICANT:Mr Paul Siddons

LOCATION: 71 Verdun Road Eccles M30 8HJ

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey side and rear wrap round extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 26 April 2021 ______

Page 144 86 APPLICATION No: 21/77015/HH DATE VALID: 17.02.2021 WARD: Winton APPLICANT:Mr C Dunkley

LOCATION: 257 Worsley Road Eccles M30 8BW

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey side and rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 16 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77030/PDE DATE VALID: 04.03.2021 WARD: Winton APPLICANT:Mr Joseph Portbury

LOCATION: 36 Foxhill Road Eccles M30 7PP

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension

DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 13 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 20/76005/FUL DATE VALID: 18.09.2020 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr Carl Crompton North

LOCATION: 212 Cleggs Lane Little Hulton Worsley M38 9RQ

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey side extension to shop and construction of new access to first floor flat

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 7 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76892/CLUDP DATE VALID: 02.03.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr Robert Grubisic North

LOCATION: 114 Bolton Road Worsley M28 3BW

PROPOSAL: Application for a lawful development certificate for a proposed use as upholstery shop at ground floor level (Use Class E).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 27 April 2021 ______

Page 145 87 APPLICATION No: 21/76924/TEL56 DATE VALID: 06.02.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:MBNL North

LOCATION: Architectural Coatings Ltd Unit 20 Oakhill Trading Estate Devonshire Road Worsley M28 3PT

PROPOSAL: Prior approval for the installation of a proposed 25.00m FLI Slimline Lattice Tower on reinforced concrete base, C/W 6No. Antenna apparatuses and 4No Dishes and associated ancillary works.

DECISION: Approve - unconditional DATE DECISION ISSUED: 1 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77096/HH DATE VALID: 27.02.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr James Dore North

LOCATION: 49 Cotton Fields Worsley M28 3UA

PROPOSAL: Proposed single storey side extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 23 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77099/DISCON DATE VALID: 27.02.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr Joe Burnett North

LOCATION: Ashtonfields Site Part Of British Coal Yard Ravenscraig Road Little Hulton Worsley M38 9PU

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 10 (verification report) attached to planning application 19/73389/OUT

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 9 April 2021 ______

Page 146 88 APPLICATION No: 21/77124/ADV DATE VALID: 02.03.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mrs Kirstie Rowland North

LOCATION: 0206-5065 High Street Worsley

PROPOSAL: Replace existing double-sided internally illuminated 6-sheet FSU with single-sided digital FSU which features internally illuminated 6-sheet panel on reverse side.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 26 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77133/ADV DATE VALID: 03.03.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mrs Kirstie Rowland North

LOCATION: 0206 5069 Harriet Street Manchester Road Worsley

PROPOSAL: Replace existing double-sided internally illuminated 6-sheet FSU with single-sided digital FSU which features internally illuminated 6-sheet panel on reverse side.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 27 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77134/ADV DATE VALID: 03.03.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mrs Kirstie Rowland North

LOCATION: 0206-5070 Bolton Road Smith Street Worsley M28 3AY

PROPOSAL: Replace existing double-sided internally illuminated 6-sheet FSU with single-sided digital FSU which features internally illuminated 6-sheet panel on reverse side.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 27 April 2021 ______

Page 147 89 APPLICATION No: 21/77135/ADV DATE VALID: 03.03.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mrs Kirstie Rowland North

LOCATION: 0206 5072 O/S 15 Bolton Road Worsley

PROPOSAL: Replace existing double-sided internally illuminated 6-sheet FSU with single-sided digital FSU which features internally illuminated 6-sheet panel on reverse side.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 27 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77155/DISCON DATE VALID: 05.03.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr Joe Burnett North

LOCATION: Ashtonfields Site Part Of British Coal Yard Ravenscraig Road Little Hulton Worsley M38 9PU

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 4 (Traffic Management Scheme (TMS)) attached to planning permission 19/73543/REM

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 14 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77181/HH DATE VALID: 17.03.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr and Mrs Ollerhead North

LOCATION: 19 Sharp Street Worsley M28 3LX

PROPOSAL: Conversion of existing garage into habitable room and dormer extension to front elevation

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 12 May 2021 ______

Page 148 90 APPLICATION No: 21/77182/DISCON DATE VALID: 10.03.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr Jake Crompton North

LOCATION: Former Eaton Works Land East Of Worsley Road North Walkden M28 3QN

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of partial compliance of condition 17 (Site Completion Report) and 20 (verification report) attached to planning permission 18/71344/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 6 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77298/DISCON DATE VALID: 27.03.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr Michael Murphy North

LOCATION: T J Murphy Limited And Ubu Environmental Moss Lane Worsley M28 3LY

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of conditions 4 (Surface water drainage) and 5 (Flood resilience) attached to planning permission 20/74861/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 6 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77328/PDE DATE VALID: 01.04.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr Saqib Mahmood Butt C/O Mr Khalid Khan North

LOCATION: 56 Whittle Street Worsley M28 3NX

PROPOSAL: An application to determine if prior approval is required for a proposed single storey rear extension

DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 30 April 2021 ______

Page 149 91 APPLICATION No: 21/77356/PDE DATE VALID: 30.03.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Rachel Winwood North

LOCATION: 38 Wilbraham Road Worsley M28 3LL

PROPOSAL: An application to determine if prior approval is required for a proposed single storey rear extension

DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 30 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 20/76395/LBC DATE VALID: 25.01.2021 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mr Robin Garrido

LOCATION: 143 The Green Worsley M28 2PA

PROPOSAL: Application for listed building consent for replacement of roof and french windows to existing summer room

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 23 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 20/76431/HH DATE VALID: 24.11.2020 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mr Anup Mehta

LOCATION: 190 Chatsworth Road Swinton M28 2GF

PROPOSAL: Single storey rear extension and loft conversion to create an additional second floor. Various elevation alterations.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 9 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 20/76635/FUL DATE VALID: 08.02.2021 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mr Anup Mehta

LOCATION: 190 Chatsworth Road Worsley M28 2GF

PROPOSAL: Erection of a detached dwelling within rear garden area

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 16 April 2021 ______

Page 150 92 APPLICATION No: 21/76719/HH DATE VALID: 13.01.2021 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mr Jepson

LOCATION: 93 Greenleach Lane Worsley M28 2RT

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing attached outhouse and erection of a single storey rear extension.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 25 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76760/HH DATE VALID: 22.01.2021 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mr Jamie Turner

LOCATION: 424 Walkden Road Worsley M28 2NE

PROPOSAL: Proposed two storey side extension, single storey rear extension and loft dormer re-submission of planning application ref:19/74555/HH.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 22 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76777/HH DATE VALID: 05.02.2021 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Joanne Thompson

LOCATION: 9 Lambton Road Worsley M28 2SU

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension with decking area and timber access steps together with a basement room below and construction of a detached timber summer house.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 8 April 2021 ______

Page 151 93 APPLICATION No: 21/76830/HH DATE VALID: 06.02.2021 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mr & Mrs Handley

LOCATION: 33 Ryecroft Lane Worsley M28 2PN

PROPOSAL: Two storey side extension including integral garage, conversion of existing garage into habitable living and first floor side/rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 8 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76870/CLUDP DATE VALID: 30.01.2021 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mr & Mrs Hawley

LOCATION: 153 Worsley Road Worsley M28 2SJ

PROPOSAL: Application for a Lawful Development Certificate for proposed dormer to rear elevation and two roof lights to the front elevation.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 29 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76877/TPO DATE VALID: 01.02.2021 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Jack Holden

LOCATION: 188 Chatsworth Road Swinton M28 2GF

PROPOSAL: Reduce left hand side of the trees in accordance with the submitted photographs two beech (T1 and T3) and one sycamore (T2).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 25 March 2021 ______

Page 152 94 APPLICATION No: 21/76887/DISCON DATE VALID: 02.02.2021 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mr Jon Bishop

LOCATION: 301 Walkden Road Worsley M28 2RZ

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 5 (landscape plan) attached to planning permission 19/73709/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 25 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76945/LBC DATE VALID: 09.02.2021 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mr and Mrs Paul and Sarah Fitzpatrick

LOCATION: Littlewood Lumber Lane Worsley M28 2GL

PROPOSAL: Application for listed building consent for the replacement of 8 number windows 1 number door opening and the addition of a conservation style rooflight

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 5 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76963/FUL DATE VALID: 24.02.2021 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:mr william paul adshead

LOCATION: 22 Moorside Road Swinton M27 0HJ

PROPOSAL: Conversion of single dwelling to 2 No. self contained apartments

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 21 April 2021 ______

Page 153 95 APPLICATION No: 21/76972/TPO DATE VALID: 11.02.2021 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mr Chris Allen

LOCATION: The Coach House 32 Greenleach Lane Worsley M28 2RU

PROPOSAL: Crown lift to provide a 5.4m clearance over the carriageway one sycamore (T1). Fell two sycamore (T2 and T3) and one holly (T4).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 29 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76980/TPO DATE VALID: 26.02.2021 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mr Peter Jackson

LOCATION: Ryecroft 10 Aviary Road Worsley M28 2WF

PROPOSAL: Prune three branches back to the main tree trunk one beech tree X.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 21 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76999/TPO DATE VALID: 16.02.2021 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Jack Holden

LOCATION: 9 Chatsworth Road Swinton M28 2NU

PROPOSAL: Pollard to the points on the submitted photographs three lime trees (T2, T3 and T4).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 9 April 2021 ______

Page 154 96 APPLICATION No: 21/77022/HH DATE VALID: 18.02.2021 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mr Ashworth

LOCATION: 15 Kempnough Hall Road Worsley M28 2QP

PROPOSAL: First floor side extension and loft conversion incorporating a hip to gable roof and rear dormer.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 13 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77032/HH DATE VALID: 02.03.2021 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Ollie Bowmer

LOCATION: 18 Lumber Lane Worsley M28 2GL

PROPOSAL: Removal of existing rear conservatory and chimney and erection of a two storey rear extension, single storey side extension including integral garage, raising roof by 1.3m together with construction of side facing dormer, removal of existing detached garage and proposed single storey outbuilding to rear.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 28 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77037/DISCON DATE VALID: 20.02.2021 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mr Paul Sweeney

LOCATION: 11 Barton Road Worsley M28 2PD

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 5 (Construction Method Statement) attached to planning permission 20/74878/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 29 April 2021 ______

Page 155 97 APPLICATION No: 21/77103/HH DATE VALID: 01.03.2021 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mr Euan Robertson

LOCATION: 18 Trevor Road Swinton M27 0YH

PROPOSAL: Proposed part single, part two storey rear extension replacing existing single storey extension.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 26 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77120/HH DATE VALID: 02.03.2021 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mr Andrew Jones

LOCATION: 1 Elm Crescent Worsley M28 2DD

PROPOSAL: Proposed first floor rear extension.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 29 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77177/TPO DATE VALID: 09.03.2021 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Bill Heath

LOCATION: 157 The Green Worsley M28 2PA

PROPOSAL: Crown lift to provide a 7m clearance from the ground level, crown reduce to leave a height of 20m and a crown spread of 8m and crown clean one lime (T1). Crown lift to provide a 7m clearance from the ground level, crown reduce to leave a height of 20m and a crown spread of 9m and crown clean one lime tree (T2). Crown lift to provide a 7m clearance from the ground level, crown reduce to leave a height of 18m and a crown spread of 8m and crown clean one lime (T3).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 21 April 2021 ______

Page 156 98 APPLICATION No: 21/77197/TREECA DATE VALID: 11.03.2021 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mrs Kenny

LOCATION: Land Rear Of 10 To 18 (EVEN) Barton Road Worsley M28 2PB

PROPOSAL: Crown lift to provide a 5m clearance from the ground level seven sycamore (T2 to T7 and T10). Prune to provide a 1m clearance from the garage roof two hawthorn (T8 and T9).

DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 21 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77208/TREECA DATE VALID: 12.03.2021 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Robert Brown

LOCATION: Land Rear Of Brookdale The Coppice Worsley M28 2RA

PROPOSAL: Pollard to leave a height of 4m one ash tree (T1).

DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 22 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77249/HH DATE VALID: 18.03.2021 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mrs Wasp

LOCATION: 110 Ringlow Park Road Swinton M27 0HD

PROPOSAL: Single Storey rear extension with raised patio to form garden access

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 12 May 2021 ______

Page 157 99 APPLICATION No: 21/77289/TPO DATE VALID: 31.03.2021 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Cornthwaite

LOCATION: 8 The Moorings Worsley M28 2QE

PROPOSAL: Reduce to provide a 3m clearance from building and crown lift to provide a 3.5m clearance above ground level one T1 oak (T1).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 7 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77305/PDE DATE VALID: 25.03.2021 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mrs Lucy Quinn

LOCATION: 2 Stranton Drive Worsley M28 2TB

PROPOSAL: An application to determine if prior approval is required for a proposed single storey rear extension

DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 29 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/74442/FUL DATE VALID: 20.11.2019 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr Springer South

LOCATION: Old Co Op Buildings High Street Worsley M28 3JE

PROPOSAL: Change of use of first and second floors from commercial to residential (12 apartments), together with the installation of an external stair case, bin store and alterations to the elevations

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 22 April 2021 ______

Page 158 100 APPLICATION No: 20/76634/HH DATE VALID: 05.01.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mrs Sunita Kanji South

LOCATION: 2 Woodland Grange Worsley M28 7AS

PROPOSAL: Erection of two storey side extension.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 22 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76794/HH DATE VALID: 19.01.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Lindsy Slamon South

LOCATION: 2 St Marks Crescent Worsley M28 7GF

PROPOSAL: Erection of first floor side and rear extensions.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 31 March 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76891/HH DATE VALID: 08.02.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Craig White South

LOCATION: 4 Bowker Street Worsley M28 0SG

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing single storey rear conservatory and removal of chimney. Erection of single storey rear extension with decking area to the rear and boundary fencing.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 6 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76925/HH DATE VALID: 08.02.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Nicola Warrington South

LOCATION: 101 Newearth Road Worsley M28 7UP

PROPOSAL: Proposed single storey front porch, part single storey/ part two storey side extension and single storey rear extension with roof windows

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 23 March 2021 ______

Page 159 101 APPLICATION No: 21/76960/HH DATE VALID: 23.02.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr Darryl Horrocks South

LOCATION: 19 Holly Avenue Worsley M28 3DW

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing single storey rear conservatory. Proposed erection of part two storey/ part single storey rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 14 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/76990/HH DATE VALID: 03.03.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr Alan Cookson South

LOCATION: 2 Thornhill Drive Worsley M28 7FT

PROPOSAL: Single storey side extension and installation of 1.8m boundary gates

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 29 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77014/HH DATE VALID: 26.02.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Ms. Janet Partington South

LOCATION: 4 Hyde Road Worsley M28 3SE

PROPOSAL: Erection of single storey porch/front gable extension , replace existing front window with bay window, demolition of side garage replacing with single storey side extension with new gable roof feature above with habitable accommodation and rear dormer, single storey side extension and 1.5 storey rear extension.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 10 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77026/HH DATE VALID: 19.02.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mrs Samantha McDermott South

LOCATION: 22 Chapelfield Drive Worsley M28 0SU

PROPOSAL: Two storey side extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 6 May 2021 ______

Page 160 102 APPLICATION No: 21/77028/CLUDP DATE VALID: 28.04.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr Ddavid Taylor South

LOCATION: 7 Woodside Avenue Worsley M28 3HR

PROPOSAL: Application for a lawful development certificate for a proposed Infill rear single storey extension.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 6 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77046/HH DATE VALID: 09.03.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr Jamie Gibson South

LOCATION: 72 Broadway Worsley M28 7FF

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing single storey rear extension. Proposed first floor side extension over existing garage, two storey side extension and single storey rear extension with rear raised terrace and new 1.8m fencing adajcent the new terrace area

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 14 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77061/HH DATE VALID: 24.02.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr Andrew Burton South

LOCATION: 115 Walkden Road Worsley M28 7QE

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing rear single storey outrigger and replacement with new single storey rear extension with continuous monopitch roof

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 21 April 2021 ______

Page 161 103 APPLICATION No: 21/77068/HH DATE VALID: 12.03.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr Nigel Howe South

LOCATION: 180 Old Clough Lane Worsley M28 7JA

PROPOSAL: Single storey side side extension and a single storey rear infill extension to an existing extension along with new dual pitch roof

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 7 May 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77076/DISCON DATE VALID: 26.02.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Ryan Little South

LOCATION: 352 Walkden Road Worsley M28 7ER

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of conditions 3 (materials), 7 (ventilation measures), 9 (Construction Method Statement), 10 (Phase 2 Site Investigation report) and 12 (surface water drainage) attached to planning permission 17/71158/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 13 April 2021 ______

APPLICATION No: 21/77190/HH DATE VALID: 19.03.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr Frank Roberts South

LOCATION: 17 Woodside Avenue Worsley M28 3HR

PROPOSAL: First floor extension over existing ground floor side extension.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 14 May 2021 ______

Page 162 104 APPLICATION No: 21/77263/NMA DATE VALID: 19.03.2021 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr Brendan Mason South

LOCATION: 94 Holyoake Road Worsley M28 3DL

PROPOSAL: Application for a non-material amendment following the grant of planning permission 19/72982/HH for changes in dimensions of the extension, rooflights and door.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 14 April 2021 ______

Page 163 105 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7

Part 1: Open to the Public

REPORT OF The Strategic Director for Place

TO The Planning & Transportation Regulatory Panel ON 27 May 2021

TITLE: Planning Appeals

RECOMMENDATIONS: That the report be noted.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: To set out details of appeals determined and received.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS: (Available for public inspection) Details of the applications are available on the Council’s Public Access Website http://publicaccess.salford.gov.uk/publicaccess/default.aspx If you would like to access this information in an alternative format, please contact the planning office on 0161-779 6195 or e-mail [email protected]

KEY DECISION: NO

DETAILS: Please refer to the attached schedule.

KEY COUNCIL POLICIES: Performance Management

EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND IMPLICATIONS: N/A

ASSESSMENT OF RISK: N/A

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Supplied by: N/A

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Supplied by: N/A

PROCUREMENT IMPLICATIONS Supplied by: N/A

HR IMPLICATIONS Supplied by: N/A

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS Supplied by: N/A

OTHER DIRECTORATES CONSULTED: N/A

CONTACT OFFICER: Liz Taylor TEL NO: 0161 779 4803

WARDS TO WHICH REPORT RELATES: As specified in the attached schedule.

Page 165 1 PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

REPORT ON PLANNING AND ENFORCEMENT APPEALS DECIDED

APPLICATION NO: 20/75012/HH

APPELLANT: Mr Dunn APPEAL SITE: 1 Tetlow Grove Eccles M30 8GE PROPOSAL: Part retrospective planning application for the Installation of additional pitched roof dormer to front elevation, re- pitching of gabled end roof to hipped roof to 60 degrees on side elevation and installation of flat roof dormer to the rear elevation.

WARD: Barton

OFFICER Approve RECOMMENDATION:

DECISION LEVEL: Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel

APPEAL DECISION: Appeal Dismissed

DECIDED ON: 15 April 2021

Planning Authority Decision - Refuse

The proposal would not improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area nor does it comply with the development plan and therefore does not comprise sustainable development. There were no amendments to the scheme, or conditions which could

Page 166 2 reasonably have been imposed, which could have made the development acceptable and it was therefore not possible to approve the application. The Local Planning Authority has therefore implemented the requirement in Paragraph 38 of the NPPF.

The proposed roof alterations are out of keeping with the general character and appearance of the roofscape along Tetlow Grove and Arthur Street and as such would harm the visual amenity of the area contrary to policies DES1 and DES8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework

The appeal was dismissed by the planning inspectorate, please refer to the appeal decision attached.

Page 167 3

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 31 March 2021 by C McDonagh BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 April 2021

Appeal Ref: APP/U4230/D/20/3264299 1 Tetlow Grove, Eccles, Manchester M30 8GE • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Dunn against the decision of Salford City Council. • The application Ref 20/75012/HH, dated 4 March 2020, was refused by notice dated 3 November 2020. • The development proposed is installation of additional pitched roof dormer to front elevation, re-pitching of hip roof to 60 degrees on side elevation and installation of flat roof dormer to the rear elevation.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. At the time of my site visit, it was clear that the development was largely complete, and the appeal is therefore considered on a part retrospective basis. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal site comprises a two-storey, end terrace property located on the corner of Tetlow Grove and Arthur Street. Planning permission was previously granted for a change of use of the property to 6 self-contained apartments with

Page 168 4 associated works to erect front and rear pitched roof dormers and a detached garage alongside other ancillary alterations.

5. Evidently, unauthorised works to construct a larger dormer than approved to the rear, an additional front dormer and alterations to the roof to transform the original hip to a gable were subject to a retrospective planning application which was refused by members of the planning committee. The proposal seeks to amend the ‘as built’ development, with the gable roof ‘re-pitched’ to an angle of 60°, the rear dormer reduced in scale and to approve retrospectively the unauthorised front dormer.

6. There are a variety of house types in the local area. Tetlow Grove is comprised of a long, continuous terrace bookended by a pair of semi-detached dwellings to one side and a mix of semi-detached and terraces to the other. There is a

Appeal Decision APP/U4230/D/20/3264299

general mix across the local area, with terraces, semi-detached and detached properties all visible from the junction of Tetlow Grove and Arthur Street. Roofs are comprised of either hipped or gable types, and while I did note the adjoining property had a rear dormer, the roofscapes facing Tetlow Grove and others in the area appeared largely unaltered. 7. The House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (2006) (the SPD) advises dormer windows should be sited below the ridge line and set back from the eaves of the host building. Moreover, the use of a pitched or hipped roof can help improve the appearance of dormers.

8. The rear dormer is prominent from Arthur Street and would be reduced in width from the gable side of the roof. This would reduce the bulk and mass at roof level. However, there appears to be little set down from the ridge or set back from the eaves of the host building proposed. As a result, it would lack subordination and appear to dominate the rear roof, despite the use of matching materials. This is compounded by the flat roof, which makes the dormer appear top heavy and overly dominant. Due to the prominent position of the proposal it would therefore cause harm to the character and appearance of the local area.

9. While I am informed of many other dormers in the area, I have no details of these before me, nor did I see these on the site visit. However, I did observe the rear dormer on the adjoining property, although this appears much smaller in scale, covering approximately half of the roof width and is also set down from the ridge and set back from the eaves. As a result, I do not consider the adjacent dormer comparable to the proposal before me, nor would its existence justify allowing the harm I have identified.

10. The appellant argues the property benefits from permitted development rights as specified in The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the Order). I have no reason to disagree with this. However, I have nothing before me to substantiate which section of the Order is relevant or which element of the scheme is permitted development.

Page 169 5 Regardless, it is not my role within the context of a section 78 appeal to determine the lawfulness of the proposal, and I have not been made aware of an application for a certificate of lawful development. As such, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the plans and evidence before me.

11. The alteration to the as built gable would restore a hipped roof with an angle of 60°. Evidently the angle of the original hipped roof prior to the alterations was 45°. The difference therefore would be minimal, and I observed variety in the angles of hipped roof in the area on my site visit. As such, the alteration proposed to the gable would not appear incongruous when viewed from public vantage points, despite the prominence of the property at the end of the terrace.

12. The additional front dormer matches that approved, which is of small scale with a pitched roof. I note in this regard the unauthorised structure is in accordance with the SPD which advises a pitched roof can improve the appearance of dormer extensions, while splitting them into two can reduce the impact of larger dormers. Although there is little set down from the ridge, I note this height matches that of the approved dormer and any additional set down would appear unbalanced. Moreover, there is a suitable set back from the eaves and

2 Appeal Decision APP/U4230/D/20/3264299

the appearance of two smaller dormers over one large extension allows some of the original roof form to be legible while being subordinate to the host. As such, the front dormer does not adversely affect the character and appearance of the local area. 13. Notwithstanding the lack of harm arising from the additional front dormer and alteration to the gable, and to conclude, the rear dormer would cause harm to the character and appearance of the local area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies DES1 and DES8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan. These seek to ensure alterations and extensions to existing buildings respect the general scale, character and proportions, among others, of the original structure and complement the general character of the surrounding area. Conclusion 14. The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

C McDonagh INSPECTOR

Page 170 6

3

APPLICATION NO: 20/76093/ADV

APPELLANT: Mr Dan Ingram

APPEAL SITE: 244 Liverpool Road Cadishead M44 5DX

PROPOSAL: Application for consent to upgrade of existing 48 sheet advert with "D-Poster" to display digital and illuminated advertisements

WARD: Cadishead

OFFICER Refuse RECOMMENDATION:

DECISION LEVEL: Delegated to Officer

APPEAL DECISION: Appeal Dismissed

DECIDED ON: 13 May 2021

Page 171 7

Planning Authority Decision - Refuse

The proposed digital advertisement hoarding, by reason of its size, scale, height, prominent Location and the proposed use of digital technology and illumination, would be unduly obtrusive, discordant and over dominant in the streetscene, resulting in a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the streetscene and the character of the surrounding area an would give rise to undue visual intrusion, resulting in harm to the amenity that the occupiers of the adjacent dwellinghouse’s No.246 Liverpool Road and No.1 Allenby Road could reasonably expect to enjoy. The proposed advertisement would therefore be contrary to policy DEV2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the advice of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The appeal was dismissed by the planning inspectorate, please refer to the appeal decision attached.

Page 172 8

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 5 May 2021 by Hannah Ellison BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI

Decision by Martin Seaton BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 May 2021

Appeal Ref: APP/U4230/Z/21/3268624 244 Liverpool Road, Cadishead, Irlam M44 5DX • The appeal is made under Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 against a refusal to grant express consent. • The appeal is made by Wildstone Group Limited against the decision of Salford City Council. • The application Ref 20/76093/ADV, dated 18 September 2020, was refused by notice dated 17 December 2020. • The advertisement proposed is the upgrade of existing 48 sheet advert with D- posted which will display digital and illuminate advertisements.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Preliminary Matter 3. The Council has drawn my attention to Policy DEV2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016 (June 2006) (the UDP) which it considers relevant to this appeal and I have taken it into account where relevant. However, the powers to control advertisements under the Regulations1 may be exercised only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of any material factors. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) reiterates this approach. Main Issue

4. The effect of the advertisement on the visual amenity of the area.

Page 173 9 Reasons for the Recommendation 5. The proposal seeks to replace an existing non-illuminated 48 sheet poster advertisement, occupying an elevated position on the gable end of No 244 Liverpool Road, with a digital, illuminated advertisement. Except for the adjacent newsagent and other limited examples of commercial uses further south-west on Liverpool Road, the immediate locality has a strong residential character as there are terraced dwellings beyond the appeal site and semidetached dwellings adjacent on Allenby Road.

1 The Town and C ountry Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended)

Appeal Decision APP/U4230/Z/21/3268624

6. The scale and positioning of the proposal would be similar to the existing poster advertisement and the images would be static, albeit changing on a sequential rotation. Whilst the existing advertisement may be long-established at the appeal site, the proposal would nevertheless vary substantially as it would display illuminated and digital images which would be significantly sharper than those currently displayed. As such, the proposal would be a more prominent, overly obtrusive and visually discordant feature in the predominantly residential character of the street scene.

7. The appeal site is located adjacent to an arterial route and the area appears to be well-lit. I note that the brightness levels of the proposal during night-time would be below the industry standards and could be adjusted and controlled via conditions. Furthermore, I note that the appellant has offered to switch off the display during the night-time. Nevertheless, due to its digital design with sharper images, the proposal would remain an intrusive and incongruous feature throughout the daytime, irrespective of illumination levels. Therefore, the measures to reduce illumination would not negate the harm that I have identified to the effect on the visual amenity of this residential area.

8. For the same reasons, I am not persuaded that the example provided of a poster and digital advertisement displaying the same advertisement are visually comparable to one another.

9. It is suggested that the proposal is a modern upgrade which would improve the appearance of the existing advertisement however, at the time of my site visit it appeared to be well maintained. The appellant also indicates that the proposal could display non-commercial and emergency information. Whilst these matters may be of some benefit to the public, I afford them limited weight due to the scale of the proposal and thus they would not outweigh the harm I have identified.

10. Consequently, for these reasons the proposal would cause significant harm to the visual amenity of the area and would be contrary to Policy DEV2 of the UDP which, although not decisive, seeks to ensure that advertisements respect the

Page 174 10 sensitivity of the location and minimise any negative impact on residential areas, amongst other things. Other Matter 11. I note the Council’s concern regarding the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in terms of light pollution. However, the PPG advises that amenity, in the context of the control of advertisements, includes aural and visual amenity, but does not extend to considerations relating to living conditions. Given the powers to control advertisements set out in the Regulations, this matter is not therefore determinative in my consideration of this appeal. Conclusion and Recommendation 12. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

H Ellison APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER

2 Appeal Decision APP/U4230/Z/21/3268624

Inspector’s Decision

13. I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis I agree that the appeal should be dismissed.

Martin Seaton INSPECTOR

3

Page 175 11

APPLICATION NO: 20/76108/ADV

APPELLANT: Mr Ben Porte APPEAL SITE: Land at Summerseat Close, Salford, M5 3JQ

PROPOSAL: Display of 2no internally illuminated 48- sheet (6MX3M) D-Poster advertisements fronting Trafford Road. WARD: Ordsall

OFFICER Refuse RECOMMENDATION:

DECISION LEVEL: Delegated to Officer

APPEAL DECISION: Appeal Dismissed

DECIDED ON: 29 March 2021

Figure 1 – the subject site under consideration Figure 2 – the existing street scene of the subject site

Planning Authority Decision - Refuse There are no other large scale advertisements in the immediate vicinity of the site and the immediate context of this side of Trafford road is residential with two-storey housing sitting in close proximity (circa 10 – 13m away). The advertisements, due to their size, scale, position and prominent location would be incongruous structures in this context and would also be oppressive to the occupiers immediately to the rear contrary to policy DEV2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the advice of the National Planning Policy Framework. The appeal was dismissed by the planning inspectorate, please refer to the appeal decision attached.

Page 176 12

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 15 March 2021 by Hilary Senior BA (Hons) MCD MRTPI

Decision by R C Kirby BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 March 2021

Appeal Ref: APP/U4230/Z/21/3266356 Land rear of Summerseat Close, Salford, M5 3JQ • The appeal is made under Regulation 17 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 against a refusal to grant express consent. • The appeal is made by Mr Ben Porte (Clear Channel UK Ltd) against the decision of Salford City Council. • The application Ref 20/76108/ADV, dated 5 October 2020, was refused by notice dated 1 December 2020. • The advertisement proposed is installation of 2 no illuminated 48-sheet (6MX3M) D-Poster advertisements fronting Trafford Road.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the advertisement on the visual amenity of the area. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The Council has drawn my attention to Development Plan policies it considers relevant to this appeal and I have taken them into account where relevant. However, powers under the Regulations1 to control advertisements may be exercised only in the interest of amenity and public safety, taking account of any

Page 177 13 material factors. The National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance reiterates this approach.

5. The appeal site is an open vegetated area to the rear of the footway of Trafford Road, close to the rear elevation of dwellings in Summerseat Close. Whilst Trafford Road is a busy dual carriageway, with a mix of uses along it, the area of the appeal site is largely residential in character with no obvious forms of advertisements.

6. The proposed advertisements would be set upon a plinth approximately 2.5 metres in height. They would result in an elevated, prominent, dominant form of advertising which would be a visually incongruous feature that would be intrusive in the street scene. This impact would be compounded by the

1 The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/U4230/Z/21/3266356

intermittent changing of the illuminated display that would significantly draw the eye, further accentuating their visual prominence.

7. Moreover, whilst nearby occupiers would not view the illuminated advertisement from their properties, the large structure would be a prominent feature when viewed from the rear facing windows and balconies of the properties in Summerseat Close. It would have a significant enclosing effect upon the rear residential environment of nearby properties which would be harmful to the visual amenity of the occupiers. The remaining landscaping around the proposal would not mitigate the visual impact of the advertisement display.

8. The appellant has suggested a number of conditions in relation to the illumination, display time and sequencing of the advertisement display. However, none of the suggested conditions would overcome the harm I have identified.

9. Therefore, for these reasons I conclude that the proposed advertisements would cause significant harm to the visual amenity of the area. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with saved Policy DEV2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016 (2006) which although not decisive, states that consent will only be granted for advertisements which would not have an unacceptable impact on amenity. The proposal would also be contrary to paragraph 132 of the Framework which states that the quality and character of places can suffer when advertisements are poorly sited. Conclusion and Recommendation 10. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal is dismissed.

Hilary Senior

Page 178 14 APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER

Inspector’s Decision

11. I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.

R C Kirby INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Page 179 15

APPLICATION NO: 20/75266/FUL

APPELLANT: Mr Jospeh Lazare APPEAL SITE: The Spinney, 482 Walkden Road Worsley, M28 2WH

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 4no. detached dwellings with associated access, landscaping and car parking

WARD: Worsley

OFFICER Approve RECOMMENDATION:

DECISION LEVEL: Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel

APPEAL DECISION: Appeal Allowed

DECIDED ON: 23 April 2021

Planning Authority Decision - Refuse

The Local Planning Authority offered solutions to the applicant in order to make the development acceptable. The applicant was however unwilling to amend the plans. Without

Page 180 16 these amendments the development would not improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area and therefore does not comprise sustainable development. The Local Planning Authority has therefore implemented the requirement in Paragraph 38 of the NPPF.

The site is located within a suburban area characterised by detached dwellings in relatively spacious plots. The plot size, combined with the footprint and site layout of the proposed houses, in not consistent with the character of the existing neighbouring housing and therefore would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the local area. The development is therefore contrary to policies DES1 and H1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

The site is notably characterised by mature trees and is green and verdant in character. The removal of 13 trees to facilitate the development, alongside the potential pressure from future residents of the development to remove and/or significantly prune the retained trees, would lead to a reduction in this green and verdant character. Replacement tree planting would not be sufficient to mitigate this loss and therefore the development would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. The development is therefore contrary to policy EN13 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan, the Trees and Development Supplementary Planning Guidance and the National Planning Policy Framework.

The appeal was allowed by the planning inspectorate, please refer to the appeal decision attached.

Page 181 17

Appeal Decision

Site visit made on 23 March 2021 by Jillian Rann BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 April 2021

Appeal Ref: APP/U4230/W/20/3263539 The Spinney, 482 Walkden Road, Worsley, Salford M28 2WH • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Joseph Lazare (JAL Group) against the decision of Salford City Council. • The application Ref 20/75266/FUL, dated 5 May 2020, was refused by notice dated 2 November 2020. • The development proposed is demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 4no. detached dwellings with associated access, landscaping and car parking.

Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of 4no. detached dwellings with associated access, landscaping and car parking at The Spinney, 482 Walkden Road, Worsley, Salford M28 2WH. The permission is granted in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 20/75266/FUL, dated 5 May 2020, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Application for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mr Joseph Lazare (JAL Group) against Salford City Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision. Preliminary Matters 3. The Council’s decision notice states the date of decision as 29 October 2020 and the date of issue as 2 November 2020. I have used the latter in the

Page 182 18 banner heading on the basis that it was the date the decision was actually issued.

4. The Council’s decision was based on amended drawings submitted during the application. The Council has confirmed that, in respect of additional publicity undertaken on the finalisation of the amended plans, site notices were posted and a press notice was published. I have therefore based my decision on those amended drawings and am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced by my having done so. For the avoidance of doubt the drawings which formed the basis of my decision are those listed in Condition 2 in the attached schedule.

5. The originally-submitted version and the revised version of the Proposed GA Plans and Elevations drawing for Plot 1 both have the same drawing reference

number1. For the avoidance of doubt, my decision is based on the version of that drawing which includes two revision notes2, and which is consistent with other revised drawings with regard to the detail of Plot 1. 6. A revised landscape plan was submitted as part of the appeal3. It has been amended from the application drawings to include details of new tree planting within the site. Whilst my decision is based on the drawings that formed the basis of the Council’s decision, I have had regard to the revised landscaping proposal to include replacement tree planting and the details of where such planting might take place, as indicated on the revised drawing.

7. The site is adjacent to a conservation area and there are several listed buildings nearby. I am mindful of my statutory duties under sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and have considered the appeal accordingly.

8. During the course of the appeal I have sought and received clarification from the Council and the appellant regarding the status of the trees within the site and previous consents that have been granted for works to protected trees. Main Issue 9. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal site and its surroundings, including with regard to protected trees. Reasons Background

10. The appeal relates to The Spinney, a large detached house on Walkden Road. The site is on the edge of an area of suburban housing on the outskirts of

1 DA20021.007 2 ‘Design Changes’ dated 29/06/20 and ‘Brick/render swapped’ dated 27/07/20. 3 Drawing reference number: 20-243/001 Revision E.

Page 183 19 Worsley. A drive alongside the site’s southern boundary provides access to St Mark’s Church car park and St Mark’s Vicarage beyond.

11. The existing dwelling is set back from Walkden Road with trees and planting along its frontage and a large rear garden. The site thus has a spacious, open character at present. It contains a large number of mature trees, mainly around its boundaries. That tree cover makes a positive contribution to the site’s spacious, landscaped character and that of its surroundings, providing a soft, attractive edge to the residential frontage along Walkden Road as it approaches the open land and tree-lined frontages within the St Mark’s Conservation Area immediately to the south. Many of the trees within the site are protected by Tree Preservation Orders4 (TPOs).

12. However, the site is surrounded by other housing on Walkden Road and The Warke to the side and rear, which is visible across and alongside the site in views along Walkden Road and the drive to the south. The existing dwelling on the site is also clearly evident from Walkden Road and the drive to the south through the boundary planting. From surrounding vantage points, the site is viewed in the context of the relatively closely-spaced suburban housing around

it. It thus forms part of those residential surroundings, distinct from the open, undeveloped land further south and on the opposite side of Walkden Road. Character and appearance – proposed development

13. The proposed development would involve the demolition of the existing dwelling on the site and the construction of four detached dwellings.

14. The houses on the Walkden Road frontage would be set back from the front boundary to a similar degree as the existing house. Trees and the hedge on the site frontage would be retained, with supplementary planting to fill gaps in the hedge where the existing access points would be removed. The open, spacious character of the site frontage would thus be maintained.

15. The houses on plots 2-4 would be quite closely-spaced. However, they would still have discernible gaps between them and their spacing and layout would not be dissimilar to that of other detached houses on surrounding streets, including The Warke to the rear. Their gradually staggered layout and the projecting front gables would also serve to break up the built frontage and give a sense of separation between those buildings along the site’s access road.

16. The footprints of the proposed houses, the sizes of their plots and the density of the development would also be comparable to those on the residential streets which surround the site. Furthermore, the dwellings would be set back from the Walkden Road frontage and positioned within the central part of the site, with large garden areas around them to the side and rear. A sense of separation between the buildings and the site boundaries would thus be preserved.

4 Tree Preservation Order references: (No.415) 2010 and (No.528) 2016.

Page 184 20 Consequently, having regard to the character and pattern of the existing development visible around the site, the proposed development would not appear unduly cramped. Nor would it detract from the spacious, open character of the site or its surroundings.

17. Although the houses would have three floors of accommodation, their upper floors would largely be contained within their roofspaces and the buildings would not appear unduly dominant in the context of other large houses nearby on Walkden Road. The large sections of glazing to their front gables and ground floor living areas would give the houses a distinctive modern appearance, whilst the use of sympathetic materials and detailing, including brick and render and projecting front gables, would ensure that they remained in keeping with the character and appearance of surrounding housing overall.

18. I therefore conclude that the development would not have an adverse effect on the character or appearance of the appeal site or its surroundings with regard to the size, layout or appearance of the houses and their plots.

The effects on protected trees – tree removals and development works

19. As part of the proposal 9 existing trees would be removed from within the site. New tree planting is proposed within the site as part of the development.

20. Consent has previously been granted to carry out works to 4 lime trees and to fell 6 other trees within the site5 (the 2017 consent). Whilst the works to the lime trees have subsequently been carried out, only one of the 6 other trees was actually removed. No replacement trees were planted. However, on the

basis that the removed tree, an oak, does not appear to have been protected by either of the site’s TPOs, I afford little weight to that matter. The other 5 trees were not removed and the main parties have agreed that consent for their removal expired in 2020. I have been referred to a subsequent consent for tree works and removals6. However, the consented removals in that case all related to trees within a neighbouring property and the only works affecting the appeal site were pruning works to a tree near the northern boundary. It is in this context that I have considered the proposals. 21. Two of the 9 trees proposed for removal were part of the 2017 consent7. Both are part of a large group of trees alongside the southern boundary and are relatively poor specimens within that wider group. Based on the appellant’s tree survey8 and my own observations I am satisfied that, in the context of the large group of trees alongside that boundary, their removal would not unduly harm or dilute the overall tree cover or visual presence of tree planting along that boundary.

5 5 Application reference: 17/69818/TPO. 6 Application reference: 18/72636/TPO 7 Tree numbers T9 and T11 in the appellant’s tree survey (see footnote 8). 8 Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Method Statement reference number PM/AIA/AMS/16/07/20, prepared by Murray Tree Consultancy and dated July 2020.

Page 185 21 22. Five of the 9 trees proposed for removal are not protected by either TPO, thus limiting the weight I afford to their retention. One, a multi-stemmed cherry, is poor in quality and structural form. The others are spruces and yews which are relatively young or minor trees and/or have deficiencies in their form. From the evidence before me and my own observations, and in the context of the other higher quality trees which would be retained and the new and replacement planting proposed, I am satisfied that their removal would not have adverse implications for the mature landscaped character or appearance of the site.

23. The other 2 trees proposed for removal are beech trees in the south eastern part of the site9. Both are protected by one of the TPOs. Both are tall and visible from outside the site. However, they are very close to a group of moderate and high quality trees which are nearer the southern boundary. In the context of those existing trees and having regard to replacement tree planting proposed, the removal of these two beech trees would not have adverse implications for the overall established tree cover within and around the site or its mature landscaped character. I am content that replacement tree planting could be secured by condition and would mitigate for the loss of those trees over time.

24. Existing shrub planting alongside Walkden Road to the front of the site would be removed to facilitate the provision of the new access road. However, the three large trees on that frontage, all protected by a TPO, would be retained. So too would the front boundary hedge, with supplementary planting to fill gaps where the site’s existing access points would be removed. Such planting would maintain the strong hedge line and landscaped appearance which are positive features of the site’s frontage and could be secured by the imposition of a suitable condition.

25. The submissions also refer to the removal of a western red cedar tree10. However, that tree is not protected by either TPO and the submitted details indicate that it is in the grounds of an adjacent property, outside the red line

site boundary. Consequently, its suggested removal has not formed part of my consideration of this appeal. 26. Works including the installation of hard surfacing are proposed close to some protected trees. However, I have not been presented with compelling evidence that such works would have adverse implications for the long term health or survival of those trees subject to the use of appropriate construction methods and protection during construction. Those matters could be controlled by the imposition of a suitable condition.

27. Reference has been made to the possibility of other tree works being necessary beyond those shown on the submitted drawings, to accommodate scaffolding during construction for example. For the avoidance of doubt, my decision is based solely on those tree works and removals shown and set out in the submitted details. In the event that further works became necessary to any retained protected trees, such works would require consent from the Council and

9 Tree numbers T19 and T20 in the appellant’s tree survey. 10 Tree number T32 in the appellant’s tree survey.

Page 186 22 would need to be considered on their merits. There is no substantive evidence before me to indicate that works would be necessary beyond those shown on the submitted drawings.

28. Taking into account the location, appearance and very limited number of protected trees proposed for removal, the substantial tree planting which would remain around the site boundaries and the new tree and hedge planting and landscaping proposed, I am satisfied that the development would not lead to the unacceptable loss of protected trees and that the site’s tree-lined and mature landscaped character would be preserved overall.

The effect on protected trees – living conditions of future occupants

29. Policy TD 3 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: Trees and Development (the Trees SPD) advises that development will not be permitted where a principal habitable room window (main window to a lounge, dining room or main bedroom) would be overshadowed by a tree, or where any part of a tree would be sited within 3.6m of a principal habitable room window. The supporting text explains that, where principal habitable room windows are proposed close to existing trees, future occupants may seek to have the tree(s) excessively pruned to allow additional light in. The 3.6m minimum separation distance, it explains, is considered necessary to maintain a balance between existing trees and proposed development.

30. The ground floor lounge and dining areas of Plot 1 would be within a large, open plan space with multiple large windows. Parts of trees on the site frontage would be within 3.6m of that room’s front window. However, given the high canopies of those trees and the presence of large windows and glazed doors in other elevations of that open plan room which are further from trees, it would in my view receive satisfactory levels of light overall.

31. Parts of the trees in front of Plot 1 would be within 3.6m of its master bedroom window. However, their canopies are relatively high and the window would look directly into the area between them, where their canopies are further away. The trees are deciduous, and thus would not be in leaf for a large part of the year, including the winter when light levels would otherwise be lower. However, even in the summer, given the window’s size and position relative to those trees, light levels within that bedroom would be satisfactory.

32. The front window of Bedroom 1 in Plot 1 would be very close to the canopy of the adjacent sycamore tree. However, that window would be very large and the bedroom would have a further large, south-facing window in its side elevation. Consequently, the bedroom would be dual-aspect and receive sufficient light overall.

33. Plot 2’s ground floor living and dining areas would be within an open plan space with wide, full height glazed doors to its southern elevation. Parts of the trees on the site’s southern boundary would be less than 3.6m from those glazed doors. However, their canopies are high, the area of glazing is very large,

Page 187 23 and that space would also be served by rooflights above the sitting area. Those habitable spaces would thus receive adequate light overall.

34. Plot 2’s master bedroom and Bedroom 1 windows would be sufficiently separated from surrounding trees to ensure satisfactory levels of light. All principal habitable room windows in Plot 3 and those on the ground floor of Plot 4 would be over 3.6m from nearby trees. Consequently, and given the high canopies of those trees and the size of the windows, those areas would receive sufficient light.

35. The front master bedroom window of Plot 4 would be close to the canopy of a tree to the north east. However, that canopy would be located to the side of the window and would not feature in direct views from it. The closest tree immediately to the front of Plot 4 would be around 3.6m from the centre of the window. Given the size of that window and its layout in relation to nearby trees, it would receive a satisfactory level of light overall. Bedroom 1 of Plot 4 would be much further from the canopies of surrounding trees and would thus receive satisfactory levels of light.

36. Consequently, even if both the master bedroom and ‘Bedroom 1’ of each property were considered main bedrooms for the purposes of the Trees SPD, all habitable room windows would receive adequate light. Some canopy management may be required as the trees grow in the future. However, I have no reason to conclude that such works would necessarily extend to significant pruning or the removal of those trees, given their separation from the windows and the size and layout of those habitable rooms. In any event, the Council would have control over any such works to trees which are protected by TPOs.

37. Areas of the gardens would be below tree canopies. However, those canopies are generally high and all gardens would be large and include patio and lawn areas not below the tree canopies. The trees would provide an attractive, mature landscaped setting to the properties, whilst the large gardens would also include useable, less shaded areas. The gardens would thus provide an attractive variety of spaces for the use and enjoyment of their future occupants. The trees and those garden arrangements would be evident to prospective purchasers, and the Council would have control over any future works to trees within those areas which are protected by the TPOs.

38. Drawing the above threads together, I conclude that the development would achieve an appropriate relationship between the buildings and gardens and the trees within the site. It would thus not represent an overdevelopment of the site or result in a significant risk of pressure for protected trees to be significantly pruned or removed as a result of future shading of those areas.

Conclusion on the main issues

39. For the reasons given, I conclude that the proposed development would not have an adverse effect on the character or appearance of the appeal site or its surroundings, including with regard to protected trees. It would therefore not conflict with Policies DES1, H1 or EN13 of the City of Salford Unitary

Page 188 24 Development Plan 2004-2016 (the UDP), which require development to provide a high quality residential environment and respond to its context, including any notable landscape features, and state that the unacceptable loss of protected trees will not be permitted. It would not conflict with the advice in the Trees SPD set out above. Nor would it conflict with the Framework, which requires that developments are sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting. Other Matters 40. The site is adjacent to St Mark’s Conservation Area (the SMCA), which includes the grade I listed Church of St Mark, the grade II listed Worsley War Memorial, within the church grounds, and the locally listed St Marks Vicarage. The SMCA contains a handful of large buildings, including the church and the vicarage, in substantial grounds with extensive landscaping and tree planting. Insofar as it relates to this appeal, the significance of the SMCA is drawn from those large open spaces and the trees and planting within them. Those open spaces and the extensive tree planting within and around the church grounds also contribute to the setting of the listed church and war memorial and the locally listed vicarage.

41. The site is adjacent to the northern boundary of the SMCA. The open areas and mature tree planting within the site, around its edges, are visible in views out of the SMCA, providing a soft edge and sense of transition between the built-up residential frontages to the north and the open spaces within the SMCA to the south. As such, those open, landscaped areas around the boundaries within the site contribute to the character and appearance of the SMCA and the settings of the listed church and war memorial and the locally listed vicarage within it.

42. The proposed houses would be located in the centre of the site, away from its boundaries. The mature tree cover and open, landscaped appearance around the site’s boundaries, and the contribution those areas make to the SMCA and the settings of those listed and locally listed buildings within it, would thus be preserved. Consequently, the development would not cause harm to the character or appearance of the SMCA or the settings of the listed buildings or locally listed building within it.

43. The houses would be set back from Walkden Road and the mature trees along the site frontage would be retained. The spacious, mature landscaped frontage of the site and the contribution that frontage makes to the setting of the locally listed building, 206 Walkden Lodge, opposite the site, would also be preserved.

44. My attention has been drawn to the grade II listed ‘entrance gates to former New Worsley Hall and adjoining quadrant walls’, to the locally listed Worsley Park on Leigh Road, and to other conservation areas11 in the wider vicinity. Given the degree of separation between the site and those other designated and non- designated heritage assets and the intended retention of mature trees

11 Worsley Old Hall Conservation Area; Roe Green/Beesley Green Conservation Area; and Worsley Village Conservation Area.

Page 189 25 around the site boundaries, the development would not cause harm to the setting of that listed building or the locally listed park or to the character or appearance of those other conservation areas. 45. Concerns have been raised regarding the effects of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupants, including with reference to particular separation distances. Whilst those distances provide a useful starting point for considering the effects of the development in those regards, I have considered the proposal on its own planning merits and based on the specific circumstances of the appeal site.

46. As Plot 1 would be set further back from Walkden Road than the part of 476B Walkden Road (No 476B) which is closest to the site boundary, the glazed ground floor doors in Plot 1’s side elevation facing No 476B would not directly overlook the windows in that closest part of the neighbouring property. The other parts of No 476B are set further away from the boundary with the site. Therefore, and taking into account the distance between the side of Plot 1 and the boundary with No 476B, I am satisfied that it would be sufficiently separated from that neighbouring house and its garden that the development would not result in a harmful degree of overlooking of that neighbouring property overall. As such, the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupants of No 476B with regard to privacy.

47. The part of Plot 1 closest to No 476B would be single storey in height, with a taller side gable set further away from the boundary with that neighbouring property. Given the separation distance proposed between the tallest parts of Plot 1’s side gable and the boundary with No 476B, and the further separation between that shared boundary and the building at No 476B itself, that side gable of Plot 1 would not appear unduly dominant or have an overbearing effect on the outlook from No 476B sufficient to justify withholding permission on that basis.

48. I have been provided with shadow diagrams which indicate that Plot 1 would lead to shading of parts of No 476B’s garden, and possibly its south-facing windows, at certain times. However, I have not received comparable shadow diagrams showing the effects of the existing site layout and tree cover. Consequently, I cannot be certain to what extent the shading of those areas as indicated would be additional to that which already exists, and which is likely, given the extent and density of tree cover around those areas. Given the separation between the house proposed on Plot 1 and the house and garden at No 476B, the size of that neighbouring garden overall and the shading of those areas likely to arise from existing trees at present, and in the absence of substantive evidence to indicate otherwise, I am satisfied that the development would not lead to a significant adverse increase in overshadowing of that neighbouring property sufficient to justify withholding permission.

49. Even though some trees and other vegetation would be removed from around the edges of the site, the proposed areas of hard surfacing and vehicle activity would be mainly located in the central part of the site, away from those boundaries. Consequently, the use of those vehicular parking and access areas would not have an adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties with regard to noise or disturbance.

Page 190 26 50. Having regard to the layout of the proposed dwellings and the degree of separation between them and other neighbouring residential properties, I am satisfied that the development would not have an adverse effect on the living conditions of any other neighbouring residents with regard to outlook, light, privacy, noise or disturbance.

51. It has been suggested by a neighbouring resident that their rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act would be violated if the appeal were allowed. These rights are, however, qualified and it is for the decision maker to ensure that interference is proportionate. In this case, I find that the development would not lead to a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. Consequently, whilst it may lead to some changes in those respects, the degree of interference caused would be insufficient to give rise to a violation of those rights.

52. I have not been presented with compelling evidence to indicate that the site’s existing access arrangements have given rise to significant issues of highway safety or that such issues would arise as a result of the new access, which would be further from other nearby drives than the site’s existing access points. The number of additional vehicle movements would be limited and insufficient to have significant implications for congestion on the local highway network or air quality. The Council has indicated that visibility at the site access and the level of parking proposed would be adequate. I have no reason to conclude otherwise from the evidence before me. I am thus satisfied that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

53. Bin storage would be provided within each plot. Based on the submitted drawings, I have no reason to believe that level access could not be provided to those areas. No dedicated cycle storage is indicated on the drawings. However, given the size of the plots, there would be space within them for the storage of cycles as necessary.

54. Concerns have been raised that the scheme would not include specific energy efficiency or renewable energy measures or provision for electric vehicles. However, I have not been directed to a requirement for such provision within development plan policy. Whilst such measures would be of benefit, their absence on the small scale scheme proposed is not a matter sufficient to justify withholding permission.

55. The question of whether there is a need for new housing in the area is a matter to which I afford little weight. I have considered the proposal before me on its planning merits and find it acceptable for the reasons given.

56. Reference has been made to the emerging Salford Local Plan. However, given the stage that emerging plan is currently at, the weight I give to policies within it is limited. I have considered the appeal on the basis of the adopted development plan.

57. Concerns have been raised that immediate neighbours were not notified of the proposals. Nonetheless, I am satisfied that the application was publicised by means of site notices and a press notice, including after the receipt of revised

Page 191 27 drawings and that interested parties have had the opportunity to comment on the proposals.

58. My attention has been drawn to a previous appeal relating to an outline application to replace the existing dwelling on the site with 5 dwellings12. It was

dismissed, partly on the basis that the indicative details provided with that application did not demonstrate that 5 dwellings could be accommodated having regard to character or appearance and trees. The current appeal is a full application for fewer dwellings and was accompanied by extensive information regarding the trees within the site and the layout of the dwellings. As such, it is not directly comparable with that earlier scheme. In any event, I have considered the current appeal on its own planning merits and find it acceptable for the reasons given. Conditions 59. I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council and have revised the wording in some respects for clarity and precision.

60. I attach a condition specifying the approved drawings, for certainty. The revised landscape plan which was submitted with the appeal is not included in the list of approved drawings. However, I have included a separate condition to cover landscaping and that revised landscape plan can and should be incorporated into the landscaping scheme.

61. A condition requiring tree protection measures during construction is necessary to protect trees and thus character and appearance. Given the sensitive nature of the end use, I attach conditions requiring the assessment and remediation of any land contamination. As those measures would need to be implemented in advance of other operations, pre-commencement conditions are necessary.

62. I attach a condition requiring a construction method statement to protect highway safety and the living conditions of nearby residents. However, as the scheme is relatively small in scale I have not included a requirement for a community engagement strategy, as the living conditions of neighbours could be satisfactorily protected via other measures. Nor do I find, based on the evidence before me, that the suggested requirement to notify the Council of the commencement of works would be necessary to protect living conditions or highway safety. The required measures would need to be in place in advance of other operations, and a pre-commencement condition is thus necessary.

63. Conditions relating to materials and landscaping details are necessary to preserve character and appearance. I also attach conditions requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the Arboricultural Method Statement and that details of the cellular confinement system proposed therein are approved and implemented, to protect the trees within the site. A condition

12 Appeal reference: APP/U4230/W/16/3159968

Page 192 28 requiring the provision of bat boxes within the site is necessary in the interests of biodiversity enhancement.

64. Conditions requiring the provision and retention of the vehicular parking and access areas and the removal and reinstatement of the existing access points are necessary in the interests of highway safety and the character and appearance of the area. I attach a condition requiring noise mitigation measures to be implemented in accordance with the submitted Noise Impact Assessment and maintained thereafter, in the interests of the living conditions of future occupants.

65. Because of the small scale of the scheme, its drainage requirements could be satisfactorily dealt with via the Building Regulations. A condition requiring separate foul and surface water drainage systems is not necessary.

66. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that conditions restricting the future use of permitted development (PD) rights may not pass the tests of reasonableness or necessity and that the blanket removal of freedoms to carry out small scale domestic alterations that would not otherwise require planning permission are unlikely to meet those tests13. The site is an existing residential garden and I have no reason to believe that the existing dwelling has had its PD rights removed. Such development could thus take place on the site at present. The proposed houses would have large gardens and would generally be well spaced from surrounding housing. There are also trees around the site boundaries, many of which are protected by TPOs. Consequently, and given the site’s existing use, it would not be necessary or reasonable to remove PD rights to protect those trees or the living conditions of neighbours in this case.

67. Given the distance between the rear of Plot 1 and the neighbouring house at 8 The Warke, the relative orientation of those proposed and existing houses and the non-habitable nature of the first floor rooms in the rear of Plot 1 closest to that neighbouring property, a condition requiring those bathroom and landing windows to be fitted with obscure glazing is not necessary or justified. Conclusion 68. The proposed development would accord with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

Jillian Rann

13 Paragraph Reference ID: 21a-017-20190723

Page 193 29 INSPECTOR

SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: • Site – Location and Block Plan drawing number DA20021.001 Revision 4 • Street Scene Elevations drawing number DA20021.003 Revision 6 • Proposed GA Plans and Elevations – Plot 1 drawing number DA20021.007 (version which includes two revision notes: ‘Design Changes’ dated 29/06/20 and ‘Brick/render swapped’ dated 27/07/20). • Proposed GA Plans and Elevations – Plot 2 drawing number DA20021.008 Revision 4 • Proposed GA Plans and Elevations – Plot 3 drawing number DA20021.010 dated 29 Sept 2020 • Proposed GA Plans and Elevations – Plot 4 drawing number DA20021.009 Revision 3 • Highway and Parking Layout drawing number 2823-01-SK01 Revision G.

Page 194 30 3) No development or other works including site clearance and demolition shall commence until all retained trees within or overhanging the site, as shown on Tree Protection Plan drawing number MY721/WRW/03 Revision C, have been surrounded by substantial temporary protective fencing and temporary ground protection. Those temporary protective fencing and ground protection measures shall be installed in accordance with the relevant specifications in the Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Method Statement reference number PM/AIA/AMS/16/07/20, prepared by Murray Tree Consultancy and dated July 2020 and in the positions shown on the relevant Tree Protection Plan drawings therein. Those temporary protective fencing and ground protection measures shall remain in place in accordance with the relevant specifications and locations in that Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Method Statement until all development has been completed and all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed within the perimeter of any such fencing, including materials, earth or topsoil, and no works shall take place within the perimeter of such fencing, including excavation or drainage works. 4) No development (except demolition) shall commence until a Phase 2 Site Investigation Report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Report shall assess any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site, and shall include a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination and an identification and assessment of the potential risks to human health, property, adjoining land, ground waters and surface waters and ecological systems. In the event that land affected by contamination is found which poses risks identified as unacceptable in the risk assessment, no development (except demolition) shall commence until a detailed remediation scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include a description and programme of the remediation works to be undertaken including a verification plan. The remediation of the site shall be carried out in accordance with the approved remediation scheme and upon completion a verification report by a suitably qualified contaminated land practitioner shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development is first occupied. Any contamination that is found during the course of construction of the approved development that was not previously identified shall be reported immediately to the local planning authority, within a maximum of 5 days from the discovery. No further development or works shall take place within the part of the site affected until a contaminated land assessment and a scheme for the remediation and validation of that contamination have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Any remediation works thereby approved shall be carried out and any necessary verification or validation report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any part of the development is first occupied. In the event that no contamination is found as part of the Site Investigation Report or during construction a report confirming that no contamination was found shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development is first occupied.

Page 195 31 5) No development shall commence, including works of excavation or demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Statement shall include details of: i. the times of delivery, demolition and construction activities on site; ii. the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; iii. the storage, management, loading and unloading of plant and materials; iv. the erection and maintenance of security hoardings including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; v. measures to prevent the deposition of dirt on the public highway vi. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during demolition and construction; vii. a scheme for the recycling/disposal of waste resulting from demolition and construction works; viii. measures to minimise disturbance to any neighbouring occupiers from noise and vibration, including from any piling activity; ix. measures to prevent the pollution of watercourses. The approved Construction Method Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period for the development. 6) No above ground construction works shall commence until samples or full details of all materials to be used externally on the buildings hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include the type, colour and texture of the materials. The relevant works shall be carried out in accordance with the details and/or samples thereby approved. 7) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Method Statement reference number PM/AIA/AMS/16/07/20, prepared by Murray Tree Consultancy, dated July 2020. 8) No below ground works shall commence until details of a site-specific design for the proposed cellular confinement system referred to in the application documents have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details thereby approved. 9) No above ground works shall commence until details of the provision of two bat boxes as part of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The bat boxes shall be erected in accordance with the details thereby approved, before the development is first occupied, and shall be retained as such thereafter. 10) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or brought into use until details of all hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted details shall

Page 196 32 include the formation of any terraces or other earthworks, hard surfaced areas and materials, external lighting, details of replacement tree planting and hedge planting to be carried out within the site and other soft landscape works, with specifications and schedules (including planting size, species and numbers/densities), and a timetable for the carrying out of those works. The landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the details thereby approved and within the approved timetable, or within 18 months of first occupation of the development hereby permitted, whichever is the later. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years of planting die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. 11) The development shall not be occupied until the vehicle parking, servicing and access areas to serve the development hereby permitted have been laid out in accordance with the details on the approved plans. Those areas shall thereafter be retained and kept available for their intended purposes. 12) The development shall not be occupied until the existing vehicular access points from the site onto Walkden Road have been closed and reinstated as continuous footway. 13) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the noise mitigation measures, including boundary treatments, specified in the Noise Assessment for Planning Purposes report reference P4110/R1/NRS, carried out by Acoustic & Engineering Consultants Limited, dated 17 April 2020. The development shall not be occupied until a site completion report confirming that all relevant noise mitigation measures specified in the Noise Assessment have been installed has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The noise mitigation measures shall thereafter be retained.

Page 197 33 PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

REPORT OF NEW PLANNING AND ENFORCEMENT APPEALS RECEIVED

APPLICATION No: 20/75705/TEL56

APPLICATION DECISION LEVEL: Delegated to Officer

OFFICER Refuse RECOMMEND’N:

APPEAL SITE: Ellenbrook Road Boothstown Worsley M28 1ES

PROPOSAL: Prior approval for proposed installation of a 20m high telecommunications monopole with wrap around cabin built round the base together with 3no ground based equipment cabinets and ancillary development thereto

WARD: Boothstown And Ellenbrook

APPELLANT: MBNL (EE (UK) LTD AND H3G (UK) LTD)

DATE RECEIVED: 29 April 2021

Appeal against refusal of a planning application.

Reasons for refusal are as follows;

Due to its appearance, size and siting within the street scene and its close proximity to the retained 12m high monopole and associated base equipment, the installation of the additional 20m high monopole and its accompanying equipment cabinets would create a significant extent of visual clutter within a relatively small site area adjacent a major highway and key route into and out of Salford. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to policies DES1 and DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan, policy TEL2 of the Salford City Council Supplementary Planning Document Telecommunications (October 2013) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

The proposal would not improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area nor does it comply with the development plan and therefore does not comprise sustainable development. There were no amendments to the scheme, or conditions which could reasonably have been imposed, which could have made the development acceptable and it was therefore not possible to approve the application. The Local Planning Authority has therefore implemented the requirement in Paragraph 38 of the NPPF.

Page 198 34 APPLICATION No: 21/76759/COU

APPLICATION DECISION LEVEL: Delegated to Officer

OFFICER Approve RECOMMEND’N:

APPEAL SITE: 48 Delamere Avenue Salford M6 7WS

PROPOSAL: Change of use from C3 (dwelling) to a small HMO C4 (4 bed)

WARD: Claremont

APPELLANT: Miss Gemma Salusbury

DATE RECEIVED: 28 April 2021

Appeal against refusal of a planning application.

Reasons for refusal are as follows;

The proposal would not improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area nor does it comply with the development plan and therefore does not comprise sustainable development. There were no amendments to the scheme, or conditions which could reasonably have been imposed, which could have made the development acceptable and it was therefore not possible to approve the application. The Local Planning Authority has therefore implemented the requirement in Paragraph 38 of the NPPF.

The application relates to a traditional 3-bed semi-detached property and proposes to increase the number of bedrooms to provide accommodation for four adults as a HMO. Due to the limited size of the combined kitchen/dining/living space and the lack of a living room separate from the kitchen/dining area and bedrooms, the proposed development would fail to provide sufficient space within the property for day to day living and would fail to provide a high quality residential environment for future occupiers. The development is therefore contrary to Policy H1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 199 35

APPLICATION No: 20/76551/ADV

APPLICATION DECISION LEVEL: Delegated to Officer

OFFICER Approve RECOMMEND’N:

APPEAL SITE: South Of Railway Bridge Trinity Way Junction With Hampson Street M3 4PU

PROPOSAL: Conversion of 2no. Poster Panels to internally illuminated Digital Poster Panels

WARD: Ordsall

APPELLANT: Mr Matt Swindles

DATE RECEIVED: 29 April 2021

Appeal against conditions imposed on a planning application.

Conditions are as follows;

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: o Location & Site Plans - Drawing No. SAL-013/001 (Received: 21 Dec 2020) o Existing & Proposed Elevations - Drawing No.SAL-013/002 (Received: 21 Dec 2020) o Existing & Proposed Specifications - Drawing No.SAL-013/003 (Received: 21 Dec 2020)

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

(a) Any advertisements, displayed, and any land used for the display of advertisements, shall be maintained in a clean and tidy condition to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

(b) Any structure or hoarding erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying advertisements shall be maintained in a safe condition.

(c) Where an advertisement is required under these Regulations to be removed, the removal shall be carried out to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

(d) No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission.

(e) No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to obscure, or hinder the ready interpretation of, any road traffic sign, railway signal or aid to navigation by water, or air, or so as otherwise to render hazardous the use of any highway, waterway (including

Page 200 36 any coastal waters) or aerodrome (civil or military).

Where applicable, the source of any illumination shall not be visible to users of the public highway.

Reason: Required to be imposed by Regulation 2(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.

The maximum level of luminance of the sign(s) hereby permitted shall not exceed the relevant thresholds contained within the Institute of Lighting Professionals (ILP) guidance document "PLG05 - The Brightness of Illuminated Advertisements" or any guidance updating or replacing it and shall never exceed the following values:

Illuminated Area Luminance cd/m2

More than 10sq.m 300 (sunset to sunrise); 3000 (sunrise to sunset) Less than 10sq.m 600 (sunset to sunrise); 3000 (sunrise to sunset)

The illumination shall consist of static lighting and static images only. Changes between adverts shall be instant only with no sequencing, fading, swiping or merging of images. Adverts shall not change more frequently than once every ten seconds.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and the character of the area in accordance with policy DEV2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.

Page 201 37 APPLICATION No: 20/76207/FUL

APPLICATION DECISION LEVEL: Delegated to Officer

OFFICER Refuse RECOMMEND’N:

APPEAL SITE: 22 Ash Drive Wardley Swinton M27 9RS

PROPOSAL: Retrospective planning application for the change of use to enclosed garden area

WARD: Swinton North

APPELLANT: Mr John Royle

DATE RECEIVED: 30 March 2021

Appeal against refusal of a planning application.

Reasons for refusal are as follows;

The dwellings along this section of Ash Drive and Alder Drive when originally constructed had two primary modes of entrance. These were from Ash Drive and Alder Drive and also from the unadopted passageway to the rear. The rear passage way and the access it provides was and still is a key characteristic and design of these dwellings. The passageway has been enclosed by way of a closed boarded timber fencing with associated concrete base panels and posts which has now effectively closed off a section of this passageway to the detriment of the character of the local area and original layout contrary to policy DES1 of the adopted City of Salford UDP and the National Planning Policy Framework.

The proposal would not improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area nor does it comply with the development plan and therefore does not comprise sustainable development. There were no amendments to the scheme, or conditions which could reasonably have been imposed, which could have made the development acceptable and it was therefore not possible to approve the application. The Local Planning Authority has therefore implemented the requirement in Paragraph 38 of the NPPF.

Page 202 38 APPLICATION No: 20/76248/FUL

APPLICATION DECISION LEVEL: Delegated to Officer

OFFICER Refuse RECOMMEND’N:

APPEAL SITE: 24 Ash Drive Wardley Swinton M27 9RS

PROPOSAL: Retrospective planning application for the change of use to enclosed garden area

WARD: Swinton North

APPELLANT: Mrs Jennifer Blake

DATE RECEIVED: 9 April 2021

Appeal against refusal of a planning application.

Reasons for refusal are as follows;

The dwellings along this section of Ash Drive and Alder Drive when originally constructed had two primary modes of entrance. These were from Ash Drive and Alder Drive and also from the unadopted passageway to the rear. The rear passage way and the access it provides was and still is a key characteristic and design of these dwellings. The passageway has been enclosed by way of a closed boarded timber fencing with associated concrete base panels and posts which has now effectively closed off a section of this passageway to the detriment of the character of the local area and original layout contrary to policy DES1 of the City of Salford adopted UDP and the national Planning Policy Framework.

The proposal would not improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area nor does it comply with the development plan and therefore does not comprise sustainable development. There were no amendments to the scheme, or conditions which could reasonably have been imposed, which could have made the development acceptable and it was therefore not possible to approve the application. The Local Planning Authority has therefore implemented the requirement in Paragraph 38 of the NPPF.

Page 203 39 This page is intentionally left blank