DOCSLIB.ORG

Report to Planning and Highways

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report to Planning and Highways Manchester City Council Item 13 Planning and Highways Committee 13 September 2012 Application Number Date of Appln Committee Date Ward 099892/JO/2012/N1 17th Jul 2012 13 th Sept 2012 Crumpsall Ward Proposal Variation of condition 2 to application ref: 098105/FH/2011/N1 to amend height of single storey rear extension, alter position of window to bathroom and move extension 300mm from boundary with 72 Kearsley Road. Location 74 Kearsley Road, Crumpsall, Manchester, M8 4GJ, Applicant Master Usman Hibib , 74 Kearsley Road, Crumpsall, Manchester, M8 4GJ, Agent Mr Shaun Stephenson, 4th Floor Victoria Mill, Lower Vickers Street, Manchester, M40 7LH Description 74 Kearsley Road is a semi-detached property in a residential area. The house is on the south side of Kearsley Road in the Crumpsall ward of Manchester. The application is for the variation of condition 2 (approved plans) from a previous application (098105/FH/2011/N1) which was for the erection of a single storey rear extension to form additional living accommodation. The development was to accommodate the needs of a disabled occupier. This application seeks approval to vary the previously approved plans. The proposed development varies from the originally approved design for the single storey rear extension by virtue of being 0.5metres taller in height, having a window in the rear elevation and being 300mm away from the neighbouring boundary. Consultations Local Residents - No objections received. Policy National Planning Policy Framework - (March 2012) The NPPF was introduced in March 2012 as the overarching policy framework for England. It sets out the Governments priorities for the Planning system and is a material consideration in the decision-making process. It places emphasis on the three strands of sustainable development and its social, environmental and economic functions. Core Strategy 2012- 2027 (adopted July 2012) The Core Strategy is a key policy document in the Local Development Framework for Manchester. It sets out the vision for Manchester from 2012 to 2027 and includes the three strands of sustainable development, social economic and environmental, to help deliver that vision. Policies relevant to this proposal include policy DM1. Policy DM1 - Development Management. Policy DM1 provides specific guidance in the Development Management decision making process and provides that: Manchester City Council Item 13 Planning and Highways Committee 13 September 2012 All development should have regard to the following specific issues for which more detailed guidance may be given within a supplementary planning document:- - Appropriate siting, layout, scale, form, massing, materials and detail. - Impact on the surrounding areas in terms of the design, scale and appearance of the proposed development. Development should have regard to the character of the surrounding area. - Effects on amenity, including privacy, light, noise, vibration, air quality, odours, litter, vermin, birds, road safety and traffic generation. This could also include proposals which would be sensitive to existing environmental conditions, such as noise. - Accessibility: buildings and neighbourhoods fully accessible to disabled people, access to new development by sustainable transport modes. - Community safety and crime prevention. - Design for health. - Adequacy of internal accommodation and external amenity space. - Refuse storage and collection. - Vehicular access and car parking. - Effects relating to biodiversity, landscape, archaeological or built heritage. - Green Infrastructure including open space, both public and private. - The use of alternatives to peat-based products in landscaping/gardens within development schemes - Flood risk and drainage. - Existing or proposed hazardous installations. The Council's approach to Development Management is intended to ensure that new developments contribute to the overall aims of the Core Strategy. The issues which should be considered are those which will ensure that the detailed aspects of new development complement the Council's broad regeneration priorities, in particular by contributing to Neighbourhoods of Choice. This includes protection of amenity and local character, environmental standards and practical matters such as access and safety. These issues will be considered in more detail through the Supplementary Planning Document, the Guide to Development in Manchester. Unitary Development Plan A number of policies have been saved until replacement by future development plan documents to accompany the Core Strategy. The following saved policies are considered to be particularly relevant to the proposed development: DC1: RESIDENTIAL EXTENSIONS DC1.1 in determining planning applications for extensions to residential properties, the Council will have regard to: a. the general character of the property; b. the effect upon the amenity of neighbouring occupiers; c. the desirability of enabling people to adapt their houses in appropriate ways to meet changing household needs; d. the overall appearance of the proposal in the street-scene; Manchester City Council Item 13 Planning and Highways Committee 13 September 2012 e. the effect of the loss of any on-site car parking. DC1.2 Extensions to residential properties will be allowed subject to compliance with other relevant policies of the Plan and the following criteria: a. they are not excessively large or bulky (for example, resulting in structures which are not subservient to original houses or project out too far in front of the original buildings); b. they do not create an undue loss of sunlight, daylight or privacy; c. they are not out of character with the style of development in the area or the surrounding street scene by virtue of design, use of materials or constructional details; d. they would not result in the loss of off-street car-parking, in a situation where there is so severe an existing on-street parking problem that unacceptable additional pressures would be created. DC1.3 Notwithstanding the generality of the above policies, the Council will not normally approve: a. rearward extensions greater than 3.65m (12ft) in length. DC1.5 The Council will consider on their merits exemptions to the above policies in the case of applications from disabled people who may require particular adaptations to their homes. Issues The issues for this variation of condition application are the height of the extension and its impact on residential amenity and the altered position of door and windows and their impact on residential amenity. Height of Extension : The approved plans show the residential extension with a height of 2.4metres to eaves. The height of the extension as measured on site and as subsequently shown on plan submitted for this application is 3metres. The difference in height levels to eaves from that originally approved, is due to the way the extension was measured being from the existing internal floor level which was 2.4m to the eaves. When MCC Planning Compliance and Building Control Officers examined the extension and asked that work should cease, they explained that MEAP had measured it incorrectly and did not take into account that the ground fell away, so the additional 1/2 metre is to compensate for the ground falling away. MEAP explained that the actual height to the eaves therefore is no higher it is just being built lower into the ground. The original application did not show that the lower ground level was not going to be built up to compensate for a change in site levels and was therefore approved on the basis that the height to eaves at the end of the extension was 2.4metres. Manchester City Council Item 13 Planning and Highways Committee 13 September 2012 Impact on Residential Amenity : The extension previously approved (098105/FH/2011/N1) received one objection after construction had begun. The objector explained that he was unable to comment at the time of consultation as he was under the impression a different scheme had been submitted which would not impact upon his residential amenity, and personal circumstances prevented him from making representation at the time. The City Council nonetheless investigated the complaint through Planning Compliance and Building Control Officers and established the height differential and other features which form the basis of the present application. The extension is noticeable from within the neighbouring residents’ property and has some impact on residential amenity. However, the additional height is not considered to be so great as to warrant refusal of the application as gardens at the rear of the application and neighbouring properties are oriented south east with a width of approximately 10.5metres and 21metre length, creating a relatively open site. The development as built is also 300mm further from the neighbouring boundary than on the originally submitted scheme which helps lessen the impact on that property further. As the ground floor rear extension is single storey only, has a sloping pitched roof that is oriented north west of the neighbouring property and has no windows adjacent no.72 Kearsley Road, there would be little impact from the varied design on this property in terms of overlooking, overshadowing and loss of privacy. Altered Position of Door and Windows : The altered position of the door and windows which introduces a window into the rear elevation and door on the north-facing elevation, are not considered to be a likely source of residential amenity and are therefore also considered acceptable. For the above
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hulme, Moss Side and Rusholme Neighbourhood Mosaic Profile
    Hulme, Moss Side and Rusholme Neighbourhood Mosaic Profile Summary • There are just over 21,300 households in the Hulme, Moss Side and Rusholme Neighbourhood. • The neighbourhood contains a range of different household types clustered within different parts of the area. Moss Side is dominated by relatively deprived, transient single people renting low cost accommodation whereas Hulme and Rusholme wards contain larger concentrations of relatively affluent young people and students. • Over 60% of households in Moss Side contain people whose social circumstances suggest that they may need high or very high levels of support to help them manage their own health and prevent them becoming high users of acute healthcare services in the future. However, the proportion of households in the other parts of the neighbourhood estimated to require this levels of support is much lower. This reflects the distribution of different types of household within the locality as described above. Introduction This profile provides more detailed information about the people who live in different parts of the neighbourhood. It draws heavily on the insights that can be gained from the Mosaic population segmentation tool. What is Mosaic? Mosaic is a population segmentation tool that uses a range of data and analytical methods to provide insights into the lifestyles and behaviours of the public in order to help make more informed decisions. Over 850 million pieces of information across 450 different types of data are condensed using the latest analytical techniques to identify 15 summary groups and 66 detailed types that are easy to interpret and understand. Mosaic’s consistent segmentation can also provide a ‘common currency’ across partners within the city.
    [Show full text]
  • Register of Governors' Interests 2020/21
    REGISTER OF GOVERNORS’ INTERESTS 2020/21 NAME GOVERNOR POSITION INTERESTS DECLARED Esther Akinwunmi Staff Governor No interests to declare (Other Clinical) Ivy Ashworth-Crees Public Governor No interests to declare (Rest of Greater Manchester) Cllr Chris Boyes Nominated Governor Managing Director - Manchester Financial Services Ltd. (Trafford Borough Council) Managing Director - MEMS Internet Marketing Ltd. Governor - Sale High School Governor - Brooklands Primary School Trustee - Manchester Airport Community Trust Fund Trustee - Manchester Literacy Philosophical Society Member - Conservative Party Member - National Trust Member – University of Manchester General Assembly Member – Unison Pamela Boyes (wife) – Governor of Worthington Road Primary School, Sale Pamela Boyes (wife) – Director Manchester Financial Services Ltd Dr Ronald Catlow Public Governor Director – Lychwood Flat Management (Marple) Ltd. (Rest of Greater Manchester) Council Member – Manchester Statistical Society Council Member/Director – Manchester Literary & Philosophical Society Ltd. General Assembly Member – University of Manchester, General Member Margaret Clarke Public Governor No interests to declare (Trafford) John Cooper Staff Governor Director of JJC Ophthalmic Ltd (Nursing & Midwifery) Private healthcare provider - Face and Eye Ltd. Vice Chair of the International Ophthalmic Nursing Association Dr Shruti Garg Nominated Governor No interests to declare (University of Manchester) Janet Heron Public Governor No interests to declare (Manchester) Dr Michael Kelly
    [Show full text]
  • Datagm Type: Website Organisation(S): GM Local Authorities, Open Data Manchester, GMFRS Tags: Open Data, Process, Standards, Website
    Case Study: DataGM Type: Website Organisation(s): GM local authorities, Open Data Manchester, GMFRS Tags: open data, process, standards, website This was the earliest attempt in Greater Manchester to create a simple datastore that would hold important data from across the region, focussing on government transparency and providing better public services. The result was a highly functional datastore with which brought together data from a wider range of data publishers, and included a total of 371 datasets. It was ultimately not successful in creating a lasting basis for open data cooperation and access in Greater Manchester. However, it provides interesting lessons on how to proceed with future projects. Background DataGM was launched in February 2011, inspired by successful projects in North American cities, such as Track DC (now Open Data DC) in Washington, D.C. and Baltimore City Stats (now Open Baltimore). It was conceived as a one-stop-shop for key datasets on all aspects of city life. The programme emerged through a partnership between Trafford Council and the digital culture agency Future Everything. This began in 2009 when the Manchester Innovation Fund supported Future Everything to build open data innovation architecture in Greater Manchester, funded by NESTA, Manchester Council and the North West Regional Development Agency (now closed). Future Everything and Trafford Council in turn partnered with a wide range of data publishing organisations. These included local authority partners, as well as Greater Manchester Policy, Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service, Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (now Transport for Greater Manchester), and the North West Strategic Health Authority.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning and Highways
    List No. 1 Fallowfield Application Number Date of Appln Committee Date Ward 081930/VO/2007/S1 17th Jan 2007 15th Mar 2007 Proposal CITY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT Construction of a BMX track including the erection of a 2.4 metre high weld mesh fence and provision of 2 portable containers to form office and store, construction of a hardstanding area for spectator seating, creation of a new pedestrian footpath and associated landscaping including remodelling of existing earth mound. Erection of 6 floodlighting columns Location Disused Tennis Courts/Kickabout Area, Platt Fields Park, Platt Lane, Fallowfield, Applicant Geoff Iball Leisure Department, Pink Bank Lane, Manchester Agent Manchester City Council Landscape Practice , MEDC, P O Box 463, Town Hall Extension, Manchester, M60 3NY Description This application was deferred at the applicants request in order for them to carry out further consultations in line with a request from Ward Members. The application relates to an area of land measuring 0.7 hectares (1.7 Acres) located in the south east corner of Platt Fields park. The land is currently disused tennis courts, a kickabout area and parkland. The nearest park boundary is to the south, beyond which are residential properties, largely new build and conversions to flats on Wilbraham Road and Hart Road. It is proposed to construct a sculptured BMX track approximately 306 metres long by 10 metres wide. It is essentially a dirt track containing a series of bends, straights, mounds and hollows. The track together with two steel cabins usesd as offices and a store , an assembly area and a concrete hardstanding capable of taking a dismountable stand will be enclosed in a 2.4 metre high paladin fence.
    [Show full text]
  • Manchester City Council List No. 1 Planning and Highways 11 September 2008
    Manchester City Council List No. 1 Planning and Highways 11 September 2008 Application Number Date of Appln Committee Date Ward 082039/FO/2007/N1 9th Nov 2007 11 Sept 2008 Charlestown Ward Proposal Erection of 50 no. houses with associated parking and landscaping with vehicular access from Raycroft Avenue and Pinfold Avenue, including increasing width of driveway to 21-27 Dalham Avenue, landscaping and four parking bays for use by existing residents infront of 9-15 Raycroft Avenue and improvements to footpath from Pinfold Avenue to Boggart Hole Clough. Location Land At Pinfold Avenue/Raycroft Avenue, Former School Site, Blackley Applicant Dappa Homes Investments Ltd, C/o 13 Hollins Lane, Wardle, Stockport, SK6 6AW Agent McLaren Whitworth Associates 13 Hollins Lane, Wardle, Stockport, SK6 6AW Description This application was brought before Members of the Planning & Highways Committee on 21 August 2008, following a site visit, with a recommendation for Minded To Approve subject to further exploration of financial feasibility of the development with regard to affordable housing. At the August Committee, Members were minded to refuse the application on the grounds that due to the amount of development there would be issues relating to access and a subsequent increase in traffic on surrounding roads. Members were also concerned about the absence of affordable housing. It was therefore requested that the Head of Planning bring forward a report to the next available committee addressing the above concerns and proposing potential reasons for refusal. For clarification as a result of the addition of late representations to the 21 st August 2008 Committee changes have been made to conditions set out towards the end of this report.
    [Show full text]
  • (BUDGET) 26Th February 2020 Meeting Commenced: 9.00 Am
    SALFORD CITY COUNCIL (BUDGET) 26th February 2020 Meeting commenced: 9.00 a.m. “ adjourned: 11:00 a.m. “ re-convened: 11.15 a.m. “ ended: 12.50 p.m. PRESENT: Councillor Charlie McIntyre - Ceremonial Mayor and Chair Mr Paul Dennett - City Mayor Councillors Derek Antrobus, Sharmina August, Damian Bailey, Michele Barnes, Samantha Bellamy, Barbara Bentham, Paula Boshell, Adrian Brocklehurst, Tanya Burch, Jim Cammell, Stephen Coen, Jillian Collinson, Jim Dawson, Stuart Dickman, Laura Edwards, Heather Fletcher, Karen Garrido, Robin Garrido, Jane Hamilton, Stephen Hesling, Bill Hinds, David Jolley, Roger Jones, Tracy Kelly, Jim King, David Lancaster, Kate Lewis, Sophia Linden, Mike McCusker, Charlie McIntyre, Ray Mashiter, John Merry, Margaret Morris, Lewis Nelson, Wilson Nkurunziza, Gina Reynolds, Neil Reynolds, Brendan Ryan, Arnold Saunders, Robert Sharpe, Les Turner, Madeline Wade, Ray Walker, Joan Walsh, John Walsh, Darren Ward, John Warmisham, Barry Warner and Ronnie Wilson. 70. ANNOUNCEMENTS OR SPECIAL BUSINESS There were no announcements or items raised. 71. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Joshua Brooks, Bob Clarke, Richard Critchley, Anne-Marie Humphries, Ari Leitner, John Mullen, Mike Pevitt, Colette Weir and Michael Wheeler. 72. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 73. REVENUE BUDGET AND CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2019/20 The City Mayor was called to present a report detailing his proposals for the 2020/21 Revenue Budget and Capital Programme (attached to these minutes at Appendix A). Councillor Bill Hinds, Lead Member for Finance and Support Services, seconded the motion supporting the budget proposals of the City Mayor. Councillor Robin Garrido moved an amendment to the City Mayor’s budget proposals, which was seconded by Councillor Turner and was submitted on behalf of the Conservative Opposition Group (attached to these minutes at Appendix B).
    [Show full text]
  • COLLECTION LEVEL Ref No GB3228.3 Collection Name / Title Hulme Study Accession Number(S)
    COLLECTION LEVEL Ref no GB3228.3 Collection name / Title Hulme Study Accession number(s) Level of Description Collection Collection type Donated collection (fonds) Date range 1985-1996 Extent 7 boxes Name of creator(s) Valerie Karn Administrative / The Hulme Study was undertaken from 1987 to 1990 to formulate Biographical history proposals with a view to improving the environmental, commercial, employment and social conditions in Hulme and the Moss Side District Centre. The study was managed by a Supervisory Group which consisted of a partnership between the City Council, Hulme Tenants and the Department of the Environment. Valerie Karn was appointed as an independent chair to the group. Scope and content The collection contains reports, surveys, correspondence, newspaper articles and minutes which cover the following topics (1) initial feasibilities studies: these examine the economic, social and housing conditions in Hulme (2) stages of redevelopment (3) consultancy: including tender proposals and architectural assessments and (4) publicity. It also includes material produced by Hulme City Challenge which was formed in 1990 to implement proposals set out by the study. Archival history The collection belonged to Valerie Karn who was a Professor of Housing Studies at the University of Manchester. When the Centre opened in 1999 Valerie donated a portion of this collection to be archived. The remainder of the material was donated to the Centre when Valerie died later in the same year. Immediate source of Valerie Karn acquisition or transfer Appraisal, destruction and A small amount of duplicates have been removed scheduling information Accruals Not expected System of arrangement Initially listed in 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Executive PDF 363
    Manchester City Council Minutes Executive 17 February 2021 Executive Part Proceedings B of the meeting held on Wednesday, 17 February 2021 – other non-budget agenda items Present: Councillor Leese (Chair) Councillors: Akbar, Bridges, Craig, N Murphy, Rahman, Stogia, and Richards Also present as Members of the Standing Consultative Panel: Councillors: Karney, Leech, M Sharif Mahamed, Sheikh, Midgley, Ilyas, Taylor, and S Judge Apologies: Councillor Ollerhead Also present: Councillor Newman Exe/21/16 Minutes Decision To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting on 20 January 2021. Exe/21/17 COVID 19 Monthly Update Report The written report from the Chief Executive and the Deputy Chief Executive and City Treasurer took the form of three “situation reports”, one each for the work on the city’s economic recovery, work with residents and communities, and work on the future of the Council itself. At the meeting the Executive Member for Adult Services reported that Manchester's overall prevalence rate had now fallen to 190 cases per 100,000 people. The prevalence among the over-60s had also fallen to 170 cases per 100,000. The decreases in both were welcome news for the city. However, whilst the rate of new admission to hospitals was also decreasing it remained the case that the hospitals were very busy and still under a great deal of pressure. Everyone had to keep their guard up and keep the prevalence rate in decline. The mass testing that had been started in Moss Side and neighbouring parts of Whalley Range, Hulme and Fallowfield was continuing.
    [Show full text]
  • Devolution: a Mayor for Greater Manchester. What Does It Mean?
    DEVOLUTION: A MAYOR FOR GREATER MANCHESTER. WHAT DOES IT MEAN? BOLTON | BURY | MANCHESTER | OLDHAM | ROCHDALE | SALFORD | STOCKPORT | TAMESIDE | TRAFFORD | WIGAN Devolution: A mayor for Greater Manchester. What does it mean? CONTENTS Introduction 3 How is the combined authority run? 4 What powers will the mayor and combined authority have? 6 What budgets will the mayor and combined authority have? 16 Annex A: Relevant legislation 27 Annex B: Useful words and phrases 29 2 Devolution: A mayor for Greater Manchester. What does it mean? INTRODUCTION In May 2017, there will be a major shift in the way we run our country. Powers, budgets and responsibilities will be passed down from central government to new directly-elected mayors in six regions across England, including in Greater Manchester. On Thursday 4 May, the residents of Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford, and Wigan will elect the first ever Mayor for Greater Manchester. The Mayor will represent Greater Manchester across the country and around the world. They will work with leaders of councils and businesses to create jobs, improve skills, build homes and make it easier to travel. The Mayor and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority will be able to: • invest in local priorities to improve Greater Manchester through an Investment Fund worth £900 million over 30 years; • keep more of the business rates that the councils collect from local businesses, to pay for local services; • set the rules for local bus services, including the routes,
    [Show full text]
  • Place Report
    One Team Neighbourhood Profile Hulme, Moss Side and Rusholme Locality Updated September 2016 Background Developing a better understanding of ‘place’ is a key part of the design work underpinning the implementation of the One Team and Place-based Care approach to the integration of health and social care in Manchester over the period up to 2020. This short report is one of a series of profiles for each of the 12 localities in the city. As a starting point, it draws upon the data that is readily available within Public Health England’s Local Health tool but with the expectation that this could be expanded upon as the commissioning specification for place based care is developed further. About the data This profile has been generated using the functionality of Public Health England’s Local Health tool. This tool contains quality assured data that can be used to compare any area (or combination of areas) with the local authority and England averages for a range of indicators. The tool also allows users to automatically generate a detailed, pre-formatted, profile of a selected area. The data in the tool was updated in September 2016 and this profile draws on that updated dataset. This profile should be viewed alongside the more detailed data that has been collated within the Compendium of Statistics (“A Picture of Progress”) for each CCG in Manchester \and also that which is available through the Council’s Intelligence Hub. Both of these are available on the Manchester City Council website. Key features of the locality The population living in the locality is characterised by: A higher than average proportions of people aged 16-24 years A lower than average proportion of people aged 25-64; 65 and over A higher than average proportion of people whose ethnicity is not 'White UK' and who cannot speak English well or at all Compared with England as a whole, the locality has a significantly worse: Proportion of children achieving a good level of development at age 5 Rate of GCSE achievement (% achieving 5 or more GCSEs at grades A*- C incl.
    [Show full text]
  • Higher Blackley, Harpurhey and Charlestown Neighbourhood Mosaic Profile
    Higher Blackley, Harpurhey and Charlestown Neighbourhood Mosaic Profile Summary • There are just over 21,300 households in the Higher Blackley, Harpurhey and Charlestown Neighbourhood. • The neighbourhood contains an interesting mixture of relatively young, single people living in low cost rented accommodation (“Renting a Room”), less well off families (“Families with Needs” and “Childcare Squeeze”) and more deprived older people (“Low Income Workers” and “Seasoned Survivors”). • Over two-thirds of households across the neighbourhood contain people whose social circumstances suggest that they may need high or very high levels of support to help them manage their own health and prevent them becoming high users of acute healthcare services in the future. In Harpurhey alone, 9 out of 10 households contain people who may need high or very high levels of support. Introduction This profile provides more detailed information about the people who live in different parts of the neighbourhood. It draws heavily on the insights that can be gained from the Mosaic population segmentation tool. What is Mosaic? Mosaic is a population segmentation tool that uses a range of data and analytical methods to provide insights into the lifestyles and behaviours of the public in order to help make more informed decisions. Over 850 million pieces of information across 450 different types of data are condensed using the latest analytical techniques to identify 15 summary groups and 66 detailed types that are easy to interpret and understand. Mosaic’s consistent segmentation can also provide a ‘common currency’ across partners within the city. Mosaic can provide insights into how and why people make decisions about their health and care and how they are likely to respond to services.
    [Show full text]
  • Boroughreeves Records
    Manchester Central Library Guide to Local Government Records m52110 Chorlton-on-Medlock Town Hall 1833 www.images.manchester.gov.uk The aim of this guide is to provide an introduction to the records held at Manchester Central Library for Manchester City Council and its predecessors and for the Greater Manchester Council. It also gives references to published material held in the library The town of Manchester was granted a charter in 1301 but lost borough status by a court case in 1359. Until the nineteenth century government was largely by manorial courts. In 1792 police commissioners were also established for the improvement of the area of the township of Manchester. In 1838 the Borough of Manchester was established, comprising the areas of Manchester, Beswick, Cheetham, Chorlton-upon-Medlock and Hulme townships. By 1846 the Borough Council had taken over the powers of the police commissioners. In 1853 the Borough received the title of City and between 1885 -1931 further areas were incorporated into the City of Manchester. In 1974 the City became a Metropolitan District in Greater Manchester County. Following the abolition of Greater Manchester County Council in 1986, Manchester City Council became a unitary authority. 1 For further information about the history of local government in Manchester please consult: Arthur Redford, The History of Local Government in Manchester, 3 volumes (Longmans Green, 1939-1940) (352.042 73 RE (325)). Shena Simon, A Century of City Government 1838-1938 (Allen and Unwin, 1938) The Manchester Muncipal Code, 6 volumes (Manchester Corporation, 1894-1901, 1928 supplement) (q352.042733Ma (181)). This is a digest of local acts of parliament etc.
    [Show full text]